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

[Bawon Samedi]

Excellent post @Canadadry

VERY excellent.

 

[Oceanicpuppy]

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.

Light Skin is native to Africa. I post some links later.
Multiregional Evolution of Humans does not have much creditable proof.


The strong anatomical basis of the multi-regional hypothesis is a weakness of the theory. Chris Stringer highlights this, suggesting that the physical features used to support the regional continuity (i.e. flatness of the frontal bone and the constriction of the skull behind the orbital area) are not only found in specific regions such as Asia, but all around the world. This suggests that these physical features are in fact general Homo characteristics and cannot therefore be used in support of the multi-regionalist view (Stringer, C 1984, cited by Pettitt, P 2009:131).

The most highly damaging critique of this hypothesis stems from recent genetic research. The multi-regional model proposes a shared genetic lineage between archaic Neanderthals and modern humans. Geneticists have proved this idea to be purely imaginative. Work on the Neander Valley skeleton and others have demonstrated that such a link in descent does not exist. It has been widely credited that Neanderthals did not contribute, in any case, to the human genome and therefore the evolution of modern humans (EP 2006b:71).

On the basis that there is little supporting evidence to suggest the validity of the multi-regionalist view, it would seem that its competitor, the Out of Africa 2 model or population replacement model, has the upper hand. The Out of Africa 2 model is a strong contender in accounting for the spread and development of anatomically modern Homo sapiens sapiens (EP 2006c: 69).

 

[Swagnificent]

Their is no creditable proof of an Eurasian Back-to-Africa migration.

reading is fundamental. http://www.plosgenetics.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pgen.1004393

Genetic studies have identified substantial non-African admixture in the Horn of Africa (HOA). In the most recent genomic studies, this non-African ancestry has been attributed to admixture with Middle Eastern populations during the last few thousand years. However, mitochondrial and Y chromosome data are suggestive of earlier episodes of admixture. To investigate this further, we generated new genome-wide SNP data for a Yemeni population sample and merged these new data with published genome-wide genetic data from the HOA and a broad selection of surrounding populations. We used multidimensional scaling and ADMIXTURE methods in an exploratory data analysis to develop hypotheses on admixture and population structure in HOA populations. These analyses suggested that there might be distinct, differentiated African and non-African ancestries in the HOA. After partitioning the SNP data into African and non-African origin chromosome segments, we found support for a distinct African (Ethiopic) ancestry and a distinct non-African (Ethio-Somali) ancestry in HOA populations. The African Ethiopic ancestry is tightly restricted to HOA populations and likely represents an autochthonous HOA population. The non-African ancestry in the HOA, which is primarily attributed to a novel Ethio-Somali inferred ancestry component, is significantly differentiated from all neighboring non-African ancestries in North Africa, the Levant, and Arabia. The Ethio-Somali ancestry is found in all admixed HOA ethnic groups, shows little inter-individual variance within these ethnic groups, is estimated to have diverged from all other non-African ancestries by at least 23 ka, and does not carry the unique Arabian lactase persistence allele that arose about 4 ka. Taking into account published mitochondrial, Y chromosome, paleoclimate, and archaeological data, we find that the time of the Ethio-Somali back-to-Africa migration is most likely pre-agricultural.

Most people thought the back migration of non-Africans into Africa was recent. However, DNA studies have shown that there was an early back to africa migration about 20-30,000 years ago. It was this ancient non-African group that brought the M&N mtDNA haplogroups we see in East Africa. As well as the J and T y-DNA haplogroups.

so a back migration into Africa DEFINITELY happened 20-30,000 years ago and it changed the face of the Horn going forward.

 

[Swagnificent]

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.

now explain to me why the somali or oromo tribes that don't live in the highlands look different than their omotic neighbors in the lake omo and tana regions? remember their neighbors also are pastorlists. and live in the same hot dry lands. and eat the same foods.

at the end of the genes matter as well. i'm not one to say enviroment doesn't play a factor. i just think you guys are overplaying the enviromental differences and downplaying the genetic ones.

 

[Bawon Samedi]

reading is fundamental. http://www.plosgenetics.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pgen.1004393




Most people thought the back migration of non-Africans into Africa was recent. However, DNA studies have shown that there was an early back to africa migration about 20-30,000 years ago. It was this ancient non-African group that brought the M&N mtDNA haplogroups we see in East Africa. As well as the J and T y-DNA haplogroups.

so a back migration into Africa DEFINITELY happened 20-30,000 years ago and it changed the face of the Horn going forward.

LMAO!!!!! Are you kidding me!??? 20-30,000 years ago during the Paleolithic most humans would have resembled Africans!!!! Lighter skin did not even evolve yet!

But more importantly...

Many human craniofacial dimensions are largely of neutral adaptive significance, and an analysis of their variation can serve as an indication of the extent to which any given population is genetically related to or differs from any other. When 24 craniofacial measurements of a series of human populations are used to generate neighbor-joining dendrograms, it is no surprise that all modern European groups, ranging all of the way from Scandinavia to eastern Europe and throughout the Mediterranean to the Middle East, show that they are closely related to each other. The surprise is that the Neolithic peoples of Europe and their Bronze Age successors are not closely related to the modern inhabitants, although the prehistoric/modern ties are somewhat more apparent in southern Europe. It is a further surprise that the Epipalaeolithic Natufian of Israel from whom the Neolithic realm was assumed to arise has a clear link to Sub-Saharan Africa. Basques and Canary Islanders are clearly associated with modern Europeans. When canonical variates are plotted, neither sample ties in with Cro-Magnon as was once suggested. The data treated here support the idea that the Neolithic moved out of the Near East into the circum-Mediterranean areas and Europe by a process of demic diffusion but that subsequently the in situ residents of those areas, derived from the Late Pleistocene inhabitants, absorbed both the agricultural life way and the people who had brought it.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1325007/


^^^^Note thats not even the Paleolithic which was much later!

Then we have this...

Note how they plot AWAY from their modern inhabitants!

Again one has to question how horner phenotypes wre impacted by "Eurasian" back migrants...

And the study you posted was already broken down by Kemet Rocky here.

 

[Swagnificent]

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

so lemme get this straight. simply because I believe that the difference in phenotypes between the MODERN semitic, cushytic, nilotic, and omotic speaking tribes in ethiopia is the result of admixture with a non-African population makes me a believer in the "true negroid concept."

there is no true negroid because the AFRICAN ancestors of the khoisan, bantu, nilotic, and afro-asiatic speaking tribes were different. they had some similarities and some differences. none was any less true an african than the other. I've already made clear that narrow features were present in the ancient east africans (before admixture) that made them distinct and different from their west africans brothers.and obviously the khosians were different from everyone else in terms of their features. and so were the nilotes. all equally black and african.

i don't know how much more clear i have to be in saying i don't believe in the true negroid nonsense. i just think the evidence of admixture with non-Africans in the Horn is OVERWHELMING. Even if it isn't what I would want to believe.

 

[Swagnificent]

LMAO!!!!! Are you kidding me!??? 20-30,000 years ago during the Paleolithic most humans would have resembled Africans!!!! Lighter skin did not even evolve yet!

But more importantly...

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1325007/


^^^^Note thats not even the Paleolithic which was much later!

Then we have this...

Note how they plot AWAY from their modern inhabitants!

Again one has to question how horner phenotypes wre impacted by "Eurasian" back migrants...

And the study you posted was already broken down by Kemet Rocky here.

he said there was NO EVIDENCE of a back to Africa migration. I posted one. Obviously I think there were later ones. in particular the rise of semitic langauges in ethiopia has been linked to a more recent back to africa migration from arabia.

 

[Blackking]

Only half.

I don't believe you.

well, if I did cheat.... I'd make sure I'd never do it in Purgatory at least




@KidStranglehold dropping knowledge as usual.

 

[Blackking]

just blew my mind breh

if God made us and Ethiopia is the home of the human race; than Ethiopians are the OG humans

I was actually researching and looking for my own people to fit the categories of what I said. .

but then all the people led to Ethiopia. Then even the line of David and Solomon.. and whoever else you can think of. Well, if Eritirans are included.

 

[Oceanicpuppy]

now explain to me why the somali or oromo tribes that don't live in the highlands look different than their omotic neighbors in the lake omo and tana regions? remember their neighbors also are pastorlists. and live in the same hot dry lands. and eat the same foods.

at the end of the genes matter as well. i'm not one to say enviroment doesn't play a factor. i just think you guys are overplaying the enviromental differences and downplaying the genetic ones.

Africans had a lot more time develop seperate physical characteristics that adapt to climate simply because they were here longer.

Nothing more to it, I don't want post up hella studies but one example in a study says that Europeans and the like have a penchant for certain oral characteristics because they been domesticated longer.

 

[Oceanicpuppy]

he said there was NO EVIDENCE of a back to Africa migration. I posted one. Obviously I think there were later ones. in particular the rise of semitic langauges in ethiopia has been linked to a more recent back to africa migration from arabia.

It me clarify. I meant not much creditable STRONG evidence.
Riddle me this, why would they come back to Africa for what reason would a people settle in place they activity left and come back? Was this time frame between when they left and came back enough to physically and genetically change?

 

[Camile.Bidan]

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

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

The out of Africa replacement theory is outdated. Gene flow came out of Africa at one point , but it wasn't some small band of explorers that replaced all other types of humans, which was the official story.

Is Chris stringer some fringe scientist?

 

[Free White & 21]

So let me get this story straight

Life started in africa with the black man and woman

Some black people left africa and went up north and became cacs after losing their exposure to the sun

These people then came back to africa and created Ethiopians as we know them today.

Yea that's that bullshyt right there. The thing these white folks don't wanna tell the world is the most obvious truth of all. They're albinos. Inbred albinos that came black africans. That's it. EURASIAN just means mutated/recessive BLACK. Carry on

 

[LadySimone]

In the same vein-

People will tell you that yellowbones and redbones inherited their complexion from cac genetics.

People will also tell you that curly hair, narrow nose ala East African, are features that comes from european blood, and that no pure-blooded african girls actually possess these physical features

Not true at all. Yellowbones and redbones are just light-skinned blacks, of pure African black stock and in Africa there are plenty of them, with absolute no european/arab/asiatic blood/admixture/ancestry.

Yes in America, and in Latin America a lof of yellabones/redbones might have inherited some european ancestry, curly hair, thin lips but you can find actual pure-blooded black girls with these features in Africa.

Correlation does not equal causation, if you know what I mean.

But slaves brought to the Americas came from a specific place in Africa. There are almost NO blacks from South Africa or a East Africa brought over to the Americas. We came from west Africa largely and the Congo basin. The Portuguese did bring blacks from their colonised region in South west Africa but they didn't go into what we understand as South Africa.

It's the Arabs that snatched up East Africans and cacs didn't mess with the Hausas because a lot them Muslims were not going to have Muslims enslaved by infidels.

 

[Premeditated]

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.

breh, u need to keep my people out of this. lol @ Fulanis being mixed. Can't wait to have a laugh with my moms when I tell her