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.
When the data shows that a population was genetically replaced only patrilinearly, not matrilineally, is a clear evidence that war and violent replacement took place.
We can find that in other places of the world. For example, in South africa, many people from xhosa tribe show evidence of Khoi matrilineal lineage, but no patrilinearly, their male ancestors were black, bantu, peoples.
Not necessarily. I know that in Ireland a few powerful men had many offspring. Niall of the Nine Hostages is an example of this. 21% of Irish men have this haplotype.
R1b is indeed common in extreme Western Europe. However, I is not as common. Sure I1 (to which I belong) is pretty common in Scandinavia. Elsewhere, however, it is not all that common. In Southeastern Europe I think "I" and I2 can be found albeit at lower rates. "I" is the only haplogroup which appears to have originated in Europe. It appears not only to have been overtaken by R1b and R1A (Eastern Europe), but may reach smaller numbers soon.
Haplogroup I is found in majorities in the Scandinavian countries and is found in up to 20% of Germans, English, Poles, and Russians. It is also found in high numbers in the Balkan peninsula. I was not saying haplogroup I was more common than R1a (my own haplogroup) or R1b. I was saying it is one of the most common, which it is. There are probably 30 million European males that carry it. Many millions more no doubt when including North and South American populations.
If we want to talk about unusual Haplogroups we should probably talk about J, which is found in Northern Europe almost exclusively among Jewish males. Or N, found in a majority of Finnish males, the the next largest population to display N is found in China. Those are the real "unusual" haplogroups if you ask me.
When the data shows that a population was genetically replaced only patrilinearly, not matrilineally, is a clear evidence that war and violent replacement took place.
We can find that in other places of the world. For example, in South africa, many people from xhosa tribe show evidence of Khoi matrilineal lineage, but no patrilinearly, their male ancestors were black, bantu, peoples.
This is true of all regions of the world. There is less diversity in maternal haplogroups because females were often subjugated rather than killed off and replaced. Haplogroup H for instance dominates East and West Europe, North Africa, and I think the middle east as well.
Nonsense, nonsense! Genetical evidence proves otherwise! It proves that closest people on a genetical level are the Bantus living in Southern and Eastern Africa, also the Sandawe people of Tanzania since they have languages which are grouped closed to those of Khoisan people. Y-chromosome "Adam" which is found prevalent among Khoisan was also found tribes in South Sudan and western Ethiopia. Before the arrival of the white man, Bantu which were a more powerful people living north of them, invaded Southern Africa in so doing, displaced the Khoisan people, but they also absorbed some Khoisan elements as well, especially the Xhosa. The late N. Mandela looks like a Khoisan, but he's a Xhosa. Southern Bantu languages have absorbed some Khoisan elements by using the clicking sounds which differs them from other Bantu languages elsewhere in Africa. It's the White supremacist ideology which separated the Bantus from Khoisans, because it follows the rule of "divide" to conquer. Even older anthropologists had racist ideologies, we all know what the European colonists did to the African people, the damage is irreparable. Both Bantus and Khoisan are African/Black but they do not have to all look alike. The Apartheid government which was Nazi-inspired and extremely racist encouraged a total separation of not only racial groups, but also linguistic groups, for example Zulus on one side, Xhosa on the other and obviously the Khoisan separated. During Apartheid, a Black person was only the one who looked or spoke a Bantu language. If you looked "Black" but had an English/Afrikaans family name, you could classify as "Coloured" or mixed-race. They also encouraged conflicts between different tribes of Black people and so this would benefit Whites and it would be harder for the Blacks to fight Apartheid. The Xhoisan are just as authentically African as are the Bantus!! Actually the Xhoisan lineages are much older than that of the Bantus! Not all Black Africans are Bantus, others are Nilotes, Sudanid, Afro-Asiatics, Pygmoids, etc... By the way, Bantus are originally from Western Africa, before they invaded Central, Eastern and Southern Africa, due to the fact that they possessed a higher technology and weaponry than the other Africans, they met, such as the Xhoisan/Khoisan.
What you are saying is comparable is like saying that Swedes, Norwegians are White, while Italians/Greeks are not because they are darker-haired and -eyed. That would be utter nonsense. The same applies to Bantus and Xhoisans, they are both Africans.
You cannot compare that.
African populations are by far more genetically diverse than europeans.
Norwegians and Greeks share common ancestors, the more distant ones, maybe 35.000 years ago, even if you choose "I" haplogroup populations vs "R1b" populations, or whatever else you choose.
Peoples who leave Africa maybe 70.000 years ago where very genetically close to the actual khoi populations.
But west african populations, like bantu speaking peoples, have common ancestors with khoi people even further, maybe 100.000 years ago, and west african have a certain degree of mixture with an unknown hominid Genetic evidence for archaic admixture in Africa, the same europeans have with neanderthal or denisovan (more asians ans speacially australoids), and maybe another one.
Genetics don't lie. The proof is in our genes.
Don't get wrong, xhosa tribes, adopted parts of the khoi language, but the paternal genetical inheritance is non existant in them.
You cannot compare that.
African populations are by far more genetically diverse than europeans.
Norwegians and Greeks share common ancestors, the more distant ones, maybe 35.000 years ago, even if you choose "I" haplogroup populations vs "R1b" populations, or whatever else you choose.
Peoples who leave Africa maybe 70.000 years ago where very genetically close to the actual khoi populations.
But west african populations, like bantu speaking peoples, have common ancestors with khoi people even further, maybe 100.000 years ago, and west african have a certain degree of mixture with an unknown hominid Genetic evidence for archaic admixture in Africa, the same europeans have with neanderthal or denisovan (more asians ans speacially australoids), and maybe another one.
Genetics don't lie. The proof is in our genes.
Don't get wrong, xhosa tribes, adopted parts of the khoi language, but the paternal genetical inheritance is non existant in them.
K => 40,000 years ago (probably arose in northern Iran)
T => 30,000 years ago (around the Red Sea or around the Persian Gulf)
J => 30,000 years ago (in the Middle East)
R => 28,000 years ago (in the Central Asia)
E1b1b => 26,000 years ago (in Northeast Africa)
I => 25,000 years ago (in the Balkans)
J1 => 20,000 years ago (in the Taurus/Zagros mountains)
J2 => 19,000 years ago (in northern Mesopotamia)
E-M78 => 18,000 years ago (in north-eastern Africa)
R1b => 18,000 years ago (around the Caspian Sea or Central Asia)
R1a => 17,000 years ago (in southern Russia)
G => 17,000 years ago (in the Middle East)
I2 => 17,000 years ago (in the Balkans)
E-V13 => 15,000 years ago (in the southern Levant or North Africa)
I2b => 13,000 years ago (in Central Europe)
N1c1 => 12,000 years ago (in Siberia)
E-M81 => 11,000 years ago (in Northwest Africa)
I2a => 11,000 years ago (in the Balkans)
G2a => 11,000 years ago (in the Levant or Anatolia)
R1b1b2 => 10,000 years ago (north or south of the Caucasus)
I2b1 => 9,000 years ago (in Germany)
I2a1 => 8,000 years ago (in Southwest Europe)
I2a2 => 7,500 years ago (in Southeast Europe)
I1 => 5,000 years ago (in Scandinavia)
R1b-L21 => 4,000 years ago (in Central or Eastern Europe)
R1b-S28 => 3,500 years ago (around the Alps)
R1b-S21 => 3,000 years ago (in Frisia or Central Europe)
I2b1a => less than 3,000 years ago (in Britain)
(Many subclades not included)
A picture worths a thousand words.
What you have said is actually very racist towards people of African/Black ancestry. Modern humans are indeed the descendants of Homo-Sapien Sapiens who originated in East Africa. It was from this area of Africa that humans spread out, this is completely normal since East Africa is also the closest place to the Middle-East and from the Middle-East, humans went elsewhere. Yes, genetically Africa is the richest, because it was from there that humans left, it was only a small group of humans who left. This is why all non-African people can be easily traced back together. Bantus came as people only recently as 4,000 years(2,000B.C.) in Nigeria and are more of a linguistical group than actually racial as you imply. Black people or people with a dark skin well already in existance well before Bantu came into existance! Not all Black people are descendants of the Bantus, not all Western Africans are Bantus either. Khoisans came around well before the Bantus. A proper education on the topic will help you a great deal. Note that the Y-haplogroups do not give the whole picture of an individual entire genome. Autosomal DNA give a more complete picture.
It's easy to find samples, and these are the averages of those samples... but can that be extrapolated to the whole population?
It would be safer to say that the Haologroup R is the most common in Europe. The R1b is the most common in Western Europe and parts of Northern and Central Europe. However we have different R1b subclades, previously some geneticists thought that the fact that all populations with a high frequency of R1b were identical, the answer is no. For example R1b suclades commonest in Northern parts of Europe are the R1b-L21 and R1b-U106 which are less common in other parts of Europe where R1b is still the dominant Y-haplogroup.
The map gives us an idea about the distribution of subclades within European countries. For example in the Netherlands, the commonest subclade of the R1b is the U106.
What you have said is actually very racist towards people of African/Black ancestry. Modern humans are indeed the descendants of Homo-Sapien Sapiens who originated in East Africa. It was from this area of Africa that humans spread out, this is completely normal since East Africa is also the closest place to the Middle-East and from the Middle-East, humans went elsewhere. Yes, genetically Africa is the richest, because it was from there that humans left, it was only a small group of humans who left. This is why all non-African people can be easily traced back together. Bantus came as people only recently as 4,000 years(2,000B.C.) in Nigeria and are more of a linguistical group than actually racial as you imply. Black people or people with a dark skin well already in existance well before Bantu came into existance! Not all Black people are descendants of the Bantus, not all Western Africans are Bantus either. Khoisans came around well before the Bantus. A proper education on the topic will help you a great deal. Note that the Y-haplogroups do not give the whole picture of an individual entire genome. Autosomal DNA give a more complete picture.
wtf? Are you trolling me? what is racist? the genetic researchs? I say it for the last time. A dark colour skin does not imply that the individuals belong to the same race, have the same paternal haplogroup, have recent ancestry or whatever nonsense you mean to say. It is by far more complicated than that.
Today Bantu people is just a linguistical communty, but they were originated from the same west africa site, from a very genetically homogeneous population, that why it has great importance in african related studies of genetics and history.
This subject is totally off-topic, maybe you're looking for this thread to be closed.
So from now on I'll stick to the original thread topic.
Hey, cool map, thanks. I figured out the V88 sub-clade, earlier.
Great map, it's not perfect, but still, there's tons of info on there.
Notice that "R" seems to originate in the area of Tibet. That's interesting. It later gives rise to Indo-European and Indo-Iranian people (R1b, R1a) but it originates in Tibet. And so does Q, which is an unusual group that goes to Siberia (and Europe, though the map doesn't show this) and eventually morphs into Native American.
I hope whoever compiled this map continues to work on it. A few details are left out, but on a larger version of the map, it should be possible to include more detail. I'd love to have this as a wall map!
Not in Tibet, R1b is related (in some cases) with Indoeuropean languages, not with the Tibetan branch of languages. Indo-Iranians are not originally from Tibet.
What you have said is actually very racist towards people of African/Black ancestry. Modern humans are indeed the descendants of Homo-Sapien Sapiens who originated in East Africa. It was from this area of Africa that humans spread out, this is completely normal since East Africa is also the closest place to the Middle-East and from the Middle-East, humans went elsewhere. Yes, genetically Africa is the richest, because it was from there that humans left, it was only a small group of humans who left. This is why all non-African people can be easily traced back together. Bantus came as people only recently as 4,000 years(2,000B.C.) in Nigeria and are more of a linguistical group than actually racial as you imply. Black people or people with a dark skin well already in existance well before Bantu came into existance! Not all Black people are descendants of the Bantus, not all Western Africans are Bantus either. Khoisans came around well before the Bantus. A proper education on the topic will help you a great deal. Note that the Y-haplogroups do not give the whole picture of an individual entire genome. Autosomal DNA give a more complete picture.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kantabriansea
wtf? Are you trolling me? what is racist? the genetic researchs? I say it for the last time. A dark colour skin does not imply that the individuals belong to the same race, have the same paternal haplogroup, have recent ancestry or whatever nonsense you mean to say. It is by far more complicated than that.
Today Bantu people is just a linguistical communty, but they were originated from the same west africa site, from a very genetically homogeneous population, that why it has great importance in african related studies of genetics and history.
This subject is totally off-topic, maybe you're looking for this thread to be closed.
So from now on I'll stick to the original thread topic.
Interesting discussion, I highly recommend you guys check out the works of physical anthropologists like C. Loring Brace, Jean Hiernaux and Marta Lahr.
They have written excellent articles on human evolution, Out of Africa migrations, as well as the biological significance of phenotypes and genotypes.
I find it amazing that these guys were putting ideas out there that only now, decades later, are starting to gain academic consensus.
There is a theory that the Halogroup R is responsible for the spread of light skin, blonde, red hair in European, because fair pigmentation was a physical feature associated with Indo-Europeans. However blue eyes were already present in the I haplogroup in Scandinavia in Mesolithic times.
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.
