Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
A territorial origin of haplogroups α- and β-remains unknown; however, the most likely origin for each of them is a vast triangle stretched from Central Europe in the west through the Russian Plain to the east and to Levant to the south. Haplogroup B is descended from β-haplogroup (and not from haplogroup A... likely migrated to Africa after 46,000 ybp. The finding that the Europeoid haplogroups did not descend from “African” haplogroups A or B is supported by the fact that bearers of the Europeoid haplogroups, as well as all non-African haplogroups do not carry either SNPs M91, P97, M31, P82, M23, M114, P262, M32, M59, P289, P291, P102, M13, M171, M118 (haplogroup A and its subclades SNPs) or M60, M181, P90 (haplogroup B), as it was shown recently in “Walk through Y” FTDNA Project (the reference is incorporated therein) on several hundred people from various haplogroups.
A 28,000 Years Old Cro-Magnon mtDNA Sequence Differs from All Potentially Contaminating Modern Sequences
28,000 year old Cro Magnon man was anatomically and genetically a modern human.
Quote:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interb..._modern_humans
Neanderthal-derived DNA was found in the genome of contemporary populations in Europe and Asia, estimated as accounting for between 1% and 6% of modern genomes.
The highest rates of archaic admixture overall have been found in indigenous Oceanian and Southeast Asian populations, with an estimated 4–6% of the genome of modern Melanesians being derived from Denisovans.
Neanderthal-derived and Denisovan-derived ancestry is significantly absent from most modern populations in Sub-Saharan Africa.
The observed excess of genetic similarity is best explained by recent gene flow from Neanderthals to modern humans after the migration out of Africa.
The findings show that the source of modern human gene flow into Neanderthals originated from a population of early modern humans from about 100,000 years ago, predating the out-of-Africa migration of the modern human ancestors of present-day non-Africans
Modern racial genetics is differentiated by percentage and type of hominid admixture. Africans lack the Denisovan and (Central Asian and East Asian) Neanderthal admixture that has contributed to the Caucaisan and Asian genomes. "Europeans" have Caucasian Neanderthal admixture in their genome, with tribally varying quantity. (East) "Asians" have Denisovan and East Asian Neanderthal admixture in their genome.
Modern human inter-mixing with Neanderthal occurred in Europe before the proposed out of Africa out-migration, invalidating the out of Africa theory.
In case you need an interpreter for all of this, what this comes down to is that the out of Africa theory is dead.
What is clear for anyone who bothers to read past politically inclined DC institution articles and into what the most modern research says, and what is slowly being introduced and what will come to light in the next few decades, is that there was one unmixed modern human group, identical to Cro Magnid, for which we are largely unsure of their precise origins.
They evolved from no known hominid and did not evolve from modern Africans (who have the African archaic hominid admixture that gives them their phenotype, and which Europeans do not possess).
What is most likely is that Cro Magnid traveled throughout Eurasia and Africa, and mated with the still existing hominids (the females were likely raped by hominids, to include Neanderthal - a hominid that is often labeled as modern human but who is decidedly not).
There is no female hominid mtDNA in the human genome, only male...indicating that only female humans mated with hominids, which is a strong indication that the standard process was rape.
After these events, the resulting groups (races) stayed relatively isolated in their regions until methods of transportation (horses, ships) and war became more advanced.
Quote:
Genomes document ancient mass migration to Europe
It is natural for people to migrate from one place to another.
First 4,500 years ago is not an ancient time period. You are essentially citing the European migration to Central (R1a lineage) Western (R1b lineage) Europe, which is not new information nor does it somehow reinforce your rhetorical points.
Caucasians evolved in central Asia, and were pushed from their due to encroaching Mongolian expansion. The Turkish people, who are not Dutch people for example, and can not be equated with them in quality, form, or culture, are the result of this Mongolian invasion and mass rape of the people who you now view as Western Europeans. Your benevolent "immigration" completely changed them to Turks.
You are essentially reminding us of the forced "immigration" that prior dispossessed us of central Asia, the Caucus region, and Anatolia.
None of that was "natural". It was horrific.
...
They are largely making claims for Western groups that have always shared common DNA through Cro Magnid and a common hominid admixture, only differing by percentile ("original" peoples from the Caucus and Levant having a higher Neanderthal percentage, but of the same type that permeates Western Europe).
They are not making assertions in regard to any ingress of populations with completely foreign hominid genetic loads, from Africa or East Asia for existence. This is a crucial difference that is all the difference. For example, justifying African immigration into Europe is trying to justify an archaic hominid (Erectus, Habilis, etc) admixture for Europeans that they do not currently possess. For East Asians, it would be a different Neanderthal species and an entirely new hominid (Denisovan) genetic load.
Here's a reprint of a post that I made in the past couple of weeks in another thread. Give me a few minutes to edit it for appropriateness and link integrity for this thread:
There is very little African admixture in European blood, refuting the point that Africans had any significant migration to Europe.
The vast majority of Asian blood in Europe, where it exists, is due to the Mongol and Turkish military invasions.
Scientists discover that Europe was the birthplace of humans, not Africa.
Scientists say that no known hominin is the ancestor of Neanderthal and Modern Humans
Scientists disprove out of Africa Claim.
Early modern humans mated with Homo species in Africa.
Sub-Saharan genetic diversity is due to introgression with archaic Hominids.
Early modern humans mated with Homo species in Africa.
Sub-Saharan genetic diversity is due to introgression with archaic Hominids.
28,000 year old Cro Magnon man was anatomically and genetically a modern human.
Modern racial genetics is differentiated by percentage and type of hominid admixture. Africans lack the Denisovan and (Central Asian and East Asian) Neanderthal admixture that has contributed to the Caucaisan and Asian genomes. "Europeans" have Caucasian Neanderthal admixture in their genome, with tribally varying quantity. (East) "Asians" have Denisovan and East Asian Neanderthal admixture in their genome.
Modern human inter-mixing with Neanderthal occurred in Europe before the proposed out of Africa out-migration, invalidating the out of Africa theory.
In case you need an interpreter for all of this, what this comes down to is that the out of Africa theory is dead.
What is clear for anyone who bothers to read past politically inclined DC institution articles and into what the most modern research says, and what is slowly being introduced and what will come to light in the next few decades, is that there was one unmixed modern human group, identical to Cro Magnid, for which we are largely unsure of their precise origins.
They evolved from no known hominid and did not evolve from modern Africans (who have the African archaic hominid admixture that gives them their phenotype, and which Europeans do not possess).
What is most likely is that Cro Magnid traveled throughout Eurasia and Africa, and mated with the still existing hominids (the females were likely raped by hominids, to include Neanderthal - a hominid that is often labeled as modern human but who is decidedly not).
There is no female hominid mtDNA in the human genome, only male...indicating that only female humans mated with hominids, which is a strong indication that the standard process was rape.
After these events, the resulting groups (races) stayed relatively isolated in their regions until methods of transportation (horses, ships) and war became more advanced.
First 4,500 years ago is not an ancient time period. You are essentially citing the European migration to Central (R1a lineage) Western (R1b lineage) Europe, which is not new information nor does it somehow reinforce your rhetorical points.
Caucasians evolved in central Asia, and were pushed from their due to encroaching Mongolian expansion. The Turkish people, who are not Dutch people for example, and can not be equated with them in quality, form, or culture, are the result of this Mongolian invasion and mass rape of the people who you now view as Western Europeans. Your benevolent "immigration" completely changed them to Turks.
You are essentially reminding us of the forced "immigration" that prior dispossessed us of central Asia, the Caucus region, and Anatolia.
None of that was "natural". It was horrific.
Sure they did. In fact, that's more or less the history of the world. And they used much more shocking filters than that, to the modern liberal sensibility.
They are largely making claims for Western groups that have always shared common DNA through Cro Magnid and a common hominid admixture, only differing by percentile ("original" peoples from the Caucus and Levant having a higher Neanderthal percentage, but of the same type that permeates Western Europe).
They are not making assertions in regard to any ingress of populations with completely foreign hominid genetic loads, from Africa or East Asia for existence. This is a crucial difference that is all the difference. For example, justifying African immigration into Europe is trying to justify an archaic hominid (Erectus, Habilis, etc) admixture for Europeans that they do not currently possess. For East Asians, it would e a different Neanderthal species and an entirely new hominid (Denisovan) genetic load.
That the Germans are made up of three races is not news whatsoever. In fact, I often cite that fact here. I believe that I did as recently as yesterday. Again, you are clumsily linking to shallow articles hat you do not understand in any depth whatsoever.
These warring of three tribes are responsible for most of the bloodshed in European history. Eight million dead in the Thirty Years War alone. They have always all been seen as "Germanic", as indicated in their shared common mythology (what don't know it? Maybe refrain from using them in your rhetorical points then) but still largely remain separate in their power centers that are all outside of Germany.
On every one of these topics, you are lost and have little idea of what you are talking about. You act in self-interest alone in forever seeking something that you want from a people who is foreign to you, which should tell you all that you need to know about how problematic you are.
Regardless, they haven't changed their acceptance of new theories. All of us originated from Africa, and I've watched show after show with scientists trying to prove otherwise but sadly they have made no dent in the accepted view. Africa remains the start of mankind, like it or not. The "Out of Africa" theory is still the one we go with.
Will this change in the future? It might because science isn't a religion and archeologists are coming up with some amazing new finds. So, maybe one day.
so show that. Don't make a statement. Show it. Stop being lazy. You are making this accusation, so show your work. Period.
My point is embedded in my post. Specifically break down my post and your issue with it, or take off. My job isn't to re-print prior posts because you say...duh...what?
See above.
See above.
See above. It is precsiely lazy in the manner in which you went about it.
See above.
See above. You say that, but haven't shown it. Post the parallels so that someone can respond to you. Try to show the full context of the total responses. In other words don't cherry pick to invent a point. You are complaining about the quality of the content of posts. So show your precise complaint. Again, no one is a mind reader. Is this how you communicate in your science job? You must be incredibly frustrating to work with.
^^ see?? No, nothing is "obvious". We don't work on implication and inference when discussing science or, really, anything in general on a public board where we are all arguing through the written word.
^^ see?? Again. Thanks for proving my point.
Yeah, thanks for feeding my words back to me. You still need to show your complaint.
Regardless, they haven't changed their acceptance of new theories. All of us originated from Africa, and I've watched show after show with scientists trying to prove otherwise but sadly they have made no dent in the accepted view. Africa remains the start of mankind, like it or not. The "Out of Africa" theory is still the one we go with.
Will this change in the future? It might because science isn't a religion and archeologists are coming up with some amazing new finds. So, maybe one day.
It goes a step beyond that actually. The entire human race is descended from the same common male ancestor, who lived in the Great Rift Valley in Africa.
Regardless, they haven't changed their acceptance of new theories.
Who is "they"? What is "acceptance" and who is the arbiter? Science is science. Rejecting science is rejecting reality. Your out of Africa theory has never been anything but (read: not proven science), and the hard science has refuted it. See my prior post.
Quote:
All of us originated from Africa,
What you mean to imply is that "all of us originated from modern African people". Which is different from saying "all of us originated from Africa". You speak unscientifically and that makes it difficult to communicate with you.
The science shows that we did not evolve from African people. If anything, modern African people are the result of later modern human mating with archaic hominids. That's what the science shows. Modern Caucasians and Asians do not have the same hominid admixture (they have differing hominin admixtures), and thus we did not evolve from modern Africans. In addition, see the evidence from my prior post.
What you could theorize is that modern unmixed Cro Magnid wondered out of Africa, but he would not resemble modern Africans. You'd also likely have a difficult time proving that theory.
Quote:
and I've watched show after show with scientists trying to prove otherwise but sadly they have made no dent in the accepted view.
Really? You've watched "show after show"? See the science above. Your shows are entertainment and un-serious. They certainly don't count as a valid citation in this argument.
Quote:
Africa remains the start of mankind, like it or not.
It doesn't. See the science above.
Quote:
The "Out of Africa" theory is still the one we go with.
Note the term "theory", which has no precedence over hard science. Moreover, who is "we"? You can believe in whatever narrative you wish, but science refutes it. The "we" that counts tends to go with science.
You haven't provided any type of counter argument. You've only stated the equivalent of "nope, I don't believe the science". That's your issue, but it does not obligate others.
What kind of answer is that? Still no actual illustration of your issue? I assume now that we are done with this and thus your complaints on the prior discussed subject of what anyone's point is from your perspective.
What kind of answer is that? Still no actual illustration of your issue? I assume now that we are done with this and thus your complaints on the prior discussed subject of what anyone's point is from your perspective.
It's laughter. And an OK. That is literally is what "LOL OK" means.
If I have time, I'll address your silly goose chase. But to perfectly blunt, I have other things to do.
As an side, it's also fairly easy to understand my point if you read all of my posts:
"Race" as it is used in society is mostly a social construct. If you try to recreate "race" from genetic data, it often falls apart. Especially in places like the United States where intermixing is of a sufficient amount to scramble many genetic signals.
Genetic variation, and clusters of genetic similarity, in the Human population is very much real and does exist. But, that doesn't mean it correlates accurately and fully with what we call "race" in everyday conversation.
And why is that? Because the way Humans have defined "race" through history has been imprecise and often arbitrary in nature.
I've written this multiple times. The interesting thing is you have ALSO said the same things multiple times in this thread.
[quote=golgi1;52670353]Who is "they"? What is "acceptance" and who is the arbiter? Science is science. Rejecting science is rejecting reality. Your out of Africa theory has never been anything but (read: not proven science), and the hard science has refuted it. See my prior post.
The majority of the scientific community. So far the majority accept the Africa theory. Maybe one day they will accept another. We will see. There are many variables.
This is like saying there is no way to separate red from blue because purple exists.
lol
So you took that silliness from what I stated.
I said nothing of separation. I spoke specifically on the idea that people believe that there are only 3 races - white, black, Asian.
Someone used skull and bone anthropological determination as a reason for thinking that those differences indicate a "race" of people.
Does the differences WITHIN that group of people - Chinese and Vietnamese in regards to skull/bone structure - since anthropologists can determine from looking at/reviewing bones of both which is from China and which from Vietnam - does this indicate that the Chinese and Vietnamese are a different biological "race" of people?
Are Igbo and Zulu in Africa two different races of people? Both also have distinct bone structures.
You and others ignored the fact that for one - people aren't colors (in regards to red or blue). And also ancestry populations amongst the sociological "races" people hold onto (white, black, Asian) that those races have a lot of genetic diversity within themselves. Since those smaller populations can be identified based on bones/skulls - should all of them have a different race assigned?
Who is "they"? What is "acceptance" and who is the arbiter? Science is science. Rejecting science is rejecting reality. Your out of Africa theory has never been anything but (read: not proven science), and the hard science has refuted it. See my prior post.
The majority of the scientific community. So far the majority accept the Africa theory. Maybe one day they will accept another. We will see. There are many variables.
I agree with this. I know there is research ongoing about an Asian progenitor of the species on the Y chromosome. X chromosome is considered to be African. Time will tell what will be found.
I'll note I believe that poster you were responding to is just one of those people who are very into the idea of sociological race being genetic - seems this is very important to them.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
No, nothing is "obvious". We don't work on implication and inference when discussing science or, really, anything in general on a public board where we are all arguing through the written word.
