quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ So what exactly are you guys arguing about?
..they themselves don't even know, nice to formerly respond to you btw... I've heard quite a bit about you "DJ".
Posts: 1781 | From: New York | Registered: Jul 2016
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ So what exactly are you guys arguing about?
In a nutshell:
1) Doug believes that the OOA ancestors of Eurasians were the same as recent Africans when they settled Eurasia, until much later, when Doug thinks they "mutated" into Eurasians. This is why it has become a point of contention that population differentiation doesn't work like this.
2) Doug thinks 'to model a population as [insert reference population]' literally means the same thing as being admixed with those exact same reference populations. According to Doug, it's a reflection of bad logic, bad use of language and a poor understanding of population genetics to say something like "African Americans can be modeled as mostly Europeans + coastal West Africans". His argument for this is that African Americans had genetic contact with 'white' Americans, not 'white' inhabitants of Europe. He really thinks it matters whether one uses 'white' American, European, 'white' Afrikaner in terms of getting a decent model of the average African American genome.
3) Doug thinks you can model all dynastic Egyptians with Basal Eurasian and other types of African ancestry which, together, add up to a 100% Eurasian-free genomes. I disagree and say you need an EEF-like genome to be able to model all possible ancestry, including ancestry that Doug and other race activists on this site are in denial about. Doug disagrees because EEf are tainted with Anatolian ancestry, unlike his precious dynastic Egyptians who supposedly didn't have a speck of foreign northern ancestry.
4) As mentioned in (1) Doug thinks population differentiation is driven by the mere accumulation of mutations without any need for actual known evolutionary forces. Doug needs this absurd notion in order to claim his Arabian settlers were the same as recent Africans up until a certain recent undefined point in their evolutionary history when they "mutated" into modern day Eurasians.
5) Doug thinks it's non sense that Arabians owe their dark skin to recent African admixture in addition to the first OOA settlers. I'm not sure why he thinks it's non sense. He's contradicted himself. On the one hand he claims it's non sense because African migration was continuous and indistinguishable from the ancestry of the OOA settlers (note that this is a complete non sequitur because it doesn't address the point of contention and simply adds a minor twist my point about the OOA settler and recent African sources of dark pigmentation genes) and on the other hand, he contradicts the aforementioned claim of continuous migration by saying that that Arabians were "genetically the same as Africans". They can't both be accurate because the recent Africans who reached Arabia over time are far from a single population themselves.
6) Doug desperately wants the Middle East and EEF to have no Neanderthal. The reason he wants this so bad (to the point of botching his own source) is that he thinks it supports his claim that Arabians are unique compared to all global populations who descend from Ust-Ishim-like populations. Doug doesn't want Arabians to descend from Ust-Ishim-like populations because Ust-Ishim doesn't have the recent African affinities he ascribes to his OOA Arabians. It's one big mess of inaccurate claim on top of inaccurate claim.
Doug can object if he thinks I misrepresent his points. Djehuti, please give your view of each point because, on the one hand you say you agree with Doug and that you understand where he's coming from, on the other hand, you say you don't know what the exact points of contention are. If you can, and are interested in commenting on each point, please:
a) keep your reply neutral and restricted to these summated points (and others Doug might want to add) as opposed to the him or me; I don't want to seem like I'm influencing your explanations or 'get help' or turn anyone against Doug. b) provide not just your view but also arguments on where you stand in relation to these points.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Didn't it used to be possible to block people on this site? I don't see the functionality anywhere? There used to be a panel for this.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Yes, the one that arrived in Arabia directly from Africa and needs no Ust'-Ishim populations to carry it.
After you admitted that Ust-Ishim is basal R there really is nothing left to say anymore.
So Swenet, are you claiming that R lineages arose first in Siberia before they arose in East Africa/ Arabia?
Seriously?
Can you please cite the scholarship you claim says this?
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: You admitted that basal R carriers have no special affinity to recent Africans as we've already seen from R carrying Ust-Ishim, N carrying Oase I and all other N carriers sampled so far.
I said no such thing. I said R lineages arose in Africa/Arabia. You are simply spinning out of control making up stuff that has nothing to do with what I said. Again, what I asked you is when OOA populations split into "Africans"/"Non Africans" as identified by physical features and or genetic lineages. AND specifically I was talking about Arabia. Somehow you have turned this into a discussion of Siberia when we all know that the settlement of Arabia by Africans is far older than any humans in Siberia. So you are making absolutely no sense.
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Stop trying to steamroll evidence. You have no point and you look like a delusional old fart. Your R carrying OOA Arabian genomes don't exist, clown, yet you've built this elaborate figment-fueled narrative about "Arabians that stayed Africans until mutations shifted them into Eurasians". You have no evidence but you're fighting an uphill battle against dozens of existing R carrying OOA genomes and you think you can win. retard. Someone please pinch my arm and tell me this low-on-evidence clown is not serious in trying to take on these facts empty-handed.
The only one acting delusional here is you spewing nonsense garbage about Siberians from 45,000 years ago being indicative of whether or not there was a substantial physical or genetic difference between populations in Arabia and Africa from the time period. You are trying to use them as a proxy to claim that they represent evidence of the "split" between Africans and Non Africans but the part you fail to realize is that the Arabians 45,000 years ago that we are talking about have nothing to do with Siberians. Arabians didn't disappear in that time frame so whatever affinities the Siberians had to later populations doesn't explain the evolution of IN SITU Arabians who never left Arabia. Your claim is that later mixture with descendants of said Siberians is somehow responsible for the majority of lineages found in modern Arabians, which is blatantly BULL SH*T and you know it.
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:Moron, if the populations that settled Egypt PRIOR to the Neolithic are the ancestors of those who LEFT AFRICA and subsequently became "European Farmers" that does not make those populations that never left "European Farmers". . . . Your grasp of logic and genetics and language is basically flawed.
Only a clown like Doug confuses being able to model a population with certain reference populations for identity with the reference populations. It takes a special type of stupid to then project this epic stupidity on someone else. Note how the clown who doesn't know what modeling means, accuses someone else of not having a grasp of genetics and language. This is pure comedy. But keep it coming, please. I find your inability to compute basic concepts hilarious. All I have to do is sit back and point out the inane claptrap in your posts.
quote:Mota - Near East Neolithic 13 Gedmatch Calculator
According to Doug's dumbass these percentages, which describe how Mota can be modeled, represent identity with these specific Eurasian reference populations. Is Doug special ed? Someone please coach Doug via PM on how to debate these points. He needs someone in his ear to advise him so he doesn't engage in this Trump-like verbal diarrhea.
Another example of Swenet spinning out of control introducing things that have absolutely nothing to do with what is being discussed and just using tired old tactics to try and sound like he is "winning" something when he lost 2 pages ago. There is nothing about what I asked him that requires this much spamming of irrelevant data. Again, if the base population that settled the Nile Valley did not come from outside Africa why should we be calling them "European" anything? That is all that is required for you to show how the label "Early European Farmer" applies to population affinities in the Nile Valley leading to and during the Dynastic era. Otherwise, this is simply a useless and silly argument. Of course the early populations of the Nile Valley WERE NOT Europeans so your silly games of semantics are stupid. It doesn't matter how close populations OUTSIDE Egypt may have been to the early populations in the Nile Valley, especially if the populations in and around the Nile Valley are ancestral to those outside Africa. That means that those populations in the Sahara and Nile Valley are still geographically African and any label being used to describe them should reflect that.
Posts: 8897 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ So what exactly are you guys arguing about?
In a nutshell:
1) Doug believes that the OOA ancestors of Eurasians were the same as recent Africans when they settled Eurasia, until much later, when Doug thinks they "mutated" into Eurasians. This is why it has become a point of contention that population differentiation doesn't work like this.
No. Again, what I asked you is when populations migrating outside of Africa split into distinct African/Non African populations specifically focusing on Arabia. The point being that the labels being used by many scientists to refer to early populations migrating around the world are misleading. Again, in most cases, Basal anything, especially going back more than 40K years ago, is basically converging on African physically and genetically, which is consistent with what we know about human evolution.
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: 2) Doug thinks 'to model a population as [insert reference population]' literally means the same thing as being admixed with those exact same reference populations. According to Doug, it's a reflection of bad logic, bad use of language and a poor understanding of population genetics to say something like "African Americans can be modeled as mostly Europeans + coastal West Africans". His argument for this is that African Americans had genetic contact with 'white' Americans, not 'white' inhabitants of Europe. He really thinks it matters whether one uses 'white' American, European, 'white' Afrikaner in terms of getting a decent model of the average African American genome.
No. What I said was you are mistaking the downstream descendants of population x with the ancestors of population x. As I keep saying. If I move to Germany and marry a German wife, my Grandfather doesn't become German. Yet this is exactly how you keep spinning the data on population migration. Siberian remains from 45,000 years ago don't retroactively make their ancestors who settled in Arabia into Siberians. Similarly populations who moved out of the Sahara and Nile Valley to become part of the first wave of Farming in the Near East doesn't make the populations who never left the Sahara and Nile Valley into "Near Easterners". That is faulty logic.
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: 3) Doug thinks you can model all dynastic Egyptians with Basal Eurasian and other types of African ancestry which, together, add up to a 100% Eurasian-free genomes. I disagree and say you need an EEF-like genome to be able to model all possible ancestry, including ancestry that Doug and other race activists on this site are in denial about. Doug disagrees because EEf are tainted with Anatolian ancestry, unlike his precious dynastic Egyptians who supposedly didn't have a speck of foreign northern ancestry.
No, as stated before, the basal populations that settled Egypt were AFRICANS and they were NOT FARMERS so your argument is stupid on 2 levels: they weren't farmers and they weren't Europeans. Farming is a lifestyle that arose in Europe, that is the implicit meaning of Early European Farmer. Otherwise we would be saying Early African Farmer. But you just refuse to understand English.
What you MEANT to say was that "Basal Eurasian" genes are closely related to the African lineages that birthed them and these lineages are found in early settlers of the Nile Valley. Fine. I have no problem with that. But these people in the Nile Valley were not "European Farmers". Basal Eurasian and Early European are two different things. Stop being sloppy with how you apply your terms is all I am saying.
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: 4) As mentioned in (1) Doug thinks population differentiation is driven by the mere accumulation of mutations without any need for actual known evolutionary forces. Doug needs this absurd notion in order to claim his Arabian settlers were the same as recent Africans up until a certain recent undefined point in their evolutionary history when they "mutated" into modern day Eurasians.
Mutations (random changes) is a basic and fundamental part of genetics in humans. The fact that you don't understand this is not my problem. In fact the paper on the Ust'-Ashim remains makes heavy use of the term "mutation".
Again, another silly spin that has nothing to do with what we are talking about.
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: 5) Doug thinks it's non sense that Arabians owe their dark skin to recent African admixture in addition to the first OOA settlers. I'm not sure why he thinks it's non sense. He's contradicted himself. On the one hand he claims it's non sense because African migration was continuous and indistinguishable from the ancestry of the OOA settlers (note that this is a complete non sequitur because it doesn't address the point of contention and simply adds a minor twist my point about the OOA settler and recent African sources of dark pigmentation genes) and on the other hand, he contradicts the aforementioned claim of continuous migration by saying that that Arabians were "genetically the same as Africans". They can't both be accurate because the recent Africans who reached Arabia over time are far from a single population themselves.
Again, no this is not what I am saying. What I said was that the populations in Arabia being so close to Africa would ALWAYS retain a physical appearance close to that of Africans because of their physical proximity and similar environmental conditions. Recent mixture from Africans is not required to explain this. Likewise, unless there was 1) some substantial selection pressure from the environment or 2) some substantial mixture from populations outside of Arabia, there is no reason that these populations would substantially diverge from Africans physically in the first place. And to even more clear I am talking about those relatively isolated populations of dark skin Arabians sometimes called "aboriginal".
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: 6) Doug desperately wants the Middle East and EEF to have no Neanderthal. The reason he wants this so bad (to the point of botching his own source) is that he thinks it supports his claim that Arabians are unique compared to all global populations who descend from Ust-Ishim-like populations. Doug doesn't want Arabians to descend from Ust-Ishim-like populations because Ust-Ishim doesn't have the recent African affinities he ascribes to his OOA Arabians. It's one big mess of inaccurate claim on top of inaccurate claim.
Nope. Again, irrelevant to the point at hand and just more spinning by Swenet. You fail to understand the question I asked and why it is relevant. As it stands it is the European scientific community that has determined that the key "marker" that distinguishes Africans from later OOA populations is Neanderthal admixture. They have determined this is that key "split" that I asked about. And their studies have indicated that populations closer to Africa have less Neanderthal admixture. Sounds like you agree that this is the key split between Africans and later OOA populations. Why don't you just say that instead of spinning. But nevertheless, Arabians especially those I am referring to have very little Neanderthal mixture compared to all others, especially your precious Ust'-Ishim remains from Siberia. Which makes your claim that Arabians are more descended from Siberia as opposed to being descended from the first waves of migrants directly out of Africa blatantly false.
quote: An open question in the history of human migration is the identity of the earliest Eurasian populations that have left contemporary descendants. The Arabian Peninsula was the initial site of the out of Africa migrations that occurred between 125,000 - 60,000 years ago, leading to the hypothesis that the first Eurasian populations were established on the Peninsula and that contemporary indigenous Arabs are direct descendants of these ancient peoples. To assess this hypothesis, we sequenced the entire genomes of 104 unrelated natives of the Arabian Peninsula at high coverage, including 56 of indigenous Arab ancestry. The indigenous Arab genomes defined a cluster distinct from other ancestral groups and these genomes showed clear hallmarks of an ancient out of Africa bottleneck. Similar to other Middle Eastern populations, the indigenous Arabs had higher levels of Neanderthal admixture compared to Africans but had lower levels than Europeans and Asians. These levels of Neanderthal admixture are consistent with an early divergence of Arab ancestors after the out of Africa bottleneck but before the major Neanderthal ad-mixture events in Europe and other regions of Eurasia.
When compared to worldwide populations sampled in the 1000 Genomes Project, while the indigenous Arabs had a signal of admixture with Europeans, they clustered in a basal, outgroup position to all 1000 Genomes non-Africans when considering pairwise similarity across the entire genome. These results place indigenous Arabs as the most distant relatives of all other contemporary non-Africans and identify these people as direct descendants of the first Eurasian populations established by the out of Africa migrations.
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Doug can object if he thinks I misrepresent his points. Djehuti, please give your view of each point because, on the one hand you say you agree with Doug and that you understand where he's coming from, on the other hand, you say you don't know what the exact points of contention are. If you can, and are interested in commenting on each point, please:
a) keep your reply neutral and restricted to these summated points (and others Doug might want to add) as opposed to the him or me; I don't want to seem like I'm influencing your explanations or 'get help' or turn anyone against Doug. b) provide not just your view but also arguments on where you stand in relation to these points.
So to answer the question the reason for this thread going as long at is has is because Swenet fails to admit that his genetic and "scientific" terminology is not superior to or a replacement for terms like "black" or "white" which are valid and have their place. Swenet should just work on being more precise in his usage of terminology because when people call him out on it, like I did two pages ago he gets defensive and goes on a spinfest instead of really trying to get to the point and diffuse the situation.
Posts: 8897 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Links will be added to this post, showing EXACTLY where Doug makes all these absurd comments.
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ So what exactly are you guys arguing about?
In a nutshell:
1) Doug believes that the OOA ancestors of Eurasians were the same as recent Africans when they settled Eurasia, until much later, when Doug thinks they "mutated" into Eurasians. This is why it has become a point of contention that population differentiation doesn't work like this.
The first OOA migrants to Arabia were genetically, physically and phenotypically Africans and likely stayed that way for a very long time. Doug M Source
2) Doug thinks 'to model a population as [insert reference population]' literally means the same thing as being admixed with those exact same reference populations. According to Doug, it's a reflection of bad logic, bad use of language and a poor understanding of population genetics to say something like "African Americans can be modeled as mostly Europeans + coastal West Africans". His argument for this is that African Americans had genetic contact with 'white' Americans, not 'white' inhabitants of Europe. He really thinks it matters whether one uses 'white' American, European, 'white' Afrikaner in terms of getting a decent model of the average African American genome.
By its name, Early European Farmer implies a population outside of Africa. Hence the problem of using it the way it was used in the sentence. Reading that sentence it sounds like the AE base population was made up of Early European Farmers with some African mixture on top. Doug M Source
No, as stated before, the basal populations that settled Egypt were AFRICANS and they were NOT FARMERS so your argument is stupid on 2 levels: they weren't farmers and they weren't Europeans. Farming is a lifestyle that arose in Europe, that is the implicit meaning of Early European Farmer. Otherwise we would be saying Early African Farmer. Source
3) Doug thinks you can model all dynastic Egyptians with Basal Eurasian and other types of African ancestry which, together, add up to a 100% Eurasian-free genomes. I disagree and say you need an EEF-like genome to be able to model all possible ancestry, including ancestry that Doug and other race activists on this site are in denial about. Doug disagrees because EEf are tainted with Anatolian ancestry, unlike his precious dynastic Egyptians who supposedly didn't have a speck of foreign northern ancestry.
What I am pointing out is according to these folks the populations leaving Africa "MIXED WITH ANATOLIANS" and developed farming. Therefore these populations were no longer the same as any African population that they derived from. So using the term EEF to refer to these populations before they left Africa is problematic for that reason. Source
4) As mentioned in (1) Doug thinks population differentiation is driven by the mere accumulation of mutations without any need for actual known evolutionary forces. Doug needs this absurd notion in order to claim his Arabian settlers were the same as recent Africans up until a certain recent undefined point in their evolutionary history when they "mutated" into modern day Eurasians.
Second: Transitional to what? Africans weren't transitioning from an African "feature set" to an OOA "feature set" before leaving Africa. There is no transition if they hadn't left yet as OOA is defined by mutations happening OUTSIDE Africa obviously and being distinct from the mutations taking place among populations who remained in Africa. Doug M Source
We are talking about the first populations leaving Africa, how could there be other populations already in place if the African settlers were the first? Obviously later descendants of the actual first persons to leave Africa and settle in Arabia underwent mutations and eventually became distinct genetically and physically in some ways, but that didn't happen two weeks after the first people left.... Doug M Source
5) Doug thinks it's non sense that Arabians owe their dark skin to recent African admixture in addition to the first OOA settlers. I'm not sure why he thinks it's non sense. He's contradicted himself. On the one hand he claims it's non sense because African migration was continuous and indistinguishable from the ancestry of the OOA settlers (note that this is a complete non sequitur because it doesn't address the point of contention and simply adds a minor twist my point about the OOA settler and recent African sources of dark pigmentation genes) and on the other hand, he contradicts the aforementioned claim of continuous migration by saying that that Arabians were "genetically the same as Africans". They can't both be accurate because the recent Africans who reached Arabia over time are far from a single population themselves.
If the first Arabians came from Africa how on earth could their black skin predate African mixture, especially given that there has probably been movement back and forth between Africa and arabia for many thousands of years? Doug M Source
6) Doug desperately wants the Middle East and EEF to have no Neanderthal. The reason he wants this so bad (to the point of botching his own source) is that he thinks it supports his claim that Arabians are unique compared to all global populations who descend from Ust-Ishim-like populations. Doug doesn't want Arabians to descend from Ust-Ishim-like populations because Ust-Ishim doesn't have the recent African affinities he ascribes to his OOA Arabians. It's one big mess of inaccurate claim on top of inaccurate claim.
Now going full circle this whole discussion of yours about EEF SPECIFICALLY STATED that these people had NO NEANDERTHAL ANCESTRY because of their proximity to Africa. Yet here you are contradicting yourself in order to save face. Doug M Source
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Yes, the one that arrived in Arabia directly from Africa and needs no Ust'-Ishim populations to carry it.
After you admitted that Ust-Ishim is basal R there really is nothing left to say anymore.
So Swenet, are you claiming that R lineages arose first in Siberia before they arose in East Africa/ Arabia?
Seriously?
Can you please cite the scholarship you claim says this?
Swenet, Doug is saying Haplogroup R arose in East Africa/Arabia but he has no peer reviewed sources that says that. And then he says "seriously" as if it is common knowledge. I have read a lot of articles not seen that claim made in scientific articles.
So doesn't he have to cite his own sources first before he asks you to cite sources if his premise is Hap R originated in East Africa/Arabia?
What is highly suggestive of the origin of a haplogroup is a) DNA of ancient human remains carrying the haplogroup b) location of highest diversity c) location of highest frequency
Posts: 42937 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
You're right. Doug has no source for that. But then again, Doug doesn't have a source for anything.
The thing is this. Doug says so much non sense that I have to be selective with what I respond to. If I don't hold back it becomes even more of a big unintelligible mess which will only benefit Doug because it buries all his blunders in his barrages of incoherent rants, goalpost shifts, false accusations, etc etc. As you can see above, Doug doesn't just secretly move goalposts one at a time. As I've documented by contrasting his last post with his early quotes, he moved the entire discussion to new goalpost at the same time. That's how dishonest this troll is.
One thing I have been wanting to confront him with is that there is little to no relic mtDNA in Arabia. The vast majority of Arabian mtDNAs originate from the outside (i.e. from Africa, Fertile Crescent, Central Asia, etc) AFTER OOA:
quote:To assess the role of the Arabian Peninsula in the southern route, we genetically analyzed 553 Saudi Arabs using partial (546) and complete mtDNA (7) sequencing, and compared the lineages obtained with those present in Africa, the Near East, central, east and southeast Asia and Australasia. The results showed that the Arabian Peninsula has received substantial gene flow from Africa (20%), detected by the presence of L, M1 and U6 lineages; that an 18% of the Arabian Peninsula lineages have a clear eastern provenance, mainly represented by U lineages; but also by Indian M lineages and rare M links with Central Asia, Indonesia and even Australia. However, the bulk (62%) of the Arabian lineages has a Northern source.
Doug is a raging lunatic and basically everything he says here is suspect or complete garbage. I'm really curious what DJ sees in Doug's posts that he agrees with as far as where Doug and I differ. I'm really, really curious at this point.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Doug thinks you are saying some of the ancestors of dynastic Egyptians were farmers from Europe
Posts: 42937 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ol' head thinks a lot of things. But one thing Ol' head will not do is disprove anything I'm saying.
Researchers have been modeling North Africans as partly EEF since how long now? For YEARS. What do you think this is that you've posted here?
They're modeling Africans as EEF + Yoruba (and in some cases also European hunter gatherer). So what's the problem on a scientific level? There is no problem on a scientific level, only on a butthurt level.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Again, I've been pointing this out for years, most recently here, where you can see that modern North Africans can be modeled as partly, or almost entirely, EEf:
Doug is just a retarded clown no one needs to take seriously. That's why I didn't offer a new reply to address his new barrage of crap. Let him think he won if he's willing to move heaven and earth with all sorts of lies and non sense. The people who matter know he's an impostor and that he doesn't know anything about this topic.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Most 10ky old Iberomaursian mtDNA haplotypes have close matches with contemporary European mtDNAs, so, yes. Modern Maghrebis' mtDNA H, as well as U5, V, etc. is the first thing we would think of to explain why modern Maghrebis have more black/Loschbour in their pie charts than modern Egyptians do.
^I disagree with one Maghrebi hg assignment though, which should be L3 in my view. I've commented on this elsewhere already many times. No need to repeat myself.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh, and did I mention, Qatari Bedouins (Q1) and Saudis have the most Neanderthal ancestry in the Middle East, along with Turks and other Middle Easterners who have the least African ancestry.
The authors' whole thesis was to to portray the Qatari sample as uniquely basal in the region; they tried to advance the notion that living Arabians represent a special Out of Africa migration. Of course, the inflated Neanderthal percentage (compared to Iranians, Palestinians, etc.) sunk that boat completely.
But just like Doug, these clown ideologues will try to move heaven and earth before resigning in the fact that living Saudis and Qataris just aren't some sort of 'unique' Middle Eastern population as far as OOA goes. This is how they tried to spin the elevated Neanderthal level, which, to their embarrassment, wasn't low enough to make their hypothesis work:
Yet, since the Neanderthal admixture in the Q1 (Bedouin) cannot be entirely explained by admixture with Europeans, This indicates there was some admixture between Neanderthals and ancestors of the Q1 (Bedouin) in the region of the Arabian Peninsula. Source
And another bitter pill they refused to accept, namely, that their Arab sample (Q1) has no special position compared to Europeans that would jibe with a unique OOA history:
The analysis returned an overall tree for the 1000 Genomes populations that mirrored those found previously (Shriner et al. 2014) with the addition of the Q1 (Bedouin) and Q2 (Persian-South Asian) clustering on the branch that includes Europeans (Prez-Miranda et al. 2006) and the Q3 (African) clustering with African populations (Fig. 5). Source
Followed by more spin and excuses re: why their Q1 sample did not perform as desired:
As the principal component analysis and the TreeMix population-level clusterings depend on allele frequencies, the clustering of the Q1 (Bedouin) on a common branch with European populations could be driven by the haplotypes introduced by migrants, which would be expected to shift the allele frequencies of these populations toward each other.
^Note the shameless confirmation bias-driven spin. What Neanderthals in the Arabian region? What "European migrants"? They just can't bring themselves to admit that the Qatari genomes are inconsistent with a "special OOA lineage". You'd almost think Doug co-wrote the paper with all the spin and cheap see-through arguments.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
lol! You are my dog. You are a spin master!
-------------------- Without data you are just another person with an opinion - Deming Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
I know why you mad gramps. Let me guess. Is it Maju's map with the pre-farmer H in Europe? You can always count on gramps to rear his head when you point out that pre-neolithic Europe had H independent of North Africans.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Links will be added to this post, showing EXACTLY where Doug makes all these absurd comments.
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ So what exactly are you guys arguing about?
In a nutshell:
1) Doug believes that the OOA ancestors of Eurasians were the same as recent Africans when they settled Eurasia, until much later, when Doug thinks they "mutated" into Eurasians. This is why it has become a point of contention that population differentiation doesn't work like this.
The first OOA migrants to Arabia were genetically, physically and phenotypically Africans and likely stayed that way for a very long time. Doug M Source
2) Doug thinks 'to model a population as [insert reference population]' literally means the same thing as being admixed with those exact same reference populations. According to Doug, it's a reflection of bad logic, bad use of language and a poor understanding of population genetics to say something like "African Americans can be modeled as mostly Europeans + coastal West Africans". His argument for this is that African Americans had genetic contact with 'white' Americans, not 'white' inhabitants of Europe. He really thinks it matters whether one uses 'white' American, European, 'white' Afrikaner in terms of getting a decent model of the average African American genome.
By its name, Early European Farmer implies a population outside of Africa. Hence the problem of using it the way it was used in the sentence. Reading that sentence it sounds like the AE base population was made up of Early European Farmers with some African mixture on top. Doug M Source
No, as stated before, the basal populations that settled Egypt were AFRICANS and they were NOT FARMERS so your argument is stupid on 2 levels: they weren't farmers and they weren't Europeans. Farming is a lifestyle that arose in Europe, that is the implicit meaning of Early European Farmer. Otherwise we would be saying Early African Farmer. Source
3) Doug thinks you can model all dynastic Egyptians with Basal Eurasian and other types of African ancestry which, together, add up to a 100% Eurasian-free genomes. I disagree and say you need an EEF-like genome to be able to model all possible ancestry, including ancestry that Doug and other race activists on this site are in denial about. Doug disagrees because EEf are tainted with Anatolian ancestry, unlike his precious dynastic Egyptians who supposedly didn't have a speck of foreign northern ancestry.
What I am pointing out is according to these folks the populations leaving Africa "MIXED WITH ANATOLIANS" and developed farming. Therefore these populations were no longer the same as any African population that they derived from. So using the term EEF to refer to these populations before they left Africa is problematic for that reason. Source
4) As mentioned in (1) Doug thinks population differentiation is driven by the mere accumulation of mutations without any need for actual known evolutionary forces. Doug needs this absurd notion in order to claim his Arabian settlers were the same as recent Africans up until a certain recent undefined point in their evolutionary history when they "mutated" into modern day Eurasians.
Second: Transitional to what? Africans weren't transitioning from an African "feature set" to an OOA "feature set" before leaving Africa. There is no transition if they hadn't left yet as OOA is defined by mutations happening OUTSIDE Africa obviously and being distinct from the mutations taking place among populations who remained in Africa. Doug M Source
We are talking about the first populations leaving Africa, how could there be other populations already in place if the African settlers were the first? Obviously later descendants of the actual first persons to leave Africa and settle in Arabia underwent mutations and eventually became distinct genetically and physically in some ways, but that didn't happen two weeks after the first people left.... Doug M Source
5) Doug thinks it's non sense that Arabians owe their dark skin to recent African admixture in addition to the first OOA settlers. I'm not sure why he thinks it's non sense. He's contradicted himself. On the one hand he claims it's non sense because African migration was continuous and indistinguishable from the ancestry of the OOA settlers (note that this is a complete non sequitur because it doesn't address the point of contention and simply adds a minor twist my point about the OOA settler and recent African sources of dark pigmentation genes) and on the other hand, he contradicts the aforementioned claim of continuous migration by saying that that Arabians were "genetically the same as Africans". They can't both be accurate because the recent Africans who reached Arabia over time are far from a single population themselves.
If the first Arabians came from Africa how on earth could their black skin predate African mixture, especially given that there has probably been movement back and forth between Africa and arabia for many thousands of years? Doug M Source
6) Doug desperately wants the Middle East and EEF to have no Neanderthal. The reason he wants this so bad (to the point of botching his own source) is that he thinks it supports his claim that Arabians are unique compared to all global populations who descend from Ust-Ishim-like populations. Doug doesn't want Arabians to descend from Ust-Ishim-like populations because Ust-Ishim doesn't have the recent African affinities he ascribes to his OOA Arabians. It's one big mess of inaccurate claim on top of inaccurate claim.
Now going full circle this whole discussion of yours about EEF SPECIFICALLY STATED that these people had NO NEANDERTHAL ANCESTRY because of their proximity to Africa. Yet here you are contradicting yourself in order to save face. Doug M Source
Swenet anybody who wants to read my points can read them for themselves. At this point this has gone beyond sanity and it just Swenet spinning in circles making up arguments and not addressing what was posted.
quote: The earliest non-African ancestor of R0a, the root of haplogroup R, dates to ~59 ka, and may (in line with the arguments summarised in the preceding paragraph) have originated in the Gulf Oasis soon after the dispersal of modern humans from Eastern Africa3. Its more immediate ancestor, R0ab, dates to ~40 ka and its earliest branches have a relict distribution around the Mediterranean/Near East. We have identified several new minor sister subclades to the main R0a branches, and these too have a similar distribution.
posted
He said "everyone who wants to read my points can read them for themselves".
People in the know ARE reading your points and it's one big SMH fest. This is what you said, then you denied you said it, and now you say they can read your points thinking they're not going to notice you're a flip flopping, lying old fart:
Second: Transitional to what? Africans weren't transitioning from an African "feature set" to an OOA "feature set" before leaving Africa. There is no transition if they hadn't left yet as OOA is defined by mutations happening OUTSIDE Africa obviously and being distinct from the mutations taking place among populations who remained in Africa. Doug M
Even super duper mega trolls from Zetaboards know how OOA populations formed and are able to articulate it to a certain extent:
What are you supposed to be? A 'vet'? This clown has been active on this forum for 10+ years but still doesn't know how populations form.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Again, I've been pointing this out for years, most recently here, where you can see that modern North Africans can be modeled as partly, or almost entirely, EEf:
Doug is just a retarded clown no one needs to take seriously. That's why I didn't offer a new reply to address his new barrage of crap. Let him think he won if he's willing to move heaven and earth with all sorts of lies and non sense. The people who matter know he's an impostor and that he doesn't know anything about this topic.
The only clown here is you because if you want to get to it what you are saying is that North Africans are the result of migrations of European Farmers.
To be clear, I have no problem with the idea that Farmers from "Eurasia" made it to North Africa in the neolithic. The problem I have is that they are not "BASAL" to populations in North Africa in or prior to the Neolithic.
Again, more sloppy wording on your part. As I keep saying the BASAL populations of North Africa prior to and including the Neolithic would have been Saharans who never left Africa. But of course you will keep spinning how these Saharans can also bee Early European farmers..... LOL!
Posts: 8897 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: The only clown here is you because if you want to get to it what you are saying is that North Africans are the result of migrations of European Farmers.
More filthy lies by someone who doesn't even know how populations form after 10+ of faking expertise on this forum.
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: He said "everyone who wants to read my points can read them for themselves".
People in the know ARE reading your points and it's one big SMH fest. This is what you said, then you denied you said it, and now you say they can read your points thinking they're not going to notice you're a flip flopping old fart:
Second: Transitional to what? Africans weren't transitioning from an African "feature set" to an OOA "feature set" before leaving Africa. There is no transition if they hadn't left yet as OOA is defined by mutations happening OUTSIDE Africa obviously and being distinct from the mutations taking place among populations who remained in Africa. Doug M
Even super duper mega trolls from Zetaboards know how OOA populations formed and are able to articulate it to a certain extent:
What are you supposed to be? A 'vet'? This clown has been active on this forum for 10+ years but still doesn't know how populations form.
Dude. The funny part is that it is you who claimed that Africans were "transitioning". So yes it is funny that you see how dumb it sounds since you are the one who said it.
Why is it dumb? Because ALL human populations have genetic mutation and variation no matter where they are. By claiming that they were "transitioning" what you are saying is that they developed physical and genetic changes that would later be found in populations that descended from them OUTSIDE Africa. However, before these people left whatever "changes" were occurring are still properly labelled as African.
Again, you simply make sloppy equivalences and don't want to be called out on cleaning up the terminology because it is absolutely misleading and incorrect.
And here is the exact quote from your post reflecting what I am saying is sloppy use of terminology:
quote: First of all, again, OOA populations are not closely related to all Africans. We have their genomes now so you have no excuse to pretend to be ignorant in this regard. Secondly, OOA populations were already a transitional population before OOA, so their distinctiveness did not happen "like a light bulb switch" once they set foot out of Africa. Thirdly, genetically speaking, these settlers are typically closer to living populations in their regions than to Africans. So how would you make that work? How would you make them 'African' and neatly exclude them from their living descendants whom you don't consistently acknowledge as African in the same way? Explain in detail, please.
Now before you complain, I will explain it to you. If the OOA population split and became distinct because of some unique variation in genetics or physical appearance then by virtue of it being unique to variations that arose OUTSIDE Africa, the ancestral population that never left Africa cannot be said to be "transitioning" to it. Meaning that the ancestral population in Africa, no matter what variations may have occurred before the migration out of Africa could never have produced the same variations that led to the later migrants becoming distinct. That is a contradictory statement.
Posts: 8897 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: The only clown here is you because if you want to get to it what you are saying is that North Africans are the result of migrations of European Farmers.
More filthy lies by someone who doesn't even know how populations form after 10+ of faking expertise on this forum.
"mutational shift from OOA to Eurasians" Doug M
Dude. If that is not what you are saying then what the hell are you saying? Somehow as indicative of this whole thread you have a problem with words. What does Early European Farmer mean? How can a nomadic African NON farmer be a Early European Farmer. Think about it. Obviously the Saharan populations eventually met up with other settled populations who were adopting the farming lifestyle at some point. But to claim that these Saharans can be labelled as "farmers" as a way of modelling that interaction and subsequent populations descending from that interaction is nonsense, ie. settlement of the Nile Valley or the development of the Saharan Pastoral complex.
Posts: 8897 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Now before you complain, I will explain it to you. If the OOA population split and became distinct because of some unique variation in genetics or physical appearance then by virtue of it being unique to variations that arose OUTSIDE Africa, the ancestral population that never left Africa cannot be said to be "transitioning" to it. Meaning that the ancestral population in Africa, no matter what variations may have occurred before the migration out of Africa could never have produced the same variations that led to the later migrants becoming distinct. That is a contradictory statement. [/QB]
Ohoh! now you're getting somewhere ...Look actual scientific thought is being applied here ...in regards to evolutionary biology that is.
Posts: 1781 | From: New York | Registered: Jul 2016
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lol. I'm going to save this page and send it to one of my correspondents. I'm going to ask him what he thinks of this Doug clown and if he can believe that Doug has been faking it for 11 years.
Notice that I made the statement below BEFORE this debate jumped off. I said that OOA populations became distinct from recent Africans because:
anytime populations split you get peculiarities in the migrants' genomes (e.g. certain new patterns in LD that prove the population is 'young(er)'), so one could easily demarcate OOA settlers from Africans. Swenet
This clown never got the memo because he clearly can't compute what this means let alone form an intelligent response to it. He spent three thread pages circumventing this talking about mutations and other nonsense. Now he's STILL talking to me as if I didn't repeatedly say this.
Look at the incoherent mumbo jumbo he keeps posting about 'mutations' and harping on "transitional" (which he clearly doesn't understand because his comments don't follow from what I was commenting on in that instance).
Lol. 10+ years. This guy signed up on this site in 2005. I can't believe what I'm reading. Watch below how, even though I just posted this, he still won't get it and botch what I've said. Watch. Lol.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Notice that I made the statement below BEFORE this debate jumped off. I said that OOA populations acquired their specific genetic affinity because:
anytime populations split you get peculiarities in the migrants' genomes (e.g. certain new patterns in LD that prove the population is 'young(er)'), so one could easily demarcate OOA settlers from Africans. Swenet
Now ask yourself how come an 11 year old 'vet' spent three thread pages ignoring where it's really at, to harp on non sense like "mutations that shifted OOA populations to Eurasians" if he's remotely qualified to talk about this.
quote:Northeast African populations differentiated from other sub-Saharan African populations early in African history. A small subset of this population migrated out of Africa in the past 100,000 years and rapidly expanded throughout a broad geographical region. Ancestral African populations have maintained a large and subdivided population structure throughout much of their evolutionary history, resulting in fewer sites being in linkage disequilibrium (LD) and in divergent patterns of LD, compared with non-African populations. The bottleneck event that is associated with the founding of non-African populations resulted in reduced genetic variation, greater LD in the genome and an increase in the size of haplotype blocks.
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ So what exactly are you guys arguing about?
In a nutshell:
1) Doug believes that the OOA ancestors of Eurasians were the same as recent Africans when they settled Eurasia, until much later, when Doug thinks they "mutated" into Eurasians. This is why it has become a point of contention that population differentiation doesn't work like this.
2) Doug thinks 'to model a population as [insert reference population]' literally means the same thing as being admixed with those exact same reference populations. According to Doug, it's a reflection of bad logic, bad use of language and a poor understanding of population genetics to say something like "African Americans can be modeled as mostly Europeans + coastal West Africans". His argument for this is that African Americans had genetic contact with 'white' Americans, not 'white' inhabitants of Europe. He really thinks it matters whether one uses 'white' American, European, 'white' Afrikaner in terms of getting a decent model of the average African American genome.
3) Doug thinks you can model all dynastic Egyptians with Basal Eurasian and other types of African ancestry which, together, add up to a 100% Eurasian-free genomes. I disagree and say you need an EEF-like genome to be able to model all possible ancestry, including ancestry that Doug and other race activists on this site are in denial about. Doug disagrees because EEf are tainted with Anatolian ancestry, unlike his precious dynastic Egyptians who supposedly didn't have a speck of foreign northern ancestry.
4) As mentioned in (1) Doug thinks population differentiation is driven by the mere accumulation of mutations without any need for actual known evolutionary forces. Doug needs this absurd notion in order to claim his Arabian settlers were the same as recent Africans up until a certain recent undefined point in their evolutionary history when they "mutated" into modern day Eurasians.
5) Doug thinks it's non sense that Arabians owe their dark skin to recent African admixture in addition to the first OOA settlers. I'm not sure why he thinks it's non sense. He's contradicted himself. On the one hand he claims it's non sense because African migration was continuous and indistinguishable from the ancestry of the OOA settlers (note that this is a complete non sequitur because it doesn't address the point of contention and simply adds a minor twist my point about the OOA settler and recent African sources of dark pigmentation genes) and on the other hand, he contradicts the aforementioned claim of continuous migration by saying that that Arabians were "genetically the same as Africans". They can't both be accurate because the recent Africans who reached Arabia over time are far from a single population themselves.
6) Doug desperately wants the Middle East and EEF to have no Neanderthal. The reason he wants this so bad (to the point of botching his own source) is that he thinks it supports his claim that Arabians are unique compared to all global populations who descend from Ust-Ishim-like populations. Doug doesn't want Arabians to descend from Ust-Ishim-like populations because Ust-Ishim doesn't have the recent African affinities he ascribes to his OOA Arabians. It's one big mess of inaccurate claim on top of inaccurate claim.
Doug can object if he thinks I misrepresent his points. Djehuti, please give your view of each point because, on the one hand you say you agree with Doug and that you understand where he's coming from, on the other hand, you say you don't know what the exact points of contention are. If you can, and are interested in commenting on each point, please:
a) keep your reply neutral and restricted to these summated points (and others Doug might want to add) as opposed to the him or me; I don't want to seem like I'm influencing your explanations or 'get help' or turn anyone against Doug. b) provide not just your view but also arguments on where you stand in relation to these points.
I get where he's coming from in that for so long Euronuts have tried to distance themselves as much as possible from black Africans and even formulated a type of 'reverse Hamitic hypothesis' for more recent OOA migrations that significantly influenced SW Asia and Europe whereby these recent African emmigrants were "indigenous African Caucasoids" in the words of Dienekes Pontikos. However, whatever evidence contradicts Doug's conjectures, it certainly doesn't support Pontikos or other Euronut's "Caucasoid" claimes either. I already made a post concerning indigenous Arabians here.
Posts: 26285 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Oh, and did I mention, Qatari Bedouins (Q1) and Saudis have the most Neanderthal ancestry in the Middle East, along with Turks and other Middle Easterners who have the least African ancestry.
The authors' whole thesis was to to portray the Qatari sample as uniquely basal in the region; they tried to advance the notion that living Arabians represent a special Out of Africa migration. Of course, the inflated Neanderthal percentage (compared to Iranians, Palestinians, etc.) sunk that boat completely.
But just like Doug, these clown ideologues will try to move heaven and earth before resigning in the fact that living Saudis and Qataris just aren't some sort of 'unique' Middle Eastern population as far as OOA goes. This is how they tried to spin the elevated Neanderthal level, which, to their embarrassment, wasn't low enough to make their hypothesis work:
Yet, since the Neanderthal admixture in the Q1 (Bedouin) cannot be entirely explained by admixture with Europeans, This indicates there was some admixture between Neanderthals and ancestors of the Q1 (Bedouin) in the region of the Arabian Peninsula. Source
And another bitter pill they refused to accept, namely, that their Arab sample (Q1) has no special position compared to Europeans that would jibe with a unique OOA history:
The analysis returned an overall tree for the 1000 Genomes populations that mirrored those found previously (Shriner et al. 2014) with the addition of the Q1 (Bedouin) and Q2 (Persian-South Asian) clustering on the branch that includes Europeans (Prez-Miranda et al. 2006) and the Q3 (African) clustering with African populations (Fig. 5). Source
Followed by more spin and excuses re: why their Q1 sample did not perform as desired:
As the principal component analysis and the TreeMix population-level clusterings depend on allele frequencies, the clustering of the Q1 (Bedouin) on a common branch with European populations could be driven by the haplotypes introduced by migrants, which would be expected to shift the allele frequencies of these populations toward each other.
^Note the shameless confirmation bias-driven spin. What Neanderthals in the Arabian region? What "European migrants"? They just can't bring themselves to admit that the Qatari genomes are inconsistent with a "special OOA lineage". You'd almost think Doug co-wrote the paper with all the spin and cheap see-through arguments.
We know that Neanderthals were present in SW Asia during the time of the first OOA migrations that populated Eurasia. This may explain why many Australasians have Neanderthal-like cranial features or even soft tissue features like hairsuite bodies (?). Although Mungo man did have an unusually gracile skull and taller linear build than other first Australians.
Posts: 26285 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Notice that I made the statement below BEFORE this debate jumped off. I said that OOA populations acquired their specific genetic affinity because:
anytime populations split you get peculiarities in the migrants' genomes (e.g. certain new patterns in LD that prove the population is 'young(er)'), so one could easily demarcate OOA settlers from Africans. Swenet
Now ask yourself how come an 11 year old 'vet' spent three thread pages ignoring where it's really at, to harp on non sense like "mutations that shifted OOA populations to Eurasians" if he's remotely qualified to talk about this.
quote:Northeast African populations differentiated from other sub-Saharan African populations early in African history. A small subset of this population migrated out of Africa in the past 100,000 years and rapidly expanded throughout a broad geographical region. Ancestral African populations have maintained a large and subdivided population structure throughout much of their evolutionary history, resulting in fewer sites being in linkage disequilibrium (LD) and in divergent patterns of LD, compared with non-African populations. The bottleneck event that is associated with the founding of non-African populations resulted in reduced genetic variation, greater LD in the genome and an increase in the size of haplotype blocks.
This is how unqualified people will drag you in debates that last 30 thread pages long if you let them. And the part that trips me up is that they really think they have a point
Supposedly, OOA populations can't be distinguished from their African source populations. But according to who? Some unqualified clown on the the internet and his dupes.
Another quote that shows you can delineate Africans from OOA settlers with surgical precision, a fact that has been denied again and again by the ideologues:
quote:The larger number of sites in LD, and the extended size of haplotype blocks, in non-African populations is probably due to a founding event that occurred during the expansion of modern humans out of Africa in the past 100,000 years (REFS 27,29,30)
Nowhere is there any non sense about "mutations that make OOA settlers shift into Eurasians". Pure BS fabricated by Doug and latched onto eagerly by his dupes.
I had mentioned something that relates to this earlier in the discussion, but no surprise that Doug didn't have the frame of reference to even begin to understand its relevance. It's like casting pearls before swines; Doug just will just trample them:
quote:About 7.7 positions per 10,000 are heterozygous in the Ust-Ishim genome, whereas between 9.6 and 10.5 positions are heterozygous in present-day Africans and 5.5 and 7.7 inpresent-daynon-Africans (Sup- plementary Information section 12). Thus, with respect to genetic di- versity, the population to which the Ust-Ishim individual belonged was more similar to present-day Eurasians than to present-day Africans, which probably reflects the out-of-Africa bottleneck shared by non- African populations.
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Lol. I'm going to save this page and send it to one of my correspondents. I'm going to ask him what he thinks of this Doug clown and if he can believe that Doug has been faking it for 11 years.
Notice that I made the statement below BEFORE this debate jumped off. I said that OOA populations became distinct from recent Africans because:
anytime populations split you get peculiarities in the migrants' genomes (e.g. certain new patterns in LD that prove the population is 'young(er)'), so one could easily demarcate OOA settlers from Africans. Swenet
This clown never got the memo because he clearly can't compute what this means let alone form an intelligent response to it. He spent three thread pages circumventing this talking about mutations and other nonsense. Now he's STILL talking to me as if I didn't repeatedly say this.
Look at the incoherent mumbo jumbo he keeps posting about 'mutations' and harping on "transitional" (which he clearly doesn't understand because his comments don't follow from what I was commenting on in that instance).
Lol. 10+ years. This guy signed up on this site in 2005. I can't believe what I'm reading. Watch below how, even though I just posted this, he still won't get it and botch what I've said. Watch. Lol.
Swenet, you havent answered the original questions yet you keep moving on to other topics like you have "accomplished" something. Do you even follow the threads? If what I said was so easily debunked why are you moving on to other topics I never even raised? This is what I mean by spinning.
So to sum it up. I asked you why recent mixture with Africans was necessary to explain dark skin in Arabians. You obviously misunderstood the point. There is no reason that an a population in Southern Arabia needs recent African mixture to explain their dark skin. It has been in place since the first migrations out of Africa. You haven't challenged that point. I then asked when African populations migrating out of Africa "split" and became non African. And you didn't answer that either. What you did is try to claim that Siberian remains imply that the modern populations of Arabia are more descended from later migrations of folks descended from these Siberians who introduced R lineages to the region. That then spun off into about whether R lineages arose first in Arabia/Africa and then moved to elsewhere in Eurasia or did they arise somewhere else. Now obviously we know that Arabians were some of the first populations out of Africa, so according to Swenet's position, either these people rapidly vacated Arabia and were replaced by migrants from elsewhere or the populations who stayed were overrun and replaced by later "Eurasian" migrants and then experienced additional admixture from Africa "bolstering" their dark skin. Either way it is a very convoluted way of explaining how Arabia was populated. I am not saying Arabia hasn't experienced admixture scenarios. But what I am saying is that the evidence should be there among relatively isolated populations for the existence of lineages descended from the first OOA migrations consistent with Arabia being one of the first routes out of Africa and that dark skin is "indigenous" to these kinds of people even without recent African mixture.
All that becomes apparent from this discussion is the fact that it is Europeans who have come up with this idea that the split between Africans and those who left Africa can be identified by Neanderthal genes. And according to this theory it is because of a bottleneck that occurred among the migrating populations out of Africa somewhere around Arabia and the Mid East that this mixture found its way into all later descendants of these original OOA populations. Of course that wouldn't apply to more recent migrants out of Africa such as the so-called "basal Eurasian" folks who participated in the farming revolution during the Neolithic and gave rise to a number of modern European lineages. And this is where we had the last point of contention about whether the words "Early European Farmers" could be used as a label describing the BASE population that had migrated into the Nile Valley prior to and during the Neolithic...... But here is the problem. It is a purely hypothetical mind game indicative of the current state of European science on genetic history. And because of this they have gotten folks caught up in trying to explain or fit the facts to match their convoluted explanations. This is the whole problem with the current state of trying to model ancient population movements by modern DNA alone. And it is because of this kind of reliance on theoretical reconstructions that most of the models are somewhat flawed and convoluted. "Basal Eurasian" being one example and the "Ust'-Ishim" remains being another.
Suffice to say, the only problem I see is that Swenet is unable to stick to one line of argument and constantly jumps around instead of sticking to the issue at hand. Whether or not I agree with him is one thing, but this idea that in order to debate facts we have to jump all over the map is ridiculous. And seriously a lot of this is all about words and phrases, how they are used and what they imply.
And here is a good description of the issue:
quote: As I explain here; Ust-Ishim is "basal" to all Out-of-Africa groups whether modern ones like Eastern Non-Africans such as the Andamanese Onge or the East Asian-related ancestry in the Karitiana Native American population or ancient Out-of-Africa groups such as Ancient North Eurasians & European Hunter-Gatherers.
Ust-Ishim is quite literally physical evidence that these groups descend from a common ancestral clade and continued to share genetic drift with each other until a few tens of thousands of years ago where they for now supposedly diverged into two separate branches, one ancestral to the Eastern Non-Africans & another ancestral to Ancient North Eurasians & European Hunter-Gatherers.
And while this branching may eventually grow a good degree more complex with more and more ancient DNA being studied; the point to get here is that modern Europeans and West Asians (including those West Asians lacking African admixture); do not fit into this model.
They don't fit properly as a "down-stream" development from what Ust-Ishim was in the way an Andamanese islander or a Western European Hunter-Gatherer would. This in the researchers' eyes implies an element in them that preceded Ust-Ishim's genetic state and whom Ust-Ishim is not "basal" to as the diagram shared above from Haak et al. 2015 clearly stipulates.
We don't have actual ancient DNA data from West Asia or North Africa or anywhere that could truly explain what Basal Eurasian honestly is so we for now have to work with this current statistically based concept. [note]
Because the thing is; Basal Eurasian doesn't look "African" as some including I once might have implied but rather still clearly looks as though the original Out-of-Africa group that Lazaridis et al. 2013-2014 dubs the first "Non-Africans" are indeed ancestral to it, but then it clearly doesn't seem to be a downstream development from Ust-Ishim and lacks the extra shared genetic drift and ancestry between Eastern Non-Africans and groups like Ancient north Eurasians.
So I'll I say what I've said quite often; we need more ancient DNA data to truly understand what Basal Eurasian was but what I explained above is essentially the current academic view...
posted
Lol. Clown! Lying demented loser. Your whole summary is botched.
"mutational shift from OOA to Eurasian" Doug
^That and the whole list of other phuchups (e.g. his claim that EEF don't have Neanderthal) aren't in his version of events because he's a liar and trying to 'reset' the conversation.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Nea Nikomedea and certain Nile Valley populations are the same population with minor differences (e.g. the proportion of SSA ancestry and the proportion of Eurasian ancestry) as commented on by Angel. But these differences don't warrant lumping EEF with Eurasians and fantasizing about a big gap in between them and the Nile Valley populations under discussion as if they're completely different and wouldn't form a clade.
This is the basic truth that the lying Doug clown is trying to manipulate when he spins his lies about "Swenet thinks North Africans are European farmers". Lying buffoon. You have no credibility and you are no 'vet'. You're an IMPOSTOR with dupes in your ear telling you you have a point. And you have been an impostor for the last 11 years.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: And seriously a lot of this is all about words and phrases, how they are used and what they imply.
Stop lying. Our views are nothing alike. And our intentions are DEFINITELY nothing alike. Stop trying to wiggle over to my side after you are left with no ground to stand on and after we've seen that you're not qualified to speak on the subject.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: I then asked when African populations migrating out of Africa "split" and became non African. And you didn't answer that either.
Nobody knows the answer to that but there are people in Eurasia with haplotypes that arose outside of Africa. The greatest diversity of R1b being around eastern Anatolia and the oldest human remains carrying Haplogroup R before it split into R1 and R2 were found in Siberia.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M:
Now obviously we know that Arabians were some of the first populations out of Africa, so according to Swenet's position, either these people rapidly vacated Arabia and were replaced by migrants from elsewhere or the populations who stayed were overrun and replaced by later "Eurasian" migrants and then experienced additional admixture from Africa "bolstering" their dark skin.
The Arabian peninsula has had periods of lush vegetation as well as dry periods, some drier than today. So there is no reason to not think there have been many migrations, replacements and admixture since then. Any peoples who live in high UV regions will experience darkening of the skin. Also many Arabs have lighter skin underneath their clothes
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Either way it is a very convoluted way of explaining how Arabia was populated.
It's the complex reality of 60,000 years or more
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: I am not saying Arabia hasn't experienced admixture scenarios. But what I am saying is that the evidence should be there among relatively isolated populations for the existence of lineages descended from the first OOA migrations
Doug has named no such "isolated population". Unlike the Amazon rain forest the Arabian peninsula does not contain regions that have remained isolated for thousands of years.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M:
All that becomes apparent from this discussion is the fact that it is Europeans who have come up with this idea that the split between Africans and those who left Africa can be identified by Neanderthal genes.
^ Look at Yemen on the bottom of the chart. They have the highest frequency of Haplogroup J 82.3
If you want to talk about the predominant YDNA Haplogroup of the Arabian peninsula it's J
Since the discovery of haplogroup J-P209 it has generally been recognized that it shows signs of having originated in or near West Asia. The frequency and diversity of both its major branches, J-M267 and J-M172, in that region makes them candidates as genetic markers of the spread of farming technology during the Neolithic, which is proposed to have had a major impact upon human populations.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: I am not saying Arabia hasn't experienced admixture scenarios.
This clown started calling me out for saying that dark skin in Arabia is due to both recent Africans and the first OOA settlers and now he's parroting me talking 'bout "I have no problem with recent admixture". Flip flopping clown. He moved the entire discussion to a new goalpost several times and he will never get called out for it on this forum. Just like his unlimited supply of blunders and flip flops during the previous discussion about the term 'black', this lying clown gets away with murder. All he has to do is toe the partyline while he's lying, flip flopping, fabricating, blundering, moving goalposts, you name it.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M:
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Where is the contradiction?
1) OOA settlers came in 2) African admixture happened with said settlers 3) OOA settlers' dark skin predates African admixture.
When did the OOA settlers in 1) become "different" from any later migrants into Southern Arabia? Human settlement in Southern Arabia is at least 60,000 years old. So when did they "split" from Africans and what markers are you using to denote that split, not only genetically but physically in terms of significant differences in phenotype, including skin color?
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: There is no reason that an a population in Southern Arabia needs recent African mixture to explain their dark skin. It has been in place since the first migrations out of Africa. You haven't challenged that point.
Maybe I haven't challenged that point because I said the exact opposite. You're hallucinating as usual. Demented loser.
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Where is the contradiction?
1) OOA settlers came in 2) African admixture happened with said settlers 3) OOA settlers' dark skin predates African admixture.
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: ^That is because most of them probably have Horner (and 'Zanj') ancestry. There have been mtDNA studies where Yemeni's cluster with Horners before they cluster with other Eurasians. Arabian Vedda populations are a good example of indigenous black Arabs that don't owe their blackness to African admixture. There are undoubtedly other dark skinned Arabian populations whose dark skin predates African admixture, but good luck proving it without genetic analysis
posted
Here are the demented loser's pure OOA Arabians who supposedly need no recent African ancestry to explain at least some of their dark skin:
quote:On the basis of a sample of 117 chromosomes, we have demonstrated the multicentric origin of the sickle mutation in Northern Oman. Three major haplotypes coexist: 52.1% Benin (typical and atypicals), 26.7% Arab-India, and 21.4% Bantu. These haplotypes are not autochthonous to Oman but originated elsewhere and arrived in Oman by gene flow. The distribution of haplotypes is in excellent agreement with the historical record, which establishes clear ancient contacts between Oman and sub-Sahara west Africa and explains the presence of the Benin haplotype; contacts with Iraq, Iran, present-day Pakistan, and India explain the presence of the Arab-India haplotype. More recent contacts with East Africa (Zanzibar/Mombasa) explain the presence of the Bantu haplotype. The pattern of the Arab-India haplotype in the populations of the Arabian peninsula reinforces the hypothesis that this particular mutation originated in the Harappa culture or in a nearby population and in addition reveals that the Sassanian Empire might have been the vehicle by which this Indo-European sickle mutation migrated (gene flow) to the present-day Arabian peninsula, including Oman.
posted
More 'pure' OOA Arabians that this demented clown is hallucinating about. Of course, these migrations of early Semitic speakers don't contribute to the dark skin of Arabians today, right?
posted
Lost on all points now he's flip flopping and mumbling "we mostly disagree on subjective terms and how they're used". Take your meds dude.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ancient DNA Mutations Permitted Humans To Adapt To Colder Climates, Researchers Find
Date: January 14, 2004 Source: University Of California - Irvine
Summary: How did early humans who migrated from Africa survive in the colder climates of Europe, Asia and the New World? According to a new UC Irvine study, it may be the same reason some people today are more prone to obesity, Alzheimer's disease and the effects of aging.
rvine, Calif., Jan. 12, 2004 -- How did early humans who migrated from Africa survive in the colder climates of Europe, Asia and the New World? According to a new UC Irvine study, it may be the same reason some people today are more prone to obesity, Alzheimer's disease and the effects of aging.
In the Jan. 9, 2004, issue of Science, a UCI research team reports that key mutations in the mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) of human cells may have helped our migrating ancestors adapt to more northerly climates, and ultimately link people with this ancestral history to specific diseases.
Found outside the cell's nucleus, mitochondria are the power plants of cells that are responsible for burning the calories in our diet.
The cellular energy is used for two purposes: to generate heat to maintain our body temperature and to synthesize ATP (adenosine triphosphate), a chemical form of energy that permits us to do work such as exercise, think, write, and make and repair cells and tissues. The mtDNAs are the blue prints for our mitochondrial power plants and determine the proportion of the calories in our diet that are allocated to generate body heat versus work.
According to Douglas C. Wallace, the Donald Bren Professor of Biological Sciences and Molecular Medicine at UCI and one of the co-authors of the report, after early humans migrated to colder climates, their chances of survival increased when mutations in their mtDNA resulted in greater body heat production during the extreme cold of the northern winters.
"In the warm tropical and subtropical environments of Africa it was most optimal for more of the dietary calories to be allocated to ATP to do work and less to heat, thus permitting individuals to run longer, faster and to function better in hot climates," Wallace said. "In Eurasia and Siberia, however, such an allocation would have resulted in more people being killed by the cold of winter. The mtDNA mutations made it possible for individuals to survive the winter, reproduce and colonize the higher latitudes.
"This explains the striking correlation between mtDNA lineage and geographic location that we still see today in indigenous populations around the world."
It also explains why people with a certain ancestral history may be more susceptible to some diseases.
"When heat and cold are managed by technology, not metabolism, and people from warmer climates are eating the high fat and calorie diets of northern climates, there is a rise in obesity and the age-related degenerative diseases," Wallace said. "The caloric intake and local climate of many individuals are out of balance with their genetic history. Thus, our genetic history is linked to our current diseases, resulting in the new field of evolutionary medicine."
One link would be the production of oxygen radicals in cells. Created when mitochondria burn our dietary fuel, this by-product can be responsible for damaging and killing cells, leading to several age-related diseases. "When calories are unutilized for producing heat or ATP, they are redirected to generate oxygen radicals," Wallace said. "Since the mutated DNA of cold-adapted people allocates more calories to heat, there are fewer left over to generate oxygen radicals. Hence these people are less prone to aging and age-related degenerative diseases." (For more details on oxygen radicals, see below.)
In the study, Wallace and his UCI colleagues Eduardo Ruiz-Pesini, Dan Mishmar, Martin Brandon and Vincent Procaccio analyzed 1,125 human mtDNA sequences from around the world to reconstruct the mutational history of the human mtDNA back to the original mtDNA, known as the mitochondrial Eve.
Wallace is the director of the Center for Molecular and Mitochondrial Medicine and Genetics at UCI and is a faculty member in the Departments of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, Biological Chemistry and Pediatrics. This study was funded by the National Institutes of Health and the Ellison Medical Foundation.
How mtDNA control the production of oxygen radicals
When mitochondria burn our dietary fuel, they generate a toxic by-product called oxygen radicals, the mitochondrial equivalent to the smoke generated by coal-burning power plants. Oxygen radicals damage the mitochondria, mtDNA and the surrounding cell. Eventually oxygen radicals can cause the cell to die when sufficient oxidative damage accumulates in the mitochondria and the cell.
Since many of the tissues of our bodies have a finite number of cells, when sufficient cells die organs malfunction, resulting in the symptoms of age-related degenerative diseases and aging. As a result, the chronic level of mitochondrial oxidative stress will determine an individual's aging rate and susceptibility to a variety of diseases such as diabetes, memory loss, forms of deafness and vision loss, cardiovascular disease, etc.
If all the calories that an individual consumes are used in generating carbon dioxide, water and energy, little fuel is left over to generate the oxygen radicals; however, if more calories are consumed than are needed to make energy, then these excess calories are stored as fat and drive a chronic increase in mitochondrial oxygen radical production.
Consider two individuals that eat the same number of calories and get the same amount of exercise. The individual with a mtDNA mutant that increases heat production will require more calories for energy production and thus will have fewer calories left over to produce oxygen radicals. This individual will be partially protected from age-related diseases and will live longer. By contrast, the individual with mitochondria that make more ATP per calorie burned will store fat and generate more oxygen radicals if he or she eats the same level of calories as the individual with the cold-adapted mitochondria.
About the University of California, Irvine: The University of California, Irvine is a top-ranked public university dedicated to research, scholarship and community. Founded in 1965, UCI is among the fastest-growing University of California campuses, with more than 23,000 undergraduate and graduate students and about 1,300 faculty members. The third-largest employer in dynamic Orange County, UCI contributes an annual economic impact of $3 billion.
Story Source:
Materials provided by University Of California - Irvine.
Posts: 42937 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
And you wonder why I call this clown demented.
First he says there has been continuous geneflow back and forth between Arabia and Africa:
quote:If the first Arabians came from Africa how on earth could their black skin predate African mixture, especially given that there has probably been movement back and forth between Africa and arabia for many thousands of years? See the Tihama region for an example or Southern Saudi Arabia and other regions in Arabia for example.
Then, only a post later, he says that the only source for dark skin in Arabia is OOA and rules out recent African sources:
quote:unless there was some environmental pressure in Southern Arabia to select for light skin over many generations, I doubt that any dark skin in the current arabian population appeared there separate from the in situ population that descended from the OOA migrants.
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Lol. Clown! Lying demented loser. Your whole summary is botched.
"mutational shift from OOA to Eurasian" Doug
^That and the whole list of other phuchups (e.g. his claim that EEF don't have Neanderthal) aren't in his version of events because he's a liar and trying to 'reset' the conversation.
Trying to pretend that the word "mutational" changes your absurd argument that Africans in Africa were "transitioning" into Eurasians before leaving Africa is absurd. Like I said you are playing semantic games and trying to sound logical.
Now you are spinning trying to avoid the implication of what you said, which I already quoted and you are running from now.
Africans were not and have never "transitioned" into Eurasians. Eurasians by definition of the last few pages of this thread and YOUR OWN argument arose outside Africa. Hence it is impossible for Africans in Africa and not leaving Africa to "transition" to that.
At this point I don't understand why you keep this inane nonsense going.
Posts: 8897 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Nea Nikomedea and certain Nile Valley populations are the same population with minor differences (e.g. the proportion of SSA ancestry and the proportion of Eurasian ancestry) as commented on by Angel. But these differences don't warrant lumping EEF with Eurasians and fantasizing about a big gap in between them and the Nile Valley populations under discussion as if they're completely different and wouldn't form a clade.
This is the basic truth that the lying Doug clown is trying to manipulate when he spins his lies about "Swenet thinks North Africans are European farmers". Lying buffoon. You have no credibility and you are no 'vet'. You're an IMPOSTOR with dupes in your ear telling you you have a point. And you have been an impostor for the last 11 years.
Here is the problem, they are NOT the same population. That is the fundamental problem with your logic. You claim they are the same, but then turn right around and say "but they are different". The point being that even though they may have carried similar lineages, that does not mean they are the "SAME POPULATION" physically or genetically. You keep making these absurd analogies but you are totally and fundamentally making invalid equivalences and using faulty logic to drive your words. So according to you because the Nile Valley populations have similar genes to those populations in Greece, that makes the populations in the Nile Valley "Eurasians" now? Seriously? How does that work?
This is the most obvious example of your nonsensical reasoning that your "genetics data" give you a superior form of communicating ancient population dynamics and relationships.
First, the similarities between the two populations are useful in determining population movements. So with the similarities we must infer that there must have been movement between Greece and Africa. Now the key question becomes which way was the movement and what labels do we apply to the populations involved. Obviously the two populations in question would be Africans and Europeans. Now if the Africans moved into Greece my argument is that these people become an admixed population of Africans and Europeans and a label like "Late African Mediterranean" or "Early African Farmer" or something like that would apply to those African lineages in Europe. But we don't see such labels being used. Similarly if the Europeans migrated into Africa then they become an admixed population of Europeans and Africans. And that latter scenario is the ONLY WAY that your claim of the ancient Egyptians being "EEF" makes any sense, which is if the key markers in question identifying 'EEF' arose in Europe and made their way back into Africa. However, if those key markers arose in Africa with one branch going into Europe and the other staying in Africa, then it doesn't make sense to call the branch that stayed in Africa "EUROPEAN" anything is totally invalid and absurd and does NOT properly reflect population movements and dynamics.
In fact the whole point of EEF is to identify the so called theoretical 'basal Eurasian' populations who moved into Eurasia and mixed with populations already in place in order to produce the populations and downstream lineages that eventually moved into other parts of Europe. By definition, the EEF populations are a mixture of European with some rare "hypothetical" African lineages. This mixture therefore makes them distinct from the African populations who have similar lineages to the proposed 'hypothetical' "basal Eurasian" population. Either way it would be absurd to then go on to claim that the population who never left Africa is the same genetically as those who left and later mixed with Eurasian populations. It also points out the absurdity of the whole "basal Eurasian" label itself as the neolithic is far too late for any "basal Eurasian" lineages to be created, meaning the 'basal' lineages of Europeans were already in place long before the neolithic and later migrations can not really be considered 'basal' if they arose far later and only represent a percentage of admixture on top of already in place lineages. But again this shows how badly the wording is used in these studies that you have decided to cling to without pointing out these obvious caveats.
You have no and will not address this fundamental point by substantiating why these people should be called "European Farmers" if they never left Africa, no matter HOW RELATED they may be to other populations outside Africa.
The underlying issue here is that people are quick to assign labels to populations outside Africa as anything but African, even when the lineages in question at the time frames in question are direct from Africa. See how the double standard works? And now we have the absurdity of people retroactively labeling whole genetic lineages not by the earliest ancestor (which would make it African in the case of R), but taking the downstream descendant lineages and using that to label the lineage. And by this logic, Eurasian genes are Eurasian genes no matter where they go, including "back migrating" into Africa, but African genes magically stop being African as soon as the population moves out of Africa as in the OOA populations. Again, this is why I asked for your definition of what constitutes a "split" between African and Non African in terms of OOA migrations. You claim that this is irrelevant, yet you constantly use misleading and contradictory terms and scholarly studies that are blatantly falling all over themselves with such contradictions and inconsistencies.
Now here is how you try and summarize the contradiction showing how you have fundamentally no grasp of logic or language:
quote: But these differences don't warrant lumping EEF with Eurasians and fantasizing about a big gap in between them and the Nile Valley populations under discussion as if they're completely different and wouldn't form a clade.
The key point being if the word is "Early European" that in itself lumps them with Eurasians or don't you understand English? The words "Early European" implies a population in Europe which makes them Eurasians geographically and genetically as a result of mixture. Somehow I think you just like the word European and are fixated on it because otherwise there is no reason you should not be able to use other terms to explain your argument. If these populations were made up of some amount of African mixture then why don't you just say "African Early Neolithic assemblage" to refer to that element of African mixture? That would be more accurate than what you are saying.
Posts: 8897 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Trying to pretend that the word "mutational" changes your absurd argument that Africans in Africa were "transitioning" into Eurasians before leaving Africa is absurd.
More evidence that Doug is an impostor purely speculating and pontificating and doesn't know anything. The actual science says that OOA populations were already an intermediate population compared to the ancestors of most living Africans BEFORE OOA:
quote:The model estimated the initial separation from Africans at approximately 110,000 YBP. This intermediate population then underwent a long period of decreasing population size culminating in a bottleneck 50,000 YBP followed by an expansion into Asia and Europe. The split and subsequent bottleneck were thus two distinct events separated by a long intermediate period of genetic drift in the Middle East.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Trying to pretend that the word "mutational" changes your absurd argument that Africans in Africa were "transitioning" into Eurasians before leaving Africa is absurd.
More evidence that Doug is an impostor purely speculating and pontificating and doesn't know anything. The actual science says that OOA populations were already an intermediate population compared to the ancestors of most living Africans BEFORE OOA:
quote:The model estimated the initial separation from Africans at approximately 110,000 YBP. This intermediate population then underwent a long period of decreasing population size culminating in a bottleneck 50,000 YBP followed by an expansion into Asia and Europe. The split and subsequent bottleneck were thus two distinct events separated by a long intermediate period of genetic drift in the Middle East.
I don't agree with the wording of "intermediate" but that is simply European playing semantic games. The point being they have to find some way to separate Africans from later OOA populations. So if it isn't Neanderthal ancestry they will make up some other terminology to justify it. Now in this specific quote they are saying there was some "small isolated" population of Africans that left Africa and because this population ultimately disappeared in Africa it left no descendants in Africa as opposed to descendants outside of Africa who were isolated. Even if that is true, my point is that these people were still African genetically and physically even after they left Africa. There was no transitional or intermediate stage of becoming non African in order to not label these populations and early genetic lineages they carried out of Africa as African.
Posts: 8897 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: The key point being if the word is "Early European" that in itself lumps them with Eurasians or don't you understand English?
If that's the case than Arabian, Yemen, etc. implies Arabian and lumps them in with Eurasians and not Africans. Oh, but I get it. In the case of Arabians is different, right? You're a pathetic flip flopper.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Trying to pretend that the word "mutational" changes your absurd argument that Africans in Africa were "transitioning" into Eurasians before leaving Africa is absurd.
More evidence that Doug is an impostor purely speculating and pontificating and doesn't know anything. The actual science says that OOA populations were already an intermediate population compared to the ancestors of most living Africans BEFORE OOA:
quote:The model estimated the initial separation from Africans at approximately 110,000 YBP. This intermediate population then underwent a long period of decreasing population size culminating in a bottleneck 50,000 YBP followed by an expansion into Asia and Europe. The split and subsequent bottleneck were thus two distinct events separated by a long intermediate period of genetic drift in the Middle East.
No, I didn't "answer" your question. I debunked you thoroughly and completely throughout this thread. Stop trying to minimize how much you've been abandoning and modifying your claims and goalposts in response to incontrovertible data and evidence.
quote:I don't agree with the wording of "intermediate"
But no one cares what you think. You're not qualified to have an opinion or to pontificate. There are no sources in your posts. That's ALL you. And you don't know anything so it's all speculation and pontification.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: The key point being if the word is "Early European" that in itself lumps them with Eurasians or don't you understand English?
If that's the case than Arabian, Yemen, etc. implies Arabian and lumps them in with Eurasians and not Africans. Oh, but I get it. In the case of Arabians is different, right? You're a pathetic flip flopper.
You tell me. You are the one harping on using the word. If it doesn't accurately reflect the populations and geographic regions involved then why use it? That is my point.
Posts: 8897 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Answer my question. How are Horners and Arabians the same population without it implying that Horners are Eurasians, but when I say EEF are the same population as AE, with less SSA ancestry and more Eurasian ancestry, it's a problem?
What's stopping me from concluding that you're an inconsistent, flip flopping, hypocrite clown?
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
Topic Closed
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
Let me guess. Is it Maju's map with the pre-farmer H in Europe? You can always count on gramps to rear his head when you point out that pre-neolithic Europe had H independent of North Africans.
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic