quote:It should be common knowledge by now that human beings in their modern form, Homo sapiens, first evolved in Africa. Exactly when we emerged on the scene remains uncertain (recent fossil discoveries suggest it may have happened over 300,000 years ago, a hundred millennia earlier than we originally thought), but whenever it was, most of our species’s history of existence would have played out on the so-called “Dark Continent”. It would have been no earlier than 70,000 years ago — and possibly as soon as 55,000 years ago — when the ancestors of all people outside of Africa would wander out of the continent and colonize the rest of the habitable world.
This would not have been the first dispersal of hominin apes out of Africa, mind you. Much in the press has been made of the fact that between 1–7% of modern human ancestry outside our ancestral continent comes from the descendants of earlier emigrants such as the Neanderthals and Denisovans. What may not be so widely publicized, however, is that the famous “Out of Africa” migration between 70–55,000 years ago would not have been the last movement of Homo sapiens from Africa into Eurasia and beyond, either. There is in fact a plethora of compelling evidence that humans from Africa continued to venture out and leave a permanent genetic mark on the ancestry of their Eurasian kin— even the “white” peoples of Europe.
I don’t mean a light dash, either. Almost one third of European ancestry descends from African admixture within the last 55,000 years.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
Informative article for lay people. But why not use scientific images only, in a scientific article?
Posted by Elite Diasporan (Member # 22000) on :
Good article like I said before. But I agree with Swenet. If you want your articles to be taken MORE serious then I suggest using more scientific images.
But like I said good ass article. The way you write is very easy for ppl to grasp.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
Nice paper, Brandon. It has excellent paragraph layout with nicely cited sources. Though I agree with the others here considering your artwork it would be easy for Euronuts to dismiss you as 'pathetic white guy with a black fetish'. But then again who cares what nutcases think, it's the facts you present that matter.
Posted by Tyrannohotep (Member # 3735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Informative article for lay people. But why not use scientific images only, in a scientific article?
I wanted to show my personal vision of how these prehistoric people might have looked. But you and the others raise a valid point about choosing more scientific illustrations for my presentation.
Maybe this one of a Neolithic man from Jericho could work instead? I was hoping for something with more color, personally.
UPDATE: I cut out my artwork and replaced it with both the reconstruction of the Neolithic Jericho man and some prehistoric Egyptian rock art. It should look more scientifically presentable now.
Posted by Tyrannohotep (Member # 3735) on :
By the way, do you guys also know of places where I can share the link to my article? I don't want to post it on ForumBiodiversity or any other "alt-right" community since it'll be casting pearls before swine. Is there something like an anthro-themed FB group or a subreddit that I could post this on?
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
what this literally means is that this man
.
.
is more African than this man >
(Papua New Guinea)
Posted by Tyrannohotep (Member # 3735) on :
^ Most likely, yes (disregarding phenotypes, of course). The Ethio Helix data shows Papuans and other Melanesians as no more than 15-19% African. See for yourself here.
Posted by Elite Diasporan (Member # 22000) on :
Good replacement picture Tyranno!
Posted by Tyrannohotep (Member # 3735) on :
^ Thank you!
Now, if I may ask this again after the distraction with lioness...
quote:Originally posted by Tyrannohotep: By the way, do you guys also know of places where I can share the link to my article? I don't want to post it on ForumBiodiversity or any other "alt-right" community since it'll be casting pearls before swine. Is there something like an anthro-themed FB group or a subreddit that I could post this on?
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
Reconstruction of plastered Jericho skull
Do we know that this is a European ancestor population?
For the Article to have more impact it should have a modern European or group of various Europeans as the primary picture, my opinion
and maybe in addition an early European and maybe an Asian and maybe an African
People are going to question a very short Cavalli-Sforza quote from 1997-2001 that leaves out method and a bloggers ADMIX
Posted by Elite Diasporan (Member # 22000) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tyrannohotep: ^ Thank you!
Now, if I may ask this again after the distraction with lioness...
quote:Originally posted by Tyrannohotep: By the way, do you guys also know of places where I can share the link to my article? I don't want to post it on ForumBiodiversity or any other "alt-right" community since it'll be casting pearls before swine. Is there something like an anthro-themed FB group or a subreddit that I could post this on?
Why don't you try emailing this to major news sites? Anyways... I would suggest:
1. Anthrogenica
2. Twitter(if you have a following)
3. Tumblr
I know I tried to share this on many sites. I also tweeted it to "big names" on twitter lol.
Posted by Tyrannohotep (Member # 3735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Elite Diasporan:
quote:Originally posted by Tyrannohotep: ^ Thank you!
Now, if I may ask this again after the distraction with lioness...
quote:Originally posted by Tyrannohotep: By the way, do you guys also know of places where I can share the link to my article? I don't want to post it on ForumBiodiversity or any other "alt-right" community since it'll be casting pearls before swine. Is there something like an anthro-themed FB group or a subreddit that I could post this on?
Why don't you try emailing this to major news sites? Anyways... I would suggest:
1. Anthrogenica
2. Twitter(if you have a following)
3. Tumblr
I know I tried to share this on many sites. I also tweeted it to "big names" on twitter lol.
I used to have a Tumblr account, but deleted it and left the site for good after some nasty drama I'd rather not get into. As for Anthrogenica, I've found that they don't let new posters post off-site links. Twitter I have tried though, even though I've only 80 followers at the moment.
Out of curiosity, which sites and forums have you shared my article on?
Posted by Elite Diasporan (Member # 22000) on :
^^^Twitter mainly.
Posted by Tyrannohotep (Member # 3735) on :
In the meantime, I've just retweeted the link to Spencer Wells over on Twitter. We'll see whether he reacts within the next few days.
Posted by Fourty2Tribes (Member # 21799) on :
Looks like modern Yemenis are the most African OoAs. Well north Yemen does have an RBG flag.
Posted by BrandonP (Member # 3735) on :
I took my old "Why Europeans are Almost 1/3 African" essay and made it into a Youtube video presentation!
quote: "One reasonable hypothesis is that the genetic distance between Asia and Africa is shorter than that between Africa and the other continents in Table 1 because both Africans and Asians contributed to the settlement of Europe, which began about 40,000 years ago.
Did he make a mistake here ??
He says "the genetic distance between Asia and Africa is shorter than that between Africa and the other continents"
That distance in table 1. is 20.6
while the genetic distance between Africa and Europe is shorter 16.6
that has got to be a mistake, correct me if I am wrong.
Either that statement is wrong or the number is wrong
Same thing with the tree chart. The distance from Africa to Europe is shorter than the distance from Africa to Asia Why is that? Because some Africans came into Europe in much later migrations much more then they were to East Asia.
Yet in the text above he says
"the genetic distance between Asia and Africa is shorter than that between Africa and the other continents"
No, the table and chart are showing the reverse the genetic distance between EUROPE and Africa is shorter than that between Africa and the other continents. Also not surprising since is closer to Africa than East Asia or Oceania (I'm using the breakdown he uses in the table and chart, Oceana, East Asia, Europe, America)
correct me if I am wrong
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
Genes, peoples, and languages L. LUCA CAVALLI-SFORZA 1997
What we know of the occupation of different continents (1) shows that West Asia was first settled around 100,000 years ago, although perhaps not permanently. Oceania was occupied first from Africa, more or less at the same time as East Asia (both probably having been settled by the coastal route of South Asia), and then from East Asia both Europe and America were settled, the latter certainly from the north, via the Bering Strait (then a wide land passage). The dates are approximately known, and the genetic distances corresponding to the splits in the unweighted pair–group method with arithmetic mean tree (or approximately the averages of appropriate columns and other entries in Table 2; see also ref. 1) are in reasonable agreement with them. This is indicated by the approximate constancy of the ratios D/T (genetic distance/ time of first settlement) in Table 2. There is a marked uncertainty in the time of occupation of the Americas, and genetic data suggest the earlier dates are correct. But if very small groups of people were responsible for the initial settlement, as suggested also by other considerations, genetic drift may have been especially strong and the time of settlement, calculated from genetic distances, will be in excess. One reasonable hypothesis is that the genetic distance between Asia and Africa is shorter than that between Africa and the other continents in Table 1 because both Africans and Asians contributed to the settlement of Europe, which began about 40,000 years ago. It seems very reasonable to assume that both continents nearest to Europe contributed to its settlement, even if perhaps at different times and maybe repeatedly. It is reassuring that the analysis of other markers also consistently gives the same results in this case. Moreover, a specific evolutionary model tested, i.e., that Europe is formed by contributions from Asia and Africa, fits the distance matrix perfectly (6). In this simplified model, the migrations postulated to have populated Europe are estimated to have occurred at an early date (30,000 years ago), but it is impossible to distinguish, on the basis of these data, this model from that of several migrations at different times. THE OVERALL CONTRIBUTIONS FROM ASIA AND AFRICA WERE ESTIMATED TO BE AROUND TWO-THIRDS AND ONE-THIRD, RESPECTIVELY.
last sentence ^^^
He is not saying here is not that today's European is 1/3 African due to admixture. That is a face value interpretation of the above
According to OOA theory the ancestors of Asians were once Africans. there was a genetic split by drift and mutation and hence there are haplogroups that geneticists regard distinguishing Asians from Africans at the same time descendant of them
So he is talking about these two groups, Asians and Africans contributing to a later group 30,000 or so years ago who would later also become genetically distinct, Europeans (as would Native Americans and earlier splits Oceanians)
Before Europeans there would have been Asians and Africans mixing for a while and one would see their respective haplogroups, perhaps males with a combination of on one side an African and in their other side of their parent ancestry Asian, just as if today an Asian and an African were to have a child together
However today, like Asians, Europeans have now evolved their own haplogroups according to geneticists
So what Sfroza is talking about when he's talking about 1/3 (and I do not understand the method and it's execution that he uses to come up with this particular ratio) but he is talking about Europeans at a time prior to when there were biological "Europeans" when they were, according to him just mixed people of Asian and Africa descent with no unique haplotypes > yet
The Sforza article does not address the current amount of African admixture that Europeans have
For instance the most common YDNA group of Europeans today is only estimated tp be 4,500–9,000 BP That's R1b-M269, well after the 30,000 years ago Sfroza if talking about. Just look at that fact, R1b-M269 is a haplogroup that geneticists regard as European, not Asian or African and defiantly not Eats Asian. So right there it defeats the idea of 1/3 applying to modern day Europeans. The most common E clade in Europeans is V13. I was not able to find a statement on the percentage of all Europeans who carry this group. However this is the one clade of E that is more common outside of Africa so it is unclear as to regard this as African DNA or not.
So if his theory is correct Europeans WERE one third African
not ARE
What they are today would have to be supported by other peer reviewed articles addressing African admixture in Europeans. I looked for such an article but didn't find one yet that made a statement about modern Europeans as a whole but there is this chart
Human Genomic Diversity Where the Mediterranean Joins the Atlantic Candela L Hernández
Molecular Biology and Evolution, Volume 37, Issue 4, April 2020, Pages 1041–1055, https://doi.org/10.1093/molbev/msz288 Published: 09 December 2019
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
Oh no, Sleeping Dog roused yet again and still as flawed as ever with its nearly 25 year old outdated data and text. Time has moved on. A kid was born and has got a Masters since then. Any of youse have had a 1997 model year auto? Wanna give one to your 1997 born 24 year old offspring? Howzabout an ice truck delivering directly to your door v owning one's own ice making refrigerator freezer?
Do any modern day population geneticists posit or co-sign on such a notion in any standard peer reviewed publications?
Who in academia today has followed up on an admixture advent ~30,000 years ago of proto- Europeans born from 1/3 "Rainforester African" and 2/3 "San Francisco Chinese" ancestry bearers getting it on? Who?
No, really, who? Could it be that hypothesis is now much more easily seen as preposterous?
Who other than one or two old ES diehards are still promoting or into it these days? Ah well, two generations born since the 90s probably never heard about it. They'll love it I guess.
It's certainly no aid to an authentic Africana not beholden to feel good 'theorhetics' that don't implement full genomics, uni-parentals, HLA, autosomes, archaeology, etc., in tandem.
END NOTE Of course a hearty "atta boy" to Brandon for all the technical effort involved on this latest production . Sure'd be nice if the coupla other ESers w/YouTube channels collaborate on an ES-brand consensus effort, whatever the topic.
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
ES never understood this graphic and always supposed a and b were making the same statement when obviously the unweighted pair- group method with arithmetic mean and the neighbor joining tree charts place Oceania and Europe closest to Africa respectively.
On the no follow-up 25 yr old no 2/3 1/3 'hypothesis':
a shows East Asia a step below Europe, not at all suggestive of an East Asia --> Europe parentage.
b does place Europe between Africa and East Asia with Europe twice as close to Asia compared to Africa and that indeed supports the 2/3 1/3 hypothesis neglected by 21st century 3rd millennium science.
END NOTE