Genetic distance between West Eurasians and sub-Saharan Africans (split) //mod

[Lol_Race]

All Caucasoids derive their ancestry from West Eurasia, and they all cluster very tightly together in terms of overall genomic structure.
Will you answer something? Why is it that when certain "Caucasoids" (Elias, for instance) have a higher genetic similarity to Africans than Northern Europeans do, it's a case of "Caucasoid" diversity, however when certain Sub-Saharan Africans who demonstrably have the most genetic diversity in the world have a "pull" towards Eurasia, it's for only because of admixture?

http://www.tcnj.edu/~guenter2/pictures/europe_abroad.jpg
What are you saying, that all Europeans are pure? Or is it that if you're more mixed than a European, then you're mixed?

[EliasAlucard]

Will you answer something? Why is it that when certain "Caucasoids" (Elias, for instance) have a higher genetic similarity to Africans than Northern Europeans do, it's a case of "Caucasoid" diversity, however when certain Sub-Saharan Africans who demonstrably have the most genetic diversity in the world have a "pull" towards Eurasia, it's for only because of admixture?Because my genetic similarity with Negrids, differ from a north European by about 0.5% when measured @ 550k SNPs. The genetic similarity between an Eritrean and a random Swede, differ from the average Bantu by about 3% @ 550k SNPs.

So, my slightly higher genetic similarity with Negrids is irrelevant, whereas the genetic similarity Horners have with Europeans is not something you can ignore. Also, my genetic similarity with Negrids isn't anything out of the ordinary for purely OOA-descended folks; I'm in the "normal" range so to say. If I had 72.5% genetic similarity with Nigerian person on 23andMe, that would indicate I have SSA admixture.

[Polako]

Will you answer something? Why is it that when certain "Caucasoids" (Elias, for instance) have a higher genetic similarity to Africans than Northern Europeans do, it's a case of "Caucasoid" diversity, however when certain Sub-Saharan Africans who demonstrably have the most genetic diversity in the world have a "pull" towards Eurasia, it's for only because of admixture?

You can't compare Elias et al. (Anatolia and surrounds) to the Maasai we discussed. They show completely different behavior on PCA plots, something like ancient genetic bifurcation both ways vs. more recent and rapid gene flow one way. And that's not really all that surprising, since his affinity to Africans isn't all that higher than shown by Northern Europeans.

BTW, those Maasai can only be compared to the West Eurasian fringe groups, like the Mozabite Berbers or even Egyptians (ie. West Eurasians with significant recent non-West Eurasian admixture).

[Lol_Race]

Because my genetic similarity with Negrids, differ from a north European by about 0.5% when measured @ 550k SNPs. The genetic similarity between an Eritrean and a random Swede, differ from the average Bantu by about 3% @ 550k SNPs.
So that's a 1/6 difference. Along with this, we know that Eritrea is located right next to Arabia. We also know that everyone outside of Africa descend from a group that left Northeast Africa for the Middle East, which is the reason why Sub-Saharan Africans have more genetic diversity than the rest of the world (including Amerindians, East Asians and Oceanians).

So you honestly believe that you and a Swede belong to a distinct "race" with a 0.5% difference in similarity to those Africans. If you believe this, and know what we know about Sub-Saharan genetic diversity and the origin of Eurasians, how can you compare the genetic similarity between a Bantu and a Eurasian and the genetic similarity between a Horner and a Eurasian to conclude an "African-Eurasian" admixture percentage? This is quite hard for me to understand. Along with this, you should understand the implications of Horners having overwhelmingly Eurasian Ancestry Paintings on 23andme despite having a relatively large genetic distance to Europeans.

I'm not suggesting that Eritreans are "pure". I don't believe in purity, and have no issues with having some foreign ancestry. I'm pointing out how unscientific these comparisons with West Africans and Northeast Africans are. If you truly believe that it's a reliable method, I really don't know what to say to you.

So, my slightly higher genetic similarity with Negrids is irrelevant, whereas the genetic similarity Horners have with Europeans is not something you can ignore. Also, my genetic similarity with Negrids isn't anything out of the ordinary for purely OOA-descended folks; I'm in the "normal" range so to say. If I had 72.5% genetic similarity with Nigerian person on 23andMe, that would indicate I have SSA admixture.
I wasn't suggesting that you're "mixed". Or at least no more mixed than you would be expected to be.

You can't compare Elias et al. (Anatolia and surrounds) to the Maasai we discussed. They show completely different behavior on PCA plots, something like ancient genetic bifurcation both ways vs. more recent and rapid gene flow one way. I wasn't thinking about the Maasai at all, just your idea about Horners in general. I thought I had made it clear in that thread that I agree that the Maasai have erratic placements on the PCA plot due to recent mixing with populations in the direction of Eurasians on the PCA plot. I simply disagree with calling it Eurasian right off the bat. Do you believe that Eurasians penetrated the Horn of Africa and migrated straight into the lands of the forefathers of modern day Maasai people? That doesn't make any sense, the only sensible explanation is that their placement is due to recent mixing with Northeast Africans. What you can discuss is how much admixture there is in the Horn of Africa.

And that's not really all that surprising, since his affinity to Africans isn't all that higher than shown by Northern Europeans.That's subjective. I was trying to show how you, for whatever reason, view some genetic diversity as "natural" (i.e. caused by genetic drift) while you only accept some of it (the diversity in Northeast Africa, to be more specific) to be the result of admixture.

BTW, those Maasai can only be compared to the West Eurasian fringe groups, like the Mozabite Berbers or even Egyptians (ie. West Eurasians with significant recent non-West Eurasian admixture).
What are you saying, that North Africa has been non-African ancestry wise since the dawn of man and only recently absorbed Sub-Saharan Africans? The Sahara didn't always exist. Or do you mean that North Africans descend primarily from recent West Eurasian immigrants?

[Polako]

Do you believe that Eurasians penetrated the Horn of Africa and migrated straight into the lands of the forefathers of modern day Maasai people? That doesn't make any sense, the only sensible explanation is that their placement is due to recent mixing with Northeast Africans. What you can discuss is how much admixture there is in the Horn of Africa.

Yes, I believe Eurasians penetrated North Africa at some point. Partly Eurasian Northeast Africans then came into contact with the ancestors of the modern Maasai, making the latter somewhat Eurasian in terms of genome-wide structure.


That's subjective. I was trying to show how you, for whatever reason, view some genetic diversity as "natural" (i.e. caused by genetic drift) while you only accept some of it (the diversity in Northeast Africa, to be more specific) to be the result of admixture.

Don't confuse bifurcation with drift; the latter refers to a process that is usually more pronounced in isolated groups.

But anyway, after a while of genetic isolation (which doesn't even have to be complete), groups attain a level of genetic uniformity that makes them behave in certain ways in comparison to other groups of the same species. For example, they form tight bundles instead of streams on PCA plots, and that's just a basic example, because there are much more complex ways of measuring this sort of thing.

As far as I know, there is no specific timeframe during which a group of heterogeneous origins becomes a relative breeding isolate and starts behaving like one on PCAs etc. That probably depends on many factors, but on average, I guess it'd take a few thousand years for a group of large mammals to be affected in this way. After that, any introgression into such groups that changes their genetic character, or of their individual members, can be defined as admixture.


What are you saying, that North Africa has been non-African ancestry wise since the dawn of man and only recently absorbed Sub-Saharan Africans? The Sahara didn't always exist. Or do you mean that North Africans descend primarily from recent West Eurasian immigrants?

North Africans are primarily of West Eurasian origin, and that's easily seen in all genome-wide comparisons. But they've been mixing with Sub-Saharan Africans for a very long time, which is pretty obvious too.

[Lol_Race]

Yes, I believe Eurasians penetrated North Africa at some point. Partly Eurasian Northeast Africans then came into contact with the ancestors of the modern Maasai, making the latter somewhat Eurasian in terms of genome-wide structure.Then you agree that the only thing of relevance in the discussion about the Maasai is to study how pronounced this admixture is in the Horn of Africa.

Don't confuse bifurcation with drift; the latter refers to a process that is usually more pronounced in isolated groups.Alright.

But anyway, after a while of genetic isolation (which doesn't even have to be complete), groups attain a level of genetic uniformity that makes them behave in certain ways in comparison to other groups of the same species. For example, they form tight bundles instead of streams on PCA plots, and that's just a basic example, because there are much more complex ways of measuring this sort of thing.There are streams in those "bundles" as well, which I'm sure you're aware of.

As far as I know, there is no specific timeframe during which a group of heterogeneous origins becomes a relative breeding isolate and starts behaving like one on PCAs etc. That probably depends on many factors, but on average, I guess it'd take a few thousand years for a group of large mammals to be affected in this way. After that, any introgression into such groups that changes their genetic character, or of their individual members, can be defined as admixture.
What is a relative breeding isolate to you, more elaborately? If the world only consisted of Europe and the Middle East, would you consider these two regions breeding isolates and any intermediate populations mixed?

North Africans are primarily of West Eurasian origin, and that's easily seen in all genome-wide comparisons. But they've been mixing with Sub-Saharan Africans for a very long time, which is pretty obvious too.
I agree with what you're saying here, but your wording was a bit different in your other post.

So what do you think about the overwhelmingly Eurasian Ancestry Painting of Horners on 23andme, notwithstanding the relatively large distance to Eurasians on the PCA plot? Are they a "Congoid-Caucasoid" mix?

[Polako]

There are streams in those "bundles" as well, which I'm sure you're aware of.

Yes there often are, and this means that there has been intra-continental mixing, like, for example, within Europe, or between Europe and the Middle East. But the fact that this behavior doesn't appear unless the Africans and East Asians are dropped, means that intra-West Eurasian differences are a fraction of those seen between West Eurasians and non-West Eurasians.


What is a relative breeding isolate to you, more elaborately? If the world only consisted of Europe and the Middle East, would you consider these two regions breeding isolates and any intermediate populations mixed?

Any group that shows some distinctive patterns in genetic traits due to isolation is a relative breeding isolate.

So it's not only continental groups that fit that description, and yes Europe and the Middle East can be described as two relative breeding isolates within West Eurasia, with the mixed zone mostly in Anatolia.

intra-West Eurasian PCA (http://i129.photobucket.com/albums/p217/dpwes/intra-WE_PCA.gif)


So what do you think about the overwhelmingly Eurasian Ancestry Painting of Horners on 23andme, notwithstanding the relatively large distance to Eurasians on the PCA plot? Are they a "Congoid-Caucasoid" mix?

It's not really largely Eurasian, it's only largely Eurasian in lieu of a missing classification, probably "East African".

This could mean that East Africans are more similar to Northern Europeans than to West Africans in terms of these sorts of SNP segments. But I doubt that, because the Fst distance between East Africa and Northern Europe is more than ten times that between East Africa and West Africa. So I suspect that what is happening with the Ancestry Painting is that it's picking up the 40% or so West Eurasian in Horners, and then classifying the East African segments in them by default as West Eurasian too, because it can't quite make out what they are, and that was possibly the safest option thought of by the programmer. In any case, I wouldn't draw any major conclusions from that tool, because it clearly has issues, some of which we are probably not even aware of. Studies like the latest one by Behar et al. are more useful in these debates IMO.

[Lol_Race]

It's not really largely Eurasian, it's only largely Eurasian in lieu of a missing classification, probably "East African".
I agree.

This could mean that East Africans are more similar to Northern Europeans than to West Africans in terms of these sorts of SNP segments. But I doubt that, because the Fst distance between East Africa and Northern Europe is more than ten times that between East Africa and West Africa. You can't choose populations that fit your idea (Niger-Kordofanian speakers) to represent West Africa and East Africa. First of all, there are some widely acknowledged problems with using these SNP segments for calculating Fst distances within Africa, since the test is designed for a different audience. Secondly, there are large differences within East Africa. I know you don't like the Tishkoff study, but what was good about it was that it showed a clear connection between the major language families and the generated "clusters". The genetic distance between the Horn of Africa and West Africa is much larger than the distance between non-Afroasiatic East Africa and West Africa.

So I suspect that what is happening with the Ancestry Painting is that it's picking up the 40% or so West Eurasian in Horners, and then classifying the East African segments in them by default as West Eurasian too, because it can't quite make out what they are, and that was possibly the safest option thought of by the programmer. In any case, I wouldn't draw any major conclusions from that tool, because it clearly has issues, some of which we are probably not even aware of. Studies like the latest one by Behar et al. are more useful in these debates IMO.
I think you're wrong, at least the way you worded it here. The Tishkoff study also showed that the affinity between Afroasiatic Horners and Niger-Congo speakers is quite small, relatively speaking. It seems to me that the East African is being classified as Eurasian simply because it's closer to the Eurasian samples on those specific SNP segments than it is to the West African reference group. Once again, Sub-Saharan Africa has more genetic diversity than the rest of the world. Are you having a hard time accepting that indigenous African peoples can have this sort of divergence?

About the "40% or so West Eurasian in Horners", it has been made very clear time after time that Kenyan Bantus have been affected recently by migrations from other parts of Bantu-speaking Africa. Bantu Kenyans are not a "pure East African" reference for Horners, and I don't understand how you can argue otherwise. They're a better reference than West Africans, sure, but still far from adequate.

[EliasAlucard]

So that's a 1/6 difference.No.

I took myself the liberty to check the genetic similarity a few members of this forum have with "Nigerian person" on 23andMe.

EliasAlucard (Assyrian/Armenian): 69.01%
Humanist (Assyrian, tiny Armenian ancestry): 68.97%
voron (Russian): 68.70%
Aino (Finnish): 68.53%
Polako (Polish): 68.63%
Ozrage (Swedish): 68.45%
Pallantides (Norwegian): 68.57%
Anodyne (Galician Spaniard): 68.86%
Geto-Thracian (Romanian): 68.75%

So, between Nigerians and Europeans, the genetic similarity is around 68.50% and between Assyrians and nigerians it's around 0.5% higher similarity. This is within the range of "normal" so to say. On top of that, I cluster in between Europe and the Middle East, and I'm in both the European and Middle East clusters, on 23andMe, as expected since as an Assyrian I'm totally indigenous Anatolian (Anatolia, being where Europe and the Middle East meet). Horners however, are far from the sub-Saharan African cluster. They're much closer to the north African (Mozabite) cluster. You could basically say Eritreans/Ethiopians/Somalis are genetically north Africans with somewhat higher SSA admixture than Berbers and Egyptians have.

This is what the "black" members I'm sharing with, get with the Nigerian reference individual on 23andMe:

JackKnightstick (Afram): 75.35%
ethioboy (Ethiopian/Italian): 71.95%
Caine (almost mulatto :)): 70.06%

Another Ethiopian I'm sharing with, who's not a member of this forum, scores 72.37% with the Nigerian person on 23andMe, and I score with this Ethiopian dude, 72.32%. Notice that Caine isn't far off from the rest of us unmixed West Eurasians. Phenotype-wise, Caine may be considered "black", "Afram", "Negro" etc., but he's genetically very far off from his phenotype. And the same is also true of Horners.

Now, keep in mind that JackNightstick isn't even fully SSA, he has some native American and European admixture. It's very likely that pure SSAs without OOA admixture would get something like 76% genome-wide similarity with each other @ 560,000 SNPs. So Eritreans are like 4% less similar to sub-Saharan Africans than actual sub-Saharan Africans are.


Along with this, we know that Eritrea is located right next to Arabia. We also know that everyone outside of Africa descend from a group that left Northeast Africa for the Middle East, which is the reason why Sub-Saharan Africans have more genetic diversity than the rest of the world (including Amerindians, East Asians and Oceanians).Yeah.


So you honestly believe that you and a Swede belong to a distinct "race" with a 0.5% difference in similarity to those Africans.Oh gosh, I don't know if I dare answer yes to this dangerous question, since Swedes are far too holy for me. If I answer yes, chances are Wadaad will start his OWD circus, because G-d forbid this genetic distance from being a fact.

If we exclude Swedes from the equation—because Swedes are too holy for sandnigga wogs like myself—then yes, you could very well say I'm of the same race as other Europeans. But not only Europeans; arguably also northern Indians and other Middle Easterners (i.e., those without recent SSA admixture). There's of course some intra-Caucasoid diversity, but that diversity is far less than the sub-Saharan African diversity. So if sub-Saharan Africans (excluding Horners, of course :)) are a race—and they arguably are—then logically speaking there's no good enough genetic argument to deny the fact that West Eurasians also are a genetic race.


If you believe this, and know what we know about Sub-Saharan genetic diversity and the origin of Eurasians, how can you compare the genetic similarity between a Bantu and a Eurasian and the genetic similarity between a Horner and a Eurasian to conclude an "African-Eurasian" admixture percentage? This is quite hard for me to understand. Along with this, you should understand the implications of Horners having overwhelmingly Eurasian Ancestry Paintings on 23andme despite having a relatively large genetic distance to Europeans.First of all, you need to ditch all that talk about SSA genetic diversity and whatnot, because it doesn't matter. It is true that sub-Saharan Africans have the greatest genetic variation but that's very ancient genes (pre-homo sapiens) preserved in sub-Saharan Africans, because they did not go through the same genetic bottlenecks as Eurasians did when they migrated out of Africa, hence their greater genetic diversity.

But genetic diversity is one thing, and genetic similarity is another thing.

Horners would show greater "SSA" admixture on 23andMe, if they had more Nigerian ancestry. The SSA admixture Horners have, simply isn't all that much derived from Nigerians.


I'm not suggesting that Eritreans are "pure". I don't believe in purity, and have no issues with having some foreign ancestry.Why are you having such difficulties then, accepting that Horners aren't genetically sub-Saharan Africans? You are a hybrid population, with genes from both sub-Saharan Africans and West Eurasians. This means you're neither West Eurasians nor sub-Saharan Africans.


I'm pointing out how unscientific these comparisons with West Africans and Northeast Africans are. If you truly believe that it's a reliable method, I really don't know what to say to you.Nothing unscientific here. I'm just explaining the data to you but you have an issue accepting the results.


I wasn't suggesting that you're "mixed". Or at least no more mixed than you would be expected to be.I know you weren't, but your interesting question about this genetic distance is often a misconception by other individuals from your region. Example:


Somalis & Ethiopians are predominately West Eurasian genetically

I don't buy that, just a silly attempt to make Meds, Middle Easterners and North Africans look less African than they really are.What The _Majerten doesn't understand (because he is a rocket scientist:D), is that Scandinavians don't have a remarkably greater distance from a random Nigerian, than south Europeans or Middle Easterners do. So if south Europeans are significantly SSA, that means north Europeans must be so too. And as we all know, blond hair makes you automagically racially "pure white" from any trace of Negroid admixture, or so it seems according to Negrocentric dogma. And this is really why black Africans (and also Nordicists btw) have a tendency to believe south Europeans have such a strong affinity toward Negroes; it's an illusion due to blondism.

It's important to understand that the distance between sub-Saharan Africans (excluding Horners because they aren't genetically SSA) and northern Europeans, isn't that much more extreme than the distance between south Europeans and sub-Saharan Africans. And the only reason why northern Europeans have a greater distance toward sub-Saharan Africans than south Europeans do, is because they have a slightly increased drag (as opposed to other West Eurasians) toward Chinese and Japanese peoples. This particular drag, is what makes northern Europeans score slightly less affinity with sub-Saharan Africans than south Europeans do, because north Europeans (and also east Europeans) move further right of sub-Saharan Africans on the X axis.

[Lol_Race]

No.
0.05/0.3 = 1/6


So, between Nigerians and Europeans, the genetic similarity is around 68.50% and between Assyrians and nigerians it's around 0.5% higher similarity. This is within the range of "normal" so to say. On top of that, I cluster in between Europe and the Middle East, and I'm in both the European and Middle East clusters, on 23andMe, as expected since as an Assyrian I'm totally indigenous Anatolian (Anatolia, being where Europe and the Middle East meet). Horners however, are far from the sub-Saharan African cluster. They're much closer to the north African (Mozabite) cluster. You could basically say Eritreans/Ethiopians/Somalis are genetically north Africans with somewhat higher SSA admixture than Berbers and Egyptians have.You're wrong. If there were more Horners on 23andme, you would notice a Horner "cluster", which would make it Sub-Saharan African, but not necessarily completely Sub-Saharan African in origin. Just like "West Eurasians" can be distinguished in PCA plots, despite the species originating in Africa.

Terminology, however, is of no significance while discussing how mixed Horners are.


This is what the "black" members I'm sharing with, get with the Nigerian reference individual on 23andMe:

JackKnightstick (Afram): 75.35%
ethioboy (Ethiopian/Italian): 71.95%
Caine (almost mulatto :)): 70.06%

Another Ethiopian I'm sharing with, who's not a member of this forum, scores 72.37% with the Nigerian person on 23andMe, and I score with this Ethiopian dude, 72.32%. Notice that Caine isn't far off from the rest of us unmixed West Eurasians. Phenotype-wise, Caine may be considered "black", "Afram", "Negro" etc., but he's genetically very far off from his phenotype. And the same is also true of Horners.

Now, keep in mind that JackNightstick isn't even fully SSA, he has some native American and European admixture. It's very likely that pure SSAs without OOA admixture would get something like 76% genome-wide similarity with each other @ 560,000 SNPs. So Eritreans are like 4% less similar to sub-Saharan Africans than actual sub-Saharan Africans are.
Eritreans are Sub-Saharan Africans. You're the one who's so into the etymology of words. Sub-Saharan Africa is the region south of the Sahara. Niger-Kordofanians have no copyright on it. :)


Oh gosh, I don't know if I dare answer yes to this dangerous question, since Swedes are far too holy for me. If I answer yes, chances are Wadaad will start his OWD circus, because G-d forbid this genetic distance from being a fact.

If we exclude Swedes from the equation—because Swedes are too holy for sandnigga wogs like myself—then yes, you could very well say I'm of the same race as other Europeans. But not only Europeans; arguably also northern Indians and other Middle Easterners (i.e., those without recent SSA admixture). There's of course some intra-Caucasoid diversity, but that diversity is far less than the sub-Saharan African diversity. So if sub-Saharan Africans (excluding Horners, of course :)) are a race—and they arguably are—then logically speaking there's no good enough genetic argument to deny the fact that West Eurasians also are a genetic race.

First of all, you need to ditch all that talk about SSA genetic diversity and whatnot, because it doesn't matter. It is true that sub-Saharan Africans have the greatest genetic variation but that's very ancient genes (pre-homo sapiens) preserved in sub-Saharan Africans, because they did not go through the same genetic bottlenecks as Eurasians did when they migrated out of Africa, hence their greater genetic diversity.

But genetic diversity is one thing, and genetic similarity is another thing.
I am repeating that Sub-Saharan Africa has more genetic diversity than the rest of the world for a reason. You believe that you and Swedes are "racially pure", do you not? Despite this, you have a 0.5% difference in similarity with Sub-Saharan Africans. Your ancestors descend from the northern part of the Middle East, and have gone through many genetic bottlenecks. I do not understand how you can claim "racial purity", while having these differences in similarity with Sub-Saharan Africans, and still say that any dissimilarity from Bantus in Sub-Saharan Africa (once again, the most genetically diverse region in the world) can be seen as admixture. That is ludicrous.

Horners would show greater "SSA" admixture on 23andMe, if they had more Nigerian ancestry. The SSA admixture Horners have, simply isn't all that much derived from Nigerians.
The amount of Sub-Saharan ancestry derived from Nigerians is irrelevant. What the Ancestry Painting shows is the percentage of SNP segments across your autosomes that have a higher genetic similarity with Nigerians than with their European reference group. Not the same thing as Nigerian ancestry.


Why are you having such difficulties then, accepting that Horners aren't genetically sub-Saharan Africans? You are a hybrid population, with genes from both sub-Saharan Africans and West Eurasians. This means you're neither West Eurasians nor sub-Saharan Africans.I'm sorry? I have no issues with acknowleding that Horners, Cameroonians, Angolans, Assyrians, Swedes et cetera have some ancestry from other continents. It would be extremely strange if Horners had no foreign ancestry, since Horner populations have been situated right next to Eurasian people across the sea for 60,000 years. What we're arguing is the amount, is it not?

Besides, you were the one who claimed that E-M96 originated in Eurasia. That makes all Africans mixed to some degree. Also, your concept of a strictly "genetic" regional designation is very strange. The first people who had just left Africa were probably, relatively speaking, very distinct from modern day Eurasians genetically. Does that not make them "West Eurasian"?

Nothing unscientific here. I'm just explaining the data to you but you have an issue accepting the results.Not at all. We have different ways of interpreting the results. I'm keeping an open mind, whereas you try to apply everything to 19th century pseudoscience.

What The _Majerten doesn't understand (because he is a rocket scientist:D), is that Scandinavians don't have a remarkably greater distance from a random Nigerian, than south Europeans or Middle Easterners do. So if south Europeans are significantly SSA, that means north Europeans must be so too. And as we all know, blond hair makes you automagically racially "pure white" from any trace of Negroid admixture, or so it seems according to Negrocentric dogma. And this is really why black Africans (and also Nordicists btw) have a tendency to believe south Europeans have such a strong affinity toward Negroes; it's an illusion due to blondism.Whatever. Don't stray off the topic, please. And I would be surprised if certain North Africans didn't have some recent Northeast African ancestry.

It's important to understand that the distance between sub-Saharan Africans (excluding Horners because they aren't genetically SSA) and northern Europeans, isn't that much more extreme than the distance between south Europeans and sub-Saharan Africans. And the only reason why northern Europeans have a greater distance toward sub-Saharan Africans than south Europeans do, is because they have a slightly increased drag (as opposed to other West Eurasians) toward Chinese and Japanese peoples. This particular drag, is what makes northern Europeans score slightly less affinity with sub-Saharan Africans than south Europeans do, because north Europeans (and also east Europeans) move further right of sub-Saharan Africans on the X axis.
So this is your theory. Why do you think this is, then? Aren't Northern Europeans racially pure? Either you both are "racially pure" and you just happen to have a smaller distance to Sub-Saharan Africans because of genetic diversity, or one of you is "mixed".

Besides, most (85%, if I recall correctly) of the genetic variation that exists in human populations is intraracial rather than interracial, using your ideas about race as a reference. The fact that you can distinguish between different population groups in the world, does not change this fundamental fact. But that's for another discussion. Let's stick to foreign admixture among Horners, for now. ;)

[Lol_Race]

It is true that sub-Saharan Africans have the greatest genetic variation but that's very ancient genes (pre-homo sapiens) preserved in sub-Saharan Africans.
What's up with this, btw? Did Africans become human after Eurasians? :confused: So that extra bit of genetic diversity in Sub-Saharan Africa is nonhuman? :lol:

[Aware_Dog]

LOL, it's just a matter of time before Elias and Polako will be prescribed with plavix after they suffer from a stroke that was induced by the realization of the fact that:

1) Horners are by vast majority genetically Sub Saharan African who form their own independent genetic cluster out of the many independent genetic clusters that are found among blacks in Sub Saharan Africa.:o

2) The Caucosoid race concept and thus by reasonable extension the other popular race concepts of yore, hold little to no currency in the scientific world of today. They are, by definition, genetically bankrupt.:o

I'm only trying to save you guys from having a stroke, clutching your chest while praying for sweet jesus and being medicated for the rest of your life in the first place guys, so don't think I'm hatin'.

[Qart Hadash]

1) Horners are by vast majority genetically Sub Saharan African who form their own independent genetic cluster out of the many independent genetic clusters that are found among blacks in Sub Saharan Africa.:o
They were shown to be their own group .I remember you were embarassed by Ethioboy's dna results but also by your own ancestry painting on your 23andme test. It doesnt change that Horners were shown to be the closest to non-Africans.

[Aware_Dog]

Huh! They were shown to be their own group actually..Horners are not more SSA than Bushmen are , they form their own group..I remember how much you were ashamed by Ethioboy's dna results but also by your own ancestry painting on your 23andme test ,It doesnt change that Horners were shown to be the closest to non-Africans (of course after North Africans).

lol, why would I post it if I was "ashamed", and what is there to be ashamed about some Algorithmic debacle AKA ancestry painting, where it showed me to have less "African", rather, Nigerian, than even a "berber woman" who is shown to have 12% Nigerian lol. Most Berbers came from the horn paternally in the first place, they are way more than 12% "African".

[Qart Hadash]

What's up with this, btw? Did Africans become human after Eurasians? :confused: So that extra bit of genetic diversity in Sub-Saharan Africa is nonhuman? :lol:
No it means they kept more archaic genes !:|

lol, why would I post it if I was "ashamed", and what is there to be ashamed about some Algorithmic debacle AKA ancestry painting, where it showed me to have less "African", rather, Nigerian, than even a "berber woman" who is shown to have 12% Nigerian lol. Most Berbers came from the horn paternally in the first place, they are way more than 12% "African".
Because , you didn't want to accept Ethioboy's results...whatever so! I don't care it's your problem!
but what the fuck do Berbers have something to do with the topic ?:whoco: Y-DNA E3b is very archaic among them , they are not more east-african than would be Albanians or Egyptians.

[Aware_Dog]

No it means they kept more archaic genes !:|

Because , you didn't want to accept Ethioboy's results...whatever so! I don't care it's your problem!
but what the fuck do Berbers have something to do with the topic ?:whoco:

Did your memory fail you? You were the one that brought up the ancestry painting, and I explained to you why it was nonsense, it reported a berber woman to have more "African" than me, lol. Besides, I have always accepted Ethioboy's results, it was his interpretation and spin that I never accepted and that I still don't accept, nothing has changed.

---------- Post added 2010-06-14 at 21:43 ----------


they are not more east-african than would be Albanians or Egyptians.

This is probably true, but nevertheless, they are more East African than the ones who left east Africa ~60,000 years ago.

Edit: I doubt however, Albanians would cluster with East Africans Autosomally more than berbers do.

[Qart Hadash]

This is probably true, but nevertheless, they are more East African than the ones who left east Africa ~60,000 years ago Probably , as Horners are more Eurasian than the ones who left east Africa ~60,000 years ago , I hardly believe modern berber groups are the same the population as the one that left Egypt who carried e-m81 mutation , as there was alot of admix with east-med Neolothic farmers of levant and Cro-magnid aboriginal populations of northwest africa.
Edit: I doubt however, Albanians would cluster with East Africans Autosomally more than berbers do. lol sure! just look at mozabite/palestinian/bedouin position , not really the same to albanians.

[Aware_Dog]

lol sure! just look at mozabite/palestinian/bedouin position , not really the same to albanians.

....:)

[Qart Hadash]

....:)

Not really it's not of that study I was talking about
Tishkof's is not enough diversified for north africans and horners
(notice they both make up their own groups within africa )

When Bedouin/Palestinian samples are present , Mozabites fit under their group:
http://mathildasanthropologyblog.files.wordpress.com/2009/04/snp.png
and Horners are close between this group and SSA (though Ethioboy said he cluster more withing bedouin/mozabite group).

[Aware_Dog]

Not really it's not of that study I was talking about
Tishkof's is not enough diversified for north africans and horners
(notice they both make up their own group within africa )

When Bedouin/Palestinian samples are present , Mozabites fit under their group:
http://mathildasanthropologyblog.files.wordpress.com/2009/04/snp.png
and Horners are close between this group and SSA (though Ethioboy said he cluster more withing bedouin/mozabite group).

yeah sure, a study that sampled 121 different African populations is better than one that sampled only 7, yeah that is very clever of you sir!:rolleyes:

[Ezana]

yeah sure, a study that sampled 121 different African populations is better than one that sampled only 7, yeah that is very clever of you sir!:rolleyes:

Just post the evidence and move on. Some people are too attached to their ideologies to bother wasting times educating. If they want to learn, it's on them, not you. Besides, how many times has this same discussion been rehashed?

[PolskiMoc]

Yes, I believe Eurasians penetrated North Africa at some point. Partly Eurasian Northeast Africans then came into contact with the ancestors of the modern Maasai, making the latter somewhat Eurasian in terms of genome-wide structure.



This is true. This is where the Mechta Afalou & Tofalt Cro Magnons derive from in North Africa.

There is also quite high R1b haplogroups in Africa. (Which is the main haplogroup of Western Europeans)


Also North Africans in general have Maternal DNA closer to Europeans & Middle easterners than to Sub Saharan Africans

Maternal DNA seems to have more of an effect than does Y DNA. Which is no surprise.
Since you have 3 Maternal Lines of the X to just one Male line of the Y

---------- Post added 2010-06-15 at 03:42 ----------

[QUOTE=Lol_Race;117190]What's up with this, btw? Did Africans become human after Eurasians? :confused: So that extra bit of genetic diversity in Sub-Saharan Africa is nonhuman? :lol:

I have to agree. I question how much of the earlier genetic sequence of Africans & Diversity they show is actually from Pre- Human times.

The DNA does show we all come from Africa. But, the time frame is a MUCH HARDER thing to place.
Apparently they peg it to Mitochondrial Adam & Eve. Which Mitochondrial Adam 60,000 years ago & Even 200,000 years ago.

But, the thing is that these bottlenecks could in fact go back to Homo Erectus time. It would mean that the "Out of Africa"
Happened more during Homo Erectus times.



With Eurasian skulls ALWAYS having a LArger Cranial Capacity & ALWAYS Being more Advanced it really does bring question to the more Recent out of African theory.


Especially when the First Possible Modern Human may have been in Asia. The 209,000 = 279,000 year old Dali Remains in China.

The Pekingman was more advanced than other 700,000 + year old Homo Erectus & China had the First hominids to use Fire.

So, It seems China has been more advanced in Intellect & Cranial Capacity for hundreds upon hundreds of thousands of years.


Also Chinese Cro Magnons had Higher Cheek bones & More Shovel Shaped (Square teeth)
Which are both Mongoloid traits.

Just like Europeans have Longer skulls & Longer noses with more Robust structures like the Neanderthal did.


Not to mention the Greek Petralona skull over 250,000 years old was 1400 cc in Cranial Capacity (FAR LARGER than any African one) or Modern Africans.
& the Greek Petralona was a mix hybrid of Homo Erectus & Homo Heildgenbergis which is the EXACT line that is thought to create Modern Humans.

It seems that Neanderthals Pushed out of Europe towards the Middle east about this time.

I belive may have even pushed these Greek Petralona people into Affrica (Due to the Glacier Dire striaghts)

[Qart Hadash]

yeah sure, a study that sampled 121 different African populations is better than one that sampled only 7, yeah that is very clever of you sir!:rolleyes: The study I posted includes populations outside Africa which Tishkof's doesn't!


Yes, I believe Eurasians penetrated North Africa at some point. Partly Eurasian Northeast Africans then came into contact with the ancestors of the modern Maasai, making the latter somewhat Eurasian in terms of genome-wide structure.
This is true. This is where the Mechta Afalou & Tofalt Cro Magnons derive from in North Africa.

There is also quite high R1b haplogroups in Africa. (Which is the main haplogroup of Western Europeans)
Mechta-Afalou and Tofalt Cro magnons are natives of Northwest Africa , they basically entered in contact with Afro-Asiatic Proto-Berber nomads who came from Egypt laterly and who themselves inter-mixed with East-med Neolothic nomads from Middle-East (attested by J1 haplogroup significant presence in Africa) , still alot of Berbers carry Cro-magnid MTDNA and like you said R1b y-dna have been observed in the region (approximatively 16% of Guanche mummies and 15.80% Kabylian men tested)..genetic of these populations is complicated and cannot be summarized easily like some users tried . & If it can interrest you MTdnas associated with E3b expan° are usually M1 (M beeing common in South Asia) and U6. big deal !!





Not to mention the Greek Petralona skull over 250,000 years old was 1400 cc in Cranial Capacity (FAR LARGER than any African one) or Modern Africans.
& the Greek Petralona was a mix hybrid of Homo Erectus & Homo Heildgenbergis which is the EXACT line that is thought to create Modern Humans.
I find this quite interresting!

Also Chinese Cro Magnons had Higher Cheek bones & More Shovel Shaped (Square teeth)
Which are both Mongoloid traits.
Just like Europeans have Longer skulls & Longer noses with more Robust structures like the Neanderthal did.
I've watched at T.V something about Mongoloid's ancestors..some Chinese claimed they descend from the first human skulls found in the area :p, but some other biologists didn't agree that much by saying genetic results showed Chinese came from a common african population as all humans..though I don't know if they studied autosomal dna or just y-dna..when mtdnas are usually ver useful in that case.

[ethioboy]

You know something I did forget.... Something that does turn the tide in favor for slightly more eurasian admix...

For one not only is the autosomal highly indicative of admix because of the fact that when there were numerous horner samples in the behar study, they failed to still make their own cluster, but instead were shown to be predominantly of some middle eastern cluster which was very frequent in most arabian samples and of a sub saharan african cluster which seemed to be of modern east african extraction (ofcourse you cant tell by that STRUCTURE PLOT since there are no other east africans, but on other plots the sub saharan admix was usually the same as the massai cluster which is of east african). In my opinion the older african cluster shown in the behar study would be the one that was shared by the pygmies and the san bushmen because of the fact that they were isolated from other population groups because of their location within the kalahari desert which led them to keep racially pure for the most part till the modern era (this is also apparant in the fact that the majority of the Y and MTdna haplogroups of the San are the oldest so far known to man A, B and L0 for the most part).

On top of the autosomal evidence is the fact that the y dna haplogroups AND the Mtdna haplogroups within Semitic speakers within Ethiopia and in Eritrea (I believe Aware_Dog did give evidence which showed there were some Eritreans used within the Kivisild et al 2004 Study) showed significant amounts of Eurasian lineages.

In the form of:
For E1b1b1: M34 is observed at 24.5% of Amhara's E1b1b1 positive within the populations sampled in Cruciani et al 2004's study. Within the Semino et al 2004 study it was at 2.1%, so this suggests alot of variance within the groups sampled these were amharas. However the fact that in Cruciani's study it was present out of the 34 amharas sampled in nearly a quarter of the cases which was more than any other subgroup of E1b1b1 (in that study for amharas) then this means that it is present within the whole Amhara population at at least a moderate level within M35 + Amharas.

Other Y haplogroups which were markers of middle eastern expansion present in Amharas (Im using them to represent semitic speakers): J1 33.1% (Semino et al 2004); J2 2.1% (Semino et al 2004)

All in all it adds to around 40% of the Sampled Amhara population's Y dna to be of Eurasian origin (I dont care the time the admix occured that can be decided later) .

Add this to the overwhelming amount of eurasian MTDNA lineages of middle eastern origin found within semitic speakers in Kivisild et al 2004's study (which found over 60% of sampled Tigrayans to be of eurasian mtdna lineage while around half of the sampled Amharas were of Eurasian mtdna lineage) which by the way did show the clinial nature of the admix in that Tigrayans had more eurasian lineages than amharas which in turn had more than the Cushitic speakers.

I think this evidence from the Y dna and Mtdna On top of the autosomal and MDS/PCA plot positioning of Horners sampled show a significant intrusion of Eurasian lineages within the horner population, specifically the semitic speakers.

Links to the studies I used in this post:

Kivisild et al 2004
http://www.cell.com/AJHG/abstract/S0002-9297%2807%2963783-5

Semino et al 2004
http://hpgl.stanford.edu/publications/AJHG_2004_v74_p1023-1034.pdf

Cruciani et al 2004
http://www.familytreedna.com/pdf/hape3b.pdf

Behar et al 2010
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nature09103.html

(note these are all RECENT studies so dont give me bs about them being old :p)

Also @ Lol Race I think if we didnt have the evidence from Mtdna and Ydna haplogroups then the Ancient african theory of the reason we show up so eurasian would make sense, but the haplogroups sort of the seal the deal that it was significant admix IMO... Again I am open minded so if you can find any evidence against my claim go I will happily hear it.

[Ezana]

True colors eventually show themselves. I'm going to bend the rule I made above just slightly...


You know something I did forget.... Something that does turn the tide in favor for slightly more eurasian admix...

For one not only is the autosomal highly indicative of admix because of the fact that when there were numerous horner samples in the behar study, they failed to still make their own cluster, but instead were shown to be predominantly of some middle eastern cluster which was very frequent in most arabian samples and of a sub saharan african cluster which seemed to be of modern east african extraction (ofcourse you cant tell by that STRUCTURE PLOT since there are no other east africans, but on other plots the sub saharan admix was usually the same as the massai cluster which is of east african). In my opinion the older african cluster shown in the behar study would be the one that was shared by the pygmies and the san bushmen because of the fact that they were isolated from other population groups because of their location within the kalahari desert which led them to keep racially pure for the most part till the modern era (this is also apparant in the fact that the majority of the Y and MTdna haplogroups of the San are the oldest so far known to man A, B and L0 for the most part).


Behar was about finding Jewish autosomal clusters and has just 12 African samples, 8 of them from SSA. Of those, 2 are Pygmy groups and 1 a San group, known to have very ancient splits, yet they are in the same autosomal cluster. The Africans are just there for comparative purposes.

When sampled with other Africans, we do form our own cluster, the purple Afro-Asiatic cluster from Tishkoff et al. 2009.

http://scienceblogs.com/geneticfuture/massive_study_of_african_genet/tishkoff_africa_map.jpg



The Y-DNA and mtDNA stuff we've gone over too many times, if you don't get it by now, you never will.

[PolskiMoc]

The study I posted includes populations outside Africa which Tishkof's doesn't!


Mechta-Afalou and Tofalt Cro magnons are natives of Northwest Africa , they basically entered in contact with Afro-Asiatic Proto-Berber nomads who came from Egypt laterly and who themselves inter-mixed with East-med Neolothic nomads from Middle-East (attested by J1 haplogroup significant presence in Africa) , still alot of Berbers carry Cro-magnid MTDNA and like you said R1b y-dna have been observed in the region (approximatively 16% of Guanche mummies and 15.80% Kabylian men tested)..genetic of these populations is complicated and cannot be summarized easily like some users tried . & If it can interrest you MTdnas associated with E3b expan° are usually M1 (M beeing common in South Asia) and U6. big deal !!


I find this quite interresting!
I've watched at T.V something about Mongoloid's ancestors..some Chinese claimed they descend from the first human skulls found in the area :p, but some other biologists didn't agree that much by saying genetic results showed Chinese came from a common african population as all humans..though I don't know if they studied autosomal dna or just y-dna..when mtdnas are usually ver useful in that case.



Yeah, The Greek Petralona I find very interesting.

I mean here is a picture of the 1,400 cc cranial capacity 250,000 year old Greek Petralona.

9694

9695
While here is a Picture of the 1,100 cc Cranial Capactiy African Rhodesian Broken hill skull that is the same age as the Greek Petralona one

9696

9697

To me the Greek Petralona skull is the closest to the Cro Magnons / Modern humans out of all of the skulls found at this time.

The fact that the Rhodesian man skulls were smaller & more primitive than Ethiopian or other Eurasian skulls at that time.
I think is strange.

Just like the Bushman / Khosian people in this area today are more primitive & smaller skulled.



It is all rather strange. Because I have seen the Asian anthropology studies & it is true that the Homo Erectus found in China did have higher cheek bones & squared shaped mongoloid teeth vs others at this time.


I am really skeptical that they fudged up the Haplogroup timing. That the times they think we left africa 60,000 years ago may have easily been mistaken for the Homo erectus one.

It is really so hard to pin down the actual time frames that the Genetic sequence is shown.

They have the sequence that shows we have roots in Africa. But, the actual time frames are much harder to pin down.
It is possible that some of the "Previous African" Dna in the sequence might not be from Modern Human times but rather from Homo erectus.
It is hard to know when the Sequence cuts off from Modern Humans.

[Graeme]

Haplogroup J1 in Africa is quite old. You can't get further from the Near East than the Canary Islands, and J1 was found in the remains of the Guanche Aborigines. Everyone is fixated on J1 being introduced to regions outside the Near East by various Jews and Arabs in the recent past, less than 2,000 years ago when in it appears J1 was in Africa, and probably Europe, thousands of years before those two meta ethnic groups. As I mentioned before, the idea of conversos, anusim and other "Semitic" ancestry in immigrants from Iberia to the New World is exaggerated.

With various NE Africans like Ethiopians and Eritreans, any results on 23 that shows West Eurasian ancestry that is outside the range 40-60% is suspect. For the average African American whose ancestry is African American for generations, a result of more than 20% is suspect. There are African Americans of more European ancestry but they are not the majority. There are studies that give a lower rate of European admixture, they are closer to the mark than 23.

[PolskiMoc]

Haplogroup J1 in Africa is quite old. You can't get further from the Near East than the Canary Islands, and J1 was found in the remains of the Guanche Aborigines. Everyone is fixated on J1 being introduced to regions outside the Near East by various Jews and Arabs in the recent past, less than 2,000 years ago when in it appears J1 was in Africa, and probably Europe, thousands of years before those two meta ethnic groups. As I mentioned before, the idea of conversos, anusim and other "Semitic" ancestry in immigrants from Iberia to the New World is exaggerated.

With various NE Africans like Ethiopians and Eritreans, any results on 23 that shows West Eurasian ancestry that is outside the range 40-60% is suspect. For the average African American whose ancestry is African American for generations, a result of more than 20% is suspect. There are African Americans of more European ancestry but they are not the majority. There are studies that give a lower rate of European admixture, they are closer to the mark than 23.


Yeah, J1 is rather old in Africa likely.

I tend to believe the J1 in Africa made up most of North africa at one time. Which is why the
Female Maternal line of North Africans is mostly Caucasian.

With Caucasian derived Maternal Haplogroups derived from (Mid Eastern Haplogroup N being the main Maternal haplogroups of North Africa.

Then, It seems the E1b1b began to Dominate North Africa over the Previous J1 people.

J1 is actually the main haplogroup of Nubians

[EliasAlucard]

0.05/0.3 = 1/6Again, no. You are saying Horners are sub-Saharan Africans. And Negrids score around 76% and possibly up to 77% with each other. It's Europeans who score an average of 74.35% with each other (give or take). But sub-Saharan Africans score around 76% with each other. You Horners don't score 76% with sub-Saharan Africans. You score around 72.30% with sub-Saharan Africans.

A brown Indian and a European, score 73.60% with each other. That's barely less than 1% of what Europeans score with each other on average (around 74.35%). So you Horners have around 4-5% less similarity with sub-Saharan Africans @ 560,000 SNPs. And this is not "ideology" or some other horseshit Ezana is accusing me and Polako of. This is a genetic fact. Aware_Dog can corroborate this once he starts sharing his genome profile with the rest of us at 23andMe.


You're wrong.No I'm not. You however, are wrong.


If there were more Horners on 23andme, you would notice a Horner "cluster", which would make it Sub-Saharan African, but not necessarily completely Sub-Saharan African in origin.If there were more Horners on 23andMe, there would indeed be a Horner cluster, but in no way, would it be sub-Saharan African, just as for example, the Mozabite cluster isn't European, nor is the Paki/Indian cluster European either, and the Middle East cluster isn't European either, even though these clusters are closer to the European cluster than Horners are to the sub-Saharan African cluster.

Do you understand that? Do you understand that between night and day, dusk and dawn are neither night and day?


Just like "West Eurasians" can be distinguished in PCA plots, despite the species originating in Africa."West Eurasians" first of all, cluster tight with each other. There's no sharp discontinuity, but a Mozabite Berber with around 20% or so SSA admixture, even though he's predominantly West Eurasian, is not a northern European. Likewise, a Horner who is not sub-Saharan African, even though he has around 30 to 40 percent SSA admixture.

This is not difficult to understand. What I'm saying is very logical. Don't be anti-intellectual, please understand what I'm saying.


Terminology, however, is of no significance while discussing how mixed Horners are.And why is that? Horners are more special than the rest of us that terminology doesn't apply on them?


Eritreans are Sub-Saharan Africans.No.


You're the one who's so into the etymology of words. Sub-Saharan Africa is the region south of the Sahara.It doesn't matter. Genetics don't follow imaginary borders we humans have decided where to draw the lines. It just so happens that south of the Sahara, at some point, it was decided that it should be called "sub-Saharan Africa" (which means that it is not Africa; it is south of Africa). And this imaginary border coincides very much, but not entirely, with a racial barrier between Negrids and Europids. The ones "stuck in the middle", are Europoid groups (Europoid, not Europids) like Berbers and Egyptians, and Negroid (but not Negrid) groups, like Eritreans and Somalis.

Do you understand that? Our genes don't follow imaginary geographic borders, because those borders are political and ideological, and have no effect on gene flow; unless of course, some sort of geographic barrier like an entirely different continent or huge and wide mountains or any scenario like that, actually prevented a significant gene flow during many thousands of years.


Niger-Kordofanians have no copyright on it. :)But they are a better representative of a sub-Saharan African genetic isolate, than your average race mixed Habesha.


I am repeating that Sub-Saharan Africa has more genetic diversity than the rest of the world for a reason.It doesn't matter. Regardless of how much genetic diversity sub-Saharan Africans have, it won't make Berbers and Egyptians, Negrid, and the same applies to Habeshas and Somalis: SSA genetic diversity won't make you Negrid. And that's because your genetic similarity (as opposed to genetic diversity), is not similar enough with other sub-Saharan Africans ("True Negroids").


You believe that you and Swedes are "racially pure", do you not?I don't believe in racial purity, but yes, I and other Europeans, as well as many other Middle Easterners (excluding those with recent Negrid admixture, of course) and a fair share of Indians, are quite homogeneous when compared with sub-Saharan Africans and Chinese/Japanese and native Brazilians, etc. etc.

In a few thousand years of separate breeding, Horners will become very homogeneous too and you won't appear like a race mixed hybrid population on a PCA plot, as you do now, because you'll be forming your own homogeneous cluster that drifts away from the current five major races. Provided that you continue breeding in the Horn of Africa without more admixture from Europeans and Bantus.


Despite this, you have a 0.5% difference in similarity with Sub-Saharan Africans.That hasn't much to do with "purity". I also have on average, a greater distance to Chinese and Japanese people, than Swedes and Russians. The same is also true of for example Basques (they also have an increased genetic distance toward East Asia). You have to understand: West Eurasians are not as extremely inbred as Japanese and Nigerians are. That's why we don't score above 75% @ 560,000 SNPs whereas sub-Saharan Africans and East Eurasians easily score around 76 to 77 percent. And that's also why some West Eurasians have a slight drag either toward sub-Saharan Africa or East Eurasia.


Your ancestors descend from the northern part of the Middle East, and have gone through many genetic bottlenecks. I do not understand how you can claim "racial purity", while having these differences in similarity with Sub-Saharan Africans, and still say that any dissimilarity from Bantus in Sub-Saharan Africa (once again, the most genetically diverse region in the world) can be seen as admixture. That is ludicrous.Perhaps it's because you have a lower IQ then? I'm sorry, I'm not saying that as a personal attack, but if you can't grasp what I'm saying (even though it's not difficult to understand), only two reasons can explain why this is so:

1) You are hell bent on following a pan-Negro ideology.
2) You are simply not intelligent enough to understand basic 1+1=2.

What does genetic bottlenecks during the OOA migrations, have to do with racial purity and the fact that very significant dissimilarity with Bantus, is either admixture, or enough to make you an entirely different racial group than Bantus?

You are saying Horners are totally 100% sub-Saharan African, right? I'm saying they're not sub-Saharan African, and that only around 30 to 40 percent, in some cases up to 60% (more common in Somalia) of Horner admixture can be sub-Saharan African.

If Horners never left Africa, that means they didn't go through the same genetic bottlenecks like Eurasians did. So that means Horners should have just as much genetic diversity as other sub-Saharan Africans, and more importantly than genetic diversity, genetic similarity with other Negrid peoples. But they simply don't. The reason they don't is simply because Horners aren't fully sub-Saharan African.

Nigerians alone have more genetic diversity than all Horners together. But Nigerians also have a lot higher genetic similarity with other Negrids, than Horners have with other SSAs. So that's why your "genetic diversity" argument is pure bullshit.

That's like me saying: "I'm actually Nordid, but since we Caucasians have genetic diversity, I am not positioned in the Nordid cluster—but never mind that! Logic doesn't matter in genetics, I'm Nordid anyway!"

It simply must be a lower Eritrean/Somali IQ that's causing all this misconception.


The amount of Sub-Saharan ancestry derived from Nigerians is irrelevant.No it's not. It is relevant. Nigerians (and other west sub-Saharan Africans) are simply one of the most "extreme" genetic groups that can represent sub-Saharan Africa, because they have the least genetic similarity with Eurasians (both Europeans and Japanese/Chinese). So the higher similarity you have with Nigerians and for example Gambians, the more Negrid you are.


What the Ancestry Painting shows is the percentage of SNP segments across your autosomes that have a higher genetic similarity with Nigerians than with their European reference group. Not the same thing as Nigerian ancestry.Yes, it's not the same as actual ancestry (as in direct genealogical lineages). But the higher similarity you have with Nigerians, the less West Eurasian and more sub-Saharan African you are. And Horners simply don't score high enough with Nigerians as other sub-Saharan Africans do. I'm willing to bet even Khoisans score higher with Nigerians than Horners do.


I'm sorry? I have no issues with acknowleding that Horners, Cameroonians, Angolans, Assyrians, Swedes et cetera have some ancestry from other continents. It would be extremely strange if Horners had no foreign ancestry, since Horner populations have been situated right next to Eurasian people across the sea for 60,000 years. What we're arguing is the amount, is it not?I'm telling you that amount is greater than you assume it is, and that very same amount is enough to make you not sub-Saharan African.


Besides, you were the one who claimed that E-M96 originated in Eurasia.It's a possibility.


That makes all Africans mixed to some degree.No. If Y-DNA E originated in Eurasia (and it's very possible it did; if not in Eurasia then at least in the same gene pool as the early ancestors of Eurasians), only those who mixed with Y-DNA E men early on in the migration back to Africa, are mixed. So that's why for example Horners show around 10-15 percent "Asian" on 23andMe whereas a Nigerian doesn't show any Asian at all, because at the time Y-DNA E reached the region of modern Nigeria, whatever Eurasian genes that where intact with the early Y-DNA E men who migrated back to Africa, had been diluted by Negro admixture in the Horn of Africa.

This is of course original research, and my own theory. I could be way off, or I could be making a point even the population geneticists haven't found evidence for as of yet. And they really don't know what the autosomal DNA of the first Y-DNA E male was anyway, since we don't have his DNA. But since we have Y-DNA C and D as far away as East Asia, carried by Chinese and Japanese people, as well as native Americans, it's quite possible Y-DNA E was actually at some point an exclusively Eurasian marker that later "shifted demographics" to sub-Saharan Africans through miscegenation and admixture. There are, after all, south Europeans and Middle Easterners, as well as Berbers, who are Y-DNA E, and most of them don't show remarkable Negro admixture.

And who knows really? That slightly higher affinity with sub-Saharan Africans we can see with south Europeans and Middle Easterners, doesn't really have to be Negro admixture in Europe and the Middle East; it could be the other way around because of that Y-DNA E connection. Because a south European (let's say Albanian) doesn't have a remarkably higher drag toward Bantus than other Europeans do on the Y axis, whereas Horners (allegedly where Y-DNA E originated) have a serious drag toward Europe. Both Ethiopia and Albania are high on Y-DNA E, but Albania doesn't really have much of a drag toward Nigeria (also rich on Y-DNA E), whereas Ethiopia has a major drag toward Europe.

How can this be? How is it possible? It can't be that Y-DNA E migrated back to Africa of course. Let's ignore that Horners show both Caucasoid and Mongoloid admixture, because that would upset Ezana and make him pull accusations out of his ass about ideologies.


Also, your concept of a strictly "genetic" regional designation is very strange.No it's not. It requires a three digit IQ (i.e., a brain capable of thinking by itself) to understand this concept. And that's something I'm not sure you possess.


The first people who had just left Africa were probably, relatively speaking, very distinct from modern day Eurasians genetically. Does that not make them "West Eurasian"?Of course the first OOA population were not "West Eurasians". In fact, they weren't Eurasian anything. They were no different from the rest of Homo Sapiens at the time (which, needless to say, were not like modern Nigerians and Habesha and whatnot).

But after at the very least, 50,000 up to 100,000 years of isolation from their original African tribe, they became genetically distinct and different from modern sub-Saharan Africans. And that's because they were largely isolated from the African continent, and continued their own separate phylogenetic evolution.

Today, in population genetics, one group is popularly called "West Eurasian". There are other OOA groups, such as Australoids, Mongoloids, native Americans and so on.


Not at all. We have different ways of interpreting the results.And your way of interpreting it is simply wrong and anti-logical.


I'm keeping an open mind, whereas you try to apply everything to 19th century pseudoscience.You're not keeping an open mind. You are extremely narrow-minded, in fact. If you had kept an open mind, you wouldn't be so quick to dismiss "19th century pseudo-science". But you do so because you are ignorant, and the reason for your ignorance is because you have issues and difficulties with being objective when you are under the impression that someone is being "anti-Eritrean" or G-d forbid, "racist".

In this sense, you are no different than hateful neo-Nazis; they too, have serious issues with being objective and impartial when they are under the belief that you are arguing against their ethnicity.

For example, I tried explaining to a Swedish neo-Nazi once, that the ancestors of Swedes engaged in what he would call "rasblandning" (miscegenation) because the Y-DNA markers of Swedes (I1, R1a, R1b and that's not even counting the mtDNA) indicate that various West Eurasian racial groups at some point amalgamated and emerged as a relatively homogeneous population, through the process of race mixing. By explaining this to him, I committed a great sin and shattered his ideological worldview that Swedes are the epitome of racial purity. I also tried to explain to him that in pre-historic times, all of humanity (including the ancestors of modern Swedes) race mixed because it was necessary at the time for the sake of humanity's survival, since our ancestors were at the brink of extinction.

Since he was a fanatic and sort of stupid, he began accusing me of "svenskfientlig" (enemy of Swedes) and accused me of having an agenda and making up lies and so on.

You Horners are no different than this Swedish neo-Nazi dumbass. It's just as difficult, if not more difficult, to explain to a Horner that you're not sub-Saharan Africans.


Whatever. Don't stray off the topic, please. And I would be surprised if certain North Africans didn't have some recent Northeast African ancestry.The reason why I'm telling you that Negrids are not Africans (and that Africans are only Berbers and possibly also Egyptians), is because I care about consistency, clarity and logic. Berbers and Phoenicians (Punics) were called Africans first. This means Africans are a West Eurasian group. And that's why we still to this day, say "sub-Saharan Africans" when we speak of Negrids, we say that because they aren't Africans.

When you say "I would be surprised if certain North Africans didn't have some recent Northeast African ancestry", what exactly do you mean by that? What the hell is a "north African" and what the hell is a "northeast African"? That's like saying, I would be surprised if north Swedes didn't have northeast Swedish ancestry. But when I say that, no one assumes I'm talking about Mongoloids when I say "northeast Swedes".

You simply cannot call two completely different racial groups, by the same ethnonym. It is anti-logical.

And again, what's a "northeast African"? Is it an Egyptian or is it a Habesha? Because if the entire continent is supposed to be called "Africa", then Egyptians are northeast Africans. So that means Berbers are north Africans and they have Egyptian ancestry?

Please try to make yourself understood when you discuss by using proper and specific ethnonyms that are not multiracial. It creates less confusion.


So this is your theory. Why do you think this is, then? Aren't Northern Europeans racially pure?No, and north Europeans have never been racially pure. In fact, racial purity doesn't exist. But north Europeans are quite homogeneous and arguably a better representative example of an extreme West Eurasian genetic isolate, than for example, a Mozabite Berber is.


Either you both are "racially pure" and you just happen to have a smaller distance to Sub-Saharan Africans because of genetic diversity, or one of you is "mixed".Nice try, but it doesn't work like that.

I see what you're trying to do here. Look, you can't argue that I have admixture just because I have a minor increased drag toward sub-Saharan Africa, in comparison with Swedes. It doesn't work like that. Swedes also have a minor increased drag, toward Chinese and Japanese peoples, when compared with south Europeans. It does not mean Swedes have Mongoloid admixture.

This is what it looks like, on a PCA plot:

9698

I'm the green dot, the black dot in Africa is the Nigerian person and the black dots above me are the Mendel family (northern Europeans). Within the European gene pool (which is coloured as yellow), there exists some regional variation, so some Europeans (e.g. Basques and Sardinians) have a minor drag toward sub-Saharan Africans on the X axis but not on the Y axis, whereas north Europeans have a minor drag toward Chinese and Japanese peoples on the X axis, but all Europeans are well within or at the very least, very close to each other, on the Y axis, X axis and Z axis (Z axis not shown in the useless 23andMe PCA plot). And that includes me; despite my somewhat increased drag toward sub-Saharan Africa in comparison with a north or east European, I am well within the European gene pool. On the contrary, a Horner is not within the sub-Saharan African gene pool, at all. They're not only outside of it, they're far away from it. So far away that Horners can't even be considered sub-Saharan African.

And your bullshit rationale about "sub-Saharan African genetic diversity" is still complete and utter bullshit because Negrid genetic diversity simply doesn't include Horners and Egyptians, since you are not similar enough with sub-Saharan Africans. You are not outside of the sub-Saharan African cluster as a result of SSA genetic diversity, you are far away from the SSA cluster because you simply aren't Negrid enough.

Is that really so difficult to understand?


Besides, most (85%, if I recall correctly) of the genetic variation that exists in human populations is intraracial rather than interracial, using your ideas about race as a reference.Yeah, and that 85% intraracial genetic variation:

1) does not include Horners in the sub-Saharan African cluster.
2) does not make the genetic similarity and racial clusters disappear.


The fact that you can distinguish between different population groups in the world, does not change this fundamental fact. But that's for another discussion. Let's stick to foreign admixture among Horners, for now. ;)Okay, here we have the facts:

1) Horners have significant West Eurasian admixture.
2) Horners are not genetic sub-Saharan Africans..
3) Horners have serious racial identity crisis in accepting these genetic facts because they have an "African Union" ideology to believe in.


What's up with this, btw? Did Africans become human after Eurasians? :confused: So that extra bit of genetic diversity in Sub-Saharan Africa is nonhuman? :lol:Since you don't understand evolution, let me teach you a few things about it. The so called higher genetic variation sub-Saharan Africans have, is simply about the amount of pre-homo sapiens genes they managed to preserve more than other humans (Eurasians). We Eurasians also have a large amount of pre-homo sapiens genes, since we are, much like any random Negro, also apes. But through the out of Africa migrations, we lost a lot of those ape-derived genes. This does not mean Europeans and Asians are less apes than a random sub-Saharan African. It simply means we have less genetic variation. And part of that genetic variation, is our genes we share with other Great apes:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_apes

You see, we Eurasians have less genetic variation in common with chimps, gorillas, orangutans etc., than sub-Saharan Africans have. That's what your "greater genetic diversity" you keep talking about, is all about: more preserved ape-like genes. You Negroes have more ancestral genes in common with those apes, than we non-Africans do. This is not an ideology, it's merely a scientific fact. And that's because we Eurasians represent less hominid genetic diversity than sub-Saharan Africans do, because our ancestors were tiny subsets of what was left of the homo sapiens gene pool (already a severely bottlenecked species) at the time they left Africa.

I know what you're going to respond now: "BUT YOU CAN'T APPLY YOUR RACIST WORLDVIEW ON HUMANITY, LOL!!!!!!!!11one" but that doesn't mean this isn't a fact of evolution.


LOL, it's just a matter of time before Elias and Polako will be prescribed with plavix after they suffer from a stroke that was induced by the realization of the fact that:Why would we suffer from a stroke? You're the one with realisation issues here.


1) Horners are by vast majority genetically Sub Saharan African who form their own independent genetic cluster out of the many independent genetic clusters that are found among blacks in Sub Saharan Africa.:oNo. You can't have multiple sub-Saharan African clusters. Either one is a sub-Saharan African cluster or there's no such thing as sub-Saharan Africans.

And I would say the cluster in which Mandenka, San, Pygmy and Yoruba are tightly positioned in, is the sub-Saharan African cluster. The fact that Horners are not even close to this cluster, means explicitly that Horners are not sub-Saharan Africans. And that's your stroke to realise, not mine or Polako's. We really don't give a shit about Horners that much to suffer a stroke.


2) The Caucosoid race concept and thus by reasonable extension the other popular race concepts of yore, hold little to no currency in the scientific world of today. They are, by definition, genetically bankrupt.:oYeah yeah, I hope you enjoy your trolling. This is why I don't take you seriously. Have fun enjoying the PCA plot on 23andMe, it simply corroborates the race concept, but never mind that, you have an inferiority complex to maintain and therefore an agenda to deny race.


Just post the evidence and move on.What evidence? The Tishkoff study? Jiggah please. The day we've fully genome sequenced every ethnic and racial group in the world (including race mixed populations like Horners), that's when we'll have sufficient evidence, and that's when you'll shut up.


Some people are too attached to their ideologies to bother wasting times educating.I agree. I think that's an excellent description of yourself. You're the one with an ideology here. Your ideology is that Horners are against every scientific evidence, 100% sub-Saharan Africans. But scientifically speaking, regardless of Ezana's opinions and ideology, that's just not the case.

Even if me and Polako have some sort of ideology, it certainly doesn't include Horners. You think I seriously care if Horners are partially West Eurasian? I don't. If every Horner on this planet went extinct tomorrow, it wouldn't make any difference to me. The reason I am arguing that Horners are at least partially (and significantly so) Eurasian, is because that's what the genetic tests are telling us. It's not because I give a shit about Horners to include them in some sort of precious ideology.

You also assume that you're somehow educated and in the position to educate others. And this when you deny race due to ideological sentiments and your hyper-ethnocentric bias about Y-DNA E. Please, go educate yourself to begin with and be honest with yourself when you do that. You're not educated just because you've read every journal about Y-DNA E; that's not an education.


If they want to learn, it's on them, not you.Yeah, it's on us to learn. And we learn by using logic, which is something neither you, nor Aware_Dog, and certainly not Lol_Race are using. You morons deny race because you're too fucking stupid to understand that haplogroups do not contain enough autosomal DNA to render biological races invalid. Then you idiots have the audacity to talk about educating people :whoco:

[Lol_Race]

^Wow, so much bullshit. I don't have the patience to answer all of that. There are just a couple of things I'd like to work out.

First of all, the straw man argument that I believe that Horners are 100% Sub-Saharan African genetically is not valid, since I have explicitly stated on numerous occasions, in like every post about this, that I do not believe that. I was questioning your methods of measuring admixture. When you say this:


You are saying Horners are totally 100% sub-Saharan African, right?

I wonder if you actually read my posts, or just looked for parts that you could build upon your own way to write these massive walls of text.

You suddenly don't claim "racial purity", and yet you are using terms like "Europid" and "Europoid". My question was very simple, and I don't know if you're not answering it because you are unable to or if you just didn't understand the question. You say that you are "Europid", and that Swedes are "Europid", not "Europoid". You are saying that you're racially pure. Yet, you have a difference in similarity towards Sub-Saharan Africans of upwards of 0.5%.

Would you not expect this difference in similarity, except towards Eurasians, to be greater among Sub-Saharan Africans? If not, why not?

I have questioned your methods. You have not offered any proper response. And no, your personal opinion about how much Sub-Saharan African ancestry Horners have, is not a proper response. You're going to have to establish your claims empirically.

LOL, Nigerians are not more "inbred", or genetically bottlenecked, than "West Eurasians". They have higher percentage similarities because the test is not designed for measuring their diversity; their only purpose is to function as a measure of West African admixture in New Worlders and Europeans. Unless you have a source for that statement? I'm assuming that is "original research" as well. :)


On top of the autosomal evidence is the fact that the y dna haplogroups AND the Mtdna haplogroups within Semitic speakers within Ethiopia and in Eritrea (I believe Aware_Dog did give evidence which showed there were some Eritreans used within the Kivisild et al 2004 Study) showed significant amounts of Eurasian lineages.

In the form of:
For E1b1b1: M34 is observed at 24.5% of Amhara's E1b1b1 positive within the populations sampled in Cruciani et al 2004's study. Within the Semino et al 2004 study it was at 2.1%, so this suggests alot of variance within the groups sampled these were amharas. However the fact that in Cruciani's study it was present out of the 34 amharas sampled in nearly a quarter of the cases which was more than any other subgroup of E1b1b1 (in that study for amharas) then this means that it is present within the whole Amhara population at at least a moderate level within M35 + Amharas.

Other Y haplogroups which were markers of middle eastern expansion present in Amharas (Im using them to represent semitic speakers): J1 33.1% (Semino et al 2004); J2 2.1% (Semino et al 2004)

All in all it adds to around 40% of the Sampled Amhara population's Y dna to be of Eurasian origin (I dont care the time the admix occured that can be decided later) .

Add this to the overwhelming amount of eurasian MTDNA lineages of middle eastern origin found within semitic speakers in Kivisild et al 2004's study (which found over 60% of sampled Tigrayans to be of eurasian mtdna lineage while around half of the sampled Amharas were of Eurasian mtdna lineage) which by the way did show the clinial nature of the admix in that Tigrayans had more eurasian lineages than amharas which in turn had more than the Cushitic speakers.

I think this evidence from the Y dna and Mtdna On top of the autosomal and MDS/PCA plot positioning of Horners sampled show a significant intrusion of Eurasian lineages within the horner population, specifically the semitic speakers.

Also @ Lol Race I think if we didnt have the evidence from Mtdna and Ydna haplogroups then the Ancient african theory of the reason we show up so eurasian would make sense, but the haplogroups sort of the seal the deal that it was significant admix IMO... Again I am open minded so if you can find any evidence against my claim go I will happily hear it.
You should know by now that the frequencies of different haplogroups is irrelevant. There are also some very strange results in those studies, like Amharas having a lot, like over ten times more J, than their ethnic brothers the Oromo. Is there any study on the Y-DNA of Tigrayans, by the way? I remember reading, though not directly from a study, that Tigrayans have around 10% of J, while Amharas apparently have 33-35%. Obvious case of founder effect, if you ask me.

The Eurasian haplogroups in the Horn (I find it strange that you include M as Eurasian in this context, btw) proved that there are foreign lineages in the Horn of Africa a long time ago. Nobody argues against this. What we're discussing is how significantly these lineages affected the overall ancestry of Horners, and that is impossible to deduce using haplogroup frequencies. And there are some faulty methods being used in the interpretation of our autosomal results as well.

By the way, according to the study you linked to by Kivisild et al. (2004), based on haplogroup frequencies Tigrayans cluster closer to Levantines than Egyptians and actual Yemenis! Lol, founder effect.

[Polako]

First of all, there are some widely acknowledged problems with using these SNP segments for calculating Fst distances within Africa, since the test is designed for a different audience.

There's no problem with the genetic distances calculated from HapMap 3 data. Over a million SNPs have now been tested using different chips. That's a hell of a lot more precise than the 700 microsatellites used by Tischkoff.


It seems to me that the East African is being classified as Eurasian simply because it's closer to the Eurasian samples on those specific SNP segments than it is to the West African reference group.

Don't get your hopes up. It's impossible for 90% of a Horner genome to be more similar to a North Euro sample than a West African one. Because if that were true, then Ethiopians wouldn't look 40% Sub-Saharan from K3 to K10 in that latest study by Behar et al., they'd come out 90% West Eurasian at K3 already.

K=8 (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/fig_tab/nature09103_F3.html)

Obviously, there's some sort of line in the Ancestry Painting program that lumps unknown segments with those that have been classified successfully and represent the majority.


Once again, Sub-Saharan Africa has more genetic diversity than the rest of the world. Are you having a hard time accepting that indigenous African peoples can have this sort of divergence?

Horners are not 90% vs. 10% more similar to North Europeans than to West Africans. Are you having a hard time accepting that?

[EliasAlucard]

First of all, the straw man argument that I believe that Horners are 100% Sub-Saharan African genetically is not valid, since I have explicitly stated on numerous occasions, in like every post about this, that I do not believe that.You are saying Horners are sub-Saharan Africans. Genetically, they just aren't. When you say Horners are sub-Saharan Africans, you are implying at least implicitly, that they are 100% sub-Saharan African. Horners just aren't sub-Saharan African, on a genetic level, because sub-Saharan African = Negrid. And Horners are like half Negrid.


I wonder if you actually read my posts, or just looked for parts that you could build upon your own way to write these massive walls of text.I did read your post. Your post is foolish. You say Horners are sub-Saharan African. I'm telling you they aren't when tested genetically. Don't blame it on "massive wall of text"; I took my time answering your stupid bullshit. If you can't argue back, then don't bother.


You suddenly don't claim "racial purity", and yet you are using terms like "Europid" and "Europoid".It's not suddenly. I've been saying for a very long time now, there's no such thing as racial purity. It's not something I suddenly do. When I speak of "racial purity", it's with racial homogeneity in mind, because that's what racial purity is about. The more homogeneous a breeding isolate is, the more "pure" you can say it is. But in reality there is no such thing as racial purity, because you can always go far enough back in time (deep ancestry) and find some ancestors who mixed with other, racially very different ancestors, and that's what eventually became "Europeans" and so on.


My question was very simple, and I don't know if you're not answering it because you are unable to or if you just didn't understand the question. You say that you are "Europid", and that Swedes are "Europid", not "Europoid".I don't think I've ever said I'm Europid. And I'm certainly not Caucasid either.


You are saying that you're racially pure.Since I don't have admixture from sub-Saharan Africans and East Asians, then yes, I am "racially pure", or if you will, homogeneous enough.


Yet, you have a difference in similarity towards Sub-Saharan Africans of upwards of 0.5%.This similarity has nothing to do with admixture. It's simply the result of geography. Haven't this been explained to you before?


Would you not expect this difference in similarity, except towards Eurasians, to be greater among Sub-Saharan Africans? If not, why not?What exactly are you trying to say here? Look, not all Europeans have identical distance to non-European races. Italians have slightly higher affinity with sub-Saharan Africans, than Swedes do. This does not mean Italians have admixture from sub-Saharan Africa. Likewise, sub-Saharan Africans don't have identical genetic distance to Europeans and Japanese people. Nigerians for example have a greater genetic distance to Europeans, than Kenyans do, and so on and so forth, but again, this doesn't necessarily mean they have admixture from Europeans, and if they do, it can't really be that much.

But Horners are very different from sub-Saharan Africans.


I have questioned your methods. You have not offered any proper response. And no, your personal opinion about how much Sub-Saharan African ancestry Horners have, is not a proper response. You're going to have to establish your claims empirically.The problem here is that my claims have already been established empirically, since I base my opinion on Horners, from scientists like Cavalli-Sforza, Wilson, Passarino etc. and the 23andMe PCA plot, as well as the deCODEme PCA plot, simply corroborate what has already been empirically proven about Horners.


LOL, Nigerians are not more "inbred", or genetically bottlenecked, than "West Eurasians".I did not say Nigerians are more genetically bottlenecked than West Eurasians, but they certainly are more inbred. And that's why they have much higher genome similarity with each other. That's possibly also why they all look like identical clones, whereas West Eurasians have a large phenotypic variation.


They have higher percentage similarities because the test is not designed for measuring their diversity; their only purpose is to function as a measure of West African admixture in New Worlders and Europeans. Unless you have a source for that statement? I'm assuming that is "original research" as well. :)The day full genome sequencing becomes the norm, we'll see how much higher percentage similarity Nigerians will have with other Nigerians, as opposed to Europeans with other Europeans.


You should know by now that the frequencies of different haplogroups is irrelevant.·It's not irrelevant. If they have some correlation with the autosomal DNA, it's very relevant. And in the Horn of Africa, there is indeed some correlation with the autosomal DNA.


There are also some very strange results in those studies, like Amharas having a lot, like over ten times more J, than their ethnic brothers the Oromo.Nothing strange about that. The reason why Amharas have a lot more J is because they were genetically influenced by Semitic speakers, whereas the Oromo were not.


Is there any study on the Y-DNA of Tigrayans, by the way? I remember reading, though not directly from a study, that Tigrayans have around 10% of J, while Amharas apparently have 33-35%. Obvious case of founder effect, if you ask me.Whatever. Point is, this is evidence of significant Eurasian gene-flow to Horners.


The Eurasian haplogroups in the Horn (I find it strange that you include M as Eurasian in this context, btw) proved that there are foreign lineages in the Horn of Africa a long time ago. Nobody argues against this. What we're discussing is how significantly these lineages affected the overall ancestry of Horners, and that is impossible to deduce using haplogroup frequencies. And there are some faulty methods being used in the interpretation of our autosomal results as well.No not really. There are indeed lots of foreign lineages in the Horn of Africa; "foreign", as in non-SSA and OOA. It is indeed very significant, enough significant admixture to the point that Horners are no longer really SSA.


By the way, according to the study you linked to by Kivisild et al. (2004), based on haplogroup frequencies Tigrayans cluster closer to Levantines than Egyptians and actual Yemenis! Lol, founder effect.But that's hapologroup frequencies. That's why you Horners are anti-intellectual when you say race doesn't exist because of haplogroup variation. Tigrayans don't cluster closer to Levantines than Egyptians and Yemenis do, when measured in genome-wide SNP.


There's no problem with the genetic distances calculated from HapMap 3 data. Over a million SNPs have now been tested using different chips. That's a hell of a lot more precise than the 700 microsatellites used by Tischkoff.This Tishkoff study, is interesting but it's weak when compared with genome-wide SNP, because it only contains 700 microsatellites and haplogroups. And the reason for that is because Tishkoff couldn't afford testing all those ethnic groups using genome-wide SNP. So she used cheaper and inferior technology in order to study all those ethnic groups in Africa.

Anyway, when all ethnic groups in the world are fully genome sequenced, Lol_Race and Aware_Dog won't have any arguments like "23andMe adjusted their chips and algorithms with the European customer base in mind" and you can rest assured that Horners won't cluster within the sub-Saharan African cluster when fully genome sequenced.

And now boys and girls, I'm off to work. Later.

[Polako]

This Tishkoff study, is interesting but it's weak when compared with genome-wide SNP, because it only contains 700 microsatellites and haplogroups. And the reason for that is because Tishkoff couldn't afford testing all those ethnic groups using genome-wide SNP. So she used cheaper and inferior technology in order to study all those ethnic groups in Africa.

Lol_race seems to be under the false impression that just because the SNPs chosen by 23andMe aren't good at differentiating Sub-Saharab Africans, that means genome-wide SNPs in general aren't good at it. WTF?

This is more horseshit from our befuddled friend. First of all, 23andMe doesn't make use of HapMap 3 data, and secondly, it doesn't use all the SNPs available via HapMap 1 data.

So the various criticisms of how 23andMe does things in relation to Africans can't be extended to the HapMap project.

[Humanist]

11 Assyrian Samples

69.01%
68.97%
68.89%
68.91%
69.04%
68.95%
69.04%
68.94%
69.01%
68.95%
68.94%
--------
68.97% AVG w/ Nigerian Reference (Elias's 2 samples = 68.99%)

--------------------------------------------------------------
103 European Samples (excluding Turkish and Armenian Samples)

0.6917 (Italian sample - Ancestry Painting reads >99% European, <1% Asian, 0% African)
0.6902
0.6899
0.6896
0.6895
0.6894
0.6894
0.6892
0.6891
0.6891
0.689
0.689
0.689
0.689
0.6888
0.6887
0.6887
0.6887
0.6887
0.6887
0.6886
0.6885
0.6884
0.688
0.688
0.6879
0.6879
0.6879
0.6879
0.6879
0.6877
0.6876
0.6875
0.6875
0.6875
0.6875
0.6874
0.6874
0.6873
0.6873
0.6873
0.6871
0.687
0.687
0.6869
0.6869
0.6868
0.6868
0.6867
0.6867
0.6864
0.6864
0.6864
0.6863
0.6863
0.6863
0.6863
0.6863
0.6862
0.6861
0.6861
0.6861
0.686
0.6859
0.6859
0.6859
0.6858
0.6858
0.6858
0.6856
0.6856
0.6856
0.6856
0.6856
0.6855
0.6855
0.6854
0.6854
0.6854
0.6854
0.6854
0.6854
0.6853
0.6853
0.6853
0.6853
0.6853
0.6852
0.6852
0.6851
0.6851
0.6851
0.6851
0.6851
0.685
0.6848
0.6848
0.6847
0.6846
0.6846
0.6843
0.6841
0.6832
-------
68.68% AVG w/ Nigerian Reference (Elias's 7 samples = 68.62%)

[beyoku]

Yes there often are, and this means that there has been intra-continental mixing, like, for example, within Europe, or between Europe and the Middle East. But the fact that this behavior doesn't appear unless the Africans and East Asians are dropped, means that intra-West Eurasian differences are a fraction of those seen between West Eurasians and non-West Eurasians.



Any group that shows some distinctive patterns in genetic traits due to isolation is a relative breeding isolate.

So it's not only continental groups that fit that description, and yes Europe and the Middle East can be described as two relative breeding isolates within West Eurasia, with the mixed zone mostly in Anatolia.

intra-West Eurasian PCA (http://i129.photobucket.com/albums/p217/dpwes/intra-WE_PCA.gif)



It's not really largely Eurasian, it's only largely Eurasian in lieu of a missing classification, probably "East African".

This could mean that East Africans are more similar to Northern Europeans than to West Africans in terms of these sorts of SNP segments. But I doubt that, because the Fst distance between East Africa and Northern Europe is more than ten times that between East Africa and West Africa. So I suspect that what is happening with the Ancestry Painting is that it's picking up the 40% or so West Eurasian in Horners, and then classifying the East African segments in them by default as West Eurasian too, because it can't quite make out what they are, and that was possibly the safest option thought of by the programmer. In any case, I wouldn't draw any major conclusions from that tool, because it clearly has issues, some of which we are probably not even aware of. Studies like the latest one by Behar et al. are more useful in these debates IMO.

Well then it should be CASED CLOSED. Your point bolded above is exactly what the largest study of African accomplished with that "Cushitic" Cluster and noting the Cushitic cluster is closets to the Eurasian cluster (but not to be confused with it) due to the north East African origin of Non-Africans. This was said YEARS AGO!

[Polako]

Well then it should be CASED CLOSED. Your point bolded above is exactly what the largest study of African accomplished with that "Cushitic" Cluster and noting the Cushitic cluster is closets to the Eurasian cluster (but not to be confused with it) due to the north East African origin of Non-Africans. This was said YEARS AGO!

It's not case closed until most of Africa has been tested via at least 100K SNPs. Then we'll see what's what.

Bt until then, relying on data from 23andMe, which uses markers that are best at identifying traits in Europeans, isn't the way to go.

And to suggest that Horner genomes "look" 90% Eurasian based on the 23andMe Ancestry Painting is idiotic to say the least.

[Graeme]

I am not sure what this thread is all about. Actually what the fuss is about.

I have an affinity to the Nigerian dude, whoever it is, of 69.11%, nearly equal to the Italian mentioned by Humanist, but then I am as Italian as a non Italian can be. I am also 100% European. I used to share with a half French, quarter Berber, and quarter Berber Jew, and he was 100% European with an affinity to the Nigerian dude of 69.68%. Maybe you should share with him: rpetit is his user name. I suppose Zinidine Z. would also be 100% European with a higher affinity to the Nigerian dude than the half Berber fellow.

It is a little silly to say that Europeans are close to NE Africans because our ancestors many tens of thousands of years ago originated in the same part of the world. Silly because none of those humans had an appearance which could be classed into any modern human race. Horners were not Horners then just a bunch of primitive humans with no particular racial look. They probably didn't even have dark skin as they were most likely hairy. Think about it, what your primitive ancestors looked like in those pre OOA days. A laugh.

[Lol_Race]

There's no problem with the genetic distances calculated from HapMap 3 data. Over a million SNPs have now been tested using different chips. That's a hell of a lot more precise than the 700 microsatellites used by Tischkoff.



Don't get your hopes up. It's impossible for 90% of a Horner genome to be more similar to a North Euro sample than a West African one. Because if that were true, then Ethiopians wouldn't look 40% Sub-Saharan from K3 to K10 in that latest study by Behar et al., they'd come out 90% West Eurasian at K3 already.

K=8 (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/fig_tab/nature09103_F3.html)

Obviously, there's some sort of line in the Ancestry Painting program that lumps unknown segments with those that have been classified successfully and represent the majority.



Horners are not 90% vs. 10% more similar to North Europeans than to West Africans. Are you having a hard time accepting that?
No matter what you think about the Tishkoff study and her interpretation of the results, it was rather good at showing intra-African genetic relations. The Behar et al. study wasn't even able to differentiate Pygmies from Khoisan populations!

That's an interesting theory you have about the Ancestry Painting, but that is far from definite. You should contact 23andme about it. The point of the test is not to detect "European", or "Caucasoid" ancestry in the sample, it is to compare the sample to the three reference groups and see which it is closest to. It's not like the Ancestry Painting is able to detect if you're European or not, it only compares the SNP segments to the three reference groups. This is why Middle Easterners have very high "European" scores, despite not being European. It is simply the reference group that's the closest to them.

If that's not what the test does, then we have a problem and you should contact 23andme about it. Right now, it just sounds like you think that "it's impossible" for certain Africans to have a vastly different genetic profile compared to other Africans across the continent.


Since I don't have admixture from sub-Saharan Africans and East Asians, then yes, I am "racially pure", or if you will, homogeneous enough.
Make up your mind, will you?

This similarity has nothing to do with admixture. It's simply the result of geography. Haven't this been explained to you before?
Lol, thanks for realizing. And in what way could this affect the results for Horners?

What exactly are you trying to say here? Look, not all Europeans have identical distance to non-European races. Italians have slightly higher affinity with sub-Saharan Africans, than Swedes do. This does not mean Italians have admixture from sub-Saharan Africa. Likewise, sub-Saharan Africans don't have identical genetic distance to Europeans and Japanese people. Nigerians for example have a greater genetic distance to Europeans, than Kenyans do, and so on and so forth, but again, this doesn't necessarily mean they have admixture from Europeans, and if they do, it can't really be that much.
My point is that it is not because of admixture.

But Horners are very different from other sub-Saharan Africans.
Corrected. And admittedly, yes.


Nothing strange about that. The reason why Amharas have a lot more J is because they were genetically influenced by Semitic speakers, whereas the Oromo were not.Do you know something about Oromos and Amharas? In the past, many Amharas were Oromized, and many Oromos were Amharized. This is why I call them "ethnic brothers".

Whatever. Point is, this is evidence of significant Eurasian gene-flow to Horners.It does not help us discern the amount.

No not really. There are indeed lots of foreign lineages in the Horn of Africa; "foreign", as in non-SSA and OOA. It is indeed very significant, enough significant admixture to the point that Horners are no longer really SSA.

But that's hapologroup frequencies. That's why you Horners are anti-intellectual when you say race doesn't exist because of haplogroup variation. Tigrayans don't cluster closer to Levantines than Egyptians and Yemenis do, when measured in genome-wide SNP.
What did you not understand? My whole point was that the haplogroup frequencies are not relevant, and you claim that I ignore the importance of genome-wide SNP when that's exactly what I'm not doing?

And stop talking as if there's a collective opinion among Horners. I have never used haplogroup variation as an argument against race.

11 Assyrian Samples

And I'm rather sure that the percentage similarity of indigenous Middle Eastern DNA to African populations would increase in the parts of the Middle East that are closest to Africa (Arabia). Don't worry, I don't believe that you're mixed. :)

Lol_race seems to be under the false impression that just because the SNPs chosen by 23andMe aren't good at differentiating Sub-Saharab Africans, that means genome-wide SNPs in general aren't good at it. WTF?
Huh? I believe that genome-wide SNP, if used properly, is the only way to do that.

This is more horseshit from our befuddled friend. First of all, 23andMe doesn't make use of HapMap 3 data, and secondly, it doesn't use all the SNPs available via HapMap 1 data.

So the various criticisms of how 23andMe does things in relation to Africans can't be extended to the HapMap project.
Check out the Tishkoff study. Look at the populations who are part of the generated cluster that is characteristic of Niger-Kordofanian speakers. Look at the haplogroup frequencies of the "Bantu marker" E3a in Kenya. Compare the frequency of the "Niger-Kordofanian" cluster and Y-DNA haplogroup E3a to the Horn of Africa.

Bantu Kenyans have been very affected by migrations from other parts of Africa, and are not an adequate "pure East African" reference. How difficult is this to understand? I have no issues with genome-wide tests.

---------- Post added 2010-06-15 at 15:42 ----------


I used to share with a half French, quarter Berber, and quarter Berber Jew, and he was 100% European with an affinity to the Nigerian dude of 69.68%.
This was a good example.

[KRANG]

Acording to this new study.
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_Ish7688voT0/TA_8VX3jGkI/AAAAAAAACcM/HVkOLdPm94g/s1600/admixture-global.jpg

Horners (ethiopians/ethiopian jews) are around 60% caucasoid and 40% negroid.

[ethioboy]

True colors eventually show themselves. I'm going to bend the rule I made above just slightly...




Behar was about finding Jewish autosomal clusters and has just 12 African samples, 8 of them from SSA. Of those, 2 are Pygmy groups and 1 a San group, known to have very ancient splits, yet they are in the same autosomal cluster. The Africans are just there for comparative purposes.

When sampled with other Africans, we do form our own cluster, the purple Afro-Asiatic cluster from Tishkoff et al. 2009.

http://scienceblogs.com/geneticfuture/massive_study_of_african_genet/tishkoff_africa_map.jpg



The Y-DNA and mtDNA stuff we've gone over too many times, if you don't get it by now, you never will.

But you see even so we should have still made our own cluster because in the STRUCTURE plots created by polako. The only african samples were the Maasai, Pygmies, San, and Yoruba, but the massai still were able to create their own cluster in some instances which was distinct from the other sub saharan africans. That is what I was saying in my post with this statement


but instead were shown to be predominantly of some middle eastern cluster which was very frequent in most arabian samples and of a sub saharan african cluster which seemed to be of modern east african extraction (ofcourse you cant tell by that STRUCTURE PLOT since there are no other east africans, but on other plots the sub saharan admix was usually the same as the massai cluster which is of east african).

Instead, even with middle eastern samples we still had a high affinity for this light purple cluster which was most prevalent in bedouins sampled. This tells us that of all other clusters we had the highest affinity to this one instead of a unique horner cluster which should have been evident in some levels in nearly all OOA populations but we dont see that with us... Again after a few more studies can come out this can be verified or disproved, however I think this and other evidences does turn the tide in favor of higher eurasian admix for now.


Also regarding the haplogroups

In any event the whole problem you had with the haplogroups was recent admix stuff vs neolithic however Im not talking about that. Even if the majority of the J1 we carry came from the neolithic it still is evidence of West eurasian presence in the horn of africa. That is what I was getting at, and perhaps that bedouin cluster could be another marker of that expansion as well.

---------- Post added 2010-06-15 at 16:14 ----------



[quote]
You should know by now that the frequencies of different haplogroups is irrelevant. There are also some very strange results in those studies, like Amharas having a lot, like over ten times more J, than their ethnic brothers the Oromo. Is there any study on the Y-DNA of Tigrayans, by the way? I remember reading, though not directly from a study, that Tigrayans have around 10% of J, while Amharas apparently have 33-35%. Obvious case of founder effect, if you ask me.
lol I dont think the frequency is irrelevant. If you are able to get 40% out of the 48 sampled amharas to be of west eurasian lineage imagine how much of the whole population is of west eurasian lineage. Also why should the oromo not having enough J1 be wierd, It is even consistent with the Autosomoal results in behar's study which showed the oromo to have more african admix, and I believe its because of the fact that languages do correlate with the genetics to some extent. Given the fact that the semitic speakers were the rulers and were most in contact with the eurasians, the cushitic speakers were the minority. Back in the time of Axum and older periods while Somalians were speaking somali and oromos had not even invaded north (which happened during the Ethiopian Adal war for the most part), the ancestors of the Amhara and the Tigrayans were speaking Ge'ez and thus had most contact with Eurasians hence they would have more admix than the Cushitic speakers, This is my theory.

Also there is no study on tigrayan y dna to my knowledge yet, I think that one showing 10% was bs since there was no study on Eritrea.


The Eurasian haplogroups in the Horn (I find it strange that you include M as Eurasian in this context, btw) proved that there are foreign lineages in the Horn of Africa a long time ago. Nobody argues against this. What we're discussing is how significantly these lineages affected the overall ancestry of Horners, and that is impossible to deduce using haplogroup frequencies. And there are some faulty methods being used in the interpretation of our autosomal results as well.
Well I am using these foreign haplogroups in accordance with the Autosomal dna to state that it goes in favor of more Eurasian admix given the fact that if it was ancestral dna we were having at large levels, then we wouldnt see this much of the haplogroups being of eurasian origin which is a marker for Admixture, instead we should be seeing more E, A, and B lineages on the Y and more L0 and L1 lineages on the Mtdna side.


By the way, according to the study you linked to by Kivisild et al. (2004), based on haplogroup frequencies Tigrayans cluster closer to Levantines than Egyptians and actual Yemenis! Lol, founder effect.
Yea I know this means the yemenis sampled had more African L lineages than the tigrayans, and again I think its because the samples they chose happened to be of more L frequency than not. Which makes sense. If they chose samples from the North of yemen near Sana or in a more isolated region then they would have more eurasian lineages, so in that case Im guessing its due to regional differences as the autosomal results dont show much admix in Yemeni Jews or the Yemenis.

[Grasshoppa]

People look a little too much into individual STRUCTURE charts. I mean, they give a great visual representation of group affiliation, but all in all it's based on context. That word couldn't be any more important. You've gotta look at the big picture; see how many snps they're testing and such. What's maybe just as important is which snps/or other are selected. For example in the most recent paper on Jews, it was focused on Jews and related West Eurasian and ME populations. I have not read the whole study, but one can see high substructure in West Asia, higher than mentioned before, likely because of genetic material selection. Likewise, in the Tishkoff study, it was in an African context, and thus, high substructure in Africa because of chosen genetic data.

[Ezana]

It is a little silly to say that Europeans are close to NE Africans because our ancestors many tens of thousands of years ago originated in the same part of the world. Silly because none of those humans had an appearance which could be classed into any modern human race. Horners were not Horners then just a bunch of primitive humans with no particular racial look. They probably didn't even have dark skin as they were most likely hairy. Think about it, what your primitive ancestors looked like in those pre OOA days. A laugh.

Hominids lost their fur long before Homo sapiens came to the scene. We were certainly all dark-skinned at that point.

Anyway, the reasons for Horner-Eurasian genetic similarities are multiple. For one, it's true that the OOA population(s) came from East Africa, but given the age (40-60kya), it's not enough to explain all the similarities. There have also been bi-directional migrations in the late Paleolithic (E-M35, E-M78, mtDNA M1) and Neolithic (J1-M267, mtDNA R0a, aka (pre-HV)1). On top of this, you can add some minor admix (albeit significant in Sudan & Egypt) from the historical era (J2-M172, R, etc.).



But you see even so we should have still made our own cluster because in the STRUCTURE plots created by polako. The only african samples were the Maasai, Pygmies, San, and Yoruba, but the massai still were able to create their own cluster in some instances which was distinct from the other sub saharan africans.

You're citing a study (which you haven't even linked) done by Polako against a peer-reviewed paper?


Even if me and Polako have some sort of ideology, it certainly doesn't include Horners. You think I seriously care if Horners are partially West Eurasian? I don't. If every Horner on this planet went extinct tomorrow, it wouldn't make any difference to me. The reason I am arguing that Horners are at least partially (and significantly so) Eurasian, is because that's what the genetic tests are telling us. It's not because I give a shit about Horners to include them in some sort of precious ideology.

Who's arguing that Horners aren't partially West Eurasian? No one. You're fighting straw man arguments. The problem is you think all East African genetic uniqueness on the African continent is as a result, which is not the case. I have no problem identifying the various population movements that have occurred, but you do have a problem accepting East African influence in West Asian populations. If East Africans are just "Negroes with West Eurasian admix," then West Asians would just be "West Eurasians with Negro admix," but both of these views are overly simplistic and don't do the scientific literature justice. The sword cuts both ways.

[PolskiMoc]

The Maternal Haplogroup map shows there are Caucasian Maternal genes in Africa.

North Africans seem to be about 90 + percent Caucasian by maternal haplogroups.

While Horners seem to be about 40 percent Caucasian by maternal haplogroups.

9711

Interestingly a good portion of the "Caucasian eurasian maternal genes" in Horners seems to be shared with Asian Indians.
Which I think makes sense.

I have always noticed that Ethiopians & Somalians looked like Asian Indians. With Haplogroup M being shared with Asian Indians.

but, then again I am not so sure Haplogroup M is a Caucasian haplogroup. As it is found in Mongoloid populations.

[ethioboy]

You're citing a study (which you haven't even linked) done by Polako against a peer-reviewed paper?


It isnt a study its a structure plot using samples from the HGDP and other databases. It is credible just as any other structure plot, and Im not arguing against the behar study with it, Im only showing that Massai were able to create their own clusters, where as we didnt, and instead, even with several horner samples, still showed up as a mix between the bedouin cluster and the sub saharan cluster. Which is consistent with Polako's STRUCTURE plots as well.

[Lol_Race]

So Polako, the ABF genius, what do you think about the results of that part Berber guy? Does he have "unknown" African that is being classified as "European" because there's something wrong with the Ancestry Painting test, is that the cause of his relatively high genetic similarity with Sub-Saharan Africans? Or is it "Caucasoid" diversity? And he isn't even fully Berber.

lol I dont think the frequency is irrelevant. If you are able to get 40% out of the 48 sampled amharas to be of west eurasian lineage imagine how much of the whole population is of west eurasian lineage. Also why should the oromo not having enough J1 be wierd, It is even consistent with the Autosomoal results in behar's study which showed the oromo to have more african admix, and I believe its because of the fact that languages do correlate with the genetics to some extent. Given the fact that the semitic speakers were the rulers and were most in contact with the eurasians, the cushitic speakers were the minority. Back in the time of Axum and older periods while Somalians were speaking somali and oromos had not even invaded north (which happened during the Ethiopian Adal war for the most part), the ancestors of the Amhara and the Tigrayans were speaking Ge'ez and thus had most contact with Eurasians hence they would have more admix than the Cushitic speakers, This is my theory.
In the study you linked to about maternal lineages in Ethiopia, Oromos clustered closer to Tigrayans than Amharas did. There's a good reason why Ezana did not bother to explain it further to you. You should know by now that haplogroup frequencies are not relevant; the presence of different haplogroups, however, is. Cameroonians are not as Eurasian as their Y-DNA haplogroup frequencies might suggest. Haplogroups show one ancestor out of many.

And yes, the one and only Oromo sample we have on 23andme had a slightly higher similarity to other Sub-Saharan Africans than the other Horners. I fail to understand how haplogroup frequencies are relevant in this case, with the (supposedly) huge differences between Amharas and Oromos in their Y-DNA. And though we can speculate about how widespread the Semitic languages were in East Africa during antiquity, the Amhara region was not part of Axum proper. Even some contemporary Somali territory was part of Axum, while large parts of the areas Amharas call home were not.

Other geographically close populations, Nubians and Bejas, have plenty of J despite not having a Semitic language as their main language. J is believed to have entered Ethiopia during the Neolithic. There's no reason to believe that the majority of foreign lineages came into Ethiopia during the Axumite period, and that the presence of J can only be explained by a Semitic presence. It could just as well have spread from the north. Other haplogroups like U6 that are absent in Yemeni populations indicate that there has been gene flow from North Africa to the Horn of Africa.

Here are some useful quotes for you about haplogroup frequencies from the study, by the way:


Maternal lineages of Semitic- (Amharic, Tigrinya, and Gurage) and Cushitic- (Oromo and Afar) speaking populations studied here reveal that their mtDNA pool is a nearly equal composite of sub-Saharan and western Eurasian lineages.


In contrast, the similarity of Amharas and Oromos, also expressed in other genetic loci (Fort et al. 1998; Corbo et al. 1999) supports the idea that "amharization" may have been largely a sociocultural rather than a genetic phenonomenon.





Also there is no study on tigrayan y dna to my knowledge yet, I think that one showing 10% was bs since there was no study on Eritrea.
I didn't say anything about Eritreans.

Yea I know this means the yemenis sampled had more African L lineages than the tigrayans, and again I think its because the samples they chose happened to be of more L frequency than not. Which makes sense. If they chose samples from the North of yemen near Sana or in a more isolated region then they would have more eurasian lineages, so in that case Im guessing its due to regional differences as the autosomal results dont show much admix in Yemeni Jews or the Yemenis.
Lol wut.

There is no reason to believe that northern Yemen would have been left out of the study. You really should know better than to use haplogroup frequencies this way.

This discussion is very tiring. If you'd rather continue it with me than with the other members here, post on my profile or send me a message. Initially, I was supposed to just ask my question to point out some inconsistencies and leave. That didn't work out. Hopefully, I'll remember what kind of people I'm dealing with (not referring to you, ethioboy) next time. :confused:

[Aware_Dog]

The study I posted includes populations outside Africa which Tishkof's doesn't!

Tishkoff's study did include populations outside of Africa from: Cann et al. 2002, Rosenberg et al. 2005, Rosenberg et al. 2006 and other samples from CEPH. She found that Non-African genetic variation is simply just a sub-set of African genetic variation. That is why you see in the attached figure below how the Tishkoff study envisions the evolutionary relationship of the 14 Associated Ancestral Clusters that were found in Africa. Notice the 14 terminating branches inside Africa. That is why the Tishkoff study is not only important for Africa, but is also just as important in the global context, unlike other autosomal based STRUCTURE runs that are primarily configured for studying population relationships outside Africa and/or global Autosomal studies that have minimal African population representation (like the STRUCURE run of Rosenberg et al. 2005 that you posted earlier)

[Aware_Dog]

Likewise, in the Tishkoff study, it was in an African context, and thus, high substructure in Africa because of chosen genetic data.

Relatively speaking, the non-African genetic substructure is negligible or irrelevant when when being compared to African genetic substructure.

[pinguin]

Sure. Ethiopians are so different from Arabs, that look like people from different planets.... give me a break

[ethioboy]

(delete post).......

[Graeme]

Hominids lost their fur long before Homo sapiens came to the scene. We were certainly all dark-skinned at that point.

Anyway, the reasons for Horner-Eurasian genetic similarities are multiple. For one, it's true that the OOA population(s) came from East Africa, but given the age (40-60kya), it's not enough to explain all the similarities. There have also been bi-directional migrations in the late Paleolithic (E-M35, E-M78, mtDNA M1) and Neolithic (J1-M267, mtDNA R0a, aka (pre-HV)1). On top of this, you can add some minor admix (albeit significant in Sudan & Egypt) from the historical era (J2-M172, R, etc.)


Man, how do you know that? Spoke with God lately or jumped in your Tardis?

Come on you are just guessing, you don't know that.

Coincidences are sometimes coincidences. Those haplogroups are quite old. Who knows what the carriers of those haplogroups looked like. You are just guessing based on Yemenis having J1 >70% and J2 being high in Anatolians and various Middle Eastern folk.

I do accept that Horners have West Eurasian ancestry simply based on most studies which link genetically, the inhabitants of that part of Africa with the Middle East.

[beyoku]

Tishkoff's study did include populations outside of Africa from: Cann et al. 2002, Rosenberg et al. 2005, Rosenberg et al. 2006 and other samples from CEPH. She found that Non-African genetic variation is simply just a sub-set of African genetic variation. That is why you see in the attached figure below how the Tishkoff study envisions the evolutionary relationship of the 14 Associated Ancestral Clusters that were found in Africa. Notice the 14 terminating branches inside Africa. That is why the Tishkoff study is not only important for Africa, but is also just as important in the global context, unlike other autosomal based STRUCTURE runs that are primarily configured for studying population relationships outside Africa and/or global Autosomal studies that have minimal African population representation (like the STRUCURE run of Rosenberg et al. 2005 that you posted earlier)

Maybe I missed that but which study did that pic come from?

[Aware_Dog]

Maybe I missed that but which study did that pic come from?

Figure 2, from Current Biology 20, R166–R173, February 23, 2010 (http://www.cell.com/current-biology/abstract/S0960-9822(09)02065-X)

The pdf is free on the right side fyi.

[beyoku]

Figure 2, from Current Biology 20, R166–R173, February 23, 2010 (http://www.cell.com/current-biology/abstract/S0960-9822(09)02065-X)

The pdf is free on the right side fyi.

Sorry I get a paywall, can you attach it.

[Aware_Dog]

Sorry I get a paywall, can you attach it.

hmm.. it used to be free, not sure what happened, anyway....

[EliasAlucard]

You're citing a study (which you haven't even linked) done by Polako against a peer-reviewed paper?Polako's experimental and layman study, using raw data from 23andMe and STRUCTURE, reached similar conclusions as the the peer-reviewed paper.


Who's arguing that Horners aren't partially West Eurasian?You are. Not only you, also Aware_Dog, Game Theory, and many other ideological pan-Negro oriented members. I don't know why, really. Perhaps it's a black pride thing, or anti-white sentiments or whatever. I don't know, and it's not really all that important. But you've been constantly denying for several years now, with invalid arguments, that Horners have significant OOA-admixture.

But back then, we didn't have access to genome-wide SNP tests, and most members had not tested their genome. Things are different today.

The typical bullshit arguments have been that Horners' similarity with Europeans and East Asians, are because Homo Sapiens originated in East Africa, and that Horners have ancestral genes, completely ignoring the possibility that Horners may very well have admixture from ancient Europeans (or Middle Easterners) and ancient Chinese/Japanese people (i.e., their ancestors), which could be linked with Y-DNA E as it is a twin-clade of Y-DNA D (almost exclusively East Asian marker) and that Y-DNA E is also common amongst Europeans and Middle Easterners.

Ideologies like Negrocentrism have always had the upper edge with Horners in this case. And the very few Horners who don't adhere to this dogma (like ethioboy), are ridiculed and demonised in many ways.

This is how "educated" Ezana et al. have been regarding this question.


No one.That's self-deception.


You're fighting straw man arguments.No.


The problem is you think all East African genetic uniqueness on the African continent is as a result, which is not the case.That's not the problem at all, but could you please explain this East African genetic uniqueness? I'm fairly certain you have no idea what that is or how to identify it with the proper SNPs.


I have no problem identifying the various population movements that have occurredYes you do, you have a problem with that. Repeat after me: Horners have Eurasian admixture from Semitic speakers.

You also have a problem admitting that race is biologically real (probably due to some racial inferiority complex). This, among other reasons, is why I don't take you seriously.


but you do have a problem accepting East African influence in West Asian populations.Not at all. I've been for quite some time now, stating very clearly that for example, some Arabs in the Arabian peninsula, and some Berbers, as well as some Egyptians, do indeed have Negro admixture.

The problem here is that you don't understand this is individual, and not even all ethnic Berbers and Arabs have Negroid admixture. Another problem is that you don't understand, that "Berbers" and "Arabs" with Negro admixture, are NOT Berbers and Arabs, not ethnically so anyway. That's what you don't understand. The reason you don't understand this is because you adhere to an anti-logic mindset.

Ethnic Arabs that are "pure" (i.e., homogeneous without recent SSA admixture), don't have Negro admixture. There are of course some Negro admixture here and there in north Africa and in the Arabian peninsula, but this particular admixture shouldn't be ethnically aggrandised to demographic regions where it doesn't exist, like Anatolia and south Europe (yes, I know there's some SSA admixture in some parts of southern Europe; most claims of SSA admixture in southern Europe is still bullshit though).


If East Africans are just "Negroes with West Eurasian admix," then West Asians would just be "West Eurasians with Negro admix," but both of these views are overly simplistic and don't do the scientific literature justice. The sword cuts both ways.This is dichotomy and it's pseudo-intellectual bullshit. The sword doesn't cut both ways in all cases.

Let me explain something to you: Y-DNA E does not equal Negro admixture. The fact that Y-DNA E is relatively common in South Europe and the Middle East, does not indicate it's Negro admixture.

https://www.forumbiodiversity.com/showthread.php?t=74

As you can see, drgs who is Russian, is Y-DNA E. In spite of that, his distance to Nigerian person on 23andMe, is 68.51% so that means he has no SSA admixture whatsoever, whereas I'm Y-DNA J1 and my distance to Negroes is higher than drgs' distance to Nigerians.

There are two possible scenarios for this:

1) Y-DNA E was initially autosomally sub-Saharan African, but subsequently became "white-washed" through miscegenation with West Eurasians, and a remnant of it survived in Europeans, to the point that it no longer has any effect whatsoever on the autosomal DNA.

2) Y-DNA E (along with Y-DNA C and D) was a Eurasian marker that later, at some point, became blackwashed when migrating back to Africa and had an abundance of proto-Negro women to mate with.

Now, I know you Ezana think it's educated to memorise every geographic instance of speculation about specific mutations in Y-DNA E. This is not an education however. I'm not disputing that Y-DNA E may have arisen in East Africa. What's more interesting is the autosomal DNA of the original Y-DNA E human, what tribe he belonged to, and how much of his descendants and offspring fathered the specific gene pools that today are "West Eurasian" and "sub-Saharan African".

Again, please try to understand, Y-DNA E doesn't tell us about admixture in the way you assume it does, and it could be the other way around, that the reason why Horners are partially West Eurasian is because when Y-DNA E was still predominantly a Eurasian marker, some of the Eurasian autosomal DNA contained in Y-DNA E men, were spread into the Horn of Africa. You must consider this scenario as a viable alternative to the current dogma that wogs have just as much SSA admixture as Horners have Eurasian admixture (blatantly false bullshit).

[PolskiMoc]

Polako's experimental and layman study, using raw data from 23andMe and STRUCTURE, reached similar conclusions as the the peer-reviewed paper.

You are. Not only you, also Aware_Dog, Game Theory, and many other ideological pan-Negro oriented members. I don't know why, really. Perhaps it's a black pride thing, or anti-white sentiments or whatever. I don't know, and it's not really all that important. But you've been constantly denying for several years now, with invalid arguments, that Horners have significant OOA-admixture.

But back then, we didn't have access to genome-wide SNP tests, and most members had not tested their genome. Things are different today.

The typical bullshit arguments have been that Horners' similarity with Europeans and East Asians, are because Homo Sapiens originated in East Africa, and that Horners have ancestral genes, completely ignoring the possibility that Horners may very well have admixture from ancient Europeans (or Middle Easterners) and ancient Chinese/Japanese people (i.e., their ancestors), which could be linked with Y-DNA E as it is a twin-clade of Y-DNA D (almost exclusively East Asian marker) and that Y-DNA E is also common amongst Europeans and Middle Easterners.

Ideologies like Negrocentrism have always had the upper edge with Horners in this case. And the very few Horners who don't adhere to this dogma (like ethioboy), are ridiculed and demonised in many ways.

This is how "educated" Ezana et al. have been regarding this question.

That's self-deception.

No.

That's not the problem at all, but could you please explain this East African genetic uniqueness? I'm fairly certain you have no idea what that is or how to identify it with the proper SNPs.

Yes you do, you have a problem with that. Repeat after me: Horners have Eurasian admixture from Semitic speakers.

You also have a problem admitting that race is biologically real (probably due to some racial inferiority complex). This, among other reasons, is why I don't take you seriously.

Not at all. I've been for quite some time now, stating very clearly that for example, some Arabs in the Arabian peninsula, and some Berbers, as well as some Egyptians, do indeed have Negro admixture.

The problem here is that you don't understand this is individual, and not even all ethnic Berbers and Arabs have Negroid admixture. Another problem is that you don't understand, that "Berbers" and "Arabs" with Negro admixture, are NOT Berbers and Arabs, not ethnically so anyway. That's what you don't understand. The reason you don't understand this is because you adhere to an anti-logic mindset.

Ethnic Arabs that are "pure" (i.e., homogeneous without recent SSA admixture), don't have Negro admixture. There are of course some Negro admixture here and there in north Africa and in the Arabian peninsula, but this particular admixture shouldn't be ethnically aggrandised to demographic regions where it doesn't exist, like Anatolia and south Europe (yes, I know there's some SSA admixture in some parts of southern Europe; most claims of SSA admixture in southern Europe is still bullshit though).

This is dichotomy and it's pseudo-intellectual bullshit. The sword doesn't cut both ways in all cases.

Let me explain something to you: Y-DNA E does not equal Negro admixture. The fact that Y-DNA E is relatively common in South Europe and the Middle East, does not indicate it's Negro admixture.

https://www.forumbiodiversity.com/showthread.php?t=74

As you can see, drgs who is Russian, is Y-DNA E. In spite of that, his distance to Nigerian person on 23andMe, is 68.51% so that means he has no SSA admixture whatsoever, whereas I'm Y-DNA J1 and my distance to Negroes is higher than drgs' distance to Nigerians.

There are two possible scenarios for this:

1) Y-DNA E was initially autosomally sub-Saharan African, but subsequently became "white-washed" through miscegenation with West Eurasians, and a remnant of it survived in Europeans, to the point that it no longer has any effect whatsoever on the autosomal DNA.

2) Y-DNA E (along with Y-DNA C and D) was a Eurasian marker that later, at some point, became blackwashed when migrating back to Africa and had an abundance of proto-Negro women to mate with.

Now, I know you Ezana think it's educated to memorise every geographic instance of speculation about specific mutations in Y-DNA E. This is not an education however. I'm not disputing that Y-DNA E may have arisen in East Africa. What's more interesting is the autosomal DNA of the original Y-DNA E human, what tribe he belonged to, and how much of his descendants and offspring fathered the specific gene pools that today are "West Eurasian" and "sub-Saharan African".

Again, please try to understand, Y-DNA E doesn't tell us about admixture in the way you assume it does, and it could be the other way around, that the reason why Horners are partially West Eurasian is because when Y-DNA E was still predominantly a Eurasian marker, some of the Eurasian autosomal DNA contained in Y-DNA E men, were spread into the Horn of Africa. You must consider this scenario as a viable alternative to the current dogma that wogs have just as much SSA admixture as Horners have Eurasian admixture (blatantly false bullshit).




I do happen to agree.

Especially with the SPlit in E1b1b & E1b1a.

It is rather Interesting that E1b1b people have Mostly FEMALE Genetic Lines of the Haplogroup (N) group from the MIDDLE EAST.

Some how the E1b1b people gained a high amount of Female Caucasian haplogroups from the Middle East.


E haplogroup starting in Africa is not exactly 100 percent.


There is DE Haplogroups in Tibet found to this day. Haplogroup D is older than E. Haplogroup D is only found in Asia.

But Haplogroup E is found in 3 continents. Africa, Asia & Europe.

Since DE was already in the Middle East. It is very likely that E1b1b & E1b1a could have formed from a E Haplogroup that was already in the Middle East & Africa.

The E1b1b could have actually been Eurasian.

[beyoku]

PolskiMoc

Anything is possible but why then do you have E3a* E3b* E3* not to mention E3c* E1* and E2* ALL found in the Horn of Africa?

Hence Semino et al


Semino et al. (2004)"This inference is further supported by the presence of additional Hg E lineal diversification and by the highest frequency of E-P2* and E-M35* in the same region. The distribution of E-P2* appears limited to eastern African peoples. The E-M35* lineage shows its highest frequency (19.2%) in the Ethiopian Oromo but with a wider distribution range than E-P2*."

and

Cruciani et al


"Several observations point to eastern Africa as the homeland for haplogroup E3b—that is, it had (1) the highest number of different E3b clades (table 1), (2) a high frequency of this haplogroup and a high microsatellite diversity, and, finally, (3) the exclusive presence of the undifferentiated E3b* paragroup."

No NEW information has been presented to challenge these current facts, the only thing i see is speculation. ALL of the Ancestral clades and pretty much ALL of the Parent/Brother and "Uncle" clades are found in Sub Saharan Africa. Eurasia really only has downstream derivatives of these ancestral clades that come from Africa. And what does finding 2 instances DE* in Tibet mean when they have found 12 non related DE* samples in WEST Africa?

I think there are arguments to be made for the location of origin for DE* or even E*. Arguments about the downstream markers such as E1, E2, E3a E3b and E3c having non-African origins is somewhat silly. Where are the FACTS at the base of such an argument?.................I dont see them. There is really no supporting evidence. Even when we look at the ages of the markers in East Africa even E3b (E1b1b1g / E-M293)) has a southern migration Age of 12kya~?

Elias


1) Y-DNA E was initially autosomally sub-Saharan African, but subsequently became "white-washed" through miscegenation with West Eurasians, and a remnant of it survived in Europeans, to the point that it no longer has any effect whatsoever on the autosomal DNA.


I personally think this is the case BUT i would have to say that its not E that has become "Whitewashed" it is Certain CLADES of E that have become "Whitewashed" Autosomally and ONLY in certain places. The subclade the seems to be "Whitewashed" on a universal basis regardless of location is E-V13. I dont know how this can be stated Scientifically though. Also I belive the this "Whitewashing" occurred relatively recent in comparicson to the age of E*, M35 or even M78* as a whole. My guess would be the last 6000 years or so. But that is my OPINION........Similar to the non African origin of E~ people have OPINIONS about.

[Bandar Qasim]

The only E sub-clade which is widespread in Eurasia is mainly E1b1b1a (E-M78), which has Egyptian/Libyan roots and didn’t specifically originate in Sub-Saharan Africa. So it’s ridiculous to claim E1b1b1a presence in Europe and the Middle East was spread by SSA /Horner looking men. Also, DE* and E* both have their highest diversity and frequency in Africa and not in Eurasia.

[beyoku]

The only E sub-clade which is widespread in Eurasia is mainly E1b1b1a (E-M78), which has Egyptian/Libyan roots and didn’t specifically originate in Sub-Saharan Africa. So it’s ridiculous to claim E1b1b1a presence in Europe and the Middle East was spread by SSA /Horner looking men. Also, DE* and E* both have their highest diversity and frequency in Africa and not in Eurasia.


So it’s ridiculous to claim E1b1b1a presence in Europe and the Middle East was spread by SSA /Horner looking men.

I ALSO take this to be true BUT at what point DID the E1b1b1~ presence in Europe point to a SSA Horn Phenotype? I am sure there was a time when IT DID. Likewise I am of the opinion that J~ incoming to North East Africa as well as R~ pointed to a Non African phenotype (caveat being some Eurasians have "African" phenotypes) I think this is more pertinent to discussing the issue of migration and phenotype change than to just dismiss it altogether OR be in the opiniton the ONLY African phenotype changes because of Admixture while Eurasian phenotype is Static regardless of signatures of African migration via uniparentals..........which seems like an all to common opinion.

Do you take Cruciani's "Libya/Egypt" to be true, or Bataglias "Sudanese Nubia" to be true for the M78* origin?

[Aware_Dog]

The E1b1b could have actually been Eurasian.

The subclade diversity of E1b1b in Eastern Africa, definitely points to its antiquity in the region, there really is nothing Eurasian about it, other than the fact that the lineage left East Africa and migrated en-route to Eurasia. Attached below is the E1b1b distribution in Eastern Africa according to Cruciani et. al 2004, note that E-M293 was not discovered back then, so someof the E-M35* could belong to that lineage.

This is in addition to it's parental mutation of E-P2* (E1b1*), estimated to have an age ~ 47,500 years ago according to Karafet et. al 2008, having its only significant presence in East Africa where it averages at ~ 12% in Ethiopia.

[EliasAlucard]

Will you answer something? Why is it that when certain "Caucasoids" (Elias, for instance) have a higher genetic similarity to Africans than Northern Europeans do, it's a case of "Caucasoid" diversity, however when certain Sub-Saharan Africans who demonstrably have the most genetic diversity in the world have a "pull" towards Eurasia, it's for only because of admixture?

What are you saying, that all Europeans are pure? Or is it that if you're more mixed than a European, then you're mixed?Looking at this thread again, I have to clarify a fallacious argument the Negrocentric camp is using, that bothers me. Sub-Saharan Africans having highest genetic variation, doesn't mean they can't be homogeneous and that whenever black people have a serious drag toward Caucasians, it can be disregarded by excusing it with "AFRICAN GENETIC VARIATION, TISHKOFF STUDY, YO!!!!!!11one". This is a very disturbing fallacy.

We Assyrians have a higher genetic variation than Europeans, which is in agreement with our Middle Eastern ancestry since that's where the original OOA group settled after the migrations from the African continent. So if I have a slightly higher affinity with Negroes than north Europeans do, that doesn't mean I have SSA admixture (and as has been corroborated by Polako, Dienekes and McDonald, I and other Assyrians have no Negroid admixture), it means our genome profile reads as it should read: we Assyrians have preserved some very ancient OOA variation Europeans have lost for various reasons.

And like Polako said, the Masaai can only be compared with partially Negroid admixed Caucasoids, like Berbers and Egyptians.

[Bandar Qasim]

I did not say Nigerians are more genetically bottlenecked than West Eurasians, but they certainly are more inbred. And that's why they have much higher genome similarity with each other. That's possibly also why they all look like identical clones, whereas West Eurasians have a large phenotypic variation.

The reason why Nigerians have very high IBS scores with each other (often over 77% while unrelated) is because these chips weren't designed to capture their genetic variance.

http://www.illumina.com/products/human_omni_express.ilmn?utm_medium=press_release&utm_campaign=2010_humanomniexpress

[Aware_Dog]

We Assyrians have a higher genetic variation than Europeans, which is in agreement with our Middle Eastern ancestry since that's where the original OOA group settled after the migrations from the African continent. So if I have a slightly higher affinity with Negroes than north Europeans do, that doesn't mean I have SSA admixture (and as has been corroborated by Polako, Dienekes and McDonald, I and other Assyrians have no Negroid admixture), it means our genome profile reads as it should read: we Assyrians have preserved some very ancient OOA variation Europeans have lost for various reasons.

I agree with hypothesis that some residual OOA signature was left intact in middle-easterners, but I don't think that is the only thing that is giving you a higher affinity with Negrids. I mean, E1b1b in the middle East did not appear out of thin air did it? E1b1b is a clear example of post OOA movement of Africans into the middle east. Don't you find it hard to believe that middle-easterners adopted Afroasiatic languages from the likely core area of origin with absolutely no genetic introgression ? I do. In the big scheme of things however, I would wager that since J1's presence in Ethiopia is most likely of ultimate Middle eastern origins I think those two lineages, J1 and E1b1b, cancel each other out in the areas that they are both present in.

[pgbk87]

The only E sub-clade which is widespread in Eurasia is mainly E1b1b1a (E-M78), which has Egyptian/Libyan roots and didn’t specifically originate in Sub-Saharan Africa. So it’s ridiculous to claim E1b1b1a presence in Europe and the Middle East was spread by SSA /Horner looking men. Also, DE* and E* both have their highest diversity and frequency in Africa and not in Eurasia.

Did you read this??? Case closed...;):p

[Doctoris Scientia]

The only E sub-clade which is widespread in Eurasia is mainly E1b1b1a (E-M78), which has Egyptian/Libyan roots and didn’t specifically originate in Sub-Saharan Africa. So it’s ridiculous to claim E1b1b1a presence in Europe and the Middle East was spread by SSA /Horner looking men.

I don't understand how you made the above conclusion. Correct! E1b1b1a originated in the vicinity of Libyan/Egyptian/Sudanese, i.e. Northeast Africa. So I guess your under the assumption that the Sahara served as sometime of buffer zone, restricting Saharo-Tropical Africans to territories south of the great desert? Obviously that's not the case... simply by eye-balling the inhabitants of southern Libya, Upper Egypt, and North Sudan. In addition to the above, the Sahara only relatively recently expanded to it's current state, the "buffer zone" would've been further norther, around the current political division between Egypt and Sudan. Also, the anthropological studies from the region during the purposed time of origin of E1b1b1a in the vicinity of Northeast Africa indicates a population that very African, i.e. "Negroid". Also, the Mushabian, the likely source of E1b1b1a in Western Eurasia, clustered with other African populations; they would've been out of Lower Egypt into the Sinai and Negev, and assimilate themselves with the indigenous SW Asians in the region, i.e. the Kebaran of the Levant. The product of this admixture were the Natufians, the originators of Western Eurasian Neolithic; who cluster in between Africans and Eurasians. The African affinities decrease as you move away from the Levant.

"According to Bar-Yosef the Natufian culture emerged from the mixing of the Kebaran (already indigenous to the Levant) and the Mushabian (migrants into the Levant from North Africa). Modern analyses comparing 24 craniofacial measurements reveal a predominantly cosmopolitan population within the pre-Neolithic, Neolithic and Bronze Age Fertile Crescent, supporting the view that a diverse population of peoples occupied this region during these time periods. In particular, evidence demonstrates a strong Sub-Saharan African presence within the region, especially among the Epipalaeolithic Natufians of Israel.These studies further argue that over time the Sub-Saharan influences would have been "diluted" out of the genetic picture due to interbreeding between Neolithic migrants from the Near East and indigenous hunter-gatherers whom they came in contact with."

http://www.jstor.org/pss/25130479

"Ricaut et al. (2008) associate the Sub-Saharan influences detected in the Natufian samples with the migration of E1b1b lineages from East Africa to the Levant and then into Europe. Entering the late mesolithic Natufian culture, the E1b1b1a2 (E-V13) sub-clade has been associated with the spread of farming from the Middle East into Europe either during or just before the Neolithic transition. E1b1b1 lineages are found throughout Europe but are distributed along a South-to-North cline, with a E1b1b1a mode[disambiguation needed] in the Balkans. "Recently, it has been proposed that E3b originated in sub-Saharan Africa and expanded into the Near East and northern Africa at the end of the Pleistocene. E3b lineages would have then been introduced from the Near East into southern Europe by immigrant farmers, during the Neolithic expansion." Also, "a Mesolithic population carrying Group III lineages with the M35/M215 mutation expanded northwards from sub-Saharan to North Africa and the Levant. The Levantine population of farmers that dispersed into Europe during and after the Neolithic carried these African Group III M35/M215 lineages, together with a cluster of Group VI lineages characterized by M172 and M201 mutations.""

[Bandar Qasim]

The Natufian data is limited, it is only based on 4 samples with very archaic traits. The craniofacial data on the Ancient Egyptians and Somalis were nothing like those of the Natufians, so I don't see how it can be explained by influence from that region.

[Humanist]

Although panned by many it seems, I think there was something (at least for Assyrians) of potential value in the results reported in Moorjani et al. If it is not already apparent, based on the many analyses of the Behar Jewish data over the last several months, by David in particular, and Dienekes and Zack of the Harappa project as well, the Mizrahim Jews (here including only Iraqi, Iranian, Uzbek, Georgian, and Azeri), are not in insignificant part, Mesopotamian in origin. The Iraqi Jews appear to have retained the most Levantine genes out of the lot. They are also, based on the observed results (eg ASD), the Mizrahim population who best proxy for Assyrians. If Moorjani et al. had sampled Assyrians, I reckon the estimated generations to time of ADMIXTURE would fall in between the Iraqi Jewish and North Italian estimates. A potentially very useful bit as it relates to our understanding of the spread of Semitic languages in general, and in northern Mesopotamia specifically.

Not including the margin of error, and based on generations of 30 years, the North Italian ADMIXTURE event was estimated to have occurred 5400 YBP (~3390 BCE). The Iraqi Jews, 3450 YBP (~1440 BCE). The Akkadians, and other Semitic-speaking peoples (ie Amurru), entered the picture, it is believed, in northern Mesopotamia, in the middle of the 3rd millennium BCE.

And, again, unless it is just "noise," my father's Dr. McDonald painting did show one small African segment. The Iraqi Mandaean the same, albeit a tad bit larger. My painting contained two small African segments.

[Doctoris Scientia]

The Natufian data is limited, it is only based on 4 samples with very archaic traits. The craniofacial data on the Ancient Egyptians and Somalis were nothing like those of the Natufians, so I don't see how it can be explained by influence from that region.

What to mean by Archaic? Broad? :lol:

The Natufians predated the political establishment of Egypt, and are not exactly directly related to the people that built Ancient Egypt. Neither are they really associated with Somalis. There's been several anthropological studies on the Natufians, which indicates a mixed population in the Levant region with links to Africa. In addition to the anthropological data that we have on pre-Dynastic Egypt, "Nubia", and Central Sahara, which again verifies the link between the likely "originators" of E-M78 and other Saharo-Tropical Africans. Anthropological and Archaeological. Why should their African ancestry or phenotype be in question, is beyond me. Only in Africa I guess, do we waste time trying to prove the obvious.

[Humanist]

Although panned by many it seems, I think there was something (at least for Assyrians) of potential value in the results reported in Moorjani et al. If it is not already apparent, based on the many analyses of the Behar Jewish data over the last several months, by David in particular, and Dienekes and Zack of the Harappa project as well, the Mizrahim Jews (here including only Iraqi, Iranian, Uzbek, Georgian, and Azeri), are not in insignificant part, Mesopotamian in origin. The Iraqi Jews appear to have retained the most Levantine genes out of the lot. They are also, based on the observed results (eg ASD), the Mizrahim population who best proxy for Assyrians. If Moorjani et al. had sampled Assyrians, I reckon the estimated generations to time of ADMIXTURE would fall in between the Iraqi Jewish and North Italian estimates. A potentially very useful bit as it relates to our understanding of the spread of Semitic languages in general, and in northern Mesopotamia specifically.

Not including the margin of error, and based on generations of 30 years, the North Italian ADMIXTURE event was estimated to have occurred 5400 YBP (~3390 BCE). The Iraqi Jews, 3450 YBP (~1440 BCE). The Akkadians, and other Semitic-speaking peoples (ie Amurru), entered the picture, it is believed, in northern Mesopotamia, in the middle of the 3rd millennium BCE.

Genomewide diversity in the Levant (Haber et al. 2013) (http://www.plosgenetics.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pgen.1003316)
Haber et al.


ChromoPainter’s coancestry matrix (Figure 3B, Figure S4) shows the haplotype chunks donated from the world populations to the Levantines and shows that Jordanians, Palestinians, and Syrians receive more chunks from sub-Saharan Africans and from Middle Easterners compared with other Levantines. We explored the sub-Saharan/Middle Eastern gene flow to the Levantines further by employing a previously developed method (ROLLOFF) [8] that estimates the time since admixture with sub-Saharan African genes using the rate of exponential decline of admixture LD. Previous simulations [8] showed that bias from ROLLOFF estimates is removed with increased sample size, so we used the entire Lebanese religious subgroups after carrying out a rigorous outlier removal based on PCA [17] and keeping the main core clusters (336 Christians, 85 Druze, 747 Muslims) (Text S1). We found that Christians have the oldest admixture dates (2,375-2,025 years ago, y.a) with bounds coinciding with the decline of Phoenicia and the control of the region by the Hellenistic rulers. The time since the observed Druze admixture (1,275-1,025 y.a) closely precedes the development of the Druze faith and their divergence from other Muslims. The Muslims appear to have maintained contact with populations carrying sub-Saharan genes until 675-625 y.a, which overlaps with the rise of the Ottoman Empire and formation of a semi-autonomous state in Lebanon. Historical events coinciding with our observed admixture dates are some of the examples of population processes and demographic events that were occurring during this period in the Levant. These historical events, in addition to cultural adoptions and transitions, may have contributed to the differences among the religious groups through facilitating or restricting contact with other Middle Easterners carrying the sub-Saharan genes. It should also be noted here that ROLLOFF estimates dates assuming instantaneous mixture, without distinguishing between the patterns expected for instantaneous admixture and continuous gene flow. Previous simulations [8] show that for continuous gene flow, the dates from ROLLOFF reflect the average of mixture dates over a range of times, hence the date should be interpreted only as an average number.

[EliasAlucard]

^^ But we are not Levantines, nor are we Muslim.

[ethioboy]

^^ But we are not Levantines, nor are we Muslim.

The bolded part was in reference to lebanese christians, of which I believe assyrians cluster quite close to genetically (at least based on arbitrary compare genes scores).

[EliasAlucard]

The bolded part was in reference to lebanese christians, of which I believe assyrians cluster quite close to genetically (at least based on arbitrary compare genes scores).We're not Lebanese Christians either (that's almost like saying we're Palestinian Christians...), and heck, I was even born in Lebanon and I'm of a Christian background like all Assyrians, but that still doesn't make me a Lebanese Christian. All Assyrians trace their ancestry to northern Mesopotamia. That other Middle Eastern Christians in Lebanon or elsewhere might have tiny Negroid admixture, doesn't mean Assyrians must have it too as some sort of guilt by [genetic similarity] association.

[Humanist]

^^ But we are not Levantines, nor are we Muslim.

What are you talking about? Of course we are not Levantine, nor Muslim.

- - - Updated - - -


That other Middle Eastern Christians in Lebanon or elsewhere might have tiny Negroid admixture, doesn't mean Assyrians must have it too as some sort of guilt by [genetic similarity] association.

Oh, I see. Well, if the "Semites" originated in the southern Levant, it is not beyond the realm of possibilities that some of them carried at least small amounts of African admixture.

[EliasAlucard]

What are you talking about? Of course we are not Levantine, nor Muslim.You quoted yourself in a post in which you discussed possible Negroid admixture in Assyrians, and you cited some study about Negroid admixture in Lebanese Christians and other Levantine Muslims. How does their Negroid admixture apply to us?


Oh, I see. Well, if the "Semites" originated in the southern Levant, it is not beyond the realm of possibilities that some of them carried at least small amounts of African admixture.They didn't, and even if they did, there were no proto-Negroes there at the time.

[Humanist]

You quoted yourself in a post in which you discussed possible Negroid admixture in Assyrians, and you cited some study about Negroid admixture in Lebanese Christians and other Levantine Muslims. How does their Negroid admixture apply to us?

They didn't, and even if they did, there were no proto-Negroes there at the time.

There is no evidence of African presence in Mesopotamia, based on physical anthropology.* Yes. So, I am speculating, given what has been reported regarding the genomes of some Middle Easterners and Europeans.

I do not know if the same is true for the southern Levant. As far as the physical anthropology is concerned. Can you refer me to a source? So far, based on the limited aDNA data from the region, mtDNA haplogroups associated with Africans (i.e. L) have been restricted to Syria. The majority of Middle Eastern mtDNA aDNA data to date appears to be West Eurasian in origin.

* (From previous posts of mine)

1
Henry Field on ancient crania from Babylon

http://i1096.photobucket.com/albums/g326/dok101/babylonian_crania.jpg


2
Morphometric analysis of the dentition from Bronze Age Tell Leilan, Syria, a contribution to the dental anthropology of ancient Mesopotamia (2001)

Scott Haddow, University of Alberta


Non-metric analysis of the permanent and deciduous dentition of the northern Mesopotamian Bronze Age site of Tell Leilan, when compared with similar analyses conducted world wide and in the Near East, reveals a relatively consistent affiliation with Western Eurasian, or Caucasoid populations, although certain traits share affinities to both Western Eurasian and Sunda-Pacific populations. Men compared with living and archaeological Near Eastern populations, the Tell Leilan sample appear to exhibit higher frequencies of Western Eurasian traits than the living Near Eastern populations. These later populations exhibit somewhat higher frequencies of stereotypical Mongoloid traits (i.e. UII shoveling, UMZ hypocone size) which may be the result of cumulative gene flow between continental populations since ancient times Indeed, the Near East has been a thoroughfare for the movements of population between fiai, Asia and Europe for millennia.

[Not from study:]

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2380/2048346982_47c5f7583c.jpg


3
The dentition of the first agriculturists [Jarmo, Iraq].

ALBERT A. DAHLBERG
Am J Phys Anthropol. 1960 Dec;18:243-56.

From the discussion:


Certain Arab groups are known to have a marked and most unexpected reduction in the size of the metacone of the maxillary second molars as well as distinctive inter-tooth-group size proportions. These features are not found in the Jarmo teeth. Rather, the Jarmo dentition resembles more the Indo-European type. It also holds a close resemblance to that of the Anatolians (Senyurek, '52).