quote:Originally posted by Manu: That does not bode well for West Africans as we already know that Australian Aborigines have Archaic Hominid admixture, LOL.
Dravidians have those NI's as well. Are you saying Dravidians have the same amount of archaic admixture as Australians or that a cline exists among Dravidians where those with more narrow noses have less archaic admixture than those with broader noses? What about Andaman Islanders? They have broad noses, but I don't recall them having excesses of archaic admixture compared to other mainland Asians. Papuans have approx. the same amount of archaic admixture as Australian Aboriginals and their nasal skeletal is in many ways similar to that of West Eurasians despite the fact that Papuans and Australian Aboriginals have archaic admixture from the same source and in similar amounts.
You don't address what anyone is telling you. You're just repeating your previous claims and peppering them with empty buzz words like "obviously" and "fact". Again, documentation of your claims with citations would be required to even begin to entertain this idea of yours.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
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.
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.
This is false. South Indians and Munda people in India have large nasal indexes.
posted
South Indians do not have Denisovan admixture. They just have the generic 2%-4% Neanderthal found in most mainland Eurasians.
As for Andaman Islanders, their noses are not as wide as those of West-Central Africans. Besides they are an inbred group who have been isolated from the rest of humanity for 20 kya. Not really representative of modern humans.
You will not find an exogenous non-tribal large population group with extremely high (90+ to 100+) nasal index scores as West Africans anywhere on the planet.
Posts: 424 | Registered: May 2011
| IP: Logged |
Anyhow, Onges are inbred & lived on a tiny island for 10s of thousands of years. They are not representative of the original out of africa humans.
Posts: 424 | Registered: May 2011
| IP: Logged |
Whether you like it or not, West Africans, Australians, Andaman Islanders and many Dravdiians overlap in their range of NIs. And by admitting that Dravidians don't stand out in their proportion of archaic DNA, you've just undermined your own claim that there is a causal relationship between archaic DNA and high NIs in Australians and West Africans.
quote:Originally posted by Manu: There are no non-inbred populations with nasal index scores over 110 other than some West African groups.
This is a completely arbitrary goal post. It's also circular reasoning. Of course there aren't many populations with NIs higher than 110, and that's because there aren't many populations who are adapted to environmental conditions that are more conducive to this trait than the West Africans in question.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mean Igbo NI is 94, Yoruba, 89 (Oladipoet al., 2007).
You have to take sample size into account. Your source is only 114 individuals for Igbo, and a mere 78 for Yoruba. The source I cited, covered 750 for each. Really studies though should cover at least 1000.
Posts: 504 | From: No longer here | Registered: Aug 2014
| IP: Logged |
quote:World record in wide noses goes to West Africans, hands down.
You're making a fool out of yourself. Nasal index data from several West African ethnic groups has been posted and the overall picture demonstrates that West Africans can't be distinguished from groups which you yourself admitted don't stand out genetically in terms of their levels of archaic DNA (i.e. Dravidians and others).
You've been told that modern day Sub Saharan Africans have the lowest expression of so called "continuity" traits (e.g. infraglabellar notch, supraorbital torus, overall robusticity), which have been used in the past to gauge cranio-facial similarity of modern humans to regional archaic humans.
Your way of dealing with these facts (which we already know you can't address rationally)? Picking arbitrary measurements and making them out to be archaic traits (without having proven this link, first), ignoring all the cranio-facial traits which have been demonstrated to characterize archaic humans and spamming pictures in a lame attempt to outdo the much more comprehensive NI data I posted. Really?
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Bump, since Amun-Ra is apparently still running his mouth. Forfeited his own credibility by becoming known for repeatedly running out of his own damn threads when others mop up his trademark fairy tales, but still tries to push his imaginary narrative of others being dishonest "wasists" when he thinks the people he habitually runs away from, aren't around.
You were saying, what exactly?
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: 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.
quote:You've been told that modern day Sub Saharan Africans have the lowest expression of so called "continuity" traits (e.g. infraglabellar notch, supraorbital torus, overall robusticity), which have been used in the past to gauge cranio-facial similarity of modern humans to regional archaic humans.
Then why are the earliest "anatomically modern" fossils claimed to derive from Sub-Saharan Africa?
Between 200,000-40,000 BP., virtually all fossils from Sub-Saharan Africa are still "robust"/"archaic", or at least retain plenty of the latter features even if there are some discernable "modern" traits in the morphology:
"It is often claimed that “AMHs” date from up to 200 ka ago, yet no such specimens exist. The skulls from Omo Kibish offer some relatively modern features as well as substantially archaic ones; especially Omo 2 is very robust indeed (McDougall et al., 2005). Their dating, also, is not secure, and Omo 2 is a surface find. The much more complete and better dated Herto skull, BOU-VP- 16/1, is outside the range of all recent humans in several cranial measurements (White et al., 2003)—and is just as archaic as other specimens of the late Middle Pleistocene, in Africa or elsewhere. The lack of “anatomically modern” humans from sub-Saharan Africa prior to the supposed Exodus is glaring: the Border Cave specimens have no stratigraphic context; Dar es Soltan is undated; and the mandibles of Klasies River Mouth lack cranial and post-cranial remains. The Hofmeyr skull from South Africa, about 36 ka old, features 'intermediate' morphol- ogy (Grine et al., 2007, 2010)." (Bednarik, 2013)
Skulls in Sub-Saharan Africa are not even "anatomically modern human" by Stringer's criteria as recent as 40,000 years ago.
Posts: 504 | From: No longer here | Registered: Aug 2014
| IP: Logged |
quote:You've been told that modern day Sub Saharan Africans have the lowest expression of so called "continuity" traits (e.g. infraglabellar notch, supraorbital torus, overall robusticity), which have been used in the past to gauge cranio-facial similarity of modern humans to regional archaic humans.
Then why are the earliest "anatomically modern" fossils claimed to derive from Sub-Saharan Africa?
Between 200,000-40,000 BP., virtually all fossils from Sub-Saharan Africa are still "robust"/"archaic", or at least retain plenty of the latter features even if there are some discernable "modern" traits in the morphology:
"It is often claimed that “AMHs” date from up to 200 ka ago, yet no such specimens exist. The skulls from Omo Kibish offer some relatively modern features as well as substantially archaic ones; especially Omo 2 is very robust indeed (McDougall et al., 2005). Their dating, also, is not secure, and Omo 2 is a surface find. The much more complete and better dated Herto skull, BOU-VP- 16/1, is outside the range of all recent humans in several cranial measurements (White et al., 2003)—and is just as archaic as other specimens of the late Middle Pleistocene, in Africa or elsewhere. The lack of “anatomically modern” humans from sub-Saharan Africa prior to the supposed Exodus is glaring: the Border Cave specimens have no stratigraphic context; Dar es Soltan is undated; and the mandibles of Klasies River Mouth lack cranial and post-cranial remains. The Hofmeyr skull from South Africa, about 36 ka old, features 'intermediate' morphol- ogy (Grine et al., 2007, 2010)." (Bednarik, 2013)
Skulls in Sub-Saharan Africa are not even "anatomically modern human" by Stringer's criteria as recent as 40,000 years ago.
posted
Yes, Clyde it must be hard for you to ever challenge your dogma, and actually for a change look at something called evidence.
Posts: 504 | From: No longer here | Registered: Aug 2014
| IP: Logged |
posted
I remember I posted several years back that the OOA theory is a hoax. I got laughed at.
I'm glad to now see respectable paleo-anthropologists and archaeologists such as Bednarik coming out and saying exactly what I have posted for years...
quote:The replacement hypothesis proposes that “modern humans” evolved only in sub-Saharan Africa, through a speciation event rendering them unable to breed with other hominins. They then spread throughout Africa, then to Asia, Australia and finally to Europe, replacing all other humans by exterminating or out- competing them. In this critical analysis of the replacement hypothesis it is shown that it began as a hoax, later reinforced by false paleoanthropological claims and a series of flawed genetic propositions, yet it became almost universally accepted during the 1990s and has since dominated the discipline.
Note that Reiner Protsch who founded the OOA theory was shown to have falsified all his data and in 2003 he was dismissed from the University of Frankfurt.
Posts: 504 | From: No longer here | Registered: Aug 2014
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Manu: World record in wide noses goes to West Africans, hands down.
This poor chap has had his photo used across this forum since at least 2010. I wonder what he would say if he saw this. lol
Posts: 504 | From: No longer here | Registered: Aug 2014
| IP: Logged |
quote:You've been told that modern day Sub Saharan Africans have the lowest expression of so called "continuity" traits (e.g. infraglabellar notch, supraorbital torus, overall robusticity), which have been used in the past to gauge cranio-facial similarity of modern humans to regional archaic humans.
Then why are the earliest "anatomically modern" fossils claimed to derive from Sub-Saharan Africa?
Between 200,000-40,000 BP., virtually all fossils from Sub-Saharan Africa are still "robust"/"archaic", or at least retain plenty of the latter features even if there are some discernable "modern" traits in the morphology:
"It is often claimed that “AMHs” date from up to 200 ka ago, yet no such specimens exist. The skulls from Omo Kibish offer some relatively modern features as well as substantially archaic ones; especially Omo 2 is very robust indeed (McDougall et al., 2005). Their dating, also, is not secure, and Omo 2 is a surface find. The much more complete and better dated Herto skull, BOU-VP- 16/1, is outside the range of all recent humans in several cranial measurements (White et al., 2003)—and is just as archaic as other specimens of the late Middle Pleistocene, in Africa or elsewhere. The lack of “anatomically modern” humans from sub-Saharan Africa prior to the supposed Exodus is glaring: the Border Cave specimens have no stratigraphic context; Dar es Soltan is undated; and the mandibles of Klasies River Mouth lack cranial and post-cranial remains. The Hofmeyr skull from South Africa, about 36 ka old, features 'intermediate' morphol- ogy (Grine et al., 2007, 2010)." (Bednarik, 2013)
Skulls in Sub-Saharan Africa are not even "anatomically modern human" by Stringer's criteria as recent as 40,000 years ago.
Moreover, you're talking about ancient African skulls failing to cluster with modern African ones. You don't want to open that can of worms buddy, trust me:
posted
Europeans were 'regionally distinctive' in terms of craniometry long before populations in Africa. Southeast Asians or Javans ("Australoids") are the oldest. They go back easily over 700,000 years.
"This unique combination of regional features of the Javan morphology was stable for at least 700,000 years, while other characteristics continued evolving." (Frayer et al., 1993)
Europeans have been 'regionally distinctive' since at least the early Late Pleistocene.
I'm only talking about up to 4-5 metric/non-metric traits. What was falsified was the massive lists of Wolpoff et al. from the 80s/90s.
Alan Thorne first predicted in 1980 that the "Australoid" cranial morphology would appear in the fossil record the earliest, the "Negroid" last. The fossil data shows he is correct.
Posts: 504 | From: No longer here | Registered: Aug 2014
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dude, what exactly are you arguing? As you hinted at yourself, Lahr and others wiped the floor with key foundations of Wolpoff's work, but what does that have to do with the matter at hand? Multireginalism has been refuted completely; they're reduced to rewriting their main tenets and shifting goalposts as new data comes in and picking fights with/trying to falsify extreme versions of OOA, which very few OOA proponents support, even back in the day. OOA can survive perfectly with measures of archaic introgression; multiregionalism can't survive if migrating humans from Africa are the basic template for all modern day humans.
I also don't understand why you keep saying OOA is a hoax when you say you subscribe to assimilation. Do you have any idea how crazy that sounds?
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Assimilation Model (AM) has always been a Multiregional Evolution (MRE) variant. It has been since it was proposed in 1989. Fred Smith received his PhD under Wolpoff, and his model in the 90s was never considered an "intermediate" compromise between MRE and OOA, but a 'weak', or watered down version of MRE. Smith and Wolpoff both also wrote some of their papers together against OOA. As Stringer came to note this year: Wolpoff has now shifted his ideas "close to that of the Assimilation Model". In fact I would argue MRE today and AM are virtually identical.
What has been falsified is the hardcore or 'classic' MRE of the 80s/90s by Wolpoff et al, not the Assimilation or revised 'weak' MRE.
'Weak' MRE is supported well by the fossil record, an excellent overview can be found in Habgood (2003).
Regionally continuous distinctive "Australoid" features x 5 = 1, 2, 6, 7, 8
(1) flatness of the frontal bone [viewed in the sagital plane] (2) posterier placement of minimum frontal breadth (6) Excessive facial prognathism (7) Prominent zygomacillary (malar) tuberosity (8) Eversion of the lower border of the zygomatic
Like I said, there's evidence for 'weak' MRE: a combination of 4-5 regionally continuous craniometric traits in Southeast Asia, Europe and East Asia that was never terminated/disappeared throughout the Pleistocene.
Of this list i would only remove (6) because the Sangiran 17 crania was more recently reconstructed as almost orthognathic. It was basically a faulty reconstruction from the 80s showing it as having marked facial prognathism.
Baba, H.; Aziz, F.; Narasaki, S. (2000). "Restoration of the face of Javanese Homo erectus Sangiran 17 and re-evaluation of regional continuity in Australasia". Acta Anthropologica Sinica 19: 34–40.
quote:I also don't understand why you keep saying OOA is a hoax when you say you subscribe to assimilation. Do you have any idea how crazy that sounds?
Not at all, because Assimilation denies "AMH" had an exclusive African origin. Instead it argues most (but not all) "modernity" traits originated there, which I have no problem with given its much larger population size throughout the Pleistocene.
And my point is that Europeans, South-East Asians etc., were regionally distinctive hundreds of thousands of years before Africans. The cranial discontinuity you are trying to show for Europeans are not the regional traits that uniquely characterised the perhiperal regions (incl. Europe) on Earth throughout the Pleistocene, where they are still found in high frequency there today.
Posts: 504 | From: No longer here | Registered: Aug 2014
| IP: Logged |
posted
In response to your Mesolithic skulls, I'll give you a quote Howells (1995).
quote:Nine of ten Portuguese Late Mesolithic skulls from Muge sites north of Lisbon are read, if not closely, as European, with one exception, thus a pretty positive statement. In fact, with the female preference for Zalavar, this could be even refine to "South European" or, in typological readings of old, ""Mediterranean."
Kurgans are burial mounds widespread in Central Asia( see Anthony 1985). These specimens are not given a locality in the catalogue in Oslo, but were apparently gathered around the headwaters of the Yenesei River in eastern Siberia in the vincinity of Krasnoyarsk, and represent Scythians, seminomadic horse breeders of late prehistoric times. The affinities of both skulls are clearly European, a matter of interest in the ethnic relations of Scythians generally.
Four of five Danish Neolithic crania are also European in affiliation. The Ertebolle skull, however, is well removed from any modern population except Ainu. The Ainu, though Asiatic, are a population so generalized as not to be very indicative. In other analyses (Howells 1989), Ainu are apt to cluster with either European or Guam.
Holocene population history is very different though to the Pleistocene because of the population size changes.
The 4-5 regionally distinctive/continuous European traits don't probably all even appear in Howell's used measurements btw.
Posts: 504 | From: No longer here | Registered: Aug 2014
| IP: Logged |
posted
I cannot find the European tickbox in Habgood like he did for south-east asia, but ill post them here later. They're in Frayers 90s papers. Habgood tested them with his tickbox and 4-5 apply.
Posts: 504 | From: No longer here | Registered: Aug 2014
| IP: Logged |
posted
I agree with some of the things you're saying. But simple logic dictates that the feasible hypotheses among assimilation are, effectively, just variants of OOAT, not MRT. Any self-respecting origin theory that falls under assimilation has to take in account the empirical evidence that human genes predominantly come from a single source, or it will fall under orthodox MRT (which predicts that human genes will structure according to region, with interregional exchanges) and become falsified by default.
If the regional continuity acknowledged in assimilation is due to a lot of admixture of archaics with AMHs, it may detract from OOAT more and more, as the amount of admixture increases beyond the modest levels allowed for by replacement and hybridization, but it will be even more unlike MRT, which says that Eurasian holocene humans are, with respect to AMHs from Africa, unbroken continuations from regional archaics (i.e. no special role from African AMHs, if any).
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:The cranial discontinuity you are trying to show for Europeans are not the regional traits that uniquely characterised the perhiperal regions (incl. Europe) on Earth throughout the Pleistocene, where they are still found in high frequency there today.
Maybe. But I'm just nuancing the claims made in this thread that Africa is somehow unique in it's supposed lack of continuation; as demonstrated, Africa is not special in this regard.
Also, under OOA the "negroid" configuration is not a special one. In other words, there is no reason why the stereotyped West African pattern should represent the continent. Even if Thorne's prediction, i.e. that the Australoid craniofacial configuration predates the "negro" configuration, is true (which it is, but only because he has narrowly defined "negro" to include only a seemingly recent cranio facial pattern in the African record), you're still dealing with two native African phenotypes, with the former (Australian Aboriginal), or it's ancestral form, simply having gone extinct there today.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Manu: World record in wide noses goes to West Africans, hands down.
This poor chap has had his photo used across this forum since at least 2010. I wonder what he would say if he saw this. lol
His look is not even typical for for West-Central Africans, that's why its dumb for people to keep spamming this pic.
Posts: 2595 | From: Vicksburg | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Maybe. But I'm just nuancing the claims made in this thread that Africa is somehow unique in it's supposed lack of continuation; as demonstrated, Africa is not special in this regard.
I'm arguing Africa is unique, or rather was throughout the Pleistocene. It had the largest population size. So the reason the African fossil record preserves poor 'regional continuity' in skeletal features - is because of this morphological heterogeneity. In contrast the small peripheral populations outside of Africa, like in Europe, but especially Java, possessed a regionally distinctive or homogenous set of diagnostic traits because their mean craniometric variation (through genetic drift) was much lower.
Since Africans were so heterogenous, it would be very rare, to impossible, to find the combination or ensemble of cranial traits that characterized a peripheral region during the Pleistocene there. These unique 'regional complexes' Thorne and Wolpoff (1981) coined " morphological clades". So if you look at that combination of 4-5 "Australoid" traits from Habgood (2003) none appear together on an African fossil. Back in the 80s and 90s, far too big lists of these features were made. Most now have now been removed. The original "Australoid" regional traits numbered 12-17 in number, but they're now down to 4 or 5. So this is why Multiregionalism has been watered down. But those morphological clades still exist, even if the number of traits have been massively reduced.
quote: Also, under OOA the "negroid" configuration is not a special one. In other words, there is no reason why the stereotyped West African pattern should represent the continent.
There was no regional/subregional morphological structure there during the Pleistocene, just a highly heterogenous (geographically undifferentiated) meta-population. But the exception of limited continuity could have been at the peripheral of Africa itself:
Border Cave > Klasies > Khoisan (San) ???
"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)
And the reason why 'negroid' is sometimes used to stereotype the whole African continent is because that morphology in a lot of people's minds (usually just based on the nose) is what they regard the geographically undifferentiated African phenotype looked like. But of course this is false if you look at multivariate studies on crania.
Posts: 504 | From: No longer here | Registered: Aug 2014
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by .Charlie Bass.: QUOTE]His look is not even typical for for West-Central Africans, that's why its dumb for people to keep spamming this pic. [/QB]
Well for some reason 'Manu' is trying to argue that mean nasal index for West African populations is 110. It isn't. Its around 90 for each ethnic group or population in West Africa. But 90 is still platyrrhine (broad nosed). Pointing out on average that West Africans are broad nosed is not wrong.
Posts: 504 | From: No longer here | Registered: Aug 2014
| IP: Logged |
posted
^^^What you say is ridiculous. We know West Africans are relative recent migrants to their current location for the most part because they carry haplogroups in great proportion which we know originate in (North-)Eastern Africa. They also carried Green Saharan artifacts with them when they migrated southward during the desertification of the Sahara. And of course it has been determined that there's no continuity with Pleistocene specimen and modern West Africans (aka modern West Africans are "recent" migrants to their current locations. They migrated there during the Holocene period).
For example: Yoruba Y-DNA CT: 93.1% Yoruba MtDNA L3: 45.45%
This also happens to be haplogroup they have in common with OOA migrants (which are all CT and L3 descendants).
It's not recent admixture because they share upstream (aka older aka before the OOA migrations) hgs with OOA migrants not downstream (aka more recent) ones.
The genetic closeness of East and West Africans (which are E-P2 carrier at over 80% of their populations) is also another clue of their shared recent common origin in North-Eastern Africa (as discussed in the OP):
East and West Africans also share various MtDNA haplogroups like L3eikx, L2a, L0a, etc.
Posts: 2981 | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
Back to the dodosaur days
Posts: 8179 | From: the Tekrur straddling Senegal & Mauritania | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
Physical anthro/fossils are more reliable than the modern genetic craze.
quote:At best, the genetic information explains how modern humans might have originated if the assumptions used in interpreting the genes are correct, but those conditions are only hypothetical, and one theory cannot be used to test another. The fossil record is the real evidence for human evolution, and it is rich in both human remains and archaeological sites stretching back for two million years. Unlike the genetic data, fossils can be matched to the pre-dictions of theories about the past with-out relying on a long list of assumptions.
- Thorne & Wolpoff, 2003
Fossils still require an interpretation, and there are biases and assumptions involved, but there are far less of these involved than genetics.
Posts: 504 | From: No longer here | Registered: Aug 2014
| IP: Logged |
posted
^^^ Don't be ridiculous, genetics provide much more discriminative power than physiology. For example, individuals around the world can have all kind of limb proportions (which ultimately posses a limited number of different values it can takes), but genetic can help you identify your father or grandfather with a 99.99% certainty (it is often used in paternity test).
For example, if you share the E-P2 haplogroup with someone, it means you share at least one paternal grandfather. If you share a lot of autosomal DNA, it means you share a lot of ancestors.
Posts: 2981 | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged |
quote:Don't be ridiculous, genetics provide must more discriminative power than physiology.
So, since you apparently apply this explanation to cope emotionally with the way Brace' Egyptian samples cluster; which E-M2 peaking African population clusters craniofacially with a pooled Neolithic European sample over the Niger-Congo samples employed by Brace et al? Is there any real word precedent for this science fiction?
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
When it comes to archaic-AMH continuity, I think there is no regional continuity because there is no evidence that Africa's AMHs evolved from different African archaic humans. There may have been more than one mtDNA Eve, though, but in my view these women and their male counterparts would have postdated the emergence of African AMHs, i.e. lead back to the same archaic human.
When it comes to AMH-holocene continuity in Africa, I believe continuity can be found in some cases. Devilliers and Brauer have shown in their analyses that, at least the Bantu phenotype (but not necessarily the West African form), has continuity in Upper Palaeolithic South Africa and East Africa. I believe UP candidates have also been found for the original Afro-Asiatic speakers, but the evidence is more tentative for them. The Khoisan phenotype probably can't be traced further back than the early/mid-holocene using the available skeletal record, with much certainty. I don't buy into the aspects of Pinhasi's work where he claims to be able to identify their ancestral forms in various African UP remains. Nilo-Saharans can probably be identified with Mesolithic Nile Valley Nubians.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
@Swenet I believe East and West African populations, and subgroups from those, are not exactly similar but the physiological/phenotypic differences between the various modern East and West African populations POSTDATE the separation of the E-P2 carriers into 2 different groups (P2/e1b1a, P2/e1b1b). That is after the migration of West Africans toward the Sahara and West Africa and after the migrations of East Africans within East Africa.
There's both differences and similarities between East and West Africans.
Posts: 2981 | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged |
posted
Don't worry, I know all about your talent for writing science fiction on ES--no need to run it by me again. But what I need you to do, without running from your own thread for once, is to give me a precedent of where a population which supposedly peaks in E-M2, has more cranio-facial affinity with a pooled sample of neolithic European farmers than with a Niger-Congo speaking sample. Can you do this?
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Don't worry, I know all about your talent for writing science fiction on ES--no need to run it by me again. But what I want you to do, without running from your own thread for once, is to give me a precedent of where a population which supposedly peaks in E-M2, has more cranio-facial affinity with neolithic European farmers than with a Niger-Congo speaking sample. Can you do this?
Don't be an idiot. What does this have to do with anything in this thread? Instead of asking me questions, why don't you just give us your own opinion directly about the situation?
For example, you can explain what the neolithic Europeans farmers has to do with East/West Africans and their genetic closeness.
Posts: 2981 | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged |
posted
This is hilarious. Never met someone who is so thoroughly full of bs and yet so willing to grab the mic and start lecturing people about what it all means. When someone asks you a tough question, your first instinct (you've done this many times) is to deflect the attention away from your own glaring incompetence. You're posting all these dendrograms, you're swearing that you know how to interpret these data and that the people who reject your claims are racists, but the second you're asked to reconcile one of the numerous gaping discrepancies in your posts, you deflect and pretend you weren't swearing you knew it all a second ago. Are you really that incompetent?
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
^^^I would still like Swenet to say to us how he reconciles all the data. Not just cranio-facial measurements, but also uniparental DNA, autosomal STR and SNP data and post-cranial/limb-proportion data as I exposed in this thread and other threads (See: LINK ). All those show us East and West African sharing close affinities relatively to other populations.
The following data is all taken from the sources stipulated in the LINK above.
This is the cranial measurements of a diverse set of African and non-African populations (Brace 2005): Fig. 1. Neighbor-joining dendrogram for a series of prehistoric and recent human populations (Craniofacial measures)
Here while Somali and Niger-Congo speakers are on the same branch, they could still be closer to each others than they are (there's no intermediary populations), but overall this still shows affinities between Niger-Congo speakers and East Africans like Somali. For example, Somali are closer to Niger-Congo speakers than Natufians populations (a population Swenet likes a lot for some reason). If you don't believe me, believes X. RICAUT and M. WAELKENS from the study called "Cranial Discrete Traits in a Byzantine Population and Eastern Mediterranean Population Movements (2008)" where the Brace study is mentioned.
It says:
quote: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). - From From Cranial Discrete Traits in a Byzantine Population and Eastern Mediterranean Population Movements by F. X. RICAUT and M. WAELKENS (2008)
Also, as I said above, populations can share some craniofacial traits (but not some other craniofacial traits) and still not be genetically/historically related to each others. Physiology doesn't have the same discriminative power as genetics. As two populations can develop independently similar cranio-facial measurements for a few traits and still not be related genetically or historically.
But still, here above, we can see Niger-Congo speakers have some affinities with Somali populations (and we know from genetics Somali are not recently admixed with West Africans. They just share a common recent (post OOA) origin with them.)
Now here, Swenet wants you to ignore post-cranial measurements and genetic analysis in general.
- From Population Affinities of the Jebel Sahaba Skeletal Sample (Holliday 2013)
Here, on those post-cranial measurments, we can clearly see East and West Africans clustering much closer to each others than they do with Eurasians populations like France, Afalou, El Wad or Germany.
Same thing obviously for DNA (uniparental, autosomal (SNP-STR)), since they are the subject of this thread:
STR:
SNP:
This can also can be observed here (autosomal STR): LINK
East and West Africans also share various Y-DNA (E-P2) and MtDNA (L3eikx, L2a, L3bd, etc) not shared with Eurasian populations.
Genetic analysis provide more discriminative power because if populations share haplogroups or a large sets of autosomal DNA, it's because they share ancestors for sure.
So Swenet wants to talk about cranio-facial measurements which doesn't even do him that much good, but wants people to ignore uniparental DNA, autosomal STR and SNP data and post-cranial measurements. In all those cases we can see East and West Africans being much closer to each others than they are to Eurasians populations. They also share E-P2 and various L3 haplogroups which we know originate in North-Eastern Africa after the OOA, in great proportion of their genome. All this is discussed in the first few posts of this thread.
Posts: 2981 | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged |
posted
I rest my case. I've already demonstrated how astronomically clumsy you are. You're told numerous times that everything you post about AEs is false per the scientific data, and everytime you're confronted with this, you deflect, cry 'racist' or post even more bs. That is, barring the times you didn't sh!t your pants and run away. Lol.
You don't even know what you're posting. The SNP and the STR data you've posted above don't say what you're saying, either. You deliberately stick to posting misleading dendrograms and excerpts from Ricaut, because the second you start posting genetic pairwise distances you'll end up looking like a buffoon, just like the Brace data I posted made you look like an incompetent buffoon for citing him, without having the faintest idea as to what he and his data actually say.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Deflecting again to distract away from your own incompetence? Post pairwise distance data where various African populations aren't pooled and where Eurasian data is also available. We'll see how long the claims you've expressed here and elsewhere, last, when the data is bare and naked, and you can't hide behind your usual crutches.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by .Charlie Bass.: QUOTE]His look is not even typical for for West-Central Africans, that's why its dumb for people to keep spamming this pic.
Well for some reason 'Manu' is trying to argue that mean nasal index for West African populations is 110. It isn't. Its around 90 for each ethnic group or population in West Africa. But 90 is still platyrrhine (broad nosed). Pointing out on average that West Africans are broad nosed is not wrong. [/QB]
It actually varies and he needs to take samples and sample size into consideration, but according to Hiernaux, sub-saharan comprises 92% of the world's variation in nasal index, if the average nasal index was 110 like he said this cannot be so he lies:
quote:In sub-Saharan Africa, many anthropological characters show a wide range of population means or frequencies. In some of them, the whole world range is covered in the sub-continent. Here live the shortest and the tallest human populations, the one with the highest and the one with the lowest nose, the one with the thickest and the one with the thinnest lips in the world. In this area, the range of the average nose widths covers 92 per cent of the world range: only a narrow range of extremely low means are absent from the African record. Means for head diameters cover about 80 per cent of the world range; 60 per cent is the corresponding value for a variable once cherished by physical anthropologists, the cephalic index, or ratio of the head width to head length expressed as a percentage.....
Hair form has rarely been quantified by physical anthropologists, who usually content themselves with broad divisions like 'straight', 'wavy', 'curly' and 'spiralled'. Only the last two categories are frequent in the populations of sub-Saharan Africa, and spiralled hair, which may be more or less tightly spiralled, occurs in many more populations than curly hair. An extreme is the 'peppercorn' hair of the Khoisan people, in which spiralling is so tight that the hair forms tufts which appear to leave bare patches on the surface of the scalp.
One of the features that physical anthropologists measure on the skulls is prognathism, or facial protrusion. A straight face is said to be orthognathous. Prognathism may be total or subnasal, that is restricted to the region below the nose. This character is hard to evaluate on the living, except in radiographs. In sub-Saharan Africa, individuals vary from orthognathism to extreme prognathism and large population differences may be observed between populations.
All this is evidence of the great biological diversity of the peoples living in sub-Saharan Africa.
posted
Charlie Bass, you seem to label virtually everything 'typology' without understanding it. I can understand you saying this at somewhere at Anthroscape where they think "Baltids" and "Arabids" are platonic fixed types or real, but calculating a mean nasal index from a population is not typology, the average/mean is a statistical abstraction. It is only used as a study tool.
I have no idea why you are criticizing these as 'typology':
Mean nasal index in West & Central Africa is platyrrhine (broad-nosed). It falls between 85 - 99.9, but you find some Pygmy populations who are 100 - 114.9 and hyper-platyrrhine (very-broad nosed). The only exception to this is in the Sahel belt or northern extremity of West Africa, which borders the Sahara. Sahelian populations like the Hausa tend to be mesorrhine, but you're mistaken if you think there is a narrow nosed/leptorrhine West African population.
Mean Nasal index maps out well on the Koppen climate map that records average annual and monthly temperature and precipitation/humidity.
The only narrow nosed (leptorrhine) populations in Sub-Sahara Africa are from the Horn. This is also what Hierneux (1974) shows. His "elongated Africans" are not West/Central "broad African" ('Negroid') populations.
Posts: 504 | From: No longer here | Registered: Aug 2014
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dead: Charlie Bass, you seem to label virtually everything 'typology' without understanding it. I can understand you saying this at somewhere at Anthroscape where they think "Baltids" and "Arabids" are platonic fixed types or real, but calculating a mean nasal index from a population is not typology, the average/mean is a statistical abstraction. It is only used as a study tool.
I have no idea why you are criticizing these as 'typology':
Mean nasal index in West & Central Africa is platyrrhine (broad-nosed). It falls between 85 - 99.9, but you find some Pygmy populations who are 100 - 114.9 and hyper-platyrrhine (very-broad nosed). The only exception to this is in the Sahel belt or northern extremity of West Africa, which borders the Sahara. Sahelian populations like the Hausa tend to be mesorrhine, but you're mistaken if you think there is a narrow nosed/leptorrhine West African population.
Mean Nasal index maps out well on the Koppen climate map that records average annual and monthly temperature and precipitation/humidity.
The only narrow nosed (leptorrhine) populations in Sub-Sahara Africa are from the Horn. This is also what Hierneux (1974) shows. His "elongated Africans" are not West/Central "broad African" ('Negroid') populations.
Nasal index isn't typology, no one is saying that, what I am saying is that it varies in SSA and the Horn is not the only place with narrow noses people, Fulani and other Sahelian population and Tutsi and Bahima who are in Central Africa.
Posts: 2595 | From: Vicksburg | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Sahelian populations like Hausa are still mesorrhine, not narrow.
Ok, Hierneux (1974), reports a study where Tutsi are 69.5. But this is right on the border of leptorrhiny-mesorrhiny (70).
"[Mean] Nasal index (ratio of the width and height of the nose) is 70 with the Tutsi." - Office de l'information et des relations publiques pour le Congo belge et le Ruanda-Urundi, 1960
Actual leptorrhiny in SSA as a mean/average is only found among populations in the Horn:
"The noses of Somalis, Amharas, and Gallas are leptorrhine, with nasal indices of 66, 68, and 69, respectively." - Coon, 1939
Posts: 504 | From: No longer here | Registered: Aug 2014
| IP: Logged |
posted
If you look at the above map you can see why leptorrhiny as a population mean is confined to the Horn. It is the only sizable dry/arid eco-region [coloured red] in Sub-Saharan Africa (excluding the kalahari desert to the south).
Posts: 504 | From: No longer here | Registered: Aug 2014
| IP: Logged |
posted
Full day gone by; looks like he's shitting his pants and running from his own thread again.
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Deflecting again to distract away from your own incompetence? Post pairwise distance data where various African populations aren't pooled and where Eurasian data is also available. We'll see how long the claims you've expressed here and elsewhere, last, when the data is bare and naked, and you can't hide behind your usual crutches.
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic