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

[Poitier]

Those Ethiopians are genetically more Black than Aframs on average. Yet since Aframs don't have narrow phenotypes on average no one questions there blackness.

The Dogon people are highly admixed as well but no one questions the mix-ness of those people.

Woe is the broad featured African.

Exactly.

Imagine how c00nish it would be for African Americans to be like "we are mixed"

Yet this fakkit is hoisting up less than 20% non indigenous African ancestry

 

[Poitier]

However, the average Amhara is about 60% African and 20% non-African.

Math game all fukked up

 

[Bawon Samedi]

Heres another Autosomal/Admixture study on Ethiopians:

In these results it clearer to see Ethiopians period (EtA, Eto,EtT & Ethiopian-jews) cluster closer to Masai of southeast Kenya. Southern Ethiopians (Et0) especially cluster much closer to Masai of southeast Kenya, Sandawe of Central Tanzania and Hazda of northern Tanzania

In all this among other DNA evidence shows Ethiopians are an intermediate between Central-East Africans (Eastern Sudanic) and North Africans (Berbers) they’re the East African equivalent of the Fulani of west Africa.

Yes their admixed but no more than AA's.

 

[Swagnificent]

Aye...I don't feel like getting into a big debate but you're either reading the chart wrong or something else because its not agreeing with what your saying.

Neither Mitochondrial or Y-DNA has anything to do with phenotype nor do either tell the full picture of ones DNA. African American males can carry European R1b on their paternal side, which would be PART of their DNA but not the whole thing. That's what autosomal DNA is for and it'll tell you that AA male carrying R1b would still be mostly African in DNA when you combined it all.

You're reading the chart extremely wrong with your numbers. But more importantly you're taking it out of context because you forget both M and N clades in Ethiopia are UNIQUE to the country. Especially those M clades which are NO LONGER Asian.

Even still your chart shows Ethiopians are mostly African on their mtDNA. No more or less than AA's...

true. the MtDNA and Y-DNA are good indicators for population-wide genetics not individual. but i've also read the autosomal results and they are consist with my arguments. the average semetic speaking ethiopian is about 60% African 40% non-African. with cushytic speakers and omotic speakders being more African and less non-African.

and the point about M and N is that they originated outside of africa and came back to africa as part of a back migration. yes they are old and eventually became unique to the horn. that still doesn't change the fact they were of non-African origin and resulted from a back migration.

i'm interested in who were those people and what did they look like? why did they migrate back to africa? and how much did they change the phenotype of the people they mixed with? I believe looking at groups like the tribes in the omo valley with low levels of M and N haplogroups can give us a good indication of what the pre-back migration East AFrican population looked like.

 

[Camile.Bidan]

"Eurasian" is a general term. And I think I know what study you're talking about and its not agreeing with what you're saying.

http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2014/12/african-genome-variation-project-paper.html

To assess the effect of gene flow on population differentiation in SSA, we masked Eurasian ancestry across the genome (Supplementary Methods and Supplementary Note 6). This markedly reduced population differentiation, as measured by a decline in mean pairwise FST from 0.021 to 0.015 (Supplementary Note 6), suggests that Eurasian ancestry has a substantial impact on differentiation among SSA populations.We speculate that residual differentiation between Ethiopian and other SSA populations after masking Eurasian ancestry (pairwise FST = 0.027) may be a remnant of East African diversity pre-dating the Bantu expansion10.


This suggests that a large proportion of differentiation observed among African populations could be due to Eurasian admixture, rather than adaptation to selective forces (Supplementary Note 6).This study also confirms the presence of Eurasian admixture in the Yoruba
Our finding of ancient Eurasian admixture corroborates findings of non-zero Neanderthal ancestry in Yoruba, which is likely to have been introduced through Eurasian admixture and back migration, possibly facilitated by greening of the Sahara desert during this period13, 14.

Our finding of ancient Eurasian admixture corroborates findings of non-zero Neanderthal ancestry in Yoruba, which is likely to have been introduced through Eurasian admixture and back migration, possibly facilitated by greening of the Sahara desert during this period13, 14.



http://www.unz.com/gnxp/2014/12/03/



On the Eurasian admixture, the authors confirm what we always knew about Ethiopia and the Horn of Africa, that it was the scene of a relatively recent admixture event between an Afro-Asiatic people, and a group related to modern Nilotic peoples. What is more interesting is that they observed Eurasian admixture within Yoruba people. This admixture has been suggested by others, as the Yoruba have traces of Neandertal ancestry. This group dates the admixture back to nearly 10,000 years ago, so it as likely associated with goings on that were trans-Saharan. If that is the case these were almost certain quasi-Eurasian hunter-gatherers, and their ancestry might have been diminished in current North African groups subject to waves of farmers issuing from the east during the Neolithic. But there is also admixture with Eurasians further east in Uganda among Bantu groups. Reading the details of the supplements there is a chance that this was mediated through admixture of Eurasians with hunter-gatherer populations, and then the absorbtion of this hybrid group into the expanding wave of Bantu farmers. Speaking of which, this issue is solved, it is clear that the Bantu expansion was a major demographic transformation of eastern and southern Africa. The genes speak loudly and clearly. Additionally, the Sub-Saharan African admixture of Ethiopians is more closely related to that of the Nilotic people than the Bantus. The paper didn’t tease out the details archaeological and historically, but if you look at the dates all this was going on in eastern Africa during the rise and fall of ancient Egypt. In other words, within historical memory the whole demographic landscape of Africa was reshaped. Contrary to the idea that Africa was static, there are indications here of massive transformations.

Though the Eurasian admixture story among these populations is fascinating, there is also nuance in the input of hunter-gatherer ancestry within West African and Bantu populations. First, I suspect that these estimates are low bounds, because they don’t have exact reference populations. Some of the hunter-gatherers mixed into the Igbo and Bantu groups may have been more like agriculturalists than the extant hunter-gatherer groups within Africa. One of the peculiarities of the genetics is that it looks as if the hunter-gatherers of Sub-Saharan Africa, the Khoisan in the south and the Pygmies in the center, share more recent common ancestors than they do with the agriculturalists. This may simply be due to the fact that the agriculturalists went through rapid expansion, and this whole constellation of peoples derive from a group which was an outgroup to extant hunter-gatherers. The only complicating issue is that of Eurasian admixture; it seems likely that for very old admixture events we’re seeing underestimates, or they aren’t picked up. In other words, the “reference” Sub-Saharan Africans themselves are compounds of people who remained within Africa, and Out of Africa. The eastern Pygmies may be the only people in the world without much Out of Africa input (recall that the Khoisan have some level of Out of Africa input mediated by East African pastoralists).

A second interesting aspect of the paper is about selection within African populations. As I said above you can find much in the supplements, so I won’t review that laundry list. But, it is interesting that many of the signatures disappeared once Eurasian ancestry was “masked.”That is, within the genomes of individuals you have a mosaic of ancestries, and high genetic distances between populations at particular loci turn out often to be simply due to historical demography. Once you remove this confound you pick out signals of selection which might be due to local adaptation (though some of the Eurasian alleles might also have been subject to selection, so in some ways the filtering might be too stringent). But the masking of Eurasian ancestry also highlighted something important: the genetic variation across African populations once you remove Eurasian ancestry is not that high. This is curious in light of the truism that most genetic variation in humans is found within Africa, but as Nick Patterson pointed out to me years ago: this applies to variation within populations, not across them. Since most variation is not partitioned across populations that explains why Africans can be so genetically varied despite exhibiting not too high between population variation. After masking Eurasian ancestry the mean pairwise Fst was ~0.015. To give a sense of perspective, the Fst between Northern Italians and Lithuanians is 0.01. The Fst between the Ethiopian African ancestry (so Eurasian segments are masked) and other African populations is still 0.027, on average (the distance between Lithuanians and Southern Italians is 0.015). This reinforces the fact that the African ancestors of Ethiopians are somewhat atypical (further confirmed by the relative inaccuracy of imputation from public data sets).

The result that the Igbo seem to have ancestry from a hunter-gatherer group genetically closer to the Khoisan than the Mbuti Pygmies makes a lot more sense when you accept that much of the genetic population structure within African disappeared with the rise of agriculturalist groups which demographically swamped them. It seems plausible that the preexistent variation can be reconstructed to some extent by analyzing patterns within agriculturalists, as they likely absorbed hunter-gatherer groups over time. Within the paper the authors suggest that whole genome sequencing of more populations should be high on the priority list, and I agree. The future is going to be interesting.

 

[Mowgli]

Oh now I understand we're you're getting.

You were using Eurocentric tactics AGAINST them by saying is there a "true Caucasoid".

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????

 

[Dank Hill]

Still look nothing like

 

[Bawon Samedi]

http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2014/12/african-genome-variation-project-paper.html

To assess the effect of gene flow on population differentiation in SSA, we masked Eurasian ancestry across the genome (Supplementary Methods and Supplementary Note 6). This markedly reduced population differentiation, as measured by a decline in mean pairwise FST from 0.021 to 0.015 (Supplementary Note 6), suggests that Eurasian ancestry has a substantial impact on differentiation among SSA populations.We speculate that residual differentiation between Ethiopian and other SSA populations after masking Eurasian ancestry (pairwise FST = 0.027) may be a remnant of East African diversity pre-dating the Bantu expansion10.


This suggests that a large proportion of differentiation observed among African populations could be due to Eurasian admixture, rather than adaptation to selective forces (Supplementary Note 6).This study also confirms the presence of Eurasian admixture in the Yoruba
Our finding of ancient Eurasian admixture corroborates findings of non-zero Neanderthal ancestry in Yoruba, which is likely to have been introduced through Eurasian admixture and back migration, possibly facilitated by greening of the Sahara desert during this period13, 14.

Our finding of ancient Eurasian admixture corroborates findings of non-zero Neanderthal ancestry in Yoruba, which is likely to have been introduced through Eurasian admixture and back migration, possibly facilitated by greening of the Sahara desert during this period13, 14.



http://www.unz.com/gnxp/2014/12/03/



On the Eurasian admixture, the authors confirm what we always knew about Ethiopia and the Horn of Africa, that it was the scene of a relatively recent admixture event between an Afro-Asiatic people, and a group related to modern Nilotic peoples. What is more interesting is that they observed Eurasian admixture within Yoruba people. This admixture has been suggested by others, as the Yoruba have traces of Neandertal ancestry. This group dates the admixture back to nearly 10,000 years ago, so it as likely associated with goings on that were trans-Saharan. If that is the case these were almost certain quasi-Eurasian hunter-gatherers, and their ancestry might have been diminished in current North African groups subject to waves of farmers issuing from the east during the Neolithic. But there is also admixture with Eurasians further east in Uganda among Bantu groups. Reading the details of the supplements there is a chance that this was mediated through admixture of Eurasians with hunter-gatherer populations, and then the absorbtion of this hybrid group into the expanding wave of Bantu farmers. Speaking of which, this issue is solved, it is clear that the Bantu expansion was a major demographic transformation of eastern and southern Africa. The genes speak loudly and clearly. Additionally, the Sub-Saharan African admixture of Ethiopians is more closely related to that of the Nilotic people than the Bantus. The paper didn’t tease out the details archaeological and historically, but if you look at the dates all this was going on in eastern Africa during the rise and fall of ancient Egypt. In other words, within historical memory the whole demographic landscape of Africa was reshaped. Contrary to the idea that Africa was static, there are indications here of massive transformations.

Though the Eurasian admixture story among these populations is fascinating, there is also nuance in the input of hunter-gatherer ancestry within West African and Bantu populations. First, I suspect that these estimates are low bounds, because they don’t have exact reference populations. Some of the hunter-gatherers mixed into the Igbo and Bantu groups may have been more like agriculturalists than the extant hunter-gatherer groups within Africa. One of the peculiarities of the genetics is that it looks as if the hunter-gatherers of Sub-Saharan Africa, the Khoisan in the south and the Pygmies in the center, share more recent common ancestors than they do with the agriculturalists. This may simply be due to the fact that the agriculturalists went through rapid expansion, and this whole constellation of peoples derive from a group which was an outgroup to extant hunter-gatherers. The only complicating issue is that of Eurasian admixture; it seems likely that for very old admixture events we’re seeing underestimates, or they aren’t picked up. In other words, the “reference” Sub-Saharan Africans themselves are compounds of people who remained within Africa, and Out of Africa. The eastern Pygmies may be the only people in the world without much Out of Africa input (recall that the Khoisan have some level of Out of Africa input mediated by East African pastoralists).

A second interesting aspect of the paper is about selection within African populations. As I said above you can find much in the supplements, so I won’t review that laundry list. But, it is interesting that many of the signatures disappeared once Eurasian ancestry was “masked.”That is, within the genomes of individuals you have a mosaic of ancestries, and high genetic distances between populations at particular loci turn out often to be simply due to historical demography. Once you remove this confound you pick out signals of selection which might be due to local adaptation (though some of the Eurasian alleles might also have been subject to selection, so in some ways the filtering might be too stringent). But the masking of Eurasian ancestry also highlighted something important: the genetic variation across African populations once you remove Eurasian ancestry is not that high. This is curious in light of the truism that most genetic variation in humans is found within Africa, but as Nick Patterson pointed out to me years ago: this applies to variation within populations, not across them. Since most variation is not partitioned across populations that explains why Africans can be so genetically varied despite exhibiting not too high between population variation. After masking Eurasian ancestry the mean pairwise Fst was ~0.015. To give a sense of perspective, the Fst between Northern Italians and Lithuanians is 0.01. The Fst between the Ethiopian African ancestry (so Eurasian segments are masked) and other African populations is still 0.027, on average (the distance between Lithuanians and Southern Italians is 0.015). This reinforces the fact that the African ancestors of Ethiopians are somewhat atypical (further confirmed by the relative inaccuracy of imputation from public data sets).

The result that the Igbo seem to have ancestry from a hunter-gatherer group genetically closer to the Khoisan than the Mbuti Pygmies makes a lot more sense when you accept that much of the genetic population structure within African disappeared with the rise of agriculturalist groups which demographically swamped them. It seems plausible that the preexistent variation can be reconstructed to some extent by analyzing patterns within agriculturalists, as they likely absorbed hunter-gatherer groups over time. Within the paper the authors suggest that whole genome sequencing of more populations should be high on the priority list, and I agree. The future is going to be interesting.

Is this study seriously trying to suggest Neanderthal ancestry in Yoruba!????

What are his conclusions based!???

 

[Camile.Bidan]

Is this study seriously trying to suggest Neanderthal ancestry in Yoruba!???? What are his conclusions based!???

Is this study seriously trying to suggest Neanderthal ancestry in Yoruba!???? What are his conclusions based!???

Neanderthal was found in the Yoruba 1 or 2 years ago.

 

[Blackking]

Not mixed... It's just like Sudanese, and some other groups in the area....... they just possess everything that could repopulate the planet and create the races again.


and specifically with Ethiopians.. they have the most connected to prophets, jesus and other people blood on Earth. It seems like most important people in ancient times dropped seeds in Ethiopian hoes.

 

[Dr. Sebi Jr.]

I don't trust DNA. It's CAC science.

Unless it's used to prove a pharaoh was black. Then I trust it.

 

[Elle Driver]

Not mixed... It's just like Sudanese, and some other groups in the area....... they just possess everything that could repopulate the planet and create the races again.


and specifically with Ethiopians.. they have the most connected to prophets, jesus and other people blood on Earth. It seems like most important people in ancient times dropped seeds in Ethiopian hoes.

Lmao that's so disrespectful.

 

[Oceanicpuppy]

you gotta be more accurate. cause that can either be a true statement or very false depending on the ethiopian tribe we are talking about. if its an omotic speaking group or some cushytic tribes (like the karrayu oromo), then you are right. However, if by ethiopian you mean one of the semitic speaking tribes like the Amhara then you are dead wrong.

the average African American is about 80% African and 20% non-African. However, the average Amhara is about 60% African and 20% non-African.

you are right, however, on similar levels of admixture between African Americans and East Africans not leading to similar phenotypes because the ancestral black populations each draws from is different. East Africans descend from a different ancestral black population than West Africans. Both shared similar skin color and hair texture but most likely had different facial morphologies.

I believe the omotic tribes in southern ethiopia are a good example of what the ancestral black population in East Africa looked like before any mixing. As you can see below, most tribes in the omo valley have thiner noses unlike many of the more broad nosed tribes in west or central africa. and tribes in the omo valley have very low levels of non-African ancestry. so its a good example of what east africans looked like in the distant past.

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

 

[Bawon Samedi]

Neanderthal was found in the Yoruba 1 or 2 years ago.

Where and when? And do they account RECENT admixture?

 

[Swagnificent]

Out of context study. Plus a blog is not a peer reviewed study.

Also Haplogroups only tells part of ones ancestry, not all of it.

J haplogroups(J1) in Ethiopia are unique to the region. Just like M1 is unique to Africa and no longer Eurasian. The J1 haplogroup been there since the neolithic and was bought to Ethiopia during that time. The people who bought to the Horn(Arabia) looked no different from Africans, so one has to question if horner phenotypes is due to "being mixed" or instead indignous built in diversity.

how can you say that when there are cushytic speaking tribes in the omo valley like the Dassanech who have the same African genes as the "horners" but none of the back-migration eurasians genes and yet they look distinctly different than their East African brethern?








if the light skin and curly hair of some horners was just some natural result of diversity, why don't we see the same in the Dassanech?

look back at the results http://ethiohelix.blogspot.co.uk/2012/11/extensive-doctoral-thesis-on-ethiopian.html

the dassanech and other non-nilotic omo valley tribes have very little in the way of west african or nilo-saharan (A and B) genes to try and explain away their phenotype. both their y-DNA and mtDNA are the same as the African components we see in semitic and cushytic speaking ethiopians. the only difference is they lack the large quantities of M and N back-migrated genes.

given that evidence i don't know how you can claim the back-migrated non-African genes didn't change the phenotype of the semitic and cushytic speaking east african tribes.