Ok 😒 this “everyone in history that was important was secretly black” stuff got to stop we looking crazy “Columbas was a black moor” 😒

Ty Daniels

Superstar
Joined
Dec 13, 2019
Messages
2,195
Reputation
3,856
Daps
15,443
Didn’t read any of this thread but wanted to chime in and make something clear:

Saying “everyone descended from black people” is not the flex you think it is. It’s racist and actually self deprecating.

It implies that all other races evolved while black people are still stuck on the caveman model. And is the driving force behind a lot of white supremacist rhetoric like us being devolved, an inferior species, or low iq.

In reality, every race (including black people) descended from a group of humans who HAPPENED to be dark skinned but genetically speaking are NOTHING LIKE modern day black people.

Please check dumbass nikkas who continue to say this. Thanks.

FALSE,

Even the use of the word "Descend" connotes "DOWNWARD MOTION" NOT "UPWARD MOTION".

"Evolution" is NOT A "LADDER", Evolution means "Change", nothing more, nothing less.

ALL HUMANS ON THE PLANET DESCEND FROM AFRICANS,

And as a RESULT, "Non-Africans" AKA "Eurasians" possess LESS Genetic Diversity than Black Africans.

A Hell-of-a lot less.

A "Scientific" case can be made that "Eurasians" "Digressed" AKA "Lost Evolution"
 
Last edited:

360Waves

2 girls and they get along like I'm Lou Will
Joined
Mar 8, 2015
Messages
4,658
Reputation
-1,395
Daps
31,465
Reppin
NYC
FALSE,

Even the use of the word "Descend" connotes "DOWNWARD MOTION" NOT "UPWARD MOTION".

"Evolution" is NOT A "LADDER", Evolution means "Change", nothing more, nothing less.

ALL HUMANS ON THE PLANET DESCEND FROM AFRICANS,

And as a RESULT, "Non-Africans" AKA "Eurasians" possess LESS Genetic Diversity than Black Africans.

A Hell-of-a lot less.

A "Scientific" case can be made that "Eurasians" "Digressed" AKA "Lost Evolution"
I typed up a much longer post but ended up erasing it because I’m actually mortified at how uneducated you are. :dead:

Yes the first humans are from Africa and happened to be dark of skin. But genetically speaking they share little in common with modern day black people. Black people today evolved from that group just the same way Asians and whites did, except we retained the dark skin. Genetically though we are very very different from those early humans.

So yes, telling people that “everyone comes from black people” is factually wrong and idiotic. And when you say that to a white guy tryna have a gotcha moment he smirks at the fact that you’re basically saying black people are unevolved inferior humans.

Aborigines have dark skin and stereotypically “black” features but they aren’t actually black. Some Indians are black passing but are not actually black. The earliest Europeans had midnight black skin with some having blue eyes and straight hair. Not black. Are you following? The first humans in Africa happened to be in Africa and happened to have dark skin but they are nothing like modern day black people.
 

Luke Cage

Coffee Lover
Supporter
Joined
Jul 18, 2012
Messages
54,679
Reputation
20,190
Daps
279,112
Reppin
Harlem
wtf does "lost evolution" mean? :dead:

thats like those made terms like reverse racism. where people think it makes sense but really doesn't. Racism is racism, evolution is evolution
 

Ty Daniels

Superstar
Joined
Dec 13, 2019
Messages
2,195
Reputation
3,856
Daps
15,443
wtf does "lost evolution" mean? :dead:

thats like those made terms like reverse racism. where people think it makes sense but really doesn't. Racism is racism, evolution is evolution

LMAO, you are such a DIKK RIDER

:dame:

Daping any and everyone one you think finally "Got Me", LMAO

That shyt is weak.

Dude is Wrong, and YOU ARE EVEN MORE WRONG

:mjlol:
 

Ty Daniels

Superstar
Joined
Dec 13, 2019
Messages
2,195
Reputation
3,856
Daps
15,443
Breh explain the concept of lost evolution :pachaha:

I put the shyt in Quotations, because essentially if they LOST PREVIOUS Gained Genetic Material, they essential lost "Genetic Material That Previously Evolved In Africans"...

All in all:

I'm not the RETARD who thinks "Evolution is A Ladder", and "Whites and Asians are More Evolved", that was the person you DIKK RODE

:dame:


:skip:
 

Luke Cage

Coffee Lover
Supporter
Joined
Jul 18, 2012
Messages
54,679
Reputation
20,190
Daps
279,112
Reppin
Harlem
I put the shyt in Quotations, because essentially if they LOST PREVIOUS Gained Genetic Material, they essential lost "Genetic Material That Previously Evolved In Africans"...

All in all:

I'm not the RETARD who thinks "Evolution is A Ladder", and "Whites and Asians are More Evolved", that was the person you DIKK RODE

:dame:


:skip:
You stilll angry,. you've been mad about this for two days. :pachaha:
 

Ish Gibor

Omnipresence
Joined
Jan 23, 2017
Messages
5,604
Reputation
860
Daps
7,089
Didn’t read any of this thread but wanted to chime in and make something clear:

Saying “everyone descended from black people” is not the flex you think it is. It’s racist and actually self deprecating.

It implies that all other races evolved while black people are still stuck on the caveman model. And is the driving force behind a lot of white supremacist rhetoric like us being devolved, an inferior species, or low iq.

In reality, every race (including black people) descended from a group of humans who HAPPENED to be dark skinned but genetically speaking are NOTHING LIKE modern day black people.

Please check dumbass nikkas who continue to say this. Thanks.
What type of ridiculous claim is this on science? You are insecure and suffer from an inferiority complex.

You probably have no idea how important it is that we carry the oldest genes.

We are the Alpha and Omega.


The coalescence tree shows that AMH came out of Africa and populated the world.

“Where Do I Come From? Using Student’s Mitochondrial DNA to Teach About Phylogeny, Molecular Clocks, and Population Genetics, Luana S. Maroja & Jason A. Wilder (Evolution: Education and Outreach volume 5, pages 501–507 (2012))


“It is estimated that these changes in ‘heat adapted’ genes occurred over a time frame of 12,000 to 30,000 years (Young et al. 2005).”
(Clark Spencer Larsen - 2010, A Companion to Biological Anthropology)

51YhQ2y+b4L._AC_UF1000,1000_QL80_.jpg


“This finding implies that Africans differ on average more among themselves than from Eurasians. Thus, with the exception of many minor unique variants, the nucleotide diversity in Eurasians is essentially a subset of that in Africans, as suggested by the observation that both Y-linked and autosomal haplotypes found outside of Africa were often a subset of the collection of haplotypes found in Africa (ARMOUR et al. 1996; TISHKOFF et al. 1996, 2000; HAMMER et al. 1997; UNDERHILL et al. 2000). Our finding is more in agreement with the out of Africa model of human evolution than with the multiregional model because it is consistent with the view that modern humans originated in Africa and that a smaller subset of this population later migrated to other parts of the world (see STONEKING et al. 1997 and references therein).“

Distributions-of-average-values-in-subsamples-of-6-individuals-from-the-sample-of-10_Q320.jpg

[…]
“The average nucleotide diversity (π) for the 50 segments is only 0.061% ± 0.010% among Asians and 0.064% ± 0.011% among Europeans but almost twice as high (0.115% ± 0.016%) among Africans. The African diversity estimate is even higher than that between Africans and Eurasians (0.096% ± 0.012%).”
(Ning Yu, Feng-Chi Chen et al., Larger Genetic Differences Within Africans Than Between Africans and Eurasians)

“Our analyses both confirm and extend previous studies; in particular, we highlight the impact of various dispersals, and the role of substructure in Africa, on human genetic diversity. We also identified several novel candidate regions for recent positive selection, and a gene ontology (GO) analysis identified several GO groups that were significantly enriched for such candidate genes, including immunity and defense related genes, sensory perception genes, membrane proteins, signal receptors, lipid binding/metabolism genes, and genes involved in the nervous system. Among the novel candidate genes identified are two genes involved in the thyroid hormone pathway that show signals of selection in African Pygmies that may be related to their short stature.”.

"They argued that these variants are associated with novelty-seeking personalities, and that the association of these alleles with migratory distance from Africa may have resulted from either selection for the ability to adapt to novel environments encountered during migration, or from an enhanced tendency in carriers of 2R and 7R to seek out novel environments by migration."

Brenna Henn explains in this 2014 interview on population genetics and population structure, considering African populations.

“African poplations have the most genetic diversity in the world,” Henn said. “If you compared people from the Kalahari Desert to people from Mali, they’d be as different from each other [genetically] as Italians and Chinese people.”

Why are other populations of humans so much less genetically varied than Africans? The answer, Henn explains, lies in our ancestors’ history; the groups of people that migrated out of Africa and spread throughout other continents were smaller subsets of that original, genetically diverse population.

"AND WITHIN EACH OF THESE GROUPS THERE IS AN AMAZING AMOUNT OF DIVERSITY, […] THE DIVERSITY IS INDIGENOUS TO AFRICAN POPULATIONS”:

Tracing Family Trees, And Human History, With Genetics




Sarah Tishkoff: Human Population Genetics and Origins



Dr. Brenna Henn on Inferring Human Origins and Migrations in Africa with Genomic Data

 

Ish Gibor

Omnipresence
Joined
Jan 23, 2017
Messages
5,604
Reputation
860
Daps
7,089
Are the Basil Eurasians where the Early European farmers came from who eventually migrated into Britain?
I didn’t really understand your question, so I proposed it to AI Gemini for interpretation.

This is the response,

“The Basal Eurasians are a distinct and important component in the story of human migration, but they are not the direct ancestors of the Early European farmers. Instead, they represent a sister lineage to other Eurasians, and their genetic legacy is found within the Early European farmers.

Here's a breakdown of the relationships:
* Basal Eurasians: This is a very ancient lineage that diverged from other non-African populations early on, possibly shortly after the "Out of Africa" migration. They lived in a region stretching from North Africa to the Middle East, with some studies suggesting the Arabian Peninsula. Critically, this group had little to no Neanderthal DNA, which sets them apart from the ancestors of other Eurasians who interbred with Neanderthals.

* Early European Farmers (EEFs): The ancestors of the EEFs were a group of people known as Anatolian Neolithic Farmers (ANFs), who originated in what is now Turkey. Genetic studies show that the ANFs were a mix of local hunter-gatherers, but they also carried a significant amount of Basal Eurasian ancestry. This means that the Basal Eurasians had already admixed with West Eurasian groups in the Middle East long before the Neolithic period.

* Migration into Britain: The Early European farmers, carrying this mixed ancestry, migrated from Anatolia into Europe around 7,000 BCE, bringing agriculture with them. They spread across the continent, largely replacing the local hunter-gatherer populations. They eventually reached Britain around 4,000 BCE, bringing the Neolithic period to the island.

In summary, the Early European farmers who migrated to Britain did not "come from" the Basal Eurasians. Rather, their genetic makeup included a significant contribution from the Basal Eurasian lineage, which had already mixed into their ancestors in the Middle East.”


Based on the information above, I elaborated with this paper.


“Populations for which the ancient Caucasus genomes are best ancestral approximations include those of the Southern Caucasus and interestingly, South and Central Asia. Western Europe tends to be a mix of early farmers and western/eastern hunter-gatherers while Middle Eastern genomes are described as a mix of early farmers and Africans.
[…]
Caucasus hunter-gatherer contribution to subsequent populations.
We next explored the extent to which Bichon and CHG contributed to contemporary populations using outgroup f3(African; modern, ancient) statistics, which measure the shared genetic history between an ancient genome and a modern population since they diverged from an African outgroup.

Discussion

Given their geographic origin, it seems likely that CHG and EF are the
descendants of early colonists from Africa who stopped south of the Caucasus, in an area stretching south to the Levant and possibly east towards Central and South Asia. WHG, on the other hand, are likely the descendants of a wave that expanded further into Europe. The separation of these populations is one that stretches back before the Holocene, as indicated by local continuity through the Late Palaeolithic/Mesolithic boundary and deep coalescence estimates, which date to around the LGM and earlier.”


(Jones, E. R., G. Gonzalez-Fortes, S. Connell, V. Siska, A. Eriksson, R. Martiniano, R. L. McLaughlin, et al. 2015.,Upper Palaeolithic genomes reveal deep roots of modern Eurasians.” Nature Communications 6 (1): 8912. doi:10.1038/ncomms9912.)
 

360Waves

2 girls and they get along like I'm Lou Will
Joined
Mar 8, 2015
Messages
4,658
Reputation
-1,395
Daps
31,465
Reppin
NYC
What type of ridiculous claim is this on science? You are insecure and suffer from an inferiority complex.

You probably have no idea how important it is that we carry the oldest genes.

We are the Alpha and Omega.


The coalescence tree shows that AMH came out of Africa and populated the world.

“Where Do I Come From? Using Student’s Mitochondrial DNA to Teach About Phylogeny, Molecular Clocks, and Population Genetics, Luana S. Maroja & Jason A. Wilder (Evolution: Education and Outreach volume 5, pages 501–507 (2012))


“It is estimated that these changes in ‘heat adapted’ genes occurred over a time frame of 12,000 to 30,000 years (Young et al. 2005).”
(Clark Spencer Larsen - 2010, A Companion to Biological Anthropology)

51YhQ2y+b4L._AC_UF1000,1000_QL80_.jpg


“This finding implies that Africans differ on average more among themselves than from Eurasians. Thus, with the exception of many minor unique variants, the nucleotide diversity in Eurasians is essentially a subset of that in Africans, as suggested by the observation that both Y-linked and autosomal haplotypes found outside of Africa were often a subset of the collection of haplotypes found in Africa (ARMOUR et al. 1996; TISHKOFF et al. 1996, 2000; HAMMER et al. 1997; UNDERHILL et al. 2000). Our finding is more in agreement with the out of Africa model of human evolution than with the multiregional model because it is consistent with the view that modern humans originated in Africa and that a smaller subset of this population later migrated to other parts of the world (see STONEKING et al. 1997 and references therein).“

Distributions-of-average-values-in-subsamples-of-6-individuals-from-the-sample-of-10_Q320.jpg

[…]
“The average nucleotide diversity (π) for the 50 segments is only 0.061% ± 0.010% among Asians and 0.064% ± 0.011% among Europeans but almost twice as high (0.115% ± 0.016%) among Africans. The African diversity estimate is even higher than that between Africans and Eurasians (0.096% ± 0.012%).”
(Ning Yu, Feng-Chi Chen et al., Larger Genetic Differences Within Africans Than Between Africans and Eurasians)

“Our analyses both confirm and extend previous studies; in particular, we highlight the impact of various dispersals, and the role of substructure in Africa, on human genetic diversity. We also identified several novel candidate regions for recent positive selection, and a gene ontology (GO) analysis identified several GO groups that were significantly enriched for such candidate genes, including immunity and defense related genes, sensory perception genes, membrane proteins, signal receptors, lipid binding/metabolism genes, and genes involved in the nervous system. Among the novel candidate genes identified are two genes involved in the thyroid hormone pathway that show signals of selection in African Pygmies that may be related to their short stature.”.

"They argued that these variants are associated with novelty-seeking personalities, and that the association of these alleles with migratory distance from Africa may have resulted from either selection for the ability to adapt to novel environments encountered during migration, or from an enhanced tendency in carriers of 2R and 7R to seek out novel environments by migration."

Brenna Henn explains in this 2014 interview on population genetics and population structure, considering African populations.

“African poplations have the most genetic diversity in the world,” Henn said. “If you compared people from the Kalahari Desert to people from Mali, they’d be as different from each other [genetically] as Italians and Chinese people.”

Why are other populations of humans so much less genetically varied than Africans? The answer, Henn explains, lies in our ancestors’ history; the groups of people that migrated out of Africa and spread throughout other continents were smaller subsets of that original, genetically diverse population.

"AND WITHIN EACH OF THESE GROUPS THERE IS AN AMAZING AMOUNT OF DIVERSITY, […] THE DIVERSITY IS INDIGENOUS TO AFRICAN POPULATIONS”:

Tracing Family Trees, And Human History, With Genetics




Sarah Tishkoff: Human Population Genetics and Origins



Dr. Brenna Henn on Inferring Human Origins and Migrations in Africa with Genomic Data


Holy fukk you are DUMB. I’m sorry but :laff:

Post a long ass study and not understand what it’s actually saying brehs.

Yeah Africans are more genetically diverse. This is common sense. They stayed with the largest gene pool while smaller, more narrow subsets of the gene pool migrated to other parts of the world and only reproduced with each other.

But this literally has nothing at all to do with whether or not the earliest humans fit the modern definition of “black.” They weren’t.

AI isn’t the end all be all but here’s what ChatGPT has to say.

Are the first humans in Africa the same as modern day black people?

Great question — and the short answer is: not exactly, but they're related.

Here's a breakdown:​

1. The first humans came from Africa

Yes — Homo sapiens first evolved in Africa around 300,000 years ago. This is supported by extensive genetic, fossil, and archaeological evidence. These early humans are our direct ancestors — of all people alive today, regardless of race or location.

2. Were they the same as modern-day Black people?

No, they were not identical to modern-day Black people — or to any modern ethnic group. Modern racial and ethnic groups formed much more recently, over the past few tens of thousands of years, shaped by:

  • Climate adaptation (like skin tone)
  • Migrations
  • Genetic drift
  • Isolation and interbreeding in various regions
The early Homo sapiens in Africa would have had dark skin, since that’s a strong adaptation to UV exposure near the equator. But they were not the same as today’s Sub-Saharan African populations — who have their own long, rich, and complex histories of evolution, culture, language, and migration.

3. So how are they related?

Modern-day Black Africans are descendants of those early humans — but so is everyone else in the world. What's unique is that African populations generally retain more genetic diversity because they didn't go through the same bottlenecks (population shrinkages) as humans who migrated out of Africa.

So while modern Black Africans are more genetically similar to those first humans than, say, Europeans or Asians, they are not the same.


TL;DR​

  • The first humans were from Africa and had dark skin.
  • They were not identical to modern Black people or any modern group.
  • Modern Black people are descendants of those early humans, as are all humans — but with a more continuous presence in Africa.
If you want a deeper dive into genetics, skin color evolution, or migration timelines, just ask!

Be an idiot brehs :mjlol:
 

Ty Daniels

Superstar
Joined
Dec 13, 2019
Messages
2,195
Reputation
3,856
Daps
15,443
I typed up a much longer post but ended up erasing it because I’m actually mortified at how uneducated you are. :dead:

Yes the first humans are from Africa and happened to be dark of skin. But genetically speaking they share little in common with modern day black people. Black people today evolved from that group just the same way Asians and whites did, except we retained the dark skin. Genetically though we are very very different from those early humans.

So yes, telling people that “everyone comes from black people” is factually wrong and idiotic. And when you say that to a white guy tryna have a gotcha moment he smirks at the fact that you’re basically saying black people are unevolved inferior humans.

Aborigines have dark skin and stereotypically “black” features but they aren’t actually black. Some Indians are black passing but are not actually black. The earliest Europeans had midnight black skin with some having blue eyes and straight hair. Not black. Are you following? The first humans in Africa happened to be in Africa and happened to have dark skin but they are nothing like modern day black people.

FALSE,
- African groups like San, Mbuti, Yoruba, Dinka are genetically closest to the original Anatomically Modern Humans.
Modern Africans share MORE Not Less with the earliest Anatomically Modern Humans than any other group.

- Africans did not diverge from some other group, they ARE THAT Group.

- Modern Africans AKA "Black People" are DIRECT Descendants of the original "Anatomically Modern Humans"

:aicmon:

- Evolution is NOT A LADDER "Genius", there are no "UNEvolved Inferior Humans", Retard. Africans CONTAIN THE BULK OF HUMAN GENETIC AND PHENOTYPE DIVERSITY, "Eurasians" AKA "Whites and Asians" LOST genetic Diversity and Phenotypic Diversity.

- "Blackness" is a FUKKING PHENOTYPE, it is NOT GENETICS. There are BLACK EURASIANS, You don't like it? TOO FUKKING BAD. There are Black Africans, and Non-African Blacks, your opinion on it is IRRELEVANT.

- Early Europeans had BOTH Black Skintones and "Black Features", THEY WERE BLACK, you don't like it? TOO FUKKING BAD.

- All Humans come from Black People, that is the SCIENTIFIC REALITY, you don't like it? TOO FUKKING BAD.



According to the Resident Retards, this isn't a Black Person, LMAO FUKK OUT OF HERE

:mjlol:

ALL 100% GENETICALLY "EURASIAN", ZERO AFRICAN ANCESTRY, JUST LIKE "CHEDDAR MAN"

Jarawa-03-large.jpg


MORE "NON BLACK PEOPLE" ACCORDING TO THE RESIDENT RETARDS

240621pt031-scaled.webp


4-N4-Z51-Q-image-crop-88660.webp


853574b279775f2ef4f983b29f827bb1.jpg


31536000.jpg


:aicmon:
 
Last edited:

Ish Gibor

Omnipresence
Joined
Jan 23, 2017
Messages
5,604
Reputation
860
Daps
7,089
Are the Basil Eurasians where the Early European farmers came from who eventually migrated into Britain?
Secondly, I asked: What is the haplogroup of the average British citizen.

Genetic makeup, and therefore haplogroups, vary among individuals within any population. However, genetic studies have identified the most common haplogroups found in the British population.

For the paternal line (Y-DNA), the dominant haplogroup is R1b (R-M269). It is found in a majority of males across the British Isles, with percentages as high as over 90% in some regions of Wales and Ireland. This haplogroup is also widespread throughout Western Europe and is believed to have been brought to Britain by people from the continent during the Bronze Age.

For the maternal line (mitochondrial DNA or mtDNA), the most common haplogroup is H. This haplogroup is also very common throughout Europe and is found in approximately 40% of native Europeans. It is believed to have spread across Europe from the Near East and Southern Caucasus before the Last Glacial Maximum.

It's important to note that these are the most common haplogroups, not the only ones. The genetic landscape of Britain is the result of a long history of migrations and intermingling populations, including Mesolithic hunter-gatherers, Neolithic farmers, Anglo-Saxons, Vikings, and Normans, among others. This has resulted in a diverse range of haplogroups present in the modern British population.

I asked to elaborate on R-M269.

R-M269 is a major Y-chromosome haplogroup that is of significant interest in the study of European genetic history.

Here's a breakdown of its key characteristics:

Origin and Distribution:

* Most Common in Western Europe: R-M269 is the most common paternal haplogroup in Western Europe, with its frequency increasing from east to west. It is particularly prevalent in the British Isles and parts of the Iberian Peninsula.

* High Frequency in Britain: Within the British Isles, R-M269 is found in a large majority of the male population. Its frequency is especially high in Wales and Ireland, where it can be found in over 90% and 80% of males, respectively. It is also very common in Scotland and England.

* "Steppe Ancestry": Recent genetic studies, particularly since 2015, have linked the dispersal of R-M269 to the spread of the Yamnaya culture from the Pontic-Caspian Steppe. This is often associated with the spread of so-called "steppe ancestry" and some of the Indo-European languages into Europe during the Bronze Age.

* Older Theories: Earlier theories had suggested a much older Paleolithic origin for this haplogroup, or a Neolithic spread from the Near East. However, the evidence from ancient DNA has largely shifted the scientific consensus toward the steppe origin.

Subclades:

R-M269 is a large haplogroup with many subclades that have their own unique histories and geographic distributions.

Some of the major ones include:

* R-L21: This subclade is particularly common in Ireland, Scotland, and Wales, and is strongly associated with the Celtic populations of the British Isles.

* R-U106: This subclade is more prevalent in the Netherlands, Northern Germany, and Scandinavia, and is often linked to Anglo-Saxon and Viking migrations.

* R-P312: This is a broad subclade that is found throughout Western Europe, with high concentrations in Iberia and France.

Historical Significance:

The high frequency of R-M269 in Britain is a testament to the significant genetic impact of migrations from continental Europe, particularly during the Bronze Age and later periods. The presence of different subclades, like R-L21 and R-U106, also reflects the diverse history of the British population, shaped by various waves of migration and cultural interactions.
 
Last edited:

Geordi

Superstar
Joined
Jul 6, 2018
Messages
3,002
Reputation
757
Daps
14,450
Secondly, I asked: What is the haplogroup of the average British citizen.

Genetic makeup, and therefore haplogroups, vary among individuals within any population. However, genetic studies have identified the most common haplogroups found in the British population.

For the paternal line (Y-DNA), the dominant haplogroup is R1b (R-M269). It is found in a majority of males across the British Isles, with percentages as high as over 90% in some regions of Wales and Ireland. This haplogroup is also widespread throughout Western Europe and is believed to have been brought to Britain by people from the continent during the Bronze Age.

For the maternal line (mitochondrial DNA or mtDNA), the most common haplogroup is H. This haplogroup is also very common throughout Europe and is found in approximately 40% of native Europeans. It is believed to have spread across Europe from the Near East and Southern Caucasus before the Last Glacial Maximum.

It's important to note that these are the most common haplogroups, not the only ones. The genetic landscape of Britain is the result of a long history of migrations and intermingling populations, including Mesolithic hunter-gatherers, Neolithic farmers, Anglo-Saxons, Vikings, and Normans, among others. This has resulted in a diverse range of haplogroups present in the modern British population.

I asked to elaborate on R-M269.

R-M269 is a major Y-chromosome haplogroup that is of significant interest in the study of European genetic history.

Here's a breakdown of its key characteristics:

Origin and Distribution:

* Most Common in Western Europe: R-M269 is the most common paternal haplogroup in Western Europe, with its frequency increasing from east to west. It is particularly prevalent in the British Isles and parts of the Iberian Peninsula.

* High Frequency in Britain: Within the British Isles, R-M269 is found in a large majority of the male population. Its frequency is especially high in Wales and Ireland, where it can be found in over 90% and 80% of males, respectively. It is also very common in Scotland and England.

* "Steppe Ancestry": Recent genetic studies, particularly since 2015, have linked the dispersal of R-M269 to the spread of the Yamnaya culture from the Pontic-Caspian Steppe. This is often associated with the spread of so-called "steppe ancestry" and some of the Indo-European languages into Europe during the Bronze Age.

* Older Theories: Earlier theories had suggested a much older Paleolithic origin for this haplogroup, or a Neolithic spread from the Near East. However, the evidence from ancient DNA has largely shifted the scientific consensus toward the steppe origin.

Subclades:

R-M269 is a large haplogroup with many subclades that have their own unique histories and geographic distributions.

Some of the major ones include:

* R-L21: This subclade is particularly common in Ireland, Scotland, and Wales, and is strongly associated with the Celtic populations of the British Isles.

* R-U106: This subclade is more prevalent in the Netherlands, Northern Germany, and Scandinavia, and is often linked to Anglo-Saxon and Viking migrations.

* R-P312: This is a broad subclade that is found throughout Western Europe, with high concentrations in Iberia and France.

Historical Significance:

The high frequency of R-M269 in Britain is a testament to the significant genetic impact of migrations from continental Europe, particularly during the Bronze Age and later periods. The presence of different subclades, like R-L21 and R-U106, also reflects the diverse history of the British population, shaped by various waves of migration and cultural interactions.


A few says prior I asked Ai Gemini to explain what is older, R1b-M269 vs. R-V88. I told it to make it an infographic, which can seen below.

Thats cool, it looks like Britain had too many different groups of migrants to pinpoint where the modern population came from.

I'm trying to get a clear picture of the very first wave of people to come out of Africa 60000 years ago and how they initially spread before becoming fully white. Evidence from that time seems sparse.
 

Ish Gibor

Omnipresence
Joined
Jan 23, 2017
Messages
5,604
Reputation
860
Daps
7,089
Holy fukk you are DUMB. I’m sorry but :laff:

Post a long ass study and not understand what it’s actually saying brehs.
Considering how quickly you responded, it highly unlikely you actually read the papers and looked at the lectures. And you are to one to call other people dumb? lol

Yeah Africans are more genetically diverse. This is common sense. They stayed with the largest gene pool while smaller, more narrow subsets of the gene pool migrated to other parts of the world and only reproduced with each other.
That is not what they say, what they say it that eventually mutations have taken place due to several circumstances, like climate, diet, diseases etc. This caused for people to mutate and adapt to their environment.

Even ChatGTP you posted explained this. lol smh

It doesn’t make someone superior or inferior, it simply means that line of anatomical humans adapted to their circumstances over time.

But this literally has nothing at all to do with whether or not the earliest humans fit the modern definition of “black.” They weren’t.
If they weren’t, what were they?

1024px-Archaeogenetic_analysis_of_human_skin_pigmentation_in_Europe.jpg


“Although the lineage containing this haplotype must have originated in Africa, C3 is rare in Africa (1.0% in MKK) but widely distributed in East Asia, the New World, and Oceania.
[...]
Frequencies display strong population differentiation, with the derived light skin pigmentation allele (A111T) fixed or nearly so in all European populations and the ancestral allele predominant in sub-Saharan Africa and East Asia (Lamason et al. 2005; Norton et al. 2007).
[...]
Phased haplotypes were retrieved from HapMap, Release 21. For phylogenetic analysis, graphs were drawn by the use of a simple nearest-neighbor approach and rooted by the use of ancestral alleles determined by comparison with other primate sequences.
[...]
"Of the remaining 10 common core haplotype groups, all ancestral at rs1426654, *eight clearly have their origins in Africa* (Figure 3B, Figure 4, and Table S4). Three early diverging haplotypes, C1, C2, and C4, are rare outside of Africa and clearly originated there."

”In the lineage containing the majority of haplotypes, each of the three branches, containing C5, C6-C7, and C8-C11, give strong evidence of having originated in Africa.* C5 reaches its greatest abundance in West Africa and is rare outside of Africa. Within the other two branches, C6 and C9, which are the most common haplotypes in Africa, are also common worldwide, whereas C7 is abundant in East Asia and much less common but widespread in Africa."
[...]
Our dating for this haplotype is consistent with a non-African origin. The most likely location for the origin of C11 is, therefore, within the region in which it is fixed or nearly so. As both models for the origin of C11 imply that C3 and C10 were present in ancestors of Europeans, the observed and inferred *distributions of these autosomal haplotypes are consistent with the single-out-of- Africa hypothesis derived using uniparental markers* (Oppenheimer 2003; Macaulay et al. 2005).


(Victor A. Canfield et al., Molecular Phylogeography of a Human Autosomal Skin Color Locus Under Natural Selection 2013)

AI isn’t the end all be all but here’s what ChatGPT has to say.



Be an idiot brehs :mjlol:
Your question is wrong, because the first humans in Africa weren’t. AMH Anatomical Modern Human beings. You simply don’t understand the science. But I’m willing to publicly make a fool out of you. I’ll gladly do that.

There is Homo Sapiens and Homo Sapiens Sapiens.

Ai Gemini explains:

The relationship between Homo sapiens and Homo sapiens sapiens is a matter of scientific classification and is often a source of confusion.

Here's a breakdown:

* Homo sapiens: This is the scientific name for the species to which all living humans belong. The name means "wise man" in Latin. All modern humans are classified under this species.

* Homo sapiens sapiens: This is a subspecies designation for modern humans. The term "sapiens" is repeated to emphasize that we are the "wise, wise man." The idea behind this classification was to distinguish modern humans from other, now-extinct groups of Homo sapiens, such as Neanderthals (Homo sapiens neanderthalensis).

The key point is that all living humans are Homo sapiens sapiens.

However, the use of the subspecies name Homo sapiens sapiens is debated among scientists. Many now prefer to simply use Homo sapiens to refer to modern humans, since we are the only surviving members of the species. A subspecies is typically only designated when there are at least two distinct subgroups within a species, and with the extinction of other archaic human groups, this distinction is often considered unnecessary.

In short, while you could technically say that modern humans are Homo sapiens sapiens, it is more common and widely accepted in contemporary science to simply refer to our species as Homo sapiens.”
 
Last edited:
Top