-------------------- 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
Nothing in it really. Keita is just criticing the original paper we discussed
Quote" "Taken together, the autosomal, Y chromosome, and mitochondrial DNA data support the conclusion that the indigenous African components of the specific samples of modern Egyptians and modern Ethiopians studied by Pagani et al. (2015) are uninformative with respect to the origin of non-Africans. The available data suggest that the separation of ancient Egyptians and ancient ethiopians postdates Out-of Africa. In the
ther than Gumuz, to represent Nilo-Saharan ancestry (Table 1). Additionally, samples from Arabian, Levantine, and Maghrebi populations should have been included.
Regardless of the ***labels*** given to ancestries, which typically are presumed to be geographically or linguistically based, there are two problems with the data of Pagani et al. (2015). One problem is that their sample of modern Egyptians, like ours, does not reflect all modern Egyptians.
). Admixture is inter-mating between previously ***isolated*** populations, although the biological characteristics of genetically diverged ***parental populations can be debated***. T.
Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Seems like me Keita has a problem with "supposed isolation' and "labels"
-------------------- 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
The paper attempts to address the issue of the OoA event using contemporary Egyptian DNA. The results are useless. The fact that contemporary Egyptians are of predominant Arabian and Caucasian origin reflects the replacement of the ancient Egyptians over the past 1500 years.
There are many ancient mummies. if the authors would have attempted to recover ancient DNA we might have gained insight into the OoA event, but since the ancient Egyptians have been replaced , a contemporary Egyptian population can not tell us anything about ancient Egyptians DNA and the role ancient Egyptians played in the OoA event..
Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
Migration Route Out of Africa Unresolved by 225 Egyptian and Ethiopian Whole Genome Sequences
Daniel Shriner1* and Shomarka O. Y. Keita2 1Center for Research on Genomics and Global Health, National Human Genome Research Institute, Bethesda, MD, USA 2Department of Anthropology, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC, USA Population structure is a fundamental part of population genetics. In coalescent theory, the impact of population structure or a restriction of gene flow is well-studied (Hudson, 1990; Nordborg, 2003). Admixture is inter-mating between previously isolated populations, although the biological characteristics of genetically diverged parental populations can be debated. The pairwise sequentially Markovian coalescent model (Li and Durbin, 2011) and the multiple sequentially Markovian coalescent model (Schiffels and Durbin, 2014), both recently developed methods designed for whole genome sequence analysis, do not model admixture in a formal sense. However, simulations have shown that these models are sensitive to admixture (Li and Durbin, 2011), because admixture increases heterozygosity and consequently appears as an increase in the effective population size. The issue of ancient vs. recent admixture, and the actual time depths, is of concern due to the potentially obscuring effects of a range of evolutionary processes. Both of these models divide time into intervals, theoretically permitting detection of events at different time depths. Consequently, these genetic models have the potential to complement anthropological and archeological studies of the distant past.
Archeological, fossil, and genetic data collectively remain inconclusive regarding the route(s) of modern humans out of Africa: one possible route was north of the Red Sea through Egypt and Sinai and another possible route was south of the Red Sea across the Bab-el-Mandeb Strait (Beyin, 2011). Pagani et al. (2015) described a population genetic study intended to distinguish between these possibilities. The design of their study involved whole genome sequencing of 100 recent Egyptian emigrants living in Lebanon and 25 Amhara, 25 Oromo, 25 Somali, 25 Wolayta, and 25 Gumuz from present-day Ethiopia. The authors used the 1000 Genomes CEU sample as a proxy for “non-African” ancestry and the Gumuz sample as a proxy for “African” ancestry. They then reconstructed the “African” components of the Egyptian and remaining Ethiopian genomes and compared them to the 1000 Genomes YRI, CHB, TSI, and GIH samples. The authors hypothesized that the “African” component of the Egyptian genomes should be more similar to “non-African” genomes under a northern route. Conversely, the “African” component of the Ethiopian genomes should be more similar to “non-African” genomes under a southern route. The authors reported enrichment of the “African” component of the Egyptian genomes, which they interpreted as evidence in favor of the northern route.
The authors' analyses involve two major critical assumptions, one involving population structure and the other involving time. With respect to population structure, the authors assumed that both the Egyptians and Ethiopians could be described using a problematic continental framework, i.e., “African” and “non-African” components which often mask ideas about what constitutes African. Progress has been made: analyses of the genetic structure of autosomal data from global surveys of thousands of individuals have revealed multi-way ancestral compositions at a sub-continental level of resolution, likely reflecting evolution of local or regional populations (Tishkoff et al., 2009; Shriner et al., 2014). Three limitations of these types of studies are (1) the extent to which convenience samples are used, in comparison to a complete catalog of all ethno-linguistic or biogeographical groups (since ethno-linguistic groups have varying time depths), (2) the extent to which populations in such studies are arbitrary constructs (Gannett, 2003), and (3) the appropriateness of divergence by isolation to model the genealogical relationships among ancestries. Given these caveats, the ancestral compositions of samples of modern Egyptians and Ethiopians, as well the reference CEU sample, have been previously estimated (Shriner et al., 2014) and are summarized in Table 1. Notably, the two Egyptian samples we used include a low level of Cushitic ancestry but no Nilo-Saharan ancestry. This absence implies a lack of coverage of the full geographical range of Egyptians, including Nubians who today speak a Nilo-Saharan language (Dobon et al., 2015). There is also no evidence of coverage of individuals representing the Egyptian or Coptic language. Similarly, Figure 1B of Pagani et al. (2015) depicts “East African” ancestry, similar to the ancestry of the Gumuz (who speak a Nilo-Saharan language), constituting < 10% of the Egyptians.
Regardless of the labels given to ancestries, which typically are presumed to be geographically or linguistically based, there are two problems with the data of Pagani et al. (2015). One problem is that their sample of modern Egyptians, like ours, does not reflect all modern Egyptians. Furthermore, it has not been established that original Nile Valley inhabitants are in some sense covered. The genetic compositions of core Afroasiatic (including Egyptian) and Nilo-Saharan speakers are not known fully. The authors chose a subset of five Ethiopian samples from a larger set (Pagani et al., 2012) on the basis of maximizing genetic and cultural diversity. This approach led to a choice of samples all containing substantial ancestral heterogeneity (Table 1), which confounds inference. We believe a better design principle for sample selection is to minimize ancestral heterogeneity, e.g., as used by Tishkoff et al. (2009) in their supervised clustering analysis. Of the Pagani et al. (2012) samples, better choices are Somali, rather than Ethiopian Somali, to represent Cushitic ancestry; Ari Blacksmith, rather than Wolayta, to represent Omotic ancestry; and South Sudanese, rather than Gumuz, to represent Nilo-Saharan ancestry (Table 1). Additionally, samples from Arabian, Levantine, and Maghrebi populations should have been included.
A second problem is that, of all the ancestries present in the Egyptian and Ethiopian samples, ancestry unique to and common in Ethiopians who currently speak an Omotic language is the most divergent (Shriner et al., 2014). Consequently, both “African” and “non-African” genomes are expected a priori to be more similar to the “African” component of Egyptian genomes than the “African” component of Ethiopian genomes, solely on the basis of genetic distance and independent of genealogical relationships among ancestries. To see this, suppose that East African ancestry in the Egyptians and Ethiopians is identical. Then, comparison of “non-Africans” to this East African component will be inconclusive. On the other hand, suppose that East African ancestry is a combination of Nilo-Saharan and Cushitic ancestries in the Egyptians with an additional Omotic contribution in the Ethiopians (Pagani et al., 2012). Then, given that Omotic ancestry is essentially restricted to Ethiopia, “non-Africans” will be more similar to Egyptians' East African than Ethiopians' East African.
With respect to time, the authors assume that “modern African populations are representative of those at the time of the exit” (Pagani et al., 2015). This assumption may be problematic because of underlying typological assumptions that include conceptualizing and treating geographically or linguistically defined populations such that the same genetic patterns would manifest in any sample from the geographical range or branch of the language family across time. More directly, it would have been useful if the authors had estimated the split time between the African components of the modern Egyptian and Ethiopian genomes. If this split time postdates Out of Africa, then we may infer that the African ancestors of the modern Egyptians and Ethiopians were not genetically differentiated at the time of exit and therefore that a northern route and a southern route are indistinguishable.
There are five lines of evidence against the assumption of representativeness. One, the authors assessed the split times of the “African” components of the modern Egyptian and Ethiopian genomes compared to a “non-African” CEU genome. Despite overlapping time intervals and a lack of formal statistical assessment, the authors inferred a higher similarity between “non-African” and Egyptian “African” components; we find the results to be inconclusive. Two, the authors assessed the split times of the “African” components of the modern Egyptian and Ethiopian genomes compared to a West African YRI genome and an East African Gumuz genome. The split times compared to the YRI genome were 21,000 and 37,000 years ago for Egyptians and Ethiopians, respectively, and even more recent compared to the Gumuz genome. Thus, the African ancestors of the West African YRI, the East African Gumuz, and the “African” components of the modern Egyptian and Ethiopian genomes had not split at the time of exit. Three, reconstruction of the phylogenetic history of autosomal ancestries showed that none of the autosomal ancestries of modern Egyptians and modern Ethiopians had yet diverged at the time of exit (Shriner et al., 2014). Four, in the authors' Supplement, the “African” component includes Y haplogroups A3b2, B2, and E, whereas the “non-African” component includes descendants of Y haplogroup F (specifically G, J, L, R, and T), which is not descended from A3b2, B2, or E. Five, also in the authors' Supplement, the mitochondrial DNA haplogroup L3, the ancestor of M and N haplogroups, is present in both modern Egyptians and modern Ethiopians. Thus, both Y and mitochondrial DNA are inconclusive.
Ancient DNA might help to resolve the question of the route out of Africa, if temporally appropriate specimens can be found. The individual named Bayira discovered in the Mota Cave in Ethiopia dated to ~4500 years ago (Gallego Llorente et al., 2015), which is not old enough. Also, Bayira was determined to be ancestrally homogeneous for Omotic ancestry (Gallego Llorente et al., 2015). By comparison, our data set contains the equivalent of 69 individuals ancestrally homogeneous for Omotic ancestry (Shriner et al., 2014), reflecting the ability of ancestry analysis to disentangle recent admixture.
Taken together, the autosomal, Y chromosome, and mitochondrial DNA data support the conclusion that the indigenous African components of the specific samples of modern Egyptians and modern Ethiopians studied by Pagani et al. (2015) are uninformative with respect to the origin of non-Africans. The available data suggest that the separation of ancient Egyptians and ancient Ethiopians postdates Out-of-Africa. In the absence of ancient DNA specimens, estimation of genetic profiles of core Afroasiatic and Nilo-Saharan speakers requires phylogenetic techniques to reconstruct ancestral states.
Posts: 42919 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
Four, in the authors' Supplement, the “African” component includes Y haplogroups A3b2, B2, and E, whereas the “non-African” component includes descendants of Y haplogroup F (specifically G, J, L, R, and T), which is not descended from A3b2, B2, or E. Five, also in the authors' Supplement, the mitochondrial DNA haplogroup L3, the ancestor of M and N haplogroups, is present in both modern Egyptians and modern Ethiopians. Thus, both Y and mitochondrial DNA are inconclusive.
Archeological, fossil, and genetic data collectively remain inconclusive regarding the route(s) of modern humans out of Africa: one possible route was north of the Red Sea through Egypt and Sinai and another possible route was south of the Red Sea across the Bab-el-Mandeb Strait (Beyin, 2011). Pagani et al. (2015) described a population genetic study intended to distinguish between these possibilities.
The split times compared to the YRI genome were 21,000 and 37,000 years ago for Egyptians and Ethiopians, respectively, and even more recent compared to the Gumuz genome. Thus, the African ancestors of the West African YRI, the East African Gumuz, and the “African” components of the modern Egyptian and Ethiopian genomes had not split at the time of exit.
we may infer that the African ancestors of the modern Egyptians and Ethiopians were not genetically differentiated at the time of exit and therefore that a northern route and a southern route are indistinguishable.
Posts: 42919 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: The paper attempts to address the issue of the OoA event using contemporary Egyptian DNA. The results are useless. The fact that contemporary Egyptians are of predominant Arabian and Caucasian origin reflects the replacement of the ancient Egyptians over the past 1500 years.
There are many ancient mummies. if the authors would have attempted to recover ancient DNA we might have gained insight into the OoA event, but since the ancient Egyptians have been replaced , a contemporary Egyptian population can not tell us anything about ancient Egyptians DNA and the role ancient Egyptians played in the OoA event..
The Pagani et al. (2015) and Brenna et al. (2012) paper both dated foreign mass migrations into North Africa around 800 a.d.. That is where the bulk is at. So you're on it.
Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: Seems like me Keita has a problem with "supposed isolation' and "labels"
For obvious reasons. As he stated so in his former paper as well.
Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
I guess nobody understood the theme of the article, that they were saying that theories of other researches as to the OOA migration route, Sinai or Bab-el-Mandeb should be regarded as inconclusive
because the African ancestors of the modern Egyptians and Ethiopians were not genetically differentiated at the time of exit
Posts: 42919 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: I guess nobody understood the theme of the article, that they were saying that theories of other researches as to the OOA migration route, Sinai or Bab-el-Mandeb should be regarded as inconclusive
because the African ancestors of the modern Egyptians and Ethiopians were not genetically differentiated at the time of exit
This statement was not supported by the evidence they presented. First of all if the DNA was not compared to Eurasian sample along the migration route they were not going to be able to determine any influence of the people. Of course the African ancestors of the modern Egyptians and Ethiopians were not genetically differentiated at the time of the OoA, because none of the ancestors of these people were in East Africa at the time.The Arabs and Caucasians were not in East Africa, nor were the contemporary Ethiopians who were part of the Ounanian culture. The design of the research was flawed so the results are unreliable.
As I stated earlier a population genetics paper that does not discuss the archeaology of the area will not show reliable results. The archeaology suggest that by the Aqualithic period the major group in the Nile Valley were Nilo-Saharan speakers this suggest that comparison of Nilo-Saharan DNA, ancient DNA and the DNA found among groups on the the proposed migration routes the results might give us more reliable information on the OoA event.
Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: I guess nobody understood the theme of the article, that they were saying that theories of other researches as to the OOA migration route, Sinai or Bab-el-Mandeb should be regarded as inconclusive
because the African ancestors of the modern Egyptians and Ethiopians were not genetically differentiated at the time of exit
This statement was not supported by the evidence they presented. First of all if the DNA was not compared to Eurasian sample along the migration route they were not going to be able to determine any influence of the people. The design of the research was flawed so the results are unreliable.
Again the article is saying other articles are purported to be conclusive are inconclusive
Posts: 42919 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: I guess nobody understood the theme of the article, that they were saying that theories of other researches as to the OOA migration route, Sinai or Bab-el-Mandeb should be regarded as inconclusive
because the African ancestors of the modern Egyptians and Ethiopians were not genetically differentiated at the time of exit
This statement was not supported by the evidence they presented. First of all if the DNA was not compared to Eurasian sample along the migration route they were not going to be able to determine any influence of the people. The design of the research was flawed so the results are unreliable.
Again the article is saying other articles are purported to be conclusive are inconclusive
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: This statement was not supported by the evidence they presented.
show us a quote from the article that is not supported
Posts: 42919 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: I guess nobody understood the theme of the article, that they were saying that theories of other researches as to the OOA migration route, Sinai or Bab-el-Mandeb should be regarded as inconclusive
because the African ancestors of the modern Egyptians and Ethiopians were not genetically differentiated at the time of exit
This statement was not supported by the evidence they presented. First of all if the DNA was not compared to Eurasian sample along the migration route they were not going to be able to determine any influence of the people. The design of the research was flawed so the results are unreliable.
Again the article is saying other articles are purported to be conclusive are inconclusive
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: This statement was not supported by the evidence they presente
show us a quote from the article that is not supported
This is easy. The authors stated that "Thus, the African ancestors of the West African YRI, the East African Gumuz, and the “African” components of the modern Egyptian and Ethiopian genomes had not split at the time of exit. Three, reconstruction of the phylogenetic history of autosomal ancestries showed that none of the autosomal ancestries of modern Egyptians and modern Ethiopians had yet diverged at the time of exit ".
There was no evidence presented to support this conclusion. the authors presented no statistics and/or formulas supporting this claim, nor did they present any autosomal ancestries in the text that support the view "that none of the autosomal ancestries of modern Egyptians and modern Ethiopians had yet diverged at the time of exit". This view is totally false because there is no evidence that Leventine Caucasians and Southern Europeans lived in Ancient Egypt before the OoA event. Most researchers believe that the haplogroups carried by these groups appeared after the OoA event. This makes the statement false and without validity.
Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
This is not really a research paper , Keita is essentially criticizing the Pagani et al paper (iirc). He is saying the whole premise is wrong. They sampled the wrong populations to begin with . Leaving out key populations like the Maghreb and certain key populations withing Ethiopia and Somalia . In short the research hasn't provide enough evidence as to "where" the exit point was. Interestingly he included the Maghreb.
Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Four, in the authors’ Supplement, the “African” component includes Y haplogroups A3b2, B2, and E, whereas the “non-African” component includes descendants of Y haplogroup F (specifically G, J, L, R, and T), which is not descended from A3b2, B2, or E.
—Shriner & Keita 2016
Shout out to those who know what they mean and what the implications are.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: This is not really a research paper , Keita is essentially criticizing the Pagani et al paper (iirc). He is saying the whole premise is wrong. They sampled the wrong populations to begin with . Leaving out key populations like the Maghreb and certain key populations withing Ethiopia and Somalia . In short the research hasn't provide enough evidence as to "where" the exit point was. Interestingly he included the Maghreb.
Even if its not a research paper you have to provide counter evidence to support your conclusion.
The authors state that " One problem is that their sample of modern Egyptians, like ours, does not reflect all modern Egyptians". This was not a problem everyone knows that you never have a complete sample of any population you attempt to find a representative sample.
Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
What do you think it means ? Sub-clades of hg-F is found 'in' Africa. Keita is critiquing the erroneous assumptions that sub-clades of Hg-F is not African.
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Lol. Pow!
quote:Four, in the authors’ Supplement, the “African” component includes Y haplogroups A3b2, B2, and E, whereas the “non-African” component includes descendants of Y haplogroup F (specifically G, J, L, R, and T), which is not descended from A3b2, B2, or E.
—Shriner & Keita 2016
Shout out to those who know what they mean and what the implications are.
Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: This is not really a research paper , Keita is essentially criticizing the Pagani et al paper (iirc). He is saying the whole premise is wrong. They sampled the wrong populations to begin with . Leaving out key populations like the Maghreb and certain key populations withing Ethiopia and Somalia . In short the research hasn't provide enough evidence as to "where" the exit point was. Interestingly he included the Maghreb.
It is more an analysis of literature rather than new datasets, but on target, echoing some of the same critiques we have made on ES. Kudos to Shriner and Keita for breaking down the case in detail.
"There are five lines of evidence against the assumption of representativeness."Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: What do you think it means ? Sub-clades of hg-F is found 'in' Africa. Keita is critiquing the erroneous assumptions that sub-clades of Hg-F is not African.
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Lol. Pow!
quote:Four, in the authors’ Supplement, the “African” component includes Y haplogroups A3b2, B2, and E, whereas the “non-African” component includes descendants of Y haplogroup F (specifically G, J, L, R, and T), which is not descended from A3b2, B2, or E.
—Shriner & Keita 2016
Shout out to those who know what they mean and what the implications are.
Right gramps. They are essentially pointing out the same thing I said here.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
To be clear, I don't disagree with the gist of Pagani et al 2015. I think they did a great job. But they fall in the trap of infringing on African variations as the authors (Shriner & Keita 2016) point out.
It matters little in the end as far as their results. Pagani et al still found haplotypes with all the right properties at higher frequencies in Egypt. Keita's criticisms don't refute or even address that convincingly.
Shriner & Keita 2016 mention Mota, but, somehow, they've completely missed the memo that the affinities of Mota's genome are proof that Ethiopian populations ARE, in fact, 'older' than OOA.
Whether Ethiopians and Egyptians diverged before OOA is also irrelevant because the latter will still have more OOA-like haplotypes if they absorbed such OOA-like populations en-route to or after settling in Egypt after their split with Ethiopian popuiations. In other words, contrary to what Shriner & Keita suggest, Pagani et al's case doesn't require that the people we now think of as ancient Ethiopians and ancient Egyptians be older than OOA. If Ethiopian populations and the people we think of as Ancient Egyptians split relatively late, surely, some other African population must account for the Palaeolithic sites in Egypt before and after OOA.
Lastly, ultimately, talk of Ethiopians splitting from Egyptians is an oversimplication. Post-split geneflow between populations can for instance decrease the split time data we get from their genomes.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: What do you think it means ? Sub-clades of hg-F is found 'in' Africa. Keita is critiquing the erroneous assumptions that sub-clades of Hg-F is not African.
I don't think he is claiming hg F is African. Keita is a supporter of the status quo and would never make such a claim.
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: I guess nobody understood the theme of the article, that they were saying that theories of other researches as to the OOA migration route, Sinai or Bab-el-Mandeb should be regarded as inconclusive
because the African ancestors of the modern Egyptians and Ethiopians were not genetically differentiated at the time of exit
This statement was not supported by the evidence they presented. First of all if the DNA was not compared to Eurasian sample along the migration route they were not going to be able to determine any influence of the people. The design of the research was flawed so the results are unreliable.
Again the article is saying other articles are purported to be conclusive are inconclusive
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: This statement was not supported by the evidence they presente
show us a quote from the article that is not supported
This is easy. The authors stated that "Thus, the African ancestors of the West African YRI, the East African Gumuz, and the “African” components of the modern Egyptian and Ethiopian genomes had not split at the time of exit. Three, reconstruction of the phylogenetic history of autosomal ancestries showed that none of the autosomal ancestries of modern Egyptians and modern Ethiopians had yet diverged at the time of exit ".
There was no evidence presented to support this conclusion. the authors presented no statistics and/or formulas supporting this claim, nor did they present any autosomal ancestries in the text that support the view "that none of the autosomal ancestries of modern Egyptians and modern Ethiopians had yet diverged at the time of exit". This view is totally false because there is no evidence that Leventine Caucasians and Southern Europeans lived in Ancient Egypt before the OoA event. Most researchers believe that the haplogroups carried by these groups appeared after the OoA event. This makes the statement false and without validity.
Clyde you don't understand what Shriner/Keita is saying .
They said:
"African components of the modern Egyptian and Ethiopian genomes had not split at the time of exit (OOA) " therefore: " we may infer that the African ancestors of the modern Egyptians and Ethiopians were not genetically differentiated at the time of exit and therefore that a northern route (sinai) and a southern route (Bab-el-Mandeb Strait) are indistinguishable."
That has nothing to do with what you said " Leventine Caucasians and Southern Europeans lived in Ancient Egypt before the OoA event." This is far prior to Levantines or Europeans in Africa. The paper has nothing to do with that.
Again:
"none of the autosomal ancestries of modern Egyptians and modern Ethiopians had yet diverged at the time of exit (OOA) ".
You said the above is totally false. Therefore the revse of ths statement would be true >
"The autosomal ancestries of modern Egyptians and modern Ethiopians had diverged at the time of exit (OOA) ".
^^^ when ancestries is mentioned he is talking about the African component of modern Egyptians after the foreign admixture is removed. In other words the part of their ancestry that goes all the way back to the OOA period, 60Kya or more They are criticizing Paganini who said:
Tracing the Route of Modern Humans out of Africa by Using 225 Human Genome Sequences from Ethiopians and Egyptians{/b]Luca Pagani,1 2015
The predominantly African origin of all modern human populations is well established, but the route taken out of Africa is still unclear. [b]Two alternative routes, via Egypt and Sinai or across the Bab el Mandeb strait into Arabia, have traditionally been proposed as feasible gateways in light of geographic, paleoclimatic, archaeological, and genetic evidence. Distinguishing among these alternatives has been difficult. We generated 225 whole-genome sequences (225 at 8× depth, of which 8 were increased to 30×; Illumina HiSeq 2000) from six modern Northeast African populations (100 Egyptians and five Ethiopian populations each represented by 25 individuals). West Eurasian components were masked out, and the remaining African haplotypes were compared with a panel of sub-Saharan African and non-African genomes. We showed that masked Northeast African haplotypes overall were more similar to non-African haplotypes and more frequently present outside Africa than were any sets of haplotypes derived from a West African population. Furthermore, the masked Egyptian haplotypes showed these properties more markedly than the masked Ethiopian haplotypes, pointing to Egypt as the more likely gateway in the exodus to the rest of the world. Using five Ethiopian and three Egyptian high-coverage masked genomes and the multiple sequentially Markovian coalescent (MSMC) approach, we estimated the genetic split times of Egyptians and Ethiopians from non-African populations at 55,000 and 65,000 years ago, respectively, whereas that of West Africans was estimated to be 75,000 years ago. Both the haplotype and MSMC analyses thus suggest a predominant northern route out of Africa via Egypt.
The point of the critique by Shriner/Keita is they are saying that Paganini's methodology cannot determine if OOA populations left Africa via the Sinai or Bab-el-Mandeb therefore they cannot assume "a predominant northern route out of Africa via Egypt" There is no way of knowing at this point if it was Sinai or Bab-el-Mandeb.
Posts: 42919 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
"African components of the modern Egyptian and Ethiopian genomes had not split at the time of exit (OOA) " therefore: " we may infer that the African ancestors of the modern Egyptians and Ethiopians were not genetically differentiated at the time of exit and therefore that a northern route (sinai) and a southern route (Bab-el-Mandeb Strait) are indistinguishable."
That has nothing to do with what you said " Leventine Caucasians and Southern Europeans lived in Ancient Egypt before the OoA event." This is far prior to Levantines or Europeans in Africa. The paper has nothing to do with that. [/QB]
You don't know what your're talking about. The authors claim the ancestry of the Egyptians today are predominantly of Arabian and Caucasian origin. Since this is part of the ancestry of the Egyptians according to these authors, the ancestors of these people included these populations. They imply that the ancient Egyptians were predominately white as claimed by Eurocentrists.This is false the Ancient Egyptians were Negro , when in reality these populations reflects the replacement of the ancient Egyptians over the past 1500 years.
It is my opinion that some Eurocentrists will use this paper to imply the Egyptans were white.
posted
^^^ beyoku or Swenet could you clear this up, Clyde thinks Keita is implying that the ancient Egyptians were predominately white. I say that is misinterpreation
Also the article concludes: "The available data suggest that the separation of ancient Egyptians and ancient Ethiopians postdates Out-of-Africa."
^ This I don't quite understand. Are they saying that is what they believe or that that is an error due to limits of analysis at this time and samples not wide enough? How could Egyptians and ancient Ethiopians be the same as they were OOA migrants and then separate post OOA? If any genetic separation occurred post OOA at that point they would not be Egyptian or Ethiopian they would be non-African.
Nevertheless I am correct in pointing out the them of the article Again:
Originally posted by the lioness:
Shriner/Keita are saying that Paganini's methodology cannot determine if OOA populations left Africa via the Sinai or Bab-el-Mandeb therefore they cannot assume "a predominant northern route out of Africa via Egypt" There is no way of knowing at this point if it was Sinai or Bab-el-Mandeb.
Posts: 42919 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
@Lioness. I work in the white corporate world. I don't understand why you guys do that. It is such a juvenile strategy.
-------------------- 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: @Lioness. I work in the white corporate world. I don't understand why you guys do that. It is such a juvenile strategy.
I have no idea what you are talking about
Posts: 42919 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: @Lioness. I work in the white corporate world. I don't understand why you guys do that. It is such a juvenile strategy.
I have no idea what you are talking about
lol
Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: @Lioness. I work in the white corporate world. I don't understand why you guys do that. It is such a juvenile strategy.
I have no idea what you are talking about
lol
explain what xyyman is talking about so the readers know you are not laughing mindlessly as you often do
Posts: 42919 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: @Lioness. I work in the white corporate world. I don't understand why you guys do that. It is such a juvenile strategy.
I have no idea what you are talking about
lol
explain what xyyman is talking about so the readers know you are not laughing mindlessly as you often do
LOL this comes from a mindlessly individual BAHHAHAHAHAHA, too rich.
Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
Found this article for google and glad to see it has been discussed. Obviously critical to what has been said before.
My take is reliance on theoretical models is always flawed and the preference should be to actual ancient data. You need a basis to compare against in order to validate the predictions of a model, no matter how statistically sound it may be. Limited sample sets skew the results.
Posts: 8889 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic