While many have no problem declaring Diop and others outdated it seems the same doesn't apply to C-S and others like him.
Not going to rehash all that's already posted as to why 2/3 1/3 didn't hold water and how C-S himself anticipated 'updates' -- I read that as falsification.
Why is C-S so great? An avowed Nostraticist. Booster of caucasian Ethiopians decades after Sergi quixxed "If they are black how can they be white?"
Not too long ago I came across a tenured anthropologist who had no problem rebutting C-S at the time most stood in awe of CS.
=-=
It's safe to say R arose and developed mostly in Europe. R-V88 however is an African haplogoup no different than certain E HGs derived in Europe are considered European HGs.
Trying to trace R-V88 to a migration to Africa is a task yet to be performed by professional genomists.
R-V88 is one of those rarities that make a layman like me pause as to how a sub-haplogroup must come from from a parent haplogroup within its super-HG.
I dunno. Kinda odd men from another continent migrate to Africa where they and their male descendants prove more capable of macking the local women than their handy local menfolk.
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ The origin of R1b is Eurasia where it derived from its parent R clade, to answer your question. So of course its presence in Africa is due to Eurasian immigration.
Meanwhile the findings of the late great Italian geneticist Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza (may he rest in peace) still stands: "Europeans are one-third African and two-thirds Asian"
Hence findings on Northwest Europeans Tukuler cited above you.
What is the background of the Human Genome Diversity Project?
The brainchild of renowned population geneticist Luca Cavalli-Sforza, the HGDP is an attempt by human population geneticists to try and generate interest in "big science" the way the medical genetics community succeeded with the Human Genome Project.
Cavalli-Sforza reinvented in the 1960s what used to be called the study of "racial history". An earlier generation of scientists, such as Harvard's Earnest Hooton, had been strongly impressed with the reticulate nature of human microevolution, to such an extent that Hooton drew it literally as a circulatory system. The computational and statistical breakthroughs associated with "numerical taxonomy" suggested an application to human genetic markers. Thus, Cavalli-Sforza and Edwards (1964) presented a dendrogram of the human species. The diagram became a lot simpler over the two decades since Hooton's figure from Up from the Ape (1946), which made the figure a lot easier to interpret.
These trees are sensitive to many things beside divergence: gene flow, the clustering algorithm used, the markers selected, the demographic history of the populations, etc. They aren't phylogenetic, although they may look it. But there is a hope held out that with more populations and more markers we can get the ultimate microphylogeny of the human species.
That's where the Human Genome Diversity Project comes in. The Human Genome Project was based on the medically-essentialized idea that you could represent the human species by a thing called "the human genome". Given that there is a "normal" cystic fibrosis gene, a "normal" Tay-Sachs disease gene, etc., they assumed that one could sequence a "normal" human genome. This, however, neglects much of the human gene pool. Many genes, after all, don't come as a "normal" and "disease" type, but as several normal alternatives -- like blood group genes. I was one of the first to point this out, in a sarcastic letter to Nature (322:590, 1986).
In 1991, the journal Genomics published an article by Luca Cavalli-Sforza, Allan Wilson, Charles Cantor, Robert Cook-Deegan, and Mary-Claire King, proposing "a worldwide survey of human genetic diversity." Unfortunately, the proposal contained a lot of archaic anthropological assertions, such as the idea that studying the genes of the !Kung San will illuminate "our evolutionary history," and that indigenous peoples are genetically isolated. It was accompanied by great fanfare in the science media, being touted by Jared Diamond in Nature, and by Leslie Roberts in Science. The idea became merged with the need for immediacy as these indigenous populations are "now" becoming extinct.
A study of the genetic diversity of our species would indeed be a valuable undertaking. But this is poorly problematized, and it seems unlikely to improve. Below are some more details to explore.
- The color-coded races that don't exist to the HGDP - The racial martini mix suggested by the HGDP - The HGDP in the Dutch magazine Elsevier - Tidbits from the Anthropology Newsletter - An HGDP bibliography - Other HGDP links
Jonathan Marks Department of Sociology and Anthropology University of North Carolina at Charlotte
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
- The color-coded races that don't exist to the HGDP
The HGDP says that one of its aims is to show that
"... in biological terms, there is no such thing as a clearly defined race.... Most importantly, therefore the results of the Project are expected to undermine the popular belief that there are clearly defined races, [and] to contribute to the elimination of racism...."
And on the subject of how the HGDP strives to undermine the concept of race, here is one of their greatest discoveries to date -- from both the primary literature, and as duly repeated in the popular press.
[A]ncestral Europeans are estimated to be an admixture of 65 % ancestral Chinese and 35 % ancestral Africans. Bowcock et al. (1991) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 88:840
All Europeans are thought to be a hybrid population, with 65 % Asian and 35 % African genes. Time Magazine 1/16/95
(back to the HGDP)
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
- The HGDP in the Dutch magazine Elsevier
The HGDP was represented in the Dutch magazine Elsevier by a geneticist contacting one of the "isolated" and "endangered" peoples they hope to bleed. The sarcastic caption says
"Hooray! We've come to save your DNA!"
Elsevier (Amsterdam), 11 November 1995
(back to HGDP)
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
Excerpts from 1. The HGDP: Good for if not good as anthropology?
(Commentary from April 1995, p. 72) << Long letter. Too much for even snippets too >> << many considerations than just C-S at the end >>
This is a commentary which appeared on the back page (p. 72) of the Anthropology Newsletter, April 1995.
The Human Genome Diversity Project Good for If Not Good as Anthropology?
... population geneticists have begun to rouse interest in an offshoot project of con- siderable significance to anthropology.
The original Human Genome Project, as it happens, was rooted in an archaic, Platon- ic view of our species -- one by which a sin- glc DNA sequence can be represented as human normality and against which disease alleles can be contrasted. This has long been known to be a misleading approach to human genetics-for what blood group can be considered normal, when normal humans can have A, B and O? What genes for noses are normal, when humans may have broad or narrow, long or flat, straight or curved, pointed or bulbous ones?
the Project geared up to load its syringes with the blood of their targets, the exotic peoples of the world. But it ran into problems almost immediately. The HGDP, as it turned out, had been conceived, designed and organized by molecular popu- lation geneticists with largely a folk knowl- edge of anthropology. It was the equivalent of teenagers trying to build a cyclotron in their backyard.
Persons or Specimens?
The initial major challenge was posed by spokesmen and activists on behalf of cer- tain aboriginal populations. The proposals for the HGDP indeed articulated a concern for the indigenes (Genomics 1 1:490-49 1), but representatives were neither invited to the initial planning sessions or consulted. This struck observers as possibly indicative of a lack of sincere interest in the communi- ties donating blood, as if they were fruit- flies or nematode worms-specimens, rather than persons.
The alternative would be to purchase blood samples from the organisms them- selves. ..., the organisms perceived a classically exploitative colonial relationship behind the Project. One of the HGDP's frustrated geneticists was recently quoted by Discover magazine: "We're sci- entists, not politicians" (Nov 1994.75) -- as if opening the veins of the indigenous peo- ples of the world might not constitute a sig- nificantly political act.
... the HGDP presents ideological concerns to all contemporary practitioners. Can the HGDP afford to undertake colonial science in a postcolonial world? Can anthropology afford to be rep- resented by the HGDP if it does? If not, how can the Project be decolonialized? Can the objects of this study be de-objectified?
Genetic Purity
genetic isolation is a dubious assumption in anthropology. This very point, interestingly, had been criticized by anthropologists nearly half a century earli- er. Clyde Kluckhohn could readily docu- ment extensive intermarriage between the Ramah Navajo and other groups ethnohis- torically, but geneticists insisted the group was genetically pure (Cold Spring Harb Sympos Quant Biol 15:401-408). The insistence on false genetic purity is a corollary of the Project's stated primary goal: To discern the ultimate microphyloge- ny of human populations before population contact, which they take to have begun with Columbus,
It is unclear which genetic data or clustering algorithms are most appropri- are for the task: the same dataset can often yield very different trees.
But of course, one doesn't require genet- ics at all to decide that the Danes are more closely related to the Dutch than to the Iro- quois. And the finer details of human bio- history are far more difficult to discern when people are being sampled according to culturally constructed designations. Are the Thais, for example, more closely related to the Cambodians or to the Laotians? Given that the forces that shaped the gene pool of Southeast Asia are far older and more fluid than the sociopolitical boun- aries that presently exist, there may be no biological answer to such a biological sounding question. it may in fact have no more of a biological answer than does the question of whether the genes of anthropol- ogists cluster with those of a sample of lawyers or accountants.
Anthropology Before Genetics
Time magazine published an article featuring the HGDP and its leading spokesman, geneti- cist Luca Cavalli-Sforza (Jan 16, 1995:54- 55). Time reported in passing that
"All Europeans are thought to be a hybrid popu- lation, with 65% Asian and 35% African genes."
For those who care to view scientific statements as texts, there's one for the books. It is not even false; it is simply ridiculous as articulated -- as if Asians and Africans were opposites, homogeneous and pure, and Europeans were less so. It repre- sents classic folk anthropology and pseudo- biohistory.
[Marks is associate professor of anthro- pology at Yale University, and is the author of Human Biodiversity: Genes, Race and History (Aldine de Gruyter, 1995).]
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
When the advocates of the HGDP pro- claim in the primary literature that
Euro- peans are genetically 65% Chinese and 35% African (Proc Natl Acad Sci, 88:839, 1991),
and this is repeated in the popular literature promoting the HGDP (Time, Jan- uaD i 6, 1995), anthropologists will natural- ly perceive a nested series of conceptual problems.
Alas, it is a brutal fact that the universe of people who have opinions about anthropological matters is considerably larger than the universe of anthropologists. It is an equally brutal fact, however, that whatever else he is, or may consider him- self to be, Kidd is a coauthor of that article. And if that is the science the HGDP rcprc- scnts, it deserves to be rebuffed.
I'm for biological anthropology. That's it. When the HGDP is for biological anthropology, I'm for the HGDP too.
Jonathan Marks Yale University
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ I agree that notions of race as being discrete breeding units is outdated, but the findings of Cavalli-Sforza and Ann Bowcock before him still stand. Europeans have significant admixture-- one-third African via admixture from late prehistory.
This is something that does not get discussed much but rather kept 'in the closet' so to speak. Meanwhile you have these genetic experts who always bring up Eurasian admixture in Africans as if such defines all African populations when the vast majority of Africans are relatively "pristine" in their genepool due to relative isolation unlike the Euros.
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
Are you kidding me?
Marks said the concept is ridiculous. He derisively mocks it as a "racial martini".
Europeans being admixed is not the issue. All peoples are admixed. And I posted the confirmation. Nice white folkses in Utah of NW Euro antecedents have significant, if skant, ancestry from the northeast quadrant of Africa as exemplified in at least six such populations.
It's the simplistic 2/3 1/3 thing that can't stand. I'm not saying that to hurt anybody's feelings.
Trust me. I went along with it too until I set out to see for myself if it holds water. It didn't. I posted the complete set of references years ago and nobody talking about it then was familiar with the literature. Those likewise familiar would not put forth a late prehistory time for the admixture if they knew the date C-S actually proposed for his discrete San Francisco Chinese and discrete Congo Rainforester produced non-specified(?) Europeans.
Not to mention all the genetic micro-evolution unique to Europe not shared by Chinese or Rainforesters or any 'East' Asians or Africans.
How many thirds African are Asians? Where does the remainder come from? You feel me? There are similar questions I could ask. But why really concern oneself with 30 year old ideas no one pursues in 2020?
Now I don't want to repeat the fact no STRUCTURE- like graphs from any professional scientist show Europeans as 2/3 1/3 anything at K=2 but I will if need be litter bomb this thread with ancestry graphics.
Seems to me 2/3 1/3 is one of those ES groupthink hive mind things that defy all logic because it's endearing no matter not replicable by any genomics method chosen.
I've never seen one even one genomist make that statement or support it. Anthropologist Marks certainly doesn't because 2/3 1/3 is certainly based on the discrete tri-racial concept applied to the Pleistocene.
=-=
From C-S's obituary in the Economists "This theory stood until the 2000s, when new technology reversed it. He had often carped about the public’s interest in fossils, so much less informative—to him—than genetic studies of the living. Once DNA could be extracted from ancient bones, however, it showed that although agriculture had indeed reached Europe from the Middle East, a wave of immigration from the north-east, starting about 5,000 years ago, had diluted those first farmers with tall herdsmen from the Pontic Steppe. People had moved and mixed in prehistory more than he thought; and not all ancient events, as he supposed, had left their mark in modern populations."
"From Belluno he witnessed the overturning of many other conclusions. Every evolutionary story he had touched became more complex by the day. Yet he could comfort himself that without his original vision for the study of human history through its genes, much of that great debate would not have happened at all."
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ the findings of Cavalli-Sforza and Ann Bowcock before him still stand.
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
Not that it's the popping bomb but here's Mallick2017 that I've been working to redux so that it's top down ordered in percentage of the African orange K.
Note the first five Ks are no different than OS colour races. Asian scientist freely employ the five race system as below
- Africa black race - Asia yellow race - Europe white race - Australia brown race - Americas red race
After them the Ks go subregional kind of, Circumpolar peoples aren't peculiar to one continent though before they get their own K they have the green NE Asia ancestry in majority.
Comments, critique, even brickbats solicited please.
Posted by Ish Geber (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler: - The HGDP in the Dutch magazine Elsevier
The HGDP was represented in the Dutch magazine Elsevier by a geneticist contacting one of the "isolated" and "endangered" peoples they hope to bleed. The sarcastic caption says
"Hooray! We've come to save your DNA!"
Elsevier (Amsterdam), 11 November 1995
(back to HGDP)
Is that image real?
And speaking of the Dutch. Here is a genealogy website/ magazine that explained the R-V88 group. It's in Dutch, but I will expound on it in nutshell.
It explains the paper by Cruciani. According the them V88 spread of Egypt (West Egypt) to the Southern parts when the Green Sahara was thriving.
A few years ago as per the author's explanation and suggestion, I read on a web page that white males from the West Asian region moved into Africa and copulated with African females, and that's why V88 is now in Africa. That's the way the author explained it. According to the author it completely reduced the original chromosomes.
My question remains is, how can that be if males carry chromosomes and mt-DNA?
Posted by Ish Geber (Member # 18264) on :
The entire thing goes deep and indeed has a long history. You are right, they always had a problem with people like Diop and others in his generation.
"On a sample of N=169 nonrelated blood donors from Libya several blood group, serum protein group and enzyme group frequencies are within the range of those of other Caucasoid populations. However, the frequencies of cDe, Jka, Fyc, Hp1, Gc1, aPb and AK1 show some greater differences and seem to indicate certain Negroid influence on the genetic composition of our Libyan sample. This assumption is conceivable considering the racial history of Libya."
Original Investigations Published: June 1975 On the distribution of some genetic markers in Libya
H. Walter, A. Arndt-Hanser, M. -A. Raffa & B. Gumbel Humangenetik volume 27, pages129–136(1975) Posted by Ish Geber (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ I agree that notions of race as being discrete breeding units is outdated, but the findings of Cavalli-Sforza and Ann Bowcock before him still stand. Europeans have significant admixture-- one-third African via admixture from late prehistory.
This is something that does not get discussed much but rather kept 'in the closet' so to speak. Meanwhile you have these genetic experts who always bring up Eurasian admixture in Africans as if such defines all African populations when the vast majority of Africans are relatively "pristine" in their genepool due to relative isolation unlike the Euros.
What are the alleles that make up this one-third? Could it be it's alleles that make up Hg R in the first place?
This is what I've gathered throughout the years.
1)
quote:"R-V88 has been observed at high frequencies in the central Sahel (northern Cameroon, northern Nigeria, Chad and Niger) and it has also been reported at low frequencies in northwestern Africa [37]. Outside the African continent, two rare R-V88 sub-lineages (R-M18 and R-V35) have been observed in Near East and southern Europe (particularly in Sardinia) [30, 37–39]. Because of its ethno-geographic distribution in the central Sahel, R-V88 has been linked to the spread of the Chadic branch of the Afroasiatic linguistic family [37, 40]. […] Indeed, our data suggest a European origin of R-V88 about 12.3 kya, considering both the presence of two Sardinian R-V88 basal clades (R-M18 and R-V35) and that the V88 marker arose in the R-M343 background, which in turn includes Near-Eastern/European lineages [52]. It is worth noting that the arrival of R-V88 in the Sahara seems to have occurred between 8.67 and 7.85 kya (considering as an upper limit the time estimates of the last node including a European-specific lineage, while the lower limit is the coalescence age of all the African-specific lineages), refining the time frame of the trans-Saharan migration proposed in previous studies [37, 56].
~D’Atanasio, Trombetta, Bonito, et al., The peopling of the last Green Sahara revealed by high-coverage resequencing of trans-Saharan patrilineages Biol. 2018 Feb 12;19(1):20. doi: 10.1186/s13059-018-1393-5.
2)
quote:"When counting from the split of hg DE on the unrooted phylogenetic tree, MA-1 is determined to be carrying the derived allele in 183 sites and the ancestral allele in 1706 sites. The position of MA-1 on the phylogenetic tree is established by the state of the 313 basal mutations separating hgs DE and R, where MA-1 has 143 informative positions. Of these, 138 are in the derived and 5 in the ancestral state, placing MA-1 as a lineage basal to hg R. With only a few exceptions Upper Palaeolithic Siberian genome reveals dual ancestry of Native Americans […]
~Maanasa Raghavan, Pontus Skoglund Nature 505, 87–91 (02 January 2014) doi:10.1038/nature12736 Received 14 July 2013 Accepted 04 October 2013 Published online 20 November 2013
The paper above can be explained by the following paper, the beginning of this theory.
3)
quote:“Perhaps you can explain why, the seven mutations which were found to be shared by chromosomes of haplogroups C and R [16], were also found to be present in one DE sample (sample 33 in Table S1), and are positioned at the root of macro-haplogroup CT (Figure 1 and Figure S1), before leaving Africa.
~Chiara Batini Signatures of the Preagricultural Peopling Processes in Sub-Saharan Africa as Revealed by the Phylogeography of Early Y Chromosome Lineages Mol. Biol. Evol. 28(9):2603–2613. 2011 doi:10.1093/molbev/msr089
4)
quote:"Morelli et al. (2010) calculated the TMRCA (Time to the Most Recent Common Ancestor), based on Sardinian and Anatolian Y chromosomes and employing the “population mutation rate”, estimated the R-M269 lineage to have originated 25,000 - 80,700 years ago. Such a huge variance in the date shows a problem with the calculation methodology. Another calculations (Klyosov, 2012) estimates that haplogroup R1b came to Europe only around 5000 years ago."
~Claudio Ottoni, et al., Deep Into the Roots of the Libyan Tuareg: A Genetic Survey of Their Paternal Heritage Am J Phys Anthropol. 2011 May;145(1):118-24. doi: 10.1002/ajpa.21473. Epub 2011 Feb 10.
5)
quote:"deepest branching separates A1b from a monophyletic clade whose members (A1a, A2, A3, B, C, and R) all share seven mutually reinforcing derived mutations (five transitions and two transversions, all at non-CpG sites)."
~Fulvio Cruciani A Revised Root for the Human Y Chromosomal Phylogenetic Tree: The Origin of Patrilineal Diversity in Africa Am J Hum Genet. 2011 Jun 10; 88(6): 814–818. doi: 10.1016/j.ajhg.2011.05.002
6)
quote:"Three of the seven R-specific mutations (V45, V69 and V88) were previously mapped within haplogroup R [34], whereas the remaining four mutations have been here positioned at the root of haplogroups F (V186 and V205), K (V104) and P (V231) (Figure S1) through the analysis of 12 haplogroup F samples (samples 40–51, in Table S1). [...] Supporting Information Figure S1 Structure of the macro-haplogroup CT. For details on mutations see legend to Figure 1. Dashed lines indicate putative branchings (no positive control available). The position of V248 (haplogroup C2) and V87 (haplogroup C3) compared to mutations that define internal branches was not determined. Note that mutations V45, V69 and V88 have been previously mapped (Cruciani et al. 2010; Eur J Hum Genet 18:800–807)."
~Fulvio Cruciani et al. Molecular Dissection of the Basal Clades in the Human Y Chromosome Phylogenetic Tree PLoS One. 2012; 7(11): e49170. Published online 2012 Nov 7. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0049170
First paper on V88 (2002).
7)
quote:An ancient human back migration from Asia to Africa had already been proposed by Altheide and Hammer (1997) and Hammer et al. (1998, 2001), on the basis of nested cladistic analysis of Y-chromosome data. They suggested that the presence of YAP+ chromosomes in Africa was due to such an event, but this has recently been questioned by Underhill et al. (2001b) and Underhill and Roseman (2001), primarily on the basis of the Asian-specific YAP+ subclade that neutralizes the previous phylogenetic inferences. Thus, the only evidence of a migration from Asia to sub-Saharan Africa that is fully supported by Y-chromosome data relies, at least for the moment, on the finding of haplogroup IX chromosomes in Cameroon.
Group IX Chromosomes in Sub-Saharan Africa: An Asian Origin?
How can the presence of Group IX chromosomes at considerable frequency in Cameroon be explained? A priori, we can envision three possibilities. First, group IX chromosomes in Cameroon are due to rather recent male gene flow from Europe or the Near East. Second, the entire M9 superclade (haplogroups VII–X) has an African origin. Third, group IX chromosomes in Cameroon represent a footprint of a male back migration from Asia to Africa. The first scenario seems to be very unlikely, because only derived haplotypes, carrying the M269 or M17/SRY10831 mutations, have been detected in western Eurasia. The second hypothesis, an African origin of the M9 superclade that includes haplotype 117, would imply a subsequent impressive extinction of derivative lineages in sub-Saharan Africa, since no other haplotypes carrying the M9 mutation (haplogroups VII–X) have been observed in this region (the only exception being represented by a few haplotype 109 chromosomes found in the Fulbe from Cameroon). The last scenario, that of a back migration from Asia to Africa, currently appears to be by far the most plausible. This is because most of the M9 haplotypes (the majority of group VII and VIII lineages, as well as some group IX and X lineages reported by Underhill et al. [2000]) have been observed only in Asia. Moreover, this possibility appears to be further supported by the recent finding of the UTY2+/M173− intermediate haplotype (Karafet et al. 2001) in central and northeastern Asia (the UTY2 marker in the study by Karafet et al. [2001] corresponds to M207 in the present study).
~Fulvio Crucian et al., A Back Migration from Asia to Sub-Saharan Africa Is Supported by High-Resolution Analysis of Human Y-Chromosome Haplotypes Am J Hum Genet. 2002 May; 70(5): 1197–1214. Published online 2002 Mar 21. doi: 10.1086/340257
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
I dunno how real the img is, maybe try Jonathon Marks
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ish Geber:
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: [qb] ^ I agree that notions of race as being discrete breeding units is outdated, but the findings of Cavalli-Sforza and Ann Bowcock before him still stand. Europeans have significant admixture-- one-third African via admixture from late prehistory.
This is something that does not get discussed much but rather kept 'in the closet' so to speak. Meanwhile you have these genetic experts who always bring up Eurasian admixture in Africans as if such defines all African populations when the vast majority of Africans are relatively "pristine" in their genepool due to relative isolation unlike the Euros.
What are the alleles that make up this one-third? Could it be it's alleles that make up Hg R in the first place?
This is what I've gathered throughout the years.
So would you say haplogroup R started in Cameroon or somewhere in Africa and eventually spread to Europe?
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ I thought I answered your question here already?! The R clade is Eurasian in origin.
R1b-V88 may very well have originated in Africa but it did so among Africans who carry Eurasian (R1) ancestry.
The same way E1b1ba-V13 originated in Europe in the Balkans but among men who already carry E-V68 lineages that came from Africa.
Nobody is crazy to call the entire E clade as European or Eurasian when it is clearly African in origin.
To answer Ish Gebor. Since the 90s Ann Bowcock and Cavalli Sforza have shownn through autosomal alleles that Europeans are one-third African. It was only in the early 2001s this was confirmed by E paternal lineages which again add up to about one-third.
Which brings me back Tukuler's topic. If Sforza's claim is outdated then that should also be the case for the other admixture claims for other populations including Africa.
Again, I find it rather hypocritical that population genetic studies are so keen in pointing out Western Eurasian admixture in Africans and even enumerating the percentages but mentioning nothing about African admixture in Western Eurasians. Migrations went both ways.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: The origin of R1b is Eurasia where it derived from its parent R clade, to answer your question. So of course its presence in Africa is due to Eurasian immigration.
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: @Ish Gebor
So would you say haplogroup R started in Cameroon or somewhere in Africa and eventually spread to Europe?
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ I thought I answered your question
That's you, Ish Geber disagrees.
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
Do not hi-jack the thread
R1b is in several threads right now
This is not the place for it
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ The fake black girl is trolling again because her false conjectures have been busted.
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: That's you, Ish Gebor disagrees. I follow his teachings
No, you don't follow anyone's teachings but your mistress Mathilda. You are just using a pathetic attempt of sowing discord like you usually do. Everyone in here including Ish knows it.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
...
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
I know man.
I decided months ago to apply the dead-to-me treatment. Ish did it for a good while too, u weren't back yet. Thing is expert trolls bait and hook the most evasive fish.
We have a troll of moderator status and have to live with it.
Even the lowest self-esteem person will go away when consistently ignored.
I try steering clear of TrollMod's forum and posts. Some times worthwhile topics broach on ythat forum. That's what sucked me in recently until reminded whose house I was in.
I C U censored your last post. Go ahead and express yourself until Admin honors my request to remove R1b and this social patter and all these posts disappear.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ The fake black girl is trolling again because her false conjectures have been busted.
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: That's you, Ish Gebor disagrees. I follow his teachings
No, you don't follow anyone's teachings but your mistress Mathilda. You are just using a pathetic attempt of sowing discord like you usually do. Everyone in here including Ish knows it.
stop trying to cause trouble with extraneous ad homs trying to instigate conflict, that's true trolling. Ish Geber has a different opinion on this than you do and he will probably clarify when he gets back. I'm sorry but this is not a club where everybody is expected to think the same thing.
The idea that R originated in Africa I would not say is impossible
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
Go way troll. You've contributed NOTHING to Cavalli-Sforza topic. This thread is not for a TrollMod's continuing bickeing with its nemesis. Were it anyone but you Admin would've taken care of this already.
Not only can you do whatever you want at deshret but apparently your entitled white privilege allows your f...ery anywhere to anybody except Askia and 'Stro at least one of whom has more power than you yet never abuses it to silence black voices on Black issues and problems.
Take your own medicine. You like to bully people in threads you never started or conceived with "This thread is about abc stay on topic" when the thread starter said nothing and won't push back in fear of Admin retaliation for dishonoring a mod who holds no ES member in honor.
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
Years ago I listed all the printed sources surrounding 2/3 1/3 hypothesis. Check them for grounation on the topic though I guess it's OK to randomly speculate. C-S says the event happended 40,000 years ago pre- dating all Holocene born haplogroups and even some of their background haplogroups by some 20,000 years, a complete Earth Wobble humidity aridity inducing cycle.
Them references I was yappin bout earlier:
quote:Originally posted by Ish Geber: What are the alleles that make up this one-third?
♬Bowcock Kidd C-S 1994 is the place you oughta be. ♬So gon load up the truck and don't ferget Ms Beverly!
You came up with legacy genetic markers of those times. I remember 'em from C-S' "Big Gene Book" I referenced many a time on yahoogroups before ES days.
quote:Originally posted by Ish Geber: .... frequencies of cDe, [African males noted for the big D] Jka, Fyc, Hp1, Gc1, aPb and AK1
Original Investigations Published: June 1975 On the distribution of some genetic markers in Libya
H. Walter, A. Arndt-Hanser, M. -A. Raffa & B. Gumbel Humangenetik volume 27, pages129–136(1975)
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
you have confused people with the topic of this thread because the topic is supposed to be the old Cavalli-Sforza statement on thirds but original statement is not even quoted in the OP. Then you mention R-V88 in the same OP and if that is Eurasian then it also doesn't pertain. The you start talking about HGDP. R1b is also quoted in the OP.
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
Meanwhile the findings of the late great Italian geneticist Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza (may he rest in peace) still stands: "Europeans are one-third African and two-thirds Asian"
If this 20+ year old statement was still standing other geneticists would be mentioning it in articles but they aren't
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
Perhaps you confused yourself. Subject header is as clear as all Jonathan Marks' quotes -- the HGDP you kvetch about to mask C-S' role in it.
ES threads quickly go from peripheral to off-topic. Too early in the thread for off- topic to dominate. Peripherals? Yes. All the way nines OT? NO!
To avoid confusing yourself, ask ppl for clarity a/o expansion, instead spreading your confusions.
The OP is a direct reply to Djehuti whom I trust doesn't mind my calling him DJ and as such did respond to him and using that as a catalyst
for a new thread (with sincere and humble apologies to Brandon who's right to self- determination can call himself whatever he doth please, but this is about authentic Africana).
BTW no problem w/yr research study critique analyses guesses. When level on the line it's excellent. Otherwise you post kitty litter scoopings neither useful or wanted. I say that after several successful collaborations with you.
However right now December 2020 you are dead to me and I'm addressing a wraith as it were a Ghost of Xmas ...
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
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.
-Genes, peoples, and languages L. LUCA CAVALLI-SFORZA, 1997
If the above is incorrect, then
multiple choice question, which of these statements is more correct? :
a) All people including Europeans and Asians are 100% African.
b) Over tens of thousands of years various influx of Africans into Europe have mixed with Europeans so Europeans are in part African but more than a third
c) Over tens of thousands of years various influx of Africans into Europe have mixed with Europeans so Europeans are in part African but much less than a third.
d) Europeans can be considered one third African because of common ancestry with Africans. Going back far enough, their ancestors are African. In addition to this the have some unique genes that evolved in Eurasia. There were also later admixtures with Africans but that is a separate thing, their "one third African" is more largely comprised of the common ancestry rather than later admixture
__________________________________________
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
How many ?/3 central African rainforester are American San Fancisco Bay Chinese?
Posted by Ish Geber (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:Originally posted by Ish Geber:
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ I agree that notions of race as being discrete breeding units is outdated, but the findings of Cavalli-Sforza and Ann Bowcock before him still stand. Europeans have significant admixture-- one-third African via admixture from late prehistory.
This is something that does not get discussed much but rather kept 'in the closet' so to speak. Meanwhile you have these genetic experts who always bring up Eurasian admixture in Africans as if such defines all African populations when the vast majority of Africans are relatively "pristine" in their genepool due to relative isolation unlike the Euros.
What are the alleles that make up this one-third? Could it be it's alleles that make up Hg R in the first place?
This is what I've gathered throughout the years.
So would you say haplogroup R started in Cameroon or somewhere in Africa and eventually spread to Europe?
I am not sure, but according to the 2011, 2012 papers by Fulvio Cruciani et al. Molecular Dissection of the Basal Clades in the Human Y Chromosome Phylogenetic Tree and A Revised Root for the Human Y Chromosomal Phylogenetic Tree: The Origin of Patrilineal Diversity in Africa, he's subliminally saying Africa this.
What I am saying and what they are showing from the early 2000 onwards is that they decided to change the algorithm. Tukuler is showing off the history of this continues changing of the algorithm to make it fit "a" narrative. And yes, that is actually possible, because it's math. It's no different than writing history.
What is MISUSE OF STATISTICS? What does MISUSE OF STATISTICS mean? MISUSE OF STATISTICS meaning
quote: The deepest branching separates A1b from a monophyletic clade whose members (A1a, A2, A3, B, C, and R) all share seven mutually reinforcing derived mutations (five transitions and two transversions, all at non-CpG sites).
These chromosomes belong to a clade (haplogroup BT) in which chromosomes C and R share a common ancestor (Figure 2).
Secondly, I am no longer active on here as I was, because I don't feel as much for it any longer as I use to. I am back to what I was doing before, which is focus on IT, CS and software development.
Posted by Ish Geber (Member # 18264) on :
I dunno how real the img is, maybe try Jonathon Marks
Hmm, so who's DNA they came to save, that's the question which remains unanswered? And how is this approach different from the 18th century "skull measure based" anthropology? That picture has the same colonial vibe. Just sayin'.
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
Exactly
That's anthropologist Marks' point. Human beings aren't petri dish samples.
Maybe we should restore a lil humanity and swap individuals for samples?
=-=
Wasn't it restorative of humanity and science that American tribe attained and reburied the little child who provided aDNA that in fact made him tell his story of indigenous origin of all the Skin tribes of both American continents. This once yteman not speak with fork tongue.
1:21:42 is where a little bit of the entitled attitude subsides and we hear original indigenous American voices as experts on themselves, university degrees not needed. Up to this points ytes colonized the disintered remains instead of handling like the finding of a dead body.
This is powerful emo-psycho-social-spiritual-continuity stuff. I asked myself, did the soul/psyche/spirit or a combo of many electromagnetic impulses of generations of Skins cause this? If no one watches this they really have themselves to blame.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ I tend to stay away from the fringe, esoteric, occult stuff especially as it pertains to science or 'para-science'. Whatever truth may exist in such, is subject to a lot manipulation and agendas as well ala Nazi parascience.
I forgot to address this..
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler: While many have no problem declaring Diop and others outdated it seems the same doesn't apply to C-S and others like him.
Not going to rehash all that's already posted as to why 2/3 1/3 didn't hold water and how C-S himself anticipated 'updates' -- I read that as falsification.
Why is C-S so great? An avowed Nostraticist. Booster of caucasian Ethiopians decades after Sergi quixxed "If they are black how can they be white?"
Not too long ago I came across a tenured anthropologist who had no problem rebutting C-S at the time most stood in awe of CS.
I actually hold Sforza to the same standard as Diop. Diop too was great a scientist and scholar in regards to his contributions despite the errors in some of his findings. Such was the case with Sforza. Just with Diop I never agreed with everything Sforza claimed. I never agreed with his Nostratist theories and he revised his Ethiopian caucasian claims with the discovery of Herto Man, which is odd considering that Herto man was far removed in time from Holocene to contemporary Ethiopians, etc. etc. It's his findings on Europeans genetics that I thinks holds the most veracity just as Diop's biological and cultural findings with ancient Egyptians that holds water. Sforza expected updates to his Euros being 1/3 African claim because he knew that as the technology advanced for better analysis there would be updates and there has in terms of both autosomal, and uniparental markers.
quote:It's safe to say R arose and developed mostly in Europe. R-V88 however is an African haplogoup no different than certain E HGs derived in Europe are considered European HGs.
Trying to trace R-V88 to a migration to Africa is a task yet to be performed by professional genomists.
R-V88 is one of those rarities that make a layman like me pause as to how a sub-haplogroup must come from from a parent haplogroup within its super-HG.
I dunno. Kinda odd men from another continent migrate to Africa where they and their male descendants prove more capable of macking the local women than their handy local menfolk.
My thoughts and sentiments concur with the above.
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
Not quite sure exactly what is 'spooking' you But it can't be the source vid I posted on Anzic(sp). I have a science degree and i think metaphysics certainly has its place in the Cosmos. Doesn't mean you or anyone else has to. What I don't think is, ancient Greek gross materialism is anything special nor has improved society vs objects.
Truly, if you don't watch The Great Human Odyssey you will blame yourself for turning down a Gold Mine of archaeology anthropology and genomics info as up to date as the year before it was released, with contributions from nearly a dozen pros we all have cited on ES.
At the time they knew not of Neanderthal brown skin because the genetics on Neander skin eye hair color had yet to be conducted. They relied on logic which as we've seen by this case, is not infallible or necessarily correct, just a best guess until data arrives.
Trust me, this ain't no What the Bleep!?:Down the Rabbit Hole woo-woo.
After 16 yrs of ES I wouldn't pull nothing like that. At the same time, I respect spiritualities/religions of peoples all around the world. That's what my comments come down to, a spiritual imagining for those so evolved in that direction.
Here two yte scientist break with Euro colonization and disposition to the rights of a people their ancestors conquered. They did the right thing. People aren't samples even if their DNA is sampled.
Science is independently replicable. Reality is perception, ask Rorschach.
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ I tend to stay away from the fringe, esoteric, occult stuff especially as it pertains to science or 'para-science'. Wh1atever truth may exist in such, is subject to a lot manipulation and agendas as well ala Nazi parascience.
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
"Sforza expected updates"
Yes and the direct quote from him to that effect has been posted.
While Cavalli-Sforza, like Diop, expected overturns to his findings it seems ES as a group rejects all disconfirmations of a statement they find comforting no matter how patently inaccurate and down-level.
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
"Sforza expected updates"
Yes and the direct quote from him to that effect has been posted.
While Cavalli-Sforza, like Diop, expected overturns to his findings it seems ES as a group rejects all disconfirmation of a non-replicable statement they find comforting no matter how patently inaccurate and down-level.
Posted by Ish Geber (Member # 18264) on :
I happen to have come across this one:
quote:Of these R1b1 samples, nine are defined by the V88 marker, which was recently discovered in Africa. As high microsatellite variance was found inside this haplogroup in Central-West Africa and a decrease in this variance was observed towards Northeast Africa, our findings do not support the previously hypothesised movement of Chadic-speaking people from the North across the Sahara as the explanation for these R1b1 lineages in Central-West Africa. The present findings are also compatible with an origin of the V88-derived allele in the Central-West Africa, and its presence in North Africa may be better explained as the result of a migration from the south during the mid-Holocene.
~Miguel González et al.,
The genetic landscape of Equatorial Guinea and the origin and migration routes of the Y chromosome haplogroup R-V88
Hum Genet. 2013 Mar;21(3):324-31. doi: 10.1038/ejhg.2012.167. Epub 2012 Aug 15.
Europeans 1/3 African, what a joke. Everybody knows they are 3/12ths African
Posted by One Third African (Member # 3735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler: Trust me. I went along with it too until I set out to see for myself if it holds water. It didn't. I posted the complete set of references years ago and nobody talking about it then was familiar with the literature. Those likewise familiar would not put forth a late prehistory time for the admixture if they knew the date C-S actually proposed for his discrete San Francisco Chinese and discrete Congo Rainforester produced non-specified(?) Europeans.
Not to mention all the genetic micro-evolution unique to Europe not shared by Chinese or Rainforesters or any 'East' Asians or Africans.
I don't think Cavalli-Sforza's observation should be interpreted to literally mean that European ancestry is 2/3rds East Asian (as in Chinese or Japanese) and 1/3rd West/Central African. Rather, it makes more sense if you interpret "Asian" as addressing the initial OOA migrations and "African" as later migrations from Africa into western Eurasia. In other words, the statement should say "Europeans are 2/3rds descended from OOA and 1/3rd descended from subsequent African migrations".
This old Ethio-Helix blog post used to have a bunch of K=2 graphs demonstrating the point, bu for some reason the images have disappeared. Hopefully they'll come back up sometime.
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
I agree. I don't take it literally. He meant it literally. Not only do I not take it literally. I don't take it at all.
It was presented as high science of the time. No one has the right to say it meant anything other than what was presented received and published as peer review science not social touchie feelies.
Again, this is not about your tag as you have the right to call you what you you will.
That's where it ends.
This about authentic Africana and current science. The statement is unsupported and not replicable because it's 26 year old primitive three race science and it has nothing to factor for how many 3rds 'Pygmy' are San Francisco born Chinese.
Nows the time carpet bombing STRUCTURE & ADMIXTURE graphs even though it can't effect faith based belief in C-S.
Let's see if Europeans are 2/3rd unspecified Eurasian 1/3rd unspecified African a lot easier moved goalpost to supplant the original statement with actual existing charts in place of subjective memories.
Now this test failed years ago. Will recent graphs confirm or deny?
Posted by Ish Geber (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler: [..]
It was presented as high science of the time. No one has the right to say it meant anything other than what was presented received and published as peer review science not social touchie feelies.
[…]
Let's see if Europeans are 2/3rd unspecified Eurasian 1/3rd unspecified African a lot easier moved goalpost to supplant the original statement with actual existing charts in place of subjective memories.
Now this test failed years ago. Will recent graphs confirm or deny?
What has changed with recent papers?
The odd thing is, it was never really explained, just like now it's never really explained. Just a bunch of data, or not, plotted in an algorithm.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by One Third African: I don't think Cavalli-Sforza's observation should be interpreted to literally mean that European ancestry is 2/3rds East Asian (as in Chinese or Japanese) and 1/3rd West/Central African. Rather, it makes more sense if you interpret "Asian" as addressing the initial OOA migrations and "African" as later migrations from Africa into western Eurasia. In other words, the statement should say "Europeans are 2/3rds descended from OOA and 1/3rd descended from subsequent African migrations".
This old Ethio-Helix blog post used to have a bunch of K=2 graphs demonstrating the point, but for some reason the images have disappeared. Hopefully they'll come back up sometime.
Agreed. It's what I've been saying all along. Europe is a subcontinent of Asia like India is, so indigenous Europeans are essentially Asian but with recent African admixture-- one-third.
The problem is that some Eurocentrics try to obfuscate by equating 'African' with Sub-Saharan while grouping North Africa with Eurasia. This issue was discussed many times before in this forum but even in the Eurogenes blog here. There is even the issue of Cryptic post-OOA African ancestry in Eurasians (?) which is something Swenet has brought up several times.
The crux of the matter is that even Wikipedia has a list of many studies showing the Afican admixture in Europeans supporting Sforza's findings.
Posted by Ish Geber (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: that's 2012, just a couple of years after V88 was discovered, before looking into the Sardinians (and also older Serbian mentioned in the Supp)
Genetic history from the Middle Neolithic to present on the Mediterranean island of Sardinia Joseph H. Marcus, Cosimo Posth, 2020
Lioness, since you’ve made all this progress within the last few years. Can you explain why “The deepest branching separates A1b from a monophyletic clade whose members (A1a, A2, A3, B, C, and R) all share seven mutually reinforcing derived mutations (five transitions and two transversions, all at non-CpG sites).”?
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
Now would I be rude if I said you have poor reading comprehension.
Cavalli-Sforza said the cross happened some 30-40,000 years ago. To save your unwavering faith in C-S that doesn't allow you to sail into him as you would Diop and simply drop the outdated unreplicables.
Stop cliqueing and lying that C-S's African 1/3 is recent when if you bothered to do the research you'd know it was Pleistocene.
Don't troll. Present some science in support. You can't or you wouldn't rely on bud sympathy to overturn what science says. Don't move the goalpost to the specious strawman anyone here's implying Euros aren't admixed. For like the everloving 99th time all pops are admixed. I'm the one showed ^ African sub strata in CEU -- ytes in Utah of northern Europe.
Nothing supports a 2/3 San Fran Chinese 1/3 Pygmy mixture resulting in Europeans. You can't quote any non-HGDP in C-S's pocket geneticist saying any such absurd thing. If any truth was in it you'd hear it all the time from all the professionals.
Don't send me on a wild goose chase after data you fail to post. This is the place any 2/3rds 1/3rds confirmations w/o moving the goalpost.
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
FACT CHECK
If it ain't in these you lying and making up self-serving bs to deliberately lead people astray by putting words in C-S's mouth that never came out it:
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
"if we test the distribution of the widely known ABO blood-group system, then Europeans and Africans are closer to each other than either is to Chinese." -C. Loring Brace
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
Time Ish Time has changed Things ain't standing still. Ain't nobody using pre-2015 anything New articles using new methods and once untapped genomes. The same in genomics as in life ya don't keep up with the times you find yo seff way behind.
But what I was meaning posting stuff dated after the last go round on the subject x years ago. Just like then, not a single thing in evidence of 2/3 San Fran Chinese and 1/3 Pygmy = 3/3 European.
Shih, I ain't dragging them old K charts over here now when this revisit is right now 2021. The only new thing here now is the anthropologist Jonathan Marks sarcastic critique that I never knew about back then. From him I learned the lowdown, How C-S had to admit to error before the 2/3 1/3 thingy. Didn't know the HGDP back drop w/C-S either until reading Marks that is reposted above.
quote:Originally posted by Ish Geber:
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler: [..]
It was presented as high science of the time. No one has the right to say it meant anything other than what was presented received and published as peer review science not social touchie feelies.
[…]
Let's see if Europeans are 2/3rd unspecified Eurasian 1/3rd unspecified African a lot easier moved goalpost to supplant the original statement with actual existing charts in place of subjective memories.
Now this test failed years ago. Will recent graphs confirm or deny?
What has changed with recent papers?
The odd thing is, it was never really explained, just like now it's never really explained. Just a bunch of data, or not, plotted in an algorithm.
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
Time Ish Time has changed Things ain't standing still. Ain't nobody using pre-2015 anything New articles using new methods and once untapped genomes. The same in genomics as in life ya don't keep up with the times you find yo seff way behind.
But what I was meaning posting stuff dated after the last go round on the subject x years ago. Just like then, not a single thing in evidence of 2/3 San Fran Chinese and 1/3 Pygmy = 3/3 European.
Shih, I ain't dragging them old K charts over here now when this revisit is right now 2021. The only new thing here now is the anthropologist Jonathan Marks sarcastic critique that I never knew about back then. From him I learned the lowdown, How C-S had to admit to error before the 2/3 1/3 thingy. Didn't know the HGDP back drop w/C-S either until reading Marks that is reposted above.
As you can see instead of posting up some data we got a circle jerk gushing of subjective bs. They know C-S was in err. That's why they lie and make up shih to cover for him, keep sqawking C-s's original statement out of existence replacing it with something in none of the required reading but pulled out they ..., um, hat
We talkin science precision where close don't count They the ones playin horseshoes
quote:Originally posted by Ish Geber:
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler: [..]
It was presented as high science of the time. No one has the right to say it meant anything other than what was presented received and published as peer review science not social touchie feelies.
[…]
Let's see if Europeans are 2/3rd unspecified Eurasian 1/3rd unspecified African a lot easier moved goalpost to supplant the original statement with actual existing charts in place of subjective memories.
Now this test failed years ago. Will recent graphs confirm or deny?
What has changed with recent papers?
The odd thing is, it was never really explained, just like now it's never really explained. Just a bunch of data, or not, plotted in an algorithm.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: "if we test the distribution of the widely known ABO blood-group system, then Europeans and Africans are closer to each other than either is to Chinese." -C. Loring Brace
Of course no East Eurasians like Chinese were in the study but notice how North Africans, Middle Easterners, and Europeans are grouped together because of the significant geneflow between them. Also notice how this grouping of the three populations together have a shorter distance to West Africans than do aboriginal South African Khoisan types.
People make much of the West African samples especially Yoruba YRI which is used as the archetypal 'Sub-Saharan' sample but notice the genetic influence East African Hadza have on modern West Eurasians.
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
There is not a single European or East Asian in the above.
Yeah apples and oranges are both fruits but keep to mandarins and tangerines
Steady the goalpost
C'mon Djehuti. Blast back and hand me my head, grrrrr. I don't know harder to go off my chain to yank your chain (at the ankle not the neck).
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
Keeping the goalpoast steady
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
.
Divergence time 40,000 ± nnnn years ago during the Upper Paleolithic.
So any proposed 'recent' timeframe is not from C-S.
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
Now here's the missing context of the above provided though disjointed snippet
Originally posted May 14, 2014: L. LUCA CAVALLI-SFORZA Genes, peoples, and languages Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA Vol. 94, pp. 7719 –7724, July 1997
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: Recall the 2018 Loosdrecht study.
Of course no East Eurasians like Chinese were in the study but notice how North Africans, Middle Easterners, and Europeans are grouped together because of the significant geneflow between them. Also notice how this grouping of the three populations together have a shorter distance to West Africans than do aboriginal South African Khoisan types.
People make much of the West African samples especially Yoruba YRI which is used as the archetypal 'Sub-Saharan' sample but notice the genetic influence East African Hadza have on modern West Eurasians.
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler: There is not a single European or East Asian in the above.
Yeah apples and oranges are both fruits but keep to mandarins and tangerines
Steady the goalpost
C'mon Djehuti. Blast back and hand me my head, grrrrr. I don't know harder to go off my chain to yank your chain (at the ankle not the neck).
I specifically said East Asians are not included but there are two European groups that are-- Sicilians and Spanish and you and I both know these groups have among the most significant African admixture.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
