|
Post by Igu on Apr 3, 2005 16:16:42 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by topdog on Apr 4, 2005 1:26:49 GMT -5
You still ignore the clinal mixture I see, all Berbers do not have the same genetic profile as Moroccan Berbers. 5% paternally Negroid? So what is the other 95%? It sure isn't Caucasoid, so what is it? Maternally Somalis are 89% African.
|
|
|
Post by Dienekes on Apr 4, 2005 1:28:58 GMT -5
You still ignore the clinal mixture I see, all Berbers do not have the same genetic profile as Moroccan Berbers. Incorrect, Berber-speaking groups have variable levels of Negroid admixture, and correspondingly variable levels of Negroid-influenced phenotypes. It is native East African and Caucasoid: "the Somali male population has approximately 15% Y chromosomes from Eurasia and approximately 5% from sub-Saharan Africa."
|
|
|
Post by KLI on Apr 4, 2005 1:29:59 GMT -5
5% Sub-Saharan means not native to the Horn of Africa...thus, the remainder 95% paternal is native East African
|
|
|
Post by Dienekes on Apr 4, 2005 1:30:58 GMT -5
5% Sub-Saharan means not native to the Horn of Africa...thus, the remainder 95% paternal is native East African Incorrect, see above. 15% is Eurasian Caucasoid, 5% is Negroid and the remaining is East African Caucasoid.
|
|
|
Post by topdog on Apr 4, 2005 2:27:18 GMT -5
Incorrect, see above. 15% is Eurasian Caucasoid, 5% is Negroid and the remaining is East African Caucasoid. No such thing exists as 'East African Caucasoid', is that the latest invention you have now?
|
|
|
Post by Dienekes on Apr 4, 2005 2:33:36 GMT -5
No such thing exists as 'East African Caucasoid', is that the latest invention you have now? Do you disagree with the finding of the scientists that the Somalis are only 5% Sub-Saharan paternally?
|
|
|
Post by topdog on Apr 4, 2005 2:39:49 GMT -5
Do you disagree with the finding of the scientists that the Somalis are only 5% Sub-Saharan paternally? Its not about disagreeing with anything. In that study East African isn't defined as 'Caucasoid'. In another unrelated study, Chadic speakers were found to have East African mtDNA, are they 'East African' Caucasoid? 'Sub-Saharan' as defined in that particular study means DNA that is not native to East Africa, but is African in origin. None of the terminology is *race* specific.
|
|
|
Post by topdog on Apr 4, 2005 2:49:03 GMT -5
In a nutshell, that study on Somali people states that Bantu migrations and or mixture did not leave any significant mark on the Somali gene pool. It states nothing about 'Negroids proper' and 'East African Caucasoids'.
|
|
|
Post by Dienekes on Apr 4, 2005 3:01:24 GMT -5
In a nutshell, that study on Somali people states that Bantu migrations and or mixture did not leave any significant mark on the Somali gene pool. It states nothing about 'Negroids proper' and 'East African Caucasoids'. Of course, western geneticists no longer talk about Caucasoids and Negroids. Let's leave at that: Somalis have only 5% Sub-Saharan paternal admixture. Their patrilineages are more related to Greeks from the Peloponnese and white Berbers from Morocco than they are to Sub-Saharan Africans.
|
|
|
Post by topdog on Apr 4, 2005 3:11:15 GMT -5
Of course, western geneticists no longer talk about Caucasoids and Negroids. Let's leave at that: Somalis have only 5% Sub-Saharan paternal admixture. Their patrilineages are more related to Greeks from the Peloponnese and white Berbers from Morocco than they are to Sub-Saharan Africans. E3a and E3b are closely related to each other and E3b alpha and E-M81 were derived of an East African origin. The study states in phylogenetic terms that bantu migrations and central African peoples did not significantly affect the Somali people gene pool, you drew the conclusion about 'East African Caucasoid'. Is that so? So you have no problem with this study.. HLA genes allele distribution has been studied in Mediterranean and sub-Saharan populations. Their relatedness has been tested by genetic distances, neighbour-joining dendrograms and correspondence analyses. The population genetic relationships have been compared with the history of the classical populations living in the area. A revision of the historic postulates would have to be undertaken, particularly in the cases when genetics and history are overtly discordant. HLA genomics shows that: 1) Greeks share an important part of their genetic pool with sub-Saharan Africans (Ethiopians and west Africans) also supported by Chr 7 Markers. The gene flow from Black Africa to Greece may have occurred in Pharaonic times or when Saharan people emigrated after the present hyperarid conditions were established (5000 years B.C.). 2) Turks (Anatolians) do not significantly differ from other Mediterraneans, indicating that while the Asians Turks carried out an invasion with cultural significance (language), it is not genetically detectable. 3) Kurds and Armenians are genetically very close to Turks and other Middle East populations. 4) There is no HLA genetic trace of the so called Aryan invasion, which has only been defined on doubtful linguistic bases. 5) Iberians, including Basques, are related to north-African Berbers. 6) Present-day Algerian and Moroccan urban and country people show an indistinguishable Berber HLA profile. Population genetic relationships between Mediterranean populations determined by HLA allele distribution and a historic perspective. Arnaiz-Villena A, Gomez-Casado E, Martinez-Laso J.
|
|
|
Post by Dienekes on Apr 4, 2005 3:38:47 GMT -5
E3a and E3b are closely related to each other and E3b alpha and E-M81 were derived of an East African origin. The study states in phylogenetic terms that bantu migrations and central African peoples did not significantly affect the Somali people gene pool, you drew the conclusion about 'East African Caucasoid'. E-M81 came to North Africa from the Near Eastdienekes.ifreepages.com/blog/archives/000589.htmlAlso, while E-M81 and E3b are indeed related to E3a, the lineages found in East Africa are much closer phylogenetically to those found in Caucasoids such as Greeks than they are to those found in Negroids Somalis belong to E3b1, just like Balkan people, so they're much more similar to them than they are to Sub-Saharan Africans, at least paternally. Indeed, paternally Somalis are closer to Greeks than they are to Berbers who belong to a different clade of E3b! However, maternally they are predominantly Negroid, which explains their intermediate phenotypical traits (Caucasoid paternally+Negroid maternally)
|
|
|
Post by topdog on Apr 4, 2005 3:56:54 GMT -5
Which is indeed why Keita stated the PN2 clade shatters racial boundaries Incorrect, Greeks and Balkan people have E3b alpha; Somalis have E3b gamma. E3b gamma precedes the alpha cluster, so Greeks are more closely related to East Africans, not the other way around. E-M81 could have just as easily arisen in sub-Saharan Africa... The present-day Egyptian E3b-M35 distribution most likely results from a juxtaposition of various demic episodes. Since the E3b*-M35 lineages appear to be confined mostly to the sub-Saharan populations, it is conceivable that the initial migrations toward North Africa from the south primarily involved derivative E3b-M35 lineages.The Levant versus the Horn of Africa: Evidence for Bidirectional Corridors of Human Migrations This implies that E3b had descended from a precursor that arose in sub-Saharan Africa. What this is saying is all derived E3b lineages descend from the underived E3b from sub-Saharan Africa. I could be wrong, but that is what this citation is saying. Maternally Negroid(?). Fossil data indicate that a narrow nosed, narrow headed type existed in East Africa as far back as the late Holocene, early Mesolithic. The inhermediate phenotype is best explained in terms of adaptation since non-African mixture is only 15% and fossil indicates no 'East African Caucasoid' population.
|
|
|
Post by Dienekes on Apr 4, 2005 4:04:59 GMT -5
Which is indeed why Keita stated the PN2 clade shatters racial boundaries Keita forgot to mention the maternal composition of the populations he described. Sure, mestizos and Spaniards are united by a high frequency of R1b, but they are racially different, because they have different maternal origins. "Precedes" is irrelevant, since these are different groups of haplotypes which are however phylogenetically related. The common ancestor of a Somali male and say a Montenegrin E3b lived long after the common ancestor of a Somali male and a Sub-Saharan African. Science thinks otherwise, if you know of more recent work, post it. Incorrect, it is saying that Egyptians belonged to derived clades of E3b and not to E3b*. The origin of E3b is in East Africa, not in Sub-Saharan Africa. The prehistoric East Africans were not Negroid, they were more similar to Eurasians: dienekes.blogspot.master.com/texis/master/redir/?u=http%3A//dienekes.blogspot.com/2004/09/racial-affinities-of-prehistoric-east.html
|
|
|
Post by topdog on Apr 4, 2005 4:15:26 GMT -5
Keita forgot to mention the maternal composition of the populations he described. Sure, mestizos and Spaniards are united by a high frequency of R1b, but they are racially different, because they have different maternal origins. Explain why E3a Tutsis differ *SIGNIFICANTLY* from other central African populations and look more similar to Somalis. Ah, but E3a and E3b split from a common ancestor long before the different clades of E3b became differentiated. Furthermore, there was a genetic bottleneck in East Africa so the two clased are not as closely linked as you believe them to be. That means in essence the precursor to East African E3b is derived from a sub-Saharan one, which proves my point that you cannot characterise E3b as Caucasoid. Early West Asians resembled Africans, not Eurasians: Am J Phys Anthropol. 1996 Mar;99(3):389-412. Comparison of craniofacial features of major human groups. Hanihara T. Department of Anatomy, Tohoku University School of Medicine, Sendai, Japan. Distance analysis and factor analysis, based on Q-mode correlation coefficients, were applied to 23 craniofacial measurements in 1,802 recent and prehistoric crania from major geographical areas of the Old World. The major findings are as follows: 1) Australians show closer similarities to African populations than to Melanesians. 2) Recent Europeans align with East Asians, and early West Asians resemble Africans. 3) The Asian population complex with regional difference between northern and southern members is manifest. 4) Clinal variations of craniofacial features can be detected in the Afro-European region on the one hand, and Australasian and East Asian region on the other hand. 5) The craniofacial variations of major geographical groups are not necessarily consistent with their geographical distribution pattern. This may be a sign that the evolutionary divergence in craniofacial shape among recent populations of different geographical areas is of a highly limited degree. Taking all of these into account, a single origin for anatomically modern humans is the most parsimonious interpretation of the craniofacial variations presented in this study.
|
|