Why have you turned this into an argument when clearly you've never read a single study like this before? You could've just asked me questions instead of accusing me of all sorts of things and forcing me to explain the most basic things about scientific studies and DNA testing to you. It's clear to me that you really want to be genetically close to Iberia and not the Arabian peninsula, or something bizarrely stupid like that, because otherwise you wouldn't have launched into a defense of 20-year old genetic studies when you don't know your ass from your face with the studies.
> Even the studies you have linked refer to old studies as old as 1980s
.
> Again the date of publication of the study does not matter, the results they have found if tested today will still give the same results and in fact that study is still cited today (studies as recent as 2017)
For the love of God... this is called a literature review. Every single study you see will have a literature review. They *have* to cite the pre-existing literature. It doesn't mean they agree with it. It doesn't mean they found it valuable or informative. Even in my graduate degree in the social sciences we first submitted a review of the literature, and then in the final paper you just refer to the author's names and dates of publication. You will see this formula in every single study:
*Previous studies have shown that X (Author A (Year), Author B (Year), Author C (Year). However, our results seem to confirm the results of Author D (Year) and Author E (Year).*
And since we're on the topic of scientific studies, let me make it clear: all my quotes are from the Discussion or Conclusion sections. Every paper has an Abstract, Introduction, Materials and Methods, Results, Discussion, and sometimes a Conclusion after the Discussion.
Often, the arguments cited in the introduction are completely contradicted in the conclusion or discussion sections. This is why I quoted those. You quoted randomly. The perfect example of this is the Microstructure In Tunisia paper that you're ranting about. Their conclusion contradicts the literature review. In the introduction they state:
"As geographic barriers are less important in Tunisia than in Morocco and Algeria, Tunisia suffered the strongest Arabization process....In spite of this, all the population genetics analyses carried on in Tunisia, using different markers and Arab or Berber speaking ethnic groups, *have evidenced a strong genetic structure weakly affected by the Arab domination.3, 4, 5, 6"* - Ie: this is what I said in my comment to you. Earlier studies showed weak Arabic influence because Berbers and Arabs in N.A. clustered together. Now they are showing the opposite.
You found that quote and others from the introduction that you copied willy nilly thinking you've made some huge rebuttal. Again: they are reviewing the literature. In the conclusion they show that they disagree completely with that literature. I quote the conclusion: **These data suggest that the demic impact of the Arab rule, at least in Tunisia, could be higher than that previously supposed.** - Do you know what demic means? It means mass migration of people. It's also in the conclusion that they argue that nearly 40% of male-contributed DNA in Tunisia comes from Arabia. Ie: what they're saying is that the previous literature claimed Arabization was cultural, and our results show that it wasn't cultural but involved mass migration. This is the same conclusion that the other papers I listed arrive at.
Do you now understand the difference between an introduction, literature review, and conclusion? You can't wildly copy-paste things if you don't know what's going on in the paper.
> then please breakdown the science in a paper showing me scientifically how those studies no longer apply or are "simplistic" and "not sophisticated" and I will happily read it when it gets peer-reviewed.
Do you know the difference between a haplogroup, SNPs, and STRs? Do you know how they calculate genetic distance? Do you know what MtDNA and autosomal mean? Do you know what they mean by genetic diversity? I'm not a geneticist, and there's plenty that goes over my head. But I've been following these studies long enough to know a few things.
Look, 20 years ago these tests were extremely expensive. Today if you go to Family Tree DNA, you can buy Y-Haplogroup tests. A few years ago you could buy tests that gave you 12 or 25 STRs and these were largely worthless. Today the cheapest one is a 37-marker test, and the experts go for the 500-marker test which costs $650. If you open some genetic studies from the early 2000s, you'll find that they often only looked at haplogroups. And when they measured genetic distance, all they were doing was comparing the frequency of haplogroups. That's it. Nowadays they do much more advanced STR typing and genetic distance calculations. For example, look at *Y-chromosome DNA Haplotypes in North African Populations* (Lucotte, 2000). Morocco as X% and Egypt has Y% of this or that haplogroup. That's all.
Studies have become far more nuanced in where they collect the data. 20 years ago they would get 50 samples from Cairo to represent Egypt. Now studies are looking at individual cities in Egypt, and individual villages for Berbers. This is giving more nuanced results, as I already told you. They are also collecting far more samples than they did 20 years ago, because the cost of testing is cheaper. So compare *Y-Chromosome Analysis in Egypt Suggests a Genetic Regional Continuity in Northeastern Africa* (Manni, 2002) to the paper I posted on Gurna, or the Microstructure paper you are ranting about on Tunisia. Manni's paper from 2002 looked at 63 people from Cairo and compares haplogroups with other countries. The Gurna paper takes samples from cities across Egypt, and the Microstructure paper on Tunisia does the same, with even more careful selection by ethnicity, by village size, and by Mtdna and y-dna screening. The modern tests are looking at far more STRs than the ones 20 years ago. STRs are useful because they change rapidly. Haplogroups are much deeper in time.
>Guess what? This study looks at haplotypes and therefore haplogroups. "Mitochondrial haplotypes and their haplogroup assignation for the Berber samples analyzed in this study".
>Haplotypes just means group of genes inherited from a single parent. Which means practically every genetic study deals with them.
>Do you realize this actually supports what I'm saying and the study contradicts your points?
The only thing I realize is that you don't understand a fucking thing about any of this. Guess what??? Haplotypes! Wow! Checkmate atheists!
This is a study of MtDNA and Y-Haplotype *microstructure* in Tunisia. Your entire ranty quote is copy-pasting randomly from the introduction in the study. **Read the damn abstract and conclusion** instead of copy-pasting wildly. I'm going to have to walk you through the entire goddamn paper.
>This study first looks at mtDNA and it shows this figure here's the description of the figure ...Backgrounds are as follows: **black for Arabs, white for Berbers**
I don't know why you bolded that or what you think you're reading. This is a map of where they collected their data from. It is a very good map. It is talking about self-reported ethnicities in Tunisia. Not about the Arabian peninsula. It is good because they collected a large amount of data from a wide variety of sources instead of just the capital city as was done 20 years ago.
Now let me walk you through this paper because I can't respond to the random nonsense you copy-pasted.
The study collected MtDNA and NRY from across Tunisia. The blood samples they took were previously refined according to Y-STR and MtDNA variation.
They then did a barrage of testing based on STRs, genetic distance, gene diversity, etc. They then discuss their results to talk about the differences between sex-based migration, or male-contributed and female-contributed DNA. In the Middle East and N.Africa, male DNA tends to be far more stable than female, because of patriarchal marriage practices where women were more likely to cross different cultures and ethnic groups. Both the M.E and N.A exhibit far higher contributions of sub-Saharan female-contributed DNA than male.
Now look at the results section:
They find in their Berber samples that: "In spite of its geographical proximity (Figure 1), there is a great differentiation between samples." And: "On the other hand, their diversity values, in the lowest range of all the Tunisian population analyzed...suggested a high degree of genetic drift."
They aren't talking about the haplogroups here like you think they are. They're talking about the Fst distances between villages. That measures genetic distance.
Then they find that 2 Berber villages have high autochthonous N.African haplogroups. So they say: "In principle, this fact reinforces, once more, the supposition that the Arab domination of the North African Berber communities had more a cultural than a demic impact.19, 20" So "in principle" shows that they're setting themselves up to rebut this in the conclusion.
After this they find that the Berber villages have the same haplogroups but are genetically isolated and different.
Then they look at gene structure across the country, and find: "When the same analysis is applied to haplotypes defined by three different sets of Y-chromosome STRs (Table 2), the heterogeneity found for males is much higher than the above mentioned for females. The variance ascribed to among populations differentiation [is] highly significant in all cases." - Ie: there's something going on with the Y-DNA.
Then if you read the section "Lack of female and male ethnic differentiation in Tunisia" you find that there's something odd. Autosomal testing shows little difference between Arabs and Berbers in Tunisia. This is: "contrasting with the high heterogeneity found among populations within groups."
Then they test for geographic-genetic correlation and patrilocality. And then in the Discussion section:
They look at haplogroup frequencies and argue that Arab male genetic input (from Arabia) is nearly 40%, and female input is 13-17%.
They discuss the rural/urban divide and male-female divide of Sub-Saharan and Middle eastern DNA sources, concluding that Middle Eastern female input is equal between rural and urban areas, but the male input is strongly urban. "This scenario seems congruent with the history of the Arab domination in North Africa.43 These data suggest that the demic impact of the Arab rule, at least in Tunisia, could be higher than that previously supposed."
Then they say: "However, this influence was not detected when Arab and Berber speaking communities were compared." This is when you accused me of being a massive charlatan. What does this mean? It means that urban Berbers and Arabs in Tunisia are *both* descended from Middle Eastern sources. It means that Arabs came to the urban areas and cross-married with Berbers and some became Berberized. This is the exact same conclusion reached in the Orientalization paper that I quoted. You can also read about Berberized Middle EAsterners in Fadhlaoui Zid's 2014 paper "Sousse: extreme genetic heterogeneity in North Africa". So as I stated: Arabs and Berbers are marrying one another historically, masking the genetic differences between the two ethnicities today.
As for you rant about haplogroups:
>Does this mean Europeans are Arabs or have Arab ancestry? Yet, it isn't even as frequent in Arabia sometimes nonexistent in some parts. Since you sent me this study trying to prove that Arabs did in fact not just culturally influence North Africa but also heavily contributed to the gene pool then using this study and following the logic you'd have to conclude Europeans that Arabs
Haplogroups are only important depending on the region. They represent changes from 20-30,000 years ago. Only E-M183 in North Africa is very recent. What's more important is autosomal genetic distance, and subclades of haplogroups. For example, Ethiopians, Daghestanis, Chechens, Arabs, and North Africans all have high values of haplogroup J1. This doesn't mean anything unless we look at the specific subclades. When we do, we find that Ethiopian and Daghestani J1 subclades split off from Arabian J1 thousands of years ago in Neolithic migrations. This isn't the case with North Africans.
> It is also important to note that both in the links I have shared and this study they speak of Arabic-speaking communities and not just "Arabs" which you have used and might imply they are coming from Arabia and have strong relation to the people of Arabia,
I'm not implying anything. If you weren't a hostile moron you would read the papers and know that Arabs in Tunisia refers to Arabic speakers and self-reported Arabs, and when they compare to other regions they are referring to Arabs from the peninsula and will clearly say Arabs from Qatar/Kuwait/wherever they took the samples.
