...
EgyptSearch Forums Post New Topic  New Poll  Post A Reply
my profile | directory login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» EgyptSearch Forums » Egyptology » Genetic Closeness of the East/West African SNP population clusters (blog source) (Page 1)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 3 pages: 1  2  3   
Author Topic: Genetic Closeness of the East/West African SNP population clusters (blog source)
Amun-Ra The Ultimate
Member
Member # 20039

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Amun-Ra The Ultimate     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
As we well know on this site, modern East and West Africans populations are united between each others through the E-P2(PN2) Y-DNA haplogroup, and various MtDNA counterpart haplogroups (L3eikx, L2a, etc), from a time period after the main OOA migrations. So at a relatively recent time in relation to human history.

In this thread, I'm posting the results from a mere blogger (Dienekes) with a reputation of being biased. But in other threads, I posted "similar" results analysis from real peer-reviewed study:
http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=008817
http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=009076

What Dienekes did with the dodecad results (LINK) is a bit what Tishkoff did in her genetic history of African and African-American study discussed in the thread linked posted above. Which is what all the studies based on the admixture software (with the colored bar) should do. That is also include the genetic distance between the various putative population components (aka the various Ks, aka the various colored bars).

Here's the version from the Tiskoff study: http://i48.tinypic.com/8ydx.jpg (also available in the threads linked above and in the Tiskoff Supplementary Online Material DOWNLOAD )

I won't repost it in here since I've already discussed it in the threads linked above. Basically, it used autosomal STR genetic distance between population components (at K=14) found using the admixture software. We can see that generally African populations are closer to each others than they are to non-African populations. Same for non-African populations within each non-African sub-groups respectively. Notably the Cushitic and Niger-Kordofanian populations are relatively close to each others. This graph also has the advantage of using the Euclidean genetic distance which I prefer to the Fst which measure population differentiation (although Fst is often used in such study). The Tiskoff study also use a much larger number of populations.

Since in the Tishkoff study since Cushitic and Niger-Kordofanian speakers are relative close to each others while showing no sign of recent admixtures, we can deduce this genetic closeness if from their common origin. A common origin postdating the OOA migrations (as the Cushitic/Niger-Kordofanian speakers are closer to each others than they are to any non-African populations).

I post this globe13 results from the Dienekes analysis because it's informative. It also used SNPs while Tiskoff was using autosomal STRs. So it give us another point of view. Adding to the point of view already provided by uniparental analysis.

The results are basically similar: East and West African populations, and African populations in general, are very close to each others. Especially if you remove the more recent Eurasian component from recent post-OOA back migrations by Semitic (ethio-semitic) and Muslim Arabs speakers (See Pagani (2014)) .

A neighbor-joining tree of the 13 components based on the Fst divergences:
 -

It's similar to the Tiskoff genetic distance tree above but this time using SNP data and the FST divergence formula instead of the D-square Euclidean genetic distance formula.

Clearly we can see East and West African clustering close to each others.

Here's the TreeMix plot for those interested:
 -
Palaeo_African are basically modern San people. I don't know why they are called Palaeo since they are not more Palaeo than any other modern populations as they went through about the same number of generations and mutations than other populations since the time of their common origin with them. Again, we can again East and West Africans clustering close to each others.

From this blogger analysis we also got the spreadsheet with the FST "distances" between populations as well as the percentage of the K-Populations component(like East African, West African, Artic) for each populations sampled (like Somali, Yoruba, etc).

FST divergence between populations:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0ArAJcY18g2GadF9CLUJnTUdSbkVJaDR2UkRtUE9kaUE#gid=3

We can see for example at the last line at the bottom that the West African population cluster (at K=13) is the closest to the the East African population cluster with a value of 0.046. Something we already know since I just posted the neighbor-joining tree above.


https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0ArAJcY18g2GadF9CLUJnTUdSbkVJaDR2UkRtUE9kaUE#gid=2
This is equivalent to the usual Admixture component analysis with K=13 but in a tabular form instead than graphical form with different colors for each 13 putative population component.

What is good for us is we can see what populations were used (where the data were taken). We can see Yoruba populations as well as East Africans from the Pagani study were used for example. So a good diversity of East African populations (Oromo, Somali, Amhara, Afar, Ari, etc).

For example, using the spreadsheets above, generated by the blogger running the software, Ethiopian Jews got 51.4% of the East African component. It also has a large recent Southwest Asian component at 39.2%. A very low 0.2% recent West African component. This show that while the East and West African component are very close to each others (from the Fst Distance), Ethiopians Jews have basically no recent admixture with West Africans after their moment of separation from them. That is the separation of the E-P2 lineage into the P2/e1b1a andd P2/e1b2b lineages.

A bit similar for Somali. The Somali population sample from the Pagani study (position 271 on the spreadsheet) has 62.3% of the East African component at K=13. They got 33.2% of recent SouthWest Asian component and 0.8% of recent West African component.

This show that while the East and West African component are very close to each others (from the Fst Distance), Somali have basically no recent admixture with West Africans after their moment of separation from them. That is the separation of the E-P2 lineage into the P2/e1b1a andd P2/e1b2b lineages.

Of course you must always view those as estimate. They are often based on small samples sizes but it gives us a good general idea of the situation. We can see again the genetic closeness of the East African and West African SNP population clusters. This genetic closeness is not the product of recent admixtures between those 2 populations but from their common ancestral origin in Northeast Africa. The E-P2 population. So basically both East and West African populations have their common origin in Northeast Africa at a time period after the OOA migrations but before the foundation of the Ancient Egyptian state.

This complement my peer-reviewed study analysis posted in those threads:
http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=008817
http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=009076

Posts: 2981 | Registered: Jan 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Amun-Ra The Ultimate
Member
Member # 20039

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Amun-Ra The Ultimate     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
As mentionned above, this is also in line with the Y-DNA haplogroup analysis of modern East and West Africans populations:

quote:
Using the principle of the phylogeographic parsimony, the resolution of the E1b1b trifurcation in favor of a common ancestor of E-M2 and E-M329 strongly supports the hypothesis that haplogroup E1b1 originated in eastern Africa, as previously suggested [10], and that chromosomes E-M2, so frequently observed in sub-Saharan Africa, trace their descent to a common ancestor present in eastern Africa .
-- from A New Topology of the Human Y Chromosome Haplogroup E1b1 (E-P2) Revealed through the Use of Newly Characterized Binary Polymorphisms (Trombetta 2011)

Download link:
http://www.plosone.org/article/fetchObject.action?uri=info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0016073&representation=PDF
http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0016073

For example, Yoruba are over 90% from the P2 haplogroups (P2/e1b1a(E-M2)). For Somali it's over 80% (P2/e1b1b) of their population. Using frequency value from the Hirbo study (starting at Appendix 6a ii, p195) (download here).

Basically, this tell us, modern West and East Africans have their common paternal origin in Northeastern Africa. This common origin postdate the main OOA migrations of non-Africans (since E-P2 appeared after that time) and is thus relatively recent in term of human history.

Posts: 2981 | Registered: Jan 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
beyoku
Member
Member # 14524

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for beyoku     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
What about this plot.

 -

Posts: 2463 | From: New Jersey USA | Registered: Dec 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Deleted Account
Banned
Member # 21978

Rate Member
Icon 3 posted      Profile for Deleted Account     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
There are virtually no genetic clusters. They most commonly appear by error if you polarize genetic data by excluding 'intermediate' populations (note the plot and tree diagrams above exclude many):

"[T]he inclusion of such [intermediate] samples demonstrates geographic continuity in the distribution of genetic variation and thus undermines traditional concepts of race."
- Bamshad, Michael J., Wooding, Stephen, Salisbury, Benjamin A., & Stephens, J. Claiborne. 2004. "Deconstructing the relationship between genetics and race". Nature Reviews Genetics, 5,. 598–609

"The suspicion that we will find continuity should be piqued by the observation, acknowledged even by died-in-the-wool populationists like Risch and Wade, that there are, at least, “intermediate groups” found at the geographic and genetic boundary between two races, such as Ethiopians and Somalis between those to their north and south or South Asians between East Asians and Europeans, where the lines between the populations are blurred. Suspicion is also warranted by the fact that as geographically intermediate regions are added to the data, the genetic markers used to identify continental clusters become less powerful."
- Glasgow, Joshua. (2009). A Theory of Race. Routledge. p. 104

"[C]lines might seem to contrast with work that has described human genetic variation as ‘clustered’" and:">75% of the total variance of pairwise FST can be captured by geographic distance alone. Adding information on genetic clusters to this model captures only an extra 2% of the variance." - Handley, Lori J. Lawson, Manica, Andrea, Goudet, Jérôme, & Balloux, François. 2007. Going the distance: Human population genetics in a clinal world. Trends in Genetics, 23, 432–439

What population is 'genetically closer' is relative to who is being compared, but there are no population clusters. There are barely any discontinuities in the genetic continuum. The only possible exception is if you found a steeper slope in a clinal trait such as skin colour (e.g. Sahara desert).

The "genetic cluster" stuff is the worst form of racial pseudo-science spouted across blogs and forums. Oddly most people criticize the old ids and oids via cranial measurements, but then embrace this genetic form of typology - which is exactly the same.

Posts: 504 | From: No longer here | Registered: Aug 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Deleted Account
Banned
Member # 21978

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Deleted Account     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Gor:
Oddly most people criticize the old ids and oids via cranial measurements, but then embrace this genetic form of typology - which is exactly the same. [/QB]

"Moreover, as Armelagos and colleagues pointed out many studies in [...] genetics continued to employ typological methods to typological ends [...] Their conclusion in 1982 was that using genetic traits, many studies of populations are just as typological (Armelagos et al. 1982)" (Caspari, 2010)
Posts: 504 | From: No longer here | Registered: Aug 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Deleted Account
Banned
Member # 21978

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Deleted Account     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Continued:

"Because we do not (yet) have vast data banks of genetic data collected in every corner of the world (at least not at the disposition of scientific researchers), claims about genetic clusters of human beings—that is, about the structure found within a species of more than 7 billion people— are often based on samples that are relatively very small. Pritchard et al. (2000) tested their Structure algorithm with a sample of 72 Africans and 90 Europeans; Rosenberg et al. (2002) published an article in Science entitled “Genetic Structure of Human Populations” based on a sample of 1,056 individuals; and Paschou et al. (2007) sought to demonstrate the utility of their PCA method with a sample of 274 people. Moreover, large “sampling gaps” in the data available clearly skew the picture of human genetic diversity (Serre and Pääbo 2004:1682;
see also Wilson et al. 2001:268 on the need for “geographically exhaustive” data). When
Serre and Pääbo (2004) analyzed the widely used HGDP-CEPH Human Genome Diversity Cell Line Panel,2 they found not only a dearth of individuals from North Africa, for example,
but a complete absence of indigenous people from North America."

"Given the relatively small numbers and limited locations of human beings who have been
genotyped, the distribution of individuals sampled is important for any assessment of population structure. Serre and Pääbo (2004) argued that sampling often concentrates on “the
extremes of continental land masses” (p. 1680), maximizing the geographic and therefore
genetic distance between individuals presumed to belong to distinct continental clusters.
Without “a sampling strategy that maximizes the geographic distribution of samples and
keeps similar sample size for each geographical area,” they warned, researchers risked falsely creating “apparent substructures” (Serre and Pääbo 2004:1681). In contrast, when
these researchers designed a study that sampled individuals “such that their geographic distribution around the world approximates the distribution of the human population as a whole
and includes areas where Africa, Asia, and Europe meet,” the pattern of genetic variation
they found was “one of gradients of allele frequencies that extend over the entire world,
rather than discrete clusters” (Serre and Pääbo 2004:1679-1680)."
http://www.asanet.org/journals/ST/Sept14STFeature.pdf
American Sociological Association 2014

Posts: 504 | From: No longer here | Registered: Aug 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
the lioness,
Member
Member # 17353

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for the lioness,     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Gor:
There are virtually no genetic clusters. They most commonly appear by error if you polarize genetic data by excluding 'intermediate' populations (note the plot and tree diagrams above exclude many):

"[T]he inclusion of such [intermediate] samples demonstrates geographic continuity in the distribution of genetic variation and thus undermines traditional concepts of race."
- Bamshad, Michael J., Wooding, Stephen, Salisbury, Benjamin A., & Stephens, J. Claiborne. 2004. "Deconstructing the relationship between genetics and race". Nature Reviews Genetics, 5,. 598–609


However, somebody who makes this continuity argument would subscribe to the OOA theory

but you on the other hand are a multiregionalist
Therefore clustering under such a scenario would be even more pronounced, there would be no ancestral connections between the regions, no overlap between these populations, no continuity

Posts: 42918 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
zarahan aka Enrique Cardova
Member
Member # 15718

Icon 1 posted      Profile for zarahan aka Enrique Cardova     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
So AmunRa, Dinekes own diagram below shows the
Africans clustering?

 -

--------------------
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 | Report this post to a Moderator
beyoku
Member
Member # 14524

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for beyoku     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
^ dienekes is not peer reviewed. He used his clusters to show resolution in Eurasians. This is the issue Amun ra is running from:

 -

Look how long the sub Saharan cline is. Its obvious some Africans are closer to the Bedouin than they are the to the Khoisan.

In fact.........The Cline between Click speakers ALONE: Ju Hoan North to Hadza/Sandawe is longer than the cline of ALL the Eurasians combined....! From Sardinians...through all the ancient samples...to Indians, Europeans, Melanesians, East Asians and on to Amerindians.

Yet he still think all Africans are close to each other,. [Confused]

Posts: 2463 | From: New Jersey USA | Registered: Dec 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Deleted Account
Banned
Member # 21978

Rate Member
Icon 5 posted      Profile for Deleted Account     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:
Originally posted by Gor:
There are virtually no genetic clusters. They most commonly appear by error if you polarize genetic data by excluding 'intermediate' populations (note the plot and tree diagrams above exclude many):

"[T]he inclusion of such [intermediate] samples demonstrates geographic continuity in the distribution of genetic variation and thus undermines traditional concepts of race."
- Bamshad, Michael J., Wooding, Stephen, Salisbury, Benjamin A., & Stephens, J. Claiborne. 2004. "Deconstructing the relationship between genetics and race". Nature Reviews Genetics, 5,. 598–609


However, somebody who makes this continuity argument would subscribe to the OOA theory

but you on the other hand are a multiregionalist
Therefore clustering under such a scenario would be even more pronounced, there would be no ancestral connections between the regions, no overlap between these populations, no continuity

No connections, or continuity between regions? You appear to misunderstand Multiregional evolution, which is based on inter-regional gene flow via a global isolation by distance model (IBD) within a single polytypic species:

"It would therefore appear that an isolation-by-distance model is one possible resolution of the different sources of data addressing human origins. It should be noted that such a model is not merely consistent with multiregional
evolution, it is multiregional evolution (Wolpoff et al., 1984; Relethford, 1998; Templeton, 1998, emphasis in original)." ( Hawks & Wolpoff, 2001)

According to IBD, genetic similarity between populations decreases as the geographic distance between them increases. However the measure of 'similarity' is relative to population size, i.e. if you have a much larger population, more genes are going to spread out from there. The population in Africa was far larger throughout the Pleistocene than any other continent, so Multiregionalism only discusses those very few traits that show a spatial or geographical frequency distribution by drift, or selection:

quote:
My findings may seem contradictory to the prediction of regional continuity under a multiregional model, which is that the greatest similarity over time will be within regions. However, this prediction would be contradictory only if we expect all traits to show a pattern
of regional continuity. However, proponents
of the multiregional model do not suggest that all traits will show continuity. In reality, regional continuity is expected only for some traits as the result of genetic drift and selection acting to maintain high frequencies of
a trait within a region
.

- Relethford (1998)

And this is why Multiregionalism chooses to only focus on the world perhiperies or what it calls "edges" e.g. Europe, North-East Asia and Indonesia or Australia. Here populations were the smallest throughout the Pleistocene, and regional continuity is easier to detect in the fossil record. Most palaeo-anthropologists however now agree there is far less regional continuity than was first proposed by Wolpoff, Wu and Thorne. Instead of 10+ skeletal traits, it is now looking only 2-4 per each region. This is why Stringer recently wrote Multiregionalism has "shifted close to that of the Assimilation Model".

Posts: 504 | From: No longer here | Registered: Aug 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Deleted Account
Banned
Member # 21978

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Deleted Account     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Last I looked Dienekes was supporting "Out of Arabia" (or West Asia) opposed to "Out of Africa". He claims, or at least this the impression i got - the original AMH were proto-Caucasoid (there's a quote in Howells, 1997 where he calls the Skhul and Qafzeh skulls proto-Caucasoid and that seems to be his source).
Posts: 504 | From: No longer here | Registered: Aug 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Deleted Account
Banned
Member # 21978

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Deleted Account     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I have to say the Howells quote is rather strange. I don't see anything "Caucasoid" about the Skhul/Qafzeh crania, and even Coon (1962) considered most, or even all of them to be "Australoid". However there was a lot of crazy stuff like Australoids being labelled "Archaic Whites" once (e.g. Sonia Cole's 'Races of Man'), so this is probably what is meant by the prefix "proto", and what Howells was using.

quote:
There are also survivors of an ancient ‘archaic White’ or PalaeoAsiatic stock which was probably widespread before the Caucasoids and the Mongo­loids became differentiated. Survivors of this stock are grouped in the Australoid division of mankind, which includes the Australian aborigines.
- Cole, 1963
Posts: 504 | From: No longer here | Registered: Aug 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Forty2Tribes
Member
Member # 21799

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Forty2Tribes   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Gor:
Last I looked Dienekes was supporting "Out of Arabia" (or West Asia) opposed to "Out of Africa". He claims, or at least this the impression i got - the original AMH were proto-Caucasoid (there's a quote in Howells, 1997 where he calls the Skhul and Qafzeh skulls proto-Caucasoid and that seems to be his source).

Compared to a squid isnt any human or ape a proto-oid of any kind?
Posts: 1254 | From: howdy | Registered: Mar 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
the lioness,
Member
Member # 17353

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for the lioness,     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Neanderthals did not evolve into humans as Wolpoff's multiregional hypothesis states
Europeans are, in fact, 97.5% African Homo sapien. We do have evidence of this, because we can can look at the spread of genes in Europe and compare it to the spread of African genes and it is obvious that due to their much smaller variation and certain matches that they come from a particular branch of Africans. The variation from this point of divergence has also be measured to about about 55,000 years, while African variations alone are least 140,000 years. (The fossil evidence points to about 50,000 years for the exodus from Africa.)he MRO concept is not even a theory. Because it makes no concrete predictions that can be falsified.
We now have several mtDNA studies of Neanderthals, and this year the Planck Institute published a draft Neanderthal genome. So multi-regionalism (at least as far as Europe is concerned) is a dead duck

Posts: 42918 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Djehuti
Member
Member # 6698

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Djehuti     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
It's obvious the problem lies in the fact that some people are totally ignorant about matters of bio-anthropology. Such folk either rely on outdated info OR (either wittingly or unwittingly) misinterpret or distort updated info.
Posts: 26236 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Deleted Account
Banned
Member # 21978

Rate Member
Icon 3 posted      Profile for Deleted Account     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by the lioness,:
Neanderthals did not evolve into humans as Wolpoff's multiregional hypothesis states
Europeans are, in fact, 97.5% African Homo sapien. We do have evidence of this, because we can can look at the spread of genes in Europe and compare it to the spread of African genes and it is obvious that due to their much smaller variation and certain matches that they come from a particular branch of Africans. The variation from this point of divergence has also be measured to about about 55,000 years, while African variations alone are least 140,000 years. (The fossil evidence points to about 50,000 years for the exodus from Africa.)he MRO concept is not even a theory. Because it makes no concrete predictions that can be falsified.
We now have several mtDNA studies of Neanderthals, and this year the Planck Institute published a draft Neanderthal genome. So multi-regionalism (at least as far as Europe is concerned) is a dead duck

Read the migration matrix example in the Relethford paper I posted:

quote:
What does this all mean? This simple example shows clearly that, given enough time, the accumulated ancestry of any population will be dominated by the largest population. This
is intuitive: The larger the population,
the greater the proportion of genes.

What you are posting is compatible with Multiregional evolution (MRE). In fact it is what MRE predicts:

quote:
Based on these findings and the hypothesis of a larger long-term African population, I suggest that the multiregional model predicts
that biological distances based on many traits will show that recent modern fossil samples are more similar to earlier samples from Africa than
they are to samples from the same geographic region. I also suggest that regional continuity will be found in a small number of traits, but not all traits.

So it is a prediction of MRE that recent or living (Holocene) "Europeans" derive most of their genes from Africa (a relic of Pleistocene/2 mya population size being greater there). So like I said: when discussing isolation-by-distance, population size has to be taken into account. If there is a far larger population exerting genes - spatial genetic 'similarity' via IBD is only going to refer to those traits as the result of genetic drift (and possibly a lesser extent selection) where there will still be geographical differentiation through a continuous gradient of mean frequencies in a small number of traits, distributed across space to the max regional edges of occupation. This is why MRE originally choose 10+ cranial traits at the peripheral/edge regions by studying the fossil record there (e.g. Europe and Indonesia). MRE deliberately chose the peripheral regions on purpose because this was where population sizes were the smallest throughout the Pleistocene (e.g. Wolpoff, 2011 estimates European occupants were no more than 8% of the global human population). MRE does not propose however these edge regions are discontinuous "clusters" or "races" of any sort.

As far as the genetic and fossil (morphological)data goes, all the evidence is consistent with MRE, albeit a much "weaker" model than was originally proposed in the 80's, 90's or early 2000's. Even Stinger recently accepted this, but the "Out of Africa" theory consensus has changed itself too, to accommodate minor gene flow with non-Africans. I would say this debate has never been really resolved.

Posts: 504 | From: No longer here | Registered: Aug 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Deleted Account
Banned
Member # 21978

Rate Member
Icon 10 posted      Profile for Deleted Account     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
This is currently over at Dienekes:
http://dienekes.blogspot.co.uk/2014/11/genome-of-kostenki-14-upper-paleolithic.html

Genomic structure in Europeans dating back at least 36,200 years
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/early/2014/11/05/science.aaa0114

quote:
Our findings reveal the timing of divergence of western Eurasians and East Asians to be more than 36,200 years ago and that European genomic structure today dates back to the Upper Paleolithic and derives from a meta-population that at times stretched from Europe to central Asia.
Then we have this:

 -

And:

"It seems to derive Europeans as a 3-way mixture that is basically identical to that of Lazaridis et al., with some relabeling of populations (MHG=WHG and NEOL=EEF)".

Why this is all invalid -

"Yet, the legacy of racial thinking lingers throughout the human sciences. Populations
are often still treated as more or less independently evolving subspecies, in both
analyses of their relationships and in theories of their origin [...] Who else would analyze populations this way? The answer is surprisingly many, as tree analysis requires the assumption of branching (independent evolution) in order to be valid and tree analysis is the normal way that the genetic relationships of populations (or
races) are shown. Relationship trees for human populations fail to meet the criterion of treeness: if trees validly depict relationships, we can expect that all the endpoints on one side of a split (i.e., populations or races) are equally related to all the endpoints on the other side. This is clearly not the case for human populations (Templeton, 1997)." ( Wolpoff & Caspari, 2001)

*There never was "divergence" between any human population: this would require branching through isolation.

Posts: 504 | From: No longer here | Registered: Aug 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Clyde Winters
Member
Member # 10129

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Clyde Winters   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Y-chromosome E haplogroups: their distribution and implication to the origin of Afro-Asiatic languages and pastoralism, by Eyoab I Gebremeskel1,2 and Muntaser E Ibrahim1
http://www.nature.com/ejhg/journal/v22/n12/full/ejhg201441a.html?WT.ec_id=EJHG-201412
quote:

Abstract
Archeological and paleontological evidences point to East Africa as the likely area of early evolution of modern humans. Genetic studies also indicate that populations from the region often contain, but not exclusively, representatives of the more basal clades of mitochondrial and Y-chromosome phylogenies. Most Y-chromosome haplogroup diversity in Africa, however, is present within macrohaplogroup E that seem to have appeared 21 000–32 000 YBP somewhere between the Red Sea and Lake Chad. The combined analysis of 17 bi-allelic markers in 1214 Y chromosomes together with cultural background of 49 populations displayed in various metrics: network, multidimensional scaling, principal component analysis and neighbor-joining plots, indicate a major contribution of East African populations to the foundation of the macrohaplogroup, suggesting a diversification that predates the appearance of some cultural traits and the subsequent expansion that is more associated with the cultural and linguistic diversity witnessed today. The proto-Afro-Asiatic group carrying the E-P2 mutation may have appeared at this point in time and subsequently gave rise to the different major population groups including current speakers of the Afro-Asiatic languages and pastoralist populations.


This is an interesting paper. Although, Afro-Asiatic languages do not exist, it does provide support for the Saharan, Not East African origin of the Negro-African languages.
Eyoab et al, believe that these languages and haplogroup E , originated in the Sahara, not East Africa
quote:



The subclades of the network some of which are associated with the practice of pastoralism are most likely to have taken place in the Sahara, among an early population that spoke ancestral language common to both Nilo-Saharan and Afro-Asiatic speakers, although it is yet to be determined whether pastoralism was an original culture to Nilo-Saharan speakers, a cultural acquisition or vice versa; and an interesting notion to entertain in the light of the proposition that pastoralism may be quite an antiquated event in human history.17 Pushing the dates of the event associated with the origin and spread of pastoralism to a proposed 12 000–22 000 YBP, as suggested by the network dating, will solve the matter spontaneously as the language differences would not have appeared by then and an original pastoralist ancestral group with a common culture and language50 is a plausible scenario to entertain. Such dates will accommodate both the Semitic/pastoralism-associated expansion and the introduction of Bos taurus to Europe from North East Africa or Middle East.55 The network result put North African populations like the Saharawi, Morocco Berbers and Arabs in a separate cluster. Given the proposed origin of Maghreb ancestors56, 57, 58, 59 in North Africa, our network dating suggested a divergence of North Western African populations from Eastern African as early as 32 000 YBP, which is close to the estimated dates to the origin of E-P2 macrohaplogroup.30, 60 It can be further inferred that the high frequency of E-M81 in North Africa and its association to the Berber-speaking populations25, 30, 32, 60, 61 may have occurred after the splitting of that early group, leading to local differentiation and flow of some markers as far as Southern Europe.30, 60, 62





--------------------
C. A. Winters

Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Amun-Ra The Ultimate
Member
Member # 20039

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Amun-Ra The Ultimate     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
[QB] Y-chromosome E haplogroups: their distribution and implication to the origin of Afro-Asiatic languages and pastoralism, by Eyoab I Gebremeskel1,2 and Muntaser E Ibrahim1
http://www.nature.com/ejhg/journal/v22/n12/full/ejhg201441a.html?WT.ec_id=EJHG-201412
quote:

Abstract
Archeological and paleontological evidences point to East Africa as the likely area of early evolution of modern humans. Genetic studies also indicate that populations from the region often contain, but not exclusively, representatives of the more basal clades of mitochondrial and Y-chromosome phylogenies. Most Y-chromosome haplogroup diversity in Africa, however, is present within macrohaplogroup E that seem to have appeared 21 000–32 000 YBP somewhere between the Red Sea and Lake Chad. The combined analysis of 17 bi-allelic markers in 1214 Y chromosomes together with cultural background of 49 populations displayed in various metrics: network, multidimensional scaling, principal component analysis and neighbor-joining plots, indicate a major contribution of East African populations to the foundation of the macrohaplogroup, suggesting a diversification that predates the appearance of some cultural traits and the subsequent expansion that is more associated with the cultural and linguistic diversity witnessed today. The proto-Afro-Asiatic group carrying the E-P2 mutation may have appeared at this point in time and subsequently gave rise to the different major population groups including current speakers of the Afro-Asiatic languages and pastoralist populations.


This is an interesting paper I was already familiar with. I suppose then I do agree with you, in light of the evidence of this paper, that the homeland of Obenga's "African Common Stock" (Negro-African) language (LINK), the mother language of Niger-Kordofanian, Nilo-Saharan, Cushitic and Chadic speakers, would be around the Northeastern African region between the Red Sea and Lake Chad. This is the position I always maintained.

This is confirmed in this paper by the origin of the E haplogroups in this region (as well as the descendant E/E-P2 haplogroup lineage).

As mentioned in the quote above from the study, the E haplogroup, which is the parent haplogroup of E-P2, is the most common haplogroup in Africa (East, West, North, South). It is the most common haplogroup among NK, Cushitic and Chadic speakers. For example, over 90% of Yoruba and 80% of Somali populations are from the E lineage. Those populations also share many MtDNA haplogroup counterparts (L3eikx, L2a, etc).

Populations from the E lineage would then spread to the (rest of the) Sahara, other regions in East Africa, and then eventually West Africa and Southern Africa.

The dating of 21 000–32 000 YBP for the E haplogroup is also interesting even if, like glottochronology estimates, those are only estimates based of a subjective rates of change.

A 21 000–32 000 YBP dating for the origin of the E haplogroup would situates it well after the OOA migrations of non-Africans (around 65 000 years ago). So East and West Africans, as well as most African populations from the E lineage, would share a whooping 33 000+ years of shared history (65 000-32 000= 33 000), admixtures, and biological and morphological change/adaptation and continuity before any back migration of Eurasians. The value is actually higher, hence the +, since they also share the downstream E-P2 lineage which appeared obviously at a later date (later than 21 000–32 000 years before present). This explain the why East and West African ancestral populations would be so close to each other from the blogger "Admixture software" runs exposed above in this thread (as well as other peer-reviewed studies) in relations to non-African populations.

Posts: 2981 | Registered: Jan 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Amun-Ra The Ultimate
Member
Member # 20039

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Amun-Ra The Ultimate     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
In my reply above, I mention "biological and morphological change/adaptation and continuity before any back migration of Eurasians". Beside obvious variant such as skin color/basic appearance. Post-cranial morphological measurements would be an example of such shared origin. Dissimilarities between modern East and West Africans would be relatively recent and subsequent to the separation and migration of the E-P2 population (which developed afterward into P2/E1b1a and P2/E1b1b) in different regions of Africa (Sahara, West Africa, Horn Africa, East Africa, etc), where people from the E and P2 lineage now lives.

 -

Posts: 2981 | Registered: Jan 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Amun-Ra The Ultimate
Member
Member # 20039

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Amun-Ra The Ultimate     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
What is important for people to consider is that modern African people (like Niger-Kordofanian/Cushitic/Chadic speakers, East/West Africans, Somali, Yoruba, Bantu, Wolof) are relatively recent immigrants to their current locations(regions). By recent, in this case, we mean after 10kya, thus during the Holocene.

Here's a quote from the book called The Origins of Modern Humans: Biology reconsidered (p23-24). Similar analysis can also be seen in other literature:

quote:
Emergence of Distinctive Regional Groups in Africa

Curiously, although modern humans appeared very early in Africa, there was a very long delay until the appearance of individuals who can not be distinguished metrically and morphologically from the living inhabitants of each part of Africa . In fact, almost all Africa Late Pleistocene hominins [Edit:between 120kya and 10kya] 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).

So basically, modern African people arrived at their current location AFTER the late pleistocene period during the Holocene, after 10 000BC. This is something we already know because modern West Africans carried Green Saharan artifacts with them (LINK). Humans specimens before 10 000BC are completely different than modern Africans. From genetics and linguistics we know modern African people like West/East Africans and Bantu people are relatively recent immigrants to their current locations (for East Africans it is population movements within East Africa). Through the Bantu migrations but also through the Niger-Kordofanian migrations which is much less studied than the Bantu migrations but also mentioned in literature. Bantu people are basically West African people from the Niger-Kordofanian family who migrated from their Cameroon-Nigerian border homeland to their current location in the southern half of Africa. Only in the region around Sudan, could Late Pleistocene-Holocone continuity be found. Which is perfectly fine for us since it's the putative location of the Niger-Kordofanian family homeland as well as the homeland of the E1b1/E-P2 populations, the most common lineage in Africa(Yoruba, Somali, etc) and in African-Americans.
Posts: 2981 | Registered: Jan 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Deleted Account
Banned
Member # 21978

Rate Member
Icon 3 posted      Profile for Deleted Account     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Very true, but there is another interpretation.

The reason for the lack of sub-regional craniometric continuity, or geographical structure within Africa throughout the Pleistocene was the result of the very large population size resident there, hence morphology was always heterogeneous and not homogenous, i.e. easily distinguishable like in peripheral Europe or Northeast Asia (through genetic drift and much smaller population sizes).

However it is interesting to note that the Cape or southern coast of South Africa had the smallest population in Pleistocene Africa and so there might be some limited regional continuity there in the fossil record from the Middle/Late Pleistocene to Holocene (recent) San or Khoisan:

"The earliest good evidence for what might be a distinct pattern of regional evolution in Africa is an example of centre and edge in a more limited application. This evidence may well be at an African periphery - in this case, along the southern Cape." (Wolpoff & Caspari, 1997)

There were a couple of studies from the 70s/80s, showing a close similarity between certain dimensions of Khoisan post-crania/crania to the Klasies remains, stretching back possibly to Border Cave and even Saldanha man.

In two multivariate studies Rightmire (1979, 1981) found Border Cave 1 was closest to Bushman and Hottentot male centroids, this was supported by Campbell (1984). Earlier Drennan and Singer (1955:365) felt that Saldanha 2 preserved the proportions of "Bushman, Hottentot and pre-Khoisan jaws." More recently Wolpoff (1996, 1999)has discussed the skeletal continuity in the Klasies post-crania, which he links to Khoisan.

The hypothetical fossil sequence would be:

Saldanha > Border Cave > Klasies > Khoisan (San)

Posts: 504 | From: No longer here | Registered: Aug 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Amun-Ra The Ultimate
Member
Member # 20039

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Amun-Ra The Ultimate     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
^^^Yes, what you're talking about is the Boskop-like people which may show continuity from the late Pleistocene to the Holocene with modern Khoisan people.

In my analysis of the genetic closeness of East/West African populations as well as the common origin of modern Niger-Kordofanian, Cushitic and Chadic speakers (link) , I implicitly (and also explicitly did) exclude modern Khoisan speakers and Mbuti-Aka related people from both aspects. Khoisan and Mbuti-Aka related people are part of a much earlier diversification on the continent. In my opinion (informed of course), Khoisan people could also have their common origin in Eastern Africa, but left the other populations in the region from which would later descends modern East/West African people, and as well as OOA people too(CT and L3 lineage) at a much earlier date (the proposed Khoisan ancient homeland in East Africa needs to be analyzed further). Khoisan and Mbuti-Aka related people are not from the CT and L3 lineages in great proportion. Haplogroups only present in those populations in small proportions due to recent admixtures with iron-age agro-pastoralists (Bantu) and to a lower degree, a bit earlier, with East-African pastoralists.

So Khoisan and Mbuti-Aka related people were not part of the CT/L3 and E/P2 populations which were the source of OOA migrants and, later on, modern East/West African populations.

Posts: 2981 | Registered: Jan 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
beyoku
Member
Member # 14524

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for beyoku     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate:
What is important for people to consider is that modern African people (like Niger-Kordofanian/Cushitic/Chadic speakers, East/West Africans, Somali, Yoruba, Bantu, Wolof) are relatively recent immigrants to their current locations(regions). By recent, in this case, we mean after 10kya, thus during the Holocene.

Here's a quote from the book called The Origins of Modern Humans: Biology reconsidered (p23-24). Similar analysis can also be seen in other literature:

quote:
Emergence of Distinctive Regional Groups in Africa

Curiously, although modern humans appeared very early in Africa, there was a very long delay until the appearance of individuals who can not be distinguished metrically and morphologically from the living inhabitants of each part of Africa . In fact, almost all Africa Late Pleistocene hominins [Edit:between 120kya and 10kya] 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).

So basically, modern African people arrived at their current location AFTER the late pleistocene period during the Holocene, after 10 000BC. This is something we already know because modern West Africans carried Green Saharan artifacts with them (LINK). Humans specimens before 10 000BC are completely different than modern Africans. From genetics and linguistics we know modern African people like West/East Africans and Bantu people are relatively recent immigrants to their current locations (for East Africans it is population movements within East Africa). Through the Bantu migrations but also through the Niger-Kordofanian migrations which is much less studied than the Bantu migrations but also mentioned in literature. Bantu people are basically West African people from the Niger-Kordofanian family who migrated from their Cameroon-Nigerian border homeland to their current location in the southern half of Africa. Only in the region around Sudan, could Late Pleistocene-Holocone continuity be found. Which is perfectly fine for us since it's the putative location of the Niger-Kordofanian family homeland as well as the homeland of the E1b1/E-P2 populations, the most common lineage in Africa(Yoruba, Somali, etc) and in African-Americans.
This is retarded. Just because the populations dont LOOK The same that doesnt mean they are not the ancestors of later Africans that adapted insitu. See Europe for some examples......Better Yet seem America. According to Amun ra all previous humans in African cease to exists and Pn2/L3 folks just fall from the sky in the Holocene. Complete garbage.

SO the Mesolithic remains from Sudan and the Sahara are not the ancestors of Africans that now live in Sudan and the Sahara?

Posts: 2463 | From: New Jersey USA | Registered: Dec 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Manu
Member
Member # 18974

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Manu     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
West Africans are Ancient East Africans mixed with Archaic Hominids of West Africa.

Modern Horn Africans are Ancient East Africans mixed with some West Eurasian.

That is the main difference between West Africans and Ethiopians etc..

Posts: 424 | Registered: May 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
beyoku
Member
Member # 14524

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for beyoku     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Manu:
West Africans are Ancient East Africans mixed with Archaic Hominids of West Africa.

Modern Horn Africans are Ancient East Africans mixed with some West Eurasian.

That is the main difference between West Africans and Ethiopians etc..

This is equally retarded non-sourced nonsense.
"East Africans" and "West Africans" cannot be reduced down to ONE thing.

Posts: 2463 | From: New Jersey USA | Registered: Dec 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Manu
Member
Member # 18974

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Manu     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Obviously I meant the dominant Niger-Congo group of West Africa and not weird genetic odd balls like the Pygmies or Fulanis of West Africa.

Same for East Africa, ex Pygmies & Hadza/Sandawe they are all basically variants of the same group only differing in Bantu and/or West Eurasian ancestry.

Posts: 424 | Registered: May 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Amun-Ra The Ultimate
Member
Member # 20039

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Amun-Ra The Ultimate     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Manu:
Archaic Hominids

Archaic hominids are like Homo heidelbergensis, Homo rhodesiensis, Homo neanderthalensis.

Modern human populations are not admixed with them at anything above 0-6% as far as we know. Archaic admixtures in modern Africans is a possibility but still being questioned and investigated.

Sorry for using wiki which is often erroneous or incomplete, but it's a bit off-topic and I didn't study the issue of admixtures with archaic hominids in depth:

Archaic human admixture with modern humans
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archaic_human_admixture_with_modern_humans

Posts: 2981 | Registered: Jan 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Manu
Member
Member # 18974

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Manu     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
West Africans are obviously mixed with some kind of local Archaic Hominid.

There's no point of denying. It's only a matter of time before scientists confirm it. This reminds me of the time when Neanderthal admixture was denied in Eurasians, now it has been confirmed. Same thing will happen to West Africans and a local Archaic Hominid.

Posts: 424 | Registered: May 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
beyoku
Member
Member # 14524

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for beyoku     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Manu:
West Africans are obviously mixed with some kind of local Archaic Hominid.

There's no point of denying. It's only a matter of time before scientists confirm it. This reminds me of the time when Neanderthal admixture was denied in Eurasians, now it has been confirmed. Same thing will happen to West Africans and a local Archaic Hominid.

Obvious why...because you say so? What is your source. Where is the genetic evidence? And why have all you Euro clown dumbasses have this idea way prior to old lineages like A00 in West africa.
Posts: 2463 | From: New Jersey USA | Registered: Dec 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Deleted Account
Banned
Member # 21978

Rate Member
Icon 2 posted      Profile for Deleted Account     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Statistical differences in haplogroup frequencies between populations may be the result of population structure as opposed to being considered reliable markers of phylogeny.

Example: "Many proposals for haplogroup A's origin suggest it was associated with the ancestral population of Southern Africa's hunter-gatherers. This is because Haplogroup A lineages are frequent among the San people."
- Wikipedia

This assumption is false. Haplogroup A could have originated outside of Africa.

Furthermore MtDNA and Y-DNA is not population history. Neither are (neutral) phylogenetic markers.

"The vast majority of studies employing mtDNA as an evolutionary marker have not attempted to test the basic assumptions and predictions of the neutral model: a constant mutation rate, a stationary allele frequency distribution, and a correlation between polymorphism levels and divergence. The omission of these tests limits our ability to interpret the results of these analyses, but perhaps more importantly it misses an opportunity to understand the nature of selection operating on mitochondria. We suggest that the focus of mitochondrial study should shift away from using mtDNA as a tool for inference of population history towards studies of the ecology and biochemistry of the
mitochondrion itself."
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15012752

"The variation of the nonrecombining region of the Y chromosome (NRY) has been successfully used to study human origins and population histories, based on the assumption that Y chromosome
variation is selectively neutral
."
http://www.ucl.ac.uk/tcga/tcgapdf/LluisQM-JMG-03-TC.pdf

This assumption for Y-DNA has shown also recently to be incorrect. As also noted you have to take into account population structure (i.e. size) when studying the frequency of a haplogroup. You cant just find it at high frequency somewhere and then claim it originated there.

Posts: 504 | From: No longer here | Registered: Aug 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Manu
Member
Member # 18974

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Manu     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by beyoku:
Obvious why...because you say so? What is your source. Where is the genetic evidence? And why have all you Euro clown dumbasses have this idea way prior to old lineages like A00 in West africa.

The evidence will be found over time. Especially with the advent of full genome sequencing and more advanced tools.

IMO, all modern populations that sport primitive features at high frequencies are suspect of having archaic hominid ancestry.

Those extreme brow ridges of Papuans and Australian Aborigines can now be explained by archaic hominid ancestry.

Soon the extreme wide noses of West Africans can be explained by archaic hominid ancestry.

Posts: 424 | Registered: May 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Deleted Account
Banned
Member # 21978

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Deleted Account     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Only Holocene male aborigines have a high frequency of medium to large brow-ridges:

"For example: medium to large brow ridges identified on 84.6% of males from coastal N.S.W. and on 81.1% of males from Queensland, but on only 9.6% of females from coastal N.S.W. and 10.6% of females from Queensland (medium only as none displayed the large size)." (Habgood, 2003)

Most females are small, to absent. However early anthropology books rarely reported this sexual dimorphism in Australian Aborigines.

Posts: 504 | From: No longer here | Registered: Aug 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Deleted Account
Banned
Member # 21978

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Deleted Account     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The "Australoid" type (at least as a mean statistical phenotypic abstraction) really is silly. On average you only find most of the "Australoid" measurements/non-metrics in Australian Aborigine males, not the females. It is very unlike the Caucasoid/Negroid/Mongoloid in this sense. Probably this also explains why modern forensic scientists do not recognise Australoids (unlike the other three).
Posts: 504 | From: No longer here | Registered: Aug 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Swenet
Member
Member # 17303

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Swenet     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
@Manu

You might just want to leave this one alone. You're
in way over your head. West Africans don't have
excessive cranial superstructures (unlike Europeans).
In fact, according to some, West Africans are the
most "modern" in such variables. And modern day West
Africans don't resemble prehistoric West African
skulls cracked up to be archaic humans, either.

In fact, the highly gracile nature of modern SSAs
is precisely why they've historically been
misinterpreted as a "new" race (i.e. the myth of
the recent "negro", which is supposedly no older
than 10kya) with no genetic continuity with more
robust forebears elsewhere on the continent.

Case in point:

quote:
Originally posted by Amun Ra the Ultimate:
Curiously, although modern humans appeared very early in Africa, there was a very long delay until the appearance of individuals who can not be distinguished metrically and morphologically from the living inhabitants of each part of Africa .

SMGDH
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Manu
Member
Member # 18974

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Manu     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
West Africans have the highest nasal index scores on the planet of any major population group.

You can't hide these facts.

This is a primitive trait and obviously points to archaic hominid ancestry.

Posts: 424 | Registered: May 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Swenet
Member
Member # 17303

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Swenet     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Primitive, how so? How did you establish this? You're
not making any sense.

Nasal bridge elevation and elongation is also a
trait influenced by the forces of selection.
These
are related to the relative lack of moisture in
inspired air
(Glanville, 1969).

--Brace 1993

Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Amun-Ra The Ultimate
Member
Member # 20039

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Amun-Ra The Ultimate     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Manu:
West Africans have the highest nasal index scores on the planet of any major population group.

You can't hide these facts.

This is a primitive trait and obviously points to archaic hominid ancestry.

For one, West Africans, has any Africans share a wide range of nasal index. Secondly, it has been demonstrated scientifically that modern West Africans, which are recent migrants from East Africa, share no continuity with late Pleistocene human remains in West Africa which are more archaic. Your "theory" has been proven to be false.

This is what I posted here in this thread:
http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=009118;p=1#000020

Your theory is proven to be false by science, there's nothing more to say about it.

The only continuity with ancient remains and West Africans (Niger-Congo speakers) has been found in (north-) Eastern Africa.

See here (as one of the many examples in literature):
 -
-Taken From Cranial Discrete Traits in a Byzantine Population and Eastern Mediterranean Population Movements by F. X. RICAUT and M. WAELKENS (2008)


This affinity pattern between ancient Egyptians and sub-Saharans has also been noticed by several other investigators (Angel 1972;Berry and Berry 1967, 1972; Keita 1995) and has been recently reinforced by the study of Brace et al. (2005), which clearly shows that the cranial morphology of prehistoric and recent northeast African populations is linked to sub-Saharan populations (Niger- Congo populations).

This is caused by the ancient origin of West Africans, the greater part of their ancestry, in North-Eastern Africa as discussed in this thread.

Posts: 2981 | Registered: Jan 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Swenet
Member
Member # 17303

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Swenet     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I see some people are still in chronic denial about the
position of the Naqada (Naq), Kerma (Ker) and Gizeh
(Giz) samples relative to the non-Nile Valley African
samples in Ricaut et al 2008. Hence, the selective
posting of excerpts to substantiate manipulative,
but see-through arguments which no self respecting
scholar would ever make. All it ends up doing is
expose the lying ES propagandists for what they
really are: selective cut and paste gurus.


 -

quote:
Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate:
This is caused by the ancient origin of West Africans, the greater part of their ancestry, in North-Eastern Africa as discussed in this thread.


Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Manu
Member
Member # 18974

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Manu     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate:
For one, West Africans, has any Africans share a wide range of nasal index. Secondly, it has been demonstrated scientifically that modern West Africans, which are recent migrants from East Africa, share no continuity with late Pleistoce human remains in West Africa which are more archaic. Your "theory" has been proven to be false.

West Africans have the widest noses on the planet. Fact.

Record level nasal index scores over 100 are found there.

Obvious archaic hominid ancestry is obvious.

Posts: 424 | Registered: May 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Amun-Ra The Ultimate
Member
Member # 20039

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Amun-Ra The Ultimate     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
^^^There's nothing to be in denial about. There's both similarities and differences between Naqada and Kerma samples, and even Nabta Playa samples, and modern West Africans/Niger-Congo speakers.

Similarities are caused of their common origin with them, the differences are caused by the subsequent separation/migrations of West Africans to their current modern locations and subsequent in situ adaptations/genetic drift of each groups respectively (see here) .

Let's consider the data from this study:
The questionable contribution of the Neolithic and the Bronze Age to European craniofacial form by Brace (2005)

 -
Fig. 1. Neighbor-joining dendrogram for a series of prehistoric and recent
human populations (Craniofacial measures)

Clearly, we can see Niger-Congo speakers (Tanzania, Dahomey, Congo), Nubians, Somali, Naqada clustering on the same branch. Completely distinct from modern Eurasian populations like in Egypt, Middle East, Italy, France, or Germany.


Same for post-cranial analysis:
 -

So West Africans are not exactly similar to ancient East Africans like Kerma, Naqada, Nabta Playa, etc, but share some morphological similarities too like Craniofacial measures and post-cranial/limb-proportion measurements. The similarities are from their common origin with those ancient specimens in Eastern Africa, the differences from their subsequent migrations to their current locations in West/Central/Southern Africa.

Posts: 2981 | Registered: Jan 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Swenet
Member
Member # 17303

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Swenet     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate:
Completely distinct from modern Eurasian populations like in Egypt, Middle East, Italy, France, or Germany.

According to what data, selective cut and paste guru?
Certainly not according to the distance values
cited in the paper you're manipulating.

Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Amun-Ra The Ultimate
Member
Member # 20039

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Amun-Ra The Ultimate     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
^^ I think you're the one in denial here.
Posts: 2981 | Registered: Jan 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Amun-Ra The Ultimate
Member
Member # 20039

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Amun-Ra The Ultimate     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
As we can see from the origin of the E-P2(e1b1) lineage (see here) , which form over 90% of their paternal ancestry, and the homeland of the Niger-Kordofanian languages (see here) , modern West Africans are "recent" migrants to West Africa from their ancient East African homeland. A common origin they share of course with modern East Africans who are also from their E-P2/e1b1 lineage in great proportions.

It's also important to note that West African populations like Yoruba populations share the CT Y-DNA lineage and the L3 MtDNA lineage with OOA migrants in great proportion.

For example:
Yoruba Y-DNA CT: 93.1%
Yoruba MtDNA L3: 45.45%


Those are the proportion of haplogroup lineages they share with non-Africans OOA migrants (before any back migrations). Similar analysis can be made for other West African populations (using for example haplogroup frequencies from Hirbo, starting at Appendix 6a ii, p195).

Posts: 2981 | Registered: Jan 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Swenet
Member
Member # 17303

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Swenet     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate:
^^ I think you're the one in denial here.

The data speaks for itself, cut and paste guru. Any
three year old can look it up, hold your manipulative
claims against the papers you're wilfully distorting
and verify that my assessment of your chronic denial
is spot on. In Brace et al 2005's analysis, the
Prehistoric NEAfrica is equidistant vis-a-vis the
Niger-Congo speaking sample and West Eurasians:

 -

So why misrepresent those dendrograms and make up
fairy tales about them, charlatan?

Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Amun-Ra The Ultimate
Member
Member # 20039

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Amun-Ra The Ultimate     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
^^^You're being ridiculous and grasping at straws. My analysis of the Brace study is the same as 'F. X. RICAUT and M. WAELKENS's as well as "several other investigators" (as posted above).

This affinity pattern between ancient Egyptians and sub-Saharans has also been noticed by several other investigators (Angel 1972;Berry and Berry 1967, 1972; Keita 1995) and has been recently reinforced by the study of Brace et al. (2005), which clearly shows that the cranial morphology of prehistoric and recent northeast African populations is linked to sub-Saharan populations (Niger- Congo populations). - -Taken From Cranial Discrete Traits in a Byzantine Population and Eastern Mediterranean Population Movements by F. X. RICAUT and M. WAELKENS (2008)

We can of course see similar patterns in term of uniparental haplogroups, autosomal STR and autosomal SNP genetic analysis as demonstrated in this thread.

Posts: 2981 | Registered: Jan 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Swenet
Member
Member # 17303

Member Rated:
4
Icon 10 posted      Profile for Swenet     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Still in denial, aren't you? Were the Neolithic
Eurasian samples closest to the NEAfrican sample
per Brace 2005 et al's analysis, or not? What is
the order of relationships of the NEAfrican sample
to the other samples? At what point does the Niger
Congo speaking sample come in? How does this order
of relationships gel with what you have manipulated
Brace et al 2005 to represent for several years
now? Lying troll!

quote:
Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate:
Completely distinct from modern Eurasian populations like in Egypt, Middle East, Italy, France, or Germany.


Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Deleted Account
Banned
Member # 21978

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Deleted Account     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
West Africans have the widest noses on the planet. Fact.

Record level nasal index scores over 100 are found there.

Obvious archaic hominid ancestry is obvious.

Australian aborigines have the highest mean Nasal Index. Nose width is strongly correlated with tooth size. Aborigines also have the highest mean Dental Index, but West African populations are not far off from them.

ultra-leptorrhine <39.9
hyper-leptorrhine 40-54.9
leptorrhine 55-69.9
mesorrhine 70-84.9
platyrrhine 85-99.9
hyper-platyrrhine 100-114.9
ultra-platyrrhine >115

From the studies of living subjects I have seen, aborigines come out hyper-platyrrhine. Most populations from West Africa however do not and fall under 100. Of course though they're still platyrrhine, between 85 - 99.9:

quote:
Oladipo et al., (2009) conducted an anthropometric assessment of Nasal parameters of Itsekiris and Urhobos ethnic group of Nigeria with the aim of comparing the nose type among the two ethnic groups. Their results showed that on the average, Urhobos had a mean Nasal index of 89.63 and the Itsekiris had a mean index of 90.74.

The nasal index of the Igbos, yorubas and Ijaws were determined by Oladipo et al., (2006).

The Igbos had a mean nasal index of 94.1± 0.37, Yorubas 89.2±0.30 and the Ijaws 96.37±1.06.

Anthropometric study of the nasal index of bekwara ethnic group of cross river state, nigeria
International Research Journal of Applied and Basic Sciences. 2013. Vol, 5 (10): 1262-1265
http://www.irjabs.com/files_site/paperlist/r_1588_131009104937.pdf

Posts: 504 | From: No longer here | Registered: Aug 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Deleted Account
Banned
Member # 21978

Rate Member
Icon 5 posted      Profile for Deleted Account     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Secondly, it has been demonstrated scientifically that modern West Africans, which are recent migrants from East Africa, share no continuity with late Pleistocene human remains in West Africa which are more archaic.
Do you mean they lacked morphological or genetic continuity?

My view is only the former. Holocene Africans show little to no craniometric relationship to Pleistocene Africans (excluding the Khoisan, see above) because there was a shift in skeletal heterogeneity on the continent to (sub)regional population structures - where mean statistical phenotypic complexes (e.g. "Negroid"/broad African "Aethiopid"/elongated African) emerged or became distinctive. This is why the oldest "Negroid" remains are only 7,000 or 8,000 years old. Hierneux (1974) also discusses the recent fossil origin of the "elongated African".

Posts: 504 | From: No longer here | Registered: Aug 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Manu
Member
Member # 18974

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Manu     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Dead:
Australian aborigines have the highest mean Nasal Index. Nose width is strongly correlated with tooth size. Aborigines also have the highest mean Dental Index, but West African populations are not far off from them.

ultra-leptorrhine <39.9
hyper-leptorrhine 40-54.9
leptorrhine 55-69.9
mesorrhine 70-84.9
platyrrhine 85-99.9
hyper-platyrrhine 100-114.9
ultra-platyrrhine >115

From the studies of living subjects I have seen, aborigines come out hyper-platyrrhine. Most populations from West Africa however do not and fall under 100. Of course though they're still platyrrhine, between 85 - 99.9:


That does not bode well for West Africans as we already know that Australian Aborigines have Archaic Hominid admixture, LOL.

Besides this, modern Abos are mostly admixed with Anglo-Australians and now have lower nasal index score than in the past.

West Africans are largely unmixed and thus are #1 major population group on the planet with the highest mean nasal index.

Posts: 424 | Registered: May 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 3 pages: 1  2  3   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.

Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  New Poll  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | EgyptSearch!

(c) 2015 EgyptSearch.com

Powered by UBB.classic™ 6.7.3