For the last time, I am not debating that ethnic identity is determined by DNA alone. It would be stupid of me to assume that Thomas Jefferson and I have more in common that say Estarix because we both have a more recent common ancestor. However, it is relevant in regard to the debate that Somalis are of distant Arab origin and the best way to determine that is by looking at Y-dna because Mtdna is not as static.BaastoUnit wrote:Kareem.dna can be useful in locating the origin of people.there can be a tendency to over exaggerate the importance of dna, though, which zumaale is guilty of.i believe the adoption of mythology, customs and language are far mare important markers of arab identity than haplogroups.the egyptian descendant of a mamlul turkish soldier or the arabised berber or the negroid baqarrah tribes of africa are still part of the arab nation even if their dna suggested otherwise.hitler doesnt become a north african because he got some eb1 haplogroup or something.
I am not concerned with anthropological arguments about who is Arab as history testifies that an elite group can impose their identity on a conquered population. From the Arabs in North Africa to the Oromo in the Horn of Africa. So allow me cuz.