Concrete biblical truth. Shalom, shalom. Indeed, indeed. Can y'all stand the rain, man? I got my brother swanging and banging from the land of Canaan, my brother James, the argument king, the killmonger of the source. With no further ado, I'm gonna turn it over to him. He gonna give y'all that heat rock, that flame, man. That presentation is about to be powerful. You guys tune in. Not talk to him, James.

Oh man, I just want to say shalom to the family, man. Hope everybody had a good Sabbath. But now it's time to go to war, man. The other night on Bine Channel, we had a lot of talk going on from uh Kevin G. We know Lon ain't show his face, he running from us. A lot of what I'm, it's crazy because a lot of what I was putting together in my presentation gonna deal with some of the things he was bringing up, like the brother don't want to acknowledge that, you know, uh e marker's been in uh the Middle East since the most ancient of time. So I'm just gonna go into this presentation and break down who uh the house of shim is, man.

Yes, indeed. Yes, indeed, man. Uh, brother James about to give you guys that work, that powerful presentation based off sources. They deal with roric. We deal with sources. All right, good, good. All right.

This right here is the genetic table of Nations and the house of shim. You know, we done already shown y'all that the CF lineages go back to Jafet, the A&B lineages go back to Ham, the indigenous Africans. So now we got to deal with shim. And the only thing that's left, hey, is these D lineage. We will be uh rounding out our model of Genesis chapter 10 using the last glacial maximum as the flood, using the migration patterns of the people who migrated to the locations mentioned in the Hebraic text. So far, we've already done the CF lineages, who were the first people to migrate in the pre-Neolithic Europe, which designated them as the sons of Jafet, which includes this J lineage that they love to talk about. You know, they was pushing that J lineage as Kim marker last night. We also have established A and B lineages as the first inhabit of pre-Neolithic Northeast Africa, which designates them as the sons of Ham. And today, we going to finish out the table of nations with the sons of shim, heirs of the first farmers and herders and fathers of civilization.

When you really get down to it, I'm gonna be going more into the weaknesses of the outdated theory. All living humans trace their history through long lines of ancestors into the past. Some of our ancestors will have lived in groups or populations that can be identified in the fossil record, whereas very little will be known about others. Here, we review the uh current understanding of early human population history by chasing tracing the ancestry of present-day people into the deep past. We investigate what we what can be said about where human ancestors lived geographically at different points in time and whether or not these ancestral groups are represented in the current fossil record. Within this framework, we argue that there is little empirical or conceptual reason to focus on models of of a single point in time and space during which modern human ancestries originated.

Because, you know, again, you know, they try to pin everything down to a location. But like me and J always argue, it's better to go with the ancient DNA that we finding than a lot of these speculated models from the fossil record. It has long been clear there were early range expansions of Homo sapiens, the fossil lineage which includes modern humans. We make no illusions to species status by the use of these terms, from Africa into Western Asia and the Eastern Mediterranean. These may have occurred during favorable climate conditions in this Saharo-Arabian belt, as recorded by fossils in the Israeli caves of Skhul and Qafzeh, dated to 90 to 30,000 years ago. So we already starting to see from the skeletal record that more modern humans are leaving out of Africa 90 to 30,000 years ago, according to the secular model. And uh in Saudi Arabia 990,000 years ago, uh even older. But more fragmentary Homo sapiens fossils were found in the Misliya caves in Israel around 180,000 years ago, the Idema caves in Greece 210,000 years ago. Furthermore, the African continent suggests earlier fossil records, including Chinese fossil estimated dates to between 880,000 and 13,000 years ago, T from Sumatra dated to 70,000 years ago, and Nubian fossils of at least 50,000 years ago, and artifacts from Northern Australia dated back to at least 65,000 years ago.

So this is right here is just laying out that, hey, modern humans have been outside of Africa well before a lot of these mutations are going to start to take place, which, you know, where humans start to split into the three nodes and their sons that we talk about. Beyond Africa and West Asia, the paleoanthropological evidence before about 65,000 years ago thus appears increasingly intense with genomic evidence that indicates that all present-day human populations outside of Africa derive a majority of their ancestry from a worldwide expansion after 50 to 60,000 years ago. A main line of evidence is the Neanderthal ancestry found in present-day and ancient non-African modern human genomes studied to date. This ancestry is mostly consistent with originating from a single admixture episode, the majority of which had ceased by 50 to 60,000 years ago. This time frame is apparent in a long Neanderthal segment that is observed in an approximately 45,000 years ago modern human genome in Serbia, which we know goes back to Jafet, and other ancient genomes. And further supported by the fact that mitochondrial DNA and Y chromosome lineage outside of Africa diversified by around 45 to 50,000 years ago, which is what we going to really get into when we get into some of these other articles, when these lineages start diversifying and where are our ancestors at at this time.

Yeah, you can see right here from the um from this these images that come out this article right here, you can see uh a lot of what they're saying that humans migrated Out of Africa 50, 60,000 years ago, a lot of modern humans. But we're again seeing 65,000 years ago right here, you're seeing modern humans already out 100,000 years ago. So modern humans already been out of Africa by this time. And um I brought this chart up here because I want to really emphasize this basal Eurasian they had here. They don't really talk about it too much in the article, but they put it on here. And I want to notice that these right here branch, these are CF lineage right here, uh when we still deal with East Asia, Oceania, Western Eurasia, USIMA, and uh Serbia, and uh in Russia. All of these are CF lineages, which is designated to Jafet. The other lineage that they branch to that they hypothesize to branch off of CF from CT, which would have been right here, is DE, which they designate as you come down the branches, basal Eurasian. So they're already starting to put us into this Near Eastern region.

Several genomic studies have suggested that ancestry from a separate earlier worldwide expansion in present is present day in Oceania. For example, Australia and New Guinea, in line with a Southern route hypothesis of another migration that followed the Asian coast. Thus, the fossil and archaeological records of modern humans outside both Africa and Southwest Asia that are older than around 60,000 years ago are best reconciled with genetic data by any earlier dispersals not contributing detectable ancestry to people living after the latter major expansion. So they saying some earlier people that just got wiped out pretty much. No evidence for this.

A recent addition to our understanding of modern humans outside of Africa is basal Eurasian ancestry, which diverged from other non-African ancestry before these diversified and probably lack Neanderthal admixture. Now, we know the only people that's really lacking Neanderthal admixture is quote unquote African lineages, which includes the E brand. It probably emerged more than 60,000 years ago, is found as early and as widely as 15,000 years ago in Morocco. Now, that's very, very important because when we go later in the presentation and talk about uh the links between Sub-Saharan Africa and the Near East, they're going to talk about this 15,000 years ago in Morocco and 26,000 years ago in Georgia, and expanded throughout Western Eurasia and South Asia during the Holocene epoch. Some ancestry in these regions thus derives from groups that diverged before the worldwide expansion of 50 to 60,000 years ago. The origins of basal Eurasian ancestry most likely centered around Southwest Asia and North Africa, and are unlikely to be connected to evidence of humans further away from Africa before 60,000 years ago. So that's what, you know, they're arguing. Well, it's just going to be North West Asia and uh North Africa.

There would also have been structures before this point, but earlier groups would be symmetrically related to everyone alive today. The absence of the ancient DNA from Africa from before 15,000 years ago means that most insights into this question have come from estimates of divergence time between a present-day African group relying on various modeling assumptions and therefore associated with considerable uncertainties. What me and Justu tell y'all all the time about a lot of these dates and stuff they give, which is why we don't really fly with them. We just tell you what it is according to the secular model because they're riddled with uncertainties and circular reasoning. So it's hard to go by that, which is why a person like myself, I just use relative dating. I line up the events in the uh fossil record and go from there. There's no point in arguing, oh, this exact date, that exact date. No, I'll just argue this event took place before that event.

Moving on. The tendencies of populations from Southern Africa to display the deepest divergent times and to occupy the earliest branching position in tree-like models of history has also been interpreted as evidence for a South African birthplace. However, trees are poor representations of genetic history, and branching events always have two symmetrical descendant branches, neither of which is more ancestral than another. More recent studies have allowed for gene flow, have suggested that strands of ancestors that are at least as divergent as South African ancestry are present in Western as well as Central and Eastern Africa. Which deals with us, because they, they hypothesize a very ancient, I didn't put in this presentation, they want to call it basal West African lineage that connects us and the E1B1B1A2, connects us to. I don't really see how that's necessary. The more parsimonious explanation would be E P2, as we normally argue.

More importantly, as people are likely to have moved from where their ancestors lived more than 200,000 years ago, there is no strong expectation that geographical location of people carrying the most divergent ancestry today would correspond to a point of origin. Again, people move all the time, so that don't mean they in the same location they was 2,000 years ago. And in a presentation I did before on the Y hlo group, they talked about how the Khoisan and the Pygmies were up in East Africa before they were pushed down into Southern, Western, and Central Africa. Although it is commonly assumed that our ancestors would have lived in Africa before 500,000 years ago, it is still too soon to exclude they could have lived in Eurasia. A Eurasian origin during this period would have required fewer migrations between Africa and Eurasia to to explain currently understood relationships between modern humans, Neanderthals, and the super archaic ancestry. Again, least assumptions, more parsimonious. The Eurasian origin is just, it's patomic data from a European Homo antecessor, which shows the potential of ancient protein preservation in the deep past, suggests that it might have been closely related to the common ancestor. But the ancestry information provided by dental enamel proteins is still of low resolution. So they don't got enough to be definitive on it. And this right here came from Origins of Human Ancestry by Pontus Skoglund, who is a Swedish population geneticist currently at the Francis Crick Institute and was formerly at Harvard Medical School, and Anders Bostrom, which I'll be using again.

All right, still going on with the weakness of this theory. Based on molecular genetic analysis, the hypothesis of a recent African origin of modern humans that occurred approximately 200,000 years ago has formulated three, was formulated three decades ago. Today, this hypothesis is widely accepted. There is also multidisiplinary agreement that the Out of Africa expansion of modern humans promoted the extension of extinction of other archaic hominids in Eurasia, with only a minor integration of their genomes in the modern human DNA. So we pretty much killed off Neanderthals, then the Denisovans, and every. However, despite the enormous quantity of data accumulated to date, mainly from the analysis of mitochondria and Y chromosome haploid markers, there is a serious lack of consensus regarding the times of the modern human dispersal Out of Africa.

Because again, we posit this happened way back in ancient times, like more than 100,000 years ago on the secular record, and before they started to diversify into who our ancestors would call Ham, Shim, and Jafet. All of the indigenous mitochondrial diversity outside of Africa is comprised of clades M and N, which are derivative branches of the African haplogroup L3. And a lot of them speculate these arose in India. So L3 would have had to been in India. That's just common sense. This fact places the genetic time frame of the Out of Africa dispersal at approximately 55 to 70,000 years ago, which is the coalescence age of haplogroup L3. Similarly, a recent Y chromosome sequence analysis detected a cluster of major non-African founder haplogroup originating within a short time interval of 47 to 52,000 years ago. However, estimates based on the molecular clock depend on the mutation rate employed. These temporal windows for the exit of modern humans from Africa conflict with the fossil, archaeological, and ancient DNA data on the timing of the initial migration of anatomically modern humans Out of Africa. Skeletal remains unearthed and again, Skhul and Qafzeh caves demonstrate that early modern humans were present in the Levant 125,000 to 80,000 years ago. The discovery of modern human teeth in southern China dated to 120,000 years ago also supports the presence of anatomically modern humans in East Asia during the period. Several archaeological studies uncovered Middle Stone Age lithic assemblages dated to approximately 125 to 75,000 years ago in different regions of the Arabian Peninsula, presenting affinities with Northeast African assemblages of the same period. These findings suggest that African anatomically modern humans may have extended their geographic range to Eastern and North Arabia, as well as South Asia, as early as 125,000 years ago, long before the time frame of the migration that shaped the modern global genetic pool as suggested by molecular data.

So this is telling you right here that as much as they're trying to, you know, bottleneck us into being in Africa all this time and lost in Africa, all of the evidence from the archaeological record and coming from interdisciplinary studies is showing otherwise. Ancient DNA analysis is an important tool in the reconstruction of past human history. Based on ancient DNA analysis, the Neanderthal integration into modern humans in Europe has been dated to within 35 to 65,000 years ago, which is well within the molecular clock-based time frame established by the African exit of modern humans. However, an ancient gene flow from early modern humans into the ancestors of Eastern Neanderthals more than 100,000 years ago was recently reported. These data evidence the early modern humans and ancestors of Neanderthals from the Siberian Altai region interbred much earlier than previously thought. Furthermore, whole genome-based studies place the split of Eurasia from African populations at 88 to 112,000 years ago, and the presence of anatomically modern humans Out of Africa has been documented before 75,000 years ago. A way to reconcile these contradictory pieces of evidence is to state that all these ancient movements Out of Africa prior to 70,000 years ago did not significantly contribute genetic to present-day humans. However, major efforts should be dedicated to resolving the conflicting evidence because again, if you keep trying to push this Out of Africa model as they have been given it to us, is a bunch of conflicting evidence with the fossil record. And the reason I'm going through this detailed like this is because a lot of our haters be yelling, oh, we grabbing a sentence here, you know, a couple words here and trying to manipulate it. No, I'm gonna read to you what they're saying, and when I repeat back to it, it's gonna be completely clear that I'm not manipulating a single word.

Concerning the potential routes followed by modern humans Out of Africa, there are two non-mutually exclusive main routes: a northern dispersal along the Nile-Congo Corridor and a southern dispersal from the Horn of Africa across the Bab-el-Mandeb strait. In early mitochondrial DNA phylogeographic studies, the virtual absence of mitochondrial DNA haplogroup M in the Levant and its presence in Ethiopia, Southern Arabia, and the Indian subcontinent and East Asia rendered M the first genetic indicator of a Southern route exit from Eastern Africa. Shortly after these studies, based on the rarity of mitochondrial haplogroup in India, its continuous presence above the Himalayas, we proposed an additional Northern route through the Levant. Since that time, intensive and extensive research on mitochondrial DNA has been carried out on populations not only from Central and East Asia, but also from regions along the hypothetical Southern routes, such as India, Mainland Southeast Asia, Ireland, Southeast Asia, New Guinea, North Island, Melanesia, and Australia. And I'm probably not going to get to it today, but when it's going to be surprising what we find in that Indian subcontinent in early early times when we get to talking about because a lot of people try to postulate, you know, Indo-Europeans being in there, but they're not really finding that when they're finding the actual bones of these people.

The most unexpected results were that some Indo groups in southern China (N1, N1) were older than the oldest in Western Asia lineage, and that some M haplogroups in Melanesia were older than of the oldest Indian M lineages. The existence of a Northern route deduced from the phylogeography of macro haplogroup N has received additional support from the fossil record, whole genome studies comparing Egyptian and Ethiopian populations, and the fact that all non-African populations present a signal of Neanderthal integration. However, we realize that what what actually macro haplogroup N suggests is that human movement from Northeast Asia to Western Asia. So it wasn't from Africa to Western Asia. They're saying this DNA is now saying no, it happened in the reverse. We observe the same tendencies for macro haplogroup M in this case expanding westwards towards India. See, it's coming from east to west. A similar trend was observed for macro haplogroup R, the main sister group of branch N. Thus, we confirm that macro haplogroup M and N indicated major Southern and Northern expansion effectively of modern humans, but in the opposite sense we had predicted previously. Like I just said, studies based on Y chromosome sequences have suggested Southeastern Asia as an early center of human expansion. So even the Y chromosome is saying this, not just the mitochondria.

If one accepts that basal lineages M and N evolved independently in Southeastern Asia and not in Africa or near the borders of the African continent where the remaining L3 lineage expanded, one is confronted with the question of where the basal trunk of L3 evolved. A gravitating midpoint between Eastern Africa and Southeastern Asia would situate the origin in interasia, not Africa, with possible opposite direction expansions back to Africa after again 100,000 years ago. They came out. Now, after they evolved in the L3, they moving back to Africa and forward to East Asia. This possibility has been modeled along with other options by others, obtaining the highest likelihood value among competing models. So this is the most most likely one. However, it is not received with the attention it deserves. They ignoring this. Why? Because it's breaking their models and shredding them.

The parallelisms of the early back-to-Africa scenario of mitochondrial haplogroup L3 with the proposed for the Y chromosome haplogroup E back-to-Africa of E. That means E evolved outside of Africa as well. They say it is striking. In this work, we have improved the phylogeny of some African mitochondrial L3 sub-clades. In addition, we have compared the frequency distribution of the younger African mitochondrial haplogroup L3 and Y chromosome haplogroup E in the main regions of the African continent. With these data at hand, we assess the possibility of the following scenarios: L3 exited from Africa as a pre-L3 lineage that evolved as basal L3 in Inner Asia. From there, it expanded returning to Africa, as well as expanding to Southeast Eastern Asia, giving rise to African L3 branches in East Africa and the M and N L3 Eurasian branches in Southeast Asia, respectively. This model, which implies an earlier exit of modern humans Out of Africa, has been tested against independent results from other disciplines.

The Southern route hypothesis proposes that the Eurasian branches imminent of micro group L3 differentiated in and near the African continent and rapidly spread across the Asian Peninsula to spread Austral to reach Australia and Melanesia. Under this hypothesis, it is expected that the coalescent ages of haplogroup should generally decrease from Africa to Australia. However, we demonstrate that this is not the case. Just to on the contrary, the oldest M and N haplogroups are from China and Australia, not India. And the associations between longitudinal geographic distances and relative ages of M and inhabitant groups run contrary to expectation from east to west. I'm going to say that again. All the evidence is showing that it's not coming out of Africa, but it's going back towards Africa from east to west.

This presents us with a dilemma. It appears that two gravitating centers of L3 expansion exist: one in Africa and one in Southeast Asia. A geographic equist midpoint would situate the primary radiation of L3 in India if the Southern route were followed by the African colonizers, and above the Himalayas between Tibet and Primorye if the Northern route was followed, which we see the most evidence is going towards the Northern route. Furthermore, as the coalescent age of African L3 branch and that of the Eurasian L3 M&N branches are very similar and approximately around 71,000 years ago, the temporal and spectral midpoints might also coincide as well, which again brings up parsimony. If this is coincide, it seems that it's the same damn thing to me. If I'm gonna use parsimony and not make any assumptions, the most parsimonious thing is say they're the exact same things. Which is why they say they may also coincide.

As the group of modern humans that hypothetically returned to Africa is expected to include both females and males, searching for Y chromosome phenetic and phylogeographic information might provide additional information. An origin in Asia and a return to Africa was proposed long ago. So this ain't something new. They was ignoring it back in the day. For the Y chromosome African haplogroup E, which is what we've been telling these guys, but they ignore us though. This hypothesis was based on the derived state of the African Yap of positive haplo types four and five, haplogroup E, with respect to the ancestral Asian Yap positive haplogroup 3, which is D. The later discovery of new markers evidenced that D and E were sister branches of the Yap node, which again, we posit that D and E are Shim. So we're getting now more into not just ancient archaic peoples, but actually into who we're calling the ancient Shemites.

Haplogroup D showed the derived status for M174 and the ancestral status for M40 in Asia, whereas haplogroup E was characterized by derived status of M40 and the M174 and central status throughout Africa. Thus, the migratory sense between continents of both haplo types would not be assured. A few Y positive individuals ancestral for both markers were detected in West Africa and in Tibet. Now, I want to say something about this. When they first found it in West Africa, this was to them all the evidence in the world that this DE actually evolved in West Africa because they found one individual in West Africa with it. But then they ran into a problem. They ran into Tibet because it's two people in Tibet with DE. So if they going to use that argument, then they have to also use it for Tibet, which would kill that it happened in Africa. Although assigned to the perah haplogroup DE basal, its actual ancestral state could not be confirmed. Furthermore, a new mutation P143 united the two other ancestral other Eurasian haplo types. Now look what they said. They said the two other Eurasian haplo types. What does that mean? That means DE is also a Eurasian haplo. The United the two other Eurasian haplo types C and F as brothers, which we say they're genetic lineages. And in turn, DE and CF were joined to an ancestral node defined by mutations M168 and M294, which is what their their hypothetical CT that we found nowhere in the archaeological record. And the only place we see it in papers is as a placeholder because they're not really sure where to place that that archaic DNA or that ancient DNA.

The initial scenario proposed to explain this complicated situation was the two independent migrations Out of Africa occurred, marked by D and the other marked by the CF pair lineages. However, a new interpretation arose following the discovery of more than 60,000 single nucleotide variants by Next Generation sequencing techniques. The most parsimonious interpretation of the Y chromosome phylogeny constructed with these variants is that the predominant African haplogroup E arose outside the continent and back migrated to Africa. The DE split as a lower bound and the radiation of E into Africa was an upper bound, yields a time frame highly coincidental with the dates estimated for the mitochondrial DNA L3 expansion. So it looked like we was moving around with our women. We ain't leave them behind. That's just what the evidence say.

Furthermore, the spatial distribution of the resident Y chromosome haplogroup D in Asia is a good indicator of the geographical location of the putative DE split because most of the D we find is way over in in East Asia. So if you're going to use parsimony, you use a center point, and the center point puts it in in in Asia, in in Asia. It's just you can't get away from it. Again, furthermore, the spatial distribution of the residential Y chromosome haplogroup D in Asia is a good indicator of the geographical location of the putative DE split. The highest frequency and diversity of D are in the Tibet region, although D is also present in low instances across Southeast Asia. Two other centers of notable frequency are in Japan and in the Andaman Islands of people who've been, they say, been there for 65,000 years, possibly representing edge relic areas of a wider distribution long ago. There is no native D lineages in India, decreasing the possibility that this subcontinent was the center of the DE portion. But when I get to talking about some articles, we find more present articles, we're gonna find some of these D hunter-gatherers in ancient India, clades. There is no native D lineages in India, decreasing the possibility of this subcontinent as the center of DE partition, which which argues against the Southern route. Again, the Northern route is always coming out on top.

It is likely that the divergence of the Y chromosome D and E haplos occurs up in the Himalayas in and or westward of Tibet, which coincides with the hypothetical bifurcation center proposed for the mitochondrial L3 macrohaplogroup, as you can see right here. So again, the Y chromosome evidence and the mitochondrial evidence is all pointing us back to an Asian origin of haplogroup D and E.

All right, moving on. The above description coincides. You know what? I've already beat this down into y'all heads. Let's move on forward. And this right here came from Carriers of the mitochondrial DNA macrohaplogroup L3 basal lineages migrated back to Africa from Asia around 70,000 years ago from our boy Vincent C.

[Music]

[Music

Get Our Mobile App

Ancient DNA, Biblical Flood and the House of Shem! #bible #biblestories #noah #shem

Transcription