Somali gabadh & her cadaan man in a new YouTube clip discussing ......

[VixR]

Lol. Literally, no sense of self-awareness.

Call a stranger a biatch out of nowhere, and expect nothing. Mention my naaso in the most random of conversations, and expect nothing. Are you effing xoolos? Were you raised on the goddamn rooftops? How old are you people?

 

[Prototype]

Older than you definitely

 

[VixR]

I'm afraid NOT definitely. Though, my guess, probably through no fault of your own.

 

[Moravia]

@Merca Apperantly she is half Benadiri from her mother side and i feel bad for being such a douche to her on this thread..

If i may be honest this whole notion or stereotype that Africa is monolithic and 100% Bantu didnt exist, we wouldnt see soo many Somalis run around the place obsessing over DNA iyo autosomal & what not. This whole thing about True or Pure Africans or Black Vs White is rubbish eurocentric paradigm sole aim to make us seem abnormal and out place on the continent.

I advise everyone to read this study below and be critical of these DNA tests and admixture claims..

The Persistence of Racial Thinking and the Myth of Racial Divergence
http://www.councilforresponsiblegenetics.org/pageDocuments/WAURRSZQOE.pdf

"Comparative genetic studies on geographically diverse populations provide evidence of high levels of diversity in continental Africa. Sarah Tishkoff and her colleagues (1986) find an intermediate pattern of genetic variation at the CD4 locus in northeastern (actually Horn) African populations. They explain this by local evolution and not by admixture with Eurasians. In essence they are describing a gradient of differentiation. The Horn, largely at the latitude of Nigeria, contains a subset of the diversity seen in other African regions. Tishkoff and her colleagues suggest that the Horn's inhabitant's are the local descendants of those who left Africa to populate the world."

", the Horn of Africa certainly contributed more recently to the Near East, because based on linguistic re- construction and the principles of "least moves" and "greatest diversity," it is the geographical home of the ancestor of Afro-Asiatic languages, spoken primarily in Africa with one member in the Near East (Semitic) (Ehret 1984, 1995; Ruhlen 1987). Early Afro-Asiatic spread out from the Horn and did not come into Africa from Asia (brought by "Caucasians") as was believed at one time, and as is occasionally assumed by non-linguists (e.g., Barbujani and Pilastro 1993; Cavalli-Sforza and Cavalli-Sforza 1995). In fact, there is evidence for movement out of Africa at the very time some claim in-migration (Bar-Josef 1987). By the time of the radiation of Afro-Asiatic speakers there was already genetic differentiation in Africa due to African biohistorical processes.

There is no need to postulate massive European settler colonization of Africa or genetic swamping and/or settler colonization by Eurasians, as is implied or stated in some contemporary genetic work (Cavalli-Sforza et al. 1994), echoing the now defunct Hamitic hypothesis. Continental African variation may be interpreted largely without external mass invasions. The antiquity of modern humans in Africa means that there has been time to accumulate a large amount of random genetic variation (Cavalli-Sforza et. al. 1983), which has been shaped by great ecological diversity in the continent (Hiernaux 1975). Genetic drift woild also contribute to variability due to fluctuations in population size as founder effects and population expansion events occurred throughout the continent. Therefore it is far more accurate to speak of a range of biohistorical African variants than different races of Africans. Northern Africans are more accurately conceptualized as primarily the products of differentiation than of hybridization."


(S.O.Y. Keita and R. Kittles. The Persistence of Racial Thinking and the Myth of Racial Divergence, S. O. Y. Keita, Rick A. Kittles, American Anthropologist, New Series, Vol. 99, No. 3 (Sep., 1997), pp. 534-544)

http://www.somalispot.com/threads/s...n-a-new-youtube-clip-discussing.10527/page-13
lol that research is outdated, we have advanced technology and our knowledge about human genetics since then.
Nigga accept it, you are racially a mongrel.

 

[Geeljire]

lol that research is outdated, we have advanced technology and our knowledge about human genetics since then.
Nigga accept it, you are racially a mongrel.

The issue is not if we are Hybrids/Mongrels or not. Obviously ancient genom admixture is not a prelude to conclude if a population is mixed. That is the role of evolutionary/population genetics and in terms of that we are not a mixture of different source populations. (neither Bantus nor Arabs) We are strictly horn of African centered and very homogenous. This is a fact.not contested.
http://www2.le.ac.uk/departments/genetics/vgec/schoolscolleges/topics/population-genetics

The collection of all the alleles of all of the genes found within a freely interbreeding population is known as the gene pool of the population. Each member of the population receives its alleles from other members of the gene pool (its parents) and passes them on to other members of the gene pool (its offspring). Population genetics is the study of the variation in alleles and genotypes within the gene pool, and how this variation changes from one generation to the next.

As for the study i posted its not outdated. You really dont know how the studies of gene flow work? do you?. The euroasian (Near East) argument is not proven by ultimate evidence but rather a hypothesis among many , which many experts argue to be a continuum of the defunct and refuted Hamitic myth.

Here is a recently updated version that takes into account all the latests studies on African genetics. Even the one recently on Ancient Basal Eurasians and the LBK Farmers hypothesis which is refuted.
HISTORY AND GENETICS IN AFRICA:
http://www.cobbresearchlab.com/issu...need-for-better-cooperation-between-the-teams

There are dark-skinned Africans with physiognomies that are similar to those of “Europeans” in having narrow noses, orthognathism etc, but the trait complexes in question should best be described with anatomical terms, and not in group terms from the racial paradigm that implies that individuals with a given morphological complex all have a common “origin.” Had Camper known about the range of variation even in West Africa he perhaps would have made other criticisms. This anatomical complex composed of a narrow nose, orthognathism, and narrow face, no matter where found, was once interpreted as being necessarily of “Caucasian” or “Caucasoid” origin via migration or gene flow in a model of “racial” origins (Keita and Kittles 1997) which assumed a linkage of these traits, versus their being the products of evolution. In other words they were “historicized” as coming from a particular source population as opposed to being the product of “natural history.” In the tropical African context Hiernaux (1975) suggested the term “Elongated African” for this physiognomy, and those close to it, a phrase that emphasizes a relatively narrower nose and face that evolved in a hot-dry climate but has some variation. The author would prefer that the phrase “elongated African trend” be used; its counterpart would be “broad African” trend. Some migration and admixture are not denied as a part of African biohistory in some regions, but most of the gene flow has been so long ago as to have been reworked by African selection pressures and circumstances, and constitute a part of an African genuine biological history (Hiernaux 1975). Overlap in a range of biological traits between biogeographical Africans and non-Africans should be expected based on evolutionary theory and the concept of serial founder effect.

The primary purpose here is not criticism, but an exploration of cases, because in general multidisciplinary cooperation has not

Genes, food production and Afroasiatic

The spread of animal and plant domesticaion is now frequently argued to be associated with the dispersal of language families, both via demic diffusion, the actual migration of expanding populations over space (Ammerman and Cavalli-Sforza 1984), instead of cultural diffusion. Such movement would have implications for spatial patterns of genetic variation. This claim for a coterminous spread of genes, language [families] and/or food production is most successfully made by reconciling data and interpretations from genetics, historical linguistics, and archaeology. When sufficient evidence is available a multidisciplinary approach requires testing all models.

In terms of Africa one interesting case regards the Afroasiatic language phylum or family. The spread of domesticated wheat, barley, goats and sheep into northern Africa from southwest Asia (the Near East) and its relation to the Afroasiatic language family is a good example. A minority argue that Afro-asiatic is Asian in origin (which requires opposing standard linguistics evidence), the majority that it is African. Either position on origins influences any subsequent interpretations. Unfortunately both models are not usually presented in published work; an imbalanced picture is presented. Most genetic studies and/or interpretations have proceeded from models in which either ancestral Afroasiatic or a later branch, e.g. Berber (Arredi et al. 2004) are posited to have come from the Near East with the spread of food production, without the consideration of alternatives which is problematic when not simply wrong. Generally population migration versus cultural diffusion is given the primary responsibility as the mechanism of change. Here is explored the ramifications of taking into account the views of mainstream linguists, as well of archaeology, in the examination of the genetic data. The issue the construction of the most credible narrative, that is balanced and fair.

The study of individual Afroasiatic languages, and then later the family itself, formally called Hamito-Semitic, or Semito-Hamitic, has a long history. The great interest, at least in part, is because this family gave rise to the Semitic languages found in the texts used in Judaism, Christianity and Islam. Ancient Egyptian is the other member that received substantial attention. Afro-Asiatic has another distinction related to the study of African peoples, because it is connected to a theory of biological and cultural origins called the “Hamitic hypothesis” promulgated by C.G. Seligman (see Sanders 1969). This thesis posited that Southwest Asian peoples called “Hamites” , distant relations of Semites, came into Africa bringing a new language family, pastoralism, “superior” culture, and unique (and “superior”) biology marked by narrower noses and faces, straighter hair, and lighter skin color, although curiously not the skills of plant agriculture. Nearly all instances of culture in Africa deemed to be noteworthy from a western perspective were attributed ultimately to contact with Hamites. Certain body builds and physiognomies when not found among “Hamitic” speakers were said to be due to “Hamitic” (read ““Caucasian”) admixture. Thus many African societies by this myth were rendered non-African; aspects of this way of thinking continue.

The Hamitic hypothesis was overturned largely by Greenberg, and abandoned by Africanist historians. The majority of historical linguists who study the family read the evidence as supporting that Afro-Asiatic is a family of African origin and history, with one branch, Semitic, having had an ancestor that was carried to Asia (the Near East). They generally agree, based on evidence, that the proto-language was spoken by hunters and gatherers, not seed farmers or pastoralists (i.e. food producers) which is a very important observation. The principle of greatest diversity indicates Africa to be the geographic cradle, and of the concept of “least moves” that the Horn of Africa or southeastern Sahara is the more specific locale of the ancestor. It is generally true that the place of greatest diversity of an ‘evolving’ population or language, all other things being equal, is its likely place of origin. Care has to be taken to understand that in theory if a broad sample of a population migrated that the level of diversity or something close might travel with it. Of equal interest is that the branch of Afroasiatic, Omotic, believed to be the least derived in its relationship to the ancestral proto-family is found only in the Horn of Africa, specifically Ethiopia; if this branch is not considered to be in the family it becomes the nearest relative to the group and still anchors the proto-family in Africa. Studies involving genetics, Afroasiatic, and food production should always examine hypotheses based on the different models of geographical origins, and the internal structuring of a language family.

What happens when genetic and linguistic data are considered in terms of the African origins model? The recent spread of Arabic has to be ignored and the presence of Semitic languages in Ethiopia--based on the standard linguistic interpretations. The Y chromosome data are used because they are the most complete for the greatest number of members of the family. The core distribution of the family runs from eastern Africa north to Egypt and west along the Mediterranean littoral. The subfamilies spoken or once spoken here are Cushitic (Kenya, Tanzania, Somali, Ethiopia, and Sudan), ancient Egyptian in the Egyptian Nile Valley, and Berber spoken in Siwa Oasis of Egypt and west to Morocco, and south into Mali and Mauretania. Collating the data from various studies indicate that the TaqI 49 a,f haplotype V is the predominant variant in this region overall; it has notably lower frequencies in the Near East (Table I). This is exactly what would be expected for an African model of origins—assuming that the language family was initially and primarily spread by the migration of humans, and not by cultural diffusion. Furthermore genetic studies that were not concerned with language confirm this. For example Underhill et al state that the M35 lineage was carried into the Near East from Africa in the “Mesolithic”; this M35 in Africa corresponds to the TaqI 49 a,f V. It is far more likely that pre-proto-Semitic speakers went into the Near East at this time where Semitic languages have long since dominated, but the predominant haplotypes in most Semitic speaking populations are variants VII and VIII in the TaqI 49 a,f system (al-Zahery), which are equivalent to M89 associated lineages. The most parsimonious explanation is that ancestral Semitic was adopted by those bearing haplotypes VII and VIII. (Incidentally it is not argued here that there has not been some two-way migration between Africa and Asia, but in this instance the predominant migration was from Africa; the underived M35 lineage is found primarily in East Africa, and most of the variation in derived and related clades are in Africa.)

Wheat and barley agriculture in Africa is first attested in northern Egypt around 5200 BC dating to some 2000 years after its emergence in Asia (the Near East); very significantly it appears as another item in a foraging strategy, not as a total change in subsistence pattern (Wetterstrom 1993). This is not consistent with a mass migration hypothesis involving farmers from Asia (the Near East) who would have come as settler colonists. By this time Afroasiatic had already begun to differentiate or was already differentiated at some level. Among the earliest agriculturalists in Asia (the Near East) were speakers of common Semitic based on vocabulary reconstructions (Diakonoff 1998). If there had been mass migration of rapidly multiplying farmers into Africa those who came to be known as the ancient “Egyptians” would have been Semitic speakers. Curiously not even the terms for sheep, goat, wheat, or barley in ancient Egyptian are Semitic loan words; this is another interesting finding that has historical implications. This example reveals the value in examining older and newer linguistic work in relation to genetic studies, as well as archaeological data.

Afroasiatic and its speakers offer other fascinating findings which invite a critical historical enquiry. Chadic speakers living primarily in the central Sahara and northern Nigeria have a very high frequency of an M89 lineage of an R1 sub-clade. These Chadic speakers phenotypically are generally very dark skinned with frizzy hair the facial conformation often thought of as representative of “the African” a point that will be revisited later in relationship to the classification of Chadic within Afroasiatic. Curiously the frequency of this lineage is far greater in some saharo-tropical population samples (over 90%) samples than it is in the Near East—its putative place of origin. The frequencies of R1 are not nearly as high in Nile Valley Egypt and other parts of Supra-saharan Africa. What are the historical explanations for this lineage and its distribution, or what could they be? Some writers have postulated that the presence of the lineage corresponds to bearers of the Chadic family of Afroasiatic spreading into the central Sahara based on the presence of the V88 marker and called R-V88 (Cruciani et al. 2010); for some this would be reminiscent of the Hamitic hypothesis but should not be confused with that project because of the relatively low frequency of this clade in other branches of Afroasiatic. Interpretations of Y chromosome data including STR variability from Equatorial Guinea suggest that the V88 marker may have arisen on an R1 background south of the Chad basin and spread north instead of the reverse (Gonzalez et al. 2012). It may very well be that the language family spread independently of the lineage, with the lineage being in the region before the Chadic language family. The presence of an R sub-lineage could be simply conceptualized as a Paleolithic “back migration” without any necessary cultural implications; in this scenario it becomes a part of the biological ancestry of regional peoples subject to local adaptive evolutionary forces. Its distribution in the circum-Saharan areas may reflect later movements of Saharan peoples during mid-holocene droughts. Another explanation is that some areas of the central Sahara and Nigeria were settled in part by Assyrian refugees in the last millennium BC (see Lange 2011), an interpretation of evidence that has not gained wide acceptance among historians.

It is of some historical interest and still very revealing that although linguists some linguists in the early twentieth century thought that Chadic was Afroasiatic, others greatly resisted its classification into the family (Newman 1980). This was not based on linguistic data but rather on the fact that the Chadic speakers were “black” or “blacker” than other members of the family (Ruhlen 1991). This illustrates the problem, leaving alone the bias for a moment, of having expectations that all connections or relationships would be between entities perceived as being uniform in all respects. This issue is made even more ironic when it is understood that some groups of sampled Chadic speakers have a higher percentage of a “Eurasian” Y lineage than do others who were categorically seen as more akin to Europeans.

If you are interested in genetic history encourage you to read it as it does away some of the prevailing myth surrounding Afroasiatic speaking population in the horn.