PDA

View Full Version : How is It DNA Tests Don't Show African Ancestry for All People?



TechFin
Sunday, January 23rd, 2011, 12:17 PM
I always hear humans came out of Africa, yet I've heard of a lot of people getting no % African on DNA tests. Why?

Heinrich Harrer
Sunday, January 23rd, 2011, 12:22 PM
I always hear humans came out of Africa, yet I've heard of a lot of people getting no % African on DNA tests. Why?

Perhaps what they define as 'African DNA' are the genes which have differentiated after the people branched/split off at some point.

I mean we all share common genes: we all have two eyes, a nose, two arms, two legs, a heart, etc.

Hamar Fox
Sunday, January 23rd, 2011, 12:53 PM
I think it goes without saying that DNA tests only look for race-specific markers, not markers common to all races. Also, commercial DNA tests are far from reliable anyway.

This graph is more useful for admixture analysis:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/corecgi/tileshop/tileshop.fcgi?p=PMC3&id=609572&s=5&r=1&c=3

(Sorry, I have no idea how to make it enlargeable)

The first two are African. The one that says 'anish' is Spanish, not Danish.

Northern Paladin
Sunday, January 23rd, 2011, 07:47 PM
My guess is that modern Africans and the "original humans" are the same thing.

Ocko
Sunday, January 23rd, 2011, 10:03 PM
Seems the original humans were not black.

The Horned God
Monday, January 24th, 2011, 01:18 AM
Seems the original humans were not black.

How do you figure? If modern humans left Africa roughly 100,000 years ago they must have been black at that time, surely?

Northern Paladin
Monday, January 24th, 2011, 03:26 AM
How do you figure? If modern humans left Africa roughly 100,000 years ago they must have been black at that time, surely?

Hmm, there must have been multiple races present in Africa back then. The ones who left and colonized the world were slightly more evolved than the lazy negroids who stayed.

Wynterwade
Monday, January 24th, 2011, 04:05 AM
How is It DNA Tests Don't Show African Ancestry for All People?
It's truly sad that in this day in age of massive amounts of genetic studies that people still, because of political correctness, do not understand their important genetic heritage passed onto them from their FAR distant ancestors.

I am going to make three main points.

First and foremost, it is important to understand how divergent the populations around the world are. AT LEAST TENS of thousands of years of evolution separate the different human groups around the world for the majority of their DNA (but for some groups like Europeans we recently found Archaic humans in our DNA and not in africans so some parts of our DNA is hundreds of thousands of years divergent- which is something you will not hear the mainstream media tell you). This is an immense amount of time that can lead to huge changes in the genome.
Here is some evidence from Europe.....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cro-magnon
The earliest fossilized remains of Europeans have been dated to about 35,000 years ago. And here is the surprise, THEY ALREADY looked distinctly European- meaning that evolution occurred far before our earliest fossil records of Europeans are dated to.

Secondly, it is important to understand that Non-Africans have archaic Neanderthal DNA that is not evident in African DNA. This means that our populations have been separated for a VERY long time for the most part with negligible influence on each other. If you have never studied Genetics before it is an incredibly confusing subject- reliant on high level statistical calculations rather than intuitive reasoning- what I mean by this is that certain genes can prove HIGHLY beneficial to a society and even without massive breding with a population containing them. (read the book 10,000 year evolution for examples- such as lactose tolerance- for how genetics is transferred between populations).

Lastly- and most important to your question- is that fact that the DNA studies, such as mtDNA and paternal DNA studies are basically gimmicks to make money. They tell information only when a large sample of a population has taken the test to deduce ancient population migrations. What this means is that knowing your fathers fathers father..... back to the ice age will not tell you anything about your genetics.
So, what the tests do that determine your African ancestry measure genes that differ between present populations today. Genes such as dry ear wax versus wet ear wax. Dry ear wax is found almost exclusively in Asian populations. What they do is they test virtually hundreds of these (I believe they are called SNP's) to determine with a HIGH level of accuracy where your ancestors came from (but only accurate to the continent or major geographic area).

Finally I want to say that we don't know exactly how far back us, Europeans, diverged from Africans every time (it was multiple divergences!- something else the media will NOT TELL YOU!). The trend over the last few years has been finding DRAMATIC evidence disproving everything that we once knew about ancient humans and moving the date of the divergence FAR BACK. Finds such as finding that Non-Africans have CONSIDERABLE Neanderthal ancestry (something that physical anthropologists, such as Coon, have been saying for years but laughed at by mainstream social liberal pseudo-scientists like Boasian) Finds such as finding out that WE LEFT AFRICA FAR BEFORE we previously believed. Finding strange archaic humans in Asia which PROBABLY mixed with the population. We found human settlement on an island during a time when anthropologists told us humans COULDN'T TRAVEL BY WATER! Recently human remains (teeth) have been found in the Middle east and China dating to FAR before the out of Africa theory says we left.

The gap between populations known today is far greater than me you or even top scientists 5 years ago could ever imagine. The gap is far greater than scientists today will admit out of political correctness so it is not talked about much. I cannot wait for 50 years from now to see how far this divergence will eventually spread.

I don't even call our leading theory today Out-Of-Africa theory because it was just too long ago (40,000 plus years- and surely the out of Africans didn't go around killing every archaic human on their way out- they interbred and we have and will continue to find evidence for this. We don't even know all the archaic types yet- and I assume that we are dramatically underestimating their influence on modern day non-africans). I call our current theory multi-regionalism because it has been proven that evolution even within the last 10,000 years has been different between populations leading to completely different genes, completely different societies, and completely different behaviors. And all of this is evident in our genetic DNA. During those 10,00 years we evolved separately in separate places and I'm sure we did the previous 100,000 years as well, and even before that.

Read the book 10,000 year evolution. Anyone who is European needs to in order to understand our important genetic heritage.

http://www.amazon.com/000-Year-Explosion-Civilization-Accelerated/dp/0465020429/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1295843198&sr=8-1

RobertColumbia
Monday, January 24th, 2011, 04:17 AM
Perhaps what they define as 'African DNA' are the genes which have differentiated after the people branched/split off at some point.

I mean we all share common genes: we all have two eyes, a nose, two arms, two legs, a heart, etc.

I think so.

We can compare this to speech accents. Linguistically, it has been established that the "modern" British accent that you hear on the BBC was popularized at the great English boarding schools in the 19th century and that it is unlikely that the ancestors of any Anglo-American who left England before that time ever spoke with that accent. Does that make my Mayflower ancestor any less English? No way.

Hamar Fox
Monday, January 24th, 2011, 09:53 AM
Hmm, there must have been multiple races present in Africa back then. The ones who left and colonized the world were slightly more evolved than the lazy negroids who stayed.

As far as I know, the Negroid type evolved after the out of Africa migrations. Our African ancestors were closer to Australoids, and maybe Capoids, both of which are older types than Negroids.

wittwer
Tuesday, January 25th, 2011, 01:01 AM
It's called Genetic mutation. Over the millenia, the basic genetic codes have mutated into various human Hapolgroups that appear to be Geographically located. Which may very well impact that very mutation or at least favor certain genetic mutations over others.

Remember, you ain't no Ape no more... ;)

Schubert
Tuesday, January 25th, 2011, 01:26 AM
I really should know more about this stuff. How is it impossible that life never appeared native to other regions? The Homo Floresiensis looks like a proto-Asian, the Homo Ergaster a proto-African, the early Homo Sapien a proto-European.

Floresiensis
http://i53.tinypic.com/34y9xy1.jpg

Ergaster
http://i55.tinypic.com/2enq647.jpg

A picture of a Homo-Sapien is not needed.



Is the Out of Africa theory not contestable?

The Horned God
Friday, January 28th, 2011, 07:29 AM
Hmm, there must have been multiple races present in Africa back then. The ones who left and colonized the world were slightly more evolved than the lazy negroids who stayed.

The oft-quoted genetic studies all seem to conclude that all human begins alive today are descended from two individuals that lived no earlier than 100,000 - 200,000 years ago. If there were other races around after that time, as there may well have been, they left no descendent's to add anything further to the human gene-pool. The Flores "Hobbit" is one such example. Here we have a Hominid species that shared the world for many thousands of years with Homo-sapiens but made no further contribution to the human gene-pool.

As for the early-modern humans who stayed in Africa being lazier or less adventurous than the ones who moved out of Africa, well that is one possible conjecture. It is also quite possible however, that our ancestors who left Africa belonged to those tribes who were fewest in number or weaker in battle and were pushed out because of competition for game by more numerous or more aggressive neighbors. We might look at the American Indians before the arrival of Europeans for clues to how Hunter-gather tribes interact.

We'll never know these kinds of details for sure though.

Yaggdrassil
Friday, January 28th, 2011, 07:59 AM
Let's point this out that numbers related to timeline scaling of evolution are bound to be fallible.
If you start with the fact that we are coming from monkeys and moving into the aboriginal Humans then you must include the fact of how divergent the primate group is as well. There are splinters that grew so far and wide as to make lemurs which are almost nothing like apes themselves. As far as humanity it is possible that our split occur withing these primate evolutions and not even our own evolution as homo sapiens. This would explain that while our inherent features which make us bipedal mammals are intact we are still emensely different enough that archaic code can be found in one race and not the other. If I had to guess I would say that strict Asiatics would be our closest similar group from the proto-magnoids, existing somewhere between Europoid and Negroid.

Caledonian
Friday, January 28th, 2011, 08:02 AM
Recent discoveries on ancient human migration shows that not all human beings have originated out of Africa whatsoever.

This best can be explained by studying the alternative view of ancient human migration which is known as multi-regional hypothesis.


The multiregional hypothesis is a scientific model that provides an explanation for the pattern of human evolution. The hypothesis holds that humans first arose near the beginning of the Pleistocene two million years ago and subsequent human evolution has been within a single, continuous human species. This species encompasses archaic human forms such as Homo erectus and Neanderthals as well as modern forms, and evolved worldwide to the diverse populations of modern Homo sapiens sapiens. The theory contends that humans evolve through a combination of adaptation within various regions of the world and gene flow between those regions. Proponents of multiregional origin point to fossil and genomic evidence as support for their hypothesis.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiregional_origin_of_modern_humans

Leander
Friday, January 28th, 2011, 09:44 AM
Hmm, there must have been multiple races present in Africa back then. The ones who left and colonized the world were slightly more evolved than the lazy negroids who stayed.All my research suggests that there were indeed multiple races present in Africa, and that originally Africa was not the 'black' continent.

Races exist amongst primates, they therefore predate the evolution of modern humans and are the reason for the out of Africa migration, as each race has sought an equilibrium with it's environment. Races with paler skin migrated into cooler climates, whist blacks stayed in Africa or migrated along the equator into Australasia leaving remnant populations along the way.

http://img192.imageshack.us/img192/1135/chimprace.jpg

Leander
Friday, January 28th, 2011, 10:00 AM
The oft-quoted genetic studies all seem to conclude that all human begins alive today are descended from two individuals that lived no earlier than 100,000 - 200,000 years ago.Studies using mtDNA have been largely discredited as scientists severely underestimated the mutation rates of mtDNA as well as the possibility of genentic recombination and male inheritance.

When corrected for these errors the most recent common ancestor appears to have lived approximately 6000 years ago, which is patently absurd as it directly contradicts fossil evidence.


The problems with these studies were so bad that Henry Gee, a member of the editorial staff for the journal, Nature, harshly described the studies as "garbage." After considering the number of sequences involved (136 mtDNA sequences), Gee calculated that the total number of potentially correct parsimonious trees is somewhere in excess of one billion. Geneticist Alan Templeton (Washington University) suggests that low-level mixing among early human populations may have scrambled the DNA sequences sufficiently so that the question of the origin of modern humans and a date for "Eve" can never be settled by mtDNA. In a letter to Science, Mark Stoneking (one of the original researchers) acknowledged that the theory of an "African Eve" has been invalidated.

http://naturalselection.0catch.com/Files/dnamutationrates.html#Detrimental


Science writer Ann Gibbons authored an article for the January 2, 1998 issue of Science titled “Calibrating the Mitochondrial Clock,” the subheading of which read as follows: “Mitochondrial DNA appears to mutate much faster than expected, prompting new DNA forensics procedures and raising troubling questions about the dating of evolutionary events.” In that article, she discussed the new data which showed that the mutation rates used to obtain mitochondrial Eve’s age no longer could be considered valid, and concluded:

Regardless of the cause, evolutionists are most concerned about the effect of a faster mutation rate. For example, researchers have calculated that “mitochondrial Eve”—the woman whose mtDNA was ancestral to that in all living people—lived 100,000 to 200,000 years ago in Africa. Using the new clock, she would be a mere 6,000 years old (1998: 279:29, emphasis added).

http://www.trueorigin.org/mitochondrialeve01.asp

Ralf
Friday, January 28th, 2011, 08:08 PM
I prefer the Biblical record of human ancestry where I dont have to think Iam the decendant of a monkey from Africa.

WE all come from Noah, Noah had three sons one was Japeth from which the white races came, The Welsh Cronicles and various european royal histories have a converging family tree that leads back to Noah.

Another son was Shem from where we get the term anti-semite, from Shem came the arabics, not the modern Jews who are the same as us from Japeth, they lie about thier ancestory.

From Ham comes the negro race.

Before the Biblcal flood, the earth was protected from the suns rays by a protective sphere (Genesis 1, 6-8) hense there was no need for humans to be protected from the harmfull equatorial sun by black skin, in fact it would have been an evolutionary disadvantage due to the resistance of vitamin D absorbsion by black skin.

velvet
Friday, January 28th, 2011, 09:09 PM
Is the Out of Africa theory not contestable?

The Out of Africa myth is just that, a myth. Human life has multi regional origins, genetic testing has shown this and anthropology as well.


The “Out of Africa” theory was not created by actual scientists. It was cooked up by left-wing college administrators and forced onto the science departments. It was a myth designed to promote the left-wing agenda on multiculturalism. Every new discovery in the fields of anthropology and genetics continues to completely disprove this left-wing fantasy. Europeans and Asians have substantial amounts of Neanderthal ancestry, while Sub-Saharan Africans do not. Further, the Neanderthal genome project has revived the group’s placement as “proto-Caucasian.” Neanderthal can be divided into at least three regional sub-groups. Some Neanderthal, at least those living in Europe had members with fair skin and red hair
Source (http://cofcc.org/2010/10/new-discoveries-disprove-out-of-africa-myth/)


While migration happened and sometimes mutually influenced a gene pool, migration in the scale the OoA myth would require certainly did not happen, and is likewise disproven by genetic research.


But of course it messes up the multikult utopia to acknowledge that humans are not "one race", but probably not even the same species, specially the sub-Saharan blacks / Congoids are not of the same species like Europids or Asians, which probably only have a greater similarity to each other through the Neanderthal admixture than that this would be from parallel evolution up to a certain point.

The Multikult utopia, btw, was manifested in 1950 only, read here about the Race Question (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Race_Question) designed by UNESCO to "distort scientific facts regarding differences in race" and to promote that "mankind is one".

Barreldriver
Friday, January 28th, 2011, 10:11 PM
I prefer the Biblical record of human ancestry where I dont have to think Iam the decendant of a monkey from Africa.

WE all come from Noah, Noah had three sons one was Japeth from which the white races came, The Welsh Cronicles and various european royal histories have a converging family tree that leads back to Noah.





Um, those "chronicles" of European history linking us back to Noah were written by Christian monks with an agenda (incorporate older oral myth with the newer Christian myth so the conversion of the peoples would not be so turbulent), the unadulterated chronicles and myths are nearly unknown as much was recorded after the fact, the oral traditions having "ad ins" thrown in by the Christians who later recorded older oral tales.

If others feel it necessary I will give quotes from mythologists and translators via the various notes recorded in the back of my copies of the Edda's and other European mythological compilations stating this. (Though I'm near certain those of us here who have read these compilations have a knowledge of this, that is if the other readers were as thorough as I when reading these texts, so stating the hundreds of notes would serve nothing really but to create unnecessary cluster in the forum).

Such behaviors have been observed by cultural anthropologists for quite some time, the writings of monks are not infallible given the various political and religious settings/changes during their lifetimes.