("European genes appeared among Native Americans as early as ten thousand years ago." -- from Bryan Sykes', author of "the Seven Daughters of Eve", new book, "DNA in the USA").
"Cherokee Clans, an Informal History", by Donald Panther-Yates
R1a1a, quote (in response to my post of the above link): "This is not a DNA paper, not even a scientific paper."
[Notice he doesn't refute the paper, or mention the fact that no one else has bothered to study the subject of mtDNA differences between the seven matrilineal Cherokee clans.]
Also, several of them (their gang) popped out of their holes to smear the author of the study, Donald Panther-Yates, who they claimed repeatedly, is a "fraud" (without explaining what he's done fraudulently)...
Yet, not even Wikipedia (or anywhere else that I have seen) makes any sort of accusation of fraud or any other real or valid criticisms toward him.
"Maybe those Clovis points (arrowheads) were made by Saskwatch/Sasquatch/Bigfoot. Let's all just wait and see until one is caught and his/her genome gets sequenced.
quote: "Bigfoot proponents http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grover_Krantz Grover Krantz and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geoffrey_Bourne_%28anatomist%29 Geoffrey Bourne believe that Bigfoot could be a http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relict relict population of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gigantopithecus Gigantopithecus. Bourne contends that as most Gigantopithecus fossils are found in China, and as many species of animals migrated across the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beringia Bering land bridge, it is not unreasonable to assume that Gigantopithecus might have as well."
Bigfoot's my boyfriend!
Here, he was caught on a surveillance camera in Idaho... taking a chomp out of some tree bark.
But seriously, they probably are some type of Human Hybrid. Anything sighted as often as they have been (and reportedly even possessing a distinct voice), by as many different sorts of reasonably credible witnesses (most of whom were innocently minding their own business, working or camping in wilderness areas) - discounting the obvious hoaxes, please - stand a good chance of existing in reality.
UPDATE: Something about my post and R1a1a's reponse to both of us (to wit, that we "are confused" in thinking that this is a "cryptozoology" forum...) must have upset rainbow. She blocked me, then posted the following reply to R1a1a, wherein she deigns to speak for me, lol.
rainbow's reply: "No, I'm not confused and I don't think CherokeeW is either."
My, as yet unplublished reply: No, I don't seriously believe (as rainbow apparently does), that "Bigfoot" is the same thing as Kennewick man, the Caucasoid mummies of America, and their descendants. You should be able to tell from my post, that I thought she was joking.
And she must be angry with me about my posted response, to have since blocked me. I would prefer that she not speak for me.
[UPDATE (Sunday, Feb. 12): Ok now I'm speechless. 'rainbow' swears she didn't "block" me. Maybe she "ignored" me instead? When "blocking" other posters, you actually technically / literally speaking, "ignore" them; however, if you go to your profile page and type "block" into the search function, you automatically get a read-out of the forum posters who have "ignored" you. Mine has seven people listed, as follows:
RobW - BioGeek - mjost - gbookhammer - R1a1a (the lead 'moderator' on the forum) - rainbow - R2-D2
Being new to the forum, I'd been mistaken previously, when I believed that "ruth22" (and one other poster, a different time) had blocked me... however, since she continues to behave like a coy witch, nearly every chance she gets, I don't owe Ruth any apologies.]
rainbow: "CherokeeW, I did not block you. And yes I know you were joking and so was I."
[She seems sincere here, but I hardly know what to make of this. Her comment about Bigfoot possibly being the ancient American Caucasoids seems sarcastic, to begin with. Either it's sarcasm, or she really believes that: which is it? Either way, seems a peculiar attitude toward the subject.]
[Yet another UPDATE (Feb. 13): I wondered whether the mere mention of the word "block" might've caused any more of their gang to follow suit, so I checked my "block list" again. Lol, rainbow's name is no longer on it. Now, how did that happen? By the way, I haven't blocked nor ignored anyone; I never do as a matter of course. I'm too curious to know what people are saying. You can't know what's going on, if you hide your head in the sand.
And since otherwise the moderators so often fiddle with the evidence / data on their forums, makes me wonder whether they can also "block" people under accounts that are not their own? If so, I might be on some posters' "block lists" without my knowledge. Wow, the level of confusion and straight up corruption is mind-boggling, these days. Way to go, government, Congress, and Dept. of Homeland Security -- you've manage to destroy an entire civilization. The debris hasn't stopped falling yet, that's all; so a lot of people maintain the illusion that nothing's happening.
I've noticed too, that most of the 'people' (mainly Hybrids, probably) whom the authorities 'allow' the privileges and freedoms to speak on these various forums -- are either extremely ignorant and naive (illiterate, bigoted and uneducated), or are terribly and tragically brainwashed.
On the other hand, all of the restricted, censored posters about whom I'm aware, seem to be good people who simply don't agree with their (the 'elites') political agendas. None of them have been placed on "moderation" for really bad behaviors, such as abusive language or perhaps stalking other posters (Loki).]
Thor, showing off his Hammer.
On the same thread; Zander, quote (to me):
"There are definitevely a lot of open questions concerning all pre-Clovis findings, but you cannot call this informative, but speculative essay a "recent study". It doesn't touch your or anybody else cultural identity, if there is a certain amount of various admixture."
"It cannot be ruled out, that mtdna U2e found its way into a native genepool, but if you really believe, that this could have been a Jewish trader, breeding with a Cherokee woman, you surely missed something essential about the nature of mitochondria!"
My reply to Zander (notice that he throws that qualifier, "IF" in there twice:
I said nothing of the sort; stop speculating. Speak for yourself, not for me.
But you bring up a good point about mitochondria: why were African Americans informed publicly (on videotape), that their ~mtDNA came from their ancestors' female "slave-masters"? Do they really expect us to believe that slave men were frequently raped or seduced by "white" (or, Caucasoid) women, and that those women deliberately impregnated themselves with illegitimate mulatto children?
(Most socially 'connected' "white" women, women who could afford to own slaves in those times, were usually sent to prison, severely ostracised and cast out, or simply killed outright, for messin' around. Not to mention what would've happened to the Negro men in such cases. All Emmett Till allegedly did, to get himself lynched in 1955, was merely whistle at a "white" woman. Children born of such unions would have been socially outcast, classified as slaves themselves, and stood little chance of survival.)
There's just no logic in such a scenario; as there is the other way around ("white" male slaveholder impregnating, raping, or conducting affairs with his female slaves). It's his house, he can do as he wishes; the woman carries the fetus, so there's no shame for him -- he doesn't even have to admit that it's his, lol. And indeed, most of them did keep their inter-racial affairs very discreet.
Native American women had no problem in those days, marrying a black man, freedman or otherwise. They had certain kinds of sexual taboos, but none of them really involved racial issues.
I bet nearly all of that so-called "European" mitochondria in those people whose family histories included Native American ancestry, were ancient clades - not modern ones. The majority were not the product of rape or hanky-panky, as in the cases of many African Americans who have European yDNA.
R1a1a's response to my OP on this thread: "How dare you claim to be Native American with no evidence of any NA ancestry that we have seen, either genetic or paper trail?"
"that we have seen"... Why do I have to PROVE it to THEM? Who the hell do they think they are? One of them (a "sponsor" -- meaning, a professional DNA genealogist/consultant) suggested that since I'm "not willing" to have a Full Genome Sequence done (>$1000, btw), that they don't have to take my word for who I am -- yet, I would assume that they don't make a habit of disrespecting, questionning, or second-guessing, clients who claim any origin other than Native American. It would be bad for business; and, there are many more courteous and diplomatic ways by to handle clients with whom you might disagree.
Do they ~demand a person who states their ancestor originated in say, Germany or France, to provide them with PROOF that they are not "lying" or "mistaken" about it? NO! They'd go out of business pretty quickly, if they took that attitude with all of their paying clients. People who test their DNA are looking for the whole truth about their ethnic identities, not trying to become something that they know they are not. But Native Americans who don't "fit" THEIR stupid narrow-minded definition, are treated like liars or criminals ("wannabees"). Why would anyone "want" to go through this shit? Is "Native American" the one and only ethnic group with EXCLUSIVE, club status (members only...)? There must be some benefit involved, that I must have completely missed out on. Their whole political playing around the issue of my ethnic identity is making me very angry.
Family Tree DNA sent me an email 2 1/2 years after they'd originally assigned my mtDNA to haplogroup "X"; stating that I am now "W", and oh, by the way -- I've been removed from the Native American Project, too. They allowed me to stay on it for 2 1/2 years, when they thought I was an "X". My DNA didn't change -- they did.
GST, quote: "I believe that it is possible that some very old, primarily European mtDNA haplogroups could have arrived in the Americas at an early date, by a variety of possible routes, and I would be thrilled to see evidence that this actually happened. But that evidence, if it exists, has not yet been documented. We do have probable evidence of the mistaken belief that U5 was present among Native Americans. There is a U5 FGS test result published in GenBank with Cherokee ancestry, and that person now has several exact FGS matches that are of recent European ancestry. The most likely explanation is that there was a mistake in the documentation of Native American ancestry in the direct maternal line. That is not an attempt to deny Native American ancestry for that person - many people can have majority Native American DNA but still have one European or African ancestor in their direct maternal line sometime during the last 500 years. Those people are still Native American, but their mtDNA will have a different origin. It only takes one non-Native American ancestor in the maternal line, anytime during the last 500 years, to break that chain.
"If you won't present documentation and won't upgrade to the FGS, why should anyone automatically assume that your case is the first instance of proof of W among Native Americans? Attacking people who ask for evidence does not help prove your claim."
[Accusing me of "attacking"? I'm the one under attack here: count how many of them have hounded me about my ethnicity on that forum website. Count how many TIMES they have gang-jumped on me about it. If they disagree with me, why don't they just let it rest? Why do they wish to argue with me about it? Since I'm telling the truth, I'm not going to sit still while they lie about it. It's me and my family they're lying about -- it's personal. They pretend to know more about me and my family than we do! I'm fed up. Are they afraid I will start some kind of revolution, lol? Something isn't right there.]
"Again, I think it's possible that we might find unexpected mtDNA haplogroups in the Americas at and early date. It's a very exciting application of DNA research, but we need solid evidence to prove that this true, Hopefully Sykes has good evidence for the claims being made about his new book."
They talk about Bryan Sykes as if they are his superior, too. Why? Because he agrees with ME, lol. Utterly ridiculous, those greedy, evil sobs. How much do you want to bet, that ~government funding (potential or actual) of their many, many "projects", has everything to do with their nasty attitudes?
Bottom line, this is just yet another example of the kind of discrimination practiced by our corrupt government, with their corporate allies aiding and abetting as usual.
johi, quote: "Alas Cherokee W, I must agree wholeheartedly with R1a1a. Post after post you have asserted a Cherokee identity, although alluding to a lack of any "formal" documentation. It would appear that you are relying on some oral tradition in the maternal lineage - but even given that the "story" may be true, it is certainly not via the direct maternal line. This has been said over and over and over by many of us here - yet you appear to be unyielding to the realities of mtDNA inheritance. Not one single study has found haplogroup W associated with any Native American group anywhere within the Americas.
"It is not up to us, many of us who are scientists well versed in this subject area, to prove that W is a NA haplogroup - the ball is in your court - where is your evidence. "My grandmother told me" doesn't count. You must have cross validation in the form of a paper trail. I have at least 20 documents validating my Six Nations ancestry. Can you at least cough up one that does not involve family recollections? I would be very pleased to learn that you in fact do have Cherokee ancestry - unfortunately based on the info you have provided and that has been in your signature line, this crucial data does not exist and there are those who will bring up the "wannabee" aspect as a distict possibility in this whole scenario.
"In my opinion you need to address this "problem" of lack of genealogical data before moving on to the more controversial position that W is a Native American mtDNA haplogroup - that will be a hard sell to say the least.
"Perhaps there are other more "supportive" forums out there who will share with you their own stories of soft to non existent evidence, and how one can surmount this difficulty and maintain a chosen identity."
"I have at least 20 documents validating my... [Native American] ancestry..."
Right, and you or your friends must have forged every one of them. Why would I believe you?
These DNA consultants expect me to prove my ancestry [to them] with THEIR testing? Yet, they give me no reason to TRUST anything they say or do, anyway. I don't do business with people who are dishonest and rude to me.
ruth22, quote (btw, she claims to be a "psychotherapist" -- but offers no evidence for it on the forum, lol):
"Thanks, GST, for the statement that it only takes one non-? 'ancestor in the maternal line, anytime during the last 500 years, to break that chain'. I don't think many are actually aware of that and, therefore, question their results."
... Glad I'm not her patient.
Here, they come out of the woodwork to smear Bryan Sykes (who is an Oxford-educated PhD, and a professor of Human genetics), author of "DNA in the USA" (also, "The Seven Daughters of Eve" -- a trailblazing book which is specifically about European DNA), who stated recently: "European genes appeared among Native Americans as early as ten thousand years ago."
Salabencher, quote: "Sounds kind of strange."
J Man, quote: "I wonder if any of this is based on actual testing of ancient remains or again just speculation based on modern haplogroup distributions and frequencies?"
sparkey, quote: "To be honest, that really makes no sense, and I'd like to see the rationale behind such a statement. We don't even really know what haplogroups were in Europe 10,000 years ago, other than having some idea about mtDNA. Perhaps this is based on commonality in mtDNA haplogroups? But known mtDNA in Europe back then is basically H, U4, and U5... not very Native American.
"Y-DNA would make even less sense. 10,000 years ago, we expect European Y-DNA to have been largely I, maybe E1b and some others... but Native Americans wouldn't have any of those."
thetick, quote (he says the "deviance" isn't "concrete" enough, to prove anything to him): "The idea has been around for a long time with discovery of X haplogroups with NAs. This is nothing new. See an old paper from '98 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1377656/?tool=pmcentrez . I don't think it's ample evidence so Byran may have more evidence, but I doubt it.
"Also more recently are the Clovis points found in the western/eastern US. See http://dna-forums.org/index.php?/topic/17536-new-book-clovis-in-american-solutrean-from-europe/page__pid__302155
"Regardless neither really seems like concrete deviance."
johi, quote: "Sykes has a well earned reputation as a "sensationalist". A master at self - promotion. He would be more than happy to revive some long buried "theory" to grab more attention. This work will feed into the "my ancestor was a Cherokee princess, grandma told me so" lot who will be extatic to think that maybe their Y-R1b and mtDNA-U5 haplogroups came from some exotic migration to the Americas by Paleolithic Europeans. Based on the promo literature, there appears to be nothing new that would cause us to re-evaluate our thinking on aspects of the genetics of the USA. Gee, more Southerners are likely to have African ancestors than Northerners - brilliant.
"Will wait to comment further, perhaps there is an undiscovered gem in the midst of it all."
razyn, quote: "I have to say, I kind of like it. Don't believe it, but kind of like it."
So, why are they so upset over this latest development in the study of DNA? Do they dislike knowledge? 'thetick' cites Wikipedia, when pointing out that the "Solutrean" hypothesis (which they've now labelled Sykes' work) is "controversial".
Why is it "controversial"? Does it come out of their paychecks, if it's TRUE? Lol.
These guys are not very bright, and are quite dishonest and rude. I will not EVER do business with anyone like them. Their "credentials" are completely worthless in my book.
Now, for a breath of fresh air, hentiny is finally allowed (by the forum 'moderator') -- to SPEAK:
"wait she has no matches and if anything her haplogroup is the one which links X and W , now isn't that interesting..
"well there supposedly has been no U5b2's in the America either .. besides huge groups of ricans and cherokee= Alleg / and my guess some brazilians will be joining the our group very shortly. but so far no one will admit that ours was found and probably called "contamination" because that is exactly what they have done, it has to be because we were here !! and I suspect quite a few "contamination" have been found along their ways and they have not admitted to it .. because it would screw up their theories and mostly their time lines! so the sciFi's they just didn't want to fight about it!!!!!
instead the SciFI have been willing to get their "native american" dna at places like "china lake" railroad workers and from from polynesians and south east asians. because that is what everyone wanted .. everyone but real native americans that is.. but no one has been listening or has ever listened to them for that matter!"
She said it: the Truth :) ... Also I saw recently somewhere, that "Hispanics" are awakening to the FACT that they too actually have MOSTLY Native American ancestry.