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

[godkiller]

So I've had a bunch of folks ask me for evidence the last couple of days after I said in a couple of threads that the light skin curly hair ethiopian broads nikkas was fiendin for are mixed. Well here is that evidence.

http://ethiohelix.blogspot.co.uk/2012/11/extensive-doctoral-thesis-on-ethiopian.html

Here are the ethnic groups sampled. As you can see they got over 100 DNA samples from almost every ethnic group in Ethiopia. You have semetic speaking, cushytic speaking, omotic speaking, and nilotic speaking groups all up in here.

Next we have the ethnic groups listed in order based on levels of admixture. The big blue line that makes up the majority of most of the groups is the E1b haplogroup. Its believed to have originated in East Africa and is the primary African marker. The other colors are either African (orange, yellow, and green) or non-African (red and purple).

Since there are so many ethnic groups in Ethiopia, the easiest way to break down the genetic differences between the different groups is by langauges. Ethnic groups with similar languages tend to have similar features and also similar genetics.

To me this graph above is the most important one. Blue/Green/Yellow/Orange is African. Red/Purple is non-African. As you can see the Semitic speakers in Ethiopia have the biggest band of red and purple. Hence the most non-African genes in their pool. Thus its not surprising they look like this.


The Omotic and Cushytic tribes have similar amounts of non-African genes but its smaller than the Semitic speakers thus it makes sense they don't look as mixed.



And finally we have the Nilotic speakers which have almost no non-African genes and are almost purely African.

So where is the proof they are mixed? What haplogroups were found? Edit: I see. The J group.

 

[godkiller]

that's not what multi regional theory is. Multiregional theory proposes that regional populations became modern through geneflow from Africa. Racial features and differences are a legacy of admixture from regional archaic populations.

In the video that I posted, Chris stringer states that small differences inherited from archaics may in fact be the source of racial variations.

Currently, We know for a fact that these archaic genes have contributed to the functional variation between humans. For example, Tibetans inherited their high altitude adaptions from denisovans. That is definitive proof of multiregionalism

OOA proposes that the Africans fully replaced all other humans. that's simply not true anymore. Moreover, the out-of- Africans provided an initial spark. There multiple regions that latter on became import "birth places" like the Middle East and the Asian steppe. Europe had massive population shifts at least three times. The original OOAs that came into europe do exist anymore except for a small contribution. Same could be said of East Asia.

Where is the conclusive proof OOA isn't true?

 

[godkiller]

Reason why the study doesn't make sense is where is the Eurasian percentage come from? Show me an European that looks Ethiopian. The only inter-mixture known is during the days of Italian invasion from Mussolini. But that's only a small percentage of the population. That's known but no scientific proof before WW2 of this study.....ever.

The Eurasian must mean Arab or something close to it. The J haplogroup is supposedly a Western Asian origin haplogroup, which is sometimes found in East Africans (but variously found in other groups, most notably the Arabs and people like them). The problem with this study's use of Eurasian is that the authors don't make clear what they mean. To the average person "Eurasian" means white. The average white person does not have J haplogroup.

 

[Bawon Samedi]

Most people forget that these people too are "Eurasian" and in fact the oldest "Eurasians" who carry the oldest "Eurasian" lineages.

Saying Eurasian only means white is agreeing with the new Eurocentric tactic that "Eurasian" is the new code word for Caucasoid. The back migrants who bought J1 to Ethiopia would have most likely been "black" Asiatics. And would have been absorbed into the local population.

 

[HideoKojima]

So you trying to tell me an indigenous African population ain't African? Not every East African chick has curly hair and lightskin. I know plenty who have hair as coarse as a bristol pad and are darker. This thread is some cac worship. thank u massa for my good genes.

this... I know we like posting yellow bones ethiopians on coli but the reality is most ethiopians are dark to brown skinned, with maybe 1 in a hundred being ambiguous looking. Most of us look american
Black(you guys also have 10-30 percent non SSA admixture aswell). We are predominantly black. It's a bit like saying Europeans are Chinese because they happen to have minor Asian admixture as a result of them Genghis khan times or african Americans are not black because you guys happen to have some euro ancestry. Not many people are pure anyway. Most of the features such as thin nose are indigenous to parts of East Africa. See Lupita Nyongo.

say it again. Say it again for the c00ns in the back.
it's about as bad as people thinking Somalis are all light skin when that's actually a minority.

 

[Camile.Bidan]

]

http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/johanson.html

I know what the Multiregional theory is... And it doesn't agree to an single evolution for Modern Humans(Homo Sapiens).



Where in the video? You gave me no time. And how does DNA inherited from archaic humans show the OOA is dated? Chris Stringer was not even hinting to what you were saying. And most Anthropologist all agree that climate, diet and SNP events played a crucial factor on modern human phenotype. If archaic DNA was such a huge source, then why did Neanderthal DNA hardly had an effect on the humans? The gene for lighter skinned only arose about 10,000 years. Way after the Neanderthals.


No its not.



No it does not. Where the heck are you getting this from!??? It seems you're just pulling things out of nowhere. The Out of Africa only proposes that modern Humans originated in Africa and then spread to the rest of the world. The multiregional theory is hardly taken serious in academia. Genetics, virus/bacteria and dated physical remains all support the out of Africa, where as none of it for the multiregional theory.

Watch the whole video again. i don't think you did

From wiki:


"Through the influence of Howells, many other anthropologists and biologists have confused multiregionalism with polygenism i.e. separate or multiple origins for different populations. Alan Templeton for example notes that this confusion has led to the error that gene flow between different populations was added to the Multiregional hypothesis as a "special pleading in response to recent difficulties", despite the fact: "parallel evolution was never part of the multiregional model, much less its core, whereas gene flow was not a recent addition, but rather was present in the model from the very beginning"[8] (emphasis in original). Despite this, multiregionalism is still confused with polygenism, or c00n's model of racial origins, from which Wolpoff and his colleagues have distanced themselves.[9][10]

In 1998, Wu founded a China-specific Multiregional model called "Continuity with [Incidental] Hybridization".[11][12] Wu's variant only applies the Multiregional hypothesis to the East Asian fossil record which is popular among Chinese scientists.[13] However, James Leibold a political historian of modern China has argued the support for Wu's model is largely rooted in Chinese nationalism.[14] Outside of China, the Multiregional hypothesis has limited support, held only by a small number of paleoanthropologists.[15]

"Classic" vs "weak" multiregionalism
Chris Stringer a leading proponent of the more mainstream recent African origin theory debated Multiregionalists such as Wolpoff and Thorne in a series of publications throughout the late 80s and 90s.[16][17][18][19] Stringer describes how he considers the original Multiregional hypothesis to have been modified over time into a weaker variant that now allows a much greater role for Africa in human evolution, including anatomical modernity (and subsequently less regional continuity than was first proposed).[20]

Stringer distinguishes the original or "classic" Multiregional model as having existed from 1984 (its formulation) until 2003, to a "weak" post-2003 variant that has "shifted close to that of the Assimilation Model".[21][22]
"

Multiregionalism has always influenced gene flow Africa. The old theory where Africans replaced everyone with NO admixture is wrong.

Tibetans inheriting high altitude genes from denisovans is a pretty clear example multi regionalism.





This whole reaction from blacks regarding admixture from Eurasians in Africa is sickening and shocking to me. Within the five years all sorts of evidence has surfaced showing that nearly everyone is a mixture of this or that. Europeans are a mixed of Aryans from central Asia, basal Europeans and a mysterious population that was the source population of Native Americans. Asians are a mix of people from the Asian steppe and native black Asians who came to Asia long before the steppe invaders arrived. there is now evidence that Native Americans mixed with austronesians some 1000+ years ago. South Asians are now shown to be mix of central Asians and native black asians. Arabs clearly show admixture with Africans. Everyone must accept reality.

But to even suggest the Africans aren't some pure unmixed race will invoke a fury from black people the likes of which I a have never seen anyone else. I mean get over it. You're people mixed-up with your neighbors just like everyone else. You're not special unmixed people of epic greatness. You're just like everyone else. Get over it.

 

[Camile.Bidan]

Most people forget that these people too are "Eurasian" and in fact the oldest "Eurasians" who carry the oldest "Eurasian" lineages.

Saying Eurasian only means white is agreeing with the new Eurocentric tactic that "Eurasian" is the new code word for Caucasoid. The back migrants who bought J1 to Ethiopia would have most likely been "black" Asiatics. And would have been absorbed into the local population.

Eurasians means East Asian, oceanic, west Asians, south Asian and central Asian. Not just white people

 

[Bawon Samedi]

I like how you're randomly projecting nonsense onto me that I never said, but whatever.

Watch the whole video again. i don't think you did

I not only did I watched the video but posted a LINK to what the topic of the video was about!

"Through the influence of Howells, many other anthropologists and biologists have confused multiregionalism with polygenism i.e. separate or multiple origins for different populations. Alan Templeton for example notes that this confusion has led to the error that gene flow between different populations was added to the Multiregional hypothesis as a "special pleading in response to recent difficulties", despite the fact: "parallel evolution was never part of the multiregional model, much less its core, whereas gene flow was not a recent addition, but rather was present in the model from the very beginning"[8] (emphasis in original). Despite this, multiregionalism is still confused with polygenism, or c00n's model of racial origins, from which Wolpoff and his colleagues have distanced themselves.[9][10]



In 1998, Wu founded a China-specific Multiregional model called "Continuity with [Incidental] Hybridization".[11][12] Wu's variant only applies the Multiregional hypothesis to the East Asian fossil record which is popular among Chinese scientists.[13] However, James Leibold a political historian of modern China has argued the support for Wu's model is largely rooted in Chinese nationalism.[14] Outside of China, the Multiregional hypothesis has limited support, held only by a small number of paleoanthropologists.[15]

"Classic" vs "weak" multiregionalism
Chris Stringer a leading proponent of the more mainstream recent African origin theory debated Multiregionalists such as Wolpoff and Thorne in a series of publications throughout the late 80s and 90s.[16][17][18][19] Stringer describes how he considers the original Multiregional hypothesis to have been modified over time into a weaker variant that now allows a much greater role for Africa in human evolution, including anatomical modernity (and subsequently less regional continuity than was first proposed).[20]

Stringer distinguishes the original or "classic" Multiregional model as having existed from 1984 (its formulation) until 2003, to a "weak" post-2003 variant that has "shifted close to that of the Assimilation Model".[21][22]
"

How does this dismiss the OOA? So the theory has been modified?

Multiregionalism has always influenced gene flow Africa. The old theory where Africans replaced everyone with NO admixture is wrong.

Tibetans inheriting high altitude genes from denisovans is a pretty clear example multi regionalism.

Again how does this dismiss the OOA. And why are you keep bringing up the bolded when no one said no such thing?

This whole reaction from blacks regarding admixture from Eurasians in Africa is sickening and shocking to me. Within the five years all sorts of evidence has surfaced showing that nearly everyone is a mixture of this or that. Europeans are a mixed of Aryans from central Asia, basal Europeans and a mysterious population that was the source population of Native Americans. Asians are a mix of people from the Asian steppe and native black Asians who came to Asia long before the steppe invaders arrived. there is now evidence that Native Americans mixed with austronesians some 1000+ years ago. South Asians are now shown to be mix of central Asians and native black asians. Arabs clearly show admixture with Africans. Everyone must accept reality.

But to even suggest the Africans aren't some pure unmixed race will invoke a fury from black people the likes of which I a have never seen anyone else. I mean get over it. You're people mixed-up with your neighbors just like everyone else. You're not special unmixed people of epic greatness. You're just like everyone else. Get over it.

A bunch of useless and futile dribble which no one said. I thought I was the one who made it clear to define what "pure" is. You're still projecting garbage onto. I NEVER denied Africans being admixed, all groups are admixed to an extent. Its you and @Swagnificent who have this pseudo-scientific theory that all African variation is due to Eurasians/back migration; when in fact Eurasians are a subject of that African variation. No one is accepting reality but you. You're the one(not me) who thinks the OOA theory is dated.

 

[Bawon Samedi]

Eurasians means East Asian, oceanic, west Asians, south Asian and central Asian. Not just white people

I know. Thats what I meant.

 

[Swagnificent]

Brehs, the one thing I've learned about these discussions is that it really shows you how inferior alot of black people feel about themselves. No matter how much history and studies you show them, they still feel that black people haven't done anything beyond slavery or without the help of Europeans. No way can Africans have light skin without someone else giving it to us. No way can we have civilizations without someone giving it to us. No matter what proof you put in front of them, they can't shake their feelings of inferiority. Of course you'll have people deny it to save face, but it's very evident.

its amazing to me how you guys are seein what you want to see from me rather than what i am actually arguing. i never said that africans couldn't have light skin without mixing with someone else. I know the bushmen are among the oldest native africans and they have the lightest skin.

my argument is simple. GENETICS matter. if one group of ethiopians has significantly more genes that originated outside of Africa than their neighbors and they look different, maybe those non-African genes have some effect on their differences in phenotype. if the african genes of the light skin ethiopian was radically different than their dark skin neighbors, I would agree with you. but the amazing thing that the new DNA studies have found is that the omotic speaking tribes in ethiopia have the same African genes as their habesha counterparts.

Since most of the tribes in the Omo Valley looked like this




people thought that eventhough they speak an Afro-Asaitic language like their Cushytic and Semitic neighbors, they must have mixed with the Nilotic tribes from Sudan given their different phenotype.

HOWEVER, the reverse tuned out to be true. the Omotic speakers have little in the way or mixing with Nilotic tribes from Sudan. They have the same African genes as their ethiopian neighbors. The only difference being they lack as much non-African originated genes as their neighbours.

 

[Swagnificent]

Swagnificent is definitely a cac now. Eat this neg breh.

@GreatestLaker come up in here and tell these folks i used to be just like em. you can check my post history. I used to argue just like ya'll against the idea East africans were mixed. That was before I found all these new genetic studies.

When new evidence arises, I change my views. The new genetic stduies are very compelling.

 

[Swagnificent]

Most people forget that these people too are "Eurasian" and in fact the oldest "Eurasians" who carry the oldest "Eurasian" lineages.

Saying Eurasian only means white is agreeing with the new Eurocentric tactic that "Eurasian" is the new code word for Caucasoid. The back migrants who bought J1 to Ethiopia would have most likely been "black" Asiatics. And would have been absorbed into the local population.

the ancestors of the andamense left africa 60,000 years ago. no shyt everyone was black back then and looked the same. however, people change over time. and the back to africa migrations happened in waves. its possible that the initial waves of J1 looked like the native east africans. and its also possibly that later waves of the same J1 looked different.

 

[pickles]

@GreatestLaker come up in here and tell these folks i used to be just like em. you can check my post history. I used to argue just like ya'll against the idea East africans were mixed. That was before I found all these new genetic studies.

When new evidence arises, I change my views. The new genetic stduies are very compelling.

Honestly breh, you are the dumbest nikka that posts here. Africa is a huge fukken continent. You have got to be the dumbest human being ever, if you think African people are this monolith of people who are genetically similar. What you have posted is nothing new. White people always have been trying to divide black folk, with often horrific results (Uganda). Nice try with this bullshyt.
Ethiopians are still black people.

 

[GreatestLaker]

@GreatestLaker come up in here and tell these folks i used to be just like em. you can check my post history. I used to argue just like ya'll against the idea East africans were mixed. That was before I found all these new genetic studies.

When new evidence arises, I change my views. The new genetic stduies are very compelling.

You're telling the truth. There was a study a few years back that showed certain ethnic groups in East Africa having a mixed ancestry. And you argued against it.

 

[Camile.Bidan]

I like how you're randomly projecting nonsense onto me that I never said, but whatever.



I not only did I watched the video but posted a LINK to what the topic of the video was about!




How does this dismiss the OOA? So the theory has been modified?


Again how does this dismiss the OOA. And why are you keep bringing up the bolded when no one said no such thing?






A bunch of useless and futile dribble which no one said. I thought I was the one who made it clear to define what "pure" is. You're still projecting garbage onto. I NEVER denied Africans being admixed, all groups are admixed to an extent. Its you and @Swagnificent who have this pseudo-scientific theory that all African variation is due to Eurasians/back migration; when in fact Eurasians are a subject of that African variation. No one is accepting reality but you. You're the one(not me) who thinks the OOA theory is dated.

You're projecting things on to me. prior to the sequencing of the Neanderthal and Denisovan DNA codes, the Out-of-Africa theory proposed that there was NO admixture between archaic humans and modern humans. That has been proven to be 100% false.

I didn't say that ALL variation in the African population was due to admixture with Eurasians. Nobody is saying that. The recent study showed that variation in the African Population was LOWER THAN EXPECTED. It's still higher than all other populations. Do you even read? or do you just assume that everything is part of some eurocentric conspiracy to keep Africans down.