posted
We need more black couples in movies. And I mean epic blockbuster movies on the lines of Titanic, Harry Potter, and Lord of the Rings.
Posts: 603 | From: Mobile, Alabama | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
You got to laugh at the clowns at Anthroscape (same names, career trolls who have learnt nothing about physical anthropology for 10+ years like "Crimson Guard", they are completely retarded):
To explain those "Negroid" traits in Natufians, they had to come up with this:
"Perhaps a few Homo-Erectus' survived well into the Neolithic " - Crimson Guard
" It is also possible that Neanderthaloids survived and intermingled to some extent-- " - rimson Guard
"Aveleor prognathism is not a negroid trait either. its a dental problem." - Crimson Guard
Posts: 504 | From: No longer here | Registered: Aug 2014
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ebony Allen: We need more black couples in movies. And I mean epic blockbuster movies on the lines of Titanic, Harry Potter, and Lord of the Rings.
You do understand that what makes a blockbuster movie, is simply the number of people who pay to see it.
Do you think that the Civil Rights struggle was about forcing Hollywood to make blockbuster, or any other kind of movies for Blacks?
It was not: it was about Blacks having the right to make whatever kind of movie that pleased them.
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
"In fact, almost all Africa Late Pleistocene hominins are easily distinguished from living Africans (Anderson, 1968; Brothwell and Shaw, 1971; Gramly and Rightmire, 1973; Twiesselmann, 1991; Muteti et al., 2010; Angel et al., 1980; de Villiers and Fatti, 1982; Angel and Olsen Kelly, 1986; Habgood, 1989; Howells, 1989; Boaz et al., 1990; Allsworth-Jones et al., 2010), and it is not until the Holocene that this situation changes (Rightmire, 1975, 1978b, 1984b; de Villiers and Fatti, 1982; Bräuer, 1984b; Habgood, 1989)." (Pearson, 2013)
The "broad" vs. "elongated" regional structure appeared very recently, late Holocene or within the last 5,000-4,000 years. Asselar Man isn't "Negroid".
"Asselar man is not very like the modern West African Negro, however, and the fully differentiated Negro may have arisen more recently." - Races of Man, Sonia Mary Cole, 1965, p. 47 Trustees of the British Museum (Natural History)
Posts: 504 | From: No longer here | Registered: Aug 2014
| IP: Logged |
posted
Basically Coon and early anthropologists knew all this, they just didn't offer the right explanation for it. Coon had a very poor understanding of population genetics. But his observations were correct.
Posts: 504 | From: No longer here | Registered: Aug 2014
| IP: Logged |
quote:^The Macedonian (Nea Nikomedea[?]) and Anatolian (Catal Hoyuk[?]) first farmers can be said to look morphometrically broadly similar to Cushitic speaking Horner populations, while the segment of the Natufians populations Angel was talking about (i.e. the segment that had noticeably more African attributes than preceding Levantines), also have relationships to Cushitic speakers, albeit more distant.
Nea Nikomedea nasal index are incredibly high.
Based on 4 skulls, they were on 59.4, matching Nubian (hyper-platyrrhine).
"The Neo Nikomedeia from Greece and Nubia 117 from southern Egypt manifest very similar nasal [index] dimensions (59. 4 and 59.7, respectively)." (Arensburg & Hershkovitz, 1989)
However since the 1990s 7 more skulls were found from the same site. Their average nasal index is somewhat lower: 53.2 (n = 11). However this is still high for a Neolithic European sample, and platyrrhine. To contrast: Neolithic British are 45.4; Neolithic French: 45.7; Neolithic Spain: 47.0; Neolithic Denmark: 49.2).
Posts: 504 | From: No longer here | Registered: Aug 2014
| IP: Logged |
posted
So. That is where you got the idea if admixed Pygmies and East Africans? From Coon?
QUOTE]Originally posted by Dead: Basically Coon and early anthropologists knew all this, they just didn't offer the right explanation for it. Coon had a very poor understanding of population genetics. But his observations were correct. [/QUOTE]
Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:^The Macedonian (Nea Nikomedea[?]) and Anatolian (Catal Hoyuk[?]) first farmers can be said to look morphometrically broadly similar to Cushitic speaking Horner populations, while the segment of the Natufians populations Angel was talking about (i.e. the segment that had noticeably more African attributes than preceding Levantines), also have relationships to Cushitic speakers, albeit more distant.
Nea Nikomedea nasal index are incredibly high.
Based on 4 skulls, they were on 59.4, matching Nubian (hyper-platyrrhine).
"The Neo Nikomedeia from Greece and Nubia 117 from southern Egypt manifest very similar nasal [index] dimensions (59. 4 and 59.7, respectively)." (Arensburg & Hershkovitz, 1989)
However since the 1990s 7 more skulls were found from the same site. Their average nasal index is somewhat lower: 53.2 (n = 11). However this is still high for a Neolithic European sample, and platyrrhine. To contrast: Neolithic British are 45.4; Neolithic French: 45.7; Neolithic Spain: 47.0; Neolithic Denmark: 49.2).
Thanks for filling in the blanks, Dead. So, possibly, the Nea Nikomedea sample (n=7) in Brace et al 2005, which plots close to the Naqada and Somali samples, is made up of the 7 individuals you mention that were excavated later.
For those who have been following the 'Basal Eurasian' phenomenon (Xyyman, this is for you), who want to get an idea of where a ~44% "basal Eurasian" population plots cranio-facially in a spectrum between Africans and Europeans, the German sample to which the 'basal Eurasian' carrying Stuttgart individual belongs, was actually sampled by Brace et al in that 2005 paper. It's Brace et al's Mulhausen LBK sample of which Brace says that it's different from the other, more native, German Tauberbischofsheim sample. See here.
posted
Brace's Portugese Mesolithic I think is Muge, which dates 7500 BP.
Of 9 Muge skulls (Vallois, 1930) all of them are very dolichocephalic:
3 x Male: range 69.1 - 73.4 (mean : 71.8) 6 x Female: range 70.7 - 73.6 (mean: 72.5)
8 of the skulls have a mean nasal index of 51.1 (range 47.9 - 56.1) so they're platyrrhine too. None are leptorrhine.
Ataide (1940) later found a single brachycephalic skull from Muge. However it is most likely pathological. There was a big debate between Ataide and Vallois regarding this single round-headed skull. Pointless but the old anthropologists were fixated with cephalic index.
Anyway, the Muge crania are long-headed, with wide pyriform aperture and alveolar prognathism (although Vallois cautioned it was only minor or 'mesognathy').
"Mondes-Correa (1923), after an examination of the Muge remains noted that negroid characteristics are common to all of the dolichocophalic skulls. Those he termed (1923:570 573) a special group, Homo Afer Taganus. This group, he declared, belonged to a family of primitive equatorial races, the so-called "bloc equatorial," which was characterized by microseme orbits, prognathisn, meso-platyrrhine nasal form, and especially by extreme dolichocephalic head form." (Squier, 1955)
"Coon (1939) concluded that the Muge remains are most similar to the late Natufian population of Palestine." (Squier, 1955)
Coon though downplayed the "Negroid" traits in these skulls. The average Anthroscaper will also just claim these skulls are Caucasoid Mediterraneans.
Edit: Here's a PDF of Squier's paper. clickPosts: 504 | From: No longer here | Registered: Aug 2014
| IP: Logged |
posted
T! for the link. To you both
Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
@Dead. The dilemma with dolichocephaly in Mesolithic Europeans has been the same as with tropical limb proportions and platyrrhiny some of them may have. It's hard to decide whether dolichocrania or relatively longer lower limbs in Mesolithic Europe, the Epipalaeolithic Maghreb, the Levant, etc. signify recent African ancestry or retentions from UP West Eurasians.
So that's why some of these academics were able to go back and forth so long over the ethnic identity of the Muge sample; the data was ambiguous and arguments could be made for both scenarios. Thanks to multivariate analysis, there is much more support for their suggested (partly) North African origins. If the Muge sample were wholly biologically Mesolithic European, we would expect it to plot close(r) to the Franchti sample in Brace et al 2005.
In Holliday's work Mesolithic Europeans with superficial limb ratio affinity with Africans are also easily discriminated from Africans. Gough's Cave with elevated limb ratios but cold- adapted overall physique is a good example. It would be interesting to subject the Muge sample to non-metric dental analysis to see if they conform to Irish' North African dental pattern.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ebony Allen: We need more black couples in movies. And I mean epic blockbuster movies on the lines of Titanic, Harry Potter, and Lord of the Rings.
You do understand that what makes a blockbuster movie, is simply the number of people who pay to see it.
Do you think that the Civil Rights struggle was about forcing Hollywood to make blockbuster, or any other kind of movies for Blacks?
It was not: it was about Blacks having the right to make whatever kind of movie that pleased them.
Yes, of course. I know. I think blacks are into those type of movies. We need to start making them.
Posts: 603 | From: Mobile, Alabama | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ebony Allen: Yes, of course. I know. I think blacks are into those type of movies. We need to start making them.
Not likely, the Negro of today makes Music and Movies for a White audience, because that is where the most money is. Thus today's Black art is actually groveling Negro Art, begging for acceptance from White audience.
I don't know how old you are, but Black art was originally created to entertain Black audiences. Thus it was not only authentic, but it was fantastic. So much so, that the entire world has tried to copy it.
Today's news is that Marvin's children's lawsuit against Pharrell and Robin Thicke for their Blurred lines ripoff of "Got to give it up" was successful. They will get 7.3 million.
Btw - Negro music is so bad now that I don't bother to listen to any of it. But I did go to amazon to listen to a clip of the song of the year 'Stay With Me' Ha,ha,ha,ha: the Albinos have got to be kidding!
Then today I went back to listen to a clip of the song "Blurred lines": damn, I thought Pharrell was suppose to be talented, he just copied Marvin's music, didn't even try to hide it.
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: May be I am still not asking it the right way.
Natufians(`8000BC) cluster with MODERN Niger-Congo. That is a given.
I am asking West African skull from about >4000BC cluster with which modern population WITHIN Africa? San, Pygmies or other?
I am trying to determine when the modern Niger Congo skull appeared IN West Africa. We know they inhabited Eastern Africa and even maybe the Sahara region.
quote:Originally posted by Troll Patrol # Ish Gebor:
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: I am asking who the ancient West African(Not the Sahara region) skulls cluster with? I am NOT disputing “Africans being indigenous to Africa” in Eastern Africa.
"West African" crania clusters with ancient Natufians.
But there is likely not just one particular type of crania.
quote:Originally posted by Ebony Allen: We need more black couples in movies. And I mean epic blockbuster movies on the lines of Titanic, Harry Potter, and Lord of the Rings.
Consigned, it simply shows a nature course of the majority. Instead of the overexagerated "mix-race" couples, who are in the vast minority, yet being pushed by the media.
Posts: 22235 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
Great Reading….prognathism is found throughout Europe in the Mesolithic period. So the question is “what accounts for these morphological changes”? Is it plasticity/Climate as TP pointed to above?
------- THE PROBLEM OF RACE IN THE MESOLITHIC OF EUROPE1 Robert J. Squier
Dennark A number of sites bearing skeletal remains of Maglenosian and Ertob6ile age have been excavated in Denmark
The skeleton is that of a female of 25 to 30 years. The skull is ovoid in outline without heavy musculature. The frontal is moderately high and slightly inclined with medium brow ridges
The total facial index is euryprosopic, upper facially nesene. Facial prognathism is well marked. The nasal form is leptorrhine and the orbits are low and rectangular. Cranial capacity was calculated as 1430 cc. The skeleton is quite gracile post-cranially, with marked platyneria and platycnenia. Stature using the Mnouvrier formula was 157.8 cm
Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
This is a great collection and physical description with location of skeletons found throughout Europe.
---THE PROBLEM OF RACE IN THE MESOLITHIC OF EUROPE1 Robert J. Squier
-------------------- Without data you are just another person with an opinion - Deming Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: This is a great collection and physical description with location of skeletons found throughout Europe.
---THE PROBLEM OF RACE IN THE MESOLITHIC OF EUROPE1 Robert J. Squier
------
Reading through this paper most of the Mesolithic skeletons found IN Europe during the meso-lithic are “African-type” ie EurAfricans with long heads and prognathism.
Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
So, Coon admits that the Natufians were Africans also. Quote: Coon (1939:64) concluded that the Muge remains are most similar to the late Natufian population of Palestine. This conclusion is given without a specific metrical comparison between the two groups. He goes on to state that the Muge and Natufian remains represent a northward movement from a Mediterranean racial homeland somewhere in southwestern Asia, northeastern Africa, or both. Vallois, while admitting the general similarity of the two groups, points out….
So Coon also agrees that Europeans are a sub-set of Africans.
-------------------- Without data you are just another person with an opinion - Deming Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
There are many different forms of "prognathism". It is only alveolar prognathism that is listed as an anthroposcopic trait in ancestry/racial assessment within forensic anthropology.
Facial prognathism listed above, is measured by the gnathic index (basion-prosthion x 100/basion-nasion). This has rarely been used in forensics, despite the prosthion being the alveolar point.
In Hanihara (2000) there is a plot showing inter-population variation in M40 (basion-prosthion length)/M5 nasion-basion length (i.e Gnathic index).
Hardly any of the African samples are prognathic (103 >). Yet the majority have alveolar prognathism if separately analysed. So Gnathic Index doesn't seem to be very useful at all.
Forensic anthropologists only look for absence/presence of anterior projection in the alveolar region, when making ancestry assessment of a skull.
Posts: 504 | From: No longer here | Registered: Aug 2014
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dead: Hardly any of the African samples are prognathic (103 >). Yet the majority have alveolar prognathism if separately analysed. So Gnathic Index doesn't seem to be very useful at all.
Forensic anthropologists only look for absence/presence of anterior projection in the alveolar region, when making ancestry assessment of a skull.
Alveolar prognathism, caused by thumb sucking and tongue thrusting in a 7-year-old girl.
So ancient Africans looked like this, huh Cass?
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:So Coon also agrees that Europeans are a sub-set of Africans.
For Coon (1962, 1965) North Africa was within the "Caucasoid" geographical zone, so too was the Horn of Africa. That was basically its southern periphery. It extended east as far as India and also covered central Asia:
His definition of "Caucasoid" was far too simplistic or generic - which is why it covered so much geography and peoples (the largest of his racial classification). I'd have to dig up his definition of Caucasoid, but it was basically something like: "meso-leptorrhine, with wavy-curly hair, with skin colour ranging from almost black to pale white."
As late as 1997 Howells was using a similar definition: "Caucasoids, who are very light to brown in skin colour, hairy of face and body in males, straight of face, and narrow in the nose."
The fact the "Caucasoid" was so generic by definition is why it had so many subraces, while the others had hardly any.
Posts: 504 | From: No longer here | Registered: Aug 2014
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: [QB] @Dead. The dilemma with dolichocephaly in Mesolithic Europeans has been the same as with tropical limb proportions and platyrrhiny some of them may have. It's hard to decide whether dolichocrania or relatively longer lower limbs in Mesolithic Europe, the Epipalaeolithic Maghreb, the Levant, etc. signify recent African ancestry or retentions from UP West Eurasians.
UP and Mesolithic European skulls don't closely resemble modern European means in multivariate studies because of the profound changes in cranial morphology, especially in the masticatory region e.g. during the mid-Holocene when dietary changes were intense, but there were other earlier shifts and factors (such as environment and plasticity) involved.
So when van Vark found that the majority of 30+ UP European skulls are closer to Australians, Polynesians, Zulu etc., than modern Europeans, and a sizable proportion of the crania distant to all populations - this does not mean genetic discontinuity (the same for some Mesolithic crania in Howells, 1995). I'm sure you already know this. These changes though were basically contemporaneous across the world.
But this is another reason I don't use, or trust multivariate studies that use many variables. Since mid-Holocene "Neolithicization" and its effect on crania was a global phenomenon - this has no relevance to determining population affinities (we see all populations having become less 'robust'). Instead, what needs to be done is to identify the small number of diagnostic variables (those traits that show high inter-populational variation). If we just use those few anthroposcopic "racial" traits employed by forensic scientists - for Europeans or "Caucasoids" it would be a combination of leptorrhiny, orthognathism, meso-brachycephaly etc. Howells (1997) was wrong that he thought UP Europeans mostly had these features (so too was I a few years back_. This is something I realized after compiling all these measurements. The average UP European was not narrow nosed for example.
Posts: 504 | From: No longer here | Registered: Aug 2014
| IP: Logged |
posted
The term Caucasoid doesn't bother me . I know it is label used to steal things Aftican and to make Europeans inclusive
. I never knew this since I am not into the x-zoids thingy. But I am shocked that Coon also agree with Sergi, that the EurAfrican homeland is in Eastern Africa, maybe the Great Lakes of Africa. Wow! You holding out on us Cass.
Of course modern genetics have now confirmed that the Neolithic package are "recent" Africans who admixed with an older WHG and ANE in Europe.
Coon, who would of think it. You brothas, need to read this stuff before the knee-jerk reaction.
-------------------- Without data you are just another person with an opinion - Deming Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
It is all coming together now. The Neolithic package was essentially male G2 and E1b1b*. The female line was essentially HV and H.
It always puzzled me why E1b1b and not E1b1a was the main part of the Neolithic package. The answer is simply, that line is over 15,000ya older than E1b1a. Older brother had already left the Nile. That explains the Bantu connection to AEians, through E1b1a. They, E1b1a , were part of the creation and inception AE.
Now to resolve the modem white male line ,.......
Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
So , modern Europeans are primarily a sub-set of older and younger Africans. Depigmented Afticans.
In fact instead of getting hung up on labels read the link Cass posted. The morphology supports the genetics. The incoming Negroids admixed with older population in Europe.
Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dead: So when van Vark found that the majority of 30+ UP European skulls are closer to Australians, Polynesians, Zulu etc., than modern Europeans, and a sizable proportion of the crania distant to all populations - this does not mean genetic discontinuity (the same for some Mesolithic crania in Howells, 1995). I'm sure you already know this. These changes though were basically contemporaneous across the world.
^Right. Accounting for his age, Kostenki-14 is essentially West Eurasian per his recently sequenced genome, despite having many facial traits frequently used to assign recent African ancestry. There is a bit of projected African ancestry in him relative to the genomes of later UP Europeans, but that could be an artefact of his temporal closeness to OOA resulting in the retention of more ancestral alleles that are derived in living West Eurasians. Either way, the projected African ancestry is not enough to explain his facial features.
The skeletal discontinuity is really a non-issue. It's an expected finding under all of the origins models involving non-Africans that have withstood the test of time, particularly ROA. In fact, it would be odd if we didn't find these traits in UP Eurasia.
You can't reproduce that finding of discontinuity in West Eurasia using much more diagnostic traits, e.g. dental non-metric data:
posted
WTF!!! Come on Swenet....are you the lunatic Dienekes? You are stealing Indigenous Indian history. WTF. K-14 cluster with Sindhi amd Makrani. You do know these people cluster with Africans in Phenotype although they are Asians. That is why K-14 looks "Negroid"
WTF!
see below
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: [Q]
quote:.
^Right. Accounting for his age, Kostenki-14 is essentially West Eurasian????? per his recently sequenced genome, despite having many facial traits frequently used to assign recent African ancestry. http://www.eva.mpg.de/evolution/pdf/Bailey_2000_DA.pdf [/Q]
K-14 is Makranis/Sindhi. Are these people West Eurasian. WTF
Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
To those who don't know KOS=K-14 clusters with Mak and Sin as seen above.
And here also. Come on man you are talking out your azz. These people are an older population that expand as far as Europe. West Europeans has no, nada, connection with KOS-14
-------------------- Without data you are just another person with an opinion - Deming Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
-------------------- Without data you are just another person with an opinion - Deming Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Can someone inform Xyyman of the fact that the PCI, PCII corner in which Kostenki is positioned in his own image is the "West Eurasian" corner? Anyone? But if you do, be gentle with him. He's taken enough Ls as it is, lately.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
One thing I'd like to see is full (including caption and citation) and unedited posting of original report graphs.
Also'd be nice if the type of graphic used was explained in terms of the article lifted from.
Yes quadrant (and similar reader applied mimicking divisions) is as important as any clusters or clines indicated in a PC graph as is knowing which two PCs are displayed and what each is based on.
HEY somebody wake me up
Posts: 8179 | From: the Tekrur straddling Senegal & Mauritania | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
"These results do not support a close relationship between Neandertals and any modern human groups sampled. They also tentatively suggest that if the two populations were interbreeding, it is not reflected in their dental morphology." - Bailey
No one though has made any Neanderthal continuity claims for dentition in Europe (retromalar space and taurodontism were old arguments used by Weidenreich in the 1940s; Multiregionalists have paid little attention to them in their papers).
The continuity traits manifest in different areas of the skull in separate regions. The evidence for dental continuity only seems to be confined to East Asia (i.e. shovel-shaped incisors).
Anyway regional continuity traits have declined to very small frequencies late terminal Pleistocene/Holocene. Neanderthal traits in modern Europeans are found at 1% (down from around 6-7% during the Mesolithic, 20% late UP, 40-50%, early UP).
Posts: 504 | From: No longer here | Registered: Aug 2014
| IP: Logged |
posted
^Just to make sure we're not miscommunicating, I posted the paper to show UP Europe-recent Europe dental continuity, not for Neanderthal-UP Europe discontinuity. The data in it suggests that the differences between the living European samples and UP Europeans are extremely low.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
I see. Brace put out tuns of papers on dental size reduction in Europeans. Compared to any other population - they have reduced the most in tooth size since the Upper Paleolithic (up to 45%). Brace calculated 1% per 1000 years. So if you compare modern Europeans to UP Europeans, they are going to very poorly resemble each other.
"Reduction has amounted to at least 40-45 percent in those who live in the north temperate zone between Europe and the Middle East." - Brace
Contrast to Australian aborigines, who have only reduced by 10%.
Posts: 504 | From: No longer here | Registered: Aug 2014
| IP: Logged |
quote: Originally posted by Xyyman: You are stealing Indigenous Indian history.
Now he's insinuating that ANI ancestry (the genetic input that is driving many Indians towards West Asian and European ancestry) is "indigenous" Indian. SMH. Haven't learned anything all this time, have you?
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: [QB] WTF!!! Come on Swenet....are you the lunatic Dienekes? You are stealing Indigenous Indian history. WTF. K-14 cluster with Sindhi amd Makrani. You do know these people cluster with Africans in Phenotype although they are Asians. That is why K-14 looks "Negroid"
I don't really have a clue was this stuff is. However I noticed with all these genome papers, you get a big caution about DNA contamination. With fossils you don't get that issue. I consider the fossil data more reliable.
Also there's the problem that most of the DNA is lost.
"Pruvost et al. (2007) have recently shown that DNA deteriorates rapidly after excavation, up to 50 times as fast as in buried specimens. The various reported ‘fragmentary DNA sequences’ from ‘Neanderthal’ remains stored for up to 150 years need to be considered in that light. A large part, on average 85%, of the genetic material preserved in fossils is lost as a result of treatment by archaeologists and storage in museums, therefore the results disseminated from these specimens and their interpretations may be questioned." (Bednarik, 2008)
Now wasn't k-14 on a display in a museum or in storage for decades itself?
Posts: 504 | From: No longer here | Registered: Aug 2014
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Haven't learned anything all this time, have you?"
Lots of strange stuff in his posts.
The one below was the most bizarre. He claims those admixture plots like "Basque" in Africa, is selective sweep.
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: Any one knows WHY the blue/mesoamerica is highest in the Khoisan...and it has nothing to do with the epicantic fold?
Tic! Toc!
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: I know you don't know much about genetics but no one is 100% anything. Someone can explain this to you. Not saying some Aframs ain't admixed but even continentals carry "Eurasian" genes. See the brownn slice of the pie chart? Basque. See it increases in frequency towards North Africa. That is NOT admixture that is purification ie "selective sweep".
ALL the colors of the pie chart increases away from Africa. ALL IS AFRiCAN!!! ALL genes.
Posts: 504 | From: No longer here | Registered: Aug 2014
| IP: Logged |
ALL the colors of the pie chart increases away from Africa. ALL IS AFRiCAN!!! ALL genes.[/b]
The red represents indigenous Africa
The other colors in Africa increase closer to Eurasia because according to his chart outsiders came into Africa from Eurasia and their migratiosn thinned as they got deeper into Africa, further and further South
hense all the colors that are not red are labeled names of popualtions from outside of Africa
The key to this is that this map represents modern Africa
If you went back 10,000 years ago the pie charts all over Africa would be much more red
Posts: 42930 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah. Makrani and Sindhi are West Eurasians. Even after smoking "weed" I know the difference. Just kidding, I no longer inhale. In my teens yes.
Thats what you get when fugekrs don't read the study but open their mouth.
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Can someone inform Xyyman of the fact that the PCI, PCII corner in which Kostenki is positioned in his own image is the "West Eurasian" corner? Anyone? But if you do, be gentle with him. He's taken enough Ls as it is, lately.
Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
This is unedited. This is from the original study. KOS is written in by the authors. Any idiot can see Kos/K-14 is closest to Makrani and Sindhi. ...and other Indian groups. So India is now part of West EurAsia now and not South/South East Asia. WTF
The other chart, the red mockup is mine
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler: One thing I'd like to see is full (including caption and citation) and unedited posting of original report graphs.
Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Now that I have read some of his work. Coon may be right. The HOMELAND of SOME genetic components in modern Europeans is IN the recent Africans.
quote:Originally posted by Dead: Can you comment on this? The 'admixture' in the Horn is like 50% Eurasian.
People on sites like Anthroscape use these studies to support Coon.
@Cass- aDNA contamination was an issue early on. The technology has improved tremendously. They can estimate the amount of contamination, if any. They can also authenicate whether it is true aDNA while testing. So give up on the contamination line. Early on, yes, now, very unlikely.
Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: Yeah. Makrani and Sindhi are West Eurasians. Even with weed I know the difference.
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Can someone inform Xyyman of the fact that the PCI, PCII corner in which Kostenki is positioned in his own image is the "West Eurasian" corner? Anyone? But if you do, be gentle with him. He's taken enough Ls as it is, lately.
Besides the fact that you can't read to save your life (I never said India was geographically situated in West Eurasia), you have an incredibly crude understanding of multivariate statistics, Just like your boy Amun-Ra, you take a random PC plot with just two PCs and make up fictitious narratives about genetic affinity, even when the full text of the same paper says something else entirely. Only on ES.
What the actual paper says:
quote:Using Mbuti Pygmy as an outgroup, we find that among a panel of 167 contemporary populations, Europeans have the greatest affinity (i.e., the largest f3) to K14 (Fig. 1C). This conclusion is also formally supported by comparing pairs of populations to K14 using the D statistics of the form D(Mbuti Pygmy, K14; Population 1, Population 2).
--Seguin-Orlando et al 2014
quote:The K14 genome shows that this early UP individual was clearly part of a western Eurasian lineage that had already diverged from eastern Asians, thus establishing a minimum date for that separation at least 36.2 ka.
--Seguin-Orlando et al 2014
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
@ Sage…and others interested. The study on the ancient Kostenski-14 was published about 2 months ago. It is a free download. That is why we need to keep up with new papers. I critiqued that paper as soon it was posted so I quickly caught on to the BS Swenet was posting.
Dienekes gave the same spin. West Eurasian. But when you look at the raw data, KOS/K-14 was closest to the indigenous older Indian sub-continent population. Infact “Middle Eastern” populations are closer to KOS-14 compared to Europeans and yet these fugkers want to claim Kos-14 as Europeans. Liars!!! They will be exposed! If Kos-14 is “west Eurasian” then Makrani/Sindhi are also “West Eurasian” and there is no Middle East. GTFOH with the BS mind game.
-------------------- Without data you are just another person with an opinion - Deming Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
My take is Swenet never read the paper. Maybe he read someone’s blog and went with it. Sometimes he is smarter than that.
The problem is many people don’t read the ACTUAL study. The y rely bloggers like Dienekes and the Indian guy to spin it for them. This not really difficult for someone with High School biology/science schooling.
Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
That’s right. Distract us. Group me with dogmatic AMRTU. LOL!
Yes, The author divided Eurasia into East and West making India part West EurAsia. K-14 groups with older Indigenous like Makrani/Sindhi but labeling these population West EurAsians is deceptive. You should know better.
That is why you should not get caught up in “labels”. Look at the data. Ok Makranis’s are West EurAsians. LOL!
Just as with Coon. He clearly states that the HOMELAND of some Europeans are in North East Africa. We know Caucasoid is a label used to steal African history. I never knew Coon, and Sergi and others and modern genetics are all saying the same thing. Modern Europeans are an admixture “recent African” Neolithics and an older population.
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: Yeah. Makrani and Sindhi are West Eurasians. Even with weed I know the difference.
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Can someone inform Xyyman of the fact that the PCI, PCII corner in which Kostenki is positioned in his own image is the "West Eurasian" corner? Anyone? But if you do, be gentle with him. He's taken enough Ls as it is, lately.
Besides the fact that you can't read to save your life (I never said India was geographically situated in West Eurasia), you have an incredibly crude understanding of multivariate statistics, Just like your boy Amun-Ra, you take a random PC plot with just two PCs and make up fictitious narratives about genetic affinity, even when the full text of the same paper says something else entirely. Only on ES.
What the actual paper says:
quote:Using Mbuti Pygmy as an outgroup, we find that among a panel of 167 contemporary populations, Europeans have the greatest affinity (i.e., the largest f3) to K14 (Fig. 1C). This conclusion is also formally supported by comparing pairs of populations to K14 using the D statistics of the form D(Mbuti Pygmy, K14; Population 1, Population 2).
--Seguin-Orlando et al 2014
quote:The K14 genome shows that this early UP individual was clearly part of a western Eurasian lineage that had already diverged from eastern Asians, thus establishing a minimum date for that separation at least 36.2 ka.
--Seguin-Orlando et al 2014
Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic