quote: considering the general understanding nowadays that human settlement of the rest of the world emerged from eastern northern Africa less than 50,000 years ago, a better explanation of these haplogroups might be that their frequencies re- flect the original modern human population of these parts of Africa as much as or more than intrusions from outside the continent. The ways that gene frequencies may increase or decrease based on adaptive selection, gene flow, and/or social processes is under study and would benefit from the results of studies on autosomal and Y-chromosome markers.
--Frigi et al.
So this is proof that no new haplogroups came about after people left Africa?
According the Frigi et al this is:
the dates for subhaplogroups H1 and H3 (13,000 and 10,000 years, respectively) in Iberian and North African populations allow for this possibility. Kefi et al.’s (2005) data on ancient DNA could be viewed as being in agreement with such a presence in North Africa in ancient times (about 15,000–6,000 years ago) and with the fact that the North African populations are considered by most scholars as having their closest relations with European and Asian populations (Cherni et al. 2008; Ennafaa et al. 2009; Kefi et al. 2005; Rando et al. 1998). How- ever, considering the general understanding nowadays that human settlement of the rest of the world emerged from eastern northern Africa less than 50,000 years ago, a better explanation of these haplogroups might be that their frequencies re- flect the original modern human population of these parts of Africa as much as or more than intrusions from outside the continent. The ways that gene frequencies may increase or decrease based on adaptive selection, gene flow, and/or social processes is under study and would benefit from the results of studies on autosomal and Y-chromosome markers.Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
Thus maternally Europeans are more North African than Sub Saharan Africans are...
I think that's a non-argument. It had nothing to do with what you're trying to suggest, neither did Frigi et al. stated any of what you propel.
This is Frigi et al. states:
quote: results reveal that Berber speakers have a foundational biogeographic root in Africa and that deep African lineages have continued to evolve in supra-Saharan Africa.
--Frigi et al.
quote: Whereas inferred IBD sharing does not indicate directionality, the North African samples that have highest IBD sharing with Iberian populations also tend to have the lowest proportion of the European cluster in ADMIXTURE (Fig. 1), e.g., Saharawi, Tunisian Berbers, and South Moroccans. For example, the Andalucians share many IBD segments with the Tunisians (Fig. 3), who present extremely minimal levels of European ancestry. This suggests that gene flow occurred from Africa to Europe rather than the other way around.
--Laura R. Botiguéa,1, Brenna M. Henn et al
Gene flow from North Africa contributes to differential human genetic diversity in southern Europe (July 16, 2013)
Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
@ TP. I am not sure I understood your question or concern.
But they are saying they grouped 'some' Natufians under the macro-haplogroup because there was enough DNA recovered to fit into a sub-group...thus CT.
quote I1416: CT (PPNB) This individual could ***only*** be assigned to haplogroup CT on the basis of mutations CTS7933, M5786.Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
There you have it!!!! Natufians were of African origin. Which contributed to Basal Eurasian. Europeans are as much as 80% Africans. didn't I tell you that. Europeans are a subset of Africans.
It is all in this one paragraph.
Persian Neolithic is also African origin.
DNATribes was correct. These African neolithics brought the technology up from the Harrapan Valley to Iberia including Greece and Sardinia.
========== Quote:
"Our finding that at least Natufians had Y-chromosomes of ****African origin ****(Supplementary Information, section 6) suggested to us ***initially *****that gene flow from Africa (which did not experience Neanderthal admixture) may have contributed Basal Eurasian ancestry into the ancient Near East, However, Natufians do not have less Neanderthal ancestry (Fig. S5.1) or more Basal Eurasian ancestry (Supplementary Information, section 4) than the Neolithic of Iran, and so do not appear to be exceptional in either respect within the context of the ancient Near East. The presence of Basal Eurasian ancestry not only in the Epipaleolithic Natufians from the Levant, but also of the Upper Paleolithic/Mesolithic of Georgia8 suggest that while this type of ancestry first appears in Europe with the Early Neolithic7, it was already pervasive in the Near East before the advent of the Neolithic. Future studies of human remains from the Near East may determine (i) how much earlier the Basal Eurasians were present there, (ii) whether they represent a population of African origin or one that lived in Eurasia but did not experience the Neanderthal admixture of other Eurasians, and (iii) when the dilution of Neanderthal admixture first took place."
Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
The pattern is clear. There were TWO major waves of Africans OOA. Paleolithic's with the First OOA. Carrying mostly mtDNA hg-M to Asia and U to Europe, a second wave as the Neolithics. hg-H*
The initial OOA were black skinned people. The second wave was a lighter pigmentation African people.
The remaining question is why did North East Asians become light? When and how?
Analysis of the ancient Khoi-San will answer that question.
-------------------- Without data you are just another person with an opinion - Deming Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
It just hit me. If I am a betting man....you probably had ADHD when you were in school? Can't stay focused.
I am surprised they are not discovering mtDNA L in Neolithic southern Europe. Eva Gonzalez found L in Neolithic Levant and ancient Iberians. Are they hiding data?
Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: It just hit me. If I am a betting man....you probably had ADHD when you were in school? Can't stay focused.
Lol @ gramps. I get it. You're scared to address my question. But why do you have to window dress it and flip the script on me. Just say you're still working on it. That's all you have to say. No shame in that.
Granted, the steady flow of data that has been pummeling you in the head over the last couple of years was embarrassing. But if you have to go back to the drawing board.. we've all been there gramps. Let me know when you're ready.
quote:Originally posted by Xyyman: I am surprised they are not discovering mtDNA L in Neolithic southern Europe. Eva Gonzalez found L in Neolithic Levant and ancient Iberians. Are they hiding data?
Valid question. Guess we'll have to wait and see. Whatever is done in the dark will come to light. Just remember that early holocene African ancestry arrived in Iberia via two routes: the Aegean and the Strait of Gibraltar. Therefore, a higher level of African DNA should be expected in Iberia. But even accounting for that, one would expect more African Y DNAs and mtDNAs among the farmers in mainland Europe. I think purifying selection and founder effect play a role in the paucity of African hgs beyond the Levant and Iberia.
Also, some of the African DNA in Iberia also predates the neolithic. The older ones include versions of L3 which differ from CRS in HV1 only at 16223. This seems to me to point to L3k, one of the indigenous North African lineages discussed by Frigi et al (IIRC, it was called L3a at the time). This also inflates the % of L lineages in Iberia compared to other places in Eurasia.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ancient Local Evolution of African mtDNA Haplogroups in Tunisian Berber Populations. Frigi 2010
quote:Originally posted by Ish Gebor:
the dates for subhaplogroups H1 and H3 (13,000 and 10,000 years, respectively) in Iberian and North African populations allow for this possibility. Kefi et al.’s (2005) data on ancient DNA could be viewed as being in agreement with such a presence in North Africa in ancient times (about 15,000–6,000 years ago) and with the fact that the North African populations are considered by most scholars as having their closest relations with European and Asian populations (Cherni et al. 2008; Ennafaa et al. 2009; Kefi et al. 2005; Rando et al. 1998). How- ever, considering the general understanding nowadays that human settlement of the rest of the world emerged from eastern northern Africa less than 50,000 years ago, a better explanation of these haplogroups might be that their frequencies re- flect the original modern human population of these parts of Africa as much as or more than intrusions from outside the continent. The ways that gene frequencies may increase or decrease based on adaptive selection, gene flow, and/or social processes is under study and would benefit from the results of studies on autosomal and Y-chromosome markers. [/QB]
^ you start off the paragraph with this quote
"the dates for subhaplogroups H1 and H3 (13,000 and 10,000 years, respectively) in Iberian and North African populations allow for this possibility"
^^ possibility of what??
In order to answer that we have to look at the theme of the paragraph, the first sentence you for some reason left out
quote:A strong Iberian gene flow may have contributed to the decrease in African haplogroups. Indeed, most of the older hypotheses about North African population settlement used to suppose an Iberian or an east- ern origin. The dates for subhaplogroups H1 and H3 (13,000 and 10,000 years, respectively) in Iberian and North African populations allow for this possibility. Kefi et al.’s (2005) data on ancient DNA could be viewed as being in agreement with such a presence in North Africa in ancient times (about 15,000–6,000 years ago) and with the fact that the North African populations are considered by most scholars as having their closest relations with European and Asian populations (Cherni et al. 2008; Ennafaa et al. 2009; Kefi et al. 2005; Rando et al. 1998).
^ So all these other researchers and everybody else says that H is Near Eastern (where it's highest diversities are found) But Frigi says:
quote:
However, considering the general understanding nowadays that human settlement of the rest of the world emerged from eastern northern Africa less than 50,000 years ago, a better explanation of these haplogroups might be that their frequencies reflect the original modern human population of these parts of Africa as much as or more than intrusions from outside the continent. The ways that gene frequencies may increase or decrease based on adaptive selection, gene flow, and/or social processes is under study and would benefit from the results of studies on autoso- mal and Y-chromosome markers.
^^ He implies here maybe because human beings came from Africa then maybe H originates in Africa. He makes a general statement you could say about any haplogroup. Yet "maybe" he has no support for this
Here's his conclusion
quote:
Hence, contrary to the suggestion that mtDNA haplogroups were introduced mostly from Iberia, it seems that Y-chromosome markers have an eastern African origin with an ancient local evolution in North Africa. These observations are in agreement with the proposal that the ancient communities ancestral in language to more recent Berber communities absorbed a lot of females from the existing pre-Holocene populations. This would indicate that the North African populations arose from admixture rather than from local evolution, leading to an intermediate genetic structure between eastern sub-Saharan Africans and Eurasians. Rock paintings in North Africa that show people of different phenotypes living together are a strong argument for our hypothesis (Hachid 1982, 1992, 1998). In conclusion, our findings parallel the more recent findings of both archaeology and linguistics on the prehistory of Africa. The present study suggests that sub-Saharan contributions to North Africa have experienced several complex population processes after the occupation of the region by anatomically modern humans. Our results reveal that Berber speakers have a foundational biogeographic root in Africa and that deep African lineages have continued to evolve in supra-Saharan Africa.
^ His statement contradicts itself in about 3 different ways.
contrary to the suggestion that mtDNA haplogroups were introduced mostly from Iberia, it seems that Y-chromosome markers have an eastern African origin with an ancient local evolution in North Africa.
- If mtDNA haplogroups were introduced from Iberia then Y DNA not being form Iberia doesn't matter. It's Y DNA not mtDNA
This would indicate that the North African populations arose from admixture rather than from local evolution, leading to an intermediate genetic structure between eastern sub-Saharan Africans and Eurasians.
yes, so that the first statement is not contrary it explains this second statement. An an intermediate genetic structure between eastern sub-Saharan Africans and Eurasians is the shown by the aforementioned differences in mtDNA form Iberia mixing with Y DNA from East Africa.
This would indicate that the North African populations arose from admixture rather than from local evolution, leading to an intermediate genetic structure between eastern sub-Saharan Africans and Eurasians.
No it doesn't Frigi. The predominant YDNA in North Africa is M81 that may and East African ancestor but M81 is not characteristic of Sub Saharans, it's North African. He should have stuck to mtDNA as was the analysis of the article
Our results reveal that Berber speakers have a foundational biogeographic root in Africa and that deep African lineages have continued to evolve in supra-Saharan Africa.
He just said " an intermediate genetic structure between eastern sub-Saharan Africans and Eurasians" and if the article is on mtDNA then he is dealing with the Eurasian component.
read this:
quote: These observations are in agreement with the proposal that the ancient communities ancestral in language to more recent Berber communities absorbed a lot of females from the existing pre-Holocene populations. This would indicate that the North African populations arose from admixture rather than from local evolution, leading to an intermediate genetic structure between eastern sub-Saharan Africans and Eurasians. Rock paintings in North Africa that show people of different phenotypes living together are a strong argument for our hypothesis (Hachid 1982, 1992, 1998).
^^^ Now try to fit that with>
quote:
However, considering the general understanding nowadays that human settlement of the rest of the world emerged from eastern northern Africa less than 50,000 years ago, a better explanation of these haplogroups might be that their frequencies re- flect the original modern human population of these parts of Africa as much as or more than intrusions from outside the continent.
_ I'm sorry, this Frigi flip flopping "maybe" stuff is not proof the H originated in Africa
Posts: 42919 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
He is flip flopping because he doesn't want to admit African origin
-------------------- 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
Again if one were to say that H is African that means Europeans like Germans, maternally are a lot more North African (the Turaegs to the greatest extent, Hg H 61%) the than Sub Saharan Africans are (near 0%)
Posts: 42919 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: Again if one were to say that H is African that means Europeans like Germans, maternally are a lot more North African (the Turaegs to the greatest extent, Hg H 61%) the than Sub Saharan Africans are (near 0%)
I have no idea why you keep posting "Sub Saharan Africans", while clearly there is stated "deep African lineages have continued to evolve in supra-Saharan Africa."? Neither did I suggest Germans.
Frigi et al states in the conclusions:
"Our results reveal that Berber speakers have a foundational biogeographic root in Africa and that deep African lineages have continued to evolve in supra-Saharan Africa."
The results show that the most ancient haplogroup is L3*, which would have been introduced to North Africa from eastern sub-Saharan populations around 20,000 years ago.
Cluster: Haplogroup L1b roots deeply in the human mtDNA phylogeny and has the characteristic motif 16126, 16187, 16189, 16223, 16264, 16270, 116278, 16311.
quote: Focusing on the North African component at k = 6, we found that a migration event from North Africa to Europe would have occurred at least 6–10 generations ago (∼240–300 ya) in Spain, and at least 5–7 generations ago in France and Italy (Fig. 4).
[...]
Whereas inferred IBD sharing does not indicate directionality, the North African samples that have highest IBD sharing with Iberian populations also tend to have the lowest proportion of the European cluster in ADMIXTURE (Fig. 1), e.g., Saharawi, Tunisian Berbers, and South Moroccans. For example, the Andalucians share many IBD segments with the Tunisians (Fig. 3), who present extremely minimal levels of European ancestry. This suggests that gene flow occurred from Africa to Europe rather than the other way around.
[...]
Alternative models of gene flow: Migration(s) from the Near East likely have had an effect on genetic diversity between southern and northern Europe (discussed below), but do not appear to explain the gradients of African ancestry in Europe. A model of gene flow from the Near East into both Europe and North Africa, such as a strong demic wave during the Neolithic, could result in shared haplotypes between Europe and North Africa. However, we observe haplotype sharing between Europe and the Near East follows a southeast to southwest gradient, while sharing between Europe and the Maghreb follows the opposite pattern (Fig. 2); this suggests that gene flow from the Near East cannot account for the sharing with North Africa.
--Laura R. Botiguéa,1, Brenna M. Henn et al
Gene flow from North Africa contributes to differential human genetic diversity in southern Europe (July 16, 2013)
quote:
The Mesolithic–Neolithic transition in southern Iberia
Resumes: New data and a review of historiographic information from Neolithic sites of the Malaga and Algarve coasts (southern Iberian Peninsula) and from the Maghreb (North Africa) reveal the existence of a Neolithic settlement at least from 7.5 cal ka BP. The agricultural and pastoralist food producing economy of that population rapidly replaced the coastal economies of the Mesolithic populations. The timing of this population and economic turnover coincided withmajor changes in the continental and marine ecosystems, including upwelling intensity, sea-level changes and increased aridity in the Sahara and along the Iberian coast. These changes likely impacted the subsistence strategies of the Mesolithic populations along the Iberian seascapes and resulted in abandonments manifested as sedimentary hiatuses in some areas during the Mesolithic–Neolithic transition. The rapid expansion and area of dispersal of the early Neolithic traits suggest the use of marine technology. Different evidences for a Maghrebian origin for the first colonists have been summarized.
The recognition of an early North-African Neolithic influence in Southern Iberia and the Maghreb is vital for understanding the appearance and development of the Neolithic in Western Europe. Our review suggests links between climate change, resource allocation, and population turnover.
--Cortés-Sánchez, Miguel Et al.
The Mesolithic–Neolithic transition in southern Iberia
quote:Haplogroup H dominates present-day Western European mitochondrial DNA variability (>40%), yet was less common (~19%) among Early Neolithic farmers (~5450 BC) and virtually absent in Mesolithic hunter-gatherers. Here we investigate this major component of the maternal population history of modern Europeans and sequence 39 complete haplogroup H mitochondrial genomes from ancient human remains. We then compare this 'real-time' genetic data with cultural changes taking place between the Early Neolithic (~5450 BC) and Bronze Age (~2200 BC) in Central Europe. Our results reveal that the current diversity and distribution of haplogroup H were largely established by the Mid Neolithic (~4000 BC), but with substantial genetic contributions from subsequent pan-European cultures such as the Bell Beakers expanding out of Iberia in the Late Neolithic (~2800 BC). Dated haplogroup H genomes allow us to reconstruct the recent evolutionary history of haplogroup H and reveal a mutation rate 45% higher than current estimates for human mitochondria.
--Brotherton P1, Haak W, Templeton J,
Nat Commun. 2013;4:1764. doi: 10.1038/ncomms2656.
Neolithic mitochondrial haplogroup H genomes and the genetic origins of Europeans.
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: Again if one were to say that H is African that means Europeans like Germans, maternally are a lot more North African (the Turaegs to the greatest extent, Hg H 61%) the than Sub Saharan Africans are (near 0%)
Frigi et al. further more says:
quote: Indeed, this West African contribution was difficult to date, because few haplotypes belonging to western African haplogroups have been observed, most of them being divergent.
This result can be interpreted in different ways. Ancient western African mtDNA contributions could have disappeared from North Africa as a result of recent ows, or the situation observed now could be the result of a strong drift effect on ancient western African lineages, particularly those belonging to haplogroups L2a and L3b.
A strong Iberian geneflow may have contributed to the decrease in African haplogroups. Indeed, most of the older hypotheses about North African population settlement used to suppose an Iberian or an eastern origin.
The dates for subhaplogroups H1 and H3 (13,000 and 10,000 years, respectively) in Iberian and North African populations allow for this possibility. Ke et al.’s (2005) data on ancient DNA could be viewed as being in agreement with such a presence in North Africa in ancient times (about 15,000–6,000 years ago) and with the fact that the North African populations are considered by most scholars as having their closest relations with European and Asian populations (Cherni et al. 2008; Ennafaa et al. 2009; Ke et al. 2005; Rando et al. 1998). How- ever, considering the general understanding nowadays that human settlement of the rest of the world emerged from eastern northern Africa less than 50,000 years ago, a better explanation of these haplogroups might be that their frequencies re- ect the original modern human population of these parts of Africa as much as or more than intrusions from outside the continent. The ways that gene frequencies may increase or decrease based on adaptive selection, gene ow, and/or social processes is under study and would bene t from the results of studies on autoso- mal and Y-chromosome markers.
Since the end of the extreme Saharan desiccation, lasting from before 25,000 years ago up to about 15,000 years ago, the Sahara has had post- and pre-Holocene cyclical climatic changes (Street and Grove 1976), and corresponding increases and decreases in population are probable.
Wetter phases with better habitats perhaps allowed for increased colonization and gene and cultural exchange. Desiccation would have encouraged the emigration and segmentation of populations, with resultant genetic consequences secondary to drift producing more variation. During the last glacial period, the Sahara was even bigger than it is today, extending south beyond its current boundaries (Ehret 2002). About 13,000 years ago, large parts of the Sahara were as dry as the desert is now (White and Mattingly 2006).
--Frigi et al.
quote:We have shown that recent North African ancestry is highest in southwestern Europe and decreases in northern latitudes,8 with a sharp difference between the Iberian Peninsula and France, where Basques are less influenced by North Africa (as suggested in (47)). Our estimates of shared ancestry are much higher than previously reported (up to 20% of the European individuals’ genomes). This increase in inferred African ancestry in Europe is due to our inclusion of 7 North African, rather than Sub-Saharan African populations. Specifically, elevated shared African ancestry in Iberia and the Canary Islands can be traced to populations in the North African Maghreb like Moroccans, Western Saharans and the Tunisian Berbers. Our results, based on both allele-frequencies and long shared haplotypes, support the hypothesis that recent migrations from North Africa contributed substantially to the higher genetic diversity in southwestern Europe.
--Laura R. Botiguéa,1, Brenna M. Henn et al
Gene flow from North Africa contributes to differential human genetic diversity in southern Europe (July 16, 2013)
Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
Semantics Lioness. Tomato , tomaaatoe. As usual, up to your detraction and mis-direction games. It is not about frequency. Still holding on to that belief are you? It is about diversity primarily and sub-clades. And also paragroups and upstream clades. Get the big picture. It is a continuum. Saharawi and Tunisians are better examples than Tauregs. Are Saharawi SSA? yes!
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: Again if one were to say that H is African that means Europeans like Germans, maternally are a lot more North African (the Turaegs to the greatest extent, Hg H 61%) the than Sub Saharan Africans are (near 0%)
Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Pahansi et al. Yorubans have a MORE ancient connection to Europeans than East Africans. Lazaridis et al 2016 – Ethiopians do NOT have an ancient connection to Europeans but their connection is with the ancient population of the Levant.
Geographically it makes sense. Geography! Geography! Geography!
-------------------- 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
BTW – Saharawi (on the ass end of West Africa)carry a high frequency of ALL major components found in Europe and East Africa/Arabia. mtDNA HV, H, V. yDNA R1b-V88, LCT of both the labelled “European” and “Arabian” version, in addition to other African versions.
-------------------- Without data you are just another person with an opinion - Deming Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: Semantics Lioness. Tomato , tomaaatoe. As usual, up to your detraction and mis-direction games. It is not about frequency. Still holding on to that belief are you? It is about diversity primarily and sub-clades. And also paragroups and upstream clades. Get the big picture. It is a continuum. Saharawi and Tunisians are better examples than Tauregs. Are Saharawi SSA? yes!
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: Again if one were to say that H is African that means Europeans like Germans, maternally are a lot more North African (the Turaegs to the greatest extent, Hg H 61%) the than Sub Saharan Africans are (near 0%)
See the compromising positions you constantly contort in to make your ideas fit? She just delivered you a haymaker to the face and as usual you mumble something incoherent to post pone the inevitable conclusion that you can't even reconcile your own views and the ridiculous implications of your views (see Lioness' question). C'mon gramps. The jig is up.
Just days ago I predicted that UP Egyptian aDNA (at least the UP Egyptian DNA that constitutes the core ancestry of dynastic Egyptians) was going to embarrass DNA Tribes' yes-men like you and, sure enough, the UP Egyptian ancestry in Natufian aDNA vindicates what I've been saying:
DNA Tribes South African and Great Lakes regions aren't closely related to the African component in the sampled Natufians as has been spammed by DNA Tribes yes-men for years. If you're a so-called 'vet' and you didn't see this coming for years... maybe this anthro stuff isn't for you.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Youngsta. What are babbling about now? Natufians E1b1b* is about 10,000y older!!! than E1b1a found in many West African and modern day East Africans including modern and Dynastic Egyptians. That is why Lazaridis claimed that the genetic material found in the Natufian African Levant probably "PREDATES" the Neolithic Period.
In other words Dynastic Egypt and E1b1a was still a wet dream in the Nile Valley when the African pre-Neolithics migrated into the Levant and went on to Persia and the Indus Valley. So.
Please, would you stop, if you can't put everything together. Charlatan!!! SMH.
Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Xyyman: What are babbling about now? Natufians E1b1b* is about 10,000y older!!! than E1b1a found in many West African and modern day East Africans including modern and Dynastic Egyptians.
That's right. Let it all out. Tell the forum how E1b1a couldn't have been there. And he thinks this argument about the absence of E1b1a so far helps him out. Lol! Gramps seems to think that E1b1a later magically pops up in ancient Egypt and presumably replaces the preceding E1b1b population. That's why he thinks the emerging picture so far of the low freq or non-existence of E1b1a coupled with the autosomal rift between most inner Africans and Natufians isn't conclusive.
Back to reality. You said the AE were unrelated to Somalis. The Somali versions of E1b1b aren't too far from the ones found in the Levant. Are you saying you didn't take the L on that one either? Let me get this right. Germans and Tuareg are related via mtDNA H, but the Egyptians who brought E1b1b to the Natufians aren't related to Somalis? Like I said, you can't reconcile yourself out of the doo doo pool you're in.
Now you want to backtrack and complain about the younger age of E1b1a like that's going to save you. Well, E1b1a hasn't found so far among the E carriers in the Avellaner cave at 5000C, the PPN at ~8000BC, the northern Carpathian Basin farmers at 5000 BC or the Bronze Age Armenians at ~1000BC. All these dates are well within the age span of E1b1a. Moreover, even IF E1b1a didn't exist yet by the time of the Natufians, the branch that carries the V38 mutation is just as old as the branch that carries the M35 mutation. So your bs excuse only baffles people like you who don't know what they're talking about.
Like I said, maybe this just isn't for you, gramps.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
I read somewhere that Makranis (coastal Baloch) are genetically E1b1a. (E-V38/ E3a)
Can anyone confirm this?
quote:To estimate genetic and forensic parameters, the entire mitochondrial DNA control region of 100 unrelated Makrani individuals (males, n=96; females, n=4) living in Pakistan (Turbat, Panjgur, Awaran, Kharan, Nasirabad, Gwadar, Buleda, Karachi and Burewala) was sequenced. We observed a total of 70 different haplotypes of which 54 were unique and 16 were shared by more than one individual. The Makrani population showed a high genetic diversity (0.9688) and, consequently, a high power of discrimination (0.9592). Our results revealed a strongly admixed mtDNA pool composed of African haplogroups (28%), West Eurasian haplogroups (26%), South Asian haplogroups (24%), and East Asian haplogroups (2%), while the origin of the remaining individuals (20%) could not be confidently assigned. The results of this study are a valuable contribution to build a database of mtDNA variation in Pakistan.
--Siddiqi MH et al.
Leg Med (Tokyo). 2015 Mar;17(2):134-9. doi: 10.1016/j.legalmed.2014.09.007. Epub 2014 Oct 13. Genetic characterization of the Makrani people of Pakistan from mitochondrial DNA control-region data.
posted
I posted on the Makrani about 5ya. Ayub et al? They do carry E1b1a and Other African component in addition to a unique mtDNA hgU9. Closely related to East Africans .
E1b1a is about 5000ya. It would nice to see how it matches up with the West African version and AEians.
-------------------- Without data you are just another person with an opinion - Deming Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
WTF are you blabbering about? The ONLY dynastic Egyptian DNA that was published has their STR and yDNA haplogroup matching SSA. I still don't understand your point. E1b1a is young. The mutation occurred in Eastern Africa about 5kya. It spread East and West. Persia, Indus Valley and to West Africa. E1b1a is the YOUNGER African sibling to E1b1b. Both are African. Notice Natufians carried the upstream clade E1b*. So, please would you stop blabbering . SMH.
No aDNA of E11 a will be found outside the Nile Valley beyond 5000ya. So it will not be found in Europe or Asia neither West Africa!!!!
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:Originally posted by Xyyman: What are babbling about now? Natufians E1b1b* is about 10,000y older!!! than E1b1a found in many West African and modern day East Africans including modern and Dynastic Egyptians.
That's right. Let it all out. Tell the forum how E1b1a couldn't have been there. And he thinks this argument about the absence of E1b1a so far helps him out. Lol! Gramps seems to think that E1b1a later magically pops up in ancient Egypt and presumably replaces the preceding E1b1b population. That's why he thinks the emerging picture so far of the low freq or non-existence of E1b1a coupled with the autosomal rift between most inner Africans and Natufians isn't conclusive.
Back to reality. You said the AE were unrelated to Somalis. The Somali versions of E1b1b aren't too far from the ones found in the Levant. Are you saying you didn't take the L on that one either? Let me get this right. Germans and Tuareg are related via mtDNA H, but the Egyptians who brought E1b1b to the Natufians aren't related to Somalis? Like I said, you can't reconcile yourself out of the doo doo pool you're in.
Now you want to backtrack and complain about the younger age of E1b1a like that's going to save you. Well, E1b1a hasn't found so far among the E carriers in the Avellaner cave at 5000C, the PPN at ~8000BC, the northern Carpathian Basin farmers at 5000 BC or the Bronze Age Armenians at ~1000BC. All these dates are well within the age span of E1b1a. Moreover, even IF E1b1a didn't exist yet by the time of the Natufians, the branch that carries the V38 mutation is just as old as the branch that carries the M35 mutation. So your bs excuse only baffles people like you who don't know what they're talking about.
Like I said, maybe this just isn't for you, gramps.
Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
As I explained to the youngsta. E1b1a is relatively young. The mutation did NOT occur circa 8000BC? When the African Natufians left Africa. —Xyyman
Xyyman when he's forced to reconcile the absence of E1b1a so far:
E1b1a is about 5000ya. —Xyyman
He just cut the age of E1b1a in half to avoid dealing with what I said in my previous post.
I just edited my post to avoid getting bogged down longer than I have to. It's time to wrap this up.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: I posted on the Makrani about 5ya. Ayub et al? They do carry E1b1a and Other African component in addition to a unique mtDNA hgU9. Closely related to East Africans .
E1b1a is about 5000ya. It would nice to see how it matches up with the West African version and AEians.
I thought it was about 25Kya?
Anyway this is what I found, in an older source.
quote: Haplogroup E1b1 now contains two basal branches, E-V38 (E1b1a) and E-M215 (E1b1b), with V38/V100 joining the two previously separated lineages E-M2 (former E1b1a) and E-M329 (former E1b1c).
Each of these two lineages has a peculiar geographic distribution. E-M2 is the most common haplogroup in sub-Saharan Africa, with frequency peaks in western (about 80%) and central Africa (about 60%).
The same haplogroup is also present in North Africa, although at a lower frequency (usually below 10%) [9]–[11]. Haplogroup E-M329, on the other hand, was observed almost exclusively in eastern Africa [10], [12 and R.S. unpublished data], where E-M2 is virtually absent.
The second basal branch of E1b1, E-M215, has a broad geographic distribution from southern Europe to northern and eastern Africa where it has been proposed to have originated [8]. The new topology here reported has important implications as to the origins of the haplogroup E1b1.
Using the principle of the phylogeographic parsimony, the resolution of the E1b1b trifurcation in favor of a common ancestor of E-M2 and E-M329 strongly supports the hypothesis that haplogroup E1b1 originated in eastern Africa, as previously suggested [10], and that chromosomes E-M2, so frequently observed in sub-Saharan Africa, trace their descent to a common ancestor present in eastern Africa.
--Beniamino Trombetta, Fulvio Cruciani, et al.
A New Topology of the Human Y Chromosome Haplogroup E1b1 (E-P2) Revealed through the Use of Newly Characterized Binary Polymorphisms
Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ok I am off by 1-2ky. :rolleyes:smh, forest for the trees. The point is Natufians is not expected to carry E1b1a. Because the mutation is much younger than E1b1b*.
The E1b1a had NOT occured when the Natufians left Africa and enter the Levant . Man, why do I bother ?
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Lol! At these Egyptsearch clows sneaking Makrani E1b1a in the conversation. What
Xyyman When he thinks the coast is clear
As I explained to the youngsta. E1b1a is relatively young. The mutation did NOT occur circa 8000BC? When the African Natufians left Africa. —Xyyman
Xyyman when he's forced to reconcile the absence of E1b1a so far:
E1b1a is about 5000ya. —Xyyman
Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
You people are not reading or keeping up, ALL recent dating studies put E1b1a at less than 7-8 ky old , also R1b-L11.
-------------------- Without data you are just another person with an opinion - Deming Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: Ok I am off by 1-2ky. :rolleyes:smh, forest for the trees.
You're not 1-2 ky off. First you said 10000bp and then you said 5000bp. That's a flip flop of 5000 years intended to conveniently wish away the significance of the absence of E1b1a so far in Eurasian sites with Egyptian ancestry.
BTW, I made an error when I went along with Xyyman's notion of a young age of E1b1a. This is based on old research. According to the latest research E1b1a is ~45ky old and E1b1a1 is ~15ky old. Kinda sloppy of me to not pick up on Xyyman's dated ideas about the age of E1b1a as I've been using the new and refined trees a lot:
posted
Kivisild et al Quote: However, as for M1, minor N North-African influences have been detected by the presence of an U6 lineage in our Saudi sample. It has been suggested that the rare U9 clade might be another interesting exception because it has been detected only in Pakistan [26], Ethiopia, and Yemen [19], and now in our Saudi sample. U9 occurs frequently only among the Makrani population in Pakistan, which is characterized by a large component of sub-Saharan African lineages, suggesting that U9 lineages in Pakistan might also have an African origin [19]. Makrani sub-Saharan Africa lineages have exact matches in Africa, which is compatible with a recent conection as the result of the East African slave trade [26]. However, the entire sequenced Ethiopian and Pakistani U9 lineages [37] are separated by a mean of 4.5 coding mutations from the common root, placing the split at Paleolithic times. Most probably, Ethiopia received its U9 lineages from the Arabian Peninsula that, in turn, received them from northern areas. The southern geographic distribution of U9 contrasts with the west-northern distribution U4, of its sister clade [52], but this is a pattern shared with other Paleolithic U radiations such as U2, U7 [32], or U8 [53] that have eastern and western branches. [54].
-------------------- 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
As usual. You don’t know WTF you are talking about. Did you look at or read the study you posted? It is clear based upon this technique that E1b1a has a dating of about 14.7-15.3 year old. BY THIS TECHNIQUE. As of 2016 E1b1a is about 8000y old.
The P2 clade is 54,000yo NOT the E1b1a sub-clade!!!!!! Man you just blow smoke. Full of it. SMH. So I repeat. E1b1b*is dated 25-39.5kyo!! As I said. E1b1b is older than E1b1a by at least 10,000y.
Now will you please shut up. Did Beyoku screw this one up also?
---
either you dont know what you are talking about or st8up liar. Which is it? SMH.
I can sniff out a conman through 1's and 0's. lol!
Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
That's right, gramps. Let it all out. When you're done crying and saying dumb goobledygook like "it's based on a technique" and confusing E1b1a1 with E1b1a, you can take this L:
The age of E1b1a1 according to latest Y tree refinement (Poznik et al 2016) is ~15kya and E1b1a is even older.
posted
HA! Ha! hA! Ha! Ha! did you look at the date ...fool? It has E1b1a at about 14Kya NOT 54K years as you just lied about above.
You are so.....SMH
I posted on here the LATEST date for E1b1a. I will repost. lol!
LIAR!!!!!
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: That's right, gramps. Let it all out. When you're done crying and saying dumb goobledygook like "it's based on a technique" and confusing E1b1a1 with E1b1a, you can take this L:
The age of E1b1a1 according to latest Y tree (2016) is ~15kya and E1b1a is older.
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: HA! Ha! hA! Ha! Ha! did you look at the date ...fool? It has E1b1a at about 14Kya NOT 54K years as you just lied about above.
You are so.....SMH
There is no inconsistently between that image (Poznik et al 2016) and what I said. E1b1a1 is 15kya and E1b1a is older (~45ky old according to Trombetta et al 2015 and Poznik et al aren't far off). Where is the inconsistency, floundering buffoon? This is just more evidence that you don't know the difference between E1b1a and E1b1a1.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
you are so full of it. Such a con-man. I can sniff you out between 1's and 0's.
lol!
As I said e1b1a is about 8000yo.
Natufians cannot carry a mutation that had not occured when they left Africa. lol!
SMH.
-------------------- 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
That picture puts E-M2 at close to 20.000 bp. Did you take your meds, gramps? Or are you simply incompetent? I'm starting to get concerned at this point.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hey! I am all for a healthy and heated discussion but when you outright lie, make stuff up and cite outdated stuff...well. Talk to the hand. What's the point? It becomes "who can shout the loudest". Show me data then we can talk....
-------------------- Without data you are just another person with an opinion - Deming Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: Hey! I am all for a healthy and heated discussion but when you outright lie, make stuff up and cite outdated stuff...well. Talk to the hand. What's the point? It becomes "who can shout the loudest". Show me data then we can talk....
Translation: you're right. I took another L. Sometimes I get a little bit confused and I start seeing things. As you correctly pointed out, E-M2 really is close to 20ky old according to my own picture. And E1b1a is even older, old enough to be present in the Natufian population according to the latest research.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
As I said. The Natufians would NOT carry E1b1a. They had already left Sub-Saharan Africa carrying the older sibling E1b1b*. Quote:
G David Poznik et al 2016 QUOTE: Second, in sub-Saharan Africa, two independent E1b-M180 lineages expanded ~5 kya (Supplementary Fig. 14a), in a period before the numerical and geographical expansions of Bantu speakers, in whom E1b-M180 now predominates22. The presence of these lineages in non-Bantu speakers (for example, Yoruba and Esan) indicates an expansion predating the Bantu migrations, perhaps triggered by the develop¬ment of ironworking23. Third, in Western Europe, related lineages within R1b-L11 expanded ~4.8–5.9 kya (Supplementary Fig. 14e), most markedly around 4.8 and 5.5 kya.
-------------------- Without data you are just another person with an opinion - Deming Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
-------------------- Without data you are just another person with an opinion - Deming Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Both Poznik et al and Hallast et al put R1b-L11 and E1b1a at about <8000year old. Now, can you quit while you are behind.
This is a freebie. You are welcome.
---
Quote: Structure within the west Eurasian hg R: The TMRCA of hg R is 19ka, and within it both hgs R1a and R1b comprise young, star-like expansions discussed extensively elsewhere (Batini et al. submitted).
Bantu-speaking YRI+LWK (Luhya in Webuye, Kenya), and present a stark contrast to the ancient hunter-gatherer lineages in A and B. Hg E1b1a (here given a TMRCA of 6.9 ka) has previously been associated with the expansion of Bantu languages, which spread widely from Central Africa approximately 3 ka together with farming and
Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
To be clear. All BS aside as posted by the fraudster. Yes, the Natufians were sub-Saharan “negroids” but that does not mean they are closely related to modern west Africans. Not all Negros are Negros.
-------------------- 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
Yes, the Natufians were sub-Saharan “negroids” but that does not mean they are closely related to modern west Africans. Not all Negros are Negros
You might say they would be a variant, and may have genetic links with Southwest Asians in the mix, in varying proportions, depending on era examined. Aside from some folks going overboard without seeing all the info, no one claims Natufians were all "pure" types who looked like Louis Armstrong or Foxy Brown. But in any event, even a small proportion in Euro-American social construct race terms would make them types "tainted" with "negro blood."
-------------------- Note: I am not an "Egyptologist" as claimed by some still bitter, defeated, trolls creating fake profiles and posts elsewhere. Hapless losers, you still fail. My output of hard data debunking racist nonsense has actually INCREASED since you began.. Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: To be clear. All BS aside as posted by the fraudster. Yes, the Natufians were sub-Saharan “negroids” but that does not mean they are closely related to modern west Africans. Not all Negros are Negros.
Do you even hear yourself talk? You sound seriously confused. Post a single study that says that Nafufians were "Sub-Saharan negroids". Post measurements supporting that the African contingent among the Natufians were different from UP Egyptians like Wadi Kubbaniya in favor of "sub-Saharan negroids". Are you dense or something? What did you just post? You posted that the Natufians aren't closely related to various Sub-Saharan samples. How do Natufians supposedly live in the midst of equatorial Africans for millennia yet appear genetically closer to North Africans?
You're seriously not healthy mentally. Go have yourself checked out or something. This really has to stop. The African contingent among the Natufians were North Africans as evidenced by their autosomal and Y-DNA genetics (which you yourself posted) and cultural attributes, including extracted upper incisors, burial customs and epipalaeolithic lithics.
And Hallast et al don't support your claims. First you embarrass yourself by posting Poznik et al 2016's tree, which puts E-M2 at somewhat younger than 20ky. Then, when you realize you debunked yourself you started posting Hallast et al 2014. Strange, because you seem to think you can just pick which paper you're going to adhere to, like it's optional.
The SNVs uncovered by Hallast et al 2014 are the same SNVs that inform subsequent papers like Poznik et al 2016. Do you even know how this works? You don't have the faintest clue, do you? As if that's not embarrassing enough, that Hallast et al date for E-M2 is now E1b1a1, not E1b1a. But you don't understand this because you don't know the difference between E1b1a and E1b1a1. It's not my job to educate you about the niceties of hg nomenclature and Y-DNA tree revisions. You must be really confused if you think Hallast et al 2014 will ever trump Trombetta et al 2015 or Poznik et al 2016 when it comes to accuracy. While you're at it with your shenanigans, why not post Y tree papers dating to 2005? Why not, since you obviously don't understand that Hallast et al 2014 has a limited bearing on Y tree structure and dates as of 2016.
If you try to debate someone you're supposed to already know this. But like I said, maybe this is just not for you.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
FIG. 1. — MP tree of haplogroup E obtained with 729 variable positions. Above each branch are reported the haplogroup nomenclature used in the main text (in square brackets) and the number of mutational events defining each branch. Few internal key mutations are indicated as an aid to the reader. Dating estimates are reported in boxes near each node (the values on top and on bottom were obtained with BEAST and rho method, respectively). At the tip of each terminal branch, the haplogroup affiliation of the sequenced sample is reported, using a mutation-based nomenclature according to Trombetta et al. (2011). The ID of the samples from Complete Genomics is also indicated (in parentheses). Colored belts indicate major lineages.
Beniamino Trombetta. Eugenia D’Atanasio Andrea Massaia Marco Ippoliti Alfredo Coppa Francesca Candilio Valentina Coia Gianluca Russo Jean-Michel Dugoujon Pedro Moral Nejat Akar Daniele Sellitto Guido Valesini Andrea Novelletto Rosaria Scozzari Fulvio Cruciani Phylogeographic Refinement and Large Scale Genotyping of Human Y Chromosome Haplogroup E Provide New Insights into the Dispersal of Early Pastoralists in the African Continent
Genome Biol Evol (2015) 7 (7): 1940-1950. doi: 10.1093/gbe/evv118 First published online: June 24, 2015
posted
The Natufians were tropical Africans with "Negroid" features. Most likely very dark skinned also.
As I said indigenous Berbers(E1b1b) are the big brother to their brother E1b1a. All are Africans!!
quote:Originally posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova: Yes, the Natufians were sub-Saharan “negroids” but that does not mean they are closely related to modern west Africans. Not all Negros are Negros
You might say they would be a variant, and may have genetic links with Southwest Asians in the mix, in varying proportions, depending on era examined. Aside from some folks going overboard without seeing all the info, no one claims Natufians were all "pure" types who looked like Louis Armstrong or Foxy Brown. But in any event, even a small proportion in Euro-American social construct race terms would make them types "tainted" with "negro blood."
Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
In addition to carrying new information about phylogeny, the polymorphisms here analyzed are informative about the timing of lineage divergence. For each node in the tree, we obtained dating estimates using both the rho method (Forster et al. 1996) and a Bayesian approach implemented in BEAST (Drummond and Rambaut 2007) (fig. 1), using a nucleotide substitution rate of 0.716 × 10−9/site/year specific for the MSY regions here analyzed. Dating estimates are reported in supplementary table S6, Supplementary Material online.
As the two methods produced highly concordant values (r = 0.997; supplementary fig. S1, Supplementary Material online), hereafter we only refer to the results obtained using BEAST.
The TMRCA (time to the most recent common ancestor) for all haplogroup E chromosomes here analyzed is
57.4 ka (95% CI: 50.0–68.0 ka),
older than the estimates of about 37 ka reported by Semino et al. (2004) and Hallast et al. (2015) using an STR- and SNP-based dating, respectively. These inconsistencies in TMRCA estimates are probably due to Y-STR mutation count saturation (Wei, Ayub, Xue, et al. 2013) in the first case (Semino et al. 2004) and to the use of a different SNP mutation rate (1.0 × 10−9/mutations/nucleotide/year) in the second case (Hallast et al. 2015).
In the subsequent 20 ky, four major dichotomies were observed:
1) The split between E-M33 and E-P2 subhaplogroups, dated at 54.4 ka (95% CI: 47.4–64.4 ka);
2) the node separating E-V38 and E-M215 branches (47.5 ka; 95% CI: 41.3–56.8 ka); and
3) two unexpectedly old
(45.6 and 38.6 ka; 95% CI: 38.4–53.7 and 31.4–45.9 ka, respectively)
nodes which separate two common and widespread African haplogroups (E-M2 and E-M35) from two rare eastern African lineages (E-M329 and E-V16), respectively.
Another striking aspect of our dating is the previously unappreciated large difference in the age between haplogroup E-M215 (38.6 ka; 95% CI: 31.4–45.9 ka) and its subhaplogroup E-M35 (25.0 ka; 95% CI: 20.0–30.0 ka).
Within the E-V68 subclade, the M78 mutation arose in a time window between
20.3 ka (95% CI: 16.2–25.4 ka) and 14.8 ka (95% CI: 11.6–18.5 ka),
namely the TMRCA for E-V68 and E-M78,
respectively. The TMRCA of
E-V13 chromosomes (8.1 ka; 95% CI: 5.6–10.8 ka)
consistent with a previous hypothesis about a post-Neolithic expansion of this haplogroup in Europe (Cruciani et al. 2004, 2007).
Finally, the young TMRCA
(3.5 ka; 95% CI: 1.7–5.9 ka)
for the node separating the sequenced
(former) E-M35* and E-M293
samples suggests a TMRCA for the M293 variant more recent than previously hypothesized using an STR-based dating (11.4 ka; Henn et al. [2008]).
Posts: 8179 | From: the Tekrur straddling Senegal & Mauritania | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: WILL YOU STOP BSing!!!!!!!
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: To be clear. All BS aside as posted by the fraudster. Yes, the Natufians were sub-Saharan “negroids” but that does not mean they are closely related to modern west Africans. Not all Negros are Negros.
Do you even hear yourself talk? You sound seriously confused. Post a single study that says that Nafufians were "Sub-Saharan negroids". Post measurements supporting that the African contingent among the Natufians were different from UP Egyptians like Wadi Kubbaniya in favor of "sub-Saharan negroids". Are you dense or something? What did you just post? You posted that the Natufians aren't closely related to various Sub-Saharan samples. How do Natufians supposedly live in the midst of equatorial Africans for millennia yet appear genetically closer to North Africans?
You're seriously not healthy mentally. Go have yourself checked out or something. This really has to stop. The African contingent among the Natufians were North Africans as evidenced by their autosomal and Y-DNA genetics (which you yourself posted) and cultural attributes, including extracted upper incisors, burial customs and epipalaeolithic lithics.
And Hallast et al don't support your claims. First you embarrass yourself by posting Poznik et al 2016's tree, which puts E-M2 at somewhat younger than 20ky. Then, when you realize you debunked yourself you started posting Hallast et al 2014. Strange, because you seem to think you can just pick which paper you're going to adhere to, like it's optional.
The SNVs uncovered by Hallast et al 2014 are the same SNVs that inform subsequent papers like Poznik et al 2016. Do you even know how this works? You don't have the faintest clue, do you? As if that's not embarrassing enough, that Hallast et al date for E-M2 is now E1b1a1, not E1b1a. But you don't understand this because you don't know the difference between E1b1a and E1b1a1. It's not my job to educate you about the niceties of hg nomenclature and Y-DNA tree revisions. You must be really confused if you think Hallast et al 2014 will ever trump Trombetta et al 2015 or Poznik et al 2016 when it comes to accuracy. While you're at it with your shenanigans, why not post Y tree papers dating to 2005? Why not, since you obviously don't understand that Hallast et al 2014 has a limited bearing on Y tree structure and dates as of 2016.
If you try to debate someone you're supposed to already know this. But like I said, maybe this is just not for you.
Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic