Despite the refusal of the Secretary General of the Egyptian Supreme Council of Antiquities, Zahi Hawass, to release any DNA results which might indicate the racial ancestry of Pharaoh Tutankhamen, the leaked results reveal that King Tut’s DNA is a 99.6 percent match with Western European Y chromosomes.
The DNA test results were inadvertently revealed on a Discovery Channel TV documentary filmed with Hawass’s permission — but it seems as if the Egyptian failed to spot the giveaway part of the documentary which revealed the test results.
Hawass previously announced that he would not release the racial DNA results of Egyptian mummies — obviously because he feared the consequences of such a revelation.
On the Discovery Channel broadcast, which can be seen on the Discovery Channel website here, or if they pull it, on YouTube here, at approximately 1:53 into the video, the camera pans over a printout of DNA test results from King Tut.
Firstly, here is a brief explanation of the results visible in the video. It is a list of what is called Short Tandem Repeats (STRs).
STRs are repeated DNA sequences which are “short repeat units” whose characteristics make them especially suitable for human identification.
These STR values for 17 markers visible in the video are as follows:
DYS 19 – 14 (? not clear)
DYS 385a – 11
DYS 385b – 14
DYS 389i – 13
DYS 389ii – 30
DYS 390 – 24
DYS 391 – 11
DYS 392 – 13
DYS 393 – 13
DYS 437 – 14 (? not clear)
DYS 438 – 12
DYS 439 – 10
DYS 448 – 19
DYS 456 – 15
DYS 458 – 16
DYS 635 – 23
YGATAH4 – 11
What does this mean? Fortunately, a genius by the name of Whit Athey provides the key to this list. Mr Athey is a retired physicist whose working career was primarily at the Food and Drug Administration where he was chief of one of the medical device labs.
Mr Athey received his doctorate in physics and biochemistry at Tufts University, and undergraduate (engineering) and masters (math) degrees at Auburn University. For several years during the 1980s, he also taught one course each semester in the electrical engineering department of the University of Maryland. Besides his interest in genetic genealogy, he is an amateur astronomer and has his own small observatory near his home in Brookeville, MD.
He also runs a very valuable website called the “Haplogroup Predictor” which allows users to input STR data and generate the haplogroup which marks those STR data.
For those who want to know what a haplogroup is, here is a “simple” definition: a haplogroup is a group of similar haplotypes that share a common ancestor with a single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) mutation.
Still none the wiser? Damn these scientists.
Ok, let’s try it this way: a haplotype is a combination of multiple specific locations of a gene or DNA sequence on a chromosome.
Haplogroups are assigned letters of the alphabet, and refinements consist of additional number and letter combinations, for example R1b or R1b1. Y-chromosome and mitochondrial DNA haplogroups have different haplogroup designations. In essence, haplogroups give an inisight into ancestral origins dating back thousands of years.
By entering all the STR data inadvertently shown on the Discovery video, a 99.6 percent fit with the R1b haplogroup is revealed.
The significance is, of course, that R1b is the most common Y-chromosome haplogroup in Europe reaching its highest concentrations in Ireland, Scotland, western England and the European Atlantic seaboard — in other words, European through and through.
So much for the Afro-centrists and others who have derided the very obvious northwestern European appearance of a large number of the pharonic mummies. It seems like March of the Titans was right after all…
RELATED ARTICLES
- Researchers Warn Vaping is just as Harmful as Cigarettes
- DNA test to be added to Covid screening
- Justice in Corrupt Germany: 8 out of 9 Immigrants who Gang Raped Minor Girl in Park ON VIDEO, set Free
- FDA says Targeted Gene Therapy may CAUSE Cancer instead of Curing it
- Canada Confirms Undisclosed Presence of DNA Sequence in Pfizer Shot
Loading ...
I forgot….
It does not matter that 60-70% of Afrikan-Americans have so-called European ancestry since this accounts for only a portion of their DNA ancestry. This is the same game that you play when I talk about the common ancestor in the Out of Afrika theory as being an East Afrikan male, which by all accounts indicates he was black. You reject this because it would mean his genotype over time in particular climates mutated into other genotypes we call ethnic-races. You reject this ancient carrier of all genotypes as your chromosomal Adam but then try to make an invalid point about the European genes in Afrikan-Americans. Dude, Y-DNA on the planet descends from a genotype-phenotype black-man. Period.
I have already told you I am mt-DNA L3 (Khoisan defined by test), and Y-DNA R1*-M173 defined by positive mutations on 10831.1 and 10831.2. Were I actually R1a or R1b of the Asia, the mutation would be negative 10831.2. I am not white. I am not caucasian. I am Black. I have a different genotype-phenotype than the R1a/R1b Europeans are so proud of talking about as being that of King Tut.
I remain,
The Skeptic.
CN
“Just when I thought I was out – they pull me back in.” – Godfather
So, let us try this again.
E1B-1A – BLACK-AFRIKAN-ETHNIC-GENOTYPE-PHENOTYPE – 30,000 – 20,000 YEARS BP
E1B1A Population group, frequency today
Bamileke, 96%-100%
Ewe, 97%
Ga, 97%
Yoruba, 93.1%
Tutsi, 85%
Fante, 84%
Mandinka, 79%-87%
Ovambo, 82%
Senegalese, 81%
Ganda 77%,
Bijagós, 76%
Balanta, 73%
Fula, 73%
Herero, 71%
Nalú, 71%
Tuareg from Tânout, Niger , 44.4%
Tuareg from Gorom, Burkina Faso, 16.6%
Tuareg from Al Awaynat and Tahala, Libya, 46.5%
Tuareg from Gossi, Mali, 9.1%
Cape Verdeans, 15.9%
Maasai,15.4%
Luo, 66%
Iraqw, 11.11%
Comoros, 23.46%
Merina people (also called Highlanders), 44%
Antandroy, 69.6%
Antanosy, 48.9%
Antaisaka, 37.5%
Subclades of E1b1a1 –
E1b1a1 is defined by markers DYS271/M2/SY81, M291, P1/PN1, P189, and P293.
E1b1a1a is defined by marker M58. 5% (2/37) of the town Singa-Rimaïbé, Burkina Faso tested positive for E1b1a1a.[11] 15% (10/69) of Hutus in Rwanda tested positive for M58.[10] Three South Africans tested positive for this marker.[8] One Carioca from Rio de Janeiro, Brazil tested positive for the M58 SNP.[39] The place of origin and age is unreported.
E1b1a1b is defined by M116.2, a private marker. A single carrier was found in Mali.[8] [Note 5]
E1b1a1c is defined by private marker M149. This marker was found in a single South African.[8]
E1b1a1d is defined by a PRIVATE mutation, M155. It is known from a single carrier in Mali.[8]
E1b1a1e is defined by markers M10, M66, M156 and M195. Wairak people in Tanzania tested 4.6% (2/43) positive for E-M10.[10] E-M10 was found in a single person of the Lissongo group in the Central African Republic and two members in a “Mixed” population from the Adamawa region.[8]
E1b1a1f is commonly defined by marker M191/P86. It appears to be one of the more common subclade of E1b1a. Filippo et al. (2011) studied a number of African populations that were E-M2 positive and found the basal E-M191/P86 (without E-P252/U174) only in a population of Gur speakers in Burkina Faso.[40] E1b1a1f occurred in tested Annang (38.3%), Ibibio (45.6%), Efik (45%), and Igbo (54.3%) living in Nigeria, West Africa.[41] E-M191/P86 appears in varying frequencies in Central and Southern Africa but almost all are also positive for P252/U174.
…..Bantu-speaking South Africans (89/343) tested 25.9% positive and KHOI-SAN speaking South Africans tested 7.7% (14/183) positive for this SNP.[42] It also appears commonly in Africans living in the Americas.
… A population in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil tested (12/130) positive.[39] 34.9% (29/83) of American Haplogroup E men tested positive for M191.[9]
Veeramah et al. (2010) studies of the recombining portions of M191 positive y chromosomes suggest that this lineage has “diffusely spread with multiple high frequency haplotypes implying a longer evolutionary period since this haplogroup arose”.[41] The subclade E1b1a1f appears to express opposite clinal distributions to E1b1a1* in the West African Savanna region. Haplogroup E1b1a1f (E-M191) has a frequency of 23% in Cameroon (where it represents 42% of haplotypes carrying the DYS271 mutation or E-M2), 13% in Burkina Faso (16% of haplotypes carrying the M2/DYS271 mutation) and only 1% in Senegal.[13] Similarly, while E1b1a reaches its highest frequency of 81% in Senegal, only 1 of the 139 Senegalese that were tested showed M191/P86.[13] In other words, as one moves to West Africa from western Central Africa, the less subclade E1b1a1f is found. “A possible explanation might be that haplotype 24 chromosomes [E-M2*] WEWE ALREADY PRSENT across the SUDANESE belt when the M191 mutation, which defines haplotype 22, arose in central western Africa. Only then would a later demic expansion have brought haplotype 22 chromosomes from central western to western Africa, giving rise to the opposite clinal distributions of haplotypes 22 and 24.”[11]
E1b1a1g is defined by marker U175. E1b1a1g occurred in tested Annang (45.3%), Ibibio (37%), Efik (33.3%), and Igbo (25.3%).[41] The STR haplotypes of E-U175 positive samples tested from Ghana, Cameroon, and Nigeria show less diversity than E1b1a1f (E-M191). The supposed “Bantu haplotype” found in E-U175 carriers is “present at appreciable frequencies in other Niger-Congo languages speaking peoples as far west as Guinea-Bissau”.[41]
This is the modal haplotype of STR markers that is common in carriers of E-U175.[Note 6]
E1b1a1g haplotype
DYS19=15, DYS388=12, DYS390=12, DYS391=21, DYS392=11, DYS393=13
E1b1a1g has seven subclades.
TIME OF E1B1A = 30,000 – 20,000 YEARS BP
SO FAR, ARE ANY OF THESE POPULATIONS NOT BLACK-AFRIKAN?
SO WHERE IS THE CAUCASIAN-WHITE-SEMITE HAPLOGROUP 30,000-20,000 YEARS BP?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_E1b1b_%28Y-DNA%29
Derivative :
“The E-M215 derivative, E1b1b1 (E-M35) is defined by the M35 SNP. E-M35 includes individuals with the “ancestral state” (no known sub-clade forming mutations). These are referred to as E1b1b1* or E-M35*.
…..As of 2011, there are SEVEN KNOWN BRANCHES THAT HAVE RESULTED FROM DIFFERENT MUTATIONS on M35: M68, V257, M123, V6, M293, V42 and V92. In order to show what is known of their relationships to E1b1b1 and other related clades, these are also currently referred to as E1b1b1a to E1b1b1g, respectively (see image). The more frequently described sub-clades are E1b1b1a (especially its more well-known sub-clade E-M78) and E1b1b1b (especially it well-known sub-clade E-M81). Both are found in Mediterranean & West Asian peoples. These two sub-clades represent the largest proportion of E1b1b. E1b1b1a is found over most of the range where E1b1b is found excluding Southern Africa. E1b1b1b is found mainly in the Maghreb. E1b1b1c is less common but widely scattered, with significant populations in specific parts of the Horn of Africa, the Levant, Arabia, Iberia, and Anatolia. E1b1b1e is a fourth major sub-clade that has been found in parts of Eastern and Southern Africa, includes the majority of UNIQUE E1b1b1 lineages in SUB-Saharan Africa (THOSE THAT LACK M78, M81, or M123 mutations).[8]
…Three smaller sub-clades are defined by mutations V6, V42 and V92 appear to be unique to the Horn of Africa region.”
Common Ancestor is East Afrikan E1b-1a – defined by MUTATIONS which gave rise to the Semitic E1b-1b, etc.
“Based on genetic STR variance data, Cruciani et al. (2007) suggests that E1b1b1a1 originated in “Northeastern Africa”, which in their study refers specifically to Egypt and Libya.[Note 4] about 18,600 years ago (17,300 – 20,000 years ago).[Note 5]
…Battaglia et al. (2008) describe Egypt as “a hub for the distribution of the various geographically localized M78-related sub-clades” and, based on archaeological data, they propose that the point of origin of E-M78 (as opposed to later dispersals from Egypt)
…may have been in a refugium which “existed on the border of present-day SUDAN and EGYPT, near LAKE NUBIA, until the onset of a humid phase around 8500 BC. The northward-moving rainfall belts during this period could have also SPURRED A RAPID MIGRATION of Mesolithic foragers NORTHWARDS in Africa, the Levant and ultimately onwards to Asia Minor and Europe,
…where they EACH EVENTUALLY DIFFERENTIATED into their regionally distinctive branches”. Eur-Asian genotype-phenotypes. Asian genotype-phenotypes, European-ethnic genotype-phenotypes all from the East Afrikan – BLACK – Afrikan – ethnic genotype-phenotypes!
Towards the south, Hassan et al. (2008) also explain evidence that some subclades of E-M78, specifically E-V12 and E-22, “might have been BROUGHT TO SUDAN from North Africa after the progressive desertification of the Sahara around 6,000-8,000 years ago”.
There are four recognized sub-clades, which were mostly defined by Cruciani et al. (2006).
E1b1b1a1a (E-V12). Found in Egypt, Sudan, and other places. Has an important sub-clade E1b1b1a1a2 (E-V32) which is very common amongst Ethiopian Oromo, Borana Oromo from Kenya and Somalis.
…Towards the south, Hassan et al. (2008) also explain evidence that some subclades of E-M78, specifically E-V12 and E-22, “might have been BROUGHT TO SUDAN from North Africa after the progressive desertification of the Sahara around 6,000-8,000 years ago”.
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!Genotype-Phenotype
E1b1b1a1b (E-V13). This is the most common type of E1b1b found in Europe and is especially common in the Balkans.
E1b1b1a1c (E-V22). Found in Egypt, the Middle East and other places.
E1b1b1a1d (E-V65). Associated with the Maghreb, but also found in Italy and Spain.
E1b1b1a1e (E-M521). Found in two individuals in Greece by Battaglia et al. (2008)
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Get over it. Genotype-phenotype differentiation for Blacks, Asians, Eur-Asians, Europeans, and four different clades of American Indians. Play all the word-games you want…the Afrikan-Black specific E1b1a is 30,000 – 20,000 YBP. In time the genotype-phenotype changed to reveal the other racial types of the human family.
The human race?
“As people define and put about different conceptions of race, they actively create contrasting social realities through which racial categorization is achieved in varied ways.[15] In this sense, races are said to be social constructs.[16][17] These constructs can develop within various legal,[15][18] economic,[18] and sociopolitical[19][20] contexts, and at times may be the effect, rather than the cause, of major social situations.[19] Socioeconomic factors,[19][21][22][23][24] in combination with early but enduring[25] views of race, have led to considerable suffering amongst the disadvantaged racial groups. Intergroup competition fosters ingroup biases against their outgroup.[26][27] Accordingly, when groups find themselves in competition with their designated outgroups, the more privileged group may subject its disadvantaged counterpart to discriminatory treatment. Racial discrimination often coincides with racist mindsets, whereby the individuals and ideologies of one group come to perceive the members of their outgroup as both racially defined[19] and morally inferior.[28] As a result, racial groups possessing relatively little power[22][29] often find themselves excluded or oppressed, while the individuals and institutions[30] of the hegemony are charged with holding racist attitudes.[23][31] Racism has factored into many instances of tragedy,[32] including SLAVERY and GENOCIDE. Scholars continue to debate the degrees to which racial categories are biologically warranted[9][33] and socially constructed, as well as the extent to which the realities[34] of race must be acknowledged in order for society to comprehend and address racism adequately.[15][33]”
That is the point, dude. E1b-1a genotype-phenotype is the first all others came after, including what you like to call White-Arab-Semitic which includes White-Jew-Semitic and the South Afrikan Lembe who are as dark-complexioned as any Afrikan and do not self-identify as white or Caucasian.
Race not used as class systems? That world does not exist yet. We are not there….so until that great utopia arrives…for the purposes of not having fuzzy genetics – the original so-called Afrikans were Blacks having the greatest genetic diversity than any other so-called ethnic haplogroup on the planet.
If you can claim E1b1b1a1c (E-V22) is White-Semitic-Arab then in what world are the Lembe of South Afrika not Black-Semitic-Afrikans?
“A genetic study in 1996 suggested that more than 50% of the Lemba Y-chromosomes are Semitic in origin;[17] a subsequent study in 2000 reported more specifically that a substantial number of Lemba men carry a particular haplotype of the Y-chromosome known as the Cohen modal haplotype (CMH), as well as, a haplogrup of Y-DNA Haplogroup J found amongst some Jews and in other populations across the Middle East.[18][19]
Studies have also suggested that there is no Semitic female contribution to the Lemba gene pool.[20]
One particular sub-clan within the Lemba, the Buba clan, is considered by the Lemba to be their priestly clan, while among Jews, the Kohanim are the priestly clan. The Buba clan carried most of the CMH found in the Lemba. Among Jews the marker is also most prevalent among Jewish Kohanim, or priests. As recounted in Lemba oral tradition, the Buba clan “had a leadership role in bringing the Lemba out of Israel” and into Southern Africa.[21]
More recently, Mendez et al. (2011) observed that a moderately high frequency of the studied Lemba samples carried Y-DNA Haplogroup T, which is considered to be of Near Eastern origin. However, the Lemba T carriers belonged exclusively to T1b*, which is different from the Jews of Near East and Africa but share a similar estimate expansion time with the T1* Somalis. T1b* has been observed at low frequencies in the Bulgarian and Ashkenazi Jews, as well as in a few Levantine populations. [22]”
Black-Afrikan-Ethnic-Genotype-Phenotypes – perfect example the Lembe.
Keep whistling.
Baron Gifilte
Right, and Hitler won the war(sarcasm)
i
Not Indo European Aryan, but Arab Semitic, White – were the Ancient Egyptians. When Egypt annexed part of Nubia/Kemet/Sudan – Blacks became Egyptians by Nationality, NOT, ethnicity. Rlb ‘s origins are in the Middle East – see earlier links providing proof.Egypt is NOT the land of the Blacks, common misconception, and, mistranslated – it is the land of black soil – NOW, step back, take a deep breath, and think logically, of all the “Black” countries in Africa, why would anyone chose ONE country out of them all, to call “land of the Blacks” – would that make any sense??? Blacks, Black/Arab mixes make up 30% of Egypt’s(both Ancient, and, Modern) population.
The albino population of Egypt is very miniscule compare with the rest of the population who are colored. Is Egypt in Europe or Africa? percentages are irrelevant when a mestizo population do not look like their albino forefathers.
I won. :)
It seems we are seeing the problem with hidden history. Everything you will read in 99.9% of history books will state that SKEPTIC is correct. Therefore, he is correct in thinking this way, and has formed strong opinions based on what he has learned about the subject through books and common knowledge. On the other hand, the role of technology and its ability to trace DNA cannot be ignored. With the new evidence technology provides, it seems that CN is actually correct. How could they both be right? THey cannot both be right, and this means either the complete written history of egypt is wrong or DNA testing is wrong. In my opinion, the heart of the truth lies with discovering the people who stand to gain by allowing such falsehoods of the origin of man to remain throughout history. THere are bloodlines that have always existed as rulers over people that do not share the same lineage as the people they rule. I believe this was the case in egypt, obviously the land of black skinned humans, but was in fact ruled by a caucasian northern european bloodline. Could it be possible that the cause for the hiding of this european bloodline is to hide who is still calling the shots today? This is possibly the question of the century as the answer will turn the world upside down. Scientists are increasingly asking this question. Were Egyptians black,yes. Were the rulers of Egypt, Egyptians? It seems the answer is no. Drawing any other conclusions would not be based on current evidence available. :cry:
Baron Gifilte
You are a LOSER no matter what – Jews are Semitic Whites by ethnicity, by religion, any ethnicity. Semites, including the closely related Arabs, have all the Caucasian haplomarkers, plus four more, making us Semites, that no other ethnic group has – oh, YOU LOSE!!!
The Skeptic
Negro and Ethiopian are Black peoples – syrians are Arab Semitic White. Quote,”In other words, when Petrie translated the books of the so-called Egyptians he used the modern-racial-ethnic identity of Negroes, Ethiopians, and Syrians.” 30% of ancient Egypt’s population was Black, Black/Arab mix, 65% Arab Semitic White, 5% all others.
Jews descended from Niggers,QED-i win.
The Skeptic
Blacks broke away from the common ancestor, FIRST, in Africa, as this common ancestor moved outside of Africa, more ethnic groups came off this common ancestor. I still favor the theory, the ethnic groups – YOU call erroneously call races, started in five different continents around the same time.NOTHING supports YOUR claim that Blacks are the ancestor of all ethnic groups – by the way – you have NOT presented one single link backing your claim, only ones stating Africans which is NOT the sames as saying Black.The Tutsi got their Caucasian looks from mixing with Semitic White Arabs – read all in your OWN link you posted.Quote, ““When the European colonists conducted censuses, they wanted to identify the peoples throughout Rwanda-Burundi according to a simple classification scheme. They defined “Tutsi” as anyone owning more than ten cows (a sign of wealth) or with the physical feature of a longer nose, commonly associated with the Tutsi. The Europeans noticed that some Rwandans had noses they thought characteristic of their people, so they created historical and racial theories to explain why some Africans inherited such features. Early 20th-century Europeans believed the physical feature meant that some of the Tutsi had Caucasian or European ancestry, perhaps by migrations from Ethiopia, what was called the Hamitic Theory. According to their racially based ideas, they thought the Tutsi were a “superior” people of a primarily Horn African and/or North African ancestry; descent from Arabs of the Middle East was also suggested. In addition, some Tutsi believed they were descended from the ancient Israelites and had a mystical connection to Israel.[2] The Europeans considered the majority Hutu to be characteristic Bantu people of Central African and Sub-Saharan origin.””. I am NOT SAYING THEY ARE SUPERIOR BECAUSE OF THEIR CAUCASIAN LOOKS – the point is, you attempt to say the Caucasian looking “Blacks” NATURALLY have this phenotype when they DON”T – the Caucasian looks come from mixing with Arab Semitic Whites.
CN
you wrote,
““Modern-day genetic studies of the Y-chromosome suggest that the Tutsi are largely of Bantu extraction (80% E1b1a, 15% B, 4% E3). Paternal genetic influences associated with the Horn of Africa and North Africa are few (1% E1b1b)(ADDED: Arabs admixture – MY NOTE), and are ascribed to much earlier inhabitants who were assimilated. The Tutsi, in general, demonstrate a close ethnic kinship with neighboring Bantu populations, particularly the Hutu.[4]”
By the way the modern Tutsi are the ancient Watutsi so what is your point about them not being Black?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bantu_peoples
“The Bantu languages form a large category of African languages. Bantu also is used as a general label for 300-600 ethnic groups in Africa of speakers of Bantu languages, distributed from Cameroon east across Central Africa and Eastern Africa to Southern Africa. They form about 1/3 of Africa’s total population of estimated 2007 population of about 1 billion (approximately 335,000,000).
The Bantu family is fragmented into hundreds of individual groups, none of them larger than a few million people (the largest being the Zulu with some 10 million). Swahili is a Bantu language with only 5-10 million native speakers but of super-regional importance as tens of millions are fluent second language speakers.”
“It is unclear when exactly the spread of Bantu-speakers began from their core area as hypothesized ca. 5,000 years ago. By 3,500 years ago (1500 B.C.) in the west, Bantu-speaking communities had reached the great Central African rain forest, and by 2,500 year ago (500 B.C.) pioneering groups had emerged into the savannahs to the south, in what are now the Democratic Republic of Congo, Angola and Zambia. Another stream of migration, moving east, by 3,000 years ago (1000 B.C.) was creating a major new population center near the Great Lakes of East Africa, where a rich environment supported a dense population. Movements by small groups to the southeast from the Great Lakes region were more rapid, with initial settlements widely dispersed near the coast and near rivers, due to comparatively harsh farming conditions in areas farther from water. Pioneering groups had reached modern KwaZulu-Natal in South Africa by A.D. 300 along the coast, and the modern Northern Province (encompassed within the former province of the Transvaal) by A.D. 500.[7]”
What are you thinking….that the Hutu and Tutsi are not sub-saharan Black Afrikans?
What does this mean, man?
CN
you wrote,
“BOTTOM LINE – YOU KEEP ERRONEOUSLY INSISTING ON ALL
PEOPLES ARE DESCENDED FROM THE BLACK PEOPLE ETHNIC
GROUP, WHEN, YOUR OWN EVIDENCE SHOWS ALL HUMANS ARE
DESCENDED FROM A COMMON ANCESTOR DESCENDED – BLACKS
WERE THE EARLIEST TO BREAK AWAY FROM THIS COMMON
STALK, THEN IT LEFT AFRICA AS OTHER ETHNIC GROUPS
BROKE AWAY.”
Are you daft? If Blacks, i.e., Afrikans were the first to break away from this common ancestor, why did it leave Afrika? Are you saying that all of the so-called ethnic-races, such as Eur-Asian, European, Afrikan-Black, and American Indian were already in Afrika and that the Black-Afrikans broke away? Broke away to where?
If you are saying this, then you are not talking about mono-genetics but poly-genetics and this is the multi-regional theory in competition with the Out of Africa theory!
I knew it.
By the way, what is the problem you have with the Y-DNA E1b1a of the Hutu/Tutsi? Is this your way of saying they are not Black-Afrikan-Sub-Sa-Haran-Negroes?
If so you are daft !
CN,
Your last post…
Dead letter.
CN
This post is just for the historical record…just in case you do not know the Negroes phenotype inclusions –
“The word Negro is used in the English-speaking world to refer to a person of black ancestry or appearance, whether of African descent or not, prior to the shift in the lexicon of American and worldwide classification of race and ethnicity in the late 1960s. …The word “negro” means “black” in Spanish and Portuguese, from the Latin niger (“black”) and Greek Νέγρος Négros (“black”).
The usage was accepted as normal, even by people classified as Negroes, until the later Civil Rights movement in the late 1960s. One well-known example is the identification by Martin Luther King, Jr. of his own race as ‘Negro’ in his famous 1963 speech I Have a Dream.
During the American Civil Rights movement of the 1950s and 1960s, some African-American leaders in the United States, notably Malcolm X, objected to the word, preferring Black,[1] because they associated the word Negro with the long history of slavery, segregation, and discrimination that treated African Americans as second class citizens, or worse.
The term “Negro” is still used in some historical contexts, such as in the name of the United Negro College Fund [2][3] and the Negro league in sports.
Modern language has been using since the late 1960s: Black; additionally, Black African for people native to the African continent, and Afro-American until from the late 1960s to 1990, and African American after 1990 for people in U.S.A..
“Negro” superseded “colored” as the most polite terminology, at a time when “black” was more offensive.[4]
The United States Census Bureau announced that Negro would be included on the 2010 United States Census, alongside “Black” and “African-American,” because some older Black Americans nevertheless self-identify with the term.[5][6][7]”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negro
Peoples originally identified by ethnic tribal/nations such as Fur, Kru, Shona, Herero, Bakongo, Tonga, Khu-Mesh, etc.. These groups are the Ba-An-Tu today Bantu and means “The People”. They did not refer to themselves as Afrikans, Sub-Saharan-Afrikans, etc….they were aggregated under the term Bantu languages as distinguished from the “Click Speakers” and the Afro-Asiatic speakers of Central Afrika, Sudan, Chad, etc.
The so-called Bantu expansion has been revised backward…
“Around 1442 the Portuguese first arrived in sub-Saharan Africa while trying to find a sea route to India. The term negro, literally meaning “black”, was used by the Spanish and Portuguese as a simple description to refer to people. From the 18th century to the late 1960s, “negro” (later capitalized) was considered to be the proper English-language term for certain people of sub-Saharan African origin.”
Oh, to show you how race was handled in 300 BC Egypt, we read this translation by E.A. Wallis Budge of the Papyrus of Nesi Am Su:
http://books.google.com/books?id=o163SlbfpMwC&pg=PA396&lpg=PA396&dq=papyrusof+nesi+am+su&source=bl&ots=m7i3Gb8uz-&sig=Ga2bJ6y0Na7UElL9zvJQ0IAChWA&hl=en&ei=6aHwTd-NCcXb0QGcoZCeBA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CCEQ6AEwAjgK#v=onepage&q=negro&f=false
p.396:
“If any person from any foreign land, whether he be Negro, Ethiopian, or Syrian, shall remove this book, or any thief (?) shall carry it off, may his body never draw near to (the presence of the god); may he never be placed in the cool; may he never breathe the breezes of the north wind; may neither son nor daughter arise to him from his seed; may his name never be remembered on earth through his children; and may he never see the beams of the disk! But if any person shall look upon this book and shall so act that my name and my ka be established among the favoured ones of Osiris, may there be done likewise for him after his death in retribution for what he had done for me.”
In other words, when Petrie translated the books of the so-called Egyptians he used the modern-racial-ethnic identity of Negroes, Ethiopians, and Syrians.
Geb-Ta-Ua’asta Sua Ap-Sa-Ari Kas Was Anu-Ari Pe-Ha-Nesi Am Su – the hereditary prince (Tj’ Esa-Su) of the South having right to rule by matrilineal rule (Tj’ Ese-Sua). Ese = Isis.
If white semitic arabs ruled Egypt why is it nearly all of the literature was written by the black – Am Su-Dan-Nesi (Sudanese) as instructional for the foreigner who may be Negro, Ethiopian or Syrian?
You have to ask yourself this question: Why did these words get translated Negro, Ethiopian or Syrian?
In 300 BC there was an obvious distinction between what these “Blacks” were called, but whatever foreign word/term used they were to be equated with the race of the Negro, even if that Negro called himself as Syrian which is nothing less than a corruption of AS-SY replacing SA-SAI – Sa-Sai – Sa-Ari An Anu became Sy-ri-an Sai-Ari-Anu. When written to show the geographical place te form is Sa-Anu-Ari which is written NURI. These are Blacks – Afrikans – Su-Dan-Nesi of Na-Pa-Ta-Anu-Ari (Nuri) !
Go back and look at Petrie:
Het Au An Anu Net-tera
Now do the forms:
Het As Su An Anu or Het Assuan Anu – God/Prince/Priest – Su
Het As Sua An Anu or Het Assuaan Anu – the Goddess/Princess/Priestess – Sua…
In other words, it is merely a political ruse to claim White-Semitic-Arabs because Assuan is Arabic. This only means that there were a priestly class who were already speaking an Arabic dialect in the Nubian/Sudanese royalty!
Even Haile Selassie used the word:
http://books.google.com/books?id=Tf7QCEexk4wC&pg=PA29&lpg=PA29&dq=haile+selassie+%2B+italian+war+%2B+negro+americans&source=bl&ots=Uq0ndivK2i&sig=vUnqvmF2Jmt-rwikVsrgk2RUS1g&hl=en&ei=yKzwTc3-D4Oy0AGp9rWlCg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CCEQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=haile%20selassie%20%2B%20italian%20war%20%2B%20negro%20americans&f=false
Message to the Negro
In the exclusive EBONY interview Emperor Selassie recalled contributions made by American Negroes to help Ethiopia free herself from five years of Italian occupation. “We can never forget the help Ethiopia received from Negro Americans during the terrible crisis of 1935, he said. “American Negroes showed great sympathy for our cause and extended the hand of brotherhood to us. This was our great hour of need. It moved me to know that Americans of African descent did not abandon their embattled brothers, but stood by us. The ties that bind Ethiopians to Negro Americans are historic and strong. I hope that these ties will persist and will be strengthened to our mutual advantage.”
Perhaps now white-supremacists will understand the position of the so-called Afro-centrists. That article was published in 1936, 73 years after the so-called Emancipation Proclamation having at its core a false concept of freedom:
“The Proclamation applied only in ten states that were still in rebellion in 1863, thus it did not cover the nearly 500,000 slaves in the slave-holding border states (Missouri, Kentucky, Maryland or Delaware) which were Union states — those slaves were freed by separate state and federal actions. The state of Tennessee had already mostly returned to Union control, so it was not named and was exempted. Virginia was named, but exemptions were specified for the 48 counties then in the process of forming the new state of West Virginia, seven additional Tidewater[clarification needed] counties individually named, and two cities. Also specifically exempted were New Orleans and 13 named parishes of Louisiana, all of which were also already mostly under Federal control at the time of the Proclamation. These exemptions left unemancipated an additional 300,000 slaves.[5]”
“When Mussolini’s fascist forces invaded Ethiopia there had been an outpouring of indignation from Negro communities across America. Aid to Ethiopia organization sprouted up in the largest cities and thousands of dollars were collected and used to assist Haile Selassie’s struggling government. Negro newspapers editorialized their support of the Ethiopians’ courageous though helpless war against the Italians and demanded for military aid to Ethiopia originated among Negroes. An impassioned please to save the country came from Dr. L. K. Williams of Chicago, late president of the National Baptist Convention. “We would not want to see the last black nation in Africa lose its independence and its culture,” he told the group’s 56th annual convention in New York. “We should be willing to aid Ethiopia the way that patriots and Christians should.”
What was the action of the U.S. government to the fealty of the American Negroes toward Ethiopia?
—-
“In the 1930s, Ethiopia fascinated many as an independent country that had fended off all the colonial powers. Abyssinia is actually a Latin corruption of a Muslim pejorative label, “Habasha”, one the Ethiopians don’t use. A battle at Adwa in 1896 sent Italians scurrying back to Rome and prompted a crisis that toppled a prime minister. It is still celebrated in Ethiopia today. The dominating Amharic people, who in 1935 didn’t consider themselves black, had succeeded in getting the West to respect Ethiopia as a unique country apart from the rest of Africa. Ethiopia had joined the League of Nations. Emperor Haile Selassie was trying to modernize his country when Mussolini decided it was time for payback and that Italy was entitled to its “place in the sun” with Britain, France and other colonial powers.
The resulting diplomatic crisis prompted Britain to send its fleet into the Mediterranean and Mussolini to threaten another world war. In a betrayal as important as the one of Czechoslovakia later, Britain and France sat on their hands as Fiat tanks rolled into the Ethiopian hills. The Great Powers even offered Mussolini a deal to take half the country (plus the means to gobble up the rest). Italian planes used mustard gas on barefoot soldiers and bombed Red Cross hospitals. Thousands of black Americans were ready to fight in a spirit of Pan-Africanism, but the US State Department refused to grant them passports. And, amazingly, most of us never learn about this war in school. Few histories of the conflict in English remain in print.”
—-
http://www.johndclare.net/league_of_nations6b_waugh.htm
This is Afri-centrism, dude – a long hard history of racial discrimination from 1442 to the so-called 1863 proclamation – 421 YEARS of people like you who skip and whistle until they reach the fork in the road — you do the math! From Afrika to a worldwide Diaspora – 1442 to 2011 – 569 Years!
Do not tell us we have no right to correct the history of injustices that the revisionist writings of Western Civilization exalts above all other non-European civilizations.
Dude, African-centered-ness began in the 19th century. Emperor Selassi spoke about what is called Pan-Africanism in 1936..
“…Still speaking through an interpreter in his native Amharic, the Emperor said millions of black Africans are proud of the American Negro’s civil rights fight. “We in Africa desire success in this struggle,” he said. “I personally reaffirm our basis unity of purpose. What we Africans and coloured Americans seek is identical. We both desire dignity and freedom and an end to oppression and discrimination based on color.” – Emperor Haile Selassie
In what parallel universe do you live in CN?
http://transatlantica.revues.org/264
“International diplomatic networks matched the American foreign policy apparatus in responding to an ethnically pre‑defined modus operandi, patterned on Western European traditions for the most part. W. D. Hubbard, US news correspondent in Ethiopia, thus regretfully signified the eurocentric ideological shackles of foreign policy‑making : « I admired Haile Selassie immensely. […] Nevertheless, I firmly believed that it wasn’t right that Whites should be defeated in Africa. […] Any advance […] in Africa must be under the domination and leadership of the White race » (Duggan & Lafore, 125). For W.E.B. Du Bois reflecting on « the Ethiopian crisis », European interests had molded ideological and political bias, and imperialism found its justification in racism : « The belief that racial and color differences made exploitation of colonies necessary and justifiable was too tempting to withstand. As a matter of fact, the opposite was the truth ; namely, that the profit from exploitation was the main reason for the belief in race difference » (Du Bois, 84).”
What was that….? ”
Hubbard, US news correspondent in Ethiopia, thus regretfully signified the eurocentric ideological shackles of foreign policy‑making : « I admired Haile Selassie immensely. […] Nevertheless, I firmly believed that it wasn’t right that Whites should be defeated in Africa. […] Any advance […] in Africa must be under the domination and leadership of the White race… ”
No, the Ethiopians were never not so-called Negroes and the Ethiopians were never Caucasians on equality with whites but the political game was that Ethiopians – i.e., the BU*****T Hamitic theory were the best of the Negroes’ race. Divide, pit, conquer.
Learn more here:
http://www.rastaites.com/news/hearticals/ethiopianworldfederation/Inniversary.htm
Afrikan-Americans are vehement about the Afrikanness of so-called Egypt [corrected by form as Geb-Ua’as Ta-Seti Ta-Pe-Ha-Nesi Am Su Tje’Khu-Ati (Tjekhuti/Djekhuti)] not we think/believe we are literal descendants of the Kingdoms of Kush, Cush, Ethiopia, etc., but because the culture is the spiritual ancestral home of Ubuntu.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ubuntu_%28philosophy%29
This cultural construct does not exist in the mind and heart of any not-Afrikan philosophy so do not think any of today’s religions come close to that spiritual philosophy.
Among the first Egyptologists:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._A._Wallis_Budge
“Budge was also a prolific author, and he is especially remembered today for his works on Egyptian religion and his hieroglyphic primers. Budge’s works on Egyptian religion were unique in that he maintained that the religion of Osiris had emerged from an indigenous African people: “There is no doubt”, he said of Egyptian religions in Osiris and the Egyptian Resurrection (1911), “that the beliefs examined herein are of indigenous origin, Nilotic or Sundani in the broadest signification of the word, and I have endeavoured to explain those which cannot be elucidated in any other way, by the evidence which is afforded by the Religions of the modern peoples who live on the great rivers of East, West, and Central Africa . . . Now, if we examine the Religions of modern African peoples, we find that the beliefs underlying them are almost identical with those Ancient Egyptian ones described above. As they are not derived from the Egyptians, it follows that they are the natural product of the religious mind of the natives of certain parts of Africa, which is the same in all periods.”
Budge’s contention that the religion of the Egyptians was essentially identical to the religions of the people of northeastern and central Africa was regarded by his colleagues as impossible, since all but a few followed Flinders Petrie in his contention that the culture of Ancient Egypt was derived from an invading Caucasian “Dynastic Race” which had conquered Egypt in late prehistory and introduced the Pharaonic culture.”
Bye-Bye Caucasian Dynastic Race Theory:
“The Dynastic Race Theory is no longer an accepted thesis in the field of Predynastic Archaeology. While it is still accepted that the Naqada II culture borrowed abundantly from Mesopotamia, there does not exist any clean break in material culture between Naqada I and Naqada II to indicate that the native culture was being supplanted by invaders[3] Such borrowings are much older than the Naqada II period,[4] the Naqada II period had a large degree of continuity with the Naqada I period,[5] and the changes which did happen during the Naqada periods happened over significant amounts of time.[6] More modern technologies allowed the investigation of the DNA of the Egyptian peoples, and also found no evidence of significant Mesopotamian ancestry.[2][7][8][9] The Dynastic Race theory has been largely replaced by the theory that Egypt was a hydraulic empire.”
What is Mesopotamian ancestry?
DNA Haplogroup Understanding Made easy….
http://essayweb.net/biology/haplogroups.shtml
“If we create a haplotype map of a large sample of people from all parts of the world, it’s possible to show how different groups within the population are related by ancestry. These haplotype maps contain information about the order in which SNPs appeared through time. For example, if we find 3 groups of people, who have Haplotype A, Haplotype A + C, and Haplotype non-A-non-C, then we can deduce that Haplotype C must have appeared after Haplotype A.
Genetic Common Ancestor / Chromosomal “Eve” Haplogroup Mt-DNA L3 + M, N, etc.
Genetic Common Ancestor / Chromosomal “Adam”
Haplogroup Y-DNA CT-DE-M168 – East Afrikan
Haplogroup Y-DNA DE-M168 – Eur-Asian is not the same as European!
The Skeptic
Let’s keep this brief – post anything that says African =Blck ethnic group as the ancestor of all humans – NONE of your copy/pasting states this – ONLY YOUR interpretation.Quote, do you see Black ethnic group?:
“…..Thus, the Australian/Eurasian Adam (the ancestor of all non-Africans) was an East African Man.””
““The term “blacks” has often been applied to Indigenous Australians. This owes more to superficial physiognomy than ethnology, as it categorises Indigenous Australians among other black people in ASIA and AFICA. In the 1970s, many Aboriginal activists, such as Gary Foley proudly embraced the term “black”, and writer Kevin Gilbert’s ground-breaking book from the time was entitled Living Black. The book included interviews with several members of the Aboriginal community including Robert Jabanungga reflecting on contemporary Aboriginal culture.”” TRANSLATION – LOOK BLACK< BUT ARE NOT BLACK ETHNICALLY.
"… As a biological phenotype being “black” is often associated with the very dark skin colors of some people who are classified as ‘black’. But, particularly in the United States, the racial classification also refers to people with all possible kinds of skin pigmentation from the darkest through to the very lightest skin colors, including albinos, if they are believed by others to have African ancestry and exhibit cultural traits associated with being “African-American”. Therefore, the term ‘black people’ is not an indicator of skin color but of racial classification.[2]" TRANSLATION – IF YOU LOOK LIKE A BLACK PERSON, AND, HAVE ANCESTRY FROM AFRICA, YOU ARE CONSIDERED BLACK. rev. JESSE Jackson coined the term African American for Black heritage. 70% of all"Black" Americans have White ancestry, 40% of all "White" Americans have Black ancestry.
"…Other definitions of the term “black people” extend to other populations characterized by dark skin, including some indigenous to Oceania and Southeast Asia.[4][5]” – EUR-ASIA !" – TRANSLATION – IF YOU LOOK BLACK, BUT ARE NOT BLACK, YOU MAY BE CLASSIFIED AS BLACK – I.E. NEGRITOS OF ASIA, ARE NOT BLACK BY DNA, BUT HAVE FEATURES THAT APPEAR TO BE BLACK.
You confuse race with ethnicity – ONLY ONE RACE- HUMAN – sub classification, Homo sapiens, sapiens – sub group Black, Brown, Red(Brown and Red NOW, often grouped under Yellow), Yellow, and White – of course, an infinite number of admixtures.
"…Phylogenetic relationships in the past were reconstructed by looking at PHENOTYPES,often ANATOMICAL CHARACTERISTICS. Today, molecular data, which includes protein and DNA sequences, are used to construct phylogenetic trees.[5]”" – TRANSLATION – DNA IDENTIFIES ETHNIC GROUPS.
"“Modern-day genetic studies of the Y-chromosome suggest that the Tutsi are largely of Bantu extraction (80% E1b1a, 15% B, 4% E3). Paternal genetic influences associated with the Horn of Africa and North Africa are few (1% E1b1b)(ADDED: Arabs admixture – MY NOTE), and are ascribed to much earlier inhabitants who were assimilated. The Tutsi, in general, demonstrate a close ethnic kinship with neighboring Bantu populations, particularly the Hutu.[4]"
BOTTOM LINE – YOU KEEP ERRONEOUSLY INSISTING ON ALL PEOPLES ARE DESCENDED FROM THE BLACK PEOPLE ETHNIC GROUP, WHEN, YOUR OWN EVIDENCE SHOWS ALL HUMANS ARE DESCENDED FROM A COMMON ANCESTOR DESCENDED – BLACKS WERE THE EARLIEST TO BREAK AWAY FROM THIS COMMON STALK, THEN IT LEFT AFRICA AS OTHER ETHNIC GROUPS BROKE AWAY.
CN
Okay. This is ridiculous.
If Black, in the context of races is not synonymous with [Black] Afrikans, whether of West, Central, East and South and North Afrika, then white and Caucasian are not synonymous with Europeans. Eur-Asian Adam was genotype-phenotype East Afrikan!
“In other words, all non-Africans carry M168.
…Of course, Africans carrying the M168 mutation today are the descendants of the African sub population from which the migrants originated.
…..Thus, the Australian/Eurasian Adam (the ancestor of all non-Africans) was an East African Man.”
(Linda Stone, Paul F. Lurquin, L. Luca Cavalli-Sforza, Genes, Culture, and Human Evolution: A Synthesis, Wiley-Blackwell: 2006, pg. 108).
Do you have to study Aboriginals to understand this?
Indigenous Australians [Aboriginals] –
“The term “blacks” has often been applied to Indigenous Australians. This owes more to superficial physiognomy than ethnology, as it categorises Indigenous Australians among other black people in ASIA and AFICA. In the 1970s, many Aboriginal activists, such as Gary Foley proudly embraced the term “black”, and writer Kevin Gilbert’s ground-breaking book from the time was entitled Living Black. The book included interviews with several members of the Aboriginal community including Robert Jabanungga reflecting on contemporary Aboriginal culture.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indigenous_Australians
Are Indigenous Eur-Asians Black Afrikans?
“SYDNEY: Australian Aborigines descend from the same lineage as the first modern humans to migrate from Africa, DNA analysis has confirmed. The find is a further blow to the idea that the evolution of indigenous Australians was marked by many migrations from Asia.
“We wanted to know whether the same ‘Out-of-Africa’ migration that was responsible for founding the gene pools of Eurasia was also the basis for Australia’s population… or were there several separate migrations?” said study co-author and evolutionary biologist Toomas Kivisild, of the University of Cambridge in England.”
http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/news/1286/dna-confirms-aboriginal-australian-origins
“Their analysis showed that DNA from people in New Guinea and aboriginal Australians could be traced back to early branches of the human phylogenetic tree, associated with the first humans to leave Africa 50,000 – 70,000 years ago. The study is revealed today in the U.S. journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.”
I have had enough of this.
If you do not know the so-called race of the East Afrikans in the genetic study of the evolution of humanity then we really have nothing to share with each other. You have only insults to write and a great facility to whistle while you skip.
Anyone reading these posts will immediately recognize that you are playing word games by rejecting the use of Black as a racial classification.
“The term black people is used in systems of racial classification for humans of a dark skinned PHENOTYPE, relative to other racial groups. Different societies apply different criteria regarding who is classified as “black”, and often social variables such as class, socio-economic status also plays a role so that relatively dark skinned people can be classified as white if they fulfill other social criteria of whiteness and relatively LIGHT SKINNED people can be classified as BLACK if they fulfill the social criteria for blackness.[1]
… As a biological phenotype being “black” is often associated with the very dark skin colors of some people who are classified as ‘black’. But, particularly in the United States, the racial classification also refers to people with all possible kinds of skin pigmentation from the darkest through to the very lightest skin colors, including albinos, if they are believed by others to have African ancestry and exhibit cultural traits associated with being “African-American”. Therefore, the term ‘black people’ is not an indicator of skin color but of racial classification.[2]
Some definitions of the term include only people of relatively recent Sub Saharan African descent (see African diaspora). Among the members of this group, dark skin is most often accompanied by the expression of natural afro-hair texture (recent scientific study notes that human skin color diversity is highest in sub-Saharan African populations).[3]
…Other definitions of the term “black people” extend to other populations characterized by dark skin, including some indigenous to Oceania and Southeast Asia.[4][5]” – EUR-ASIA !
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_people
What the heck do you think an Afrikan-American is? We are not White or Caucasian? The idea that the continent of Afrika was not peopled by Afrikans, i.e., predominately Black, Brown, yellow, whatever but WHEN YOU SAY Europe or Eur-Asia YOU totally exclude the Black-Afrikan genotype-phenotype.
Just as you posit that the so-called admixture the East Afrikans E1b1a is due to white/caucasian ancestry the gene-flow works both ways then since it is the genetic ancestor E1b1a of East Afrika that all other E1b1* descendant clades were derived.
If you do not like the use of the adjective Black as a generalized racial classification of Negroes then just say so. All references to Black-Afrikans can now be officially replaced with Negroes.
Thus,
In other words, all non-Negroes carry M168. Of course, Negroes carrying the M168 mutation today are the descendants of the Negro sub-population from which the migrants originated.
Thus, the Australian/Eurasian Adam (the ancestor of all non-Negroes-Africans) was an East African Negro Man.” (Linda Stone, Paul F. Lurquin, L. Luca Cavalli-Sforza, Genes, Culture, and Human Evolution: A Synthesis, Wiley-Blackwell: 2006, pg. 108).
Make the distinction, in your mind, between phylogenetics and geography.
Main article: Molecular phylogenetics
“The evolutionary connections between organisms are represented graphically through phylogenetic trees. Due to the fact that evolution takes place over long periods of time that cannot be observed directly, biologists must reconstruct phylogenies by inferring the evolutionary relationships among present-day organisms. Fossils can aid with the reconstruction of phylogenies; however, fossil records are often too poor to be of good help. Therefore, biologists tend to be restricted with analysing present-day organisms to identify their evolutionary relationships.
…Phylogenetic relationships in the past were reconstructed by looking at PHENOTYPES,often ANATOMICAL CHARACTERISTICS. Today, molecular data, which includes protein and DNA sequences, are used to construct phylogenetic trees.[5]”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phylogenetics
The East Afrikan ancestor is at the top of the phylogenetic tree having a genotype and phenotype that is recognized as the tropical body plan, but the genetic diversity of the Black-Afrikan-Negroes outpaces the genetic diversity of all other so-called races – sub-phylogenetic tree-genotype-phenotypes.
Full article –
http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/out-of-africa–aboriginal-origins-uncovered/2007/05/08/1178390312301.html
Except –
“For the first time this evidence gives us a genetic link showing that the Australian Aboriginal and New Guinean populations are descended directly from the same specific group of people who emerged from the African migration.”
At the time of this migration Australia and New Guinea were joined by a land bridge.
The team said the research, which is published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, helped explain why the skeletal remains and tools found in Australia were different to those found on the route through Asia that the early settlers took to get here.”
Difference in phenotype –
“There would have been time for differences to evolve, such as the variations between slender 40,000-year-old remains found at Lake Mungo and robust, heavy-browed 20,000-year-old remains found at Kow Swamp.”
I will not write on this subject again and your responses will be regarded as dead letters to be unread and returned to sender.
Find another topic otherwise the lights are out and you can whistle in the dark all by yourself, dude.
The Skeptic
Your problem comes because you associate the term African/Afrikan with Black – NOTHING you presented, identified CDEF-M168 as “BLACK”, African yes, Black no – show me any thing that you presented, that says this is a Black, rather than an African haplomarker – it is explained clearly here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_CT_%28Y-DNA%29. YOU, NOT your sources, are identifying this as Black – your sources, AGAIN, back what I have said – only racist here, is YOU, insisting the ancestor of all peoples was Black, rather t5han all peoples are descended from a common ancestor – take a course in Genetics, so you can comprehend what you are copying, and, pasting- very simply – show me anything you copied, and, pasted, that says the CDEF-M168 is a “Black” rather than an African/Afrikan haplomarker – NOT one and the same, which is what YOU are trying your hardest to make it appear – NOW, very simply, show me where your sources say Nlack, rather than African/Afrikan?
CN
That common Y-DNA common ancestor you reject…
“In other words, all non-Africans carry M168. Of course, Africans carrying the M168 mutation today are the descendants of the African subpopulation from which the migrants originated. Thus, the Australian/Eurasian Adam (the ancestor of all non-Africans) was an East African Man.” (Linda Stone, Paul F. Lurquin, L. Luca Cavalli-Sforza, Genes, Culture, and Human Evolution: A Synthesis, Wiley-Blackwell: 2006, pg. 108).
East Africans – “Admixture”
The ADMIXTURE detected here is consistent with the autosomal results of Tishkoff et al., according to which the TUTSI/HUTU population had 66% membership in the NIGER-KORDOFANI, and 18% in the CUSHITIC cluster….
American Journal of Physical Anthropology doi:10.1002/ajpa.21070
mtDNA variability in two Bantu-speaking populations (Shona and Hutu) from Eastern Africa: Implications for peopling and migration patterns in sub-Saharan Africa.
Loredana Castrì et al.
Abstract
In this study, we report novel data on mitochondrial DNA in two of the largest eastern Bantu-speaking populations, the Shona from Zimbabwe and the Hutu from Rwanda. The goal is to evaluate the genetic relationships of these two ethnic groups with other Bantu-speaking populations. Moreover, by comparing our data with those from other Niger-Congo speaking populations, we aim to clarify some aspects of evolutionary and demographic processes accompanying the spread of Bantu languages in sub-Saharan Africa and to test if patterns of genetic variation fit with models of population expansion based on linguistic and archeological data. The results indicate that the Shona and Hutu are closely related to the other Bantu-speaking populations. However, there are some differences in haplogroup composition between the two populations, mainly due to different genetic contributions from neighboring populations. This result is confirmed by estimates of migration rates which show high levels of gene flow not only between pairs of Bantu-speaking populations, but also between Bantu and non-Bantu speakers. The observed pattern of genetic variability (high genetic homogeneity and high levels of gene flow) supports a linguistic model suggesting a gradual spread of Bantu-speakers, with strong interactions between the different lines of Bantu-speaker descent, and is also in agreement with recent archeological findings. In conclusion, our data emphasize the role that population admixture has played at different times and to varying degrees in the dispersal of Bantu languages.”
http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2009/05/mtdna-in-east-african-bantu.html
“When the European colonists conducted censuses, they wanted to identify the peoples throughout Rwanda-Burundi according to a simple classification scheme. They defined “Tutsi” as anyone owning more than ten cows (a sign of wealth) or with the physical feature of a longer nose, commonly associated with the Tutsi. The Europeans noticed that some Rwandans had noses they thought characteristic of their people, so they created historical and racial theories to explain why some Africans inherited such features. Early 20th-century Europeans believed the physical feature meant that some of the Tutsi had Caucasian or European ancestry, perhaps by migrations from Ethiopia, what was called the Hamitic Theory. According to their racially based ideas, they thought the Tutsi were a “superior” people of a primarily Horn African and/or North African ancestry; descent from Arabs of the Middle East was also suggested. In addition, some Tutsi believed they were descended from the ancient Israelites and had a mystical connection to Israel.[2] The Europeans considered the majority Hutu to be characteristic Bantu people of Central African and Sub-Saharan origin.”
FYI : The Tutsi were once classed as Hamitic!
East Africa and Genotype-Phenotype East Africans –
“Modern-day genetic studies of the Y-chromosome suggest that the Tutsi are largely of Bantu extraction (80% E1b1a, 15% B, 4% E3). Paternal genetic influences associated with the Horn of Africa and North Africa are few (1% E1b1b), and are ascribed to much earlier inhabitants who were assimilated. The Tutsi, in general, demonstrate a close ethnic kinship with neighboring Bantu populations, particularly the Hutu.[4]
…generations of gene flow obliterated whatever clear-cut physical distinctions may have once existed between these two Bantu peoples — renowned to be height, body build, and facial features. With a spectrum of physical variation in the peoples, Belgian authorities legally mandated ethnic affiliation in the 1920s, based on economic criteria. Formal and discrete social divisions were consequently imposed upon ambiguous biological distinctions. To some extent, the permeability of these categories in the intervening decades helped to reify the biological distinctions, generating a taller elite and a shorter underclass, but with little relation to the gene pools that had existed a few centuries ago. The social categories are thus real, but there is little if any detectable genetic differentiation between Hutu and Tutsi.—[5]”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tutsi
European destruction of Ethnic social construct – Racial Divide – Classism – Pit Ethnic groups against each other – Establish European values of how to Conquer – Europeans Divide wealth – Take the wealth out of East Africa – leave a divided ethnic society to heal itself of European values…
“Both Germany (before World War I) and Belgium ruled the area in a colonial capacity. Like the most Europeans before them, the Belgians believed that the Tutsi were originally not from sub-Saharan Africa but had migrated from Europe via northern Africa or from the Middle East, due to what they characterized as physical features they associated as Caucasian.
…As a result, they allowed only the Tutsi to be educated and only they could participate in the colonial government.
…Since the Hutu were the majority, such discriminatory policies engendered resentment. When the Belgians assumed control following World War I, they asked for advice from the Germans, who told them to continue promoting the Tutsis, which they did on their way.
“When the Belgians took over the colony in 1916, they believed the colony could be better governed if they continued to identify the different populations.
…In the 1920s, they required people to identify with a particular ethnic group and classified them in censuses. Belgian colonists viewed Africans in general as children who needed to be guided, but noted the Tutsi to be the ruling culture in Rwanda-Burundi.
Change the rules of the game to create / foster ethnic friction…
…In 1959, Belgium reversed its stance and allowed the majority Hutu to assume control of the government through universal elections.”
What you BELIEVE is ADMIXTURE is the same old unhappy tune the continent of Afrika has heard for centuries.
The Pied Piper is no longer wearing his colonial mask.
R1B1* – Black-Afrikan Genotype-Phenotype – Even if back-migration, which implies if it came back it was returning home…not having the R1a/R1b European genotype-phenotype molecular mutations…
“One isolated clade (or clades) of Y chromosomes that appear to belong to Haplogroup R1b1* (P25-derived) is found at high frequency among the native populations of northern Cameroon, such as the Kirdi, in west-central Africa, which is believed to reflect a prehistoric back-migration of an ancient proto-Eurasian population into Africa.”
Proto-
“a combining form meaning “first,” “foremost,” “earliest form of,” used in the formation of compound words ( protomartyr; protolithic; protoplasm ), specialized in chemical terminology to denote the first of a series of compounds, or the one containing the minimum amount of an element.”
Proto-Eurasian population into Africa.”
Earliest form of R1* genotype-phenotype of Eur-Asian back migration to Africa – not-having the European genotype-phenotype-mutations.
I also found this for your review and edification:
“In other words, all non-Africans carry M168. Of course, Africans carrying the M168 mutation today are the descendants of the African subpopulation from which the migrants originated. Thus, the Australian/Eurasian Adam (the ancestor of all non-Africans) was an East African Man.” (Linda Stone, Paul F. Lurquin, L. Luca Cavalli-Sforza, Genes, Culture, and Human Evolution: A Synthesis, Wiley-Blackwell: 2006, pg. 108).
Genetic Update for CN
– African Diversity is more than just phenotype…
—
Afrikan = Black-Afrikan specific genotype-phenotype
Asian = Black-Afrikan specific genotype-phenotype
Asian = Non-Black-Afrikan specific genotype-phenotype
Eur-Asian = Non-Black-Afrikan specific genotype
European = Non-Black-Afrikan specific genotype
—
“African DNA has more genetic diversity Schematic of worldwide human genetic variation, with colours representing different genetic types Schematic of worldwide human genetic variation, with colours representing different genetic types.
By Roger Highfield, Science Editor
1:00PM GMT 21 Feb 2008
Comments
“Human migration from AFRICA to Europe more than 30,000 YEARS AGO appears to have LEFT ITS MARK ON the GENES OF EUROPEANS today.
The DNA of EUROPEAN-Americans appears to carry proportionately more HARMFUL GENETIC CHANGES than that of AFRICAN-Americans, because they (Europeans, my insertion)emerged from a smaller and LESS DIVERSE population.
The study of 35 people, published in Nature by a team led by Prof Carlos Bustamante of Cornell University, New York State, shows that the proportion of single letter spelling variations in the human genetic code that are probably harmful and unique to that particular population are significantly higher in the European-Americans (16 per cent) than in the African-American sample (12 percent) his team analysed.
–In other words, the genetic defects of Europeans is due to its small population, effectively setting up a limited gene-pool typical of inter-breeding – you know, Blu Bloods!–
“What is happening at an individual level will vary tremendously within and among populations,” stressses Prof Bustamante, explaining that the effect can only be seen in the population level and it is not known how these deleterious mutations affects disease risk.
His team speculates that this is a consequence of a “bottleneck” – a huge decline in numbers – that Europeans experienced at about the time of the migration out of Africa, around 45,000 years ago.
“What we may be seeing is a ‘population genetic echo’ of the founding of Europe,” says Prof Bustamante, and senior co-author with Prof Andrew Clark.
Because the FOUNDER population of EUROPEANS was MUCH SMALLER, they today have a higher proportion of HARMFUL GENETIC MUTATIONS, which would have been diluted without the BOTTLENECK, an effect that was only thought to affect small populations before this study.
Like astronomers who build ever-larger telescopes to peer deeper into space, population geneticists are probing the human genetic code in unprecedented detail, confirming our origins in Africa, where today the most GENETICALLY DIVERSE RANGE OF people reside.
The work underlines why the scientific establishment recoiled at the claim by DNA pioneer James Watson that he was
“inherently gloomy about the prospect of Africa”
because
“all our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours – whereas all the testing says not really”.
The furore led the Nobel laureate to abandon a recent book tour of Britain and the studies published in the journal Nature show why it was meaningless to talk about “Africa” in a discussion of the genetics of intelligence, since the continent has the biggest variation of DNA on the planet, reflecting how it was the cradle of humankind and that the DNA of its inhabitants has evolved and changed there the longest.
In a second study in Nature, this time of 485 people, University of Michigan’s Prof Noah Rosenberg and colleagues, led by Andrew Singleton at the National Institute on Aging, Bethesda, outline how human GENETIC DIVERSITY DECREASES as DISTANCE FROM Africa INCREASES.
People of AFRICAN descent are MORE GENETICALLY DIVERSE than MIDDLE EASTERNERS, who are MORE diverse than ASIANS and EUROPEANS. Native Americans possess the least-diverse genomes. As a result, searching for disease-causing genes should require the fewest number of genetic markers among Native Americans and the greatest number of markers among Africans.
The patterns revealed by the new study support the idea that humans originated in Africa, then spread into the Middle East, followed by Europe and Asia, the Pacific Islands, and finally to the Americas.
They report more examples of a recently discovered type of human genetic variation, known as a copy-number variant or CNV.
They found 507 previously unknown CNVs, which are large chunks of DNA – up to 1,000,000 consecutive “letters” of the genetic alphabet – that are either repeated or deleted entirely from a person’s genome. Various diseases can be triggered by an abnormal gain or loss in the number of gene copies.
While previous studies have found that broad-scale geographic ancestry could be successfully traced, the new results indicate “it’s becoming increasingly possible to use genomics to refine the geographic position of an individual’s ancestors with more and more precision,” Prof Rosenberg adds.”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/3326376/African-DNA-has-more-genetic-diversity.html
—–
In other words, Afrikans stolen in the Trans-Atlantic slave trade, who are now Afrikan-Americans are still more genetically diverse than the European masters who raped these women back in the day. In other words, the European contribution to the Afrikan-America gene-pool is not admixture but were already present in the genetic diversity of the Afrikan. You could not contribute to us – no admixture only our own phenotype diversification!
–The reason R1a and R1b is so prevalent ! Whereas, the R* in Central Africa is diverse by clades indicating its R* basal foundation as significantly older than the European R1a/R1b/R2.–
R1B1* – Black-Afrikan Genotype-Phenotype – Even if back-migration, which implies if it came back it was returning home…not having the R1a/R1b European genotype-phenotype molecular mutations…
“One isolated clade (or clades) of Y chromosomes that appear to belong to Haplogroup R1b1* (P25-derived) is found at high frequency among the native populations of northern Cameroon, such as the Kirdi, in west-central Africa, which is believed to reflect a prehistoric back-migration of an ancient proto-Eurasian population into Africa.”
Also, http://en.academic.ru/dic.nsf/enwiki/2027629
“Some Y-chromosomes that appear to be closely related to the northern Cameroonian R1b1* are found at a substantial frequency among the modern population of Egypt. Many modern populations of northern Cameroon speak Chadic languages, which are classified as an ancient branch of the Afro-Asiatic super family of languages; the now extinct language of the Ancient Egyptians also belonged to the same super family.”
Keep skipping and whistling your happy tune and believing what you want.
I am done with this round, Robin.
CN
you wrote,
1. “The recent resolutions of the CDEF-M168 tripartite structure to the bipartite DE-YAP and CF-P143 [16, 31] extends the conversation regarding the early successful colonization of Eurasia.
…While several scenarios remain potentially possible the most parsimonious model is the most prudent…
—- Quote:
“CT (defined by P9.1, M168, and M294) at 70 thousand years ago (Kya), which is consistent with previous estimates from genetic and archaeological data (Lahr and Foley 1998; Hammer and Zegura 2002; Macaulay et al. 2005), and is the chronological approximation given in Jobling et al. (2004) (p250) for the FIRST first major human OUT OF AFRICA out-of-Africa dispersals.”
What genotype-phenotype were these humans?
So, CN, if the first to carry CT-M168 were Black Afrikans, then this means that all Y-DNA whether you want to call it black, Asian, Eur-Asian, etc., have this male as their common genetic ancestor.
…This model proposes the successful colonization of Eurasia by migration(s) of populations containing precursor Y-chromosome founder macrohaplogroup CDET-M168 and basal mtDNA L3 representatives.
CDET-M168 and basal mtDBA L3 are Black-Afrikan specific…..including M1…all other non-Afrikan descendants such as Asian M and N, etc., are defined by specific mutations of each M and N, etc., common ancestor. mt-DNA L3 is the common Black-Afrikan ancestor of M and N then what is the contention?
…Regions near but external to northeast Africa, like the Levant or the southern Arabian Peninsula,
COULD could have served as an incubator for the early diversification of NON-AFRICAN non-African uniparental haplogroup varieties like Y chromosome DE-YAP*, CF-P143* and mtDNA M and N MOLECULAR ANCESTORS molecular ancestors…
Read it again….incubator for non-Afrikan (read genotype-phenotype not-Black-Afrikan) DE-YAP*, CF-P143* and mtDNA M and N molecular ancestors….
YAP –
DE-YAP – Haplogroup DE is often referred to by the most well-known unique event polymorphism (UEP) which defines it, the Y-chromosome Alu Polymorphism (YAP). The YAP mutation was caused when a strand of DNA called Alu, which copies itself, inserted a copy into the Y chromosome.
…A Y chromosome that has the YAP mutation is called YAP-positive (YAP+), and a Y chromosome that does not have the YAP mutation is labeled YAP-negative (YAP-).
Haplogroup DE is an estimated 65,000 years old.[1]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_DE_%28Y-DNA%29
Haplogroup DE is found in Africa (Haplogroups E and DE*) and East Asia (Haplogroups D and DE*) but is -LARGLY ABSENT BETWEEN THESE TWO REGIONS -largely absent in between these two regions. The presence of DE across widely separated regions has confounded investigators trying to reconstruct the migration of humans from Africa to Asia. At some time, there was an extinction of DE lineages in West, South and Central Asia. Autochthonous DE lineages are absent in India, an important region in the dispersal of humans in Asia. However DE lineages have been detected in relict populations of the – ANDAMAN – NEGRITOS – Andaman Islands. Underhill et al. 2007, suggest the possibility that deleterious mutations in some DE carriers may explain the extinction of DE lineages in India.[9]
…These would have spread globally and diversified over time and space. This model would imply that both CF-P143 and the DE-YAP evolved nearby but OUTSIDE Africa….
One DE-YAP* ancestor would have spread to Asia and evolved to haplogroup D while another DE-YAP* RETURNED to northeast Africa and evolved into hg E.
…It is noteworthy that DE-YAP* has been detected at low frequency in Africa [37]. Again, this hypothesis has its mtDNA counterpart as it is well documented that, in the Palaeolithic, at least three clades (X1, U6, M1) derived respectively from the three main Eurasian macrohaplogroups (N, R, M) came back to North Africa from Asia [38-42].”
You keep missing the point is that they RETURNED phenotype unchanged – otherwise, I would not look like the sub-saharan Afrikan you seem to despise.
The phenotype is your hangup. I am mtDNA L3. My ancestry is Black Afrikan by way of the shared mutations I have between L1, L2, and L3 of the Khoisan. My Y-DNA is R1*M173 classed but my defined SNP is the BT positive 10831.1 and 10831.2. Were I negative at 10831.2 my group would have been either R1a or R1b. However, I am not negative but positive. These factors are genotypes and each group has its defining mutations for that genotype.
I am from Cameroon and I am not European. My genotype if R1* is basal R1* and even if back-migration went out of Afrika and returned to Afrika the same genotype and phenotype.
In other words when my ancient ancestors walked to Southeast Asia both were genotype-phenotype Black Afrikans. When they returned nothing much had changed.
What you call African or Asian or Caucasian and cloak with the word “ethnic” haplogroups but reject that the genotype-phenotype of the African was changed -at least – over 30,000 years to become its non-Afrikan-Asian type. The Caucasian genotype-phenotype is the non-Afrikan-Asian type. Steps of molecular-evolution-mutation.
I am tired of the racism, dude. If what you are trying to say is that Black-Afrikans evolved from Caucasians…just keep whistling and skipping your happy tune.
“The root of the Y haplogroup tree is the so-called “Y-Chromosome Adam,” the most recent patrineal ancestor of all people living today, who is believed to have lived 60,000 to 90,000 years ago. He was not the only man living at that time, he simply was the only man with an unbroken male line of descent to the present day. The A haplogroup is thought to have been defined about 60,000 years bp. The BT haplogroup split from the root of the Y haplogroup tree 55,000 years before present (bp), probably in North East Africa.
…The CF(xDE) haplogroup was the common ancestor of all people who migrated outside of Africa until recent times. The defining mutation occurred 31-55,000 years bp in North East Africa and is still most common in Africa today in Ethiopia and Sudan.
…The DE haplogroup appeared approximately 50,000 years bp in North East Africa and subsequently split into haplogroup E that spread to Europe and Africa and haplogroup D that rapidly spread along the coastline of India and Asia to North Asia.
…The IJ haplogroup characterizes part of the second wave of emigration from Africa that occurred via the Middle East 45,000 years bp and defines two branches I and J that emigrated northwards and eastwards into Europe. The J branch subsequently split again and contributed to the current North African population.
…The NO haplogroup appeared approximately 35,000-40,000 years bp in a region east of the Aral sea; subsequent branches spread to North Asia (N) and another branch (O) to South Asia via North India. ”
http://www.isogg.org/tree/ISOGG_YDNATreeTrunk.html
COMMON ANCESTOR FOR ALL Y-DNA !
“In keeping with the concept of the “Y Chromosome Adam” (the most recent common male line ancestor (MRCA) of all living men), CT-M168 has been referred to in popularized accounts as being the lineage of “Eurasian Adam” (the most recent common male ancestor of all non-Africans).
No male in paragroup CT* has yet been discovered, which means in other words that all men in this haplogroup are also defined as being in one of the several major branch clades.
…All known surviving descendant lineages of CT are in one of two major sub-clades, CF and DE. Both of these appear to have arisen only a few thousand years after the original common ancestor of CT.
…In turn, DE is divided into an Asian haplogroup D and a predominantly Africa-distributed haplogroup E, while CF is divided into an East Asian, American, and Oceanian haplogroup C and haplogroup F, which dominates most non-African populations.[1]
Haplogroup CT is therefore the common ancestral male lineage of most men alive today, including most Africans, among whom haplogroup E is predominant, and most non-Africans, among whom haplogroup F is predominant.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_CT_%28Y-DNA%29
CN
you wrote,
“Euroasian adam ie the CT-M168 man probably originated in the middle east, the relevant point however is that that man did not phenotypically look african at all, he would have looked middle eastern or white caucasian.”
You are wrong: …Regions near but external to northeast Africa, like the Levant or the southern Arabian Peninsula, COULD have served as an incubator for the early diversification of NON-AFRICAN uniparental haplogroup varieties like Y chromosome DE-YAP*, CF-P143* and mtDNA M and N MOLECULAR ANCESTORS…
Afrikan (Blacks-Negroes-Ethiopians-San Kwe-Khoisan, sub-saharan Afrikans, etc. – Mt-DNA L3 ancestor to Mt-DNA M and N)molecular-genotype-phenotype diversifications giving rise to mt-DNA M Asian molecular-genotype-phenotype diversifications giving rise to mt-DNA European molecular-genotype-phenotype diversifications….
OPINION: “this explains why sub-saharans are the most diversive. what im trying to say as well is that just because an dna marker originated from a certain area does NOT mean that that areas current population represent the original phenotype. so I BELIEVE THE E CARRIERS that went into the horn looked like north africans and the current phenotype is due to ADMIXTURE.”
That is like saying the only true Black-Africans conform to what you believe they look like and that is your problem.
Whistling = denying.
Skipping = avoiding.
Happy tune = what your opinion is about what Black-Afrikans look like.
CN,
Your use of BELIEVING ADMIXTURE versus Black-genotype-phenotype-DIVERSITY is why you think Ethiopians are excluded?
In your mind, PRE-OUT-OF-AFRICA chromosomal Adam Y-DNA-CT M168 has to be white/caucasian. He wasn’t though, was he, since his direct ancestor was Y-DNA B, Black Afrikan genotype-phenotype, whose direct ancestor was Y-DNA A, Black Afrikan genotype-phenotype !
Genetic Diversity : Get a clue what this really mean!
Cool. You keep skipping and whistling your happy tune.
I am done with this round-robin.
The Skeptic
Strange – you have NOT presented one iota that says people are descended from Blacks – I have presented seveal links showing all human ethnic groups DIVERGED from a COMMON ancestor – these links explain it quite nicely : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_L3_%28mtDNA%29
and http://www.britam.org/YDNAclime.html and http://www.soeagra.com/abr/vol1/61-65.pdf
Euroasian adam ie the CT-M168 man probably originated in the middle east, the relevant point however is that that man did not phenotypically look african at all, he would have looked middle eastern or white caucasian.
the populations where already somewhat divided inside africa and the OOA group(who either where proto cro magnons in appearance or didnt resemble any modern group)evolved further in asia gaining complete caucasoid features and populated the whole world. the group that stayed in africa evolved further into the complete negroid phenotype.
its possible that part of the pure caucasoid phenotype came from mixture with neanderthals but we dont even know if its mixture or shared ancestry yet, the same can be said for african negroids who supposedly mixed with local archaic humans in africa which may have given them their current look.
however a part of that euroasian caucasoid group back migrated into africa and mixed with the local black women there creating the mixed populations of east africa.then the mixed children many generations later(who would at this point have looked mostly black just like african americans do even though many of them have a white man in their family tree)would spread the E dna through the bantu expansions thus replacing alot of the A and B , here is the whole scenario.:
—————————————————————————————————————–
1. “The recent resolutions of the CDEF-M168 tripartite structure to the bipartite DE-YAP and CF-P143 [16, 31] extends the conversation regarding the early successful colonization of Eurasia. While several scenarios remain potentially possible the most parsimonious model is the most prudent. This model proposes the successful colonization of Eurasia by migration(s) of populations containing precursor Y-chromosome founder macrohaplogroup CDET-M168 and basal mtDNA L3 representatives. Regions near but external to northeast Africa, like the Levant or the southern Arabian Peninsula, could have served as an incubator for the early diversification of non-African uniparental haplogroup varieties like Y chromosome DE-YAP*, CF-P143* and mtDNA M and N molecular ancestors. These would have spread globally and diversified over time and space. This model would imply that both CF-P143 and the DE-YAP evolved nearby but outside Africa. One DE-YAP* ancestor would have spread to Asia and evolved to haplogroup D while another DE-YAP* returned to northeast Africa and evolved into hg E. It is noteworthy that DE-YAP* has been detected at low frequency in Africa [37]. Again, this hypothesis has its mtDNA counterpart as it is well documented that, in the Palaeolithic, at least three clades (X1, U6, M1) derived respectively from the three main Eurasian macrohaplogroups (N, R, M) came back to North Africa from Asia [38-42].”
source: http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2156/10/59
http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2008/04/more-support-for-afrasianpalaeoafrican_25.html
these 2 below makes “recent OOA” theory very unlikely or almost imossible.
http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2010/11/some-indians-as-genetically-diverse-as.html
http://www.forumbiodiversity.com/showthread.php?t=10417
here is a ancient skull from israel that is around 100 000 years old that have a big affinity/similarity with the later cro-magnon skulls. (just to prove that there was caucasoid looking skulls back then)
https://www.msu.edu/~heslipst/contents/ANP440/images/Qafzeh_6.jpg
this link proves “archaic” admixture in sub-saharan africans, ca 13%, so that micht be another explanation why sub-saharans are more diverse.
http://evoandproud.blogspot.com/2010/05/archaic-admixture-in-africans.html
okay now for the theory summary:
basically as according to dienekes it is possible to seperate humans into 2 groups, paleo-africans and afrasians/euroasians.
paleo-africans represent lineages (y dna) A,B and (mtdna) L0-L2.
Euroasians/afrasians represent CT and its descendants and L3
So basically there was already sub structure(both genetically and phenotypically) in east africa before OOA and neither of those populations did resemble any modern phenotype and then the afrasians migrated out and in isolation developed into the phenotypes we see in euroasia today and (haplogroups E and R and so on originated) while the paleo-africans stayed and settled south and west of africa as well and evolved into the negroid types we have in sub-saharan africa today possible due to the mixing with those archaic african groups.
E carriers return from euroasia into africa and settle into the horn and live next to the paleo africans and some mixing occur, then a subset of the E carriers of the horn move further and colonize north africa. those that stayed in the horn eventually started mixing with the paleo african women and became the dominant y group.
meanwhile in euroasia the euroasians probably started mixing with neanderthals.(although there are some theories that this autosomal affinity with neanderthals isnt from admixture in these links below)
http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2010/05/neanderthals-had-ancestral.html
http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2010/05/tales-of-neanderthal-admixture-in.html
A subset of these now mixed horners however move further south and meet the pure paleo-africans(although with archaic admixture) then they also mix and the reason why E-carriers became dominant here too is due to the bantu migration later in history. though there is still some A and B. the archaic lineages had probably been completely assimilated prior to this.
this makes sense because that would make west and south africans (who are seen as pure negroids) autosomally almost completely african because they would not meet any new caucasoid groups in africa even though majority of them still carry an caucasoid euroasian y marker.
and east africans stay intermediate autosomally and in skull cluster analysis due to having a consistant population of both caucasoids and negroids. and north africans are practically completely caucasoid due to no paleo-africans living there.
this explains why sub-saharans are the most diversive.
what im trying to say as well is that just because an dna marker originated from a certain area does NOT mean that that areas current population represent the original phenotype. so i believe the E carriers that went into the horn looked like north africans and the current phenotype is due to admixture.
this is improtant to that argument:
“The population that left East Africa to colonize the world — including other parts of Africa — carried only CT and L3. We know this because if A, B and L0-L2 had already been present in that population, then those haplogroups would have colonized the world too. But they didn’t. Therefore, modern Ethiopians(and other horners) have ancestry that the original East Africans (i.e. OOA migrants) didn’t have, so they’re not representative”
CN
If your great-great-great-great grandmother and great-great-great-great grandfather had not met and had your mother or father, then you would not exist.
MT-DNA L3 – Black Afrikan specific is that mother.
In genetics this is the common ancestor for M and N and all other Eurasian and European sub-clades.
I am tired of the smallness of your speech and the restriction of your mind.
Talk to the hand, dude.
Keep skipping and whistling your happy tune.
End trans
The skeptic
You just keep on PROVING what I said – IGNORANCE must be bliss – Blacks and Whites have different subclades, even under the same haplomarker headings – seems you are NOT comprehending what you copy and paste – go back and read my haplomarker list SLOWLY, then read your copy and paste, SLOWLY – do your self a service – take a Genetics course – NOW, present proof of what you claim, that all people are descended from Black people, rather than a common ancestor.
The Skeptic – you keep PROVING me right – just as yo did by defining the “Near East” as the Middle East. NOT once in all your copying and pasting did anything back your claim that all people are descended from Black peoiple – just the fact that everyone diverged from a common ancestor, having different subclades – seems you don’t understand these very basic facts. Now, if I am wrong, I will admit it – you do NOT want to admit you are wrong, EVEN BY THE INFORMATION YOU ARE COPYING AND PASTING – take a Genetics course.
CN
You are like a little kid who has to have the last word. Rather than acknowledge that you are wrong you just go one skipping down the road whistling your happy tune. Have at it.
I am tired of the word-games.
Your last two entries are meaningless and avoid the information you confused, i.e., all Mt-DNA L3 is Black Afrikan specific.
…If you want to avoid using L3 as the common ancestor for M than go ahead, your avoidance does not change the fact.
The discussion was not about the geopolitics of the naming of Middle East, dude, but just keep on skipping and whistling…
NEAR EAST :A region of southwest Asia generally thought to include Turkey, Lebanon, Israel, Iraq, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and the other countries of the Arabian Peninsula. Egypt and Sudan in northeast Africa are sometimes considered part of the region.
MIDDLE EAST:
By most accounts the earliest reference to the “Middle East” occurs in a 1902 edition of the British journal National Review, in an article by Alfred Thayer Mahan entitled “The Persian Gulf and International Relations.” The term gained common usage after it was popularized by Valentine Chirol, a turn-of-the-century correspondent for the London times in Tehran. Arabs themselves never referred to their region as the Middle East until the colonial usage of the term became current and stuck.
For a time, the “Near East” was the term used for the Levant–Egypt, Lebanon, Palestine, Syria, Jordan–while “Middle East” applied to Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan and Iran.
….The American perspective lumped the region into one basket, giving more credence to the general term “Middle East.”
Today, even Arabs and other people in the Middle East accept the term as a geographical point of reference. Disagreements persist, however, about the exact geographical definition of the region. The most conservative definition limits the Middle East to the countries bound by Egypt to the West, the Arab Peninsula to the South, and at most Iran to the East.
A more expansive view of the Middle East, or the Greater Middle East, would stretch the region to Mauritania in West Africa and all the countries of North Africa that are members of the Arab League; eastward, it would go as far as Pakistan. The Encyclopedia of the Modern Middle East includes the Mediterranean islands of Malta and Cyprus in its definition of the Middle East. Politically, a country as far east as Pakistan is increasingly included in the Middle East because of Pakistan’s close ties and involvements in Afghanistan. Similarly, the former south and southwestern republics of the Soviet Union–Kazakhstan, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, Armenia, Turkmenistan, Azerbaijan–can also be included in a more expansive view of the Middle East because of the republics’ cultural, historical, ethnic and especially religious cross-overs with countries at the core of the Middle East.”
http://middleeast.about.com/od/middleeast101/f/me080208.htm
Keep whistling and skipping. I am done. Peace out.
The Skeptic
The Near East is NOW called the MIDDLE EAST(Arab Semitic White) – perhaps that will leave you LESS confused.
Solar strand & Cos Seven
Hair appearances does NOT change DNA and hair structure – translation Caucasian – most likely Arab Semitic.
The Skeptic – BOTTOM LINE – everything you described BACKS WHAT SAID – all ethnic peoples are descended from a COMMON ANCESTOR – NOT BLACK PEOPLE.Start studying what you are copying and pasting. Either that, or, take a Genetics course.
CN,
you wrote…ETHNIC HAPLOMARKERS
Caucasoid – E (only subclade E1b1b is a Caucasoid marker-all other sublades of E are Negroid haplomarkers), CORRECTION:
E1B-1a Tree Root Black-Afrikan specific.
Note, E1b-1a is above, i..e, higher up on the root tree than the downstream E1b-1b-1a…So-called Caucasian specific is
E1b-1b-1a, defined by M78, likely originated in East Africa about 23,000 YEARS AGO ago and is also found in northern Africa, western Asia, and EUROPE. It is the most frequent sub of E1b-1b-1 subclade in Europe, and the second most prevalent haplogroup in southeastern Europe (23%).
…E1b-1b-1a can be divided into four well-defined subgroups:
E1b-1b-1a-2-V13, found in Europe;
E1b-1b-1a-1-V12, found in North Africa;
E1b-1b-1a-4-V65, found in East Africa; and
E1b-1b-1a-3-V22 which is widespread at low frequencies throughout the Middle East and Europe.
AND
E1b1b1c1* – See previous post.
F(Semites),
H, I, J (Semites-1 & 2),
K,
L3 (Semites), this is Y-DNA L3 nothing to do with Black Afrikan specific mt-DNA L3!
T, U, V (Semites), The T here is
mt-DNA T – “The mitochondrial Haplogroup T is best characterized as a European lineage. With an origin in the Near East greater than 45,000 years ago, the major sub-lineages of Haplogroup T entered Europe around the time of the Neolithic 10,000 years ago. Once in Europe, these sub-lineages underwent a dramatic expansion associated with the arrival of agriculture in Europe. Today, we find Haplogroup T*, the root Haplogroup for Haplogroup T, widely distributed in Europe.”
Has nothing to do with “T” of Y-DNA-Haplogroup BT formerly K2 – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_K_%28Y-DNA%29
“A more detailed summary of the subclades of Haplogroup K with their defining mutation, according to Karafet et al. (2008)[1] (abbreviated for clarity to a maximum of five steps away from the root of Haplogroup K). Is given next. Note The 2008 paper made a number of changes compared to the previous 2006 ISOGG tree. The former subgroups K2 and K5 were renamed Haplogroups T and S; the old subgroups K1 and K7 were re-assigned as new subgroups M2 and M3 of a redefined Haplogroup M; and the former subgroups K3, K4 and K6 were renamed to new K1, K2 and K3.”
Catch up to the updated information…ISOGG –
http://www.isogg.org/tree/ISOGG_HapgrpK.html
I already addressed Y-DNA Haplogroup “E” so here is Haplogroup E (mtDNA)
http://familypedia.wikia.com/wiki/Haplogroup_E_%28mtDNA%29
mt-DNA E is a subgroup of M, which is the daughter of Afrikan specific Mt-DNA L3 has nothing to do with your Semitic Y-DNA L3 OR L3*.
Not to be CONFUSED with Y-DNA old Y-DNA L3 or Y-DNA L3*)…
The subclades of Y-DNA Haplogroup L with their defining mutation(s), according to the 2006 ISOGG tree:
L (M11, M20, M22, M61, M185)
L* Found only in Europe from Ireland to Eastern Europe[26]
L1 (M295) Found from Western Europe to South Asia [27]
old L1 (M27, M76) Found frequently in Indians, Sri Lankans, and Balochs, with a moderate distribution in other populations of Pakistan, southern Iran, and Arabia but also in European populations.
old L2 (M317) Found at low frequency in Central Asia, Southwest Asia, and Central Europe.
old L2*
old L2a (M349) Principally found in Europe
old L2b (M274)
old L3 (M357) Found frequently among Burushos, Kalashas, Chechens and Pashtuns, with a moderate distribution among other populations in Pakistan, Georgia, northern Iran, India, the UAE, and Saudi Arabia.
old L3* – YOUR so-called Semitic Y-DNA L3*
L3a (PK3) Found frequently among Kalash
See Y-DNA L at
http://www.isogg.org/tree/ISOGG_HapgrpL.html
mt-DNA Haplogroup “E” – NOT TO BE CONFUSED with Y-DNA Haplogroup “E” –
“In human mitochondrial genetics, Haplogroup E is a human mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) haplogroup which can be used to define genetic populations. It is a subgroup of M.”
mt-DNA Haplogroup E has a southern Asia distribution. Until now it has been detected in the Malay peninsula populations and in the Sabah of Borneo; and it is also present in coastal Papua New Guinea as well as in Taiwan, in the Philippines, and in some Pacific islands such as Guam. “E” detected in a few Colombian indigenous populations, carries all the substitutions characteristic of haplogropup C and was identified as a back mutation. This revertant C lineage is further characterized by three changes in HVS-II sequence. ”
Do not write back to reiterate that Afrikan specific mt-DNA L* – L3 is Black but that L3* is European since ALL MT-DNA L – L3 IS AFRIKAN SPECIFIC AND ALL Y-DNA L IS EUROPEAN!
You are either confused or are trying to confuse readers to the site.
Europeans do not have mt-DNA L but all Y-DNA L IS not-BLACK-AFRIKAN SPECIFIC!
Black Afrikans do not have Y-DNA L but ALL mt-DNA L is Black Afrikan specific in genotype-phenotype !
Get it straight before you start crying foul, dude!
CN
Do not confuse the readers with jumping between Haplogroups E while not teaching there are two groups one as mtDNA and the other as Y-DNA.
HISTORY AND GEOGRAPHY OF Y-DNA (Male/Paternal/Father)
HAPLOGROUP ‘E’ –
As members of the human family, all people living today can trace their earliest paternal ancestors to populations that lived approximately 100,000 years ago in eastern Africa. These early humans became spread throughout the African continent, and beginning ~50,000 years ago, a series of complex migrations moved them out of Africa into regions of Asia and beyond to eventually populate every major area of the world.
Question: Were those first humans genotype-phenotype black?
Haplogroup E-M96 first arose in AFRICA approximately 40,000 YEARS AGO from its closet molecular ancestor, haplogroup DE-YAP. Some of these DE-YAP* ancestors migrated to Asia where they evolved into haplogroup D-M174 descendants, while others remained in Africa and subsequently evolved into E-M96 chromosomes. Today, some DE-YAP* representatives are still found in Nigeria, and representatives of E-M96 are prevalent in Africa, especially in western sub-Saharan populations. In fact, some studies have shown populations from Benin and Bamileke to belong exclusively to haplogroup E. Frequencies greater than 80% were also found in eastern sub-Saharan populations, including Hutu, Tutsi, Tanzanian, and Kenyan.” These same people used to be regarded in the Hamitic construct of Caucasians in Afrika which is obviously debunked !
Question: When these two sublineages entered Asia were they genotype-phenotype black?
E-M96 diverged into two major sublineages, E1-P47 and E2-M75. Individuals belonging to E2-M75 are currently found in north (E2a-M41) and central Africa (E2b-M98), while E1-P47 is more widespread through Africa. Subgroup E1a-M33 is most commonly found in the western Sahel arid belt region. E1b1-P2 first expanded within east Africa and is by far the most numerous and widespread of the E sublineages.
…Within the frequently occurring E1b1a-M2, subgroups M191, U209, and E1b1a-M2*, most common in northwestern (Senegal) Africa, all probably emerged during Holocene period which followed the last Ice Age. Their geographic regionalization likely occurred during the Bantu Iron Age agricultural expansion that commenced approximately 4,000 years ago. The highest frequency of E1b1a-M2 has been reported in Benin at 95%. It has also been observed at lower frequencies in North Africa and the Near East. The majority of contemporary African Americans are also members of the subclade E1b1a-M2.
E1b1b1, defined by M35, is the only known subclade of E1b1b. Estimates place its first appearance in eastern SUB-SAHARAN Africa about 25,000-30,000 YEARS AGO. It expanded into North Africa and the Near East at the end of the Paleolithic period (Late Stone Age). E1b1b1 lineages probably dispersed into the Middle East, southern Europe, and southern Africa, each with its own distinctive subclade, by a series of post-glacial (Holocene) migration events.
….Expansion into southern Europe occurred with Middle Eastern farmers during the Neolithic period. The entry of E1b1b-M81 into Iberia probably occurred with a later migration event via the Straight of Gibraltar when Arab-influenced Berbers occupied the Iberian Peninsula. Consequently, E1b1b1-M35 and its subclades are now the third most frequent haplogroup in Europe.
E1b1b1a, defined by M78, likely originated in East Africa about 23,000 YEARS AGO ago and is also found in northern Africa, western Asia, and EUROPE. It is the most frequent E1b1b1 subclade in Europe, and the second most prevalent haplogroup in southeastern Europe (23%).
…E1b1b1a can be divided into four well-defined subgroups:
E1b1b1a2-V13, found in Europe;
E1b1b1a1-V12, found in North Africa;
E1b1b1a4-V65, found in East Africa; and
E1b1b1a3-V22 which is widespread at low frequencies throughout the Middle East and Europe.
E1b1b1b, defined by M81, is another prevalent subclade of E1b1b1, and is largely restricted to northwest Africa where frequencies are about 75%. The distribution of this subclade is associated with Berber-speaking populations throughout Africa.
Note the Tree is E, E1, E1b, E1b1, E1b1b, then later …
E, E1, E1b, E1b1, E1b1b1, E1b1b1c1*, etc., going into Europe –
http://s1.zetaboards.com/anthroscape/topic/3182028/1/
According to the classification of the Haplozone E3b Project [16], the known haplogroup clusters of E1b1b1c1 are identified as E1b1b1c1*-A, E1b1b1c1*-B, E1b1b1c1*-C, E1b1b1c1*-D1 («Jewish cluster») and E1b1b1c1*-D2.
Each of these clusters has its own peculiarities:
E1b1b1c1*-A is the «European» cluster, discovered among the Germans and the Spaniards;
E1b1b1c1*-B is the «Arabian» cluster found among the Arabs from Persian Gulf countries;
E1b1b1c1*-C is the «British» cluster found among the British and Irish.
E1b1b1c1*-D1 is the «Jewish» cluster found among Ashkenazi. History of this cluster (about 1000 YEARS AGO) was considered in another paper [17] and will not be considered here.
E1b1b1c1*-D2 is the «mixed» cluster, found both among Europeans and people of the Levant and Turkey.
M123 defines E1b1b1c, which is found in Ethiopia, North Africa, the Near East, and Europe. E1b1b1c has been found at a frequency of about 5% in Anatolia, with high variance, suggesting multiple entries into the area and might be evidence of BOTH EARLY and LATE migratory events of haplogroup E INTO and OUT of Africa.
E1b1b1c1, defined by M34, may have originated in the Near East and was introduced into Africa with a later back-migration event, where it is found today at frequencies in Ethiopian populations of about 13%.
CN
….oops you did it again…let’s see the T of Y-DNA Haplogroup BT….
In human genetics, Haplogroup T is a human Y-chromosome DNA haplogroup. From 2002 to 2008, it was known as Haplogroup K2. It should not be confused with the mitochondrial DNA haplogroup T, of the same name….
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_T_%28Y-DNA%29
Haplogroup T (M70, M184, M193, M272) is found in an insignificant majority of Kurru, Bauris & Lodha in South Asia; and in a significant minority of Rajus and Mahli in South Asia, Somalis, southern Egyptians and Fulbe in Africa, Chians, German Stilfser/Tyroleans, Saccensi/Sicilians, Eivissencs and Northeastern Portuguese Jews in Europe, Zoroastrians and Bakhtiaris in the Middle East, and Xibe in the Far East.
Since haplogroup T is not associated with the R1, G and J lineages that entered Africa from Eurasia relatively recently, Luis et al. (2004) suggest that the presence of the clade on the continent may, like R1* representatives, point to an older introduction from Asia. The Levant rather than Southern Arabia appears to have been the main route of entry, as the Egyptian and Turkish haplotypes are considerably older in age (13,700 ybp and 9,000 ybp, respectively) than those found in Oman (only 1,600 ybp). According to the authors, the spotty modern distribution pattern of haplogroup T within Africa may therefore represent the traces of a more widespread early local presence of the clade. Later expansions of populations carrying the E1b1b, E1b1a, G and J NRY lineages may have overwhelmed the T clade-bearers in certain localities.[2]
The distribution of haplogroup T in most parts of Europe is patchy or regionalized; for example, haplogroup T was found in 1.7% (10/591) of a pool of six samples of males from southwestern Russia, but it was completely absent from a pool of eight samples totalling 637 individuals from the northern half of European Russia.[3]
In FTDNA, a commercial genetic genealogy company, is exposed a map where is assumed a relatively high frequency of haplogroup T in some Australian aborigenes. Probably the populations coincide with those previously reported in several studies as K*(M9) with a frequency near to 30% in Northern Australia. According to FTDNA the defining SNP for haplogroup T is M184 while M70 defines T1.”
So much for no T in Africa, i.e., Blacks.
However, you are confusing….Y-DNA BT with…
Mitochondrial (mtDNA) Haplogroup T derives from the haplogroup JT, which also gave rise to haplogroup J. Haplogroup T is thought to have originated in Mesopotamia and/or the Fertile Crescent (modern Syria and Turkey) approximately 10,000-12,000 years ago, and then moved northwest in to Europe and east as far as modern Pakistan and India.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_T_%28mtDNA%29
See, it is still true. Again, your use of black, Black, BLACK and white, Caucasian, White is limited by the semantics of your racial sensibilities.
I suppose youre right Solar, however as people age their hair does in fact straighten or thin. My grandfather had kinky hair all his life but when he was in his 70s or so his hair was straight just like the hair on Ramses mummy. It ws exactly the same texture. This seems to reflect that something the body produces in youth gives hair the vitality to curl or express that dna command and as we age that power of expression fades in some. This is why old folks who had brown eyes in youth have blue eyes as they age. People need to accept the obvious and apparent truth about Tut and his people
I’m no geneticist, but I thought the strait-red hair on Tut’s family mummy’s was a (dead) give away. Now, sometimes with age, ancient dark hair can turn red, but it won’t straiten out! This includes the facial hair as seen on the documentary. King Tut didn’t git bumps!
The Skeptic
Correction – B only occurs in Blacks and Indians, not Asians.
The Skeptic
Once again – you are wrong – Here are the haplomarker groups:
ETHNIC HAPLOMARKERS
Caucasoid – E (only subclade E1b1b is a Caucasoid marker-all other sublades of E are Negroid haplomarkers), F(Semites), H, I, J (Semites-1 & 2), K, L3 (Semites), T, U, V (Semites), W, X, Y
Mongoloid(anthropologists now include American Indians (Red) and Malaysians (Brown) ethnicities in this group – C, D, F, G, O, Q, S- American Indians also have A, B, and, X
Negroid – A, B , E (except for subclade E1b1b which is a Caucasoid haplomarker), L1 & L2, M & N – all groups have these, but certain subclades are restricted to Blacks – presence of N in Blacks is not clearly defined and is possibly considered due to genetic back flow rather than present normally
M, N – is present in ALL ethnicities, but certain subclades are restricted to only Blacks
P, R, Z – Caucasoid and Mongoloids only, not Blacks
Haplomarker T does NOT occur in Blacks, ONLY Caucasians – B occurs ONLY in Asians, Blacks, and Indians, NOT Caucasians.AGAIN, YOU ARE ATTEMPTING TO LINK THE GENETICS TO BLACK PEOPLE – NOT, THE COMMON ANCESTOR OF ALL ETHNIC GROUPS – THAT IS YOUR ERROR, either through ignorance, or, on purpose – please show me in your information – WHERE it is limited to Black people.I don’t see Black people mentioned ANYWHERE.
CN
you wrote,
“…can’t say all are present in Blacks BECAUSE BLACKSD DOO NOT HAVE THEM – each ethnic group has haplomarkers SPECIFIC for their ethnic group – admixtures, of course, will have mixed – showing they are from different ethnic groups…”
Actually, you are wrong….
“Haplogroup BT is determined by 10831.1 and 10831.2 being positive for mutation. BT is the one Afrikan haplogroup which contains all of the human DNA from B to T hence BT as the group. So, think about it….
B,
C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, L, M, N, O, P, Q, R, S, and
T.
In human genetics, haplogroup BT, also known as haplogroup YxA (SRY10831.1 (SRY1532.1), M42, M94, M139, M299) is a Y-chromosome haplogroup.[1] The notation BT refers to the derived set of haplogroups between B and T which forms its own cladistic set.
Haplogroup BT is descent from Haplogroup A2-T about 70,000 years bp, possibly originating in western North Africa or central West Africa. It contains the remaining living human Y-DNA haplogroups from macro-haplogroup A.
^ ISOGG 2011, Y-DNA Haplogroup Tree
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_BT_%28Y-DNA%29
Haplogroup B (M60) (Africa, especially the Pygmies and Hadzabe)
Haplogroup T – (North Africa, Horn of Africa, Southwest Asia, the Mediterranean, South Asia); formerly known as Haplogroup K2.
Cos Seven
NOW, you wish to attempt to say everyone appears Black – HA,HA,HA – tell me another joke – surely you can tell a Black person from a White person – let’s use an artificial change from Black to White – Michael Jackson through his teens – Black – twenties – the change – late twenties White. DNA ALSO VERIFIES ETHNIC GROUPS – of course, you will have to get around that by fabricating yet another story – haplomarkers are restricted to certain ethnic groups – can’t say all are present in Blacks BECAUSE BLACKSD DOO NOT HAVE THEM – each ethnic group has haplomarkers SPECIFIC for their ethnic group – admixtures, of course, will have mixed – showing they are from different ethnic groups. As four are human ancestor – would look like a chimpanzee – closest living creature to what one would look like – here is a chimp born without hair:http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1322472/Guru-chimp-suffering-alopecia-looks-human-star-zoo-attraction.html or possibly Bassau: http://www.faem.com/natvan/bassou.htm
“Then don’t limit your self to images of Black Nubians, the Egyptians got from annexing part of Nubia.Countless other images, statues, drawing – show NON Black Egyptians, skeletal – limb and skull ratios, DNA – show the Egyptians were NON Black” -CN
Hogwash. There are all types of “black” skeletal types. There are the Twa (pygmy) whose skeletons have short thick limbs compared to the Masai-type whose skeletons are long and slender. There are heavy and round skulls as well as narrow thin skulls among the Africans, without the introduction of “white” genetics which have already been established to be recessive versions of “black” genetics. Oh wait – you cant accept that. You call it a “common ancestor.” Well would that ancestor be labeled “black” if it were to walk into an American office?
The skeptic
Actually YOU copied and pasted what I said about Anwar Sadat – check MY answers way back BEFORE yours – at any rate, Anwar Sadat DENIED his Black heritage until almost on his death bed – Nubia is NOT Egypt. The beautiful Queen Ti, King Tut’s grandmother is from Nubia – although her yellow hair samples show she is Caucasian – she is believed to be a mix of Black, White, and Asian – see : http://naturescorner.wordpress.com/2008/12/13/where-the-ancient-egyptians-black-or-white/
CN
You only copied what I wrote about the racial/ethnic ancestry of Anwar Sadat but you missed the most important aspect of hereditary rule by the mother, who was Sudanese. Therefore, according to the rule by the mother – i.e., the so-called Egyptian rule, not the Arabic-Semitic rule of hereditary by father/patronymic, Anwar Sadat was by rule of his ancestry through his mother’s side, Sudanese, i.e., African.
Again, we can go around in circles but putting the actual culture of the so-called Egyptians to the test means acknowledging the matrillineal rule of kingship.
There is nothing else to go on about since whether King Tut was Sudanese by way of his mother has yet to be established. The point was a phenotypical comparison of King Tut to Anwar Sadat according the matrilineal/hereditary right to rule !
All else, that is — whether they were multi-racial goes without contention.
Cos Seven
If you did not understand my explanation, this would be akin to gong on an Indian reservation – seeking samples – drawings, people, skeletons, and, determining they are Indian, and declaring all of America is Indian, when, in fact, it is 65% White(just like Egypt – Semitic , NOT Nubian Black(akin to the Indians).
Cos Seven
Then don’t limit your self to images of Black Nubians, the Egyptians got from annexing part of Nubia.Countless other images, statues, drawing – show NON Black Egyptians, skeletal – limb and skull ratios, DNA – show the Egyptians were NON Black – starting in Northern(Lower) Egypt – is the White(Semitic) population, as you move towards the Southern(Upper – especially southwestern(annexed Black Nubia)), the population is Black – countless studies show this – most Afrocentrists, including YOU, chose data from southern E#gypt, to prove Egypt is Black, neglecting the MAJORITY Northern Egypt is Semitic White – the Black part of Egypt is actually the minority portion.
Its laughable that you rely on a mural from Setis tomb that has been faded and then redrawn in books to the authors preference. Why such a reliance on that one mural which really doesnt even show any actual difference between “egyptians” and “black nubians?” I put these terms in quotes because they are completely worthless. In the time in question the only of these words that was POSSIBLY in use by these people to describe themselves in Nubian. Even that isnt likely.
Why rely on one mural when there are literally hundreds of statues from all dynasties showing full blooded “black” people. Oh i forgot, those were either remnants of slavery, because after all blacks were only slaves in any great civilization, or late comers who are exceptions and not the typical people.
THis debate is so ridiculous on its face because there are NO depictions of King Tut that even remotely look european. This just shows how deluded some “authority” can make some people. Common sense would tell even a third grader who looks at all the depictions of Twt, and not a bunch of DNA/Haploid gibberish that, like statistics can be made to lie, will see he is African by the most common standard. Study long and study wrong.
The Skeptic – North africa is now, a part of the Middle East – Arab Semitic White – Berbers and Moors are essentially Arabs with 8-16% Black Heritage, and smatterings of Indo european Ayan Whites.There is no question Arabs and Blacks have mixed – the late Anwar sadat, models Iman, and, Lila Kebede have arab Semitic White fathers, Black mothers. Egypt, Modern, and, Ancient – is/was 65% Arab Semitic White 30% Black, Black/Arab Semitic White, and 5% all others. The CRRENT war in Darfur Sudan, is an ethnoreligious war – Black Muslim Sudanese of Southern Sudan, and, Arab Semetic White Muslims,of Northern Sudan, fighting each other for control of Sudan.
The Skeptic
Do you NOT read what you copy and past, and/or do you not comptehend it. Part of Nubia was annexed by Egypt to make up its lower spothwestern quarter, in 1520 B.C.. There were, indeed, Black Pharoahs in Egypt, from annexed Nubia – about 800-700 B.C..On the Badarians, by MOST accounts, they appear to be a mixed Black/White(most likely Arab, Semitic) highly isolated group. The Nubians did mix with Arabs – Modern example – the late Anwar Sadat – Arab Semitic White father – Black Sudanese(Nubian/Kemetian) mother.
CN,
you wrote…
“Cos seven –
The mural on Seti I’s tomb – shows the ancient Egyptians considered themselves DIFFERENT than the Black Nubians. Ancient Egyptians borrowed heavily, including their hieroglyph system,from the slightly older, advanced Black Nubian tribe,known as Ta-Seti.”
Geb ta seti : Geb = the land. Ta = Nation(s). Seti = of the bow. Ta-Seti is the Egyptian term for ancient Qustul (Qa’Ua’as tje Su As Sua An (Assuan)- Tje-Khu-Ati-Su and Tje-Khu-Ati-Sua – the priests/princes – Su and the priestess/princess – Sua of Djehuti).
“3800-3100 B.C. Qustul: The oldest tombs of a pharaonic type are found in Nubia (Kingdom of Qustul), and these thirty-three A-Group tombs appear in Nubia before the dynastic period. Cemetery L at Qustul, which is a small cemetery containing unusually large and wealthy tombs of A-Group. It was in one of these graves, “L-24″ coded by the excavators, that the mysterious incense burner came to light. An incense burner with figures and pictographs gouged deep into the clay. This censer had been found, not in Egypt, but nearly 200 miles deep in Nubia. The inscription showed three ships sailing in procession. The three ships were sailing toward the royal palace. One of the ships carried a lion – perhaps a deity. The central boat carries the king, sitting and equipped with long robe, flail and White Crown. All motifs that would later become symbols of Pharaonic rule in Egypt. This piece had been made no later than 3400 B.C. At that early date, there were not supposed to have been any such things as pharaohs or pharaohs’ palaces. The discovery of the Qustul Incense Burner is considered one of the earliest certifiable uses of incense by a culture. This Qustul burner also rose a debate regarding the Nubian origin of Egyptian civilization. Upon the Incense Burner is a relief of a royal procession considered by many archeologists as evidence of the worlds first monarchy. This debate maintains that Nubian culture often referred to as Ta-seti, developed as early as 7000 B.C. forming the source for Egyptian Pharaonic culture, as well as its religious system. However, Egyptologists all agree that the bounty of the lush Nile Valley was instrumental to the luxuriant flowering of Ancient Egypt. The Sahara was not always a desolate wasteland. Some 10,000 years ago, the Sahara received considerably more rain than it does today, permitting a savanna-like vegetation of open grasslands peppered with shrubs and trees, much like the East African plains of today.”
http://wysinger.homestead.com/badarians.html
What we may never know…
“Note: Unfortunately, the likelihood of further archaeological study at Qustul, or any other site in Nubia, is all but impossible became many of the primary areas of investigation now lie under 250 feet of water, at the bottom of Lake Nasser. This man-made lake covers an area of approximately 500 square miles, and it is the second largest man-made lake in the world. Over 150,000 Nubians and Sudanese were forced to relocate off the land their ancestors had called home for over 5,000 years. Over 45 Nubian villages were washed away along the banks of the Nile south of Aswan. They were resettled in and around the city of Aswan and in villages further north. Twenty-three Nubian monuments were saved from the rising waters There is no way to estimate the total number of temples and tombs which now lie at the bottom of Lake Nasser, nor is there any way of knowing the many secrets these structures currently hold. Because of the creation of the Aswan High Dam, the world will never have an opportunity to study the full impact Africans from the southern Nile Valley had on the development of ancient Egypt and subsequent civilizations.”
Pre-Dynastic Egypt –
Who Were The Badarians?
“The Badarian structure is said to have affinity to the black race . . . Max Toth, Pyramid Prophecies, Destiny Books, (1988): “The oldest ivory figurines found in ancient Egypt were sculpted by the Badari, a Negroid race of the Egyptians”.
Dr. Eugen Strouhal Physical Anthropologist was able to take samples of seven of the racially mixed Badarian individuals which were macroscopically curly [spirals of 10-20mm in diameter] or wavy in [25-35 mm]. They were studied microscopically by S. Tittlebacchova from the Institute of Anthropology of the Charles University, who found in five out of seven samples a change in the thickness of the hair in the course of its length, sometimes with simultaneous narrowing of the hair pitch. Strouhal summarized: “The outline of the cross-sections of the hairs was flattened, with indices ranging from 35 to 65. These peculiarities also show the Negroid inference among the Badarians (pre-dynastic Egyptians).” (Journal of African History, 1971). Thus, this is incompatible with the theories that the Negro element only infiltrated into Egypt at a late stage. Also see other references.”
“The Badarian culture provides the earliest direct evidence of agriculture in Upper Egypt during the Predynastic Era. It flourished between 4400 and 4000 BCE,[2] and might have already existed as far back as 5000 BCE.[3] It was first identified in El-Badari, Asyut.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Badari_culture
http://wysinger.homestead.com/badarians.html
Not White-Semitic-Arabs but North Africans classed as such for political reasons –
“The Badarian culture seems to have had multiple sources, of which the Western Desert was probably the most influential. Badari culture was probably not restricted to solely the Badari region, because related finds have been made farther to the south at Mahgar Dendera, Armant, Elkab and Nekhen (named Hierakonpolis by the Greeks) and to the east in the Wadi Hammamat.”
Badarian culture found at Nekhen – The Scorpion King of Nekhen
Nagada I II III – Badarians and pottery from Nubia/Qustul/Ta-Seti – Sudanese. Badarians + Sudanese = Egyptians. Obviously the Badarians were lighter complexioned but still not phenotypically different than other Northeast Afrikans.
Remember too that North Africa is a much larger geographical landscape than folks consider regarding who is classed or not classed as white…
“North Africa or Northern Africa is the northernmost region of the African continent, linked by the Sahara to Sub-Saharan Africa.
Geopolitically, the United Nations definition of Northern Africa includes seven countries or territories; Algeria, Egypt, Libya, Morocco, SUDAN, Tunisia, and Western Sahara.[1]
Algeria, Morocco, Tunisia, Mauritania, and Libya together are also referred to as the Maghreb or Maghrib, while Egypt is a transcontinental country by virtue of the Sinai Peninsula, which is in Asia.
The other notable part of North Africa is the territory of the WESTERN SUDAN, which includes Senegal, Gambia, Mali, Niger, Burkina Faso, and Chad.
These countries are located in intercultural zone, where traditions of Berbers, Touaregs and Arabs are mixed with notable quantity of sub-saharan cultures.”
By virtue of geographical definition these all are whites much as the Portugese, Spainards, and other Hispanics.
In the end, it is black and white….depending on the geopolitics of the day, since clearly Western Sudan, which includes Senegal, Gambia, Mali, Niger, Burkina Faso, and Chad are not geographically sub-saharan Afrikans but North Africans and yet can be excluded – from your concept of a dark-complexioned North African whites. Context is always necessary, don’t you think?
In short, Anwar Sadat is white because his mother was Sua-Dan-Nesi (Sudanese) but were he born in the Western Sudan he would be black. There’s the dividing line in black and white based on a geopolitical racism.
CN
Why did you not copy this source?
http://naturescorner.wordpress.com/2008/12/13/where-the-ancient-egyptians-black-or-white/
“Ancient Nubia encompassed the lower Southwestern corner of present day Egypt (annexed in 1520 B.C.), the remainder being present day Sudan. Additionally, there were Black Nubian Pharaohs for an extremely short time frame from 800 – 700 B.C.. Many of the Pharaohs do exhibit admixture – Black/ Arab mix as would be expected when two or more ethnicities are in close contact. Interestingly, National Geographic sponsored three professional team – American, Egyptian, and French to produce busts from x- rays of King Tut’s mummy. The Egyptians and French were told whom they were working on, the Americans were not. Remarkably, the three teams came up with very similar looking busts, all three claiming King Tut was Caucasian:
http://www.guardians.net/hawass/Press_Release_05-05_Tut_Reconstruction.htm
“I will part with the experts here. My opinion is, King Tut appears of mixed Black/Arab heritage for the following reasons-he demonstrates a pronounced external occipital protuberance producing the egg-shaped head from a side profile, almond shaped eyes, pronounced high cheek bones, scoop shoveled, teeth, and, slightly fuller lips than most Caucasian – all Black features. He demonstrates a high forehead, pronounced, narrow nose, lips thinner than the average Black, oval head structure from a front profile, and a recessed jaw (most Blacks exhibit non medical prognathism – jaw slightly pronounced) – White features. In drawing, statues, and busts, he is portrayed any where from medium brown to Black. He was probably of the exact same heritage as Anwar Sadat – Egyptian Arab Semitic White father-Sudanese/ Nubian/ Kemet mother-he denied this until shortly before his death. He always claimed Arab Semitic White. The Coptics where Christians of all ethnicities in Egypt. Generally, Arabs have an olive colored(golden brown) skin tone and dark hair and eyes. About 20% fall in the Gamut of Northern Europeans, UNMIXED. In a climate like Egypt, sun exposure can make Arabs even darker. Egyptian wall drawings portray many ethnicities as exhibited by different skin tones and facial features.”
What is the matter with African Centered (Afrocentrisim)agruments about the race of the so-called Egyptian? Understand the history of race we live by in the United States.
History of Racial Classification in the US Census: 1790-2010
By Mark
Every census from 1790 to the present has recognized the racial or color category of “white.” But there has been interesting variation over time in how census enumeration methods have placed people in this category. There also are interesting variations in how the data for whites are reported. The following are some selected points of interest I think are worth noting. (For more detail on these points, I list two sources I drew on at the end; they may be helpful for getting started.) While the census has alway recognized the race or color category of “white”, here are a few variations over time that I am aware of and that may be interesting to some:
1. Early censuses 1790-1820 had no instructions or set categories for how to enumerate “color” and there were no formal “schedules” or “forms” on which enumerators were required to list color. Enumerators used their own judgment about listing color in their records with no guidelines from the census. When the data were coded and tabulated, persons were treated as white by default if no other specific color was provided.
2. 1830 brought the first form in which there was a specific place for enumerators to list color. Still no guidelines from the census on how to enumerate people on color.
3. 1890 was the first census in which “white” was not the default coding if race was not mentioned in enumerator records (1790-1820) or was left blank on the form (1830-1880). In this census, white had to be specified on the form.
4. 1790-1950 the census enumerators made the judgment on color. Starting in 1960, the respondent made the judgment.
One interesting trend here is how Hispanics have ultimate been classified on race after 1950. The census instructions are clear that most persons of Hispanic background should be coded white under census coding guidelines. Through 1950, census enumerators followed those instructions. In the transition to self report, Hispanic respondents sometimes disregarded the census instructions and classified themselves as something other than white. The rate of doing so jumped sharply in 1970 and by 1980 exceeded 50%. It has stayed that high since.
This caused an appreciable drop in the white population in the Southwestern states from what it would have been had census practices of 1950 been continued.
5. Around the decades of high immigration — 1880-1930 – distinctions among whites were of great concern. Consequently, tabulations for whites were regularly broken out by native and foreign born due to the concerns about differences among native whites and new immigrants of the era. That practice was discontinued after 1940.
So, the word “white” has remained a constant. But how people are assigned to the category and how those data are reported has varied quite a bit over time.
Mark Fossett, Texas A&M University
http://www.racismreview.com/blog/2010/03/25/history-of-racial-classification-in-the-us-census-1790-2010/
Pocket populations of the same White-Semitic-Arabs who are classified in the U.S. as whites now disagree with the status in their new found political reality:
http://www.debbieschlussel.com/13919/muslim-arabs-whine-were-not-white-we-want-separate-race-on-census-form-to-get-more-govt/
” Government officials say they eliminated the ancestry question along with several others because they wanted a shorter form that will make it easier for people to complete.
But ethnic groups are worried that they might lose their fair share of federal and private dollars since institutions often rely on census data to allocate funds.
With her light-brown skin and Islamic headscarf, Khadigah Alasry of Dearborn said she doesn’t see herself as white.
But the Arab American is officially classified as such by the U.S. government, which says that anyone with roots in the Middle East — including north Africa — is white.
“That’s just weird to me,” said Alasry, 23, born to immigrants from Yemen.
Translation = Muslim Arabs: “Whites are weird.”
We can argue about race all day long but the political game of racial classification goes hand in hand with government money in the U.S. If the Afrikan American refuses to give up the “One Drop Rule” it is because it is a double-edged sword that one day cuts them out after cutting them in.
So, when you think about their understanding of how the race game is played this spills into every aspect of history wherein people who look like them, even Anwar Sadat, whose mother was Su-Dan-Nesi (Sudanese), and having knowledge that the matrilineal rule of the kings of the so-called Egyptians was the rule, in our minds, King Tut was Black according to both matrilineal/hereditary rule and the “One Drop Rule” !
Islam, i.e., White-Semitic-Arabs reckon by patrilineal rule which is directly opposed to the culture of the ancient egyptians.
See? Perception is everything even for the blind.
Cos seven – The mural on Seti I’s tomb – shows the ancient Egyptians considered themselves DIFFERENT than the Black Nubians. Ancient Egyptians borrowed heavily, including their hieroglyph system,from the slightly older, advanced Black Nubian tribe,known as Ta-Seti.
The existing language closest to that of the ancient Kemetic is Wolof, spoken in Senegal. What do you make of that. I would think that the Senegali people are closer to the true Ancients than the “berbers and arabs.” Not to slight either group but just following the thinking that language is the bridge that culture crosses to the people.
The Skeptic
Your ansswer is here : http://naturescorner.wordpress.com/2008/12/13/where-the-ancient-egyptians-black-or-white/
Industani
No such thing as irish Arabs – there are people of Irish/Arab heritage. 20% of Arab Semitic Whites have the same features as Northern Europeans WITHOUT Indo European Aryan White heritage. There is NO indication Irish ever entered the Middle East.
Previously this ancestral memory arose with the lady of the lake,the fens.
One could say Marsh Arab!
He who draws the sword from the stones,he shall be King..
It’s not without precedent the Turkish Delight adverts of the 70’s? alluded to a subconscious understanding of ancient historical events.
Full of Eastern Promise!