The most EXTENSIVE DNA STUDY ever on Ethiopians (results are in, they're mixed)

[Bawon Samedi]

Sheeiit, I'm about hit up this baked chicken right quick.

I really wanted you to pick apart that study @Camile.Bidan posted, this one...Back to Africa And the Bantu Explosion

I critize the study because not only does it not only thoroughly support its conclusions.But it seems to try and bring to life the same old and tired rmultiregional theory. With of course Eurasia as the center for human evolution.

In the article the authors seem to try explain away the diversity of African genes by mere Eurasian genes. ALL of African genes. They credit it all to back migration.

In reality the theory seems flat. But more importantly radical in Eurocentric nature. What the authors are saying in a nutshell "sure Africans are diverse, but they should thank us 'Eurasians' for it." When its been proven fact that Eurasians are a SUBSET of African diversity!!!

The worldwide pattern of single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) variation is of great interest to human geneticists, population geneticists, and evolutionists, but remains incompletely understood. We studied the pattern in noncoding regions, because they are less affected by natural selection than are coding regions. Thus, it can reflect better the history of human evolution and can serve as a baseline for understanding the maintenance of SNPs in human populations. We sequenced 50 noncoding DNA segments each approximately 500 bp long in 10 Africans, 10 Europeans, and 10 Asians. An analysis of the data suggests that the sampling scheme is adequate for our purpose. The average nucleotide diversity (pi) for the 50 segments is only 0.061% +/- 0.010% among Asians and 0.064% +/- 0.011% among Europeans but almost twice as high (0.115% +/- 0.016%) among Africans. The African diversity estimate is even higher than that between Africans and Eurasians (0.096% +/- 0.012%). From available data for noncoding autosomal regions (total length = 47,038 bp) and X-linked regions (47,421 bp), we estimated the pi-values for autosomal regions to be 0.105, 0.070, 0.069, and 0.097% for Africans, Asians, Europeans, and between Africans and Eurasians, and the corresponding values for X-linked regions to be 0.088, 0.042, 0.053, and 0.082%. Thus, Africans differ from one another slightly more than from Eurasians, and the genetic diversity in Eurasians is largely a subset of that in Africans, supporting the out of Africa model of human evolution. Clearly, one must specify the geographic origins of the individuals sampled when studying pi or SNP density.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12019240



If you accept this hypothesis, the next step is to claim that the diversity among haplogroups took place in Eurasia, rather than Africa, and that Europe NOT Africa is the center of evolution and genomic diversity. This is just a first step in destroying the out of Africa theory and replace it with a multiregional theory that moves Eurasia back into the center of Human evolution.


I just want to hear your opinion, before I go.

 

[Swagnificent]

Yes, because if the logic is that he darkest black person that looks like this

Is the only representation of a black person that is not considered mixed with European.

How does this logic not apply to them.

Mixed with Black????

just so you know alot of europeans are also mixed.

italians (specifically sicilians) have lots of black ancestry. so do the spanish, portuguese, and greeks. in north africa and the middle east as well. they have black ancestry of as much as 20-30%.

so its not only africans that are mixed. everyone around the world that lives at the border between continents has FUKKED around.

p*ssy and dikk is the same regardless of color and our ancestors knew that.

 

[BigMan]

He makes all sorts of comments about mulattos, and desiring good hair and lighter skin in women. He's been saying that Habesha are mulatto because apparently they're all light skin with curly hair. He's not Habesha, I'm assuming he's black American.

there should be a coli census to weed out the tragic mulattos and cacs

 

[Mowgli]

just so you know alot of europeans are also mixed.

italians (specifically sicilians) have lots of black ancestry. so do the spanish, portuguese, and greeks. in north africa and the middle east as well. they have black ancestry of as much as 20-30%.

so its not only africans that are mixed. everyone around the world that lives at the border between continents has FUKKED around.

p*ssy and dikk is the same regardless of color and our ancestors knew that.

How many milleniums do a people have to be removed from the black people that made them for them to be able to ignore their african origins so they can be acknowledged as an independent group of people?

When you originate from african people, how many milleniums until you can say, i dont have african ancestry anymore

 

[Swagnificent]

1. How do you suppose they don't have Eurasian DNA?
2. They don't live in the same climate as those other horners.

It seems you are in game with this "True Negroid myth". I already posted in one of my posts how the horn climate plays a role on their phenotype.



Again you are having trouble understanding basic genetics. And what the study is telling you.

Mitochondria DNA and Y-Chromosome DNA DOES NOT HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH PHENOTYPE! Nor does both of them tells ones whole DNA. And like I said many times you are forgetting that some of those haplogroups you dub "Eurasian" are actually unique to that region and no longer Eurasian. M1 and J1 in Ethiopia are African, especially M1.

YES THEY DO. they live in southern ethiopia/northern kenya near the lake tana/omo regions. right on the rift valley. their neighbors include the cushytic speaking Somali tribes and Oromo tribes.

the tribes like the dassanech are also pastoral nomads like their cushytic neighbours. they tend to livestock and eat similar foods and live similar lives. but they look DIFFERENT.

the only logical explantion i can come up with is the lack of back migrated DNA. we can fight over whether to call them eurasian or whether they are unique to east africa. i really don't care. all i know is they came from outside of africa and not all the tribes in ethiopia share them in similar numbers.

the difference in phenotypes can only be explained for thru admixture if we have 2 groups that live in the same area and practice the same type of living.

i think you need to read a little more about the dassanech tribe and others in the omo valley. they'll change your preconcieved notions.

 

[Oceanicpuppy]

I really wanted you to pick apart that study @Camile.Bidan posted, this one...Back to Africa And the Bantu Explosion

I critize the study because not only does it not only thoroughly support its conclusions.But it seems to try and bring to life the same old and tired rmultiregional theory. With of course Eurasia as the center for human evolution.

In the article the authors seem to try explain away the diversity of African genes by mere Eurasian genes. ALL of African genes. They credit it all to back migration.

In reality the theory seems flat. But more importantly radical in Eurocentric nature. What the authors are saying in a nutshell "sure Africans are diverse, but they should thank us 'Eurasians' for it." When its been proven fact that Eurasians are a SUBSET of African diversity!!!

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12019240



If you accept this hypothesis, the next step is to claim that the diversity among haplogroups took place in Eurasia, rather than Africa, and that Europe NOT Africa is the center of evolution and genomic diversity. This is just a first step in destroying the out of Africa theory and replace it with a multiregional theory that moves Eurasia back into the center of Human evolution.


I just want to hear your opinion, before I go.

I think the levant is an extention of Africa. There is a study that agrees with your theory of Ethiopians physical adaption to the highlands. Im in the process of posting it right now.

To me on just a basic level of human migration and trends, Eurasian origin doesn't make sense to me.

 

[Swagnificent]

I was referring to the some of nomadic and herding cushytic tribes. From what I've seen in those tribes narrow features and "semi narrow" features seem to be prevalent. At least in my opinion, It depends on how that indiviual characterized narrow. The features above in my opinion are narrow to semi narrow. They have elongated soft angled jaws, noticeable nose bridges and slight brow ridges. Where as some WA groups have rounder shorter heads, defined protruding cheekbones, and almond slanted eyes and broad lips and noses.
I agree some tribes like the Amhara, tigray, and tigrinya are admixed.

But narrow features are also prevalent amongst Nilotic people as well and they are not mixed as far as I know.

Same for the Tutsi in Rwanda

I never claimed narrow features are the result of admixture. semitic and cushytic speaking tribes in east africa are descended from the an ancestral black population similar to the nilotic speaking tribes hence the reason both share similar facial features when it comes to narrow noses, etc.

imo the only attributes we can reasonably say are the result of admixture is light skin and less kinky hair. those seem to be not naturally native to africa.

 

[KravenMorehead™]

Its not a peer reviewed study breh. Its blog.

I knowHistory informs me to consider the source...

 

[Camile.Bidan]

I really wanted you to pick apart that study @Camile.Bidan posted, this one...Back to Africa And the Bantu Explosion

I critize the study because not only does it not only thoroughly support its conclusions.But it seems to try and bring to life the same old and tired rmultiregional theory. With of course Eurasia as the center for human evolution.

In the article the authors seem to try explain away the diversity of African genes by mere Eurasian genes. ALL of African genes. They credit it all to back migration.

In reality the theory seems flat. But more importantly radical in Eurocentric nature. What the authors are saying in a nutshell "sure Africans are diverse, but they should thank us 'Eurasians' for it." When its been proven fact that Eurasians are a SUBSET of African diversity!!!

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12019240



If you accept this hypothesis, the next step is to claim that the diversity among haplogroups took place in Eurasia, rather than Africa, and that Europe NOT Africa is the center of evolution and genomic diversity. This is just a first step in destroying the out of Africa theory and replace it with a multiregional theory that moves Eurasia back into the center of Human evolution.


I just want to hear your opinion, before I go.

2007 was a long time ago. Technology and techniques have progressed. Until ancient DNA was sequenced nobody imagined that Europeans and native Americans had such close and recent connection. New evidence is challenging older estimates of African variation. This is science.

Mixture with archiacs has been confirmed and the recent case of the denisovsn findings in Tibetans confirms that this admixture was functional and beneficial. In other words, multiregionalism is now a reality that you have accept. There is no way around it anymore.


The Out-of-Africa replacement theory was a nice "feel-good" theory, but reality has been proven to be much more complex than that.

 

[Oceanicpuppy]

YES THEY DO. they live in southern ethiopia/northern kenya near the lake tana/omo regions. right on the rift valley. their neighbors include the cushytic speaking Somali tribes and Oromo tribes.

the tribes like the dassanech are also pastoral nomads like their cushytic neighbours. they tend to livestock and eat similar foods and live similar lives. but they look DIFFERENT.

the only logical explantion i can come up with is the lack of back migrated DNA. we can fight over whether to call them eurasian or whether they are unique to east africa. i really don't care. all i know is they came from outside of africa and not all the tribes in ethiopia share them in similar numbers.

the difference in phenotypes can only be explained for thru admixture if we have 2 groups that live in the same area and practice the same type of living.

i think you need to read a little more about the dassanech tribe and others in the omo valley. they'll change your preconcieved notions.

First off @KidStranglehold is correct in his assertion that Ethiopians Physical look is due to climate.
Here is the breakdown of the study.

Genetic adaptation to high altitude in the Ethiopian highlands
Laura B Scheinfeldt1, Sameer Soi1, Simon Thompson1, Alessia Ranciaro1, Dawit Woldemeskel2, William Beggs1, Charla Lambert13, Joseph P Jarvis1, Dawit Abate2, Gurja Belay2 and Sarah A Tishkoff14*



Background
Genomic analysis of high-altitude populations residing in the Andes and Tibet has revealed several candidate loci for involvement in high-altitude adaptation, a subset of which have also been shown to be associated with hemoglobin levels, including EPAS1, EGLN1, and PPARA, which play a role in the HIF-1 pathway. Here, we have extended this work to high- and low-altitude populations living in Ethiopia, for which we have measured hemoglobin levels. We genotyped the Illumina 1M SNP array and employed several genome-wide scans for selection and targeted association with hemoglobin levels to identify genes that play a role in adaptation to high altitude.

Results
We have identified a set of candidate genes for positive selection in our high-altitude population sample, demonstrated significantly different hemoglobin levels between high- and low-altitude Ethiopians and have identified a subset of candidate genes for selection, several of which also show suggestive associations with hemoglobin levels.

Conclusions
We highlight several candidate genes for involvement in high-altitude adaptation in Ethiopia, includingCBARA1, VAV3, ARNT2 and THRB. Although most of these genes have not been identified in previous studies of high-altitude Tibetan or Andean population samples, two of these genes (THRB and ARNT2) play a role in the HIF-1 pathway, a pathway implicated in previous work reported in Tibetan and Andean studies. These combined results suggest that adaptation to high altitude arose independently due to convergent evolution in high-altitude Amhara populations in Ethiopia.


Basically what they are saying is that is a genes are linked to high attitude.

 

[Swagnificent]

So what about Khoisan ? Are they also mixed ?

as far as i've read the bushmen are descended from a very ancient african group that had little to no admixture with any non-Africans. maybe there will be new studies that dispute this, but this is what i've read.

and imo I have no problem with it. my argument has never been that africa or africans aren't diverse. I just don't think the diversity we see in east africa with semetic speaking ethiopians or in west africa with the fulani was the result of natural diversity. the DNA tells us these peoples have significant non-Africans genes that have contributed to their ancestry and thus it makes sense to postulate that these non-Africans genes had an effect on their phenotype.

 

[Malta]

Dude is a fukking weirdo

You see the pink banner, right? We voted him as the worst for a reason, and he's about to repeat and win the title again this year.

 

[Swagnificent]

*Sigh*

How do you define mixed? And what is your conclusions based on that the Fulanis are mixed and not African? The Fulanis I posted have light skin similar to some of those Northern Ethiopians. Again you accept the true negroid concept.

No I don't. I personally hate the word negroid and never use it or have use for it. It was created by european eugenecists as a term to try and separate black people. I prefer to use the terms of African origin or of non-African origin. The words causasain and negroid have just been created to muddy the waters so that groups that are obviously black like the ancient egyptians can be classified as non-black simply because they had narrow features unlike their brothers in west africa.

To me the San bushmen are just as African as the bantu speaking tribes in the congo or the nilotic speaking dinka in sudan or the omotic speaking tribes in ethiopia. Even if their features are different. African is diverse and Africans are diverse. I don't dispute that. I just disagree with the notion that the diversity we see in East Africa is the result of natural diversity rather than admixture.

If you looked at my post history I used to have lengthy debates with @GreatestLaker on this very topic. I used to be one of those folks that argued that light skin and curly hair among the Fulani or Habesha was the result of natural selection and enviroment. Then I studied the subject more in depth and read the new DNA studies. And they convinced me otherwise.

Plus given the fact Ethiopia was right there next to Arabia, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that people living that close would fukk.

 

[Bawon Samedi]

2007 was a long time ago. Technology and techniques have progressed. Until ancient DNA was sequenced nobody imagined that Europeans and native Americans had such close and recent connection. New evidence is challenging older estimates of African variation. This is science.

Mixture with archiacs has been confirmed and the recent case of the denisovsn findings in Tibetans confirms that this admixture was functional and beneficial. In other words, multiregionalism is now a reality that you have accept. There is no way around it anymore.


The Out-of-Africa replacement theory was a nice "feel-good" theory, but reality has been proven to be much more complex than that.

That article is literally claiming African variation is all due to Eurasian back migration when in fact Eurasians are a subset of one tiny African variation. How can the younger population be more genetically diverse than the older one!??? We already know the oldest Homo-Sapien lineages are in Africa. And talks about Denisovsn who were not relevant to this discussion because they're archaic humans and I'm specifically talking about modern Humans(Homo-Sapiens) who originated in Africa. But in case you didn't know that the Homo Heidelbergensis who originated in Africa is the ancestor of not only Homo Sapiens, but also Neanderthals and you guessed it...Denisovsn. Just thought you should know. ;)



lol at Out of Africa being a "feel good", theory. Sounds like something a Eurocentric would say. Show me where the OOA is out by a majority of anthropologist and multiregionalism is in. Give me a break... Just last there this study was bought to life further supporting the OOA.
Herpes Study Confirms That Human Migration Spread Out From Africa

A new study of the herpes virus has confirmed widely held beliefs about human migration.
The study, published in PLOS One, examined strains of herpes simplex virus type 1 collected throughout North America, Europe, Africa and Asia in order to gain insight on early human migration patterns. After examining the virus’ genome, researchers found ample evidence for the popular “out of Africa” model of human migration, which states that early humans first emerged on the continent before spreading out in disparate groups across the globe.

"The viral strains sort exactly as you would predict based on sequencing of human genomes. We found that all of the African isolates cluster together, all the virus from the Far East, Korea, Japan, China clustered together, all the viruses in Europe and America, with one exception, clustered together," Curtis Brandt, professor of medical microbiology at the University of Wisconsin-Madison and senior author of the study, said in a statement.

"What we found follows exactly what the anthropologists have told us, and the molecular geneticists who have analyzed the human genome have told us, about where humans originated and how they spread across the planet."

Using high-capacity genetic sequencing, University of Wisconsin-Madison scientists were able to develop a “family tree” for the virus, emerging in Africa, bottlenecking in the Middle East and ultimately spreading to Asia, Europe and the Americas.

Researchers say the HSV 1 strain was the perfect virus to work with for numerous reasons. The virus is rarely fatal and sticks with hosts for life, and because it is spread through close contact like kissing, the same strains normally run in families. It is also much smaller and simpler to work with than the full human genome, but still large enough to provide meaningful data.

"You can think of this as a kind of external genome," Brandt said.

Interestingly, the study also offers some evidence for the theory that Native Americans are descended from Asian peoples who crossed a land bridge from far eastern Siberia into the Americas thousands of years ago. Every virus sample collected in the United States matched European strains, except for one Texas-based stain that bore strong resemblances to Asian strains. Brandt says that this is likely due to immigration across a Bering Strait land bridge more than 15,000 years ago.

"We found support for the land bridge hypothesis because the date of divergence from its most recent Asian ancestor was about 15,000 years ago,” Brandt says. "The dates match, so we postulate that this was an Amerindian virus."

http://www.ibtimes.com/herpes-study-confirms-human-migration-spread-out-africa-1435098

 

[Bawon Samedi]

No I don't. I personally hate the word negroid and never use it or have use for it. It was created by european eugenecists as a term to try and separate black people. I prefer to use the terms of African origin or of non-African origin. The words causasain and negroid have just been created to muddy the waters so that groups that are obviously black like the ancient egyptians can be classified as non-black simply because they had narrow features unlike their brothers in west africa.

To me the San bushmen are just as African as the bantu speaking tribes in the congo or the nilotic speaking dinka in sudan or the omotic speaking tribes in ethiopia. Even if their features are different. African is diverse and Africans are diverse. I don't dispute that. I just disagree with the notion that the diversity we see in East Africa is the result of natural diversity rather than admixture.

If you looked at my post history I used to have lengthy debates with @GreatestLaker on this very topic. I used to be one of those folks that argued that light skin and curly hair among the Fulani or Habesha was the result of natural selection and enviroment. Then I studied the subject more in depth and read the new DNA studies. And they convinced me otherwise.

Plus given the fact Ethiopia was right there next to Arabia, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that people living that close would fukk.

You entertain the true negroid concept. There's really nothing much to say...