You sayin' we wuzin kangz?
twitter.com
Ayo HOL UP!
Isaac Martin
Other urls found in this thread:
journals.plos.org
journals.plos.org
en.wikipedia.org
geneticliteracyproject.org
en.wikipedia.org
en.wikipedia.org
en.wikipedia.org
en.wikipedia.org
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
twitter.com
Adam Morgan
KANGZ!
Ryder Baker
That cpa has the shittiest quality ever
John Parker
Afrocentrists on Veeky Forums have already responded to this in the previous threads.
Their response is that Middle Eastern people(Jesus, Moses, Hannibal etc) are in fact Black people and thus Egypt was also a Black civilization along with Sumeria and India.
Landon Hernandez
Where are the East Africans in that chart and why is their no pre-dynastic and old kingdom sample? Where were the samples found, in what class and position were they in.
Looking at Yoruba in periwinkle they are surprisingly close to Ancient Egyptians especially given the fact that Paleo-Africans ancestry drags them away from everyone.
Luis Adams
If you actually read studies and weren't a reactionary twat you'd know people really were Middle Eastern Puerto Ricans in the Levant
journals.plos.org
This of course is ignoring ethio-somali component and swapping it for Yoruba which messes with the dates
Angel Russell
I'm not sure what you think you're seeing there but it's not true.
East Africans are genetically intermediate between the truly Congoloid Africans and Middle Eastern populations.
If you're half Ethiopian, you're close to Congoloid Congolese on genetic maps.
Aiden Smith
Literally all lies
They are a mix between ethiopic and middle eastern
Ethiopic and congo have as much genetic distance as Europeans and south Asians
Ryder Rogers
It doesn't matter what genetic distances they have to each other. They are genetically in the same direction on genetic maps except that Ethiopians are mixed and thus intermediate.
Juan Wright
No we aren't
journals.plos.org
Ethio-Somali are the basis of most African populations. The ethio-somali component is Afrasian, Afrasians are the peoples that spread across the world in essence. Paleo-African components are basically other hominids that existed in Africa that were absorbed by Afrasians.
The issue is Ethio-Somali is a back migration tens of thousands hears old. The genetic testing of every test you've seen involving Africans uses Yoruba as an African genetic standard but that's a reductive model for African biodiversity because what binds Africans like everyone else is Afrasian roots.
The reason why Khoi and Pygmy often time scatter so far apart is because of the genetic diversity of paleo-african populations. That component exists amongst all Africans as well but to varying degrees.
Sadly without an awareness to the finer points of African genetics, ethio-somali is "scattered" into West Eurasian and "congoid" but that is inaccurate given the genetic findings that have come recently
>We detect likely West Eurasian gene flow into the ancestors of Yoruba West Africans within the last ten thousand years, which indirectly contributed a small amount of Neandertal ancestry to Yoruba.
and:
>These results mean that we have not identified any sub-Saharan African sample that we are confident has no evidence of back-to-Africa migration. Our best candidate at present is the Dinka but it is possible that with a phased genome or large sample sizes we would detect evidence of non-African ancestry in this population as well.
Nature (2013) doi:10.1038/nature12886
It gives an early date of only 10kya but archaeologically it's more than that maybe as much as 20-30kya
Jaxson Morris
It's not mixed. Eurasians and most Africans derive from Afrasians. That's why we are in the middle, both populations derive from proto-ethio-somali roots and then localized non-human Hominid admixture further differentiates them from us
Robert Morales
Ethiopians have Neanderthal admixture which proves you're mulattoes
Alexander Jones
You really have no idea what you are talking about
The african component of mixture is as different from niger-congo as Europeans from South Asians
They are not the same
Lincoln White
It doesn't make the slightest difference how many different Congoloid groups there were in Africa when and after Eurasians ancestors left it. Ancient Egyptians were related to Eurasians only with no pull towards Ethiopian Hadza Congoloids, Yoruba Congoloids, Pygmy Congoloids etc. They were simply a genetically Eurasian population in the part of Africa which was separated by the Sahara from Congoloid Africa but without much separating it from Eurasia.
Kevin Evans
No it doesn't, the Neanderthal genetics are more aligned with Indian Neanderthal genetics not near Eastern. All it shows is that the back migration that occurred was one that happened after Neanderthal introgression and that was some 30+kya before the races as we know it actually developed.
We aren't mulattos. That study shows it
Christian Hernandez
Except even the study in OP shows "subsaharan" admixture using the very faulty Yoruba sample as a proxy for African biodiversity, all it states was that there was more that happened in the last 2k years.
Of course with a better and more obvious ethio-somali sample that SSA and some West Eurasian ancestry would show a much older and continuous "root"
Science isn't finding one study, it's understanding our knowledge and theories come from many papers and you haven't demonstratively struck down any
Levi Bennett
Look closed. There's at least Ethiopian Jews included(who are 100% Ethiopian and 0% Jewish) and you're incredibly retarded if you think they only have Yoruba samples.
The game is over. They waz not East Africans and shit.
Hunter Nelson
>It doesn't make the slightest difference how many different Congoloid groups there were in Africa when and after Eurasians ancestors left it.
They aren't congoloid thats not what that means
>Ancient Egyptians were related to Eurasians only with no pull towards Ethiopian Hadza Congoloids, Yoruba Congoloids, Pygmy Congoloids etc. They were simply a genetically Eurasian population in the part of Africa which was separated by the Sahara from Congoloid Africa but without much separating it from Eurasia.
You are either retarded or trolling, I can barely read this shit
btw I never said Egyptians were black or Cushites
If you are stupid enough to believe that there is only one major ethnic group then alright
Eli Ramirez
The use of Yoruba are literally used to test "Subsaharan" people in every test.
>The two new genomes are also the first non-Caucasian ones to be added to the public database. “They provide a stepping stone to understanding genetic differences between ethnicities,” says Levy, who wrote a commentary accompanying the publication of the two papers.
This is literally using Yoruba genome to encapsulate some false notion of a "pure" African the use Ethiopians and other groups to show how far or close they are to Yoruba
You literally don't have a clue as to how genetic testing and sampling works and it shows.
Michael Allen
en.wikipedia.org
>Possible place of origin - East Africa
>Descendants - E-V38 (E1b1a), E-M215 (E1b1b)
Connor Reyes
>Look closed
What the fuck does that mean
> There's at least Ethiopian Jews included(who are 100% Ethiopian and 0% Jewish)
no
>and you're incredibly retarded if you think they only have Yoruba samples.
No one said they did. Yoruba are West Africans.
>The game is over. They waz not East Africans and shit.
No shit sherlock.
Ian Butler
You can shitpost all you want about your Afrocentric bullshit but people with PhDs in genetics know better and when they say the gene flow was from Eurasia to Africa their word is to be believed by rational people and yours is just fringe bullshit that rely's on complete fucking nonsense like them the wrong African sample. They have tons of samples from East Africa.
Ayden Long
Carter Edwards
...
Oliver Russell
Except literally all the posts this user and I have posted are from reputable geneticists and you literally can't even understand the Yoruba genome being used as the basis for targeting African ancestry.
So like clearly you're freaking out right now, you've not spent a moment actually being able to examine your study nor have you posted the methodology.
Ayden Barnes
...
Christopher Hill
...
Jack Kelly
...
Justin Lewis
They use Yorubas and Mbuti Pygmies as outgroups becuase they work the best. They can use Chimp too as an outgroup if necessary.
They know perfectly well what they are doing while you have only some very vague idea about it all but are convinced that the people with PhDs made some very basic error and every single one of them in every single university is wrong. Literally schizophrenia tier.
Mason Robinson
Henry King
>the very faulty Yoruba sample as a proxy for African biodiversity
yoruba is west african
Wyatt Peterson
Actually no. This study is flawed because less than two years ago this was out
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
But this study above from four years ago (Nature (2013) doi:10.1038/nature12886) showed the very first tell tale signs of Afrasian and Paleo-African layering. Beyond that it still uses the same bidirectional Sardinian and Yoruba genome as bases to some illusionary pole opposite purities when that is not in fact real as clearly shown giving credence to the methodology of the plosone study of Ethio-somali and earlier works of what this user posted the red sea component
It's actually understanding the work I deal with in my own research and work, none of my professors have said my retorts were wrong so I'm not gonna take some loser on Veeky Forums who doesn't know about the Yoruba genome seriously.
Luke Wilson
Yoruba are one of many groups in the most genetically diverse regions on earth. They themselves are a result of the same Afrasian Migration as everyone else and the fact that people are unable to understand the ethio-somali component and take Yoruba to represent all the genetic diversity of the continent with no filter for paleo-african genetics is in this year antiquated
Easton Cooper
You need mental help kid. You're not a geneticist, a scientist or anything of that sort nor are you studying to be one or else you wouldn't sound so utterly confused about it all.
Aaron Thomas
Just wondering why do people use Consider or congoloid. Bantu speakers there did not originate from the Congo at all.
Justin Ortiz
I'm in school for something that utilizes this sort of work. I mean you can keep going in for personal attacks yet you've not posted a single paper to rebuttal any of the research I've posted.
I think this is a lesson for you to 1. Work on your trolling 2. Be able to provide real criticism rooted in research when people post studies contrary to the one you exhalt.
Hope this is a good lesson for you, even if you're not doing it
Luis Cook
Also post the methodology of the study if you're so confident in this
Jaxson King
The papers you posted like "Tracing the route of..." aren't considered successful but largely forgotten and irrelevant low quality papers which now have been entirely made look stupid because the SSA admixture of modern Egyptians isn't even 2000 years old let alone tens of thousands of years old.
Papers like the the one that OP is about are considered hard proof since they utilize ancient autosomal DNA and not theoretical speculation.
We gotta wait until it's fully out though before their evidence can be demonstrated, not that you'd understand any of it anyway.
Jonathan Allen
The hilarious thing about this statement is the fact that even in OPs study there is a recognition of a "subsaharan" African component that's older than 2ky, the study states most of the admixture in modern Egyptians is more recent.
It however is lost to you. It also is not a low quality paper and has shifted the trajectory of early human migration history. But until you show me the top in the field archeo-geneticists discounting my paper I'm going to have to call you on your bluff.
Again you have to do more than personal attacks, that's not how science works
Anthony Gray
>dey wuz from out-of-africa
>dey returned to northern africa
>ergo we wuz kangz
absolutely flawless logic tbqhwyfamalam