User Tag List

Page 14 of 14 FirstFirst ... 4 12 13 14
Results 131 to 137 of 137

Thread: 2017 Ancient Egyptian mummy genomes Study - Officially Refuted14 days old

  1. #131
    Regular Member
    Junior Member Kanun's Avatar
    Last Online
    2018-10-13 @ 22:45
    Join Date
    2015-03-11
    Posts
    51
    Gender
    Y-DNA
    E-V13
    mtDNA
    U5a
    Albania Union for the Mediterranean

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Arch Hades View Post
    How much ANA in modern SSA though? If the Yoruba are 12% Taforalt-like that's only about 6% ANA. Did Lazaridis have any numbers for other SSAs? Does Mota have it? Guess this is just the tip of the iceberg. Once more aDNA from Africa comes in we'll start seeing models and flow charts for Africans including SSAs.
    Are u seriously believing him lol? That guy is completely crazy, posting in his own favour everytime Ancient Egyptians are brought in. Inferiority complexed imposed by Anglo-Saxons.

  2. # ADS
    Advertisement bot
    Join Date
    2013-03-24
    Posts
    All threads
       
     

  3. #132
    Senior Moderator
    Plant of Life = Biological Magic 麻 EliasAlucard's Avatar
    Last Online
    @
    Join Date
    2009-10-22
    Posts
    14,272
    Location
    Sweden
    Gender
    Age
    33
    Y-DNA
    J1a2a1a2-P58+
    mtDNA
    H5a
    Race
    Caucasian
    Phenotype
    Alpinid
    Metaethnos
    proto-Semitic
    Ethnicity
    Assyrian/Armenian
    Politics
    Environment, Cannabis
    Religion
    Secular Agnostic
    Assyria Assyria 1913-1923 Armenia Lebanon Sweden Greece

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sho Nuff View Post
    48 HOURS and you recessives still haven't approved my response to Arch Hades. 48 hours Pathetic!
    Sorry about that, it only took me 10 days to approve your crackpot post.
    Last edited by EliasAlucard; 2018-10-13 at 23:10.
    ReactOS <--- support this project so that we can get rid of Windows!
    Ubuntu MATE 16.04.1 LTS | PRISM-Break! | Windows7sins

    “A wise man makes his own decisions; an ignorant man follows public opinion.” ― Chinese proverb

    “Every decent man is ashamed of the government he lives under.” ― H. L. Mencken

    “The only good is knowledge and the only evil is ignorance.” ― Socrates

    “Damnant quod non intelligunt.” ― Latin proverb

    Quoted for truth:
    Quote Originally Posted by Alaron View Post
    Anatolian Urhemait supporters are mostly butthurt Meds.
    For the lulz:
    Quote Originally Posted by drgs View Post
    Poland is a misunderstanding. It is a country which lies on the frontier between western and slavic world, and which combines elements of both.
    In fact, they are not even the Europeans in strict sense, meaning European as in bearing the responsibility and understanding of European interests. Poland has always been an subordinate country, on one side sucking German dick, on the other side -- Russian one, some kind of "novice" europeans, who are full of inferiority complexes, hysteria and obsessity neuroses. This is also true for all Baltic countries

  4. #133
    Established Member
    Junior Member Arch Hades's Avatar
    Last Online
    Today @ 03:26
    Join Date
    2012-02-28
    Posts
    1,094
    Gender
    Age
    31
    Y-DNA
    J2b2*
    mtDNA
    H1
    Race
    Caucasoid
    Metaethnos
    White American
    Ethnicity
    Greco-Mediterranean
    Phenotype
    Pompeii frescoe
    Politics
    I don't do politics
    Religion
    Panentheism
    Germany Japan Italy

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by EliasAlucard View Post
    Sorry about that, it only took me 10 days to approve your crackpot post.
    Lol you shouldn't have. Now I have to respond to that nut.

  5. #134
    Established Member
    Crossfaded
    Last Online
    @
    Join Date
    2011-06-01
    Posts
    2,113
    Gender
    Race
    Australoid
    Ethnicity
    Moluccan/Ashkenazi
    Phenotype
    Quadracial
    Religion
    Seeking a higher power
    Indonesia Timor Leste Papua New Guinea Israel Star of David Samoa Romania

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sho Nuff View Post
    A couple of Weeks ago an official peer reviewed debunking of took place by leading authority of the Bio-Cultural Origins of Ancient "Egypt" S.O.Y. Keita and others. The graphic below highlights the most pivotal points of this epic debunking, and the subsequently to the Mayonnaise party that has been thrown. The length that some Caucasians and their lapdogs go through to try to steal the history of ancient Africa from the hands of the real black Africans of the land is a testament to how little they have actually contributed this World. For 200 years now they have presenting bogus studies and making ridiculous claims (such as a racial distinction or distinction period between Nubia and Kemet when it was really a continuous river valley civilization) to present themselves as ancient Africans, and more importantly to them make sure that our people's memory of our ancestry has been tainted. They need to stop, and accept the truth. The problem is that they have an ideology of genetically recessive superiority over genetically dominant populations, and acknowledging the fact that the springboard for World civilizations were created by the original genetically dominant melaninated African people would leave them out of place.

    FROM: -Gourdine JP, Keita SOY, Gourdine JL, Anselin A, 2018. Ancient Egyptian Genomes from northern Egypt



    Quotes from the study

    Study implied that ancient Egyptians came from the Asia, and that "sub-Saharan" Africans are recent due to the Islamic slave trades:
    QUOTES: “Schuenemann et al.1 seemingly suggest, based largely on the results of an ancient DNA study of later period remains from northern Egypt, that the ‘ancient Egyptians’ (AE) as an entity came from Asia (the Near East, NE), and that modern Egyptians “received additional sub-Saharan African (SSA) admixtures in recent times” after the latest period of the pharaonic era due to the “trans-Saharan slave trade and Islamic expansion..” There are alternative interpretations of the results but which were not presented as is traditionally done, with the exception of the admission that results from southern Egyptians may have been different. The alternative interpretations involve three major considerations: 1) sampling and methodology, 2) historiography and 3) definitions as they relate to populations, origins and evolution.”Tiny sample sizes: “The whole genome sample size is too small (n=3) to accurately permit a discussion of all Egyptian population history from north to south.”

    Other DNA data show substantial African affinity:Results that are likely reliable are from studies that analyzed short tandem repeats (STRs) from Amarna royal mummies5 (1,300 BC), and of Ramesses III (1,200 BC)6; Ramesses III had the Y chromosome haplogroup E1b1a, an old African lineage7. Our analysis of STRs from Amarna and Ramesside royal mummies with popAffiliator18 based on the same published data5,6 indicates a 41.7% to 93.9% probability of SSA affinities (see Table 1); most of the individuals had a greater probability of affiliation with “SSA” which is not the only way to be “African”- a point worth repeating.”

    Arbitrary definition of some DNA haplogroups as ‘Asian’ problematic: “Conceptually what genetic markers are considered to be “African” or “Asian” .. For example, the E1b1b1 (M35/78) lineage found in one Abusir el-Meleq sample is found not only in northern Africa, but is also well represented in eastern Africa7 and perhaps was taken to Europe across the Mediterranean before the Holocene (Trombetta, personal communication). E lineages are found in high frequency (>70%) among living Egyptians in Adaima9. The authors define all mitochondrial M1 haplogroups as “Asian” which is problematic. M1 has been postulated to have emerged in Africa10, and there is no convincing evidence supporting an M1 ancestor in Asia: many M1 daughter haplogroups (M1a) are clearly African in origin and history10. The M1a1, M1a2a, M1a1i, M1a1e variants found in the Abusir el-Meleq samples1 predate Islam and are abundant in SSA groups10, particularly in East Africa.

    So called “sub-Saharan” patterns in place from the beginning in Egypt and are not merely the product of the ‘slave trade.’ “Furthermore, SSA groups indicated to have contributed to modern Egypt do not match the Muslim trade routes that have been well documented11 as SSA groups from the great lakes and southern African regions were largely absent in the internal trading routes that went north to Egypt. It is important to note that “SSA” influence may not be due to a slave trade, an overdone explanation; the green Sahara is to be considered as Egypt is actually in the eastern Sahara. SSA affinities of modern Egyptians from Abusir El-Meleq might be attributed to ancient early settlers as there is a notable frequency of the “Bushmen canine”- deemed a SSA trait in Predynastic samples dating to 4,000 BC from Adaima, Upper Egypt. Haplogroup L0, usually associated with southern Africans, is present in living Egyptians in Adaima and could represent the product of an ancient “ghost population” from the Green Sahara that contributed widely. Distributions and admixtures in the African past may not match current “SSA” groups12.”

    Definition of ‘African’ stereotypical, even as strangely, authors exclude many actual African samples near Egypt from the data
    “Schuenemann et al.1 seem to implicitly suggest that only SSA equals Africa and that there are no interconnections between the various regions of Africa not rooted in the slave trade, a favorite trope. It has to be noted too that that in the Islamic armies that entered Egypt that there were a notable number of eastern Africans. It is not clear why there is an emphasis on ‘sub-Saharan’ when no Saharan or supra-Saharan population samples--empirical or modelled are considered; furthermore, there is no one way to be “sub-Saharan.” In this study northern tropical Africans, such as lower and upper Nubians and adjacent southern Egyptians and Saharans were not included as comparison groups, as noted by the authors themselves.”




    Before this refutation was issued, people with good common sense had already put the foolery of the mentioned study on full blast as shown by the sister below.

    The Egyptian DNA case : truth and lies
    On May 31st 2017, all the media of the Western world announced that the DNA of 90 Egyptian mummies has just been finally deciphered. They all seem to be of Middle Eastern and European origin. The information goes around the world, delights the supporters of a white Egypt and shakes the Africans and the African diaspora, who had already taken ownership of this civilization. We have got into possession this study and we will demonstrate here that it is dishonest from the beginning to the end, and that the Egyptian civilization belongs – if proof still needed – strictly to the Black African world.


    Queen Ndjemt, daughter of Pharaoh Ramesu Kha-m-Waset (Ramesses XI) and wife of pharaoh-priest Heri Horo. Her father was one of the last pharaohs of the great indigenous Egyptian dynasties, around 1070 BC. As you can see, she was undoubtedly African. Most likely her hair had been involuntarily straightened during the mummification process, as we have shown here.

    How to determine which people are at the origin of a civilization?
    The choice of sites

    Imagine today that the French civilization has disappeared and that in 2000 years we try to determine which people were at its origin. The first thing we should do is to consult the documents of the time period to find out what were the important places of this ancient territory. Then we would realize that the greatest people of France were buried in royal tombs in the Parisian Region and also at the Panthéon in Paris. After excavating the remains it would be easy to determine that the French civilization was the work of the white people.

    If, on the other hand, one were to go to Marseilles in the south, so many Berbers and Arabs would be found in the cemeteries, and one would falsely conclude that France was the work of the Berbers and the Arabs. It is the same with the American civilization today. You would have to go to the Arlington Cemetery in Virginia and not to any cemetery in Miami filled with Puerto Ricans, Cubans, Venezuelans, Nicaraguans etc…

    The choice of the Time Period

    In the same way, the historical documents would show that there was an influx of Arabs and Berbers in the city of Marseilles during the middle of the 20th century. If we insist on knowing who were the founders of the city, the older remains, those of the lower antiquity in particular, would be indicative.

    Therefore, in order to determine the people at the origin of a civilization, everything we should begin with the historical documentation, in order to know which sites to search and what time period to take into account.

    What do the Egyptian historical documents say?

    They say this :

    4000 BC: birth, between Sudan and southern Egypt, of the very first dynasty; which will eventually conquer the whole north around 3300 BC.

    • From 3300 BC to 1730 BC ruled only these dynasties originating from southern Egypt and Sudan.
    • Between 1730 BC and 1540 BC, a dynasty of invaders, called Hyksos, probably white, conquered the north of Egypt. The indigenous kings withdrew to their original bastion, the south.
    • Between 1540 BC and 1070 BC, the indigenous dynasties conquered the north and ruled over the whole kingdom again.
    • Between 1070 BC and 663 BC, black Libyans associated with Whites ruled over the north, the indigenous authority retreating, once again, to the south. Then the Sudanese came and ruled over the whole territory.
    • Between 663 BC and 332 BC, a chaotic succession of white Persian invaders and Egyptians ruled the country.
    • From 332 BC to 641 AD, the Greeks and the Romans, who entered by the north, dominated.
    • And from 641 AD to the present day we have an Arab domination, with Turkish and British intervals.


    What does that mean? It means that if we want to accurately genetically determine who the ancient Egyptians were, we should take the remains of the Kings from the south, at the Valley of the Kings, in Luxor. And top priority should be given to the remains that dated between 4000 BC and 1730 BC and those dated between 1540 BC and 1070 BC. This has already been done.

    What do the previous genetic researches say about the ancient Egyptians?

    The main study dates from 2012 and was conducted by the US laboratory DNA Tribes. It dealt with three of the most famous Pharaohs: Amenhotep III, Tutankhamen and another Pharaoh, whose identity is uncertain. It should be Smenkaré or Akhenaten. Moreover the maternal grandparents of Akhenaton, the influential priests Yuya and Tuya have been included in the study. These kings ruled around 1400 BC, so in the reliable period. The result is unquestionable: they come from Africa, south of Sahara.



    DNA Tribes Results : Index of genetic compatibility of 326 with Southern Africa, 323 with Great Lakes and 83 with Central Africa and West Africa. This study is the absolute reference in genetics to ancient Egyptians. For comparison, the Semitic whites, European or Berbers are between 3 and 7 of compatibility.

    In addition to that, in 2012 a study conducted by Zahi Hawass and al. published in the BMJ showed that the pharaoh Ramesu Hekayunu (Ramesses III) – who ruled around 1200 BC, carries the E1b1a gene, which is an African gene. This gene is quasi-specific to populations of Africa south of Sahara and to Africans in the Americas. It is maximal among Angolans for example. The Westerners have remained silent on these two studies, which contrasts with today’s media hustle and bustle. They pretend that the present study is the first.

    In 2013, DNA Tribes went further with the DNA of Ramesu Hekayunu (Ramses III) and his son Pentawret. The results are similar : they are related to the peoples of the Great Lakes, Southern Africa, Central Africa/West Africa, and the horn of Africa.




    On the left Tutankhamen and his wife Queen Ankh-Sen-Imana, daughter of Akhenaten and Nefertiti ; On the right the great pharaoh Imanahotep Hekawaset (Amenhotep III), father of Akhenaten.


    Pharaoh Ramesu Hekayunu (Ramesses III) at the left
    Pharaoh Akhenaten with his African features at the right

    What has actually done the study that makes so much noise today?

    The study by Johannes Krause of the Max Planck Institute in Germany pre-selected 91 mummies found in one (1) cemetery in northern Egypt. It is a single site. Was Professor Johannes Krause afraid to fetch the Egyptians in the South, where they are crowded?


    Here is, in north of Egypt, the place where the mummies of Johannes Krause come from. This image comes from his own paper. Look far at the bottom right, it is Luxor, where the Pharaohs are buried. Even when the pharaoh died to the north, his body was taken to the south, just as today, people still prefer to be buried in their villages. The Egyptians knew perfectly well that they came from the south.

    But that’s not all. Of these 91 mummies, how many are dated in the time periods we are interested in (4000-1730, 1540-1070)? Well! simple answer: 4. 4 mummies out of the 91 selected date from the great periods of ruling by native Egyptians. Only 4 mummies date from the time period before 1070 BC. All the others are recent. And how many of these 91 date from the domination of the Greek and Roman whites? 48! i.e most of them. This sample is then invalid and cannot determine the origin of the ancient Egyptians. Should we continue our critic of this study? We can stop here. But let’s be kind and continue.

    Of the 91 mummies how many were actually genetically analyzed to determine who the ancient Egyptians were? Get this : 3. Johannes Krause begins by saying: “Here we present 90 mitochondrial genomes as well as genome-wide data sets from three individuals obtained from Egyptian mummies”. The study that makes so much noise all over the world today and which is supposed to have determined who the Egyptians were is based on only 3 mummies. 3 !!!!!!

    Of these 3 mummies, how many date from the great ruling by the native Egyptians? Simple answer: 0. The mummy JK2134 dates from between 776 BC and 669 BC, the mummy JK2911 dates from 769-560 BC. The mummy JK2888 dates from 97-2 BC. All these mummies date from the time when Egypt in the north was dominated by white foreigners or had a large white immigrant population. These mummies cannot, in any way, be representative of the people or the kings of ancient Egypt.


    This is a summary image of the study in question. 3 mummies!

    In short the mummies supposed to say that the Egyptians were white:

    • Come from a single and irrelevant site.
    • Were taken in the north of Egypt which was repeatedly under the rule of white foreigners and partly populated by white immigrants.
    • Are only 3, which is ridiculously small.
    • Do not date, for any of them, from the ruling of the great indigenous Egyptians.
    • All of them date from the late period, that is a period of decline and occupation, where the whites had infiltrated from the north.


    This sample has therefore zero value. And there’s no point in continuing to discuss it. So do the Westerners want to pride themselves on the fact that they found 3 whites out of 10 million ancient Egyptians? They can have those them. We are not stingy. According to their heretical logic, in 2000 years Jamaicans will be found in the British tombs and it will then be concluded that Queen Elizabeth II and the English were black. In 2000 years, Indian people will be found in the Tanzanian tombs. It will also be concluded that Julius Nyerere and the Tanzanians were Indian.

    Moreover, the University of Tübingen, in Germany, to which is attached Mr Krause, has been talked about recently. They pretended that a European monkey with premolars tied is the first hominid in the world, meaning that humanity was not born in Africa. We are therefore dealing here with racist ideologists.

    The West really thought we were going to stop at the sensational title of this study and not go deep into it. This is terrible misjudgment of the new African generation Cheikh Anta Diop has created. We want to say that nothing and no one will ever put us back in the mental condition of eternal slave again. With science, we will have no concession and no pity, with those who dare to put themselves through our indestructible bond with our glorious ancestors. Our determination is total.

    Black Africans are the civilizers of humanity and they will never come down from this historic pedestal anymore. They invented civilization, in Africa, and introduced it to Asia, America and Europe. Everyone will learn to get back to his place in history. It is with this new pride, this infinite confidence in our capacities, that we will rebuild Africa.

    That being said, considering the shock wave this study has created in the black communities, we believe that the maximum number of Africans must acquire solid scientific knowledge in order to be able to decipher the lies contained in the scientific literature. But above all it is also urgent that we control our media space in order to make our voice heard; it is the voice of truth.

    Life, Health and Strength to the Energies of Our Ancestors!

    Hotep !

    By : Lisapo ya Kama
    No worries,they also try and steal the Exploration and Sailing accomplishments of my Austronesian ancestors,despite us being the first to visit the Indigineous South Americans and the first to colonize the Pacific and Madagascar.All that,with no compass and only maps of the stars in reference.We were the first true Voyagers.And before us,the native Australoids who were also my other ancestors who did that while Europeans were still in the Middle East or even Africa.

  6. #135
    Established Member
    Junior Member Arch Hades's Avatar
    Last Online
    Today @ 03:26
    Join Date
    2012-02-28
    Posts
    1,094
    Gender
    Age
    31
    Y-DNA
    J2b2*
    mtDNA
    H1
    Race
    Caucasoid
    Metaethnos
    White American
    Ethnicity
    Greco-Mediterranean
    Phenotype
    Pompeii frescoe
    Politics
    I don't do politics
    Religion
    Panentheism
    Germany Japan Italy

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by upyours View Post
    No worries,they also try and steal the Exploration and Sailing accomplishments of my Austronesian ancestors,despite us being the first to visit the Indigineous South Americans and the first to colonize the Pacific and Madagascar.All that,with no compass and only maps of the stars in reference.We were the first true Voyagers.And before us,the native Australoids who were also my other ancestors who did that while Europeans were still in the Middle East or even Africa.
    So there are people who say these Australoid people who supposedly sailed to Madagascar were White? Or Near Eastern or something?

  7. #136
    Established Member
    Crossfaded
    Last Online
    @
    Join Date
    2011-06-01
    Posts
    2,113
    Gender
    Race
    Australoid
    Ethnicity
    Moluccan/Ashkenazi
    Phenotype
    Quadracial
    Religion
    Seeking a higher power
    Indonesia Timor Leste Papua New Guinea Israel Star of David Samoa Romania

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Arch Hades View Post
    So there are people who say these Australoid people who supposedly sailed to Madagascar were White? Or Near Eastern or something?
    No,just that Austronesians are rarely acknowledged as the most renowned Explorers that we are,as well as the most ancient.Threads such as "Why are Europeans the race of Explorers."

  8. #137
    Established Member
    Junior Member Arch Hades's Avatar
    Last Online
    Today @ 03:26
    Join Date
    2012-02-28
    Posts
    1,094
    Gender
    Age
    31
    Y-DNA
    J2b2*
    mtDNA
    H1
    Race
    Caucasoid
    Metaethnos
    White American
    Ethnicity
    Greco-Mediterranean
    Phenotype
    Pompeii frescoe
    Politics
    I don't do politics
    Religion
    Panentheism
    Germany Japan Italy

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sho Nuff View Post
    Ok let's play that game. If the studies mechanism's were not completely bunk, then provide us with some follow up studies (including cultural analysis) that supports a narrative of close bio-cultural affinities between the ancient Kemites and modern Afghanis, since that is the sample that the plot that you're touting as truth is showing an overlapping with. Show where their language and spiritual systems came from those people. Show how those people carry on the traditions of ancient Kemetic culture. Since you like to pass off BS studies as legitimate then I'm going to hold you to the conclusions of this study coupled with your own interpretations of it.
    There's nothing bunk about Hanihara's 2005 Dental-Metric study. It compared both predynastic and 12-29th dynastic ancient Egyptians to a variety of world populations, and Egyptians did cluster on the outskirts of West Asia close to modern North India and modern Afganistan. It compared them to variety of Sub-Saharan Africans including a modern Horn population (Somali) too. So clearly they're not the same.

    They also said this

    "Fourth, the patterning of dental variation among major geographic populations is more or less consistent with those obtained from genetic and craniometric data"




    But I guess there were no Nubian samples either, so maybe Nubians would be close to ancient Egyptians as well. At least some of them would be. I'll give you that.


    Actually most contemporary evidence proves that the melinated Africans from the tropics were the exclusive base of the ancient Kemetic population. See:

    "There is now a sufficient body of evidence from modern studies of skeletal remains to indicate that the ancient Egyptians, especially southern Egyptians, exhibited physical characteristics that are within the range of variation for ancient and modern indigenous peoples of the Sahara and tropical Africa.. In general, the inhabitants of Upper Egypt and Nubia had the greatest biological affinity to people of the Sahara and more southerly areas."...."must be placed in the context of hypotheses informed by archaeological, linguistic, geographic and other data. In such contexts, the physical anthropological evidence indicates that early Nile Valley populations can be identified as part of an African lineage, but exhibiting local variation. This variation represents the short and long term effects of evolutionary forces, such as gene flow, genetic drift, and natural selection, influenced by culture and geography." ("Nancy C. Lovell, " Egyptians, physical anthropology of," in Encyclopedia of the Archaeology of Ancient Egypt, ed. Kathryn A. Bard and Steven Blake Shubert, ( London and New York: Routledge, 1999). pp 328-332)

    This has been the accepted narrative of the mainstream for over two decades now. Where is the mention of Afghani affinity in this conclusion that was informed by consistent evidence from multiple scientific disciplines? Has there been any update to in the mainstream narrative to reflect the finding of that ground breaking study finding close Afghani affinity over the last two decades?
    So why in that statement do you read "people of the Saharan" to mean Sub-Saharan? Sub-Saharan means below the Sahara. More than likely they're obviously going to be related to their neighbors in the Sahara desert, including Nubians to a certain extent. And that quote says nothing about Lower Egypt. You, know..them boyz who put up the Giza Pyramids.



    You arguing anything else, is ridiculous, and a direct reflection of your racial obsession (with us) and subsequent insanity.
    Are you a Black American of West African descent?, the Ancient Egyptians would be much closer to me than to you. So if "The prize" is bragging rights about who's ethnicity is closer i'd win. Until you get full genome analysis saying anything else you have no argument and i'd never believe you.

    As for Ancient Egypt itself, yes I think it was a wonderful civilization and definitely cool.

    However I would have rather lived in the Aegean Civilizations..and for certainly much of my direct ancestors did, such as the beautiful Minoan civilization and slightly later and rougher Bronze Age Greek civilizations do not post date Egypt's Dynastic period by all that much.

    No it's not actually not garbage simply because you don't the results. The mechanism's used by DNAtribes that many of you people were crying about for the last seven years for not being peer reviewed has been verified by peer reviewed science. In fact DNAtribes results were said to be more reliable then Schuenemann et al because of the numerous faults detailed in the first post.

    Other DNA data show substantial African affinity: Results that are likely reliable are from studies that analyzed short tandem repeats (STRs) from Amarna royal mummies5 (1,300 BC), and of Ramesses III (1,200 BC)6; Ramesses III had the Y chromosome haplogroup E1b1a, an old African lineage7. Our analysis of STRs from Amarna and Ramesside royal mummies with popAffiliator18 based on the same published data5,6 indicates a 41.7% to 93.9% probability of SSA affinities (see Table 1); most of the individuals had a greater probability of affiliation with “SSA” which is not the only way to be “African”- a point worth repeating.”
    They're just arguing that the ancient Egyptians had some Sub-Saharan ancestry...sure..or that there were groups of Egyptians who possibly had more sub-saharan ancestry than what the samples Schuenemann analysized. As I said that's a possibility ...but you can't make over all genetic structure or over genetic affinity inferences just by a haplogroup in an individual or a few STRs. And no, DNAtribes is a commerical DNA testing company, much like iGENEA who came out with the King Tut being R1b thing. Either way, you can't make overall genetic affinity statements based on a haplogroup or a few STRs.

    If you don't know this it means you're a bigtime noob, and it's not my job to teach you the basics.




    1. The Mechanisms were proven to be faulty.
    2. Come from a single and irrelevant site.
    3. Were taken in the north of Egypt which was repeatedly under the rule of white foreigners and partly populated by white immigrants.
    4. Are only 3, which is ridiculously small.
    5. Do not date, for any of them, from the ruling of the great indigenous Egyptians.
    6. All of them date from the late period, that is a period of decline and occupation, where the whites had infiltrated from the north.
    I wouldn't call that an" irrelevant site", but when you show me full genome sequenced mummies resembling Sub-Saharan Africans i'll believe in them. Within the next half decade i'll bet we'll have full genome sequencing of other mummies, including ones from the Early Dynastic and Old Kingdom so we'll see.

    The mayonnaise party has been short lived, because the truth is always the corner. I'm also not seeing any support in this study for an Afghani biological affinity with the ancient Kemites. Since the Afghani's were the closest match in the Hannihara study then shouldn't they be the closest population in the 2017 genome sequence study? Let's keep that narrative up.
    No you idiot, The Afganis were the only Near Eastern population sampled in that 2005 study. Ohh yeah and Afganis are real Mayonnaise colored for sure The 2017 full genome study had a ton of Near Easterners.



    The same author just dropped an updated paper about two months ago. In it the author of course finds that Nubians and Kemites were the same people, and attributes the shared affinities between to ancient Nubians source going back to the dates prior to the Mesolithic;

    ""The process of the peopling of the Nile Valley likely shaped the population structure and early biological similarity of Egyptians and Nubians. As others have noted, affinity among Nilotic populations was due to an aggregation of events, including environmental, linguistic, and sociopolitical changes over a great deal of time. This study seeks to evaluate the relationships of Nubian and Egyptian groups in the context of the original peopling event. Cranial nonmetric traits from 18 Nubian and Egyptian samples, spanning Lower Egypt to Lower Nubia and approximately 7400 years, were analyzed using Mahalanobis D2 as a measure of biological distance. A principal coordinates analysis and spatial-temporal model were applied to these data. The results reveal temporal and spatial patterning consistent with documented events in Egyptian and Nubian population history. Moreover, the Mesolithic Nubian sample clustered with later Nubian and Egyptian samples, indicating that events prior to the Mesolithic were important in shaping the later genetic patterning of the Nubian population. Later contact through the establishment of the Egyptian fort at Buhen, Kerma’s position as a strategic trade center along the Nile, and Egyptian colonization at Tombos **maintained **genetic similarity among the populations." -

    So again it's proven that ultimately the more southern regions of the river valley is proven to be the home of the glorified Kemites. According to your theory based on the first study that you post shouldn't there be a closer affinity between mesolithic Afghani populations and ancient Kemites as opposed to the close affinity shown here between themselves and Mesolithic Sudanese Nubian populations? Is Punt (one of the homelands of the ancient Kemites) in Afghanistan?

    A new analysis interpreting Nilotic relationships and peopling of the Nile Valley – K Godde July 2018

    Hey dumbass, do you even read the studies you spam? Look at the data? In asking about why they didnt show an Afgani affinity you have revealed yourself to be little more than a mindless spambot who just transmits a preconceived ideology. That study you just quoted only sampled Egyptians and Nubians. So of course they're gonna 'be a single group'. No outside groups from the Near East, Maghreb, or Levant at all, nor were their any sub-saharans sampled either. So we can't do a compare and contrast at all with more distant geographical populations or even with Egypt's northern Neighbors [like the Levant]. You're not telling me something new at all by telling me Egyptians, especially Upper Egyptians have morphological overlap with at least certain Nubian groups. But they have morphological overlap with other nearby populations too. And they clearly distinguished themselves from Nubians and their Northeastern and Western Neighbors.





    Also...as shown above you do also realize this study featured Egyptian populations from the same time or later than the Schuenemann full genome study from 2017? And guess what, there is not that big of a difference. The late period Gizeh sample for example is geographically about 100 kilometers North of Abusir-el Meleq samples from Schuenemann 2017, and it has a distance of less than 1.0 to even the Prednastic Upper Egyptian Badari, and they are also only .73 away from fairly early Lower Egyptians samples from Lisht. So what does that tell me about earlier Egyptians? Uhh ohh


    You better pray they they don't release more full genomes on Earlier ancient Egyptians. You talk about truth, but clearly i'm onto it more than you are.

    Another thing I notice in that biological distance table is that the Nubians hardly look homogeneous. Some of the samples have very large distances between they and the Egyptians (between 3.0 and even up to 8.0 distance) and even themselves. Some Nubian groups are many times more distant from the Egyptians than even the late Giza sample is to other Egyptian samples. Since you bring up Mesolithic Nubia, their distance to Badari is 3.3. Over triple the biological distance than the Late period Gizeh sample. Man it's too bad that study did not sample more groups, including some geographically closer groups like the Levant, Near East, Maghreb, and yes, even Sub-Saharan Africa...at least East Africa. Then it would have been more interesting.

    Interesting..Your interpretation of the data is much different than that of the author who contextualized his own information to deliver a narrative.





    No need to further contextualize the information. You can read it yourself.
    That's just saying that there was some Sub-Saharan admixture in the Asia Minor Byzantine population that ultimately goes back to the Neolithic transition..and this Sub-Saharan component may have also spread other markers such as E1b1b or morphological elements to Europe...OK sure. But it doesn't quantify this admixture. In their cluster analysis the Byzantine sample only deviated just slightly in the Sub-Saharan direction.







    Cheddar came from the same "Niger-Congo/Sub Saharan" Negroid migration described by your friend Ricaut above. It was his "Negroid" morphology that lead first told the fact that he was not Caucasian not some damn DNA test on pigment.





    The Grimaldi man was the first European, and those people were of course "Negroid" (Khoi Khoi speakers),



    and they migrated up there around 25,000 years ago. Those were "pure OOA's" if you will. Those later groups who crossed the strait from Africa were extremely recent at only around 15,000. You Caucasians or "Indo-Arynas" (Indian-Aryans) have little to nothing to do with them genetically. As your nomadic hoards made your way into the continent around 1,400 BC you adsorbed some remnants of those people (along with the Neolithic populations) after you killed them off...But let's talk more about these Afghani "Egyptians".
    If you want to discuss Cheddar Man and his origins, i'd be happy to. But not in this thread. Make a new thread. If he's an African everybody's an African, that's all I can say.
    Last edited by Arch Hades; 2018-10-14 at 07:05.

Page 14 of 14 FirstFirst ... 4 12 13 14

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 6
    Last Post: 2018-04-11, 15:00
  2. Replies: 1407
    Last Post: 2018-03-09, 18:23
  3. Poland is now officially Western European (since September 2017)
    By Litvin in forum Polskie Forum Dyskusyjne
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 2017-11-29, 14:54
  4. Predynastic Egyptian mummy Gebelein man B
    By AlpArslan in forum Egyptology
    Replies: 25
    Last Post: 2017-06-13, 00:02
  5. Ancient Egyptian Mummy Genomes
    By nee4speed111 in forum Africa
    Replies: 559
    Last Post: 2017-06-07, 01:38

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
<