Talk:Somali people/Archive 4

New Standard

Any changes to the current narrative must be backed up by a Peer reviewed Source. Debate on this issue must only be done via Peer reviewed sources from credible journals.

Data deemed old can only be replaced by New data. A Vacuum of info should not be left as it can create wrong impressions. Until new peer reviewed info is available what was previously published are the facts which are accepted.

Once again, if one wants to add and remove info it must be done with Peer reviewed sources only.

Any edit to bring back former half truths will be reverted unless they are backed by peer reviewed sources from credible genetics journals. Medicineman84 (talk)

Genetics

I do not understand why you necessarily have to mention haplogroup E in the introduction of the yDNA section? It is dated to 55,000 years before present[1]. That’s an extremely old lineage, even older than haplogroup F, which connects practically all Eurasians. I haven't ever come across any ethnicity page mentioning haplogroup F as anything meaningful.

What’s next? Should we also mention Somalis all descend from Y-chromosomal Adam (Y-MRCA) as well? It is pointless. Since this page is about an ethnicity let’s keep it to relatively recent mutations, such as E1b1b1a1.

The frequency of V32 in the Hassan et al. Masalit Darfurians reflects a recent population bottleneck as the author of the study mentions. The sample size is also rather low (only 32 individuals), they could have been men from the same paternal tribe and thus inflated the true haplogroup figures of the Masalit. V32 also has a much lower frequency in surrounding tribes; this strongly supports a bottlenecked dataset. The Somali E1b1b1a1a2 (the new name of V32 under current phylogeny[2]) STR haplotypes are more similar to Ethiopian V32 haplotypes than they are to geographically distant Northwestern Sudanese. The Sudanese are already mentioned in the article, so I don’t get what the fuss is all about. Let’s not make things more complicated than they are.

About mtDNA, the article does indeed neglect the various native East African L3 lineages in Somali people due to lack of proper sources for them. The Watson et al. paper did not differentiate past L3. You will just have to be patient until a proper study on the mtDNA of Somalis is published.

I removed the autosomal part, as the source you used is obsolete. A study from 1994! Your link does not mention Somalis specifically but just ‘East Africans’.Wadaad (talk) 17:10, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

____________________

With regard to the Bottleneck, IT IS A THEORY! Another theory presented IN THAT PAPER is that it could also represent a location close to it's origin.

This makes sense if you look at were M78 is found.

I included the E to show the most ancient of Somali paternal origin. I then spoke about somalis specific origin now. This will give any reader a chance to trace the DNA from start to finish.

It is not the job of this page to do that for people but, to inform people.

Only edit IF you have a source that proves it wrong!

With regard to the Autosomal DNA:

The Autosomal DNA tests are NOT Obsolete. It tested known Sub-Saharan Markers and, Known Caucasoid makers created a map. Read the full paper for more info.

Medicineman84 (talk) 17:18, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Haplogroup E is just too old to be worthy of mentioning in an ethnicity page. You seem to be fooled by these silly letter designations used by ISOGG (haplogroup R and Q are much closer related despite having two different letters than E1b1b and E1b1a are). I am not going back and forth over the Masalit issue, the Sudanese have been mentioned in the article, end of story.

From the autosomal segment you posted:

" Cavalli-Sforza et al, estimated from classic autosomal genetic markers that the East African genetic pool is approximately of 60% sub-Saharan and 40% Caucasoid origin".

This is an extremely obsolete study, from 1994. Genetics is a rapidly evolving scientific field, anything from the early 1990s regarding autosomal DNA should be taken with a grain of salt. Secondly, the percentage figures of Cavalli-Sforza seem to be for all his East African samples, not Somalis specific unless you can show me otherwise. For the sake of reader friendliness, could you stop with those large spaces between your posts and the capitalized words? Wadaad (talk) 17:37, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

The study was with reference to Somalis and Ethiopians with regard to the Autosomal DNA.

I mentioned Haplogroup E to show the Origin. It is a correct fact. I did not say Somalis are currently E.

With regard to R and Q... Yes BUT, E1b1b and E1b1a are closely related. It is only 1 mutation difference. Obviously E1b1b is more related to E1b1 just like E1b1a is more related to E1b1 than E1b1a is related to E1b1b.

As the mutations continue the difference becomes bigger. This is common sense.

Genetics is evolving but, some methods always tell a story. Are you saying the KNOWN Markers then are not relevant now? Absurd!!!

If anything, some markers which were considered to be existent in only one population may indeed prove to not belong to specific geographic areas.

Lastly I said L haplogroups. I did not specify which ones because, research is ongoing. This does not change the Autosomal DNA.

The article as presented before was too vague. This gives specifics and, everything is sourced. More info may come out which may give more details and when those details are arrived at they can be included but, as it is now, it is correct with what we know! Medicineman84 (talk) 17:46, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

What I think may have happened

This is just a thought.

If M78 is from Egypt or Libya 4000-8000 years ago then the V32 Mutations probably occurred in Northern Sudan(Darfur). The people then started a Migration to where Somalis live now. They may have been moving with Asiatic looking women(M1) who had back migrated into Africa and With some (L's). It is obvious that the Asiatic women influenced the language hence the HOA speaking an Afro-Asiatic language today.

The proto somali people like many people in the region may have started their tribe with various ancient haplogroups(maternally) and EV32 paternally. That is what the DNA is telling us now.

The evolutionary pressure(HLA Antigens) shows they underwent struggle similar to "Arabs". What this tells me is that the E1B1 that migrated to West Africa to form E1b1a faced different struggles than his "Brother" who stayed in Eastern Africa and eventually went to the North. That is why both groups are not susceptible to the exact same diseases.

Now with regard to EV32 and were its origin is, We don't know but, Sudan is starting to look pretty good and, makes sense if one looks at where M78, it's ancient parent, is found.

Medicineman84 (talk) 18:12, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

E1b1b and E1b1a are not closely related by human y-clade divergences. Their last common ancestor lived approximately 40,000 years before present. That is as old as the IJK group (which includes N, O, Q, R, T, L, I, J among others). These are vastly divergent lineages spanning across Eurasia.

You have to remember that this page is about the Somali ethnic group. As all modern ethnicities are fairly recent, we can’t be talking about lineages as old as E in the introduction.

About the autosomal segment once again, it does not mention Somalis specifically and hence has no place here. It is as simple as that. Besides that, it is still from 1994. Nobody even cites his findings anymore as they are outdated.

Cavalli-Sforza even thought Khoisan natives of Southern Africa were closely related to Europeans than West Africans are[3]. But recent full genome sequencing studies showed that they are the most divergent African population known to date[4]. The Yoruba from Nigeria are even genetically closer to French and Chinese people than they are to the Khoisan bushmen.

See Table S6.2 Genetic divergence:

San-Yoruba = 0.0913 x

Yoruba-Han = 0.0811 x

This is just to show you how wrong 1990s autosomal studies can be compared to more advanced methods of the 2010s.

About mtDNA, you show no link to your sources. Also, every human on the face of the earth belongs to haplogroup L, again very uninformative as you keep using way too ancient lineages. Stay ontopicWadaad (talk) 18:16, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

You seem to be confused.

I am talking about E1b1b FULL STOP E1b1 FULL STOP and E1b1a FULL STOP...

I am not talking about EV32 and some random E1b1a that exists today. Then, the answer is obvious. but, when E1b1b FULL STOP E1b1 FULL STOP and E1b1a FULL STOP were formed they were damn similar!

About mtDNA the Source for the article is there go find it and read it.

The Autosomal studies are relevant.I am looking at them now. Unless there is a more updated study there is no reason to not include it.

The markers then that were Caucasoid are largely viewed as Cuacasoid today. The markers then that were Sub-saharan are largely viewed as Sub=-Saharan today.

Unless you can provide a study which disproves it what is there should stay.

It seems you have not even read it.

Medicineman84 (talk) 18:26, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I know very well what I am talking about, using capitalized letters and ad hominems won’t change the dates of these ancient haplogroups. I just double checked your source on mtDNA [5]. It did not differentiate other important Eurasian maternal lineages like and all lumped them as L (also no differentiating between L lineages). Again, the Watson et al. maternal haplogroups of his Somali samples remain unresolved.

I already told you Cavalli-Sforza’s work does not mention Somalis specifically and so your source is not usable here. Besides that his arguments are outdated (again 1994). Wadaad (talk) 18:40, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Did you read this part on the nature paper?...

It matches perfectly with the Autosomal DNA presented!

It seems you have still not read the study or the nature paper!

The broad conclusions are still correct and, are now being filled in by test. The specifics and little details or Mutations that may have developed recently do not change the biger picture...

A person being L1XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXBB and, another under evolutionary pressure being LXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXBA still still does not change the general facts mentioned by the paper.

Let me give you a small taste of what you are not reading: "Somali sample presents features that clearly locate it close to the African samples, but European features are also evident".

European meaning Caucasoid of course. Medicineman84 (talk) 18:46, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I am going to keep it very simple for you:

1) Sudanese are already mentioned in the previous yDNA section, your Masalit edits do not add any value.

2) The mtDNA lineages of your source are unresolved, and have no biogeographical value here.

3) The autosomal values are of all East African samples combined, this page is about Somalis. Besides that it is an outdated quote (1994).

All this has been refuted. Wadaad (talk) 18:53, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I am going to keep it very VERY simple for you:

1) The Masslit and Fur edits do add value because, they have at some of the higest rates in the world. Previous edits included Mediterraneans who have M78 at 5-10 lol how comical!

2) The general picture is still correct. The studies then were resolved enough to establish them as some variant of L0 L1 L2 L3 etc etc.

3) The larger study posted was comparing African groups to European groups. Read it again. I use caps sometimes to emphasize points people may skip over.

Medicineman84 (talk) 18:57, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

The Masalit do not add any value to the yDNA section, as it has been proposed that their V32 frequency is inflated due to a recent population bottleneck. These are no signs of recent kinship with Somalis, and thus have no place in this article. The Ethiopian/Oromo V32 are likely much closer related to Somalis than the Darfurian V32. We already generalized that this lineage is also found in Sudan, end of story.

There is no general picture at all, even in those 70% L frequency there are certain Eurasian lineages such as N1 and K masked as L (technically they are but you get the point). Besides that, it shows no information of ethnogenetic value.

Again, your autosomal quote is unusable here as it does not refer to Somalis specifically.

Let’s not go around in vicious circles. Wadaad (talk)

Genetics is not about Kinship. Tribes are generally a social construct. Bottleneck or, their place of origin. Why do you always ignore that fact?

With regard to what you said about V32 nonsense! V32 is V32 the Masslit and fur have it at a higher rate than all those other groups.

The masked theory holds no weight. N1 and K are generally rare in the HOA thus, the sample is negligible. Once again, Ethnicity and genetics are not always related.

There are several mistakes on this page that must be changed.

Somalis for example are not related to

Amhara •Tigray • Tigre  

1) Different languages 2) Different genetics 3) Different culture

Who put this page together? Surely the individual must have lost some mental faculties.

Medicineman84 (talk) 19:11, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

With regard to the Autosomal DNA The picture surely reflects what was concluded in that study.

Thus, it did refer to Somalis.

Namely Somalis are overall a people with ancient admixture. This is what these studies are now telling us. Not filling in info because the details are not there is wrong because, the general picture is still the same.

Medicineman84 (talk) 19:19, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

The Masalit issue has been thoroughly discussed by now, you have lost it. It was a poor quality sample, heavily affected by a population bottleneck. Sudan is already mentioned as a place where E-M78 is common.

There are more Eurasian lineages besides N1, K that are masked as L by your quote. Be my guest and download the Watson et al. 27 Somalis dataset[6] and compare their mutations in the current phylogenetic tree[7]. Roughly 50% belongs to M and N sub lineages, and many L3 lineages are specific to the Horn of Africa like L3x and L3i. Now if they published information like this somewhere, it would be very valuable, but they don’t.

Habesha people (Amhara, Tigray, Tigre) are fellow Horn Africans and have many similarities with Somalis. The only major difference is their minor Semitic input. Wadaad (talk) 19:21, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Nonsense

Look at the Hassan study. The Y DNA of the Amhara is varied when compared to Somalis. They have numerous origins. While Somalis are EV32 predominately. The Amhara carry this at less than 20 percent! In fact the carry A DNA at a higher rate. The same applies to the Tigre. The Oromo have EV32 at only 30 percent and possibly should not be included either.

That would be like saying Persians and Egyptians are related or, Libyans and Italians are related! Nonsense. What is the wikipedia criteria for including related people??

What makes a people related? Are all Eastern Europeans related? are all Southern Asians related? I dont see Pakistani and Indian people being called related on their page.

lol! Surely a drunk must have put this page together!

Medicineman84 (talk) 19:29, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

There is little relation.

It is not only L3 but also L1 and L2. Admittedly L3 is further away but, is never the less Sub-Saharan thus, the point still stands.

Once again newer mutations do not change the general picture. The facts still remain the same.

Medicineman84 (talk) 19:31, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

You may want to familiarize yourself with this

• Human mitochondrial DNA haplogroups

Phylogenetic tree of human mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) haplogroups

Mitochondrial Eve (L)

L0

L1–6

L1

L2

L3

L4

L5

L6

M

N

CZ

D

E

G

Q

O

A

S

R

I

W

X

Y

C

Z

B

F

R0

pre-JT

P

U

HV

JT

K

H

V

J

T

Your posts are getting more and more absurd by the minute

Existing data should remain until newer data arrives That is my opinion. We, the writers, should nto pick and choose which data we want to present but, should give all the info available now.Maybe try to rationalize it but, not pick and choose which facts we like.

Medicineman84 (talk) 19:35, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

To be frank with you, I couldn’t care less whether the Amhara are listed or not.

About the Oromo V32 frequency, it does not matter if it is 32% or 99%. Their V32 STR haplotypes are among the closest to Somalis in the world. Masalit V32 STR haplotypes are distant from those of Somalis, which is not surprising considering the geographical distance.

Both I and Middayexpress showed that you were wrong on the mtDNA frequency and the autosomal data, you have no argument anymore to keep this info. I have no agenda against any of your edits but unfortunately there are some issues with them.

Wadaad (talk) 19:38, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Middayexpress may be suffering form chemical imbalance hopefully he/she does not come back to this page. lol(Just a joke by the way, No offense!!!) Not an attack

EV32 is EV32 is EV32. The mutation occurred either in Somalia or Darfur. Knowing the origin of M78 in Egypt it most likely occurred in Darfur. The migration pattern of people to Somalia would follow that. Looking at were EV32 is and the lack of it in Eritrea shows that Northern Somalia was most likely recently colonized from another tribe.

We don't know that but, the picture is the same generally speaking...

All this is guess work after the data is collected! Medicineman84 (talk) 19:44, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I am going to quote Middayexpress on this one, as you still do not understand that your 70% L frequency (which is completely uninformative) is an unresolved figure:

Watson et al.'s so-called L3 haplogroups are unresolved, as Richards et al. (2006) point out:

"There was a complication. The analysis of Watson et al. (1997) was based largely on control-region sequence data, which fails to resolve many mtDNA haplogroups. By targeting newly identified coding-region variants, Quintana-Murci et al. (1999) distinguished two major clades in non-Africans, within haplogroup L3. One of these had already been identified as the Asian super-haplogroup M (Torroni et al. 1994a); Quintana-Murci et al. (1999) showed that all other non-African L3 lineages fell into a second major clade, later named haplogroup N.

This means that they're almost certainly lineages that are located further down the mtDNA haplogroup tree, such as the Eurasian haplogroup M and haplogroup N sub-clades, not the more upstream haplogroup L3. Again, unless your goal is specifically to try and inflate the appearance of L3 lineages among Somalis (which aren't actually L3 lineages, but lineages belonging to haplogroups located further down the mtDNA haplogroup tree)

I hope you understand now. Wadaad (talk) 19:50, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Post a study with new data and a source and I will change it.

As it is all those upstream mutations are rare in the HOA.

Show me an HOA study which shows them significantly! It does not exist!

The Autosomal DNA study confirms that the majority must be L...

Middayexpress had an agenda. Anyone that excludes peer reviewed material has an agenada. I have not rejected any peer reviewed studies. Post a peer reviewed study and I will edit this page in a second.

Medicineman84 (talk) 19:58, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately your information is not complete, let’s just all be adults here and move on. I am glad to add any new information regarding Somali mtDNA which is complete and fully resolved. Your information has no biogeographical value.

Wadaad (talk) 20:04, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

It does have value.

Once again, post studies of any HOA group that has those mtDNA groups in significant numbers!

It does not exit!

The Autosomal studies had North Africans as Caucasian if Somalis were more related they would have clustered outside closer to that group.

Go re-read that study. As it is, this is the most balanced this article has been.

Medicineman84 (talk) 20:06, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

It does not have any valuable information at all. A couple of downstream M and N lineages are labeled as L (I find these letter designations silly anyway, seems like they are very important to people like you), and besides that it does not tell us anything about the particular L lineages within Somalis (L3 sub lineages being of most interest due to its native nature in the Horn of Africa).

The autosomal information from 1994 is extremely outdated and the values only mentioned the average of all the East African samples together.

Wadaad (talk) 20:14, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

This paper is from 1999. With regard to the Autosomal DNA. The 1994 papers would only be quoted in more recent studies if the researcher found them to be valid.... Medicineman84 (talk) 20:18, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

It is from 1999 but the quoted piece of text regarding these so called 'Caucasoid' and 'Sub-Saharan' figures (which are NOT of Somalis specifically) are from an obsolete study from 1994. See source #38.

Wadaad (talk) 20:20, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Somalis were included in the study and compared to many European groups along with some West African groups.

Look at the pictures and charts in the paper. Medicineman84 (talk) 20:27, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

That was not regarding autosomal DNA but mtDNA. Read closely.

To make it clearer for you: This study was an analysis of mtDNA HVRII.

The Autosomal figures are quoted from from:

Source 38 Cavalli-Sforza LL, Menozzi P, Piazza A: The History and Geography of Human Genes. Princeton University Press; Princeton, 1994.

This study is obsolete and many mistakes have been found. Wadaad (talk) 20:40, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Good you read it! It was all part of the larger test. Now, the researcher accepted that the 1994 study was likely reflective of what he was finding thus, it is relevant

Medicineman84 (talk) 21:12, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Those autosomal figures are NOT of Somalis, but of the 'East African' samples combined and thus have no place in this article. This is all besides the fact that they stem from the early 90s!

1) Your mtDNA figures are incomplete and unresolved.

2) Your autosomal figures are not of Somali specific.

What's so difficult about grasping this simple fact?

Wadaad (talk) 21:17, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

First of all thank you for taking on an outline approach. It makes posts and logic easier to follow than simply writing a book!

1) That could apply to every group! The L DNA is still relevant. show me a study which shows those Asian mtDNA in any HOA group. It is non existent. What is being resolved may tell us that Somalis have L1XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXxab rather than L1XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXbc what difference does it make?

2) The researcher believes them to be relevant. All it indicates is that Somalis are more likely to be an intermediate that lean closer to SSA than to Caucasoid. The little we see of the research that we have thus far will most likely conclude this. There is no evidence that there is any significant much much later mtDNA in any HOA ethic group. Show me any study which shows K, N etc etc in any significant numbers in any HOA group! IT does not exist! Thus, the researchers conclusions were valid. The wording indicates that. Somali people have ancient admixture. once again most tribes are social constructs of different people who come together and create something together. right now we know the peole were Paternally predominiantly EV32 and, a few Arabs and Asians and differ SSA people and maternally L0 L1 L2 L3 and possibly other L's and Asiatic M1 who back migrated into Africa. Unless you can give a source which clearly disputes any of this what exists mst stay.

Medicineman84 (talk) 21:27, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

1) That 70% L figure is awrong as the study only looked for M1,U6 and R0. Many other N lineages were ignored and other sub-lineages weren't defined. Again, as I said, you cn see the maternal HVR-I and HVR-II mutations of those 27 Watson et al. Somalis here: [8].

Now if you take the time and double check their mutations in the current phylogenetic tree[9], you will find that there are several N derived lineages classified as L by your source.

Also you seem to forget that L contains the most divergent human maternal lineages. Somebody who belongs to L3 is a lot closer to a person carrying N than he or she is to L0/L1/L2 etc. This just shows your 70% L figure is completely uninformative.

M1a is also not Asiatic as you like to put it. The origin of M* and M1* are in question but not really M1a~, which is mostly confined to the Horn of Africa.

You can’t simply ignore this.

2) About the autosomal figures ONCE AGAIN: -They are not of Somalis specific and highly obsolete.

Wadaad (talk) 21:43, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

1) Okay. I admit that L3 is closer to M1 but, L3 is still confined to SSA thus, the info is valid. Keep that when I posted that M1 could have originated in North Africa, HOA or Western Asia. Middleexpress(or whatever his name is deleted it). My edits as they are now are in response to a critrea set by him/her. Once again, show me any study of an HOA population that has anything beyond M in their gene pool. It's non existent. This page is a place to put together peer reviewed work.

I was glancing at a few Haplogroup pages and noticed that some work has been done which includes Somalis

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_L2_%28mtDNA%29

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_L3_%28mtDNA%29

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_L0_%28mtDNA%29 - Ethiopia but you get my point...

Show me a peer reviewed study that shows any thing beyond M in any HOA group.

2) I am willing to take out the specific numbers but, they do refer to HOA people and the researcher refers to it as reflect Somali people being an intermediate. But, the general concept must remain to give people a better idea.

Medicineman84 (talk) 21:58, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

1) It does not matter if L3 is confined to Africa. It is highly divergent from lineages like L0 and L1 and should not be simply lumped together with them as if they have a recent origin (which is not the case). This provides little to no information regarding the Somali genetic ethnogenesis, which is what this page is about more or less. Your 70% L figure is simply wrong, it is closer to 50% (I checked the mutations of those 27 samples), there are a few lineages like K, X, I, N1a which are confused for L3 by your source.

2) I don’t like that entire passage; it is just extremely obsolete (1994). Many of Cavalli-Sforza's ideas in that study have been refuted with more modern approaches (I already showed you a few examples before).

Wadaad (talk) 22:10, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

1) Give me a source with more specifics then. There is some L2 in the Gene pool and L3 simply check out their Wiki pages for the source ! What we are starting to see is that the L2 and L3 found in different areas of Africa underwent different evolutionarry pressures but, it does not change any bigger picture. By saying Sub-Saharan L the fact is correct. The exact percentages are not known.

2) Some things are always the same. A-T G-C will always be the foundation of DNA. If one studies the angle that the DNA rings bends does that change the fundamentals of DNA??? NO! The core of the study is correct. The idea presented is correct. The standard for this page is providing a peer reviewed source which refutes the facts as listed. Which L's do Somalis have? L2, L3, and M1 That is what we know so far. Other studies site L1. If one considers the Sudanic origin of Somalis to be valid then, L2 is not be too shocking. The fact that L0 is not found in Somalis may indicate that the Sudanic origin theory has merit. L0 is very old and would only be carried by people who have lived in that location for a long time. Of course we don't know thus, everything is best left as it is. Namely, as it is, the intermediate theory is the best and should remain. Medicineman84 (talk) 22:25, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Watson et al.'s so-called L3 haplogroups are unresolved, as Richards et al. (2006) point out:

"There was a complication. The analysis of Watson et al. (1997) was based largely on control-region sequence data, which fails to resolve many mtDNA haplogroups. By targeting newly identified coding-region variants, Quintana-Murci et al. (1999) distinguished two major clades in non-Africans, within haplogroup L3. One of these had already been identified as the Asian super-haplogroup M (Torroni et al. 1994a); Quintana-Murci et al. (1999) showed that all other non-African L3 lineages fell into a second major clade, later named haplogroup N.

This means that they're almost certainly lineages that are located further down the mtDNA haplogroup tree, such as the Eurasian haplogroup M and haplogroup N sub-clades, not the more upstream haplogroup L3. Again, unless your goal is specifically to try and inflate the appearance of L3 lineages among Somalis (which aren't actually L3 lineages, but lineages belonging to haplogroups located further down the mtDNA haplogroup tree)

^This is a scientifically measurable and very logical response you have no information to refute this. Thus your figures based on the Watson Somalis is simply wrong.

2) Your Cavalli-Sforza quote has been refuted. I already showed examples on how he thought that Khoisan were closer to Europeans than other black Africans are. But this is not true. His work is very old and outdated. Wadaad (talk) 22:42, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

1) Thanks for the quote. But, proves nothing. If in 1999 this was discovered and valid show me a current study which shows N in any HOA population? Many studies have been done on HOA people since 1999 surely the researchers read this study thus, were is the evidence? What about the L2. We know for sure that exists thus, should it should be included. Namely we have a peer reviewed source for it. That is the standard here now.

2) Just because someone has wrong ideas does not indicate everything they believed was wrong lol.

Nothing should be removed unless it is to add info. The narrative we have going right now is:

- M1 is Asian(according to middle express)

- Some L's Exist in Somalis(L2 and L3 for sure) but, we don't know the percentages

- There may be more Asian haplogroups not listed but, we have no source to back this claim nor do we have any study which tells us even 1 Asian haplogroup.

What this is telling me is that we need a peer reviewed source

We could get rid of the genetics section all together since it is so controversial but, I think these debates are good. Medicineman84 (talk) 23:02, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I am getting tired of your illogical and constantly speculative responses. You haven't brought up anything new Wadaad (talk)

Related section

Please explain your edit here, Medicineman84. The groups currently listed are just the major ethnic groups within the Horn of Africa. I don't see any problem as to why they should be removed. Wadaad (talk) 20:23, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I removed them because, the relation was arbitrary. What makes people related.

If we set a criteria then, I will be willing to include the groups.

1)

2)

3)

4)

Tell me what determines if people are related and, we can put info together based on that. As it is right now it gives us no real info.

Medicineman84 (talk) 20:28, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

They are basically Cushitic speakers from the Horn of Africa. Habesha people used to speak a Cushitic language before they got Semitized.

Wadaad (talk) 20:31, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Are all the people who speak semetic languages related? With regard to the Amhara and Tigre people once they accepted a different language and religion they became a new people. Being related to people includes having some in group solidarity. Is there evidence of in group solidarity between these various peoples?

Medicineman84 (talk) 20:41, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I think you are being very picky here, which is not necessary. It is well documented by various anthropologists that the Habesha people underwent a historical language shift. They might have acquired admixture from intruding Semites but they are largely still of Cushitic origins. All Cushitic speakers have a common origin in the Horn of Africa.

Wadaad (talk) 20:46, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I think we should simply include those who speak Cushitic languages. Let us set the 4 criteria. Whatever you choose I will accept it and include all groups that meet the criteria.

Medicineman84 (talk)

It is just fine as it is, other ethnic pages like the Oromo one also link to the Somali page. Just leave things as they are.

Wadaad (talk) 20:58, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

The people you refer to as Habesha(sp) on the page written by an individual does seem to consider any in group solidarity with Somalis. Thus, what is the criteria for determining in group solidarity.

Medicineman84 (talk) 21:14, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I updated the section to include cushitic language speakers.

Medicineman84 (talk) 21:18, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm indifferent about the inclusion or exclusion of Habesha people in the related segment. I'm fine with them being left out.

Wadaad (talk) 21:20, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Good it seems the section may be resolved then.

Medicineman84 (talk) 12:39, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Autosomal DNA

I have already extensively documented [10] what is wrong with User:Medicineman84's edits (as has User:Wadaad above), so I will briefly address now what is wrong with the 'autosomal dna' material he has also added.

A passage was added to the article referencing an autosomal dna study from 1994 by the scientist Cavalli-Sforza. That study analysed a few ancestry-informative markers (AIM) in various world populations, including Somalis. However, later studies have shown that the fewer AIMs that are analysed, the more a given population's main admixture component is exaggerated [11]. In the case of Somalis, that overestimated admixture component would be Sub-Saharan.

"There was an inverse correlation between the number of AIMs used to estimate ancestry and mean and standard deviation of the error in ancestry estimation. Using AIMs, African ancestry was consistently overestimated, while the major ancestral component (European in Puerto Ricans and Native American in Mexicans) was systematically underestimated. Using 300 or fewer AIMS consistently produced a standard deviation of ancestry estimation error of 10% or greater... Our results illustrate significant error in the estimation of individual ancestry using AIMs. There is both systematic bias resulting in overestimation of African ancestry (and underestimation of other continental ancestry) and random error. Such error is inversely proportional to the number of AIMs used. These findings may have implications for genetic association studies where ancestry is used to control for population stratification as well as for studies examining associations of individual ancestry estimates with a phenotype." [12]

Based on these few AIMs, the author of the study grouped Somalis with the Khoisan, although later studies demonstrated that Somalis share very few markers with said groups. Numerous scholars have also criticized the paper for this reason; for example [13]:

"Similarly, Khoi and San populations cluster with a Somali sample (which itself is held to be out of place, given that Somali groups geographically sit within the Northern African range), while Sandawe clusters with populations from Senegambia and Hadza is an outlier between the two. Cavalli-Sforza et al. (1994:169–70, 174–77, 189–93) posit that especially San populations are the result of admixture between “Caucasoid” groups originating in Southwest Asia and African “Negroid” groups. This is supposed to be a different process of interaction across the Red Sea from the one that yielded the distinctive genetic and physical characteristics of Ethiopian populations; indeed, the San and Ethiopian peoples are held to be “similar to Caucasoids but... otherwise very different [from one another]” ( p. 191)... the Khoisan affiliations of Sandawe and/or Hadza are still disputed by some linguists, and in any case the available genetic data do not indicate a close relationship between Sandawe and Hadza people, on the one hand, and San and Somali people, on the other."

In fact, Cavalli-Sforza himself conceded [14] in the study that "the second outlier is a cluster of Khoisanids including Somali. This may be an error". It is therefore highly misleading to quote these old admixture estimates when numerous scholars including the author himself have indicated that they are erroneous and since only a handful of AIMs were analysed in the first place, which only serves to overestimate admixture. Middayexpress (talk) 02:21, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Excellent points here, I concur.Wadaad (talk) 04:19, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Why did you not post that rather than simply deleting it?? I thought we were all adults here?? I will remove that section now. Medicineman84 (talk) 11:55, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Your addition of the misleading autosomal section above is only a part of the problem, as already clearly explained to you by me in earlier discussions [15] and above by Wadaad. Since it seems you're going to continue to pretend that you have not understood our concerns regarding the original research and synthesis that you have added to the article, I shall repost part of my them again below. Middayexpress (talk) 19:54, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Man, these racial disputes are always the bitterest and ugliest on Wikipedia.

After briefly looking over this dispute, I'm taken by the highly technical nature of the content. I have a background in biochemistry, and once took a course in phylogenetics, and this content dispute is still above my head. Frankly, I wonder how many Wikipedia readers are going to be able to read and benefit from this material.

I think all three of the editors in this dispute need to sit down, consider WP:DR and possibly ask a neutral arbitrator to review this issue. NickCT (talk) 14:58, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, the issue (perhaps) is finding a neutral arbitrator who can understand this. One might ask, though, why it is important to demonstrate (other than, say, to geneticists) that a particular group is part of haplotype x, and/or is not part of group y etc. Speaking for myself, it comes off as a highly technical way of saying "Somalis are not like other Africans" and/or "Somalis are more like North Africans" (or Arabs, or Caucasians) and, again, one wonders why we need to say this at all? If it is (apparently) important that the reader does not confuse Somalis (or, more generally, East Africans) with other groups than why not also specify that Somalis are also not related to Koreans, Iroquois, or Sami? Again, this is how it reads, regardless of the intent behind the inclusion of genetic details. My $0.02, -- Gyrofrog (talk) 15:44, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't say that Somalis are also not related to Koreans, Iroquois or Sami because the sources themselves don't (ex. "east African groups, such as Ethiopians and Somalis, have great genetic resemblance to Caucasians and are clearly intermediate between sub-Saharan Africans and Caucasians" [16]). And the sources themselves don't say that because Somalis and Ethiopians are ancestrally descended from the same Out-of-Africa population in North East Africa that all non-Africans are also descended from [17]. Middayexpress (talk) 19:54, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

POV & OR

Below is a brief recapitulation of some of the original research, synthesis and generally misleading material that User:Medicineman84 has attempted to add to the article without regard to consensus.

mtDNA

Contrary to what you've claimed, the various L haplogroups do not make up the majority of the Somali mtDNA profile. You are basing this on two old studies from the mid-1990s by Watson et al. that use the same Somali sample. This Somali sample was not taken from Somalia but from Kenya (the study states [18] that "blood samples were collected from unrelated individuals at hospitals and rural medical clinics in Kenya, Nigeria, and Niger"). Many of the Somali-speaking peoples in Kenya, however, are not actually ethnically Somali, but other peoples (mainly from other Cushitic groups, Oromos in particualr) who have simply adopted the Somali language and culture [19]. This includes the Garre, Gabra and Sakuya who inhabit the Somali-Oromo border area in the North Eastern Province:

"There is still a whole series of ethnic groups in the Somali-Oromo border area who now describe themselves as Somali but were formerly considered to belong to the Oromo (the Gurra, Garri, Gabra and Sakuya) and who provide an instructive example of culture transfer and assimilation. today a single family tree unites all Somali with each group having its place within the common genealogy."

To complicate matters further, Watson et al. (1997) did not resolve many haplogroups Somalis had. As Richards et al. (2006) point out [20]:

"There was a complication. The analysis of Watson et al. (1997) was based largely on control-region sequence data, which fails to resolve many mtDNA haplogroups. By targeting newly identified coding-region variants, Quintana-Murci et al. (1999) distinguished two major clades in non-Africans, within haplogroup L3. One of these had already been identified as the Asian super-haplogroup M (Torroni et al. 1994a); Quintana-Murci et al. (1999) showed that all other non-African L3 lineages fell into a second major clade, later named haplogroup N.

In other words, Watson et al. (1997) mislabels many haplogroups as L3, when in reality they're almost certainly lineages that are located further down the mtDNA haplogroup tree (such as the Eurasian haplogroup M and haplogroup N sub-clades, not the more upstream haplogroup L3). This is hugely significant because L3 in Watson's study represented like 70% of the Somali maternal lineages. That's practically the entire sample set that's distorted. Richards et al. also explain in that link that all non-Africans are descended from L3 clades, so that only makes it that much more significant. Unless your goal is specifically to try and inflate the appearance of L3 lineages among Somalis (which aren't actually L3 lineages, but lineages belonging to haplogroups located further down the mtDNA haplogroup tree), then you'll just have to be patient until a proper study on the mtDNA of actual Somalis is published. Attempting to use an old study based on unresolved haplogroups (which was drawn from a sample with many non-ethnically Somali peoples in it to boot) is highly misleading. Middayexpress (talk) 19:54, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

General comments

Figure 2 on page 5 of Wood et al. (2005) [21] makes it clear that E1b1b1a/E-M78 is not characteristic of Nilo-Saharan (not just the Maasai), Niger Congo and Khoisan groups in general; within Africa, the clade is common only amongst Afro-Asiatic groups.

I also unfortunately did not criticize “sample sizes” (though I easily could have) with regard to the mtDNA studies, but other factors (where and from which peoples the samples were culled, unresolved haplogroups, etc.) citing actual papers that directly address them. The Holden study also does not indicate how much L2 (if any) there was. In fact, the study groups Somalis with Libyans based on their mutually shared significant frequencies of the M1 mtDNA haplogroup versus the representative Sub-Saharan Africans that clustered apart specifically because their mtDNA consisted almost entirely of the L1 or L2 haplogroups only.

You also claimed that "overall people similar to Somalis may have populated the word in the world maternally via the Haplogroup L3 (mtDNA) found in the Somali genepool" and attributed it to this paper by Tishkoff et al. [22], when that is not at all what the authors state. They do not say that people similar to the modern Somalis may have populated the world or even mention haplogroup L3; that is original research. What the authors actually state is that Somalis and Ethiopians are biologically intermediate between sub-Saharan African and non-African populations and that they, along with all non-Africans, descended from the Out-of-Africa population that had already diverged from the ancestors of other Africans:

"The most distinct separation is between African and non-African populations. The northeastern-African -- that is, the Ethiopian and Somali -- populations are located centrally between sub-Saharan African and non-African populations... The fact that the Ethiopians and Somalis have a subset of the sub-Saharan African haplotype diversity -- and that the non-African populations have a subset of the diversity present in Ethiopians and Somalis -- makes simple-admixture models less likely; rather, these observations support the hypothesis proposed by other nuclear-genetic studies (Tishkoff et al. 1996a, 1998a, 1998b; Kidd et al. 1998) -- that populations in northeastern Africa may have diverged from those in the rest of sub-Saharan Africa early in the history of modern African populations and that a subset of this northeastern-African population migrated out of Africa and populated the rest of the globe. These conclusions are supported by recent mtDNA analysis (Quintana-Murci et al. 1999)."

Tishkoff also re-asserted this fact in a more recent study, where she indicated that later periods of gene flow had also taken place between said populations [23]. I'm sure you were already aware of this too since you replaced that quote above showing what the authors actually state (which was already in the article) with your own misleading interpretation.

The fact remains that the material you have added to the Y DNA section is appallingly misleading. You have attempted to relate Somalis to other biologically unrelated populations by now claiming that “Somalis like a majority of Africans are predominantly of Haplogroup E (Y-DNA) origin paternally”. Firstly, Somalis do not have most mutations in that haplogroup, including the main M2 marker that defines the haplogroup E1b1a that the “majority of Africans” do actually have. Most Somalis – like most North Africans, and many coastal Levantine, Mediterranean and Balkan populations – belong to haplogroup E1b1b, not to any other E clades. Your cited sources (viz. [24], [25]) don’t even mention Somalis. In fact, one of them is a map showing estimated (not actual) frequencies of haplogroup E as a whole, and taken from a commercial genetic firm no less; the map is on the same page as another map [26] showing the estimated frequencies of the E1b1b haplogroup that Somalis do actually belong to – a map that clearly shows that within Africa, it is mainly in the North and the Horn where E1b1b is found (and which you tellingly did not link to). Whatever the case, the forgoing is a clear example of synthesis per WP:SYNTH.

You have also again attempted to relate the Nilo-Saharan Masalit and Fur to the Somalis, although the authors of that study [27] themselves do not nor do they even mention Somalis. Instead, they clearly state that:

• E-M78/E1b1b1a was introduced into those Nilo-Saharan populations from its place of origin in North Africa.
• the presence of E1b1b1a in the Masalit was probably due to a recent population bottleneck event. By referring to a population bottleneck, what they're actually saying is that the Masalit probably had various other haplogroups in the past but something cataclysmic happened to those clade-bearers (such as disease, famine, war, drought, natural disaster) so that a disproportionately high number of E1b1ba clade bearers were left. In other words, the Masalit until recently did not have high frequencies of the clade, contrary to what you’ve insinuated in the article.
• based on their notable frequencies of the haplogroup, linguistic affinities and other factors, the authors relate the Beja of Eastern Sudan with the populations in the Horn, not the Masalit or any other Nilo-Saharan or Nilotic peoples:

"the distribution of M78 subclades (Table 2) indicates that the Beja are perhaps related as well to the Oromo on the basis of the considerable frequencies of E-V32 among Oromo in comparison to Amhara (Cruciani et al., 2007). These findings affirm the historical contact between Ethiopia and eastern Sudan (Hassan, 1968, 1973; Passarino et al., 1998), and the fact that these populations speak languages of the Afro-Asiatic family tree reinforces the strong correlatio between linguistic and genetic diversity"

Your edits here are therefore another example of synthesis.

You have also claimed that “according to Y chromosome studies by Sanchez et al. (2005) and Cruciani et al. (2004), the Somalis are also paternally closely related to the Borana Oromo people and somewhat related to certain Ethiopian groups, particularly Cushitic speakers”. In actuality, Sanchez et al. indicate that Somalis are paternally “closely related to the Oromos in Ethiopia and North Kenya”, not just the Borana Oromo sub-group as you’ve implied and attempted to highlight. They also indicate that “the majority of Y chromosomes found in populations in Egypt, Sudan, Ethiopia and Oromos in Somalia and North Kenya (Boranas) belong to haplogroup E3b1 defined by the Y chromosome marker M78”, that Somalis most belong to “a special branch of E3b1” (i.e. E-V32) which is “almost absent in populations outside the Horn of Africa”, and that therefore “the male Somali population is a branch of the East African population” – not to a massive “African” population as you have attempted to imply.

The forgoing misrepresentations or outright untruths are unacceptable. Middayexpress (talk) 19:54, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Points to solve

New standard... No more books! We are all busy and don't have time to read books thus, make bullet points. 1 issues at a time. I am willing to let Wadaad mediate. What he/she decides goes...

First issue to solve.

Maslit and Fur DNA

1) Due to a bottleneck Or Proximity to its area of origin. - There are clearly 2 options raised. Are we to decide which one is more feasible? Under what credibility can we do that? - If the parent came from Libya or Egypt which one seems more feasible? Are we to decide? - Synthesis argument makes no sense because the whole article as it is written is synthesis. Let any objective person read it(if they can understand it) and, what is being promoted is pretty obvious.Medicineman84 (talk)

You are getting ahead of yourself. As pointed out several times now, the Hassan et al. study [28] does not even mention Somalis; so trying to invalidate the author's clear reference to the Masalit bottleneck is putting the cart before the proverbial horse. That means that your assertion that "Somalis are specifically predominantly of the (E-V32) haplogroup. This makes Somalis paternally closely related to the Nilo-Saharan Masalit and Fur people of Sudan who possess the (E-V32) among the highest rate in the world" is practically a textbook example of WP:SYNTHESIS since synthesis involves joining phrases in such a way that they advance an argument which the sources themselves never advance:

Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources. This would be a synthesis of published material to advance a new position, which is original research. "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published the same argument in relation to the topic of the article.

If, on the other hand, you believe other sentences are synthesis, explain which ones and why (as I've done above with yours) and we'll see if you have a point. Middayexpress (talk) 17:59, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

It's as simple as that, clear case of synthesis. Now let's all move on.Wadaad (talk) 22:07, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Now Wadaad I expect you to be objective... lol...

1) I accept it may be synthesis as written and should be rewritten. I still believe it be included since they possess it at rates higher than some groups named in the writing. With a statement such as Somalis of EV32 in Origin and the Masilit and Fur(M/F) posses that Haplogroup to the highest extent. Saying its found in Sudanese does not give the true picture. EV32 is found in limited populations and it seems dishonest to not at least name the (M/F). Saying Ethiopians and Sudanese as a general statement is also deceptive because, these are diverse countries Sure Ev32 is found in basically every tribes Genepool in Sudan according to the Hassan paper but, the level of it in the M/F makes it worth mentioning as a special case.

Don't mention bottle neck b/c it is a theory. Just like proximity of origin is a theory.

Medicineman84 (talk) 23:51, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Somalis have the highest frequency of V32 in the world (from what is known), not the Masalit. In Hassan et al's study 17 out of 32 (53%) sample Masalit Darfurians had V32[29]. Hassan indicates those few haplotypes are highly bottlenecked.

In the Sanchez et al's study with 201 sample Somalis from Denmark (much larger dataset and more reliable) 151 out of 201 (75%) had V32 STR haplotypes[30]. The author here does not mention Somalis being extremely bottlenecked on the y-Chromosome. Tillmar et al. tested 147 Somali men from Sweden, 113 out of 147 (77%) had V32 STR haplotypes[31].

As you can see, two studies have replicated a similar effect in Somalis. A larger dataset of Masalit men (let's say over 100) from various clans (not just from the same village) would surely not produce the levels of V32 as Somalis but a lot of haplogroup A3b (Nilotic) would show up more (which has a frequency of less than 0.5% in Somalis but in Masalit it was over 18.75%[32].

If Darfur truly was the place of origin of V32 and men carrying V32 migrated from there to the Horn of Africa, which I highly doubt. We would find much more Nilotic A3b in Somalis, but they do not carry it.

In my opinion, V32 likely originated in Southern Egypt (since its parent clade V12 is much more diverse there), split in two branches, one headed to the Sahara/Northwestern Sudan and the other to Eritrea/Beja lands (this latter group of men likely subsequently migrated to present-day Somalia). But that's just my opinion for now, deeper sub-clade analyses (through full y-Chromosome scans) would show this in the near future. Wadaad (talk) 02:15, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

no probably stuff here lol. You don't know thus, don't guess!!

SO the highest rates are

1) Somali 2) Borana Oromo 3) Maslit and Fur

This is not really the place to debate what may or may not have happened. The parent subclade is found in Egyp. Where the mutation happened is unknown but, looking at the rates we have it was either 1 2 or 3. This is so b/c the actual EV32 which is found in Somalis is not found in Egypt thus, it happened out of Egypt/North Africa proper.

This article with regard to the Y DNA we are debating is Fraudulently written because the most recent research has narrowed down who Somalis can paternally be related to. The E1b1b1 that was found in Somalis in 2005 is now EV32 after further research. Thus, the article should focus on EV32.

Why dance around the facts when more recent facts are known(could this be a case of synthesis on the part of the writer attempting to relate people who split 5000-10000 years ago- I was accused of that when I simply stated that All Africans have a common ancestor with regard to E DNA which is unique on the DNA family tree).Back on topic, the Mutation for EV32 by virtue of where it is found today happened outside of "North Africa proper" this was 5000-8000 years ago thus, why beat around the Bush?

The article could mention the parent M78 V12 but, the Y DNA section should mainly focus on EV32. As it is, the article is deceptive. Berbers are not Even of M78 origin but, Berbers some how found their way in to the Y DNA section. No mediterranean or Balkan Europeans carry EV32!

How did they find their way in it? EV32 must be mentioned and be the main focus.

When EV32 is the main focus, the article would inevitably have to include the people Somalis share Y DNA with most and, will give a better picture since these people are a limited tribes in Sudan Ethiopian and Somalia.

Medicineman84 (talk) 04:34, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

I don’t get where you got the idea that V32 isn’t found in Egypt. It is found at 3% in Egypt (see Cruciani et al). 3% of Egyptians (~82 million people) is still a big number. That means that roughly ~2.5 million Egyptians trace their ancestry through a V32 paternal line.

Out of the few participants in the E-M35 genetic project there is also an Egyptian user with V32+[33].

There are also regions within Egypt which haven’t been targeted yet by studies, who possibly have a much higher V32 frequency. Also, V12 (parent of V32) in ancestral form is found in 44% of Southern Egyptians (see Cruciani et al).

M78 the ancestor of V12+V32+ is key to understand how V32 got in Somalia (from the North), so no, removing all M78 information only devalues the article. Wadaad (talk) 06:18, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

3 percent is insignificant scientifically speaking. Even the study quoted in my reverted edit showed via tone that the number was insignificant. It means 97 percent is not it(this is obvious but I am writing it to magnify the enormity of the number). ~80 million is not related etc etc. Thus, not mentioning E-V32 and looking back 1000's of years to include groups that separated from Somalis thousands of years ago(Berbers) is equivalent to me Stating (Somalis like most modern Africans North to South are predominantly oF E DNA origion). It was a true fact but, you guys slammed me for saying it. Sure it gives no hints apart form the fact that most Africans within the last 40,000 years lived in East Africa but, it was in line with what has been done here thus, I am shocked the error in the way this article is written was not seen as congruent with that statement.

This is what we know for certain

1) Somalis are a North African people who occupied Egypt/Libya prior to the creating of the civilization there. 2) Something caused Somalis to leave Egypt/Libya and a mutation happened along the way. What caused them to leave? we don't know!! Maybe Somali Oral history could tell us. 3) Today we are finding out more people who left around the same time. 70 percent of the Borana, 50 percent of the M/F 30 percent of the Oromo and 30 percent of the Beja etc etc

Thus, the article should focus more along this line w/ regard to Y DNA. EV32 must be the emphasis.

I also suggest simplifying the language since as said before only people who understand genetics will be able to even comprehend these writings. This means that it needs to be simplified.

Medicineman84 (talk) 09:04, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

The yDNA text is written in a simple and understandable manner. It also links to the E1b1b1a page, which has a lot more information if the user is interested in finding out more, he or she can go there. The only technical part of the Somali genetics section is the HLA antigen part.Wadaad (talk) 17:15, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

No, Medicineman84. As already explained, stating that many North Africans and Mediterranean and Balkan Europeans carry E1b1b1a/E3b1 is not equivalent to stating that Somalis, like many other Africans, belong to the larger E clade because most Africans that belong to the larger E clade specifically belong to the E1b1a haplogroup (the most common haplogroup in Sub-Saharan Africa) whose defining M2 marker is carried by only about 1.5% of Somalis. By contrast, almost 80% of Somalis carry the M35 mutation that defines haplogroup E1b1b, as well as further mutations down the haplogroup E phylogeny, such as the M78 marker that defines its E1b1b1a sub-clade (a clade which many North Africans & Europeans do indeed belong to -- it originated in & dispersed from North Africa). This is why the Sanchez et al. paper [34] on the Somali Y DNA indicates that “the majority of Y chromosomes found in populations in Egypt, Sudan, Ethiopia and Oromos in Somalia and North Kenya (Boranas) belong to haplogroup E3b1 defined by the Y chromosome marker M78”, but does not mention haplogroup E as a whole: because only the former is immediately relevant. This is also why that study states that most Somalis belong to “a special branch of E3b1” (i.e. E-V32) which is “almost absent in populations outside the Horn of Africa”, and that therefore “the male Somali population is a branch of the East African population” – not to a massive, undifferentiated “African” population as you have attempted to imply. The "East African population" that the study emphasizes is defined by E-M78, not E-V32; the latter is just a branch of it, which, per the study, is characteristic of Horn populations, not Sudanese Nilotes. The passage in question therefore indeed emphasizes the exact clades that the study itself does.

The fact remains that the Hassan et al. paper [35] does not even mention Somalis, so trying to invalidate its clear assertions that (a) E-M78/E1b1b1a was introduced into those Nilo-Saharan populations from its place of origin in North Africa (that is what they mean by the Masalit were situated near the origin of the haplogroup), and (b) the Masalit's modern frequencies of the haplogroup are specifically due to a recent population bottleneck, to put it mildly. The material is still unfortunately synthesis and will continue to be as long as the paper does not even mention Somalis, let alone relate them to the Masalit, Fur et al. as you've attempted to do.

That said, I agree with Wadaad that the only somewhat technical part in the section is the HLA sub-section. This is therefore an area where there is room for compromise. Middayexpress (talk) 19:05, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

What is the point of repeating the same thing over and over lol. Why are you opening the net to include people who separated 1000's of years ago? It's an exaggeration. If the standard is going to be mentioning those who are most related today then, it has to start with EV32! Most Somalis have a mutation which renders them EV32 thus, opening the net for older mutations which differentiated people not mattering!!! Once again, EV32 the real origin of Somalis is not mentioned directly. It's an embarrassment and will only cause confusion for those who don't understand genetics. No need to dance around the real facts. The topic sentence should clearly state somalis are of EV32 ancestry rather than dancing around facts...

I am willing to let this go for now but, I strongly disagree with how the section is written and if I had no knowledge and I read it as is, I would read it as Somalis are the same people as. Sudanese, Egyptians, Berbers, North African Arabs, as well as many Mediterranean and Balkan Europeans. A fact which is false and a huge exaggeration of the real facts lol.

Medicineman84 (talk) 21:08, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

The article does not state that Somalis are the "same people" as all of the populations you listed above; it states that they belong to the same E1b1b1a haplogroup that defines many of these populations (that's without a recent bottleneck effect, unlike the Masalit). Further, Sanchez et al. themselves state that Somalis are a branch (viz. E-V32) of the 'East African population', the latter of which they equate with the E1b1b1a/E-M78 haplogroup. It's that East African population/E1b1b1a, not E-V32 that they emphasize. They also don't mention the Masalit, Fur, etc., nor do Hassan et al. mention Somalis. Those are still unfortunately OR arguments and will forever more be, whether or not you've accepted the material "for now". Middayexpress (talk) 21:31, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

You're not objective... I hate to say this but, this is what I am starting to see. The article clearly implies many things to the layman who does not understand genetics. BTW, The Hassan 2008 article clearly said, a POSSIBLE Bottleneck w/ regard to the M/F. It's a theory with no evidence to support it. If you have the evidence post it here. It also indicates a location CLOSE TO ITS AREA OF ORIGIN. I type if caps because you always forget that point. No more reference to the M/F because your statements show you are not ready for a productive erudite debate rooted in facts.

You know as well as I do that EV32 is what should be mentioned for the article to be useful to the common people it is targeted towad.

Most people who would be interested in the genetics section would be interested b/c they would want to know why Somalis look different from other Sub-Saharan Africans.

This article does not explain it well and rather creates more confusion b/c of many holes in the genetics section.

The genetics section should simply state Somalis originated in North Africa prior to the "Egyptian civilization" era and are ancient North Africans. It should also explain that somalis were the first people to reach East Africa which was largely unoccupied. This is the real info which helps people understand things not this technical mumbo jumbo dancing and around facts... It does not have to mention any ethnic groups who Somalis share DNA with 5000-20,0000 years ago b/c the tie to all these groups are too long ago(by your own standards). The EV32 found in Somalis is not really Oromo DNA or Beja DNA it just makes up a small portion of all these groups(less than 40 percent) so, it is not worth mentioning them unless one is going to list the percentages if one is to mention the percentages then, the M/F must be mentioned also lol.

The main message is keep it simple. Write it so the "common man" that this is targeted toward can understand it.

My previous edits were to try to show that evolutionarily all Africans had a common ancestor at some point but, due to environmental and other changes additional mutations came about to create new different people. Somalis did not take the path of the people who later became dominant on the continent the Western African people who in their migration out of East Africa were E1b1 originated experienced evolutionary pressures which created E1b1a. While the E1b1 that stayed and moved to North Africa experienced evolutionary pressures which brought fourth E1b1b.

Evolutionary pressure within the E1b1b eventually created M81- Berbers and M78 North East Africans. For Somalis specifically within the M78 evolutionary pressures further created EV-32.

This article does not give the common man those facts. It has too many holes and it seems you either lack a solid background in this or, are being mischievous on purpose lol hahaha. This has become the danger of wikipedia namely giving half of the info and being taken over by 1 or 2 people with an agenda who have mastered the system and know how to get knowledgeable people banned to keep the status quo permanent Medicineman84 (talk) 00:12, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

You are confusing haplogroups with total genomic ancestry. Just because Somalis are high in E-M78 does not mean a presumable North African tribe completely replaced the original inhabitants of Somalia. There is no evidence for that at all.

Chadic speakers in Northern Cameroon and Northern Nigeria can have frequencies of R1b at 95% [which is said to be Central Asian in origin]. Yet their autosomal genetic DNA isn’t very different from neighboring tribes who lack R1b or have very low levels of it.

Same goes for Somalis, they are likely not very different from the neighboring Ethiopians despite perhaps a different y-Chromosomal haplogoup composition. Wadaad (talk) 07:09, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Rude, personally-directed comments like what you've again posted above (ex. "your statements show you are not ready for a productive erudite debate rooted in facts") will unfortunately not get you anywhere but one step closer to another block. Per WP:NPA: "Do not make personal attacks anywhere in Wikipedia. Comment on content, not on the contributor. Personal attacks do not help make a point; they only hurt the Wikipedia community and deter users from helping to create a good encyclopedia. Derogatory comments about another contributor may be removed by any editor. Repeated or egregious personal attacks may lead to blocks."

That ad hominem remark above is also a most ironic statement on your part, given the fact that I'm the only one that has actually backed up what I write with direct references to and quotes from the study(ies) in question. And I can do that because the studies themselves directly support me, as repeatedly demonstrated above. For example, you bring up the Masalit and Fur yet again, when it has already been explained to you that (a) E-M78/E1b1b1a was introduced into those Nilo-Saharan populations from its place of origin in North Africa (that is what the authors mean by the Masalit were situated near the origin of the haplogroup), and (b) the Masalit's modern frequencies of the haplogroup are specifically due to a recent population bottleneck is getting ahead of oneself. But this does not really matter anyway since Somalis are not even mentioned in the study to begin with, thus making your attempts to link them to the Masalit and other Nilotes complete synthesis.

Furthermore, the Oromos and other neighboring groups are mentioned because, as already explained, the Sanchez et al. study [36] itself explicitly positions Somalis within a larger "East African population" that includes them too based on notable shared frequencies of the E1b1b1a/E-M78 haplogroup. It unfortunately does not place them in a larger "African population" based on haplogroup E as you've done. More below on this point. Middayexpress (talk) 19:16, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

lol. I know what the total gene pools is. It's called Autosomal DNA which is what I tried to post but, was shot down lol for flimsy reasons that I accepted to end the issue. w/ regard to other things you mention. I did not say that. I even indicated that Somalis were among the first tribe to migrate to the East African area and were there prior to E1b1a back migrating to East Africa from Western Africa while also there likely before the A Haplogroup carriers but, we are not sure of that. All in all Somalia was most likely unoccupied or maybe sparsely occupied but, probably not Ethiopia when one looks at the level of A haplogroup in the gene pool.

You still did not answer the main point of my post w/ regard to simplifying the info.

Medicineman84 (talk) 10:05, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

There's nothing to be simplified regarding the y and mt section. You might have a point about the HLA antigen section.

Wadaad (talk) 18:50, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Your references above to haplogroups E1b1a and A are irrelevant since Somalis for the most part do not even carry those haplogroups. The autosomal DNA (like just about all you've posted) was also already proven to be unreliable and via actual quotes, including from the author of the study himself. Middayexpress (talk) 19:16, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

What??? lol you hate me and I hate you too. Guess that makes 2. Don't respond to my comments if you are going to lie and insult me.

Medicineman84 (talk) 02:57, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Somali T DNA

TDNA has the highest distribution in North Western Somalia reaching what appears to be 50 percent. This would coincide with the Arabic origin claimed by Some Somalis

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_T_%28Y-DNA%29

Why is T DNA's distribution within Somalia not mentioned?? Medicineman84 (talk) 10:13, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

There is no academic information regarding the distribution of T within Somalia. All we know about Somali T yDNA comes from two studies. First being Sanchez et al. who tested 201 Somali men in Denmark 21 out of 201 were T (10.4%) and the other of being from Immel et al. who tested self-identified Arabs from Somalia living in Yemen, 7 out of 33 (21.2%) belonged to haplogroup T. This second study can't be used on this page because it didn't explicitly state if these men were ethnic Somalis.

For your information, most Somali T STR haplotypes are closer to Egyptian ones than to Arabian haplotypes (T is very rare in Yemeni Arabs).Haplogroup T likely entered Somalia through the same population as the V32 group. Haplogroup T is even occasionally found very deep in Africa, places like Zambia and Tanzania at low frequncies (see Filippo et al.), it represents a very old back-migration, nothing recent. Wadaad (talk) 17:53, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

No theory just facts lol...

This is not the place to criticize samples. That is why I think those who control this page are biased. Data that does not fit the narrative is thrown out on flimsy excuses like "sample size bias" and, studies that fit the narrative of the Arthur are included. This renders this page worthless. If anything it is misinforming the public. Medicineman84 (talk) 03:11, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

What the hell are you talking about? You asked about the distribution of T within Somalia and I gave you the correct information (that there isn't any academic source for that).

Stop flooding this talk page with nonsense, if you have nothing to add of value. Wadaad (talk) 04:50, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Giving good background info

Why is E DNA not mentioned or alternatively and more relevant E1b1 which diverged b/w 27000-35000 years ago to form the Majority of the african people E1b1b and E1b1a?

It would certainly add something to the article and show that the migration from North Africa back to Eastern Africa was a back migration.

Medicineman84 (talk) 10:13, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Haplogroup E is over 50,000 years old. It does not provide much information.

I dislike the way they gave haplogroups letters. It gives the illusion that all of E is close and that R and Q are completely unrelated for example, while this is not the case.

E1b1b (M35 - Mainly found in Afro-Asiatic speakers) and E1b1a (M2 - most common marker of Niger-Congo speakers) are phylogenetically more distant than haplogroup R and Q (Europeans and Native Americans) or for that matter haplogroup N and O (Finns and Indonesians) are.

E1b1b (M35) overlaps with the distribution of Afro-Asiatic speakers and does provide ethno-linguistic correlating information. Wadaad (talk) 18:31, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Well said. Another reason why haplogroup E is not cited (and which I've tried to explain to the user above several times now) is the fact that Somalis do not have most mutations in that haplogroup to begin with, including the main M2 marker that defines the haplogroup E1b1a that the majority of Africans do actually have. Most Somalis, like many other Afro-Asiatic speakers on the continent, belong to haplogroup E1b1b, not to any other E clades. This is what is cited in the studies themselves, and therefore in the article too. Middayexpress (talk) 19:16, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Both of you need to go through the tree again and review. lol Before anything is classified as it is there must be a specific mutation. lol. review here

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

When I said somalis belonged to E I was not refering to E1b1a but, to the evolutionary tree.

E is defined to start a certain point and evolves overtime.

There is a good review on the haplogroup page if you don't fully understand the concept...

The special feature that both Y chromosomes and mtDNA display is that mutations can accrue along a certain segment of both molecules and these mutations remain fixed in place on the DNA. Furthermore the historical sequence of these mutations can also be inferred. For example, if a set of ten Y chromosomes (derived from ten different men) contains a mutation, A, but only five of these chromosomes contain a second mutation, B, it must be the case that mutation B occurred after mutation A. Furthermore all ten men who carry the chromosome with mutation A are the direct male line descendants of the same man who was the first person to carry this mutation. The first man to carry mutation B was also a direct male line descendant of this man, but is also the direct male line ancestor of all men carrying mutation B. Series of mutations such as this form molecular lineages. Furthermore each mutation defines a set of specific Y chromosomes called a haplogroup.

Overall, I think E1b1 should be mentioned since it is the direct ancestor to E1b1b or, gave rise to it. If you cannot understand that then, you cannot call your self a student of the Haplogroup theory.

E1b1 continues to get studied, interesting paper.... http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3017091/

That is 30,000 years old!

Overall, you have a flimsy understanding of all of this. Wadaad too to a lesser extent though.

This theory is about evolution and how different populations evolved over time.

For any group to be deemed to be a member of a haplogroup a mutation has to define it.

but, mutations continue to happen for example, every member of E would have the full DNA sequence that defines DE CT and BT....

Medicineman84 (talk) 04:12, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

This page is about the Somali ethnic group, not the phylogenetic history of E.

You are becoming extremely repetitive, please tell us something we don't already know.

Wadaad (talk) 04:53, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I admit a mistake in writing

I should not have said Origin b/c the word is confusing. I should have said EVOLVED FROM.

My language was not as clear but, you get the point. This theory is about evolution. I think that bigger picture is missed when we are discussing things here.

Medicineman84 (talk) 04:17, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

You are flooding this page with unnecessary information. Wadaad (talk) 05:03, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Well I feel the need to give this education to make the thought process behind what I think made more clear. That way the gap b/w us closes. I have read all you guys have posted but, none of it gets at the core of what I have been saying thus, I feel the need to give a "review course"...

Any person carrying the mutation which defines the haplogroup E1b1 evolved from an African who existed 30,000 years ago. That is all I stated admittedly not stylistically.

The evolutionary theory applies to the HLA antigens thing and, that is why I asked I asked for it to be cleared up initially. Namely, it makes sense that Somalis would not have the same HLA Antigens as West Africans(the group I am assuming they were tested against). This is so because, When E1b1 evolved to E1b1a the conditions that took him to Western Africa were different and shaped what the HLA antigens were. The HLA antigens especially reflect the evolutionary pressures one faces.

In the end, all of this is about Evolution which is defined by the pressures one faces.

I think that point is missed many times on this page were things are often viewed in categories rather than in a fluid comprehensive manner.

I will state that everything I have posted was to try to add more understanding for the common reader.

Medicineman84 (talk) 08:06, 2 March 2011 (UTC)