posted
According to this recent study modern Egyptians are 80% non-African and 20% African. And the non-African admixtures are dated to around 750 years ago. Well, after the foundation of Ancient Egypt or the precursor cultures (Badarians, Tasians, Nabta Playa, etc).
quote:Using ADMIXTURE and principal-component analysis (PCA) (Figure 1A), we estimated the average proportion of non-African ancestry in the Egyptians to be 80% and dated the midpoint of the admixture event by using ALDER20 to around 750 years ago (Table S2), consistent with the Islamic expansion and dates reported previously.
posted
Here's from the same study the analysis of "Ancient Egyptians" genetic distances with modern populations. That is modern Egyptians without their recent Eurasian admixtures. You must consider only the top triangle with the recent Eurasian admixtures removed.
I added the circle show the ancient Egyptians closest ethnic affiliations.
You can see when you remove the recent Eurasian admixtures dated to the last 750 years that indigenous Ancient Egyptians were closer to modern African populations (Yoruba, African-Americans, Somali, etc; in that order) than European (CEU) or East Asian populations (CHB). Thus they were indigenous black Africans. Of course here, Yoruba and Somali, etc, are only proxies for Sub-Saharan populations in general. Maybe the Wolof would have and Fst of 0.17, maybe not.
Posts: 2981 | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged |
posted
Of course, this only adds up to the current ancient DNA results we have. Ancient DNA is the best way to try to determine the ethnic affiliations of ancient populations.
posted
Please let's not follow the trend of xyyman's marked up charts
It can be easily remarked on below in comments ______________________________________________________________ Tracing the Route of Modern Humans out of Africa by Using 225 Human Genome Sequences from Ethiopians and Egyptians Luca Pagani et al 2015
Supp
So ep2, they are closer to Yoruba? (YRI)
Posts: 42921 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
I dunno, if you look at the horizontal row marked Egyptian, the affinity of their African component (i.e. excluding the masked Eurasian elements) is greater with Northeast Africans than West Africans.
quote:Originally posted by Truthcentric: I dunno, if you look at the horizontal row marked Egyptian, the affinity of their African component (i.e. excluding the masked Eurasian elements) is greater with Northeast Africans than West Africans.
The lower triangle is with the Eurasian component included.
Posts: 2981 | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: So ep2, they are closer to Yoruba? (YRI)
According to this study: yes. Of course, here Yoruba are only proxy for Niger-Kordofanian populations. If Wolof would have been included maybe they would have been closer to the "ancient Egyptians" (at lets say 0.17), maybe not. Maybe it could have been the Karrayyu.
Still there's a lot of DNA studies pointing to closer ethnic affiliations of Ancient Egyptians with E1b1a populations than with E1b1b. Ramses III and son are E1b1a. This is probably due to random genetic drift. 0.22 for Somali is not too far from 0.18 for Yoruba. Aka East and West African populations are very close to each others.
Posts: 2981 | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged |
posted
The layman mark up (not by the original author's) intentionally distorts Pagani et al explicit pronouncement that only MODERN pops are charted.
It's the upper triangle, as ARtU unmistakeably pointed out, that shows the African only values.
The horizontal Egypt row shows combined Eurasian and African (ie "global") values. But remember some of the Eurasian material has some possibly African components too.
Considering Egypt is in the NE quadrant of Africa why would modern Egyptians not have closer affinities elsewhere than W Afr?
Posts: 8675 | From: Tukuler al~Takruri as Ardo since OCT2014 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
The layman mark up (not by the original author's) intentionally distorts Pagani et al explicit pronouncement that only MODERN pops are charted.
It's the upper triangle, as ARtU unmistakeably pointed out, that shows the African only values.
The horizontal Egypt row shows combined Eurasian and African (ie "global") values. But remember some of the Eurasian material has some possibly African components too.
Considering Egypt is in the NE quadrant of Africa why would modern Egyptians not have closer affinities elsewhere than W Afr?
Figure 2
Caption Context in Article
Haplotype Sharing between African and Non-African Populations
The 41,141 African haplotypes retrieved from 18,114 LD regions outside Africa were grouped according to the population of discovery (A). The haplotype composition of African and non-African (CHB + TSI) populations (B) showed more Egyptian′ (pink) and Egyptian′|Ethiopian′ (blue)-specific haplotypes in the OOA samples (relative increases from the general African population are provided for each colored section) than did the haplotype composition of the combined African populations. Non-significant (χ2i) comparisons are labeled “NS.” Of the haplotypes specific to a single African population, the Egyptian′ haplotypes (pink) showed the highest population frequency outside Africa (C), whereas the Egyptian′|Ethiopian′ haplotypes (blue) were the most frequent of those shared by two African populations (D). Bars not significantly different (tested with χ2i) from the Egyptian′ (C) or Ethiopian′|Egyptian′ (D) ones are labeled “NS.” The first bin in (C) and (D) shows the proportion of African haplotypes not present outside Africa.
The basic principle of this study is that there's possibly population continuity in Egypt (at least regionally, back and forth movements) since the OOA migrations.
The idea is that by removing the recent Eurasian component ancient Egyptians from 60 000 years ago shared more population specific haplotypes with Eurasians than ancient East African populations with their recent Eurasian component also removed. So, according to this study, OOA migrants must have taken the Egyptian route out of Africa. This result by itself can be questioned (is there really populations continuity since 60 000 years ago?, etc).
But removing the recent Eurasian component is very interesting for us. It doesn't only show us how the ancient Egyptians from 60 000 years ago may have been like (which is what the study is interested in) but also what the Ancient Egyptian civilizations may have been like. In fact, there's more chance to find population continuity for such shorter period of time. The OOA migrations is very remote compared to the foundation of the Ancient Egyptian state.
Posts: 2981 | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: So ep2, they are closer to Yoruba? (YRI)
According to this study: yes. Of course, here Yoruba are only proxy for Niger-Kordofanian populations. If Wolof would have been included maybe they would have been closer to the "ancient Egyptians" (at lets say 0.17), maybe not. Maybe it could have been the Karrayyu.
Still there's a lot of DNA studies pointing to closer ethnic affiliations of Ancient Egyptians with E1b1a populations than with E1b1b. Ramses III and son are E1b1a. This is probably due to random genetic drift. 0.22 for Somali is not too far from 0.18 for Yoruba. Aka East and West African populations are very close to each others.
I wonder what the outcome would be, if ethnic groups like Fulb, Tuareg, Dogon, or Hause would been included amongst many other ethnic groups we never get to hear about.
Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate: @alTakruri
The basic principle of this study is that there's possibly population continuity in Egypt (at least regionally, back and forth movements) since the OOA migrations.
The idea is that by removing the recent Eurasian component ancient Egyptians from 60 000 years ago shared more population specific haplotypes with Eurasians than ancient East African populations with their recent Eurasian component also removed. So, according to this study, OOA migrants must have taken the Egyptian route out of Africa. This result by itself can be questioned (is there really populations continuity since 60 000 years ago?, etc).
But removing the recent Eurasian component is very interesting for us. It doesn't only show us how the ancient Egyptians from 60 000 years ago may have been like (which is what the study is interested in) but also what the Ancient Egyptian civilizations may have been like. In fact, there's more chance to find population continuity for such shorter period of time. The OOA migrations is very remote compared to the foundation of the Ancient Egyptian state.
"ancient Egyptians from 60 000 years ago "
Anyway, traditionally there hasn't been population continuity in Northeast Africa (Egypt) from the Paleolithic to onwards. What was is different small pockets of people from the South (upper Egypt) migrating up North lower Egypt) along the Nile. This perhaps explains the different cranial formations.
East Africa as a hub, Jeffery Rose spoke of the Nubian Complex. Backed up by archeological evidence. The N.E. hub seems rather idiotically.
Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Troll Patrol # Ish Gebor: I wonder what the outcome would be, if ethnic groups like Fulb, Tuareg, Dogon, or Hause would been included amongst many other ethnic groups we never get to hear about.
It doesn't matter. The small differences would probably only be related to random genetic drift. All those ethnic groups didn't exist at the time of the common origin of Ancient Egyptians and other African ethnic groups. All those ethnic groups would be at least as closely related as are the Yoruba and Somali to each others and with Ancient Egyptians. Maybe their Fst with Ancient Egyptians would be between 0.14 and 0.25, much lower of course than with non-Africans with 0.06-0.10.
Posts: 2981 | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate: Here's from the same study the analysis of "Ancient Egyptians" genetic distances with modern populations. That is modern Egyptians without their recent Eurasian admixtures. You must consider only the top triangle with the recent Eurasian admixtures removed.
I added the circle show the ancient Egyptians closest ethnic affiliations.
You can see when you remove the recent Eurasian admixtures dated to the last 750 years that indigenous Ancient Egyptians were closer to modern African populations (Yoruba, African-Americans, Somali, etc; in that order) than European (CEU) or East Asian populations (CHB). Thus they were indigenous black Africans. Of course here, Yoruba and Somali, etc, are only proxies for Sub-Saharan populations in general. Maybe the Wolof would have and Fst of 0.17, maybe not.
My bad, I didn't notice the part about the two triangles. But the 0.08 CEU figure in the Egyptians' vertical column is still in the lower (pre-masked) triangle, so I'm not sure it supports your claims. The same column additionally shows that Northeast Africans in general are the closest to the Egyptians in the upper triangle, not the West/Central/Bantu Africans you've been claiming as per your reading of DNA Tribes.
Face it, the study aligns closer to what Swenet, beyoku, and I have been saying about indigenous population substructures in Africa than your belief in a recently developed homogeneity across the African continent.
Posts: 7069 | From: Fallbrook, CA | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Truthcentric: But the 0.08 CEU figure in the Egyptians' vertical column
Yes, but it's in the lower triangle. For Ancient Egyptians, we're only interested into the upper triangle. With the recent Eurasian admixtures dated to around 750 ago removed.
Posts: 2981 | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate: Maybe their Fst with Ancient Egyptians would be between 0.14 and 0.25, much lower of course than with non-Africans with 0.06-0.10.
I meant 0.014 and 0.025 of course.
Posts: 2981 | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate: @alTakruri
The basic principle of this study is that there's possibly population continuity in Egypt (at least regionally, back and forth movements) since the OOA migrations.
The idea is that by removing the recent Eurasian component ancient Egyptians from 60 000 years ago shared more population specific haplotypes with Eurasians than ancient East African populations with their recent Eurasian component also removed. So, according to this study, OOA migrants must have taken the Egyptian route out of Africa. This result by itself can be questioned (is there really populations continuity since 60 000 years ago?, etc).
But removing the recent Eurasian component is very interesting for us. It doesn't only show us how the ancient Egyptians from 60 000 years ago may have been like (which is what the study is interested in) but also what the Ancient Egyptian civilizations may have been like. In fact, there's more chance to find population continuity for such shorter period of time. The OOA migrations is very remote compared to the foundation of the Ancient Egyptian state.
Where are you getting this 60K? The successful populations were more recent.
Id be willing to bet that if you had a Zulu and a Bakongo or any White Nilote, maybe even a TWA they would be closer to the KMTs than the west and east Africans. I’m studying all of the tribes that claim that they migrated from the Nile Valley. I would expect the same pattern seen with the previous ancestry test on the nine mummies.
Posts: 1254 | From: howdy | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh and good find btw. I read the summary at Biodiversity. I'm glad you posted it here.
Posts: 1254 | From: howdy | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Troll Patrol # Ish Gebor: I wonder what the outcome would be, if ethnic groups like Fulb, Tuareg, Dogon, or Hause would been included amongst many other ethnic groups we never get to hear about.
It doesn't matter. The small differences would probably only be related to random genetic drift. All those ethnic groups didn't exist at the time of the common origin of Ancient Egyptians and other African ethnic groups. All those ethnic groups would be at least as closely related as are the Yoruba and Somali to each others and with Ancient Egyptians. Maybe their Fst with Ancient Egyptians would be between 0.14 and 0.25, much lower of course than with non-Africans with 0.06-0.10.
It depends on the timing and dating you're talking about. 60 Kya no that's right. 7Kya, then you're wrong.
Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate: @alTakruri
The basic principle of this study is that there's possibly population continuity in Egypt (at least regionally, back and forth movements) since the OOA migrations.
The idea is that by removing the recent Eurasian component ancient Egyptians from 60 000 years ago shared more population specific haplotypes with Eurasians than ancient East African populations with their recent Eurasian component also removed. So, according to this study, OOA migrants must have taken the Egyptian route out of Africa. This result by itself can be questioned (is there really populations continuity since 60 000 years ago?, etc).
But removing the recent Eurasian component is very interesting for us. It doesn't only show us how the ancient Egyptians from 60 000 years ago may have been like (which is what the study is interested in) but also what the Ancient Egyptian civilizations may have been like. In fact, there's more chance to find population continuity for such shorter period of time. The OOA migrations is very remote compared to the foundation of the Ancient Egyptian state.
Where are you getting this 60K? The successful populations were more recent.
Id be willing to bet that if you had a Zulu and a Bakongo or any White Nilote, maybe even a TWA they would be closer to the KMTs than the west and east Africans. I’m studying all of the tribes that claim that they migrated from the Nile Valley. I would expect the same pattern seen with the previous ancestry test on the nine mummies.
What is a "White Nilote"? I've never heard of that before.
quote: The failure of early modern humans to survive in the Levant during the early last glacial implies they were not yet physiologically and/or behaviorally well-adapted to cold climates and Palearctic environments, or at least not as well-adapted as neanderthals.
--Stanley Ambrose
Late Pleistocene human population bottlenecks, volcanic winter, and differentiation of modern humans
posted
By White Nilote I mean people who are are living closer to the White Nile and its sources ie people of the Great Lakes. The Gumuz by comparison would be Blue Nilotes.
Posts: 1254 | From: howdy | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Fourty2Tribes: By White Nilote I mean people who are are living closer to the White Nile and its sources ie people of the Great Lakes. The Gumuz by comparison would be Blue Nilotes.
posted
I asked this awhile back on that other forum. It is often said without evidence. What makes Neanderthal better suited to cold weather than modern humans?
-------------------- Without data you are just another person with an opinion - Deming Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: I asked this awhile back on that other forum. It is often said without evidence. What makes Neanderthal better suited to cold weather than modern humans?
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: I asked this awhile back on that other forum. It is often said without evidence. What makes Neanderthal better suited to cold weather than modern humans?
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: I asked this awhile back on that other forum. It is often said without evidence. What makes Neanderthal better suited to cold weather than modern humans?
Eye test
What looks warmer?
And nobody seems to know how hairy they were.
Posts: 1254 | From: howdy | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: I asked this awhile back on that other forum. It is often said without evidence. What makes Neanderthal better suited to cold weather than modern humans?
Eye test
What looks warmer?
And nobody seems to know how hairy they were.
James Estrin/The New York Times A reproduction of a Neanderthal skeleton, left, and the original modern homo sapien skeleton, right.
posted
So....I ask again. Don't want to derail thread but...what makes Neanderthal MORE adapted to the cold compared to modern humans.
All I got above was..Neanderthal are 'different' and more robust than modern humans. in fact Modern humans seems to have more features better suited to the cold than Neanderthal eg wide vs narrow nose.
So...are we repeating things we put no thought into?
-------------------- Without data you are just another person with an opinion - Deming Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: So....I ask again. Don't want to derail thread but...what makes Neanderthal MORE adapted to the cold compared to modern humans.
All I got above was..Neanderthal are 'different' and more robust than modern humans. in fact Modern humans seems to have more features better suited to the cold than Neanderthal eg wide vs narrow nose.
So...are we repeating things we put no thought into?
Look at the wider proportions of the Neanderthal body
Bergmann’s Rule, in zoology, is a principle correlating external temperature and the ratio of body surface to weight in warm-blooded animals. Birds and mammals in cold regions have been observed to be bulkier than individuals of the same species in warm regions. The principle was proposed by Carl Bergmann, a 19th-century German biologist, to account for an adaptive mechanism to conserve or to radiate body heat, depending on climate.
If you take a ball of clay and you from it into a long thin roll, as you are doing this, there is more and more surface area. The more surface area exposed to a cold environment the less heat can be retained
Posts: 42921 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
But the nasal aperture is wider in Neanderthal which is conducive to a TROPICAL environment?
we don't know if their fat content/BMI?
we know they were black skinned
What else?
-------------------- Without data you are just another person with an opinion - Deming Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: So larger surface area is ONE thing?
But the nasal aperture is wider in Neanderthal which is conducive to a TROPICAL environment?
we don't know if their fat content/BMI?
we know they were black skinned
What else?
"nasal aperture is wider" ... "fat content/BMI?" These are not known, indeed.
Try to find out what they had for foodcomsumption and diet.
Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: So larger surface area is ONE thing?
But the nasal aperture is wider in Neanderthal which is conducive to a TROPICAL environment?
we don't know if their fat content/BMI?
we know they were black skinned
What else?
I get your skepticism. Information about the Neanderthal is the main reason I don't trust science as much as I used to. First they were bent over ancestors, then they are upright offshoots, years go by then they are pristine white people unrelated to negros, then they are related to some negros, then they are back to being offshoots and false positives, then they are back to being apelike and hairy whateverthefuc...
I just go by eyetest. If my hips and ribs were that wide it would make this nice warm day unbearable. I would not want to live in Africa. So I leave Africa and I'm still a tropical individual but I'm not overheating I'm successful enough. I don't need any new mutations. Hell all I need is to jack that animal for some fur and I'm alright living in South Africa aka Europe.
Dark skin??
Mike is right. The rush to white skin was probably a combination of stacked albinism and sexual selection. Those green eyes come with a melanin deficiency.
Wide nose???
Had a look at some of the Kenyans in the Viking family tree?
Posts: 1254 | From: howdy | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged |
New Scientist Why did Neanderthals have such big noses?
11:28 27 October 2008 by Ewen Callaway
The Neanderthal's huge nose is a fluke of evolution, not some grand adaptation, research suggests.
The Neanderthal nose has been a matter of befuddlement for anthropologists, who point out that modern cold-adapted humans have narrow noses to moisten and warm air as it enters the lung, and reduce water and heat loss during exhalation.
Big noses tend to be found in people whose ancestors evolved in tropical climates, where a large nasal opening helps cool the body.
But Neanderthals go against this trend, says Tim Weaver, a palaeoanthropologist at the University of California, Davis, who was not involved in the study.
"They were living in the glacial environment of Europe, colder than it is today, for most of the time," he says. "So it's sort of been an anomaly. Why do they have these wide nasal apertures?"
Jaw link?
The traditional answer has been that Neanderthals have a big nose because they have a big mouth and a wide jaw, useful for ripping apart tough food, says Nathan Holton, a paleoanthropologist at the University of Iowa.
"People have tried to explain the Neanderthal face as designed to produce high levels of bite force and trying to explain the rest of a wide nasal breath as part of a larger tend," he says.
To put this theory to the test, he and University of Iowa colleague Robert Franciscus, measured facial dimensions in dozens of Neanderthals and humans, ancient and modern.
By correlating changes in the size of nose width, the distance between canine teeth, and other features, the researchers could determine whether or not big mouths went with big noses.
Holton and Franciscus found a slight link between nose and mouth, but not enough to explain Neanderthal noses. However, another measurement - the degree to which the face juts forward - seemed a better match for nose width, Houlton says.
Chance changes
"If you want to change the breadth of the nose, you change the degree of facial projection," he says.
Measurements in modern humans support this theory. By age 12, a child's mouth has grown to its adult size, whereas the nose and facial projection continue to grow well into teenage years, Holton says. Recent research suggests that Neanderthals matured at the same rate as humans.
Fortunately for Neanderthals, their inner noses were narrower than the openings suggest, and therefore well adapted to bone-chilling winters.
Why, then, do Neanderthals have faces that jut further out than humans? "They had them because earlier hominids had them," Houlton says.
He laments the tendency of some anthropologists to "atomise the body", and explain each of its part as an exquisite adaptation to an environment. Selection for strong jaws and teeth has been a favourite explanation for other Neanderthal facial features, as well as nose size.
"There's no real good evidence to say that Neanderthals are producing these high levels of bite force to begin with," he says.
Weaver agrees. "A lot of these anatomical differences are probably more likely due to these chance changes," he says.
Journal reference: Journal of Human Evolution (DOI: 10.1016/j.jhevol.2008.07.001)
posted
One recent article suggested East Asians have more Neaderthal ancestry that Europeans but it hasn't been verified yet by many other researchers Europeans average 1-4% Neanderthal ancestry The people with the highest average level of Neanderthal ancestry are the Papua New Guineans who look somewhat African. They average 5.5% Denisova ( a hominid similar to Neaderthal) Most Africans have little Neanderthal ancestry however some (under 1%) was detected in Yoruba
African Americans, however, averaging 12-22% Non-African also have, on average, small amounts of Neanderthal ancestry due to this recent admixture
The Neanderthals died out about 30,000 years ago Oase 2 is a fossilized human skull thought to be from sometime in the first 5,000 years of human habitation of Europe. It was found in the Peștera cu Oase cave in southwestern Romania, with other human samples from the time. The skull has the same proportions as modern human craniums and has other features that are non-Neanderthal
The reconstructed cranium is called Oase 2. Radiocarbon dating revealed only that it is at least 35,000 years old.
But its mandible is similar to Oase 1, found previously at the surface of the cave and dated more firmly to about 40,500 years ago.
The team has concluded that both fossils are the same age.
These are the earliest modern human remains so far found in Europe.
Odd skull
Oase 2 has the same proportions as modern human craniums and has other features that are non-Neanderthal.
But other features are unusual for a modern human, the scientists say. These include a retreating forehead and exceptionally large upper molars, characteristics found principally among the Neanderthals.
"Technically, this skull is a modern human, but humans as we know them today have evolved considerably since then," Trinkaus said.
Nature (2015) doi:10.1038/nature14558
An early modern human from Romania with a recent Neanderthal ancestor
Neanderthals are thought to have disappeared in Europe approximately 39,000–41,000 years ago but they have contributed 1–3% of the DNA of present-day people in Eurasia1. Here we analyse DNA from a 37,000–42,000-year-old2 modern human from Peştera cu Oase, Romania. Although the specimen contains small amounts of human DNA, we use an enrichment strategy to isolate sites that are informative about its relationship to Neanderthals and present-day humans. We find that on the order of 6–9% of the genome of the Oase individual is derived from Neanderthals, more than any other modern human sequenced to date. Three chromosomal segments of Neanderthal ancestry are over 50 centimorgans in size, indicating that this individual had a Neanderthal ancestor as recently as four to six generations back. However, the Oase individual does not share more alleles with later Europeans than with East Asians, suggesting that the Oase population did not contribute substantially to later humans in Europe.
Neanderthal, Denisovans, Yorubans and Melanese carry the same genetic profile for skin pigmentation.
So...will you stop...I can back up EVERYTHING I post....EVERYTHING!!!!!
YOU ARE WELCOME!
Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
"They were living in the glacial environment of Europe, colder than it is today, for most of the time," he says. "So it's sort of been an anomaly. Why do they have these wide nasal apertures?"
Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
The minor Neanderthal contribution on the ground actually is a pattern found in other Europeans, who also show a minor slice of Neanderthal DNA. But that does not change the fact that the OASE specimen is more like tropical Africans and represents in part migration of African types to Europe. Neanderthal mixes don;t change this bottom line.
".. A couple of others, such as the nasal morphology of Oase 2 and Mladec 8 (and the later Lagar Velho ... and 27, bespeak relatively recent tropical ancestry, similar to the better documented MUP remains and in agreement with the generally accepted substantial African ancestry of European early modern humans." --Wighart von Koenigswald, Thomas Litt (2006). 150 years of Neanderthal discoveries: early Europeans, continuity & discontinuity
"In morphological details, the Pestera cu Oase fossils further resemble a fully modern skull dated to roughly 37,000 y ago at Nazlet Khater, Egypt (5). The fossil similarities matter, because the Skhul/Qafzeh people are often thought to signal a precocious spread of modern Africans to southwestern Asia, whereas the Pestera cu Oase people are believed to represent an early wave of modern African migrants to Europe." --Hublin and Klein 2011. Northern Africa could also have housed the source population for living humans. PNAS, vol. 108 no. 28
-------------------- 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 |
posted
And there are a number of problems with DNA analyses and Neanderthals: QUOTE- -------------------------------------------------------------
"Despite the fact that both studies used aliquots of the same Neanderthal extract, they arrived at quite different conclusions with regard to biological questions such as the time of divergence or the amount of gene flow between modern humans and Neanderthals. Whereas Noonan et al. found no evidence for gene flow from modern humans into Neanderthals, Green et al. suggested that a substantial amount of gene flow had taken place. Green et al. also suggested a divergence time of modern humans and Neanderthals that was not only substantially younger than that obtained by Noonan et al. but also at odds with almost all interpretations of the fossil record. Interestingly, both discrepancies are readily explained if contamination with modern human DNA affected the results by Green et al.
It therefore came not as a big surprise that a re-analysis of both data sets concluded that the data from Green et al. were heavily affected by contamination, which may have comprised as much as 80% of the data set (Wall and Kim 2007). Although Green et al. argue that the contamination level in their original data set is lower than claimed by Wall and Kim, they concede that up to 40% of the data may consist of contaminating modern human DNA (Green et al. 2009, 2010). This result created somewhat of a paradox: the data obtained by Noonan et al. seemed reliable, but their methodology would not allow obtaining a substantial part of a Neanderthal genome with realistic effort and acceptable damage to the specimens. In contrast, while this aim seemed realistic using the methodology from Green et al., it was not clear whether it would be possible obtaining reliable data."
--Drafting Human Ancestry: What Does the Neanderthal Genome Tell Us about Hominid Evolution? Commentary on Green et al. (2010) Human biology [0018-7143] Hofreiter yr:2011 vol:83 iss:1 pg:1 -11
-------------------- 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 |
Have no place on this topic. I'm sure anybody can start a new thread talking about Neanderthal.
This thread is about the Ancient Egyptians (from the state) and ancient Egyptians (with Eurasian admixtures removed) genome.
Posts: 2981 | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged |
quote: According to this recent study modern Egyptians are 80% non-African and 20% African.
Wasn't it 80% non-African for the sample of 100 randomly selected Egyptians? So not for the whole country? It may well give an indication that, as a population group, modern Egyptians are predominantly non-African in ancestry. But the paper didn't say that the population as a whole was 80% non-African. Unless I misread it.
Posts: 805 | From: UK | Registered: Nov 2013
| IP: Logged |
quote: According to this recent study modern Egyptians are 80% non-African and 20% African.
Wasn't it 80% non-African for the sample of 100 randomly selected Egyptians? So not for the whole country? It may well give an indication that, as a population group, modern Egyptians are predominantly non-African in ancestry. But the paper didn't say that the population as a whole was 80% non-African. Unless I misread it.
It is one thing to say that Africans from various parts of Africa have ancestors in common with the ancient Egyptians
But it is another to say one is a ddirect escendant of dynastic Egyptian civilization.
So modern Egyptians are potentially 20% direct descendants of the dynastic Egyptians (assuming that the ancient Egyptians had 0% non-African DNA)
__________________________
Copts began moving to Sudan in the sixth century CE to escape persecution in Egypt. Under Islamic rule which began in Egypt in the seventh century, they became subject to the code of dhimma, which offered them protection while according them second-class citizenship. There is some DNA analysis that suggests they may be the most closely related of the ancient Egyptians
Posts: 42921 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
"There is some DNA analysis that suggests they may be the most closely related of the ancient Egyptians "
Now who is blowing smoke? Really? What genetic analysis is that?
Sage..this man should be banned for lying...just kidding.
But...Provide proof, genetic, that Copts are closest to AEians?
-------------------- Without data you are just another person with an opinion - Deming Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote: According to this recent study modern Egyptians are 80% non-African and 20% African.
Wasn't it 80% non-African for the sample of 100 randomly selected Egyptians? So not for the whole country? It may well give an indication that, as a population group, modern Egyptians are predominantly non-African in ancestry. But the paper didn't say that the population as a whole was 80% non-African. Unless I misread it.
We can guess Nubians and populations in the south of Egypt probably have a larger proportion of African ancestry. I'm not sure the proportion of the whole modern egyptian population Nubians and admixed Africans in the south represent. But if you check figure 1B in the study, it seems all the modern Egyptian individuals used in this full genome study have about 20% of African ancestry. So it doesn't vary much from one individual to another.
Posts: 2981 | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: "There is some DNA analysis that suggests they may be the most closely related of the ancient Egyptians "
Now who is blowing smoke? Really? What genetic analysis is that?
Sage..this man should be banned for lying...just kidding.
But...Provide proof, genetic, that Copts are closest to AEians?
funny how you ask me about the Copt article yet, Copts aside, you make no mention that this thread says the reverse of what you say. Your claim is that modern Egyptians are 80% African. You must not be confident in that claim Amun-Ra must have you shook
Posts: 42921 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
No...I want YOU to provided ANY genetic study that states Copts are closest genetically to AEians.?
No such study exist.
Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
1) The North African/Middle Eastern genetic component is identified especially in Copts. The Coptic population present in Sudan is an example of a recent migration from Egypt over the past two centuries. They are close to Egyptians in the PCA, but remain a differentiated cluster, showing their own component at k = 4 [Fig. 3]. Copts lack the influence found in Egyptians from Qatar, an Arabic population. It may suggest that Copts have a genetic composition that could resemble the ancestral Egyptian population, without the present strong Arab influence.
---The genetics of East African populations: a Nilo-Saharan component in the African genetic landscape
Begoña Dobon et al.
Scientific Reports 5, Article number: 9996 doi:10.1038/srep09996 published 2015
and more
2) The Akhenaten Gene. Named for the pharaoh who attempted to convert Egypt to monotheism, this autosomal ancestry marker like most of the Amarna family group’s DNA is clearly African in origin. Akhenaten received it from his mother, Queen Tiye. It is most common today in Copts, the successors to the ancient Egyptians. The ancient marker makes a good showing in the Middle East and parts of southern Europe close to Africa, such as southern Italy and Spain. But it is mostly absent in Asia and the Americas, except where brought there by Africans or people carrying some African ancestry. About 1 in 6 Africans or African Americans has it.
3) The Egyptian Gene. Although not carried in the royal mummies whose DNA has been studied so far, this autosomal ancestry marker is also clearly African in origin and enjoys its greatest spread in Egyptians. Quite rare worldwide, it is found in about 1 in 10 Copts, today’s successors to the ancient Egyptians. Less than one percent of European Americans have it, while African Americans preserve it at a rate of three times that of their white neighbors. Oddly, East Coast Indians and Melungeons have it at elevated levels. It is hardly noticeable in Asia, suggesting that it did not form a significant part of the Great Migration of Humanity out of Africa about 100,000 years ago but spread to Eurasian populations primarily from Egypt and the Middle East in historical times. - http://dnaconsultants.com/rare-genes-from-history
_________________________________________
Copts began moving to Sudan in the sixth century CE to escape persecution in Egypt. Under Islamic rule which began in Egypt in the seventh century, they became subject to the code of dhimma, which offered them protection while according them second-class citizenship. There is some DNA analysis that suggests they may be the most closely related of the ancient Egyptians
Sudan's Copts pray for a smooth election The Sudanese Coptic Christian community is about three million strong but some now live outside of the country.
Their presence in the country dates back over 1,300 years and, because of their advanced literacy and numeracy, their role has been more significant than their numbers would suggest. Their presence in the country dates back over 1,300 years....
We attended Sunday morning prayers in el-Shahidein church. At first we were amazed by the amount of people of all ages, young and old who attended the prayers at 7.30am.
I admired their dicipline and their order. The men sat on one side and the females on the other side, but they all prayed side by side.
There were Sudanese Copts of all colours and some Ethiopian Orthodox Christians that do not have their own church took part in the ceremony.
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic