Very well then, since you admit to being defeated per the topic at hand, I will deal with the rest of your "argument":
quote:Rasol: This statement neither answers my questions, nor makes any sense, as both as uniparental lineages [ie - sexual reproduction - material biology] would always exist, and cannot be "preceded" by any particular modeling [reification] of population structure.
quote:You're wrong. Most uniparentals have gone extinct.
^ Nope. You're not listening. Most genes and species eventually go extinct. The point is, that all populatoins have lineages - which is a near universal biological reality of genetics.
Population 'structure' in contrast, is actually a reified abstraction, which does not precede the biological reality of lineage.
That supposed structures are mathamatical abstractions is directly related to the manner in which they are modeled and correctly or incorrectly inferred. And this is what you fail to explain.
This is important and the basis of one of my questions which you refuse to [cannot?] answer?
As you would "model" homo-sapiens, are Melanesian and European a part of the same population structure?
Yes or no?
If yes, then what does "population structure" tell us aboutr "caucasian".
If no, then what *is* the basis of a genetic structure that contrasts "Africans" and Non Africans...which you propose?
To make it easier....here is picture and genetic data which relates my question.
Melanesians {Oceania}....
Europeans, show as intermediates
between Oceania and Africans.....
Let me know if you still don't understand and I'll further simplify for you.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: And that issue is of prime importance in this thread.
quote: Rasol :Why?
quote: If you dont know by now, you might as well go to bed.
^ This bit of snideness suggests that *you* don't know, and can't answer a simple one word question [why?] about the relevance your own writings. This is in keeping with your general inability to speak with any substance on your own citations.
I thought for a second, you were going to be a better debator than Debunked.
But that second has passed.
For the record, let me ask you. Do you have anything else to present to us......?
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by phenelzine: These studies have nothing to do with OOA. They're about population structure within Africa before OOA! I don't have access to Tishkoff; read Garrigan and make your own interpretations--- I'm not asserting anything here. It's for you guys to make your own interpretations.
On second thought, I will assert one thing: These studies are not taking the multiregionalist position. I'd guess that they follow the "weak" Garden of Eden theory, like that guy Oppenheimer at Bradshaw. Anyway, I thought this stuff was interesting. With that, I'll take my leave. We don't seem to talking about the same issue. Good luck.
Abstract Fossil evidence links human ancestry with populations that evolved modern gracile morphology in Africa 130,000 – 160,000 years ago. Yet fossils alone do not provide clear answers to the question of whether the ancestors of all modern Homo sapiens comprised a single African population or an amalgamation of distinct archaic populations. DNA sequence data have consistently supported a single origin model in which anatomically modern Africans expanded and completely replaced all other archaic hominin populations. Aided by a novelexperimental design, we present the first genetic evidence that statistically rejects the nullhypothesis that our species descends from a single, historically panmictic population. In a global sample of 42 X chromosomes, two African individuals carry a lineage of non-coding 17.5 kilobase sequence that has survived for over one million years without any clear traces of ongoing recombination with other lineages at this locus. These patterns of deep haplotype divergence and long-range linkage disequilibrium are best explained by a prolonged period of ancestral population subdivision followed by relatively recent interbreeding. This inference supports human evolution models that incorporate admixture between divergent African branches of the genus Homo.
phenelzine as I asked you from the beginning, do you even understand what you're posting and what is your proposal from postulating this theory? Is this too much to ask? Obviously your posted article, is in DISAGREEMENT, with a single origin for modern humans in Africa, instead is postulating a hybridization within Africa, with different species of homo, guy don't you understand what you post?
(July 19, 2007) — New research published in the journal Nature (19 July) has proved the single origin of humans theory by combining studies of global genetic variations in humans with skull measurements across the world. The research, at the University of Cambridge and funded by the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BBSRC), represents a final blow for supporters of a multiple origins of humans theory.
Competing theories on the origins of anatomically modern humans claim that either humans originated from a single point in Africa and migrated across the world, or different populations independently evolved from homo erectus to home sapiens in different areas.
The Cambridge researchers studied genetic diversity of human populations around the world and measurements of over 6,000 skulls from across the globe in academic collections. Their research KNOCKS DOWN ONE OF THE LAST ARGUMENTS IN FAVOUR OF MULTIPLE ORIGINS. THE NEW FINDINGS SHOW THAT A LOSS IN GENETIC DIVERSITY THE FURTHER A POPULATION IS FROM AFRICA IS MIRRORED BY A LOSS IN VARIATION IN PHYSICAL ATTRIBUTES.
Lead researcher, Dr Andrea Manica from the University's Department of Zoology, explained: "The origin of anatomically modern humans has been the focus of much heated debate. OUR GENETIC RESEARCH SHOWS THE FURTHER MODERN HUMANS HAVE MIGRATED FROM AFRICA THE MORE GENETIC DIVERSITY HAS BEEN LOST WITHIN A POPULATION.
"However, some have used skull data to argue that modern humans originated in multiple spots around the world. We have combined our genetic data with new measurements of a large sample of skulls to show definitively that modern humans originated from a single area in Sub-saharan Africa."
The research team found that genetic diversity decreased in populations the further away from Africa they were - a result of 'bottlenecks' or events that temporarily reduced populations during human migration. They then studied an exceptionally large sample of human skulls. Taking a set of measurements across all the skulls the team showed that not only was variation highest amongst the sample from south eastern Africa but that it did decrease at the same rate as the genetic data the further the skull was away from Africa.
To ensure the validity of their single origin evidence the researchers attempted to use their data to find non-African origins for modern humans. Research Dr Francois Balloux explains: "To test the alternative theory for the origin of modern humans we tried to find an additional, non-African origin. We found this just did not work. Our findings show that humans originated in a single area in Sub-Saharan Africa."Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
Why not; do all male off-springs not inherit a Y chromosome from a single parent, and do all off-springs of any gender not inherit mtDNA mainly from a single parent? Do you see a scenario in reproduction, where this natural pattern doesn't take place?
Pehnelzines goal is simply to change the subject away from lineages, which are relevant to the topic,, to mathamatical models of African population structures....which are not, and which he does not understand and cannot explain at any rate.
In a way he reinforces the conclusions in the topic, which is about how genetic lineages destroy the caucasoid myth.
He can only attempt to counter this topic, by deflecting the discussion away from it. Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
Why not; do all male off-springs not inherit a Y chromosome from a single parent, and do all off-springs of any gender not inherit mtDNA mainly from a single parent? Do you see a scenario in reproduction, where this natural pattern doesn't take place?
Yea he does, but soon after, the sun rises, and he awakes from the dream.
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
1. Nelson J. R. Fagundes*,†,‡, 2. Nicolas Ray‡, 3. Mark Beaumont§, 4. Samuel Neuenschwander‡,¶, 5. Francisco M. Salzano†,‖, 6. Sandro L. Bonatto*,‖, and 7. Laurent Excoffier‡
+Author Affiliations
1. *Laboratório de Biologia Genômica e Molecular, Faculdade de Biociências, Pontifícia Universidade Católica do Rio Grande do Sul (PUCRS), 90619-900 Porto Alegre, RS, Brazil; 2. †Departamento de Genética, Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul, 91501-970 Porto Alegre, RS, Brazil; 3. ‡Computational and Molecular Population Genetics (CMPG), Zoological Institute, University of Bern, CH-3012 Bern, Switzerland; 4. §School of Animal and Microbial Sciences, University of Reading, Reading RG6 6AJ, United Kingdom; and 5. ¶Department of Ecology and Evolution, University of Lausanne, Biophore, CH-1015 Lausanne, Switzerland
It is true that the occurrence of partially isolated subdivisions within the ancestral population, as postulated by Garrigan and Hammer (1, 2) and others (e.g., ref. 3), could explain the persistence of old lineages and elevated LD at some loci (4). Nonetheless, this is perfectly compatible with our favored African replacement model (5), where the effective size of the inferred ancestral African population is relatively large, which could be due to ancestral internal subdivisions within Africa.
However, Garrigan and Hammer favored a model including recent admixture since they concluded (p. 678) that “the persistence of highly divergent haplotypes with elevated LD, both inside and outside Africa, suggests that replacement of archaic Homo by the AMH (Anatomically Modern Human) population might have been accompanied by some degree of genetic assimilation.” We understood this sentence as implying that admixture occurred between archaic Eurasians and migrants out of Africa, as implicitly modelled in their figure 4d, which is why we mentioned that these authors were supporting the view that old lineages would result from admixture events.
We must repeat that our results do not exclude the occurrence of some admixture events between modern and archaic humans, but they strongly support the view that these events have been extremely rare. Had this not been the case, modern human populations expanding out of Africa should have had their genome massively introgressed by archaic genes, due to repeated admixture events having occurred at the expansion wave front (6).Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Hawkes and Trinkaus believe there might have been a few archaic lineages that "introgressed"
Here phenelzine, this is for you, since you mentioned Trinkaus, if you want to believe any modern humans intermixed with archaic humans, this will be perfect in fitting into your theory. But then again, genetics will still disprove it anyway.
-----
More Human-Neandertal Mixing Evidence Uncovered
(Nov. 6, 2006) — A reexamination of ancient human bones from Romania reveals more evidence that humans and Neandertals interbred.
Erik Trinkaus, Ph.D., Washington University Mary Tileston Hemenway Professor in Arts & Sciences, and colleagues radiocarbon-dated and analyzed the shapes of human bones from Romania's Petera Muierii (Cave of the Old Woman). The fossils, discovered in 1952, add to the small number of early modern human remains from Europe known to be more than 28,000 years old.
Results were published in the current issue of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science.
The team found that the fossils were 30,000 years old and principally have the diagnostic skeletal features of modern humans. They also found that the remains had other features known, among potential ancestors, primarily among the preceding Neandertals, providing more evidence there was mixing of humans and Neandertals as modern humans dispersed across Europe about 35,000 years ago. Their analysis of one skeleton's shoulder blade also shows that these humans did not have the full set of anatomical adaptations for throwing projectiles, like spears, during hunting.
The team says that the mixture of human and Neandertal features indicates that there was a complicated reproductive scenario as humans and Neandertals mixed, and that the hypothesis that the Neandertals were simply replaced should be abandoned.Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
We must repeat that our results do not exclude the occurrence of some admixture events between modern and archaic humans, but they strongly support the view that these events have been extremely rare. Had this not been the case, modern human populations expanding out of Africa should have had their genome massively introgressed by archaic genes, due to repeated admixture events having occurred at the expansion wave front (6).
^ Very good, this answers the question of why the mathamatical modeling for archaic introgression is held in some skepticism by most geneticists.
And we are still left with 'no answer' as to the question of what this has to do with the fact that Europeans do not exist during the time of the African outmigration.
Isn't it true that this 'argument' is meant as a distraction from the dread 'uniparental' lineages which can directly demonstrate African admixtures in European popluations?
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by rasol: Pehnelzines goal is simply to change the subject away from lineages, which are relevant to the topic,, to mathamatical models of African population structures....which are not, and which he does not understand and cannot explain at any rate.
In a way he reinforces the conclusions in the topic, which is about how genetic lineages destroy the caucasoid myth.
He can only attempt to counter this topic, by deflecting the discussion away from it.
I thought as much since I don't know the first thing about population structuring. Genetics and specifically genetic lineages are much more clear. Single point of origin for the species is Africa. Cranio-skeletal morphological traits are plastic and prone to change so don't give any clue about lineage the way genetic signatures do.
Posts: 26286 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
We must repeat that our results do not exclude the occurrence of some admixture events between modern and archaic humans, but they strongly support the view that these events have been extremely rare. Had this not been the case, modern human populations expanding out of Africa should have had their genome massively introgressed by archaic genes, due to repeated admixture events having occurred at the expansion wave front (6).
^ Very good, this answers the question of why the mathamatical modeling for archaic introgression is held in some skepticism by most geneticists.
And we are still left with 'no answer' as to the question of what this has to do with the fact that Europeans do not exist during the time of the African outmigration.
Isn't it true that this 'argument' is meant as a distraction from the dread 'uniparental' lineages which can directly demonstrate African admixtures in European popluations?
Indeed, also the fact that Europeans appear to be 2/3rd Asian, 1/3rd African, if the reason for this is not recent admixture, than what is it? If there were NO recent admixture into Europeans, they wouldn't be as close as they are to Africans genetically, they would be one of the furthest. With only a little application of simple logic, one can come to this conclusion. With this being said, if one still persists to argue simple logic, it shows their lack of perception, and inability to apply said SIMPLE logic. Poor Debunked and the Euro-camp fails again.
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
You're wrong. Most uniparentals have gone extinct.
In which case, if one were to entertain the thought remotely, would be testament to the point about such parent(s) being insignificant in contemporary human gene pool, where associated uniparental lineage of said parent(s) is *absent*. By extension, the burden would be on the proponent to produce uniparental [genetic] evidence of such a parent(s) and the descent thereof of modern humans from such parent(s). Human genome is such that, if you are a biological parent of the two required, then you *must* -- there's no way around it-- transmit the uniparental [paternal or maternal] marker onto the off-spring; if a male parent, you *must* transmit Y chromosome onto the male off-spring -- otherwise you don't get a male off-spring; if a female parent, you *must* successfully transmit mtDNA onto an offspring of *any* gender. So, if there was an archaic transitional hominid male coupling with a modern human female, and there was successful reproduction, then that archaic male *must* transmit his Y DNA onto his son...unless you are suggesting such males only churn out female offsprings. Such an outcome [which would no doubt need to be verified genetically like the total lack of linkage disequillibrium with the well known monophyletic X markers that trace back to a single common ancestor(s) in Africa] would yet still be testament to the insignificance of contribution of any such male in the contemporary human gene pool. The same scenario can be envisioned for a maternal parent, vis-a-vis a maternally transmitted marker.
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
Pehnelzines goal is simply to change the subject away from lineages, which are relevant to the topic,, to mathamatical models of African population structures....which are not, and which he does not understand and cannot explain at any rate.
In a way he reinforces the conclusions in the topic, which is about how genetic lineages destroy the caucasoid myth.
He can only attempt to counter this topic, by deflecting the discussion away from it.
Don't know, but it seems that phenelzine's post somewhat stems from "Debunker's" contradictory notion of two camps of African lineages [since they all obviously originate in Africa] - the "African" camp [aka "African-specific" lineages] and "non-African" camp [aka the African lineages "common outside of the continent"]. It is with this approach, that "Debunker" proceeds to speak of what appears to be a bimodal evolution of phenotype [*without* specifics on scientific premise], wherein *both* types *originate in Africa, but one is deemed "non-African" simply because it is presumed to be commonly distributed outside of Africa. If one were to link this to phenelzine's citations, then the point may have been one, whereby the supposed pre-OOA population "structuring" in Africa fell into two divergent camps -- again, one presumably a lineage(s) parental to the "African-specific" lineages and the other, presumably of the lineage(s) parental to subsequent OOA "non-Africans, and so, persistently referenced as "non-African" [though still supposed to have actually been Africans, given that the presumed premise is that no OOA had occurred then]. I know, none of this makes sense, unless one really expends much effort in grasping the mentality behind it. Now of course, actual population structuring in Africa would have been much more complex than the bimodal systems proposed, as there were and still are numerous lineages that all ultimately share common single uniparental maternal and paternal ancestors respectively. And yes, of course there had to have been population structuring in Africa prior to the successful OOA of a.m.hs, but this feature of population is hardly unique to Africa, granted that the overall human biological diversity therein, is greater than that elsewhere; there are population structurings everywhere.
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
What are the other African lineages in southern Europe? I know about E3b1 and Benin hbs, but I saw you post other lineages as well, not too sure where, can't seem to find where you posted it. Can you further elaborate the other lineages? I am sure It's not just these two lineages which puts Europeans as intermediate right?
posted
Of course, the burden is on the Afrocentrists to disprove the evidence piled up against them. Responding to it with questions is a stall tactic designed to distract from their inability to do so, and it's not going to work.
Posts: 128 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Knowledgeiskey718: Rasol,
What are the other African lineages in southern Europe? I know about E3b1 and Benin hbs, but I saw you post other lineages as well, not too sure where, can't seem to find where you posted it. Can you further elaborate the other lineages? I am sure It's not just these two lineages which puts Europeans as intermediate right?
Department of Anatomy, Tohoku University School of Medicine, Sendai, Japan.
Distance analysis and factor analysis, based on Q-mode correlation coefficients, were applied to 23 craniofacial measurements in 1,802 recent and prehistoric crania from major geographical areas of the Old World. The major findings are as follows: 1) Australians show closer similarities to African populations than to Melanesians. 2) Recent Europeans align with East Asians, and early West Asians resemble Africans. 3) The Asian population complex with regional difference between northern and southern members is manifest. 4) Clinal variations of craniofacial features can be detected in the Afro-European region on the one hand, and Australasian and East Asian region on the other hand. 5) The craniofacial variations of major geographical groups are not necessarily consistent with their geographical distribution pattern. This may be a sign that the evolutionary divergence in craniofacial shape among recent populations of different geographical areas is of a highly limited degree. Taking all of these into account, a single origin for anatomically modern humans is the most parsimonious interpretation of the craniofacial variations presented in this study.
quote:Basically, These ten posts (the posts in order starting at the liked-to post) are all you need to know about our friend Debunked Euro and his arguements.
You mean like this? lol. I may be new to commenting on Egyptsearch, but definitely not new to any arguments and reading of treads..
quote:Originally posted by Knowledgeiskey718: Rasol,
What are the other African lineages in southern Europe? I know about E3b1 and Benin hbs, but I saw you post other lineages as well, not too sure where, can't seem to find where you posted it. Can you further elaborate the other lineages? I am sure It's not just these two lineages which puts Europeans as intermediate right?
Of course, the burden is on the Afrocentrists to disprove the evidence piled up against them. Responding to it with questions is a stall tactic designed to distract from their inability to do so, and it's not going to work.
Piled up evidence for what; to support the notion that there is biological diversity in Africa [more so than that encountered in non-African populations], or that subset of lineages and physical variations that make up these variations and *originate* in Africa are appropriately "non-African"? If so, the former is a given, and the latter, well; the burden would be on you -- it is not something that makes sense to begin with, so as to warrant refuting. If not, explain.
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
Southern Europe has L1, and L2 lineages as well. And some A lineages.
Cluster analysis of these lineages suggest that they are of Neolithic derivation.
I will post links to studies later.
And you can include U6 and M1 in this — more prevalent in the Mediterranean hugging European regions...and apparently, E1 markers [per Goncalves et al. 2005].
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
"Sequencing of 81 entire human mitochondrial DNAs (mtDNAs) belonging to haplogroups M1 and U6 reveals that these predominantly North African clades arose in southwestern Asia and moved together to Africa about 40,000 to 45,000 years ago. Their arrival temporally overlaps with the event(s) that led to the peopling of Europe by modern humans and was most likely the result of the same change in climate conditions that allowed humans to enter the Levant, opening the way to the colonization of both Europe and North Africa. Thus, the early Upper Palaeolithic population(s) carrying M1 and U6 did not return to Africa along the southern coastal route of the "out of Africa" exit, but from the Mediterranean area; and the North African Dabban and European Aurignacian industries derived from a common Levantine source."
- The Hofmeyr skull, which derives from the ancestral OOA population of East Africa, is unlike modern Africans, including the Khoisan, and instead resembles Upper Paleolithic Europeans.
- Upper Paleolithic Europeans in turn show affinities with recent Europeans when their skulls are well preserved and enough measurements are taken. What color their skin was is a red herring employed by losers, since "skin coloration is of no value in determining phylogenetic relationships" (Jablonski/Chaplin, 2000).
- In accordance with these morphological differences between OOA and archaic Africans, there's genetic evidence of population divergence within Africa predating the transformation to modern humans, where a single reproductively isolated population went on to colonize the world, including the rest of Africa.
- This is consistent with evidence from uniparental markers whereby all non-Africans issue solely from L3 and M168, while Africans are a mixture of these lineages and the archaic African lineages L(xL3), A and B. They're the one's who are "mixed", not the non-Africans.
- Hence, the Afrocentric fantasy of a panmictic "black African" population prior to OOA is not supported and crumbles into dust.
Posts: 128 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Debunked writes: - This is consistent with evidence from uniparental markers whereby all non-Africans issue solely from L3 and M168
Wrong as usual and as easy to debunk as ever.
1) Unlike the mixed Europeans, the Blacks of New Guinea actually do consist soley of *derived* L3 and M168 lineages who migrated from East Africa.
Since they are original and pure "out of africa" migrants, and not European, not white and not causasian then obviously you have no point.
Obviously you know this, which is why you are unable to address it?
But who...reading your nonsense, is not supposed to notice that you are running away while "pretending" to fight?
2) The people of Europe, unlike Melanesians are *NOT* of "pure" M168/L3 extraction.
Because they are MIXED with Africans from the Neolithic, Moorish era, and later....much to your everlasting dispair.
This also explains why Greeks have Benin Hbs [sickle cell] but New Guineans do not.
This explains why underived L lineages [l1 l2 and l3] make up to 11% percent of the mtdna of parts of mixed Southern Europe, but are not found among Blacks of the South Pacific, Australia and elsewhere.
Of course we know you will have no answers for this either.
So tomorrow you can post another non-responsive reply which will also fail to address the topic. Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Debunker: Haplogroups U6 and M1 are Middle Eastern:
"Sequencing of 81 entire human mitochondrial DNAs (mtDNAs) belonging to haplogroups M1 and U6 reveals that these predominantly North African clades arose in southwestern Asia and moved together to Africa about 40,000 to 45,000 years ago. Their arrival temporally overlaps with the event(s) that led to the peopling of Europe by modern humans and was most likely the result of the same change in climate conditions that allowed humans to enter the Levant, opening the way to the colonization of both Europe and North Africa. Thus, the early Upper Palaeolithic population(s) carrying M1 and U6 did not return to Africa along the southern coastal route of the "out of Africa" exit, but from the Mediterranean area; and the North African Dabban and European Aurignacian industries derived from a common Levantine source."
The Levant versus the Horn of Africa: Evidence for Bidirectional Corridors of Human Migrations J. R. Luis,1,2,* D. J. Rowold,1,* M. Regueiro,2 B. Caeiro,2 C. Cinnioğlu,3 C. Roseman,3 P. A. Underhill,3 L. L. Cavalli-Sforza,3 and R. J. Herrera1
A more recent dispersal out of Africa, represented by the E3b-M35 chromosomes, expanded northward during the Mesolithic (Underhill et al. 2001b). The East African origin of this lineage is supported by the much larger variance of the E3b-M35 males in Egypt versus Oman (0.5 versus 0.14; table 3). Consistent with the NRY data is the mtDNA expansion estimate of 10–20 ky ago for the East African M1 clade. Local expansions of this clade and subsequent demic movements may have resulted in the irregular presence of the M1 haplogroup in the Mediterranean area (Quintana-Murci et al. 1999).
--------
U6, if it's a back migration at 45kya, like everyone here has been telling you repetitively, for like 4 years now, at the time populations would have still resembled the OOA population, so what's your point? If they migrated back into Africa, they still resembled Africans, NOT EUROPEANS. They wouldn't have went through any morphology to become pale either, because they were in AFRICA, PALE SKIN, only happened in Europe and Asia, and quite recently. 10,s of thousands of years after modern humans even reached Europe, is when Europeans acquired pale skin, PALE SKIN, is NOT indigenous to AFRICA!! You still lose, terribly.
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Debunker: Recap for illiterate Afrocentrists:
- The Hofmeyr skull, which derives from the ancestral OOA population of East Africa, is unlike modern Africans, including the Khoisan, and instead resembles Upper Paleolithic Europeans.
- Upper Paleolithic Europeans in turn show affinities with recent Europeans when their skulls are well preserved and enough measurements are taken. What color their skin was is a red herring employed by losers, since "skin coloration is of no value in determining phylogenetic relationships" (Jablonski/Chaplin, 2000).
- In accordance with these morphological differences between OOA and archaic Africans, there's genetic evidence of population divergence within Africa predating the transformation to modern humans, where a single reproductively isolated population went on to colonize the world, including the rest of Africa.
- This is consistent with evidence from uniparental markers whereby all non-Africans issue solely from L3 and M168, while Africans are a mixture of these lineages and the archaic African lineages L(xL3), A and B. They're the one's who are "mixed", not the non-Africans.
- Hence, the Afrocentric fantasy of a panmictic "black African" population prior to OOA is not supported and crumbles into dust.
Lmao WOW^^^^^ Can you read? Are you serious? The above nonsense, is pathetic!! How come you have no answers for rasols questions????
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Debunker: Recap for illiterate Afrocentrists:
- The Hofmeyr skull, which derives from the ancestral OOA population of East Africa, is unlike modern Africans, including the Khoisan, and instead resembles Upper Paleolithic Europeans.
Recap for illiterate Debunker
- The Hofmeyr skull, which derives from the ancestral OOA population of Southern African, is unlike Dogon and Teita from Mali and Kenya and unlike modern Khoisan, but equally unlike modern Europeans also.
quote:- Upper Paleolithic Europeans in turn show affinities with recent Europeans when their skulls are well preserved and enough measurements are taken.
The primary sample of analysis consists of the EEMHs, those before ≈33 ka B.P. and therefore predating the Gravettian (or Middle Upper Paleolithic) populations of Europe. As a result of an ongoing cleansing of the fossil record through direct radiometric dating, a series of obviously modern, and in fact Late Upper Paleolithic or Holocene, human remains have been removed from consideration (7). This cleansing has helped to dilute the impression that the earliest modern humans in Europe were just like recent European populations.
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2007 May 1; 104(18): 7367–7372
Posts: 2595 | From: Vicksburg | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Debunker: Recap for illiterate Afrocentrists:
- The Hofmeyr skull, which derives from the ancestral OOA population of East Africa, is unlike modern Africans, including the Khoisan, and instead resembles Upper Paleolithic Europeans.
Recap for illiterate Debunker
- The Hofmeyr skull, which derives from the ancestral OOA population of Southern African, is unlike Dogon and Teita from Mali and Kenya and unlike modern Khoisan, but equally unlike modern Europeans also.
quote:- Upper Paleolithic Europeans in turn show affinities with recent Europeans when their skulls are well preserved and enough measurements are taken.
The primary sample of analysis consists of the EEMHs, those before ≈33 ka B.P. and therefore predating the Gravettian (or Middle Upper Paleolithic) populations of Europe. As a result of an ongoing cleansing of the fossil record through direct radiometric dating, a series of obviously modern, and in fact Late Upper Paleolithic or Holocene, human remains have been removed from consideration (7). This cleansing has helped to dilute the impression that the earliest modern humans in Europe were just like recent European populations.
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2007 May 1; 104(18): 7367–7372
posted
While you're lost scrambling for evidence to make East Africans un-pure or somehow erroneously and fallaciously 'caucasoid'. Debunked I wonder how you feel about this publication, does it upset you? Lmao ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha
New Research Refutes Myth Of Pure Scandinavian Race
(June 10, 2008) — A team of forensic scientists at the University of Copenhagen has studied human remains found in two ancient Danish burial grounds dating back to the iron age, and discovered a man who appears to be of Arabian origin. The findings suggest that human beings were as genetically diverse 2000 years ago as they are today and indicate greater mobility among iron age populations than was previously thought. The findings also suggest that people in the Danish iron age did not live and die in small, isolated villages but, on the contrary, were in constant contact with the wider world.
On the southern part of the island of Zealand in Denmark, lie two burial grounds known as Bøgebjerggård and Skovgaarde, which date back to the Danish iron age (c. 0-400 BC). Linea Melchior and forensic scientists from the University of Copenhagen analysed the mitocondrial DNA of 18 individuals buried on the sites and found that there was as much genetic variation in their remains as one would expect to find in individuals of the present day. The research team also found DNA from a man, whose genetic characteristics indicate a man of Arabian origin.
The ancestors of the Danes were in contact with the wider world
Archeologists and anthropologists know today that the concept of a single scandinavian genetic type, a scandinavian race that wandered to Denmark, settled there, and otherwise lived in complete isolation from the rest of the world, is a fallacy.
"If you look at the geographic position of Denmark, then it becomes clear that the Danes must have been in contact with other peoples," says scientist, Linea Melchior. "We know from other archeological excavations that there was a good deal of trade and exchange of goods between Denmark and other parts of Scandinavia and Europe. These lines of communication must have extended further south as one of the Danish burial grounds, which dates back to the iron age also contained the remains of a man, who appears to have been of arabian origin.
People from distant lands were absorbed in Danish iron age communities
At the beginning of the Danish iron age, the roman legions were based as far north as the river Elbe (on the border of northern Germany) and it is thought that the man of arabian descent found in the burial grounds in Southern Zealand would have either been a slave or a soldier in the roman army. It is probable that he possessed skills or special knowledge, which the people in Bøgebjerggård or Skovgaard settlements could make use of, or he could have been the descendant of a female of arabian origin, who for reasons unknown, had crossed the river Elbe and settled down with the inhabitants of Zealand.
"This discovery is comparable to the findings of a colleague of mine, who found a person of siberian origin on the Kongemarke site," continues scientist, Linea Melchior. He was buried on consecrated ground, just as the circumstances of the arab man's burial was identical to that of the locals. The discovery of the arab man indicates that people from distant parts of the world could be and were absorbed in Danish communities.
The iron age peoples moved away from their place of birth
"All of our ancestors, no matter when they arrived have contributed to our history and the development of our lifestyle," explains Linea Melchior. "Indeed, Danish identity is more a definition of where one is physically located and lives today than a question of our past history - since we're all originally african in origin. That we ended up in Europe was accidental, which is in itself remarkable".
"Another interesting feature of the approximately 50 graves assessed so far on the two sites and also from other burial sites and time periods in Danish history is that none of the individuals seem to be maternally related to one another", explains Linea Melchior. "We couldn't see any large families buried in the same location. This suggests that in the Danish iron age, people didn't live and die in the villages of their birth, as we had previously imagined".
The findings have been published in the American Journal of Physical Anthropology 135:206-215 (2008) and PLoS One 3(5): e2214.
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Debunker: Recap for illiterate Afrocentrists:
- The Hofmeyr skull, which derives from the ancestral OOA population of East Africa, is unlike modern Africans, including the Khoisan, and instead resembles Upper Paleolithic Europeans.
- Upper Paleolithic Europeans in turn show affinities with recent Europeans when their skulls are well preserved and enough measurements are taken. What color their skin was is a red herring employed by losers, since "skin coloration is of no value in determining phylogenetic relationships" (Jablonski/Chaplin, 2000).
- In accordance with these morphological differences between OOA and archaic Africans, there's genetic evidence of population divergence within Africa predating the transformation to modern humans, where a single reproductively isolated population went on to colonize the world, including the rest of Africa.
- This is consistent with evidence from uniparental markers whereby all non-Africans issue solely from L3 and M168, while Africans are a mixture of these lineages and the archaic African lineages L(xL3), A and B. They're the one's who are "mixed", not the non-Africans.
- Hence, the Afrocentric fantasy of a panmictic "black African" population prior to OOA is not supported and crumbles into dust.
quote:"panmictic Black African" population prior to OOA crumbles into dust
->
- African is admitted by your statement "prior to Out of Africa", and is so, undisputed and indisputable.
- Black [melanoderm] is a fact of genetics, as dark skin is the product of the original underived genes for skin color. See.....
"dark skin is the original state of the species homo sapiens" - Nina Gablonski.
African ENTAILS BLACK, though Black does not entail African. - CL Brace.
- This leaves us with your 'cute' use of "panmixes"- [random mating] - which is completely irrelevant to either African or Black, and is introduced as a strawman argument.
This is gibberish. U6 [autochthonous Northwest African marker] and M1 [East African] markers in Africa 1) are ancestral to those found elsewhere [whether Europe or so-called "Near East"], wherein both markers were at some point radiated into the "Near East" from east African sources, and 2) have more diversity in Africa and are more frequent there.
Don't confuse U6 with a "proto-U6 ancestor", whose origins is still out on the jury. Some geneticists merely "guess" that the proto-U6 may have come from the "Near East" -- not on any firm grounds that a proto-U6 has actually been uncovered therein, but on the mere account that U6 ultimately splits from Hg R, which in turn derives from N; Hg N is generally deemed to have more diversity outside of the Africa. Case in point:
Another point is to decide whether the proto-U6 ancestor was also of African origin. Although it cannot be completely excluded, this hypothesis seems highly improbable even invoking strong bottlenecks in African populations. It is clear that the whole haplogroup U is an offshoot of macrohaplogroup N. This lineage, together with macrohaplogroup M, were the only ones that, belonging to the star radiation of L3 in Africa, left this continent to colonize Eurasia. Five mutations separate N from the root of the African L3 [8], and there are only late evolved N lineages in Africa, whereas representatives of the full N radiation are present in Eurasia. Thus, this continent would be the logical homeland of the proto-U6 that came back to Africa and spread in its northwest area around 30,000 ya (Table 4). Its most probable route had to be through East Africa. So, the loss of variability in this area is puzzling, although posterior demic expansions affecting East Africa might be the cause. - Maca-Meyer et al. 2003
Notes on U6:
In looking at the following diagram...
...it is apparent that at the least, U5 and U6 diverge into respective branches independent from that of the rest of U macro-haplogroup. Similar observation has been made about U1, which too, seems to have an independent branch from the rest of the U haplogroup. In other words, these three—either U1, U5 or U6—don't appear to have an ancestral clade within the main haplogroup U branch which is defined by the nucleotide transition at 1811 or vice versa. This is how it goes, courtesy of Maca-Meyer et al. 2003:
U6 is defined by two motifs represented by positions in the coding and HVR respectively: 3348 and 16172.
U5 is defined by the transitions at: 3197, 9477, 13617 and 16270.
And the rest of the U haplgroup [sans U1], defined by the mutation designated by position: 1811.
Maca-Meyer et al. add that:
U presents the following mutations with respect to rCRS: 73, 263, 311i, 750, 1438, 2706, 4769, 7028, 8860, 11467, 11719, 12308, 12372, 14766 and 15326. - Maca-Meyer et al. 2003
N macrohaplogroup is removed from the root of L3 by about 5 mutations, we are told. This is relevant, in that U haplogroup is often posited as having split from R, which derives from Haplogroup N. Speaking of haplogroup U splitting from R, we are told that this is the case via three mutations represented by: 11467, 12308 and 12372
Hence, the family association has been made between U6 [as is for U1 & U5] and the rest of the U haplogroup, primarily thanks to sharing of the above mentioned transition trio; if it weren't for these basic transitions, U6 would have likely just been considered as just another separate sub-branch of haplogroup R. Perhaps, if a clade was located—sharing the same transition trio but devoid of any known downstream coding or HVR mutations in either U6, U1 or U5 and the rest of haplogroup U, it could provide us with a possible candidate as the proto-U ancestor that gave rise to the divergent U branches in question. However, to date, no such lineage has come to light.
Thus, the re-examination point:
— U6 with respect to U5 , or U6 with respect to U1, and U6 with respect to the rest of haplogroup U, doesn't share defining motifs, outside of the basic transitions, particularly at the aforementioned position trio.
— In relation to the above, U6 doesn't have a common recent ancestor that is a U5 sub-lineage or vice versa, U6 doesn't have a common recent ancestor that is a U1 sub-lineage or vice versa, nor does U6 have a common recent ancestor that is a U*(xU1, U5) sub-lineage or vice versa.
Time will tell, as to whether much more improved resolution of mtDNA will bear out the possible candidate of the elusive proto-U6 ancestor, but until then, it would appear that the proto-U6 bearing population was quite small in size, such that proto-U6 itself would eventually be overwhelmed and essentially be erased by expansion of descendant U6 carriers and possibly, incursions from other populations. It is uncertain whether a proto-U6 ancestor would have been the very same ancestor that begot U1, U5 and U*(xU6,U1,U5) respectively elsewhere, or whether it would have been a single step or a few steps genetic-neighbor to those which begot the latter U groups, but it appears that the latter respective ancestors too were modestly represented 'population-wise', such that they too would have been overwhelmed by subsequent demographic expansions that gave rise to descendant populations and incoming groups from elsewhere. Whatever may be said about a proto-U6 ancestor's origin, one thing is clear: U6 itself is an autochthonous African marker, which would eventually spill over to parts of Europe, particularly those hugging the Mediterranean sea, and parts of "southwest Asia". It too, like M1 (clickable), has been implicated in the expansion of proto-Afrasan (aka proto-Afro-Asiatic) and/or Afrasan speakers outside of mainland Africa.
Ana M. Gonzalez et al. published a paper on M1 expansions, 9 July 2007, and a few things about it immediately jumped at me; I lay these out shortly following the abstract below, which is there to put potential viewers of this page on "the same page" so to speak, as far as the synopsis of the paper is concerned:
Abstract:
Mitochondrial lineage M1 traces an early human backflow to Africa
Ana M Gonzalez , Jose M Larruga , Khaled K Abu-Amero , Yufei Shi , Jose Pestano and Vicente M Cabrera
The complete article is available as a provisional PDF. The fully formatted PDF and HTML versions are in production.
Background The out of Africa hypothesis has gained generalized consensus. However, many specific questions remain unsettled. To know whether the two M and N macrohaplogroups that colonized Eurasia were already present in Africa before the exit is puzzling. It has been proposed that the east African clade M1 supports a single origin of haplogroup M in Africa. To test the validity of that hypothesis, the phylogeographic analysis of 13 complete mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) sequences and 261 partial sequences belonging to haplogroup M1 was carried out.
Results The coalescence age of the African haplogroup M1 is younger than those for other M Asiatic clades. In contradiction to the hypothesis of an eastern Africa origin for modern human expansions out of Africa, the most ancestral M1 lineages have been found in Northwest Africa and in the Near East, instead of in East Africa. The M1 geographic distribution and the relative ages of its different subclades clearly correlate with those of haplogroup U6, for which an Eurasian ancestor has been demonstrated.
Conclusions This study provides evidence that M1, or its ancestor, had an Asiatic origin. The earliest M1 expansion into Africa occurred in northwestern instead of eastern areas; this early spread reached the Iberian Peninsula even affecting the Basques. The majority of the M1a lineages found outside and inside Africa had a more recent eastern Africa origin. Both western and eastern M1 lineages participated in the Neolithic colonization of the Sahara. The striking parallelism between subclade ages and geographic distribution of M1 and its North African U6 counterpart strongly reinforces this scenario. Finally, a relevant fraction of M1a lineages present today in the European Continent and nearby islands possibly had a Jewish instead of the commonly proposed Arab/Berber maternal ascendance.
-Abstract ends-
MY Response To Ana M. Gonzalez et al.
*First, a quick synopsis of the samplings, with regards to where the n=261 M1 bearing samples come from, aside from the 588 participants mentioned in one of the tables [table 2] in the study:
From my assessment of the table, it comes from the following numbers:
A total of 50 Europeans detected for M1. A total of 154 for Africans. A total of 28 Asians, barring 8 unknown Arabian haplotypes. And a total of 29 Jews, who were lumped together from the various continents. The sum of the above totals, amount to 261 "known" M1 lineages.
*With regards to the authors claim about M1 or its ancestor, having “had an Asiatic origin”, the following comes to mind:
The authors of the study at hand, themselves admit that they haven't come across M1 ancestor in either south Asia or southwest Asia. They also take note of its highest diversity in Ethiopia and east Africa. Yet through the shaky premise of their M1c expansion time frame estimations, they build a conclusion around it, by tying it to a dispersal(s) "parallel" to that of U6 - another African marker whose immediate common recent ancestor, namely proto-U6, appears to be elusive thus far.
Well, they wouldn’t be the only ones who have failed to come across any proto-M1 ancestor in southwest and south Asia [Indian Subcontinent mainly]:
Based on the high frequency and diversity of haplogroup M in India and elsewhere in Asia, some authors have suggested (versus [3]) that M may have arisen in Southwest Asia [16,17,31]. Finding M1 or a lineage ancestral to M1 in India, could help to explain the presence of M1 in Africa as a result of a back migration from India. Yet, to date this has not been achieved [15], this study). Therefore, one cannot rule out the still most parsimonious scenario that haplogroup M arose in East Africa [3]. Furthermore, the lack of L3 lineages other than M and N (indeed, L3M and L3N) in India is more consistent with the African launch of haplogroup M. On the other hand, one also observes that: i) M1 is the only variant of haplogroup M found in Africa; ii) M1 has a fairly restricted phylogeography in Africa, barely penetrating into sub-Saharan populations, being found predominantly in association with the Afro-Asiatic linguistic phylum – a finding that appears to be inconsistent with the distribution of sub-clades of haplogroups L3 and L2 that have similar time depths. — Mait Metspalu et al.
So, while they acknowledge the highest "frequencies and diversities" of M1 particularly in Ethiopia, and generally in East Africa., the authors base their claims about ’origins’ on their expansion estimations of M1c derivatives, presumably predominant in northwest Africa rather than east Africa, and its relative sporadic distribution in 'Europe' and 'Southwest' Asia. They attempt to buttress this, by invoking an initial parallel expansion of M1 and U6 "ancestor" lineages into north Africa via the Nile Valley [from "southwest Asia"], then an expansion from northwest Africa this time around, of U6 and M1 derivatives northward into Europe and then eastward into "southwest" Asia via the Nile Valley corridor in the Sinai peninsula, presumably with a few derivatives making their way into sub-Saharan east Africa, where they then underwent some expansion, to give rise to yet another, but later, dispersal from there into "southwest Asia" and hence, accounting for the 'majority' of M1 lineages in "southwest Asia" being east African derivatives than the north African [M1c] counterparts.
*Furthermore,
The authors gather that their observations correlate with that of other researchers, namely Olivieri et al. To this extent, they put forth that Olivieri et al.’s M1b corresponds to their M1c, the former’s M1a2 corresponds to their M1b, and the former’s M1a1 corresponds to their M1a. They go onto to add that the coalescence ages arrived by the two research group [that of Olivieri et al. and that of the present authors] also correlate. The present authors note that their coalescence time for M1c (25.7 +/- 6.6 ky) overlaps with Olivieri et al.’s coalescence time for M1b (23.4 +/- 5.6). Similarly, they note that their coalescence age for M1a (22.6 +/- 8.1ky) falls within that of Olivieri et al.’s age for M1a1 at 20.6 +/- 3.4ky. However, this makes way for great discrepancy between the said authors and Olivieri et al., whereby their coalescence age for M1b at 13.7 +/- 4.8ky falls quite short of the latter’s age for M1a2 at 24 +/- 5.7ky. Not only are the subgroup nomenclatures distinct, but this latter discrepancy makes an unsubtle difference, so as to no longer render M1c to be older than M1b, but rather, either place M1c at an age a bit younger or on par with the latter, which should be otherwise according to the present study. Though, by their own admission, the present authors favor Olivieri et al.’s methods over their own:
As our calculations are based only on three lineages and that of Olivieri et al on six, we think that their coalescence time estimation should be more accurate than ours. In fact, when time estimation is based on the eight different lineages (AFR-K143 is common to both sets) a coalescence age of 20.6 +/- ky is obtained.
*But if there is any indication about the tenuous nature of the above thesis, without going into other known details about M1, it would be this alternative viewpoint they came up with:
The alternative idea entertained by the authors, is one where M1 could actually be an autochthonous northwest African lineage, which spread northward into Europe and eastward to "Southwest Asia" and east Africa. Again, to be followed by a yet later dispersal from east Africa, likely sub-Saharan east Africa, particularly the Ethiopian populations.
*The limitations inherent in solely relying on hypervariable segment motifs:
The status quo hasn't changed, not withstanding the hype about the supposed older expansion timeframes from M1c derivatives, predominant in Northwest Africa, according to their study. The authors rely heavily on the hypervariable region of the mtDNA, which even they themselves don't seem to put much faith on, as demonstrated by their noting of the need to proceed cautiously, given that random parallel mutations are known to occur across distinct macro-haplogroups and sub-clades. They also note how hypervariable nature of the control region, can lead to misleading calculations from erratic mutations, as demonstrated by the M1a2 they put forth, leading them to omit them in their lineage coalescence analysis.
*Another thing that hasn't been relayed through this study, is this:
The coding regions transitions are likely to change relatively slower than those of hypervariable segments, and hence, likely to remain intact within a clade. To assist in determining which clade to place a monophyletic unit, key coding region transitions have to be identified. In the case of M1, we were told:
We found 489C (Table 3) in all Indian and eastern-African haplogroup M mtDNAs analysed, but not in the non-M haplogroup controls, including 20 Africans representing all African main lineages (6 L1, 4 L2, 10 L3) and 11 Asians.
These findings, and the lack of positive evidence (given the RFLP status) that the 10400 C->T transition defining M has happened more than once, suggest that it has a single common origin, but do not resolve its geographic origin. Analysis of position 10873 (the MnlI RFLP) revealed that all the M molecules (eastern African, Asian and those sporadically found in our population surveys) were 10873C (Table 3). As for the non-M mtDNAs, the ancient L1 and the L2 African-specific lineages5, as well as most L3 African mtDNAs, also carry 10873C.
Conversely, all non-M mtDNAs of non-African origin analysed so far carry 10873T. These data indicate that the **transition 10400 C-->T, which defines haplogroup M**, arose on an African background characterized by the ancestral state 10873C, which is also present in four primate (common and pygmy chimps, gorilla and orangutan) mtDNA sequences. — Semino et al.
...which is significant, as other M lineages are devoid of M1 coding region motifs, not to mention the M1 HVS-I package. The above does demonstrate, how M lineages likely arose on an African 'background' by single-event substitutions in the designated African ancestral counterparts. The ancestral transition of 10873C is substituted by 10873T in non-African non-M haplogroups, while the 10400C transition was substituted in M lineages by 10400T.
Furthermore,...
The 489C transition, as noted above and can be seen from the diagram, is peculiar to the M macrohaplogroup, again suggestive of unique event mutations characterizing the family:
The phylogenetic location of the mutations at nt 489 and 10,873 (arrow) was predicted by our analysis. The seemingly shared mutation at nt 16,129 (by G, Z and M1) is very likely an accidental parallelism. The ancestral states 10400C, 10810C and 10873C are fixed in L1 (as analysed so far) and are present in the ape sequences.
The 16129 sharing across the M1 haplogroups, seems to be one of those instances of random parallel mutation, recalling Chang Sun et al.'s observations of random parallel mutations of certain transitions across the M macrohaplogroup.
We also know that "southwest Asian" and "European" M1 lineages are derivatives of African counterparts, and the same is true for southwest Asian non-M1 affiliated M lineages from south Asia:
Compared to India, haplogroup M frequency in Iran is marginally low (5.3%) and there are no distinguished Iranian-specific sub-clades of haplogroup M. All Iranian haplogroup M lineages can be seen as derived from other regional variants of the haplogroup: eleven show affiliation to haplogroup M lineages found in India, twelve in East and Central Asia (D, G, and M8 ) and one in northeast Africa (M1)…
Indian-specific (R5 and Indian-specific M and U2 variants) and East Asian-specific (A, B and East Asian-specific M subgroups) mtDNAs, both, make up less than 4% of the Iranian mtDNA pool. We used Turkey (88.8 ± 4.0%) as the third parental population for evaluating the relative proportions of admixture from India (2.2 ± 1.7%) and China (9.1 ± 4.1%) into Iran. Therefore we can conclude that historic gene flow from India to Iran has been very limited.
With that said, Semino et al.'s older study still remains strong, the way I see it:
haplogroup M originated in eastern Africa approximately 60,000 years ago and was carried toward Asia. This agrees with the proposed date of an out-of-Africa expansion approximately 65,000 years ago10. After its arrival in Asia, the haplogroup M founder group went through a demographic and geographic expansion. The remaining M haplogroup in eastern Africa did not spread, but remained localized up to approximately 10,000-20,000 years ago, after which it started to expand. — Semino et al.
Elsewhere, I've also talked about some 'basal' M-like lineages in Africa; for instance, at least one of such was identified in the Senegalese sample.
Am. J. Hum. Genet., 66:1362-1383, 2000
mtDNA Variation in the South African Kung and Khwe and Their Genetic Relationships to Other African Populations
"The Asian mtDNA phylogeny is subdivided into two macrohaplogroups, one of which is M. M is delineated by a DdeI site at np 10394 and an AluI site of np 10397. The only African mtDNA found to have both of these sites is the Senegalese haplotype AF24. This haplotype branches off African subhaplogroup L3a (figs.2 and3), suggesting that haplogroup M mtDNAs might have been derived from this African mtDNA lineage..."
The relevant representation in this recap diagram:
^The 10397 transition is shown in the L3-M linkage, while 10394, which should show up as positive [as exemplified in the above extract] in the M macrohaplogroup, shows up negative in the linkage between L3 and non-M affiliated lineages.
**^To put the above compilation into perspective, and keep it simple, the point is this:
Semino et al.'s demonstration of certain characteristic basic coding transitions of the M super-haplogroup [not including the key coding region motifs unique to the M1 family], springing directly from African ancestral motifs, don't require that M1 has to have a proto "non-African" M1, whereas an Asian origin of M1 would necessitate an Asian proto-M1 lineage that would explain the relatively young expansion ages of M1 and lack of descendancy from pre-existing Asian M lineages. This hasn't been achieved either by the present study or ones prior to it.
Getting to the gist:
Basal M mtDNA ~ between c. 60 - 80 ky ago
And then, M1 ~ between ~ c. 10 - 30 ky ago
The studies I posted, suggest that the basal motifs characteristic of the M macrohaplogroup arose in Africa, anywhere between 60 - 80 ky ago [since they would have likely been in the continent by the time of the 60 ky ago or so OOA migrations] . Sometime between 60 ky and 50 ky ago [some sources place it between 75 - 60 ky ago], these L3 offshoots were carried outside of Africa, amongst early successful a.m.h migrations, which resulted in the populations now living in the Indian-subcontinent, Melanesia and Australia who have these lineages. Not all the basal African L3M lineages, as Semino et al. convincingly put it, left the continent, as indicated by the basal L3a-M motif detected in Senegal, M1 diversity in Africa, particularly East Africa, both M1 and other M lineages detected in Ugandan samples, and lack of descendancy of M1 from older-coalescent Asian macrohaplogroup. Rather, it appears that the basal L3M lineages which remained in Africa, underwent a relatively limited demographic intra-African expansion until relatively recently, i.e. between 10 - 30 ky ago, compared to the Asian L3M derivatives, which underwent major expansions, naturally within the quantitatively smaller founder immigrant groups, i.e. the founder effect.
M1 is likely the culmination of relatively more recent demographic expansions of basal L3M lineages in the African continent, with M1 derivative being a successful candidate, in what could have possibly involved other derivatives which might not have expanded to the same level intra-continentally, and subsequently, extra-continentally as well.
M1 has strongly been correlated with the upper Paleolithic expansion of proto-Afrasan groups across the Sahara to coastal north Africa, and further eastward via the Sinai peninsula.
Extracted from: LinkPosts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
- The Hofmeyr skull, which derives from the ancestral OOA population of East Africa, is unlike modern Africans, including the Khoisan, and instead resembles Upper Paleolithic Europeans.
Charlie has already addressed this, but what jumps at me about this, is this:
You earlier painted a picture of the supposed bi-modal evolutionary divergence of two physical types...
It's also consistent with Howells' observation of populations more and less like Africans diverging prior to OOA. - "Debunker"
And
The African-specific haplotypes (corresponding to L1, L2, A and B) are found to be separate from the common African haplotypes (corresponding to L3 and M168), indicating two very distinct populations. - "Debunker"
^To which you were confronted with...
Even if one were to give this any currency, the contradictions in it are too obvious. If this occurred in Africa "prior" to OOA, is that not by definition, "African"?
And what specific skeletal samples "prior to OOA" attest to such a seemingly "bimodal" divergence?
...but you never came through with an answer as requested.
So, are you now saying that the other group that supposedly looked "less African" even though they were pre-OOA 100% Africans, had become extinct, such that no such type exists in modern Africa? Does this now mean that only one type exists in Africa? If so, precisely when did this happen? By extension, why bother calling E3b "Caucasoid", or are you saying that this non-scientific term doesn't apply to "pre-OOA" Africans?
You now say that "Hofmeyr skull" is unlike modern Africans, but "Upper Paleolithic Europeans"; ah, but you were confronted with this earlier, still pending an answer:
The results presented in Table 1 are consistent with the idea that Upper Paleolithic crania are, for the most part, larger and more generalized versions of recent Europeans. - Originally posted by Debunker
...which was followed up with this:
What is meant by "larger" and "more generalized" here? Also, the authors wouldn't happen to have used the likes of "Cro-Magnon" or "Grimaldi" specimen as test "Upper Paleolithic" subjects, would they; what are the specific "Upper Paleolithic" test specimens, and from where?
...while noting that:
It is worth understanding the specifics relayed about these terms, because the last time I read about "generalized" in cranial pattern, it was said to be akin to tropical populations like Melanesians, Australians, and tropical Africans. This would be consistent with the Chris Stringer citation just posted above…which was:
African Exodus The Origins of Modern Humanity By Christopher Stringer and Robin McKie Owl Books Page 162
"Nor does the picture get any clearer when we move on to the Cro-Magnons, the presumed ancestors of Modern Europeans. Some were more like present-day Australians or Africans, judged by objective anatomical categorizations, as is the case with some early modern skulls from the Upper Cave at Zhoukoudian in ChinaPosts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Debunked writes: - This is consistent with evidence from uniparental markers whereby all non-Africans issue solely from L3 and M168
Wrong as usual and as easy to debunk as ever.
1) Unlike the mixed Europeans, the Blacks of New Guinea actually do consist soley of *derived* L3 and M168 lineages who migrated from East Africa.
Since they are original and pure "out of africa" migrants, and not European, not white and not causasian then obviously you have no point.
Obviously you know this, which is why you are unable to address it?
But who...reading your nonsense, is not supposed to notice that you are running away while "pretending" to fight?
2) The people of Europe, unlike Melanesians are *NOT* of "pure" M168/L3 extraction.
Because they are MIXED with Africans from the Neolithic, Moorish era, and later....much to your everlasting dispair.
This also explains why Greeks have Benin Hbs [sickle cell] but New Guineans do not.
This explains why underived L lineages [l1 l2 and l3] make up to 11% percent of the mtdna of parts of mixed Southern Europe, but are not found among Blacks of the South Pacific, Australia and elsewhere.
Of course we know you will have no answers for this either.
So tomorrow you can post another non-responsive reply which will also fail to address the topic.
Not only that, E1b1a (E3a) carriers too are *solely* from M168; What does this make them; among the "less African" camp? Lol.
L3 is essentially a Pan-African marker; what does this tell us about carriers of this marker, including in the regions of west, central and southern Africa...that they too belong to the "less African" camp?
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Debunker: Recap for illiterate Afrocentrists:
- The Hofmeyr skull, which derives from the ancestral OOA population of East Africa, is unlike modern Africans, including the Khoisan, and instead resembles Upper Paleolithic Europeans.
- Upper Paleolithic Europeans in turn show affinities with recent Europeans when their skulls are well preserved and enough measurements are taken. What color their skin was is a red herring employed by losers, since "skin coloration is of no value in determining phylogenetic relationships" (Jablonski/Chaplin, 2000).
- In accordance with these morphological differences between OOA and archaic Africans, there's genetic evidence of population divergence within Africa predating the transformation to modern humans, where a single reproductively isolated population went on to colonize the world, including the rest of Africa.
- This is consistent with evidence from uniparental markers whereby all non-Africans issue solely from L3 and M168, while Africans are a mixture of these lineages and the archaic African lineages L(xL3), A and B. They're the one's who are "mixed", not the non-Africans.
- Hence, the Afrocentric fantasy of a panmictic "black African" population prior to OOA is not supported and crumbles into dust.
Debunked, explain this:
If the Hofmeyr skull is "caucasoid" because by your logic UP Europeans are "Caucasoid", please explain why the Hofmeyr skull is closer to Recent Africans and Khoisan and farthest from Recent Europeans? Please explain why UP Eurasians are closer to Recent Africans and Khoisan and farthest from Recent Europeans? This supplemental data fro the same Hofmeyr Skull study.
Posts: 2595 | From: Vicksburg | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
That's based on Euclidean distances. You conveniently ignored the table based on Mahalanobis D2 distances, which shows different results and is the more important:
"Mahalanobis D2, adjusted for unequal sample sizes (S24), is used to estimate the morphological distances among samples. This method is appropriate for the goal of this analysis because it represents the morphological variation among groups scaled by the pooled within- group variation, and accounts for covariation among landmark coordinates, which is pervasive among biological datasets (S25, S26)."
Those figures produce these trees. You can see that Hofmeyr is closer to both UP and recent Eurasians than it is to either Africans or San, and that the UP Eurasians are nowhere near the Africans.
posted
The Afrocentrists have serious problems with reading comprehension, or else they just feel the need to stall with irrelevant questions and Afro-opinions. Because the evidence really couldn't be any clearer.
Pay close attention, Afrocentrists:
"M1 and U6...arose in southwestern Asia" -- Olivieri et al., 2006
"Upper Paleolithic crania are, for the most part, larger and more generalized versions of recent Europeans." -- Jantz and Owsley, 2003
"When one considers only those crania with 40 or more measurements, a majority express European affinity." -- Ibid.
"the [Hofmeyr] skull was found to be quite distinct from all recent Africans, including the Bushmen, she said, and it has 'a very close affinity' with fossil specimens of Europeans living in the Upper Paleolithic" -- Harvati/Grine
Posts: 128 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
This is gibberish. U6 [autochthonous Northwest African marker] and M1 [East African] markers in Africa 1) are ancestral to those found elsewhere [whether Europe or so-called "Near East"], wherein both markers were at some point radiated into the "Near East" from east African sources, and 2) have more diversity in Africa and are more frequent there.
Don't confuse U6 with a "proto-U6 ancestor", whose origins is still out on the jury. Some geneticists merely "guess" that the proto-U6 may have come from the "Near East" -- not on any firm grounds that a proto-U6 has actually been uncovered therein, but on the mere account that U6 ultimately splits from Hg R, which in turn derives from N; Hg N is generally deemed to have more diversity outside of the Africa. Case in point:
Another point is to decide whether the proto-U6 ancestor was also of African origin. Although it cannot be completely excluded, this hypothesis seems highly improbable even invoking strong bottlenecks in African populations. It is clear that the whole haplogroup U is an offshoot of macrohaplogroup N. This lineage, together with macrohaplogroup M, were the only ones that, belonging to the star radiation of L3 in Africa, left this continent to colonize Eurasia. Five mutations separate N from the root of the African L3 [8], and there are only late evolved N lineages in Africa, whereas representatives of the full N radiation are present in Eurasia. Thus, this continent would be the logical homeland of the proto-U6 that came back to Africa and spread in its northwest area around 30,000 ya (Table 4). Its most probable route had to be through East Africa. So, the loss of variability in this area is puzzling, although posterior demic expansions affecting East Africa might be the cause. - Maca-Meyer et al. 2003
Notes on U6:
In looking at the following diagram...
...it is apparent that at the least, U5 and U6 diverge into respective branches independent from that of the rest of U macro-haplogroup. Similar observation has been made about U1, which too, seems to have an independent branch from the rest of the U haplogroup. In other words, these three—either U1, U5 or U6—don't appear to have an ancestral clade within the main haplogroup U branch which is defined by the nucleotide transition at 1811 or vice versa. This is how it goes, courtesy of Maca-Meyer et al. 2003:
U6 is defined by two motifs represented by positions in the coding and HVR respectively: 3348 and 16172.
U5 is defined by the transitions at: 3197, 9477, 13617 and 16270.
And the rest of the U haplgroup [sans U1], defined by the mutation designated by position: 1811.
Maca-Meyer et al. add that:
U presents the following mutations with respect to rCRS: 73, 263, 311i, 750, 1438, 2706, 4769, 7028, 8860, 11467, 11719, 12308, 12372, 14766 and 15326. - Maca-Meyer et al. 2003
N macrohaplogroup is removed from the root of L3 by about 5 mutations, we are told. This is relevant, in that U haplogroup is often posited as having split from R, which derives from Haplogroup N. Speaking of haplogroup U splitting from R, we are told that this is the case via three mutations represented by: 11467, 12308 and 12372
Hence, the family association has been made between U6 [as is for U1 & U5] and the rest of the U haplogroup, primarily thanks to sharing of the above mentioned transition trio; if it weren't for these basic transitions, U6 would have likely just been considered as just another separate sub-branch of haplogroup R. Perhaps, if a clade was located—sharing the same transition trio but devoid of any known downstream coding or HVR mutations in either U6, U1 or U5 and the rest of haplogroup U, it could provide us with a possible candidate as the proto-U ancestor that gave rise to the divergent U branches in question. However, to date, no such lineage has come to light.
Thus, the re-examination point:
— U6 with respect to U5 , or U6 with respect to U1, and U6 with respect to the rest of haplogroup U, doesn't share defining motifs, outside of the basic transitions, particularly at the aforementioned position trio.
— In relation to the above, U6 doesn't have a common recent ancestor that is a U5 sub-lineage or vice versa, U6 doesn't have a common recent ancestor that is a U1 sub-lineage or vice versa, nor does U6 have a common recent ancestor that is a U*(xU1, U5) sub-lineage or vice versa.
Time will tell, as to whether much more improved resolution of mtDNA will bear out the possible candidate of the elusive proto-U6 ancestor, but until then, it would appear that the proto-U6 bearing population was quite small in size, such that proto-U6 itself would eventually be overwhelmed and essentially be erased by expansion of descendant U6 carriers and possibly, incursions from other populations. It is uncertain whether a proto-U6 ancestor would have been the very same ancestor that begot U1, U5 and U*(xU6,U1,U5) respectively elsewhere, or whether it would have been a single step or a few steps genetic-neighbor to those which begot the latter U groups, but it appears that the latter respective ancestors too were modestly represented 'population-wise', such that they too would have been overwhelmed by subsequent demographic expansions that gave rise to descendant populations and incoming groups from elsewhere. Whatever may be said about a proto-U6 ancestor's origin, one thing is clear: U6 itself is an autochthonous African marker, which would eventually spill over to parts of Europe, particularly those hugging the Mediterranean sea, and parts of "southwest Asia". It too, like M1 (clickable), has been implicated in the expansion of proto-Afrasan (aka proto-Afro-Asiatic) and/or Afrasan speakers outside of mainland Africa.
Ana M. Gonzalez et al. published a paper on M1 expansions, 9 July 2007, and a few things about it immediately jumped at me; I lay these out shortly following the abstract below, which is there to put potential viewers of this page on "the same page" so to speak, as far as the synopsis of the paper is concerned:
Abstract:
Mitochondrial lineage M1 traces an early human backflow to Africa
Ana M Gonzalez , Jose M Larruga , Khaled K Abu-Amero , Yufei Shi , Jose Pestano and Vicente M Cabrera
The complete article is available as a provisional PDF. The fully formatted PDF and HTML versions are in production.
Background The out of Africa hypothesis has gained generalized consensus. However, many specific questions remain unsettled. To know whether the two M and N macrohaplogroups that colonized Eurasia were already present in Africa before the exit is puzzling. It has been proposed that the east African clade M1 supports a single origin of haplogroup M in Africa. To test the validity of that hypothesis, the phylogeographic analysis of 13 complete mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) sequences and 261 partial sequences belonging to haplogroup M1 was carried out.
Results The coalescence age of the African haplogroup M1 is younger than those for other M Asiatic clades. In contradiction to the hypothesis of an eastern Africa origin for modern human expansions out of Africa, the most ancestral M1 lineages have been found in Northwest Africa and in the Near East, instead of in East Africa. The M1 geographic distribution and the relative ages of its different subclades clearly correlate with those of haplogroup U6, for which an Eurasian ancestor has been demonstrated.
Conclusions This study provides evidence that M1, or its ancestor, had an Asiatic origin. The earliest M1 expansion into Africa occurred in northwestern instead of eastern areas; this early spread reached the Iberian Peninsula even affecting the Basques. The majority of the M1a lineages found outside and inside Africa had a more recent eastern Africa origin. Both western and eastern M1 lineages participated in the Neolithic colonization of the Sahara. The striking parallelism between subclade ages and geographic distribution of M1 and its North African U6 counterpart strongly reinforces this scenario. Finally, a relevant fraction of M1a lineages present today in the European Continent and nearby islands possibly had a Jewish instead of the commonly proposed Arab/Berber maternal ascendance.
-Abstract ends-
MY Response To Ana M. Gonzalez et al.
*First, a quick synopsis of the samplings, with regards to where the n=261 M1 bearing samples come from, aside from the 588 participants mentioned in one of the tables [table 2] in the study:
From my assessment of the table, it comes from the following numbers:
A total of 50 Europeans detected for M1. A total of 154 for Africans. A total of 28 Asians, barring 8 unknown Arabian haplotypes. And a total of 29 Jews, who were lumped together from the various continents. The sum of the above totals, amount to 261 "known" M1 lineages.
*With regards to the authors claim about M1 or its ancestor, having “had an Asiatic origin”, the following comes to mind:
The authors of the study at hand, themselves admit that they haven't come across M1 ancestor in either south Asia or southwest Asia. They also take note of its highest diversity in Ethiopia and east Africa. Yet through the shaky premise of their M1c expansion time frame estimations, they build a conclusion around it, by tying it to a dispersal(s) "parallel" to that of U6 - another African marker whose immediate common recent ancestor, namely proto-U6, appears to be elusive thus far.
Well, they wouldn’t be the only ones who have failed to come across any proto-M1 ancestor in southwest and south Asia [Indian Subcontinent mainly]:
Based on the high frequency and diversity of haplogroup M in India and elsewhere in Asia, some authors have suggested (versus [3]) that M may have arisen in Southwest Asia [16,17,31]. Finding M1 or a lineage ancestral to M1 in India, could help to explain the presence of M1 in Africa as a result of a back migration from India. Yet, to date this has not been achieved [15], this study). Therefore, one cannot rule out the still most parsimonious scenario that haplogroup M arose in East Africa [3]. Furthermore, the lack of L3 lineages other than M and N (indeed, L3M and L3N) in India is more consistent with the African launch of haplogroup M. On the other hand, one also observes that: i) M1 is the only variant of haplogroup M found in Africa; ii) M1 has a fairly restricted phylogeography in Africa, barely penetrating into sub-Saharan populations, being found predominantly in association with the Afro-Asiatic linguistic phylum – a finding that appears to be inconsistent with the distribution of sub-clades of haplogroups L3 and L2 that have similar time depths. — Mait Metspalu et al.
So, while they acknowledge the highest "frequencies and diversities" of M1 particularly in Ethiopia, and generally in East Africa., the authors base their claims about ’origins’ on their expansion estimations of M1c derivatives, presumably predominant in northwest Africa rather than east Africa, and its relative sporadic distribution in 'Europe' and 'Southwest' Asia. They attempt to buttress this, by invoking an initial parallel expansion of M1 and U6 "ancestor" lineages into north Africa via the Nile Valley [from "southwest Asia"], then an expansion from northwest Africa this time around, of U6 and M1 derivatives northward into Europe and then eastward into "southwest" Asia via the Nile Valley corridor in the Sinai peninsula, presumably with a few derivatives making their way into sub-Saharan east Africa, where they then underwent some expansion, to give rise to yet another, but later, dispersal from there into "southwest Asia" and hence, accounting for the 'majority' of M1 lineages in "southwest Asia" being east African derivatives than the north African [M1c] counterparts.
*Furthermore,
The authors gather that their observations correlate with that of other researchers, namely Olivieri et al. To this extent, they put forth that Olivieri et al.’s M1b corresponds to their M1c, the former’s M1a2 corresponds to their M1b, and the former’s M1a1 corresponds to their M1a. They go onto to add that the coalescence ages arrived by the two research group [that of Olivieri et al. and that of the present authors] also correlate. The present authors note that their coalescence time for M1c (25.7 +/- 6.6 ky) overlaps with Olivieri et al.’s coalescence time for M1b (23.4 +/- 5.6). Similarly, they note that their coalescence age for M1a (22.6 +/- 8.1ky) falls within that of Olivieri et al.’s age for M1a1 at 20.6 +/- 3.4ky. However, this makes way for great discrepancy between the said authors and Olivieri et al., whereby their coalescence age for M1b at 13.7 +/- 4.8ky falls quite short of the latter’s age for M1a2 at 24 +/- 5.7ky. Not only are the subgroup nomenclatures distinct, but this latter discrepancy makes an unsubtle difference, so as to no longer render M1c to be older than M1b, but rather, either place M1c at an age a bit younger or on par with the latter, which should be otherwise according to the present study. Though, by their own admission, the present authors favor Olivieri et al.’s methods over their own:
As our calculations are based only on three lineages and that of Olivieri et al on six, we think that their coalescence time estimation should be more accurate than ours. In fact, when time estimation is based on the eight different lineages (AFR-K143 is common to both sets) a coalescence age of 20.6 +/- ky is obtained.
*But if there is any indication about the tenuous nature of the above thesis, without going into other known details about M1, it would be this alternative viewpoint they came up with:
The alternative idea entertained by the authors, is one where M1 could actually be an autochthonous northwest African lineage, which spread northward into Europe and eastward to "Southwest Asia" and east Africa. Again, to be followed by a yet later dispersal from east Africa, likely sub-Saharan east Africa, particularly the Ethiopian populations.
*The limitations inherent in solely relying on hypervariable segment motifs:
The status quo hasn't changed, not withstanding the hype about the supposed older expansion timeframes from M1c derivatives, predominant in Northwest Africa, according to their study. The authors rely heavily on the hypervariable region of the mtDNA, which even they themselves don't seem to put much faith on, as demonstrated by their noting of the need to proceed cautiously, given that random parallel mutations are known to occur across distinct macro-haplogroups and sub-clades. They also note how hypervariable nature of the control region, can lead to misleading calculations from erratic mutations, as demonstrated by the M1a2 they put forth, leading them to omit them in their lineage coalescence analysis.
*Another thing that hasn't been relayed through this study, is this:
The coding regions transitions are likely to change relatively slower than those of hypervariable segments, and hence, likely to remain intact within a clade. To assist in determining which clade to place a monophyletic unit, key coding region transitions have to be identified. In the case of M1, we were told:
We found 489C (Table 3) in all Indian and eastern-African haplogroup M mtDNAs analysed, but not in the non-M haplogroup controls, including 20 Africans representing all African main lineages (6 L1, 4 L2, 10 L3) and 11 Asians.
These findings, and the lack of positive evidence (given the RFLP status) that the 10400 C->T transition defining M has happened more than once, suggest that it has a single common origin, but do not resolve its geographic origin. Analysis of position 10873 (the MnlI RFLP) revealed that all the M molecules (eastern African, Asian and those sporadically found in our population surveys) were 10873C (Table 3). As for the non-M mtDNAs, the ancient L1 and the L2 African-specific lineages5, as well as most L3 African mtDNAs, also carry 10873C.
Conversely, all non-M mtDNAs of non-African origin analysed so far carry 10873T. These data indicate that the **transition 10400 C-->T, which defines haplogroup M**, arose on an African background characterized by the ancestral state 10873C, which is also present in four primate (common and pygmy chimps, gorilla and orangutan) mtDNA sequences. — Semino et al.
...which is significant, as other M lineages are devoid of M1 coding region motifs, not to mention the M1 HVS-I package. The above does demonstrate, how M lineages likely arose on an African 'background' by single-event substitutions in the designated African ancestral counterparts. The ancestral transition of 10873C is substituted by 10873T in non-African non-M haplogroups, while the 10400C transition was substituted in M lineages by 10400T.
Furthermore,...
The 489C transition, as noted above and can be seen from the diagram, is peculiar to the M macrohaplogroup, again suggestive of unique event mutations characterizing the family:
The phylogenetic location of the mutations at nt 489 and 10,873 (arrow) was predicted by our analysis. The seemingly shared mutation at nt 16,129 (by G, Z and M1) is very likely an accidental parallelism. The ancestral states 10400C, 10810C and 10873C are fixed in L1 (as analysed so far) and are present in the ape sequences.
The 16129 sharing across the M1 haplogroups, seems to be one of those instances of random parallel mutation, recalling Chang Sun et al.'s observations of random parallel mutations of certain transitions across the M macrohaplogroup.
We also know that "southwest Asian" and "European" M1 lineages are derivatives of African counterparts, and the same is true for southwest Asian non-M1 affiliated M lineages from south Asia:
Compared to India, haplogroup M frequency in Iran is marginally low (5.3%) and there are no distinguished Iranian-specific sub-clades of haplogroup M. All Iranian haplogroup M lineages can be seen as derived from other regional variants of the haplogroup: eleven show affiliation to haplogroup M lineages found in India, twelve in East and Central Asia (D, G, and M8 ) and one in northeast Africa (M1)…
Indian-specific (R5 and Indian-specific M and U2 variants) and East Asian-specific (A, B and East Asian-specific M subgroups) mtDNAs, both, make up less than 4% of the Iranian mtDNA pool. We used Turkey (88.8 ± 4.0%) as the third parental population for evaluating the relative proportions of admixture from India (2.2 ± 1.7%) and China (9.1 ± 4.1%) into Iran. Therefore we can conclude that historic gene flow from India to Iran has been very limited.
With that said, Semino et al.'s older study still remains strong, the way I see it:
haplogroup M originated in eastern Africa approximately 60,000 years ago and was carried toward Asia. This agrees with the proposed date of an out-of-Africa expansion approximately 65,000 years ago10. After its arrival in Asia, the haplogroup M founder group went through a demographic and geographic expansion. The remaining M haplogroup in eastern Africa did not spread, but remained localized up to approximately 10,000-20,000 years ago, after which it started to expand. — Semino et al.
Elsewhere, I've also talked about some 'basal' M-like lineages in Africa; for instance, at least one of such was identified in the Senegalese sample.
Am. J. Hum. Genet., 66:1362-1383, 2000
mtDNA Variation in the South African Kung and Khwe and Their Genetic Relationships to Other African Populations
"The Asian mtDNA phylogeny is subdivided into two macrohaplogroups, one of which is M. M is delineated by a DdeI site at np 10394 and an AluI site of np 10397. The only African mtDNA found to have both of these sites is the Senegalese haplotype AF24. This haplotype branches off African subhaplogroup L3a (figs.2 and3), suggesting that haplogroup M mtDNAs might have been derived from this African mtDNA lineage..."
The relevant representation in this recap diagram:
^The 10397 transition is shown in the L3-M linkage, while 10394, which should show up as positive [as exemplified in the above extract] in the M macrohaplogroup, shows up negative in the linkage between L3 and non-M affiliated lineages.
**^To put the above compilation into perspective, and keep it simple, the point is this:
Semino et al.'s demonstration of certain characteristic basic coding transitions of the M super-haplogroup [not including the key coding region motifs unique to the M1 family], springing directly from African ancestral motifs, don't require that M1 has to have a proto "non-African" M1, whereas an Asian origin of M1 would necessitate an Asian proto-M1 lineage that would explain the relatively young expansion ages of M1 and lack of descendancy from pre-existing Asian M lineages. This hasn't been achieved either by the present study or ones prior to it.
Getting to the gist:
Basal M mtDNA ~ between c. 60 - 80 ky ago
And then, M1 ~ between ~ c. 10 - 30 ky ago
The studies I posted, suggest that the basal motifs characteristic of the M macrohaplogroup arose in Africa, anywhere between 60 - 80 ky ago [since they would have likely been in the continent by the time of the 60 ky ago or so OOA migrations] . Sometime between 60 ky and 50 ky ago [some sources place it between 75 - 60 ky ago], these L3 offshoots were carried outside of Africa, amongst early successful a.m.h migrations, which resulted in the populations now living in the Indian-subcontinent, Melanesia and Australia who have these lineages. Not all the basal African L3M lineages, as Semino et al. convincingly put it, left the continent, as indicated by the basal L3a-M motif detected in Senegal, M1 diversity in Africa, particularly East Africa, both M1 and other M lineages detected in Ugandan samples, and lack of descendancy of M1 from older-coalescent Asian macrohaplogroup. Rather, it appears that the basal L3M lineages which remained in Africa, underwent a relatively limited demographic intra-African expansion until relatively recently, i.e. between 10 - 30 ky ago, compared to the Asian L3M derivatives, which underwent major expansions, naturally within the quantitatively smaller founder immigrant groups, i.e. the founder effect.
M1 is likely the culmination of relatively more recent demographic expansions of basal L3M lineages in the African continent, with M1 derivative being a successful candidate, in what could have possibly involved other derivatives which might not have expanded to the same level intra-continentally, and subsequently, extra-continentally as well.
M1 has strongly been correlated with the upper Paleolithic expansion of proto-Afrasan groups across the Sahara to coastal north Africa, and further eastward via the Sinai peninsula.
I agree that there is no proof that U6 or M1 originate outside of Africa.
This is also a destraction from the topic of the original population of East Africa, and the E3b lineage.
Debunked fails to dispute the African origin of E3b.
Debunked fails to provide any intelligible basis for his backwards claims of and original 'caucasian' population of East Africa - a claim that has been rightly debunked by modern anthropologists, whether he wants to continue making it, or not.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:"Upper Paleolithic crania are, for the most part, larger and more generalized versions of recent Europeans."
^
^ This claim is based on wishful thinking.
This observation is based on objective anatomical measurements....
Some "Cro Magnon" resemble current Africans and Australians more than Europeans[ - Chris Stringer, African exodus.
quote:"the [Hofmeyr] skull was found to be quite distinct from all recent Africans, including the Bushmen"
^ I doubt Debunked believes this hyperbole, but if he does, he can tell us exactly how this skull differs from "all africans".
And in what way does Debunked claim it is specific to *current* Europeans....
What current "European" feature does it have?
This leave us with Upper Paleolithic Europeans, who of course *were not white* since the mutations for white skin had not yet developed, where still skeletally 'tropical' *unlike* modern Europeans, and do not particularly resemble modern Europeans 'cranially either'.
See the following....please note the specifics in boldface, and tell us how it relates "european skull".
The 35,000-year-old cranium discovered in Pestera cu Oase in the west of the country shows an interesting mix of features, say scientists.
Dr Helene Rougier, from Washington University in St Louis, US, and colleagues say the fossil suggests the first modern humans to enter Europe continued to change after they had settled.
H. sapiens is thought to have emerged in Africa more than 150,000 years ago before spreading out of the continent and arriving in Europe less than 50,000 years ago.
The reconstructed cranium - known as Oase 2 and found in a Late Pleistocene bone bed containing the remains of cave bears - comes from the earliest stages of the occupation.
In addition to its large face and retreating forehead, the specimen has the largest cheek teeth so far known for an otherwise anatomically modern human, the team reports.
^ Can Debunked tell us about large faces, sloping forheads, and large teeth, as distinguishing traits of Europeans?
If not, then what are the distinguishing traits found in UP crania?
Of course you can simply "claim" whateve skull is of European affinity, while offering no specifics.....
Of course Eurocentrists are notorious for that.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Debunker: That's based on Euclidean distances. You conveniently ignored the table based on Mahalanobis D2 distances, which shows different results and is the more important:
"Mahalanobis D2, adjusted for unequal sample sizes (S24), is used to estimate the morphological distances among samples. This method is appropriate for the goal of this analysis because it represents the morphological variation among groups scaled by the pooled within- group variation, and accounts for covariation among landmark coordinates, which is pervasive among biological datasets (S25, S26)."
Those figures produce these trees. You can see that Hofmeyr is closer to both UP and recent Eurasians than it is to either Africans or San, and that the UP Eurasians are nowhere near the Africans.
No, the Bass didn't ignore this info nor leave it out, it was the Bass setting you up to make a fool of yourself. The Hofmeyr skulls is closest to Oceania which are in turn closest to ASfricans, cased closed.
Posts: 2595 | From: Vicksburg | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Its great when we can actually read the anthropological findings, to find out, even though hofmeyr, didn't match up to most recent Africans, he did possess African features.
Late Pleistocene Human Skull from Hofmeyr, South Africa, and Modern Human Origins F. E. Grine,1* R. M. Bailey,2 K. Harvati,3 R. P. Nathan,4 A. G. Morris,5 G. M. Henderson,6 I. Ribot,7 A. W. G. Pike8
The Hofmeyr skull is fully adult; the coronal suture is obliterated and the third molars are heavily worn. It suffered antemortem trauma to the lateral margin of the right orbit, which exhibits a healed or partially healed depressed fracture. This crushing, together with associated bony exostoses along its posterior margin, exaggerate the thickness of the frontal process of the zygomatic. The anterior surface of the right supraorbital torus appears to have been cut away. Hofmeyr presents an overall picture of morphological modernity in its steeply rising frontal and high rounded vault, the maximum breadth of which is situated high on the parietals. Weak frontal eminences recede laterally from a broad low midline keel that rises vertically from the glabella. The skull is large and robust. The maximum estimated length and breadth of the neurocranium, as well as most measurements of the facial skeleton, lie at or exceed two standard deviations (SD) of the means for modern African males, whereas they lie within these limits for Late Pleistocene crania from Eurasia and North Africa (table S3). Narrow nasal bones are bounded by very broad (~15.0 mm), relatively flat frontal processes of the maxillae. The pyriform aperture is broad in comparison to that ofmost EurasianUP crania. The infraorbital plate is tall and flat and lacks an inframalar curve. As such, it differs from the condition that characterizes recent southern African crania (12, 25). Frontal and parietal thickness (6 to 7mm) is comparable to that of recent humans. The glabella projects to a greater degree thanin modern Africans but is comparable to that ofUP crania.Thesupraorbital tori of Hofmeyr are moderately well developed and continuous, lacking the separation of the medial supraorbital eminence and lateral superciliary arch that is characteristic of recent humans. Although the supraorbital torus is comparable in thickness to that in UP crania, its continuous nature represents a more archaic morphology (26). In this regard, Hofmeyr is more primitive than later sub-Saharan LSA and North African UP specimens (such as Lukenya Hill andWadi Kubbaniya), even though they may have a somewhat thicker medial supraorbital eminence. Despite its glabellar prominence and capacious maxillary sinuses, Hofmeyr exhibits only incipient frontal sinus development, a condition that is uncommon among European UP crania (27). The mandibular ramus has a well-developed gonial angle, and the slender coronoid process is equivalent in height to the condyle. The mandibular (sigmoid) notch is deep and symmetrical, and its crest intersects the lateral third of the condyle. The anterior margin of the ramus is damaged, but it is clear that there was no retromolar gap. The Hofmeyr molars are large. The buccolingual diameter ofM2 exceeds recentAfrican and Eurasian UP sample means by more than 2 SD (table S3). Radiographs reveal cynodont molars, although pulp chamber height is likely to have been affected by the deposition of secondary dentine in these heavily worn teeth. Thus, Hofmeyr is seemingly primitive in comparison to recent African crania in a number of features, including a prominent glabella; moderately thick, continuous supraorbital tori; a tall, flat, and straight malar; a broad frontal process of the maxilla; and comparatively large molar crowns. Hofmeyr is contemporaneous with later Eurasian Neandertals, but it clearly does not evince the cranial and mandibular apomorphies that define that clade (28). This is notsurprising, given its geographic location.Although Hofmeyris similar in size to Eurasian UP crania, it differsfrom them in other respects (such as its broad noseand continuous supraorbital tori). In order to assess the phenetic affinities of Hofmeyr to penecontemporaneous Eurasian UP and recent humans, we conducted multivariate morphometric analyses of 3D landmark coordinates and linear measurements of crania representing these populations. We digitized 19 3D coordinates of landmarks that represent as fully as possible the currently preserved anatomy of the Hofmeyr skull (table S4). These were compared with homologous data for recent human samples from five broad geographic areas (North Africa, sub-Saharan Africa, Western Eurasia, Oceania, and Eastern Asia/New World). The sub-Saharan sample was divided into Bantuspeaking (Mali and Kenya) and South African Khoe-San samples. The latter are represented in the Holocene archaeological record of the subcontinent, and inasmuch as they are the oldest historic indigenes of southern Africa, they might be expected to have the closest affinity to Hofmeyr (12). The North African sample consists of Epipaleolithic (Mesolithic) individuals that provide a temporal depth of approximately 10,000 years. The 3D data were also compared for two Neandertal, four Eurasian UP, and one Levantine early modern human fossils (table S5). The landmark coordinate configurations for each specimen were superimposed with the use of generalized Procrustes analysis and analyzed with a series of multivariate statistical techniques (29). Hofmeyr falls at the upper ends of the recent sub-Saharan African sample ranges and within the upper parts of all other recent human sample ranges in terms of centroid size (fig. S6). In a canonical variates analysis of these landmarks (Fig. 2), axis 1 separates the sub-Saharan African samples from the others, and axis 4 tends to differentiate the UP specimens from recent homologs. Hofmeyr clusters with the UP sample, and although it falls within the recent human range on both axes, it is outside the 95% confidence ellipse for the Khoe-San sample and barely within the limits of the other sub-Saharan African sample. These canonical axes are weakly correlated with centroid size, which emphasizes that the similarity between Hofmeyr and the UP sample is due only in small part to similarity in size.
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Its great when we can actually read the anthropological findings, to find out, even though hofmeyr, didn't match up to most recent Africans,
Paleolithic skulls do not generally 'match up' to modern skulls.
"Thus, Hofmeyr is seemingly primitive in comparison to recent African crania in a number of features, including a prominent glabella; moderately thick, continuous supraorbital tori; a tall, flat, and straight malar; a broad frontal process of the maxilla; and comparatively large molar crowns."
^ Debunked of course is simply a dishonest troll, he does not really think 'seemingly primative' looking is equivalent to looking like modern Europeans.
As usual, his responses bait after irrelevancies, and pretend to ignore the facts which completely debunk him.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Charlie Bass: No, the Bass didn't ignore this info nor leave it out, it was the Bass setting you up to make a fool of yourself. The Hofmeyr skulls is closest to Oceania which are in turn closest to ASfricans, cased closed.
Correct, and actually based on that chart you "could" form a skull cluster, albeit somewhat arbitrary of Hofmeyr, Oceania [Australia/New Guinea] and their African samples.
Current Europeans are somewhat outlier from this grouping.
Since it is New Guinea/Australia that is closest amongst modern skull-appearances to Hofmeyr, we are led back to the question that Debunked just runs, and runs, and runs away from.
quote:Originally posted by rasol:
quote:and "non-African" camp [aka the African lineages "common outside of the continent"].
Hence the relevance of the unanswered question:
quote:As you would "model" homo-sapiens, are Melanesian and European a part of the same population structure?
Yes or no?
If yes, then what does "population structure" tell us about "caucasian".
If no, then what *is* the basis of a genetic structure that contrasts "Africans" and Non Africans...which you propose?
To make it easier....here is picture and genetic data which relates my question.
Melanesians {Oceania}....
Europeans, show as intermediates
between Oceania and Africans.....
Oceanians and Africans would represent the "opposite ends" of the proposed "structure".
^ Too bad they have no answers.
Again we ask - how can Melanesian looking skulls, genes or reified population structures, help to foster the mythology of Eurocentrists?
So afraid is Debunked of the above that he refuses to even try to come up with and answer.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
No, the Bass didn't ignore this info nor leave it out, it was the Bass setting you up to make a fool of yourself. The Hofmeyr skulls is closest to Oceania which are in turn closest to ASfricans, cased closed.
^ And West Eurasians are second most outlier, or distant from *all other populations*.
Only Neanderthal is more unlike - all other groups - on this phenetic affinities of skull map.
Even if this were not the case it wouldn't much help Debunker, but as it stands, he continues to debunk himself with his backwards thinking.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:"panmictic Black African" population prior to OOA crumbles into dust
->
- African is admitted by your statement "prior to Out of Africa", and is so, undisputed and indisputable.
- Black [melanoderm] is a fact of genetics, as dark skin is the product of the original underived genes for skin color. See.....
"dark skin is the original state of the species homo sapiens" - Nina Gablonski.
African ENTAILS BLACK, though Black does not entail African. - CL Brace.
- This leaves us with your 'cute' use of "panmixes"- [random mating] - which is completely irrelevant to either African or Black, and is introduced as a strawman argument.
Your rant is thus essentially worthless.
Anything else?
The problem is, Debunker (who I seriously doubt is Exasperating Euro; at least this new guy doesn't throw racial slurs every other post) seems to be working with the "true Negroid" definition of "blackness" (the one defined by a specific set of facial features), and is projecting it onto us. He doesn't understand that some people have a more flexible concept of blackness for that, that a Somali with fine features can be every bit as black and tropically adapted as the Bantu and pygmies his cited studies usually choose as samples.
Posts: 7083 | From: Fallbrook, CA | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic