Joined: 30 Mar 2005 {Posts: 1082 } Location: New Jersey
Posted: Mon 31 Mar 2008 14:27 Post subject:
sirius2008 wrote:
But my point is since things change, we should not say "this happened" or "this happened at this date" if we are not sure, we should use the conditional tense and tell estimations not precise dates, we should make theories and hypothesises not telling facts if we are not sure they are facts.
It is of course understood among scientists that theories are not 100% certain, without the slightest possibility of error. If scientists thought this way about their theories and theses, they'd all fail the falsifiability aspect of scientific research. If, however, at a given moment evidence points to a certain scenario or conclusion, scientists will draw that conclusion, leaving open the possibility that their thesis may be wrong, and even stating what would cause them to change their minds. It is the only scientific thing to do. If other evidence comes along to refute what was thought originally, the thesis will be revised. This is the nature of the beast.
I don't have any official credentials as a historian or anthropologist, but have a keen interest in these fields and in genetics, and enjoy researching the topics when I have time.
Would you like for me to search for whatever studies are available on Berber origins?
Scientists know they may be wrong but the problem is normal people like you and me are the most often not informed that they only create theories and that they could be proven wrong in the future. We only read affirmative statements in books, rarely hypothesises, although it would let people have a more objective opinion of history.
By the way, we say we came from Africa, only because of the fact the oldest skeleton was found there, right? However, we never explored the whole earth. It means if we find an older skeleton on the American continent in 2050, all theories will be changed: we will believe that we originate from the Americas, and that native Americans never crossed Bering straits, only the rest of humanity, that then spread into Eurasia, and into Africa in the end.
A new skeleton was recently found in Western Europe, it made scientists conclude they were wrong about the date of the arrival of humankind on this continent, which actually occured hundreds of thousands of years earlier than expected.
I have a question. Australopithecus merged about 4 millions of years ago (some sources I read say less than 4 millions, some say 4.2 millions), what was humankind's previous form? And what were we in the begining, microbes? What is the date of our first existence as living beings?
An other question, we evolved from those monkey looking people only in a few millions of years, so how will we look like 5 millions of years later, will we evolve again? It seems to be a short period, relatively speaking of course (1 million = 10 * 100.000 and 100.000 = 10* 10.000, 10.000 years = very short period in human history).
William wrote:
Would you like for me to search for whatever studies are available on Berber origins?
1: Tissue Antigens. 2000 Mar;55(3):239-49. Links
HLA genes in Arabic-speaking Moroccans: close relatedness to Berbers and Iberians.Gómez-Casado E, del Moral P, Martínez-Laso J, García-Gómez A, Allende L, Silvera-Redondo C, Longas J, González-Hevilla M, Kandil M, Zamora J, Arnaiz-Villena A.
Department of Immunology and Molecular Biology, 12 de Octubre, Universidad Complutense, Madrid, Spain.
The gene profile of Arabic-speaking Moroccans has been compared with those of other Mediterranean populations in order to provide additional information about the history of their origins. Our HLA data suggest that most Moroccans are of a Berber (Imazighen) origin and that Arabs who invaded North Africa and Spain in the 7th century A.D. did not substantially contributed to the gene pool; however, they imposed their advanced culture and their religion. Present-day Egyptians are also related to Moroccan Berbers and this supports an ancient Saharan origin for part of the present-day Mediterraneans, particularly for the Arabic-speaking ones (also Algerians) and also for the older substratum of Mediterranean people.
1: Ann Hum Genet. 2004 May;68(Pt 3):222-33. Links
Mitochondrial DNA heterogeneity in Tunisian Berbers.Fadhlaoui-Zid K, Plaza S, Calafell F, Ben Amor M, Comas D, Bennamar El gaaied A.
Laboratoire de Génétique Moléculaire, Immunologie et Biotechnologie, Faculté des Sciences de Tunis, Université Tunis El Manar, 2092 Tunis, Tunisia.
Berbers live in groups scattered across North Africa whose origins and genetic relationships with their neighbours are not well established. The first hypervariable segment of the mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) control region was sequenced in a total of 155 individuals from three Tunisian Berber groups and compared to other North Africans. The mtDNA lineages found belong to a common set of mtDNA haplogroups already described in North Africa. Besides the autochthonous North African U6 haplogroup, a group of L3 lineages characterized by the transition at position 16041 seems to be restricted to North Africans, suggesting that an expansion of this group of lineages took place around 10500 years ago in North Africa, and spread to neighbouring populations. Principal components and the coordinate analyses show that some Berber groups (the Tuareg, the Mozabite, and the Chenini-Douiret) are outliers within the North African genetic landscape. This outlier position is consistent with an isolation process followed by genetic drift in haplotype frequencies, and with the high heterogeneity displayed by Berbers compared to Arab samples as shown in the AMOVA. Despite this Berber heterogeneity, no significant differences were found between Berber and Arab samples, suggesting that the Arabization was mainly a cultural process rather than a demographic replacement.
Thank you very much for those informations, they are interesting. I already knew about the fact Arabic-speaking Maghrebis are the descendents of the Berbers who adopted the Arab civilisation after the arrival of Islam. They were the people who lived in the coastal plains and in the urban areas, in other words the most literate and civilised people of the region, they were partially Romanised and had contacts with the Byzantines.
On the other hand, the people who lived in mountainous regions, were those who retained their original language, and today Berber-speaking people are almost exclusively found in those areas.
By the way, most of the members of the minority who still speak Berber dialects in Maghrebi states speak Arabic too and also see themselves as Arab, with the exception of the people of Kabylie in Algeria. They speak Arabic too but many of them refuse to be labeled as Arabs, in contrast with Algerian Chaoui Berber speakers, who usually claim their Arabness for instance.
Finally, your study confirms what I read apparently, Northwestern Africans share common origins with Egyptians, that is why some people think they came from today Egypt millenia before the beginning of ancient Egypt civilisation.
Joined: 30 Mar 2005 {Posts: 1082 } Location: New Jersey
Posted: Fri 04 Apr 2008 15:57 Post subject:
Here is another on North Africans using HLA, which, by the way, also confirms the sub-Saharan genetic presence in the Greeks (in the Arnaiz-Villena Greek study):
1: Eur J Med Genet. 2006 Jan-Feb;49(1):43-56. Epub 2005 Feb 10. Links
HLA genes in Southern Tunisians (Ghannouch area) and their relationship with other Mediterraneans.Hajjej A, Hmida S, Kaabi H, Dridi A, Jridi A, El Gaa l ed A, Boukef K.
National Blood Transfusion Centre, Tunis, Tunisia.
South Tunisian HLA gene profile has studied for the first time. HLA-A, -B, -DRB1 and -DQB1 allele frequencies of Ghannouch have been compared with those of neighboring populations, other Mediterraneans and Sub-Saharans. Their relatedness has been tested by genetic distances, Neighbor-Joining dendrograms and correspondence analyses. Our HLA data show that both southern from Ghannouch and northern Tunisians are of a Berber substratum in spite of the successive incursions (particularly, the 7th-8th century A.D. Arab invasion) occurred in Tunisia. It is also the case of other North Africans and Iberians. This present study confirms the relatedness of Greeks to Sub-Saharan populations. This suggests that there was an admixture between the Greeks and Sub-Saharans probably during Pharaonic period or after natural catastrophes (dryness) occurred in Sahara.
Joined: 07 Oct 2007 {Posts: 248 } Location: United States
Posted: Sat 10 Jan 2009 09:59 Post subject:
Where did the majority of the earliest observed homo sapien North Africans come from, and when was this?
Quote:
Those populations are Saharan not Sub-Saharan and are of the same stock as Northerners, but they are exposed to intense UV lights for centuries and developped a darker skin colour.
I would like proof of this, otherwise you're simply spewing hogwash. Of the same "stock" as Northerners? I would like proof that the current stock doesn't consist of contributions from both Northerners and Southerners, which would be the most logical explanation for observed phenotypes considering location.
Joined: 30 Mar 2005 {Posts: 1082 } Location: New Jersey
Posted: Fri 23 Jan 2009 17:53 Post subject:
Grasshoppa wrote:
Where did the majority of the earliest observed homo sapien North Africans come from, and when was this?
Quote:
Those populations are Saharan not Sub-Saharan and are of the same stock as Northerners, but they are exposed to intense UV lights for centuries and developped a darker skin colour.
I would like proof of this, otherwise you're simply spewing hogwash. Of the same "stock" as Northerners? I would like proof that the current stock doesn't consist of contributions from both Northerners and Southerners, which would be the most logical explanation for observed phenotypes considering location.
The North African population has been in place for a long, long time, and has its own genetic signatures. Yes, there has been admixture from both Europe and Africa south of the Sahara, but basically, North Africans are their own genetic grouping. To say that they are "Northerners" (i.e., Europeans) is inaccurate.
As for the origins of the very earliest North Africans, I'd have to research this, as offhand I do not know. I would imagine populations spreading out from East Africa were amongst the first to reach North Africa. Return migrations from neighboring SW Asia contributed somewhat as well.
'
FAQ
Search
Register
Log in
