Refuting refuting_kemp about M-1

[Said Mohammad]

This is what refuting_kemp still has posted on his biased webpage about M-1


[M1 - This haplogroup is not Negroid, despite what Anon says. Originally it was proposed an African origin, due to the presence of the subclade M1 in Eastern Africa. However, a posterior return from Asia to Africa of these lineages is a more plausible explanation because the genetic diversity of M is much greater in India than in Ethiopia. In fact, M1 could be a branch of the Indian cluster M as ancestral motifs of the African M1 are found in M*, M3 and M4 Indian subclusters. This supposed Indian expansion to the west also reached northern areas, since evolved representatives of M4 have also been detected in Central Asia. We may consider the upper bound for this return to Africa 25.000-47.000 yr BP, the age calculated for M1 in Eastern Africa. /i]


Why does refuting_kemp still insist on leaving outdated information on his page. What refuting_kemp fails to realize is that genes and markers are neither Negroid nor Caucasoid. The most recent studies give M-1 an East African origin. Why does refuting_kemp fail to update the information on his site?

A more recent dispersal out of Africa, represented by
the E3b-M35 chromosomes, expanded northward during the Mesolithic (Underhill et al. 2001b). The East African origin of this lineage is supported by the much
larger variance of the E3b-M35 males in Egypt versus
Oman (0.5 versus 0.14; table 3). Consistent with the
NRY data is the mtDNA expansion estimate of 10–20
ky ago for the East African M1 clade. Local expansions of this clade and subsequent demic movements may have resulted in the irregular presence of the M1 haplogroup in the Mediterranean area (Quintana-Murci et al. 1999).


The Levant versus the Horn of Africa: Evidence for Bidirectional Corridors of Human Migrations
J. R. Luis,1,2,* D. J. Rowold,1,* M. Regueiro,2 B. Caeiro,2 C. Cinniog¢lu,3 C. Roseman,3 P. A. Underhill,3 L. L. Cavalli-Sforza,3 and R. J. Herrera1



As we can see, M-1 is of East African origin.

[alex221166]

The M macro-haplogroup (of which M1 is a part of) is Asian. M1's presence in East Africa is owed to a back migration.

We have been over this countless times. RM has already said this countless times several months ago. I know that you are pretty pissed that your posts in my board are still being deleted (Melnorme deleted some of your new attempts last night, apparently), but what can I say: life is a bitch!

Now bugger off and go annoy someone who gives a damn.

[Said Mohammad]

alex said:

The M macro-haplogroup (of which M1 is a part of) is Asian. M1's presence in East Africa is owed to a back migration.

We have been over this countless times. RM has already said this countless times several months ago. I know that you are pretty pissed that your posts in my board are still being deleted (Melnorme deleted some of your new attempts last night, apparently), but what can I say: life is a bitch!

Now bugger off and go annoy someone who gives a damn.

Dumb f*ck, I posted a stidy which ignored many of times which gives Macrohaplogroup M an African origin, not an Asian one jackass. In fact ALL non-Africans have their begininngs in Macrohaplogroups M and N which originated in Africa.

[Said Mohammad]

alex said:

The M macro-haplogroup (of which M1 is a part of) is Asian. M1's presence in East Africa is owed to a back migration.
.

No dickhead, Haplogroup M is African and together with haplogroup N they left Africa to colonize the rest of the world. Read some updated information shithead:


Human mtDNA shows striking regional variation, traditionally attributed to genetic drift. However, it is not easy to account for the fact that only two mtDNA lineages (M and N) left Africa to colonize Eurasia and that lineages A, C, D, and G show a 5-fold enrichment from central Asia to Siberia.

Natural selection shaped regional mtDNA variation in humans


Dan Mishmara,b, Eduardo Ruiz-Pesinia,b, Pawel Golikb,c, Vincent Macaulayd, Andrew G. Clarke, Seyed Hosseinib, Martin Brandona,b, Kirk Easleyf, Estella Cheng, Michael D. Brownb,h, Rem I. Sukerniki, Antonel Olckersj, and Douglas C. Wallacea,b,k

And more from the same study, apparently you worship RM/Medhammer/racial reality too much without reading informatiion for your own self.


Numerous previous surveys of aboriginal populations have demonstrated that the branches of the mtDNA tree (composed of groups of related haplotypes or haplogroups) are continent-specific, with virtually no mixing of mtDNA haplogroups from the different geographic regions (1). In Africa, the three most ancient mtDNA haplogroups (L0, L1, and L2), which make up macrohaplogroup L, are specific for sub-Saharan Africa. African macrohaplogroup L radiated to form the Africa-specific haplogroup L3 as well as the Eurasian macrohaplogroups M and N. M and N arose in northeastern Africa and individuals bearing M and N mtDNAs subsequently left Africa to colonize Europe and Asia (1, 2).




www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/100/1/171

No read and weep bitch!

[Melnorme]

Said said:

Dumb f*ck, I posted a stidy which ignored many of times which gives Macrohaplogroup M an African origin, not an Asian one jackass. In fact ALL non-Africans have their begininngs in Macrohaplogroups M and N which originated in Africa.

How many tens of thousands of years ago did it leave Africa?

[Said Mohammad]

Melnorme said:

How many tens of thousands of years ago did it leave Africa?

It doesn't matter, the reason that outdated study posted on alex's site gave M-1 and Asian origin is because it was thought that haplogroup M itself was Asian in origin. Its since been proven to be African in origin since it arose in northeast Africa. The study calls it Eurasian, which is not surprsing because haplogroups M and N are the founder haplogroups of non-Africans maternally.

[Melnorme]

Said said:

It doesn't matter, the reason that outdated study posted on alex's site gave M-1 and Asian origin is because it was thought that haplogroup M itself was Asian in origin. Its since been proven to be African in origin since it arose in northeast Africa. The study calls it Eurasian, which is not surprsing because haplogroups M and N are the founder haplogroups of non-Africans maternally.

Of course it matters. What haplogroup doesn't ultimately originate in 'Northeast Africa'?

[Said Mohammad]

Melnorme said:

Of course it matters. What haplogroup doesn't ultimately originate in 'Northeast Africa'?

The haplogroups that eventually arose from M and N are not foun in northeast Africa. If you the link to the study I posted you would eventually see this.

[Melnorme]

Said said:

The haplogroups that eventually arose from M and N are not foun in northeast Africa. If you the link to the study I posted you would eventually see this.

Okay, so your point is that underived M found outside of Africa indicates black African ancestry?

[Said Mohammad]

Melnorme said:

Okay, so your point is that underived M found outside of Africa indicates black African ancestry?

No Melnorme, stop confusing my words. haplogroups M and N arose in Africa. The question isn't whether something is black Africa anything. Genes cannot be black African. The point is that M-1 is characterized as East African not Asian. Haplogroup M arose in Africa not Asia. Thats the points. Its silly to argue whther a gene of all things are black African.

[alex221166]

Said said:

It doesn't matter, the reason that outdated study posted on alex's site gave M-1 and Asian origin is because it was thought that haplogroup M itself was Asian in origin. Its since been proven to be African in origin since it arose in northeast Africa. The study calls it Eurasian, which is not surprsing because haplogroups M and N are the founder haplogroups of non-Africans maternally.

If that haplogroup predates the differenciation of the modern Negroids from Euro-Asians, that it obviously matters. You haven't proven anything.

It doesn't take a genius to see that all you are after is of a way to detect more black ancestry in the Europeans so that you can claim more "black civilizations" (Moors, Egypt, blacks in Greece, black Roman aristocracy - who knows what else?).

This is all old news. Maybe RM or Dienekes will bother themselves by explaining it to you ALL OVER AGAIN. I don't have the time nor the inclination.

[Said Mohammad]

alex said:

If that haplogroup predates the differenciation of the modern Negroids from Euro-Asians, that it obviously matters. You haven't proven anything.

It doesn't take a genius to see that all you are after is of a way to detect more black ancestry in the Europeans so that you can claim more "black civilizations" (Moors, Egypt, blacks in Greece, black Roman aristocracy - who knows what else?).

This is all old news. Maybe RM or Dienekes will bother themselves by explaining it to you ALL OVER AGAIN. I don't have the time nor the inclination.

This isn't about trying to detect black ancestry in anyone to claim black civilizations. If you've read any of my posts you would have saw that I've said repeatedly that genes or genetic markers are not Negroid Caucasoid or any racial category. Quit your paranoid bitching. All I said is that you need to update your site in regards to M1. It isn't Asian and its presence in Africa isn't due to back migration from Asia.