|
Post by topdog on Apr 6, 2005 0:14:41 GMT -5
>Published data indicates that natural selection shaped mtDNA variation in humans, so it appears non-L3 clades became extinct you've confused cause with effect. It would be better if you describe this in your own words so that at least we'll see whether you understand the meaning of these terms. Perhaps you repeated the title of Mishmar's paper but the object of that study has nothing to do with differentiation in its own right, this is a random process. The authors found that some changes in ATPs (non-synonymous replacements ie that cause amino-acid changes) can be explained by selection ie mt is affected not only by random mutations but also by selection which is probably adaptive. This wasn't proved before this publication although it was suspected. Were L1s to leave Afriica instead of L3 these clades would also face selection. Lineages other than L3 are found outside of Africa but as usual, the explanation for all non-L3 clades found outside of Africa is slavery. L3 is an African marker and is found in every African population geographically speaking.
|
|
|
Post by topdog on Apr 6, 2005 1:37:04 GMT -5
Incorrect, the full study gives two explanations for E3b in North Africa- Under the hypothesis of a Neolithic demic expansion from the Middle East, the likely origin of E3b in East Africa could indicate either a local contribution to the North African Neolithic transition (Barker 2003) or an earlier migration into the Fertile Crescent, preceding the expansion back into Africa.
|
|
|
Post by Valery on Apr 6, 2005 3:21:15 GMT -5
>Lineages other than L3 are found outside of Africa but as usual, the explanation for all non-L3 clades found outside of Africa is slavery. L3 is an African marker and is found in every African population geographically speaking.
i objected only to your arguments relating to selection since such studies are really in their infancy, unlike phylogenetical considerations.
concerning the phylogeny of L3 - we use somewhat different terminilogy. I usually call all lineages with C at 3594 "L3", this classification goes back to Torroni. Such extended L3 comprises M, N, L4, L3f,L3x,L3e and few other African clades. Besides M and N, all these lineages are definitely African, even undifferentiated L3*. It's much more convenient to say "L1-L3" instead of full enumeration of L0,L1,L2.. especially since this "short" phylogeny is consistent with the full one and not outdated .
|
|
|
Post by topdog on Apr 6, 2005 12:06:16 GMT -5
>Lineages other than L3 are found outside of Africa but as usual, the explanation for all non-L3 clades found outside of Africa is slavery. L3 is an African marker and is found in every African population geographically speaking. i objected only to your arguments relating to selection since such studies are really in their infancy, unlike phylogenetical considerations. concerning the phylogeny of L3 - we use somewhat different terminilogy. I usually call all lineages with C at 3594 "L3", this classification goes back to Torroni. Such extended L3 comprises M, N, L4, L3f,L3x,L3e and few other African clades. Besides M and N, all these lineages are definitely African, even undifferentiated L3*. It's much more convenient to say "L1-L3" instead of full enumeration of L0,L1,L2.. especially since this "short" phylogeny is consistent with the full one and not outdated . Ok, I understand you now. I was simply refuting the notion that all these clades represent sub-races and races. L3 is an African marker and is found all around Africa, so it makes no difference whether those who departed Africa in ROA had non-L3 lineages or not. N and M lineages do have L3 lineages accompanying them. L3 does not equal non-Negroid.
|
|
|
Post by Valery on Apr 6, 2005 12:10:57 GMT -5
>whether those who departed Africa in ROA had non-L3 lineages or not
indeed!
|
|
|
Post by Dienekes on Apr 6, 2005 12:33:42 GMT -5
Ok, I understand you now. I was simply refuting the notion that all these clades represent sub-races and races. L3 is an African marker and is found all around Africa, so it makes no difference whether those who departed Africa in ROA had non-L3 lineages or not. N and M lineages do have L3 lineages accompanying them. L3 does not equal non-Negroid. L3 includes African and non-African clades and is found in both Negroids and non-Negroids. However, L1-L2 is found exclusively in Negroids, and its presence in East Africa indicates an influx of people which were not a part of the ancestors of the people of East Africa some of whose descendants spread to Eurasia.
|
|
|
Post by topdog on Apr 6, 2005 12:35:03 GMT -5
>whether those who departed Africa in ROA had non-L3 lineages or not indeed! It makes no difference since linages under L3 spawned lineages that characterise Africans and non-Africans, Negroids and non-Negroids, all human races. Those lineages still radiated from L3. Its ridiculous assume that ROA migrants were already 'racially' differentiated before they left Africa.
|
|
|
Post by Dienekes on Apr 6, 2005 12:37:39 GMT -5
It makes no difference since linages under L3 spawned lineages that characterise Africans and non-Africans, Negroids and non-Negroids, all human races. Those lineages still radiated from L3. Its ridiculous assume that ROA migrants were already 'racially' differentiated before they left Africa. L3 lineages are differentiated by tens of thousands of years from other ancient African lineages, so it's very probable that they were phenotypically different. This is also confirmed by the paleoanthropological data on East Africa which don't indicate close similarity with Negroids.
|
|
|
Post by topdog on Apr 6, 2005 12:56:50 GMT -5
L3 includes African and non-African clades and is found in both Negroids and non-Negroids. However, L1-L2 is found exclusively in Negroids, and its presence in East Africa indicates an influx of people which were not a part of the ancestors of the people of East Africa some of whose descendants spread to Eurasia. Makes no difference, since there are clades of L1 and L2 that have East African origins, so L1 and L2 clades need not have to have came from non-East African sources, nor does it means clades other than L3 are there exclusively due to an influx from central and west Africa. L1a- East African origin L1b- L1c- Central African origin, found little in East Africans L1d- Khoisan origin south Africa, not found in East Africans except for a single Turkana L1e- East African origin L2a- undetermined location of origin. Possibly diffused from a location in the Sahel east and west. Most widespread mtDNA cluster found in Africa. L2b-d: Found strictly in West, central, and west-central African populations
|
|
|
Post by Dienekes on Apr 6, 2005 13:02:59 GMT -5
Makes no difference, since there are clades of L1 and L2 that have East African origins, so L1 and L2 clades need not have to have came from non-East African sources, nor does it means clades other than L3 are there exclusively due to an influx from central and west Africa. The fact that there are such clades does not mean that they are the only ones, nor does it mean that they were in the Proto-Eurasian cradle of East Africa.
|
|
|
Post by topdog on Apr 6, 2005 13:04:10 GMT -5
L3 lineages are differentiated by tens of thousands of years from other ancient African lineages, so it's very probable that they were phenotypically different. This is also confirmed by the paleoanthropological data on East Africa which don't indicate close similarity with Negroids. Incorrect, skeletal evidence does indicate close relationships with Negroids. Howells database doesn't list Nilotes, who have been found to be the closest in resemblance to pre-historic East Africans, which was also confirmed by archaeological and linguistic evidence. Howell's 'African' samples consist of only Dogon and Teita.
|
|
|
Post by Dienekes on Apr 6, 2005 13:11:36 GMT -5
Incorrect, skeletal evidence does indicate close relationships with Negroids. Howells database doesn't list Nilotes, who have been found to be the closest in resemblance to pre-historic East Africans, which was also confirmed by archaeological and linguistic evidence. Howell's 'African' samples consist of only Dogon and Teita. If you wish they were "Negroids" but "Negroids" of the kind that are closer to Europeans and Ainu and not Negroids of the kind that are closer to Dogon from Mali, Teita from Kenya and Zulu from S. Africa.
|
|
|
Post by topdog on Apr 6, 2005 13:28:59 GMT -5
If you wish they were "Negroids" but "Negroids" of the kind that are closer to Europeans and Ainu and not Negroids of the kind that are closer to Dogon from Mali, Teita from Kenya and Zulu from S. Africa. Nilotes do possess some traits that are close to Europeans[narrow heads e.g.], but they are unrelated Ainu and Europeans. Ainu even show some traits similar to Negroids like Melanesians. Makes no difference, the earliest East Africans looked nothing like modern day Europeans and Ainu and Europeans don't even look the same. Archaeological and linguistic studies confirm that those early remains are ancestral to Nilotes. This was confirmed through other studies using samples totally diferent to Howells.
|
|
|
Post by mike2 on Apr 6, 2005 14:07:39 GMT -5
Just as an aside because Charlie brought it up, Melanesians, despite their woolly hair, aren't classified as Negroids, not anymore at least. They're a part of the supercategory called "Australoids" (southern folk, quite literally, and this supertype is not restricted to the Australian aborigines). The Australoid is a widespread type that includes all the "black" peoples of Asia and Oceania, such as the Australian aborigines, Negritos, Papuans, Melanesians, and the Veddah. As far as I know, the Negroid/Congoid race proper never migrated in significant numbers out of the African continent (excepting Madagascar and perhaps Arabia; and excluding of course the diaspora brought on by the long-lived slave trade and recent immigration). The Australoids are all over the place, though. They range from Arabia to the Iranian Plateau to India to Japan (as the ancestral form of the Ainu) to southeast Asia to the islands of the South Seas (including Indonesia, Oceania, and the Andamans) to Australia to Tasmania. Some even made it to America. Various AustraloidsVeddoid type Negritoid type Negritoid type Papuan-Melanesian type Papuan-Melanesian type Papuan-Melanesian type Papuan-Melanesian type Papuan-Melanesian type Tasmanian type Australian type Australian type Australian type Australian type The Australoid type is very variable. Prognathy is found in some folks, overhanging brows in others. Hawk noses are also found, especially in Papuans and Melanesians. Nostrils like the ones touted around by the Australian aborigines are often broader and even more flared than those of Negroids. Woolly (in Papuans, Melanesians, and Tasmanians), straight or wavy (in Australian aborigines), ringleted (in some Veddoids), and sometimes peppercorn hair (in some Negritos) makes for a diverse assortment indeed. But it is assumed they are all related and instead of making like a thousand different racial categories to cover them all, one (the Australoid), will suffice.
|
|
|
Post by chrisjones on Apr 6, 2005 20:42:32 GMT -5
Nilotes do possess some traits that are close to Europeans[narrow heads e.g.], but they are unrelated Ainu and Europeans. Ainu even show some traits similar to Negroids like Melanesians. Makes no difference, the earliest East Africans looked nothing like modern day Europeans and Ainu and Europeans don't even look the same. Archaeological and linguistic studies confirm that those early remains are ancestral to Nilotes. This was confirmed through other studies using samples totally diferent to Howells. I agree. Pre historic East Africans resemble modern East Africans Nilotes and Cushites - Borana of Kenya, Oromo and Surma and Shilluk of Ethiopia and Sudan. They are all blacks and Africans. I don't understand the fascination with making up racial labels as if to hide that fact. And isn't it hypocritical? These are peoples who if you saw them on the streets of Europe anywhwere else, you would recognize as black and of African origin. Yet because they are from East Africa and because East Africa is the cradle of humanity, there is this need to make that reality go away. It's just odd.
|
|