An X-linked haplotype of Neandertal origin is present among all non-African populations
Vania Yotova et al.
Abstract
Recent work on the Neandertal genome has raised the possibility of admixture between Neandertals and the expanding population of H. sapiens who left Africa between 80 Kya and 50 Kya to colonize the rest of the world. Here we provide evidence of a notable presence (9% overall) of a Neandertal-derived X chromosome segment among all contemporary human populations outside Africa. Our analysis of 6092 X-chromosomes from all inhabited continents supports earlier contentions that a mosaic of lineages of different time depths and different geographic provenance could have contributed to the genetic constitution of modern humans. It indicates a very early admixture between expanding African migrants and Neandertals prior to or very early on the route of the out-of-Africa expansion that led to the successful colonization of the planet.
Out of 1420 sub-Saharan chromosomes, only one copy of B006 was observed in Ethiopia, and five in Burkina Faso, one among the Rimaibe and four among the Fulani and Tuareg, nomad-pastoralists known for having contacts with northern populations (Table S1). B006 only occurrence at the northern and north-eastern outskirts of sub-Saharan Africa is thus likely to be a result of gene flow from a non-African source.
Interestingly, some of the HapMap3 haplotypes from the segments proposed by Green et al. (Green et al. 2010), and fulfilling our criteria of Neandertal admixture, also turn out in Maasai, where, however, their occurrence can be due to recent back-to-Africa migration (Sikora et al. 2010).
More evidence in favor of Multi-Regional or Assimilation evolution.
posted
More evidence in favor of Multi-Regional or Assimilation evolution
Based on the above it is very trivial evidence, both in terms of alternative to OOA, or as a method of building your racial schema via a "Neanderthal angle."
-------------------- Note: I am not an "Egyptologist" as claimed by some still bitter, defeated, trolls creating fake profiles and posts elsewhere. Hapless losers, you still fail. My output of hard data debunking racist nonsense has actually INCREASED since you began.. Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova: More evidence in favor of Multi-Regional or Assimilation evolution
Based on the above it is very trivial evidence, both in terms of alternative to OOA, or as a method of building your racial schema via a "Neanderthal angle."
More accurate to think of this as one more nail in the coffin to bury the mythical Adam/Eve Conquistador replacement. Ego bruising isn't it? Earth to zarahan, Wake up, MODERN groups can't be ancestral genetic founders.
posted
But a modern groups CAN preserve some of the oldest mutations that these ancestral groups would have had. Eurasians don't belong to this group. Not even close.
Just get over it.. Your people carry a subset that evolved off of Mtdna M and N, the latter two evolved off of L3 which is indisputably African.
You can twist it however you want, the fact remains that you are the derived result of a people who looked like Africans, in terms of skin color, limb elongation and a whole plethora of other osteological traits.
So where does the below leave you? With pants on or with pants down?
quote:MODERN groups can't be ancestral genetic founders.
posted
Are you aware the vast(0.9999+)majority of all your genetic ancestors lived less than 20 generations ago(400-500ya)? True, some older relic markers get passed down to modern groups and indicate past migration patterns or shared common ancestry. But to equate relic preserved markers in modern groups as representing significant ancestral populations is foolish. So you are stuck with the same old tired 'ancient=modern African proxy via eyeball' argument to advance your political 'pants off' exposed agenda. My pants are on, my feet on the ground and guided by evidence which btw is much more interesting.
quote:Originally posted by Kalonji: But a modern groups CAN preserve some of the oldest mutations that these ancestral groups would have had. Eurasians don't belong to this group. Not even close.
Just get over it.. Your people carry a subset that evolved off of Mtdna M and N, the latter two evolved off of L3 which is indisputably African.
You can twist it however you want, the fact remains that you are the derived result of a people who looked like Africans, in terms of skin color, limb elongation and a whole plethora of other osteological traits.
So where does the below leave you? With pants on or with pants down?
quote:MODERN groups can't be ancestral genetic founders.
Out of 1420 sub-Saharan chromosomes, only one copy of B006 was observed in Ethiopia, and five in Burkina Faso, one among the Rimaibe and four among the Fulani and Tuareg, nomad-pastoralists known for having contacts with northern populations (Table S1). B006 only occurrence at the northern and north-eastern outskirts of sub-Saharan Africa is thus likely to be a result of gene flow from a non-African source.
Interestingly, some of the HapMap3 haplotypes from the segments proposed by Green et al. (Green et al. 2010), and fulfilling our criteria of Neandertal admixture, also turn out in Maasai, where, however, their occurrence can be due to recent back-to-Africa migration (Sikora et al. 2010).
I did the time to research the above quotes, but couldn't find it on the internet. The only link was to this very thread.
The above two quotes are from two different tests, correct?
The first quote really isn't surprising? Only 11 copies out of 1420 chromosomes... .8%, on the outskirts of Saharo-Tropical Africa. Western Eurasians likely possess a much more higher frequency of the African specific B007 chromosome.
Your reading the second quote out of context. The segments proposed by Green fulfill "Neanderthal" admixture. Some of them turn out in the Maasai. This isn't autosomal. In regard to the genomic segments, some of the haplotypes are possibly "Neanderthal" and some are Human... we therefore have no idea from the quote alone what haplotype (Neanderthal or Modern Human) were found among the Maasai. I'm guessing modern human, since the Maasai are a interior Cushitic/Nilotic/Bantu population.
I need a better source btw.
This doesn't debunk the OOA theory. Non-Africans migrated out of Africa were prior to their differentiation they possibly received gene-flow from Neanderthals. 2.5% in regard to there genomes, which happen to be totally useless. Melanesians picked up 5% from another Neanderthal like group. Of course there are other theories.
It's unlikely Neanderthal admixture though, since Cambodians are supposedly more Neanderthal than Sardinians.
IMO, it could be just that genetic drift and bottlenecks caused a few ancient genomes/haplotypes to be more frequent among non-Africans in comparison to Africans. Africans carry the overwhelming majority of the deep/ancient genomes/haplotypes btw.
Both the Neanderthal/Archaic and Ancient African Substructure are weakened by the new evidence.
posted
On what nucleotide and phylogenetic basis is the so-called B006 deemed to be "Neanderthal" haplotype?
Suppose some Africans got this "Neanderthal" haplotype from folks outside of Africa, what importance is this? It obviously has no bearing on the OOA thesis.
The Maasai are Nilo-Saharan speakers, and are generally a conservative bunch, in terms of inbreeding. What recent back-migration could have accounted for introgression of "Neanderthal" haplotype into the Maasai gene pool?
-------------------- The Complete Picture of the Past tells Us what Not to Repeat Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: On what nucleotide and phylogenetic basis is the so-called B006 deemed to be "Neanderthal" haplotype?
Suppose some Africans got this "Neanderthal" haplotype from folks outside of Africa, what importance is this? It obviously has no bearing on the OOA thesis.
The Maasai are Nilo-Saharan speakers, and are generally a conservative bunch, in terms of inbreeding. What recent back-migration could have accounted for introgression of "Neanderthal" haplotype into the Maasai gene pool?
Their maternal gene pool could explain it.
Posts: 2463 | From: New Jersey USA | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: On what nucleotide and phylogenetic basis is the so-called B006 deemed to be "Neanderthal" haplotype?
Suppose some Africans got this "Neanderthal" haplotype from folks outside of Africa, what importance is this? It obviously has no bearing on the OOA thesis.
The Maasai are Nilo-Saharan speakers, and are generally a conservative bunch, in terms of inbreeding. What recent back-migration could have accounted for introgression of "Neanderthal" haplotype into the Maasai gene pool?
Their maternal gene pool could explain it.
In regard to the second quote...
"The segments proposed by Green fulfill "Neanderthal" admixture."
Therefore these segments are simply snapshots which include OOA genomes and relics which may indicate Neanderthal admixture. Therefore being NE African, they likely possess some common OOA genomes with non-African and not the archaic relics in particular. The Maasai are 12% M1, 3% R0, and 2% N1a btw.
Anyways this being due to Neanderthal admixture is being put into question. The multi-regional theory will stay dead.
Posts: 129 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
Maasai have a lot of Cushitic admixture from the Horn of Africa.
So it isn't really surprising that they carry Neanderthal admixture since Cushitic populations are genetically affiliated with Eurasians.
Posts: 695 | From: وكان المصريون القدماء القوقازين | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
Here's a quote from an individual "catperson" who posted on Dienekes' Anthro Blog... basically saying what I am trying to say
"It's also possible that the mutations occurred in Africa before the ancestors of humans and Neanderthals diverged, however the mutations only came under high selection when each population left Africa and needed these mutations to survive the colder climate. Meanwhile, the mutations had no value in Africa and gradually vanished in Africans, thus causing Africans to be genetically less similar to Neanderthals than non-Africans are."
Posts: 129 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Perahu: Maasai have a lot of Cushitic admixture from the Horn of Africa.
So it isn't really surprising that they carry Neanderthal admixture since Cushitic populations are genetically affiliated with Eurasians.
Some people aren't well versed in regard to genetics, no offense
The Maasai are roughly 45-50% Cushitic, correct!
Cushitic populations are genetically intermediate between West Africans and Eurasians, due to the natural genetic cline from "deeper" Africa and outwards into Eurasia/the America's etc. West Africans are intermediate between hunter-gather groups for example and Eurasians. Are they mixed?obviously no. It's the same situation.
The Cushitic cluster is separate from any of the Eurasian clusters. There's no affiliation due to admixture in regard to the Cushitic cluster in particular.
Possible Neanderthal ancestry is due to non-Africans leaving Africa and shorty afterwards absorbing small traces of Neanderthal admixture. Which are today for the most part useless. If you don't have Eurasian ancestry, no chance of you possessing Neanderthal admixture according to this theory. The Maasai don't have Eurasian ancestry, they have Cushitic admixture.
And this isn't static admixture were talking about here. Eurasians possibly carry Neanderthal genomes/haplotypes scattered across their DNA. So basically useless relics.
Only one Ethiopian carried the B006 haplotype btw
Posts: 129 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
''Interestingly, some of the HapMap3 haplotypes from the segments proposed by Green et al. (Green et al. 2010), and fulfilling our criteria of Neandertal admixture, also turn out in Maasai, where, however, their occurrence can be due to recent back-to-Africa migration (Sikora et al. 2010).''
^Opinion of a geneticist > 'wikipedia scholar'.
Posts: 695 | From: وكان المصريون القدماء القوقازين | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Perahu: ''Interestingly, some of the HapMap3 haplotypes from the segments proposed by Green et al. (Green et al. 2010), and fulfilling our criteria of Neandertal admixture, also turn out in Maasai, where, however, their occurrence can be due to recent back-to-Africa migration (Sikora et al. 2010).''
^Opinion of a geneticist > 'wikipedia scholar'.
See this is the problem when dealing with your average layman who knows absolutely nothing about genetics. You speculated a theory that any possible "Neanderthal" admixture among the Maasai were due to them possessing Cushitic ancestry due to the fact that Cushitic populations have higher affinities with non-Africans in comparison to other Africans. I proved you wrong in that the biological relationship between West Africans and Western Eurasians in regard to NE Africans has absolutely nothing to do with Neanderthal or Eurasian admixture.
I'm still waiting on non-prophet to provide me with a source from Sikora et al. 2010. Since I can't find it on the web, and a simple Google search leads you back to this thread.
You would also know that the most recent evidence as in 2011 goes against both theories in regard to the possible "archaic" relics among non-Africans. So your point is kinda mutt.
Like I said only one Ethiopian carried the B006 haplotype, the supposed "Neanderthal" derived haplotype.
Posts: 129 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged |
Out of 1420 sub-Saharan chromosomes, only one copy of B006 was observed in Ethiopia, and five in Burkina Faso, one among the Rimaibe and four among the Fulani and Tuareg, nomad-pastoralists known for having contacts with northern populations (Table S1). B006 only occurrence at the northern and north-eastern outskirts of sub-Saharan Africa is thus likely to be a result of gene flow from a non-African source.
Interestingly, some of the HapMap3 haplotypes from the segments proposed by Green et al. (Green et al. 2010), and fulfilling our criteria of Neandertal admixture, also turn out in Maasai, where, however, their occurrence can be due to recent back-to-Africa migration (Sikora et al. 2010).
I did the time to research the above quotes, but couldn't find it on the internet. The only link was to this very thread.
The above two quotes are from two different tests, correct?
The first quote really isn't surprising? Only 11 copies out of 1420 chromosomes... .8%, on the outskirts of Saharo-Tropical Africa. Western Eurasians likely possess a much more higher frequency of the African specific B007 chromosome.
Your reading the second quote out of context. The segments proposed by Green fulfill "Neanderthal" admixture. Some of them turn out in the Maasai. This isn't autosomal. In regard to the genomic segments, some of the haplotypes are possibly "Neanderthal" and some are Human... we therefore have no idea from the quote alone what haplotype (Neanderthal or Modern Human) were found among the Maasai. I'm guessing modern human, since the Maasai are a interior Cushitic/Nilotic/Bantu population.
I need a better source btw.
This doesn't debunk the OOA theory. Non-Africans migrated out of Africa were prior to their differentiation they possibly received gene-flow from Neanderthals. 2.5% in regard to there genomes, which happen to be totally useless. Melanesians picked up 5% from another Neanderthal like group. Of course there are other theories.
It's unlikely Neanderthal admixture though, since Cambodians are supposedly more Neanderthal than Sardinians.
IMO, it could be just that genetic drift and bottlenecks caused a few ancient genomes/haplotypes to be more frequent among non-Africans in comparison to Africans. Africans carry the overwhelming majority of the deep/ancient genomes/haplotypes btw.
Both the Neanderthal/Archaic and Ancient African Substructure are weakened by the new evidence.
Typo, only 6 copies of B006 were found in Africa. 5 in Burkina Faso and 1 in Ethiopia out of 1420. .4%.
Posts: 129 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
My questions on nucleotide sequences of B006 have not been answered, but moving along anyway...
What constitutes "Cushitic admixture" and how is it determined so?
I see that Hgs M1, R0 and N1a have been named in response to a post suggesting a turn to mtDNA for clues on "back-migration" impact on Maasai gene pool. M1 clade is not a back-migration clade, and if there is specific DNA evidence suggesting otherwise, I'd like to see it. Perhaps a better case for back-migration can be made for clades of hgs R0 and N1a, but even here, the case is not unequivocal; these clades are pretty much scattered across the continent in varying frequencies and in patchy distribution patterns, not to mention that unique variants have been found in eastern Africa.
The last time I checked, the Maasai generally live in Kenya; is Kenya in "Northeast Africa"?
-------------------- The Complete Picture of the Past tells Us what Not to Repeat Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: My questions on nucleotide sequences of B006 have not been answered, but moving along anyway...
What constitutes "Cushitic admixture" and how is it determined so?
I see that Hgs M1, R0 and N1a have been named in response to a post suggesting a turn to mtDNA for clues on "back-migration" impact on Maasai gene pool. M1 clade is not a back-migration clade, and if there is specific DNA evidence suggesting otherwise, I'd like to see it. Perhaps a better case for back-migration can be made for clades of hgs R0 and N1a, but even here, the case is not unequivocal; these clades are pretty much scattered across the continent in varying frequencies and in patchy distribution patterns, not to mention that unique variants have been found in eastern Africa.
The last time I checked, the Maasai generally live in Kenya; is Kenya in "Northeast Africa"?
Haplogroups are a thing of the past, it's a all about genetic clusters.
Maasai consistently show Eurasian influence relative to pure Negroids like Nigerians.
Posts: 695 | From: وكان المصريون القدماء القوقازين | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: My questions on nucleotide sequences of B006 have not been answered, but moving along anyway...
What constitutes "Cushitic admixture" and how is it determined so?
I see that Hgs M1, R0 and N1a have been named in response to a post suggesting a turn to mtDNA for clues on "back-migration" impact on Maasai gene pool. M1 clade is not a back-migration clade, and if there is specific DNA evidence suggesting otherwise, I'd like to see it. Perhaps a better case for back-migration can be made for clades of hgs R0 and N1a, but even here, the case is not unequivocal; these clades are pretty much scattered across the continent in varying frequencies and in patchy distribution patterns, not to mention that unique variants have been found in eastern Africa.
The last time I checked, the Maasai generally live in Kenya; is Kenya in "Northeast Africa"?
Haplogroups are a thing of the past, it's a all about genetic clusters.
Maasai consistently show Eurasian influence relative to pure Negroids like Nigerians.
Then why are you having wet dreams? Since the above quotes are dealing with haplotypes
You probably don't even know how genetic clusters work. They're fragile and could be easily manipulated either way.
The Maasai do not have "Caucasian" admixture. They're closer to Western Eurasians in comparison to West Africans, but West Africans on the other hand are closer to Western Eurasians in comparison to pygmies and the Khoisan. Populations work in clines, and since theirs a longer time depth in Africa... the cline is much more evident.
According to Tishkoff et al. 2010, the only study of it's kind in regard to Africans the Maasai are for the most part exclusively African.
Posts: 129 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: My questions on nucleotide sequences of B006 have not been answered, but moving along anyway...
What constitutes "Cushitic admixture" and how is it determined so?
I see that Hgs M1, R0 and N1a have been named in response to a post suggesting a turn to mtDNA for clues on "back-migration" impact on Maasai gene pool. M1 clade is not a back-migration clade, and if there is specific DNA evidence suggesting otherwise, I'd like to see it. Perhaps a better case for back-migration can be made for clades of hgs R0 and N1a, but even here, the case is not unequivocal; these clades are pretty much scattered across the continent in varying frequencies and in patchy distribution patterns, not to mention that unique variants have been found in eastern Africa.
The last time I checked, the Maasai generally live in Kenya; is Kenya in "Northeast Africa"?
I know, I just posted the mtDNA frequencies some people may use to denote "back-migrations" into Africa.
In regard to B006, it's for the most part an Asian-American haplotype... but it differs from the common pan-African-Eurasian haplotype B001 at 13 sites. But Africans also carry a African specific haplotype that differs from the common pan-Human haplotype at 11 sites.
Heres a post from Dienekes, by past his bias as he explains it more...
Until very recently, most researchers studying the origins of Homo sapiens focused on the fossils of East Africa and the sophisticated tools and ornaments of famed South African sites such as Blombos Cave. Few scientists thought that much of evolutionary significance had gone on in North Africa, or that the region's big-toothed, somewhat archaic-looking hominins might be closely related to the ancestors of many living people. Now, thanks to new excavations and more accurate dating, North Africa boasts unequivocal signs of modern human behavior as early as anywhere else in the world, including South Africa. Climate reconstructions and fossil studies now suggest that the region was more hospitable during key periods than once thought. The data suggest that the Sahara Desert was a land of lakes and rivers about 130,000 years ago, when moderns first left Africa for sites in what is today Israel. And new studies of hominin fossils suggest some strong resemblances—and possible evolutionary connections—between North African specimens and fossils representing migrations out of Africa between 130,000 and 40,000 years ago.
All non-Africans may be descended mainly from a subset of North Afrasians over multiple prehistoric bidirectional North African-Eurasian migrations. The North Afrasians unlike the Paleo-SSA retained more common ancestral Sapien-Neandertal genes as demonstrated possibly in Moroccan JH1 intermediate crania due to their common Homo Heidelbergensis ancestor or some yet to be determined intermediate between HH and Sapien-Neandertal. Given more isolation and time, two or more subspecies may have been evolving, Homo Sapien Sapien in North Africa and Homo Sapien Paleo elsewhere.
quote:Originally posted by Kalonji: But a modern groups CAN preserve some of the oldest mutations that these ancestral groups would have had. Eurasians don't belong to this group. Not even close.
Just get over it.. Your people carry a subset that evolved off of Mtdna M and N, the latter two evolved off of L3 which is indisputably African.
You can twist it however you want, the fact remains that you are the derived result of a people who looked like Africans, in terms of skin color, limb elongation and a whole plethora of other osteological traits.
So where does the below leave you? With pants on or with pants down?
quote:MODERN groups can't be ancestral genetic founders.
Sry but you are 100% wrong in every thing you said.
Euroasians never came from people who looked like mdoern africans. The OOA group where already subdivided before entering euroasia but they only gained their caucasian traits by staying isolated in euroasia.
the group who stayed in africa developed their negroid features over in isolation as well. east africans included.
then at some point in time some eaurasians back migrated into africa and mixed with the local negroid women there creating the intermediate race of east africans which is why botht heir phenotype and dna cluster between them.
Posts: 3 | Registered: Feb 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Perahu: ''Interestingly, some of the HapMap3 haplotypes from the segments proposed by Green et al. (Green et al. 2010), and fulfilling our criteria of Neandertal admixture, also turn out in Maasai, where, however, their occurrence can be due to recent back-to-Africa migration (Sikora et al. 2010).''
^Opinion of a geneticist > 'wikipedia scholar'.
See this is the problem when dealing with your average layman who knows absolutely nothing about genetics. You speculated a theory that any possible "Neanderthal" admixture among the Maasai were due to them possessing Cushitic ancestry due to the fact that Cushitic populations have higher affinities with non-Africans in comparison to other Africans. I proved you wrong in that the biological relationship between West Africans and Western Eurasians in regard to NE Africans has absolutely nothing to do with Neanderthal or Eurasian admixture.
I'm still waiting on non-prophet to provide me with a source from Sikora et al. 2010. Since I can't find it on the web, and a simple Google search leads you back to this thread.
You would also know that the most recent evidence as in 2011 goes against both theories in regard to the possible "archaic" relics among non-Africans. So your point is kinda mutt.
Like I said only one Ethiopian carried the B006 haplotype, the supposed "Neanderthal" derived haplotype.
nope you didnt prove anything. its pretty clear that east africans are the result of admixture between back migrating euroasians and local negroids. here is a long summary to how it played out.
1. "The recent resolutions of the CDEF-M168 tripartite structure to the bipartite DE-YAP and CF-P143 [16, 31] extends the conversation regarding the early successful colonization of Eurasia. While several scenarios remain potentially possible the most parsimonious model is the most prudent. This model proposes the successful colonization of Eurasia by migration(s) of populations containing precursor Y-chromosome founder macrohaplogroup CDET-M168 and basal mtDNA L3 representatives. Regions near but external to northeast Africa, like the Levant or the southern Arabian Peninsula, could have served as an incubator for the early diversification of non-African uniparental haplogroup varieties like Y chromosome DE-YAP*, CF-P143* and mtDNA M and N molecular ancestors. These would have spread globally and diversified over time and space. This model would imply that both CF-P143 and the DE-YAP evolved nearby but outside Africa. One DE-YAP* ancestor would have spread to Asia and evolved to haplogroup D while another DE-YAP* returned to northeast Africa and evolved into hg E. It is noteworthy that DE-YAP* has been detected at low frequency in Africa [37]. Again, this hypothesis has its mtDNA counterpart as it is well documented that, in the Palaeolithic, at least three clades (X1, U6, M1) derived respectively from the three main Eurasian macrohaplogroups (N, R, M) came back to North Africa from Asia [38-42]."
here is a ancient skull from israel that is around 100 000 years old that have a big affinity/similarity with the later cro-magnon skulls. (just to prove that there was caucasoid looking skulls back then) https://www.msu.edu/~heslipst/contents/ANP440/images/Qafzeh_6.jpg
basically as according to dienekes it is possible to seperate humans into 2 groups, paleo-africans and afrasians/euroasians.
paleo-africans represent lineages (y dna) A,B and (mtdna) L0-L2. Euroasians/afrasians represent CT and its descendants and L3
So basically there was already sub structure(both genetically and phenotypically) in east africa before OOA and neither of those populations did resemble any modern phenotype and then the afrasians migrated out and in isolation developed into the phenotypes we see in euroasia today and (haplogroups E and R and so on originated) while the paleo-africans stayed and settled south and west of africa as well and evolved into the negroid types we have in sub-saharan africa today possible due to the mixing with those archaic african groups.
E carriers return from euroasia into africa and settle into the horn and live next to the paleo africans and some mixing occur, then a subset of the E carriers of the horn move further and colonize north africa. those that stayed in the horn eventually started mixing with the paleo african women and became the dominant y group.
A subset of these now mixed horners however move further south and meet the pure paleo-africans(although with archaic admixture) then they also mix and thats the reason why E-carriers became dominant here too and the bantu migration later in history added to this. though there is still some A and B. the archaic lineages had probably been completely assimilated prior to this.
this makes sense because that would make west and south africans (who are seen as pure negroids) autosomally almost completely african because they would not meet any new caucasoid groups in africa even though majority of them still carry an caucasoid euroasian y marker.
and east africans stay intermediate autosomally and in skull cluster analysis due to having a consistant population of both caucasoids and negroids. and north africans are practically completely caucasoid due to no paleo-africans living there.
this explains why sub-saharans are the most diversive. what im trying to say as well is that just because an dna marker originated from a certain area does NOT mean that that areas current population represent the original phenotype. so i believe the E carriers that went into the horn looked like north africans and the current phenotype is due to admixture.
this is improtant to that argument:
"The population that left East Africa to colonize the world -- including other parts of Africa -- carried only CT and L3. We know this because if A, B and L0-L2 had already been present in that population, then those haplogroups would have colonized the world too. But they didn't. Therefore, modern Ethiopians(and other horners) have ancestry that the original East Africans (i.e. OOA migrants) didn't have, so they're not representative"
Posts: 3 | Registered: Feb 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Euroasians never came from people who looked like mdoern africans.
Sorry, you're late boy. This has already been dealt with. School and rid yourself of your state of confusion.
quote:Originally posted by Kalonji:
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: "The Qafzeh-Skhul hominids have sometimes been refered to as "Proto-CroMagnons" (e.g., Howell 1957; Vandermeersch 1996) because of their presumed similarity to the famous Aurignacian-associated hominids from Western Europe....Specifically [Brace], he notes that "in both the details of its dental and craniological size and from Qafzeh is an unlikely proto-Cro-Magnon, but it makes a fine model for the ancestors of modern sub-Saharan Africans"(p.63).
"taken as a whole, the work of Tchernov seems to support the findings of the current research that the Qafzeh-Skhul hominids have their origins in Africa, while the Neanderthals are from cold to temperate biomes"(p.64).
"The current study demonstrates African-like affinities in the body shape of the Qafzeh-Skhul hominids. This finding is consistent with craniofacial evidence (Brace 1996) and with zooarchaeological data indicating the presence of African fauna at Qafzeh (Rabinovich and Tchernov 1995; Tchernov 1988, 1992)" (p.64).\
Brace says that Howells has used 50 measurements so his work is to be preferred, but, on Brace's 24 measurements, Qafzeh can be absolutely excluded from Europe, India, Asia and The Amerindians, but not from sub-Saharan Africa , to a lesser extent, from Australia.
posted
^ Indeed. The term used to describe lower paleolithic humans is "generalized modern", but have you (Bonkers) ever bothered to look up what that entails??
Here is a reconstruction of Qafzeh 9 woman from a cave in Israel representing a member of the first people to leave Africa.
She was featured in the Discovery Channel program The Real Eve.
And here is a reconstruction of Homo Sapiens Idaltu representing humans before they left Africa.
There's no way getting around it. They were obviously black and exhibit what is traditionally called "negroid" features.
Posts: 26236 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: My questions on nucleotide sequences of B006 have not been answered, but moving along anyway...
What constitutes "Cushitic admixture" and how is it determined so?
I see that Hgs M1, R0 and N1a have been named in response to a post suggesting a turn to mtDNA for clues on "back-migration" impact on Maasai gene pool. M1 clade is not a back-migration clade, and if there is specific DNA evidence suggesting otherwise, I'd like to see it. Perhaps a better case for back-migration can be made for clades of hgs R0 and N1a, but even here, the case is not unequivocal; these clades are pretty much scattered across the continent in varying frequencies and in patchy distribution patterns, not to mention that unique variants have been found in eastern Africa.
The last time I checked, the Maasai generally live in Kenya; is Kenya in "Northeast Africa"?
Haplogroups are a thing of the past, it's a all about genetic clusters.
Maasai consistently show Eurasian influence relative to pure Negroids like Nigerians.
This repetitive nonsense is so boring. Jeeze, I swear you get a new generation of idiots every year repeating the same crap about "pure" races of man. Pure Negroids this, Negroids that. Just holding on to the same dead fish, no creativity whatsoever, clinging for dear life to the only argument left to exhaust, one that has fallen out of favor with every reputable mainstream biologist/anthropologist, yet like stubborn, uneducated mules they keep on keeping on. Just sad, these Eurocentric, underachieving anthro dilettantes simply will not quit until the world buys into their drone like repetition of the same defeated bull sh1t. Well, sorry, as long as science demonstrates that racial sub-groups are an imaginary schema created by 19th century anthropologists based on flawed statistical measurements of crania, external traits and behaviors (before the advent of genetics, which has subsequently demolished the notion), people like you will forever have their voices unheard outside of obnoxious forum threads like these created by pseudo-geneticists like our thread-starter.
Posts: 4021 | From: Bay Area, CA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Sundjata: Jeeze, I swear you get a new generation of idiots every year repeating the same crap about "pure" races of man.
A major part of the problem is that science education in many countries is abysmal. High school teachers in the US are even reluctant to teach mere evolutionary theory, never mind the fallacy of racialism:
As long as science education remains in this state, we're going to keep producing ignoramuses.
Posts: 7069 | From: Fallbrook, CA | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ Indeed. The scientific illiteracy and ignorance I come across from folks not just in this forum but others astounds me. They only have a little knowledge and you know what they say about a little knowledge... They become a danger to those with no knowledge at all. That's how we get false experts like Dienekes and Mathilda.
quote:Originally posted by Perahu: Haplogroups are a thing of the past, it's a all about genetic clusters.
And what are haplogroups then if not genetic clusters?? LOLPosts: 26236 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ Indeed. The scientific illiteracy and ignorance I come across from folks not just in this forum but others astounds me. They only have a little knowledge and you know what they say about a little knowledge... They become a danger to those with no knowledge at all. That's how we get false experts like Dienekes and Mathilda.
I don't know if those last two really lack knowledge so much as objectivity. They may know the truth but suppress it because they have an ideological/emotional investment in Egyptians being non-black. That said, you're right about their misinformation being poisonous.
Posts: 7069 | From: Fallbrook, CA | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ Indeed. The term used to describe lower paleolithic humans is "generalized modern", but have you (Bonkers) ever bothered to look up what that entails??
Here is a reconstruction of Qafzeh 9 woman from a cave in Israel representing a member of the first people to leave Africa.
She was featured in the Discovery Channel program The Real Eve.
It has been suggested that the Skhul/Qafzeh hominids had died out by 80,000 years ago because of drying conditions. This would suggest that the two types of human never made contact in the region.
They were initially regarded as transitional fossils between Neanderthals and modern humans. However they are now regarded as a separate lineage from the Neanderthals, and may represent the first exodus of modern humans from Africa around 125,000 years ago.
However the Skhul/Qafzeh hominids showed “Neanderthal features” before the arrival of Neanderthals in the region, suggesting that the robust features of the Skhul/Qafzeh hominids represent archaic sapiens features, and that the hybridization between modern humans and Neanderthals may have taken place somewhere else.
Furthermore it has been suggested that the Skhul/Qafzeh hominids represent an extinct lineage, and that modern humans again exited Africa around 80,000 years ago, crossing a narrow stretch of water between present day Eritrea and the Arabian Peninsula, although convincing archaeological evidence in support of this hypothesis has yet to be found (July, 2010). But in 2005, a set of 7 teeth from Tabun Cave in Israel were studied and found to most likely belong to a Neanderthal that may have lived around 90,000 years ago, and another Neanderthal (C1) from Tabun was estimated to be 122,000 years old. If the dates are correct for these individuals then it is possible that Neanderthals and early moderns did make contact in the region and it may be possible that the Skhul/Qafzeh hominids are partially of Neanderthal descent.
^ Oppenheimer, S. (2003). Out of Eden; The Peopling of the World. ISBN 1 84119 697 5.
Posts: 42918 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
You need to learn to stop cowering behind your scientific data and post what you're using it for. Simply posting data in response to another post is what cowards do.
Spit it out. What about the article?
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have to agree with lioness that archaic features do not = modern "African" features. My null hypothesis is that Africans have changed as much (phenotypically), if not more than people outside of the continent. Since when does evolution stop in Africa? Indeed, to assume so is counter intuitive AND counter productive.
Posts: 4021 | From: Bay Area, CA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
You don't even know what her intent was, how can you agree with her?
The meassurements speak for themselves. In the variables that were studied by brace, the Paleolithic specimens couldn't be excluded from compared modern ones. This doesn't mean that the cranio-facial bone structures of modern and Paleolithic Africans are identical.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Kalonji: You don't even know what her intent was, how can you agree with her?
The meassurements speak for themselves. In the variables that were studied by brace, the Paleolithic specimens couldn't be excluded from compared modern ones. This doesn't mean that the cranio-facial bone structures of modern and Paleolithic Africans are identical.
Maybe I'm projecting as far as lioness goes but I'm not referring to Brace' upper paleolithic specimens, I'm commenting on those photos posted of ancient hominids (pre-humans) in attempts to suggest affinities with any particular modern population. White folks obsession over the San "Bushmen" is annoying enough. Also, I wasn't directing my comment in contradiction to you either.
Posts: 4021 | From: Bay Area, CA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
Haplogroups are a thing of the past, it's a all about genetic clusters.
You are dead wrong, and suffering from contradiction of ideas. There wouldn't be clusters if haplogroups didn't exist, or vice versa.
quote:
Maasai consistently show Eurasian influence relative to pure Negroids like Nigerians.
Consistently show "Eurasian influence" specifically in what genetic terms, and linked to what uniparental markers?
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
In regard to B006, it's for the most part an Asian-American haplotype... but it differs from the common pan-African-Eurasian haplotype B001 at 13 sites. But Africans also carry a African specific haplotype that differs from the common pan-Human haplotype at 11 sites.
That may be, but my question was:
On what nucleotide and phylogenetic basis is the so-called B006 deemed to be "Neanderthal" haplotype?
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
So basically there was already sub structure(both genetically and phenotypically) in east africa before OOA and neither of those populations did resemble any modern phenotype
Sub-structure of what, how many and specify them?
quote: and then the afrasians migrated out and in isolation developed into the phenotypes we see in euroasia today and (haplogroups E and R and so on originated) while the paleo-africans stayed and settled south and west of africa as well and evolved into the negroid types we have in sub-saharan africa today possible due to the mixing with those archaic african groups.
Your little theory is upset by the fact that your "negroids" of west Africa, who are presumably the product of "paleo-Africans", predominantly belong to the same hg E that you claim to be of "Eurasian" origin. How does that register with your unidentified "sub-structure"?
quote: E carriers return from euroasia into africa
Why is E rarer outside of Africa, if this is true. Why are upstream clades or paraphyletic YAP+ so far only identified in western Africa and the far east where hg D occurs? Why have more paraphyletic YAP+ clades been found in Africa than anywhere? Why is hg E more diversified in Africa than anywhere? Why is hg E more diverse than hg D, which shares common recent ancestry at the YAP+ node?
quote: and settle into the horn and live next to the paleo africans and some mixing occur, then a subset of the E carriers of the horn move further and colonize north africa. those that stayed in the horn eventually started mixing with the paleo african women and became the dominant y group.
How do you know this mixing took place, presumably between "paleo Africans" and "E carriers"? Why haven't the phenotypes of these "E carriers" changed, or did they?
quote: meanwhile in euroasia the euroasians probably started mixing with neanderthals.
Why don't they resemble neanderthals, or do they? What Neanderthal uniparental markers point to this mixing; if none, what happened?
quote: A subset of these now mixed horners however move further south and meet the pure paleo-africans(although with archaic admixture) then they also mix and thats the reason why E-carriers became dominant here too and the bantu migration later in history added to this. though there is still some A and B. the archaic lineages had probably been completely assimilated prior to this.
Why don't the E-carriers in west Africa and south resemble the "mixed E-carrier horners", as you call them, according to your own theory...since they mixed with the same "paleo" and "archaic" elements in the African Horn?
quote: this makes sense because that would make west and south africans (who are seen as pure negroids) autosomally almost completely african because they would not meet any new caucasoid groups in africa even though majority of them still carry an caucasoid euroasian y marker.
How can they carry "caucasoid eurasian y marker" and be "almost completely African"? Did their "caucasoid eurasian y marker" fathers not carry any biparental markers?
quote: and east africans stay intermediate autosomally and in skull cluster analysis due to having a consistant population of both caucasoids and negroids. and north africans are practically completely caucasoid due to no paleo-africans living there.
Again, why haven't the caucasoid fathers in west and south Africa produce the same "intermediate autosomally and in skull cluster" in west and south Africa as they presumably did in the African Horn?
quote: this explains why sub-saharans are the most diversive.
So, according to you, sub-Saharan Africans would not have been diverse, were it not for this "admixture" from E-carriers and other caucasoids from Eurasia? In other words, "admixture" is the reason for Africa's uniqueness in the greatest human diversity, as opposed to the underlying fact that it is home to origin of humanity.
quote: what im trying to say as well is that just because an dna marker originated from a certain area does NOT mean that that areas current population represent the original phenotype.
Well that goes without saying. Europeans serve as superb examples of change in original phenotype of carriers of markers into Europe.
quote: this is improtant to that argument:
"The population that left East Africa to colonize the world -- including other parts of Africa -- carried only CT and L3. We know this because if A, B and L0-L2 had already been present in that population, then those haplogroups would have colonized the world too. But they didn't. Therefore, modern Ethiopians(and other horners) have ancestry that the original East Africans (i.e. OOA migrants) didn't have, so they're not representative"
The same can be said of modern western and southern Africans, which takes us right back to questions asked right above.
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Kalonji: You don't even know what her intent was, how can you agree with her?
The meassurements speak for themselves. In the variables that were studied by brace, the Paleolithic specimens couldn't be excluded from compared modern ones. This doesn't mean that the cranio-facial bone structures of modern and Paleolithic Africans are identical.
Maybe I'm projecting as far as lioness goes but I'm not referring to Brace' upper paleolithic specimens, I'm commenting on those photos posted of ancient hominids (pre-humans) in attempts to suggest affinities with any particular modern population. White folks obsession over the San "Bushmen" is annoying enough. Also, I wasn't directing my comment in contradiction to you either.
I agree with your assessment of Euros obsessing over Khoisan, but what bugs the hell out of me even more is their idiotic notion about the earliest attestation of the broad African type, or negroes as they say, is recent and post dates the emergence of ''Caucasians''. This is totally off base, because the traditional signature of ''Negroids'' were things like rectangle orbits, short broad nasal aperture, prognathism, elongated limbs, prominent cheekbones dolichocephalic calvarium, sloping frontal bone with low vault etc. All those traits can be found in high freq. among Upper Paleolithic Africans/Europeans, but because of implications of primacy of ''Negriod'' traits over ''Caucasoid'' traits, and implications that modern Euros are simply the derived result of people who looked like what they call ''negroid'', they seek to even further narrow down the set of features when it comes to assigning what they call the first attestation of ''Negro'', so they don't have to feel bothered by ''Negroid'' people in their lineage.
Bonkers, NonProphet and co act like changing terminology (Paleolithic Europeans/Generalised moderns) or by arguing that modern Africans aren't exact replicas of Upper Paleolithic ones (which is true), that this somehow negates the reality that Upper Paleolithic Africans had all the superficial stereotyped characteristics that a layman uses to distinguish Africans from Europeans.
Hence me arguing that in terms of certain features, it can be argued that Upper Paleolithic Africans resemble Africans.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Kalonji: You don't even know what her intent was, how can you agree with her?
The meassurements speak for themselves. In the variables that were studied by brace, the Paleolithic specimens couldn't be excluded from compared modern ones. This doesn't mean that the cranio-facial bone structures of modern and Paleolithic Africans are identical.
Maybe I'm projecting as far as lioness goes but I'm not referring to Brace' upper paleolithic specimens, I'm commenting on those photos posted of ancient hominids (pre-humans) in attempts to suggest affinities with any particular modern population. White folks obsession over the San "Bushmen" is annoying enough. Also, I wasn't directing my comment in contradiction to you either.
I agree with your assessment of Euros obsessing over Khoisan, but what bugs the hell out of me even more is their idiotic notion about the earliest attestation of the broad African type, or negroes as they say, is recent and post dates the emergence of ''Caucasians''. This is totally off base, because the traditional signature of ''Negroids'' were things like rectangle orbits, short broad nasal aperture, prognathism, elongated limbs, prominent cheekbones dolichocephalic calvarium, sloping frontal bone with low vault etc. All those traits can be found in high freq. among Upper Paleolithic Africans/Europeans, but because of implications of primacy of ''Negriod'' traits over ''Caucasoid'' traits, and implications that modern Euros are simply the derived result of people who looked like what they call ''negroid'', they seek to even further narrow down the set of features when it comes to assigning what they call the first attestation of ''Negro'', so they don't have to feel bothered by ''Negroid'' people in their lineage.
Bonkers, NonProphet and co act like changing terminology (Paleolithic Europeans/Generalised moderns) or by arguing that modern Africans aren't exact replicas of Upper Paleolithic ones (which is true), that this somehow negates the reality that Upper Paleolithic Africans had all the superficial stereotyped characteristics that a layman uses to distinguish Africans from Europeans.
Hence me arguing that in terms of certain features, it can be argued that Upper Paleolithic Africans resemble Africans.
Like I wrote, I never contradicted your stance on this. I am not referring to upper paleolithic (post-OOA) Africans but was referring to the photographs posted of Homo-idaltu and the specimen of the extinct homo lineage found in Israel. No where in the literature are these people described as having "Negroid" traits, they are considered "archaic". Modern Africans (hence, 'modern') by and large don't possess archaic features. I can't bring myself to subscribe to the 'negroid' ruse, even if convenient. What you described are not negroid traits (long limbs = tropical trait, other traits also seen in extant non-Africans, i,e. Australians, etc. and more markedly than in the vast majority of modern Africans) since there's no such thing. This is my point.
More simply. To suggest that Africans living today closely resemble the founder population, and more so than the descendants of the founder population, would suggest that Africans have evolved slow. If this is off base, let me know. What else would be responsible for their timeless appearance? Also counter-intuitive as Cavali-Sforza suggested the opposite. That Europeans, based on the shortness of their branch relative to Africans and Asians on the genetic tree diagram, went through a period of stagnated evolution. There is no evidence that this occurred in Africa.
In conclusion, Herto man and the above lady resembled no one living on the planet today.
Posts: 4021 | From: Bay Area, CA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't know, since modern Africans remain in the same environment as the first humans, they probably would have experienced the least selective pressure to evolve different phenotypes.
quote:Originally posted by Truthcentric: I don't know, since modern Africans remain in the same environment as the first humans, they probably would have experienced the least selective pressure to evolve different phenotypes.
Africa has many environments, this makes no sense. Why else are Biaka Pygmies so small and Massai so tall? Where are all of the tall-short Europeans? Why are the differences here so pronounced and which group's characteristic feature is more derived? Judging from skeletal data they are both derived since ancients were intermediate in stature.
Your claim however, is based on the idea that Africans have stayed in the "same environment"? Not only have the environments from individual regions changed frequently over our history (marking our initial evolution in Africa as a species which saw dramatic increases from bi-pedalism to exponential brain growth-let alone minute differences in phenotype), but Africa has many different regions like highlands, low lands, arid zones, humid zones, tropics, woodland, savanna, desert, coastal areas, not to mention the different dietary niches and their effects on phenotype. You also ignore Cavali-Sforza who I referenced, as it isn't JUST a null hypothesis (I'm not speculating). Africa clearly has the most diversity and Europe the least. This is partly why Cavali-Sforza thinks that Europeans evolved slower. No one has shown this data in reference to Africa.
What you have just done is the same thing that Brace accused Rushton of which he called “anthropologie naıve".
quote:Originally posted by astenb: ^ "Adapt" not "evolve."
Same difference. You 'adapt' by evolving. "evolution" has no preference anyway. In many ways Neanderthals were more evolved or "derived" than modern humans (in terms of physical characteristics and life history) but they're extinct. They evolved but couldn't adapt.
Posts: 4021 | From: Bay Area, CA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:but was referring to the photographs posted of Homo-idaltu and the specimen of the extinct homo lineage found in Israel.
The piece, originally posted by Clyde winters, saying ‘’a fine model for the ancestors of modern sub-Saharan Africans’’ IS from the same group that produced the female whose reconstruction was posted by DJ. The Qafzeh specimens are considered modern anatomical humans. And what do you mean with ‘’extinct’’ lineage? Is the scenario that they migrated back to Africa defunct?
quote:No where in the literature are these people described as having "Negroid" traits, they are considered "archaic".
They WERE described as ‘’Negroid’’ in the literature, and comparisons with Africans and Australians have been made frequently. ‘’Archaic traits’’ and ‘’anatomically modern humans’’ are not mutually exclusive terms.
quote:Modern Africans (hence, 'modern') by and large don't possess archaic features.
A large portion of such archaic features disappeared because of diet change and because of a loss of phenotypes somewhere around holocene. Had the latter two not occurred, archaic features would be present in our times. So the way I see it, there is nothing necessarily inherent about a retention of ‘’archaic’’ features as you seem to imply.
quote:What you described are not negroid traits (long limbs = tropical trait, other traits also seen in extant non-Africans, i,e. Australians, etc.
I did not say they were negroid or African specific. I said they were traditionally used in that way, meaning, they were once regarded as negroid, hence, ‘’super negroid’’ bodyplan. You’re missing the point I was trying to make.
quote:More simply. To suggest that Africans living today closely resemble the founder population
They do. Sans their archaic traits and loss of a portion of phenotypes in Africa.
quote:would suggest that Africans have evolved slow.
Not at all. You operate from the outdated physical sameness = genetic sameness, and physical dissimilarity= genetic dissimilarity. Which is why you take long time physical similarities, in concert with a gradual loss of archaic traits, to mean genetic backwardness. Various chimp subspecies are barely distinguishable, eg mature Bonobo apes look like smaller chimps, but genetically they’ve diverged from each other in ways that is totally incongruent with their physical sameness
quote:That Europeans, based on the shortness of their branch relative to Africans and Asians on the genetic tree diagram, went through a period of stagnated evolution. There is no evidence that this occurred in Africa
^See, you’re conflating genetic relatedness with physical relatedness. I catch myself doing it from time to time as well, it’s a common thing to trip over. Even Anthropologists do it.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote: Same difference. You 'adapt' by evolving. "evolution" has no preference anyway. In many ways Neanderthals were more evolved or "derived" than modern humans (in terms of physical characteristics and life history) but they're extinct. They evolved but couldn't adapt.
Not really arguing about the idea simply the terminology. When people say "Evolve" they usually think of "progress". Therefore if object "A" "evolves" more than object "B" people will usually think object "A" is superior to "B". "Adaptation" is a better idea because the two can be superior in their own environment but equal when compared against each other.
I guess its more politically correct and something I have trained myself to say when talking about human evolution. I can think of all the racist overtones that are brought into play when folks start talking about how "Evolved" a certain group is VS. another group that may be older or more sedentary.
Posts: 2463 | From: New Jersey USA | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Kalonji: The piece, originally posted by Clyde winters, saying ‘’a fine model for the ancestors of modern sub-Saharan Africans’’ IS from the same group that produced the female whose reconstruction was posted by DJ. The Qafzeh specimens are considered modern anatomical humans. And what do you mean with ‘’extinct’’ lineage? Is the scenario that they migrated back to Africa defunct?
With out squirming around the issue, "anatomicaly modern" does not equate 'modern Sub-saharan Africa'. Clearly the above mentioned specimens belong to an extinct lineage of archaic Homo-sapiens that "died out by 80,000 years ago". This is generally accepted, I'm not aware of evidence suggesting they migrated back to Africa. Meaning some sub-Saharan Africans share, by the most liberal estimate, a common ancestor with these people that goes back 125,000 years (this would be irresponsible, but for argument's sake). ALL modern peoples living today share a common ancestor going back 60-70,000 years. There is no basis in claiming that "sub-Saharan Africans" are supposed to demonstrate closer affinity with those people.
quote:They WERE described as ‘’Negroid’’ in the literature, and comparisons with Africans and Australians have been made frequently. ‘’Archaic traits’’ and ‘’anatomically modern humans’’ are not mutually exclusive terms.
Such 'literature' indeed is archaic as the specimens in question. The point I am concerning myself with is that no where in the 'contemporary' literature is the term "Negroid" even used as a comparative description. There are exceptions, but it is funny how some of us grasp on to that idea when convenient. In other contexts, we wouldn't even be discussing "negroid" traits because it is a red herring. I will just ask you to define what "Negroid traits" are and WHY they are "Negroid" traits. Of course after describing what a "Negroid" is in the first place.
quote:to A large portion of such archaic features disappeared because of diet change and because of a loss of phenotypes somewhere around holocene. Had the latter two not occurred, archaic features would be present in our times. So the way I see it, there is nothing necessarily inherent about a retention of ‘’archaic’’ features as you seem to imply.
The loss of archaic features through diet says nothing to the issue of archaic features being inherited and if they are not inherent then what is your point?
quote:I did not say they were negroid or African specific. I said they were traditionally used in that way, meaning, they were once regarded as negroid, hence, ‘’super negroid’’ bodyplan. You’re missing the point I was trying to make.
I AM missing your point or more so why it was even directed at me when I said that I wasn't even disputing what you wrote. I guess you take issue with what I wrote, as seen below.
quote:They do. Sans their archaic traits and loss of a portion of phenotypes in Africa.
I take this to mean that the 'San' retained archaic phenotype? Has there ever been a comprehensive comparative study showing this to be the case? What traits were isolated for comparison? Were non-Africans shown to retain archaic traits where Africans did not or were they more derived phenotypically?
quote:Not at all. You operate from the outdated physical sameness = genetic sameness, and physical dissimilarity= genetic dissimilarity. Which is why you take long time physical similarities, in concert with a gradual loss of archaic traits, to mean genetic backwardness. Various chimp subspecies are barely distinguishable, eg mature Bonobo apes look like smaller chimps, but genetically they’ve diverged from each other in ways that is totally incongruent with their physical sameness
Thusly you'd have no point since it would be obsolete unless you were projecting here. There'd be absolutely no point in bringing up shared physical features between ancient and modern variants (of which there are many) of Homo unless there were a genetic basis. Therefore, there'd be more room for things like convergent evolution, chance similarity, adaptations to similar environments. Chimps have nothing to do with this, however, it is generally agreed that there are stark physical differences between Chimps and Bonobos [on a species level] which initially warranted their classifications into separate species (and not genetics, which verified it later).
quote: ^See, you’re conflating genetic relatedness with physical relatedness. I catch myself doing it from time to time as well, it’s a common thing to trip over. Even Anthropologists do it.
See above. I didn't anticipate any trap so I was working within your general frame of thinking and my point was in objection to this kind of habit precisely. Seems we've gone on a tangent.
Posts: 4021 | From: Bay Area, CA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote: Same difference. You 'adapt' by evolving. "evolution" has no preference anyway. In many ways Neanderthals were more evolved or "derived" than modern humans (in terms of physical characteristics and life history) but they're extinct. They evolved but couldn't adapt.
Not really arguing about the idea simply the terminology. When people say "Evolve" they usually think of "progress". Therefore if object "A" "evolves" more than object "B" people will usually think object "A" is superior to "B". "Adaptation" is a better idea because the two can be superior in their own environment but equal when compared against each other.
I guess its more politically correct and something I have trained myself to say when talking about human evolution. I can think of all the racist overtones that are brought into play when folks start talking about how "Evolved" a certain group is VS. another group that may be older or more sedentary.
I understand completely, hence my point about the Khoi-San.
Posts: 4021 | From: Bay Area, CA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
B006 X-DNA Haplotype frequency. Founder effect may explain the greater New World haplotypes.
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
So your point is kinda mutt.
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
And what are haplogroups then if not genetic clusters?? LOL
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic