Of course I read what you said. While no one ever said that autosomes tell the whole story (a position you're bent on arguing against, but why?), someone did actually imply that haplogroup frequencies are more informative for uncovering all layers of migrations and their relative importance in terms of how much they're representative of the genetic make up of a population. I haven't seen you reply to that, once, hence, my previous attempt to put things back on track.
You're going out of your way to defend the usefullness of haplogroups, when, to my awareness, their value in general or ability to do what you're suggesting was never questioned. What exactly is it that you're arguing against, that makes you so determined to repeat your argument and feel like you're not being heard?
Quote: "Man did you read what I said?"
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
The point of the matter is that there are certain genetic markers only tell one side of the story. Uniparentals tell you exactly that-- one-parent lineages; while autosomes give you a rough picture of how you relate to others in everything else i.e. HLA. Even when both genetic methods are used, it still doesn't tell you their precise history as to which individuals migrated to their present location and mated with which individuals at a certain time. The best that genetics can give are CLUES as to the history of a population. It's just like archaeology. Archaeology gives clues via the material culture. History is perhaps the most accurate but of course written history as we know it is relatively recent and even the earliest histories written are full of mythology.
As for the author of this thread, Amun-Ra is obviously confused as he is biased to the point of blindness. He accuses us of being racist due to his mistaken belief that we are somehow white-washing or 'de-Africanizing' certain populations. We are NOT! However, he thinks this is the case due to the fact that the genetic diversity in Africa shows some populations are more closely related to certain populations while more distantly related to others.
Even the idiotic chart he spams shows this:
LOLPosts: 26316 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think people are over-emphasizing autosomes over the other loci, which should not be the case and I think it has a lot to do with the rise of these DNA companies and these STRUCTURE studies, to the point where people are seeing uni-parentals as useless and that should never be the case.
Posts: 2597 | From: Vicksburg | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
^^^It's the contrary. Y-DNA and MtDNA analysis to determine your ancestors are very popular with DNA ancestry companies. They don't use autosomal much even if it could be done too. Ideally all three (Y-DNA, MtDNA, Autosomal) would be done at the same time for the same price. Giving you a more complete picture as I did in this thread:
quote:Originally posted by .Charlie Bass.: I think people are over-emphasizing autosomes over the other loci, which should not be the case and I think it has a lot to do with the rise of these DNA companies and these STRUCTURE studies, to the point where people are seeing uni-parentals as useless and that should never be the case.
I dont think this is the case. The two do not overlap. One can be easily altered by drift. Here is a clear example. Please match the autosomal profile to this Uniparental Marker.
E1b1b1 H1a
Where in Africa and the new world is this found?
Posts: 2463 | From: New Jersey USA | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by .Charlie Bass.: I think people are over-emphasizing autosomes over the other loci, which should not be the case and I think it has a lot to do with the rise of these DNA companies and these STRUCTURE studies, to the point where people are seeing uni-parentals as useless and that should never be the case.
I dont think this is the case. The two do not overlap. One can be easily altered by drift. Here is a clear example. Please match the autosomal profile to this Uniparental Marker.
E1b1b1 H1a
Where in Africa and the new world is this found?
I never said that, but in the case of autosomals....look at Henry Louis gates, both his paternal and maternal uni-parentals are European, autosomally he is 50% African, yet he isn't a mulatto because neither of his parents are white, both are Aframs.
As for your question, well those two uniparentals you posted look about typical for a North African or even a Tuareg
Posts: 2597 | From: Vicksburg | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by .Charlie Bass.: I think people are over-emphasizing autosomes over the other loci, which should not be the case and I think it has a lot to do with the rise of these DNA companies and these STRUCTURE studies, to the point where people are seeing uni-parentals as useless and that should never be the case.
I dont think this is the case. The two do not overlap. One can be easily altered by drift. Here is a clear example. Please match the autosomal profile to this Uniparental Marker.
E1b1b1 H1a
Where in Africa and the new world is this found?
I never said that, but in the case of autosomals....look at Henry Louis gates, both his paternal and maternal uni-parentals are European, autosomally he is 50% African, yet he isn't a mulatto because neither of his parents are white, both are Aframs.
As for your question, well those two uniparentals you posted look about typical for a North African or even a Tuareg
Or
That would have a totally different autosomal makeup than North Africans.....and would put the uniparental markers in perspective.
Posts: 2463 | From: New Jersey USA | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Good point Beyoku. Hadn't even though of that in relation to this topic. Individuals with the same hgs but who belong to different populations will have an entirely different autosomal signature. If this happens at the population level (as opposed to the individual level), you get the very thing that Amun Ra's inner RAM memory can't seem to process without short circuiting: at the population level, individuals will cluster with the populations they're from, every time, regardless of how much the uniparental profiles of individuals within those populations resemble, or are identical to individuals from other, traditionally separated populations.
By far, in most population affinity uses, hgs are little more than icing on the cake or even third wheels compared to autosomal profiles. Sometimes they have specific niche benefits but the case can be made that many of these are either not population affinity/genetic closeness related (e.g. constructing trees that reflect the extant history of the human tree, entirely free of recombination) or that autosomes can perform some of those functions as well.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
This Reminds me of a discussion with a Somali. One of those nationalist "we not black....we not negro" types. I then proceeded to have him describe the Somali genesis and who was on Somalia prior to Somali and what negroids they have mixed with. He did a pretty bad job and tried to pin it all down to E-m78(v32). Somali are dominated by v32 but this marker only describes a paternal event in the area. It's hypothesized To have happened quite recent per Sanchez. ..I think 5600 or 6500 years ago.
Point is there are remains in Somalia that predate this. There is rock art in Somalia that dates to 6500 BC or earlier. It would be foolish to think Somali popped into existence with the dating of their main paternal marker. This marker is associated with s SMALL migration and has arisen to high frequency through drift.
Futuremore it is likely western Sudanese with high V32 have a different autosomal profile than Somali. According to limited STR at least they do.
Posts: 2463 | From: New Jersey USA | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
To add. What this parental marker DOES do, is let you get a picture of WHERE the small migration population came from before it rose to near fixation. It adds another element to the discussion. E-M81 reaching fixation in the Maghreb can be an anomaly when dealing with their autosomal profile....it does though let you know the Source of the founder in reg to the "founder effect".
The discussion in genetics has moved from uniparentals to Autosomal SNP's complimented by uniparentals. Many populations SHARE uniparentals. This is particularly the case with the area from Southern Europe through the fertile crescent and into the Horn and East Africa. If using the time span of "Dey all be E-PN2" as a gauge, then there is a vast span of lineages shared between Africans and non Africans when it comes to derivatives of M and N...Particularly RO. This would leads to vast swathes of that area mentioned above sharing R0 when not reduced all they way down to H. And Pn2. Folks in the chad basin would have an even closer sharing relationship with Europeans based on the sharing between Pn2 and R1.
The entire argument really falls flat when we look at NEW RESEARCH. Folks here dont know but haplogroup R and many lineages in south East Asia and the southern pacific have been consolidated and resolved down into SIMPLE SUBCLADES OF K2B. Yep you heard it....M, S, Q, R, P are all subcaldes of one K2b. If we take a step back to K2 we can include ALL of Haplogroup N and the VAST East Asian population of Haplogroup O.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_K-M9 The time frame of K2 breaking up in the diversity that it is today and all the populations it represents IS YOUNGER THAN the breakup of Haplogroup E and its subclades.
I will repeat that for emphasis and clarify:
The time frame of K2 breaking up in and Haplogroup diversity it represents today....and all the Autosomal separation between these populations (Europeans, Paupans, Chinese, Central Asians, Negritos, Southern Indians, Sub Saharans[T,R], Native Americans etc) IS YOUNGER THAN the breakup of Haplogroup E and its subclades....and possibly even E1b1 depending on the dating.
I know most of you dont study Eurasian genetics but to put things in perspective it would be very similar to finding new Y mutations in Africa that indicate that ALL the African uniparental markers can be resolved under a subclade of Sahelian E1a or East African B2a. once you understand the implications you can see how false it is to think Y dna is more important than or directly implies autosome.
Posts: 2463 | From: New Jersey USA | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
are further from Fulani than Fulani are from European & Indian.
Cushitic are closer to to all Africans than they are to non-Africans, except * Hadza are further from Cushitic than Cushitic are from European & Indian.
Remember, the above are my observations of Tishkoff (2009r) Figure S14 aSTR nucleotide genetic distances measured tip to tip, not stem to stem.
Posts: 8179 | From: the Tekrur straddling Senegal & Mauritania | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged |
so, no, Fulani are not "closer to non-Africans than" are their Niger-Kordofanian co-linguists. The two are ~equidistant from European.
Well, actually, you're wrong.
And it's not the first time you fail to understand very basic things then come here to tell me, I'm the one who is wrong with an exaggerated confidence sure of yourself, instead of simply asking questions and ask me for clarification, if I'm able and willing to provide them. Obviously I can make simple errors too sometimes, all informed criticisms and counter-argumentation are welcome. It's a bit why I post those stuff here.
As I already explained to Beyoku (and thus to all readers of this forum) in greater length in another thread, that's not how you measure the distance between populations. You must not measure the distance from the tip but from the beginning of the colored lines.
If you check out p13-14 in the paragraph about Fig. S14 in the Tishkoff document ( DOWNLOAD HERE) . You will read:
The Fulani and Cushitic [] are closest to the non-African AACs. - Tiskhoff et al., P13-14
So it is indeed, as I implied in my previous post in this thread, Fulani and then Cushitic populations which are the closest to non-African AACs and the European AAC. Obviously, they are still much closer to the other African AACs than to the non-African ones.
As a side note, this is also reflected by the uniparental haplogroups of those populations which display a greater proportion of recent post-OOA Eurasian haplogroups admixtures (back migrations) in those populations.
Posts: 2981 | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged |
posted
Why someone would rely on trees or dendrograms to infer pairwise genetic distances is completely beyond me.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by beyoku: To add. What this parental marker DOES do, is let you get a picture of WHERE the small migration population came from before it rose to near fixation. It adds another element to the discussion. E-M81 reaching fixation in the Maghreb can be an anomaly when dealing with their autosomal profile....it does though let you know the Source of the founder in reg to the "founder effect".
The discussion in genetics has moved from uniparentals to Autosomal SNP's complimented by uniparentals. Many populations SHARE uniparentals. This is particularly the case with the area from Southern Europe through the fertile crescent and into the Horn and East Africa. If using the time span of "Dey all be E-PN2" as a gauge, then there is a vast span of lineages shared between Africans and non Africans when it comes to derivatives of M and N...Particularly RO. This would leads to vast swathes of that area mentioned above sharing R0 when not reduced all they way down to H. And Pn2. Folks in the chad basin would have an even closer sharing relationship with Europeans based on the sharing between Pn2 and R1.
The entire argument really falls flat when we look at NEW RESEARCH. Folks here dont know but haplogroup R and many lineages in south East Asia and the southern pacific have been consolidated and resolved down into SIMPLE SUBCLADES OF K2B. Yep you heard it....M, S, Q, R, P are all subcaldes of one K2b. If we take a step back to K2 we can include ALL of Haplogroup N and the VAST East Asian population of Haplogroup O.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_K-M9 The time frame of K2 breaking up in the diversity that it is today and all the populations it represents IS YOUNGER THAN the breakup of Haplogroup E and its subclades.
I will repeat that for emphasis and clarify:
The time frame of K2 breaking up in and Haplogroup diversity it represents today....and all the Autosomal separation between these populations (Europeans, Paupans, Chinese, Central Asians, Negritos, Southern Indians, Sub Saharans[T,R], Native Americans etc) IS YOUNGER THAN the breakup of Haplogroup E and its subclades....and possibly even E1b1 depending on the dating.
I know most of you dont study Eurasian genetics but to put things in perspective it would be very similar to finding new Y mutations in Africa that indicate that ALL the African uniparental markers can be resolved under a subclade of Sahelian E1a or East African B2a. once you understand the implications you can see how false it is to think Y dna is more important than or directly implies autosome.
I agree with you bro, but the biggest flaw in regards to autosomals is when they try to use autosomals to track ancient population movements which to me in highly problematic. First reason is their proposed spread of autosomal ancestry is often at odds with the known inroduction and spread of certain mtDNA and Y haplogroups. I look at the case of the Khoisan, a couple of papers claim these people have anceint Eurasian admixture from East Africans, but there is no recognisable signature of anything Eurasian as far as haplogroups on neither the maternal nor paternal side.
The other thing is and we are seeing this is Europeans vs ancient European DNA being analysed, the autosomal make up of the ancients vs the moderns are very different and that can change several times over thousands of years. The same can happen for uniparentals but if there is a change you can track much more precisely on the uniparental side, thats how we know that thousands of years ago haplogroup A and B carriers(along with some now extinct lineages) were replaced by haplogroup E carriers, autosomals aren't as reliable in that regard. Autosomals are good for looking at the total genetic make up of populations if you are looking for percentages, but to me and this is jst me, they say nothing about ancient population movements. Look at that study on North African that proposed several movements of Eurasians into North Africa over 40,000 years
Posts: 2597 | From: Vicksburg | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by .Charlie Bass.: I look at the case of the Khoisan, a couple of papers claim these people have anceint Eurasian admixture from East Africans, but there is no recognisable signature of anything Eurasian as far as haplogroups on neither the maternal nor paternal side.
That's not right. The percentage of Eurasian admixtures in Khoisan populations found in those autosomal studies is usually very low. But you can still see recognizable signature of Eurasian haplogroups in Khoisan populations. If we look at Y chromosome haplogroup frequencies table 3 on page 8 of this study ( download study here) Khoisan got 0.5% of Eurasian haplogroup I, 1.1% of R1a1 and 1.6% of R1b, all signatures of Eurasian haplogroups admixtures (post-OOA).
For a population like the Nama it's even higher (see here, fig3b p44) , in accordance to Pickrell (see here, Table 1) higher Eurasian autosomal finding for that particular population.
In general, you must always consider and take into account sample bias, SNP ascertainment bias and small sample size in those studies as I explained to you in another thread, as well as taking into account both uniparental DNA haplogroups and autosomal DNA as demonstrated in this thread.
Posts: 2981 | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged |
Southern Africans were hypothesized to have "Eurasian" admixture via East Africans. East Africans have "Eurasians" admixture via southwest Asians. East Africans have the signatures of the admixture via uniparental markers: Generically speaking M89 and mtdna N.
The admixture in question goes back to a date in Horners where one would expect the Uniparental signature (M89 and mtdna N.) to be passed from East Africans to Southern Africans but that is not the case. Southern Africans instead only have signatures of Horn Ancestry...........indicating the South West Asian lineages in question were lost through drift or were never present in the Horn Africans that brought them.
Of course this does NOT take into account the very very recent EUROPEAN ancestry found in Southern Africans via rape and colonization of the area in the past few 100 years.
It is obvious that the research in question is looking at the Nile Valley/Rift valley under a lense that is too simplistic. Anyone that looks at the region should understand that there were a number of distinct groups in the Horn with differing uniparental profiles. The group...specifically the southern Cushitic speakers that traveled south and were absorbed into click speakers were distinct from other Horn populations affected by SW Asians. Off top I can think of at least 4 differing groups of East Africans dominated by certain uniparental markers that neighboring groups may not have had and have. All one needs to do is look at the discontinuity of lineages like V32, E-V6, L4, M1a etc. One southward expansion from the horn hypothetically would be of a population totally lacking in M78 while the other would not. The same could be said for M-329 and M-293.
IMO The horners in question that transverse to South Africa were absent M89. The M89 lineages found in Some horners is in fact more recent African mediated gene flow between neighboring populations. I believe it was Pickrell or that similar dated study on south Africans, when one looks at the expansion dates and admixture of all world populations Ethiopians have the oldest or second oldest expansion dates in ALL human groups sampled.
Posts: 2463 | From: New Jersey USA | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
The "Eurasian" population that admixed with Khoisans are projected to have been ~75% African. I don't see why that would have to leave a Eurasian hg signature in the recipient populations. I'm not saying there is no such hg signature, I'm saying that, in principle, there doesn't need to be one today. The very fact that select South Africans have notable freqs of hgs like L4, L5 and E-M293 today, and that these are especially found in South African pastoralists, proves that East Africans migrated there recently. This absence of substantial derived Eurasian hgs in these admixed Khoisan populations is clearly a(nother) case where hgs have proven unreliable trackers of migrations.
It was the study of autosomal DNA that brought clarity to the hitch-hiking layer of Eurasian ancestry towards South Africa, when hg investigations initially failed to attract researchers' undivided attention towards these "new" genetic aspects of the E-M293 migration, which go together well with what was initially known as movement of East African hgs, pottery and cattle to South Africa.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: The "Eurasian" population that admixed with Khoisans are projected to have been ~75% African. I don't see why that would have to leave a Eurasian hg signature in the recipient populations. I'm not saying there is no such hg signature, I'm saying that, in principle, there doesn't need to be one today. The very fact that select South Africans have notable freqs of hgs like L4, L5 and E-M293 today, and that these are especially found in South African pastoralists, proves that East Africans migrated there recently. This absence of substantial derived Eurasian hgs in these admixed Khoisan populations is clearly a(nother) case where hgs have proven unreliable trackers of migrations.
It was the study of autosomal DNA that brought clarity to the hitch-hiking layer of Eurasian ancestry towards South Africa, when hg investigations initially failed to attract researchers' undivided attention towards these "new" genetic aspects of the E-M293 migration, which go together well with what was initially known as movement of East African hgs, pottery and cattle to South Africa.
I believe they see mixture and are trying to find a satisfactory date, thus all that talk about Aksum when in reality Aksum was a kingdom of its own without any significant mixture from the Red Sea. I think that specific "Eurasian2 ancestry is just Horn ancestry but of a different type
Posts: 2597 | From: Vicksburg | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
@ Beyoku. Nice lead on K-M9. I, also, haven’t paid much attention to East Asian lineage until discovering N1c in equatorial West Africans. I just started getting into it.
Quote:
The entire argument really falls flat when we look at NEW RESEARCH. Folks here dont know but haplogroup R and many lineages in south East Asia and the southern pacific have been consolidated and resolved down into SIMPLE SUBCLADES OF K2B. Yep you heard it....M, S, Q, R, P are all subcaldes of one K2b. If we take a step back to K2 we can include ALL of Haplogroup N and the VAST East Asian population of Haplogroup O.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_K-M9 The time frame of K2 breaking up in the diversity that it is today and all the populations it represents IS YOUNGER THAN the breakup of Haplogroup E and its subclades.
I will repeat that for emphasis and clarify:
The time frame of K2 breaking up in and Haplogroup diversity it represents today....and all the Autosomal separation between these populations (Europeans, Paupans, Chinese, Central Asians, Negritos, Southern Indians, Sub Saharans[T,R], Native Americans etc) IS YOUNGER THAN the breakup of Haplogroup E and its subclades....and possibly even E1b1 depending on the dating
-------------------- Without data you are just another person with an opinion - Deming Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
Seeing the wood for the trees: a minimal reference phylogeny for the human Y chromosome.- van Oven
-------------------- Without data you are just another person with an opinion - Deming Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Havent paid much attention to this thread but what Bass said got me attention. I agree with Bass we needed to look at things holistically. HG completement AIM..
Also - to Beyoku's comment. Is the younger age of K2 indicative of a truly very recent OOA if AMH.
Some of us get confused with the letters and position in the Alphabet. The age of the HG is a lot more informative. Infact they need to adjust the nomenclature of the male and female PhyloTree
Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Do you have the study? It is behind the paywall. It is fascinating that K2 is now parental to these "Asian" lineage even R. Yet T, L R is found within Africa.
Keep in mind C6 is being found from Iberia to Siberia. lol! From 6000-45000 ya.
How recent is recent?
Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Heh! you guys carry on. I just needed a copy or link of that study.
-------------------- Without data you are just another person with an opinion - Deming Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: The "Eurasian" population that admixed with Khoisans are projected to have been ~75% African. I don't see why that would have to leave a Eurasian hg signature in the recipient populations. I'm not saying there is no such hg signature, I'm saying that, in principle, there doesn't need to be one today. The very fact that select South Africans have notable freqs of hgs like L4, L5 and E-M293 today, and that these are especially found in South African pastoralists, proves that East Africans migrated there recently. This absence of substantial derived Eurasian hgs in these admixed Khoisan populations is clearly a(nother) case where hgs have proven unreliable trackers of migrations.
It was the study of autosomal DNA that brought clarity to the hitch-hiking layer of Eurasian ancestry towards South Africa, when hg investigations initially failed to attract researchers' undivided attention towards these "new" genetic aspects of the E-M293 migration, which go together well with what was initially known as movement of East African hgs, pottery and cattle to South Africa.
I believe they see mixture and are trying to find a satisfactory date, thus all that talk about Aksum when in reality Aksum was a kingdom of its own without any significant mixture from the Red Sea. I think that specific "Eurasian2 ancestry is just Horn ancestry but of a different type
I'm interested to see how you'd explain that there is a clear difference between the highly derived autosomal ancestry shared between East Africans and West Asians (i.e. the autosomal component that never seems to differentiate at higher Ks) and the non-derived autosomal ancestry shared between Ethiopians and West Asians (which does differentiate), and why, in the African continent, the former peaks in, and is mainly restricted to, Highland Ethiopians (i.e. occupants of the Axum area), while the latter is found throughout the wider region and seems to correspond to Tishkoff's "Cushitic" cluster.
If you ask me, the former autosomal component looks young and intrusive per all these specifics, and the fact that, among Highland Ethiopians, it's found more in speakers of a linguistic subclade that is also clearly intrusive and just as old as the immediate predecessors of the Axum kingdom, doesn't help.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Technically, autosomal mixture goes back as far as the mixture you get from your grandparents. I believe they are just seeing share components between some Eurasians and Horners, labelling it "Eurasian," then trying to fit it in some how.
Posts: 2597 | From: Vicksburg | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
I get that that's your point, but why does the genetic material shared with Arabs that centers in the Ethiopian Highlands not resolve into it's on cluster at K=20, if it's old?
quote:Originally posted by .Charlie Bass.: Technically, autosomal mixture goes back as far as the mixture you get from your grandparents.
You'd have to explain that one to me..
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
What you just linked to speaks for itself. Beyoku also touched on this with the image that was discussed a page ago. The genetic material of all those ancestors is firmly lodged in our genome (no matter the size of the segments) so I don't see how that fits in the context in which you seemed to imply that the dating work done by Pagani and Pickrell is technically impossible and entirely the product of their own imagination and wishful thinking.
These are hefty accussations that you don't seem intent on backing up any time soon. You're obviously deliberately dancing around what you're asked, several times now, so, never mind.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well take me for example. my mtDNA haplogroup is East African L4b2, no downstream, I have very minor east African ancestry but my mother and grandmother have it higher, get where I'm going? You can not reliably date autosomals and given recombination..........
Posts: 2597 | From: Vicksburg | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
The estimates arrived at by the authors exploit recombination. So, not only do they work in spite of recombination; they leverage its effects on the genome.
The YRI - CEU dates reported for the controls (i.e. Aframs and N.Africans) in Pagani are on-point, as far as the most recent admixture events are concerned. Big vouch for the reliability of their estimates. The dates reported by Moorjani et al 2011, as far as the latest admixture events are concerned, are also on- point.
I can go on for a while. But I get it, you still think they're unreliable. Okay.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
Figure S14: Un-rooted neighbor-joining tree based on pairwise nucleotide genetic distances using inferred ancestral allele frequencies from the global STRUCTURE analysis at K = 14.
Figure S18: Un-rooted neighbor-joining tree from pairwise net nucleotide genetic distances calculated from the inferred ancestral allele frequencies at K = 14 from STRUCTURE analysis of the African dataset.
Figure S21: Un-rooted neighbor-joining tree from pairwise net nucleotide genetic distances calculated from the inferred ancestral allele frequencies for clusters at K = 10 with STRUCTURE analysis of the Eastern African dataset
I see no such tables, so, other than the above trees, where in this 2009 report does Tishkoff relate pairwise genetic information?
Posts: 8179 | From: the Tekrur straddling Senegal & Mauritania | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
quote:Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate:
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler:
Well, actually, the ordered tip to tip distance from European is
so, no, Fulani are not "closer to non-Africans than" are their Niger-Kordofanian co-linguists. The two are ~equidistant from European.
Well, actually, you're wrong.
And it's not the first time you fail to understand very basic things then come here to tell me, I'm the one who is wrong with an exaggerated confidence sure of yourself, instead of simply asking questions and ask me for clarification, if I'm able and willing to provide them. Obviously I can make simple errors too sometimes, all informed criticisms and counter-argumentation are welcome. It's a bit why I post those stuff here.
As I already explained to Beyoku (and thus to all readers of this forum) in greater length in another thread, that's not how you measure the distance between populations. You must not measure the distance from the tip but from the beginning of the colored lines.
If you check out p13-14 in the paragraph about Fig. S14 in the Tishkoff document ( DOWNLOAD HERE) . You will read:
The Fulani and Cushitic [] are closest to the non-African AACs. - Tiskhoff et al., P13-14
So it is indeed, as I implied in my previous post in this thread, Fulani and then Cushitic populations which are the closest to non-African AACs and the European AAC. Obviously, they are still much closer to the other African AACs than to the non-African ones.
As a side note, this is also reflected by the uniparental haplogroups of those populations which display a greater proportion of recent post-OOA Eurasian haplogroups admixtures (back migrations) in those populations.
.
I didn't come here to tell you you were wrong. I came here to add my own observations about that NJ Tree.
You are absolutely correct.
Tishkoff's comments on Fig S14 are surely based on stem to stem measure not my mistaken tip to tip method which, however, is standard as Beyoku and the Lioness relayed from professional sources starting with your comment here followed by further discussion ending here.
I do not agree the colored bars represent, in your words, "within population genetic distance/"diversity" (not nucleotide diversity)" because Fig S14's label clearly states the tree represents nucleotide genetic distances whether between or within populations.
I am here to learn. Who are my teachers? All of you. Thanks for the correction ARtU. Will tuck it away in my "how-to-read" notes.
Posts: 8179 | From: the Tekrur straddling Senegal & Mauritania | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic