posted
Are you making the same mistake. Assuming SSA=Nigerian? Because what you said there makes no sense if SSA are Great Lakes African.
-------------------- 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: Are you making the same mistake. Assuming SSA=Nigerian? Because what you said there makes no sense if SSA are Great Lakes African.
Explain...
Posts: 1781 | From: New York | Registered: Jul 2016
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
Basal Eurasian is a statistical entity
but Early European Farmer is real bones of * Stuttgart (f. LBK380) • Tyrolean Iceman (m. sounds like a wrestler) • southern Swedish (f. Gök4) genetically Mediterranean Europeans.
quote:... they excluded the "African" component when identifying EEF in Europe.
Lazaridis Patterson Reich used African admixture in Beduin B to figure out how much Near Eastern Farmer is in Stuttgart Swedish farm girl (and so, of the Mediterranean European cluster).
What does this mean re measure of Sardine introgression postulated all over Africa? Is it even relevant, I don't know.
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro: We can only imagine what a structure run will reveal if it included more Sahelian populations. Native North African and SSA might be more paralogous than it seems, a solution that isn't even a thought due to most people adhering to the linear SSA ---> OOA model.
Can you explain what you mean with the two bolded parts?
remember when You were talking to Tyrranhotep about Whether the Aegyptians where subSaharan or Saharan? I thought the whole premise was silly until he posted a brilliant image of what was on his mind... It was a triangle with SSA Saharan and OOA in their own corners. That's when I figured we (you him and I) where probably on the same page. That it isn't SSA -> Saharan --> Non African. But that it's more 3Dimensional than that. and extensive geneflow between groups shifted the genetic landscape into a more linear one today where we can see a steady cline of Africans from west to East to North to the Levant. And probably that, originally, North Africans weren't a subset of SubSahran Africans.
What if clyde is 100% right in his assessment above?
With Basal Eurasian statisically splitting 80. thousand. years. ago, how can one not consider Clyde being right all along in this case.
That triangle was just a graphical representation of the proportions of ancestry a population has. It's not a graphical representation of the relationships of the ancestry types he depicted (which is a completely different conversation). I fail to see what geneflow of the type you, Doug and Clyde are talking about has to do with the fact that North African is primarily the post-MSA ancestry that settled North African first. Lol. What does the fact of later migration from SSA have to do with that?
And what does Basal Eurasian being 80ky old have to do with anything? Fishing for reasons to disagree with the reality and nature of North African ancestry doesn't mean you have valid points. I see a lot of fishing for reasons to downplay and defy the data. It's clear you guys are making political arguments and trying to package them as scientific. Lol.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: That triangle was just a graphical representation of the proportions of ancestry a population has. It's not a graphical representation of the relationships of the ancestry types he depicted (which is a completely different conversation). I fail to see what geneflow of the type you, Doug and Clyde are talking about has to do with the fact that North African is simply the post-MSA ancestry that settled North African first. Lol. What does the fact of later migration from SSA have to do with that?
And what does Basal Eurasian being 80ky old have to do with anything? Fishing for reasons to disagree with the reality of North African ancestry doesn't mean you have valid points. I see a lot of fishing for reasons to downplay and defy the data. It's clear you guys are making political arguments and trying to package them as scientific. Lol. [/QB]
Uh ...huh. The ball is in your court for an explanation as to why SSAs dont make a good proxy for Native north African after all these years. If they were just africans who settled there first. We even have Taforalt genomes and yet still parsimoniously a stay at home component doesn't prevail over a series of statistical modeling. Matter of fact, What exactly is this post MSA ancestry my guy?... Do you have an Idea what it'd be or are you just talking? Are Yorubans descended from Mbuti? if not when did they hop of the linear AMH train? Was it before or after the Basal Eurasians?
I don't know what your being paranoid about... But my POV looks to answer all said questions... I can't adhere to an agenda it'd be too exhausting to hit them somersaults and back flips when certain studies don't show things I like... Don't you agree?
Not to mention how it's absolutely confusing to me as to why'd you'd post that image of a 35-40Kya split time among L3, half the age of basal Eurasian to counter the Idea that North African might be paralogous to SSA. I don't get it, are you or are you not of the Idea that SSA represent 80,000 years of continuity lol? I'm lost, as surely you can easily see my point about the age of Basal Eurasian by looking at your own image.
Posts: 1781 | From: New York | Registered: Jul 2016
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro: The ball is in your court for an explanation as to why SSAs dont make a good proxy for Native north African after all these years.
Is there a sub-Saharan population you can name that has a particularly close genetic affinity to Basal Eurasian and OOA---without back-migrant admixture?
posted
Your arguments and questions make no sense. Might as well ask me why M and N-linked Eurasian ancestry can't be modeled as SSA since it too is mtDNA L3-linked and ultimately SSA. If you don't understand any of this by now after all the discussions on this topic, then yeah, I'm blaming you guys' politics.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
BTW, for those following the conversation, BE being estimated 80ky old doesn't mean it's actually that old. The age alone is not the main takeaway for people who support an African origin of the component. The main takeaway is that it implies it's not "essentially OOA ancestry" as the blogs are claiming, but much more African. 80ky is far removed from the OOA migrations involving mtDNA M and N-linked OOA ancestry (which are closer to 50-40ky old).
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro: The ball is in your court for an explanation as to why SSAs dont make a good proxy for Native north African after all these years.[/qb]
Is there a sub-Saharan population you can name that has a particularly close genetic affinity to Basal Eurasian and OOA---without back-migrant admixture?
The promising candidates that we have autosomal data for all have OOA admixture that gets conflated with whatever Ancient north African correspondence they might have. this includes north east Africans and Horners who show a strong so called "Natufian" component, despite their sources of OOA admixture being everything but, from European to Arabian. I was hoping that we can get around that issue with a good look at some unadmixted Chadic populations possibly along with ancient samples.
However don't get me wrong about Basal Eurasian... I'm not ready to call them an actual single population yet.
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Your arguments and questions make no sense. Might as well ask me why M and N-linked Eurasian ancestry can't be modeled as SSA since it too is mtDNA L3-linked and ultimately SSA. If you don't understand any of this by now after all the discussions on this topic, then yeah, I'm blaming you guys' politics.
You sound like one of the troll whities with such false equivalencies. what you mean "M and N cant be modeled as SSA" ...in comparison to what? (they encompass all non Africans dude.) Regardless, can't the Khoisan and YRI serve as good stand ins for all East Asian Admixture in West Eurasians and vice-Versa (F3)? It's testament to their phylogenetic relationship. So I take it that you are just talking to talk... Why can't SSAs serve as a good stand in for Native north African ancestry if North Africans were intermediate to OOAs?
& whether or not BE is 80kya doesn't matter when Mbuti and crown Eurasian have their dates adjusted using the same method. You can still enlighten us as to when Yorubans jumped off the AMH train in this model.
Posts: 1781 | From: New York | Registered: Jul 2016
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro: what you mean "M and N cant be modeled as SSA" ...in comparison to what? (they encompass all non Africans dude.)
You're contracting yourself.
And probably that, originally, North Africans weren't a subset of SubSahran Africans. —elMaestro
How are North Africans not a subset of SSA, but Eurasians are?
My point, which seems lost on you, is that it makes no sense to question me on why SSA ancestry can't serve as a proxy for North African ancestry when other non-SSA components (e.g. Eurasian) have the exact same properties. There is nothing special or remarkable about that to warrant turning it into a bombshell revelation that needs explaining.
BTW, I literally have no idea what you're saying half of the time. Sometimes I pick up bits and pieces, like your support for Doug's and Clyde's claim that migration from the south invalidates the dichotomy between North African and SSA ancestry, but other times it's all jibberish to me. "Paralogous", "3D", "linear", the relevance of YRI, Khoisan and 80ky old BE. Very difficult to follow what you're saying.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro: & whether or not BE is 80kya doesn't matter when Mbuti and crown Eurasian have their dates adjusted using the same method. You can still enlighten us as to when Yorubans jumped off the AMH train in this model.
And this tells me that, despite all your posturing, you have no idea what you're talking about. YRI have plenty of lineages that split off prior to 80ky ago. Various mtDNA L1 and L2 being examples that come to mind. So, again, the issues you raise are not bombshell revelations that urgently need answers on my part. But the fact that you keep bringing YRI and BE up out of nowhere and demand answers to non-existing problems tells me that debating you on matters that fly over your head is a big waste of time.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: BTW, I literally have no idea what you're saying half of the time. Sometimes I pick up bits and pieces, like your support for Doug's and Clyde's claim that migration from the south invalidates the dichotomy between North African and SSA ancestry, but other times it's all jibberish to me. "Paralogous", "3D", "linear", the relevance of YRI, Khoisan and 80ky old BE. Very difficult to follow what you're saying.
I have to agree. I wasn't even sure "paralogous" was a real word, although apparently it is according to Google's dictionary:
quote: paralogous adjective relating to genes that are descended from the same ancestral gene by gene duplication in the course of evolution, especially when present in different species that have diverged after the duplication.
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro: what you mean "M and N cant be modeled as SSA" ...in comparison to what? (they encompass all non Africans dude.)
You're contracting yourself.
And probably that, originally, North Africans weren't a subset of SubSahran Africans. —elMaestro
How are North Africans not a subset of SSA, but Eurasians are?
My point, which seems lost on you, is that it makes no sense to question me on why SSA ancestry can't serve as a proxy for North African ancestry when other non-SSA components (e.g. Eurasian) have the exact some properties. There is nothing special or remarkable about that to warrant turning it into a bombshell revelation that needs explaining.
BTW, I literally have no idea what you're saying half of the time. Sometimes I pick up bits and pieces, like your support for Doug's and Clyde's claim that migration from the south invalidates the dichotomy between North African and SSA ancestry, but other times it's all jibberish to me. "Paralogous", "3D", "linear", the relevance of YRI, Khoisan and 80ky old BE. Very difficult to follow what you're saying.
Original North Africans not being a subset of SSA africans (the ones we know are SSA today). = Eurasians Are Africans to you? Like what are you getting at or not understanding? There was no YRI >50Kya. Africans didn't remain unchanged for over 50kya African genetic diversity is also due to admixture (recombination of various groups w/ respectable population size) North Africans didn't genetically spawn from a 50Kya Yoruba-Like population, then give birth to Eurasians. The available SSA populations can't serve as an appropriate stand in for North Africans for the same reason that Khoisan can't serve as an effective stand in for west Africans... (hint: Because there's outliers that aren't accounted for... Which might be present in Eurasian populations due to later Admixture from ancient Africans.)
Think about what you are saying and how cookie cutter it is. with "How are North Africans not a subset of SSA, but Eurasians are?" Both Khoisan and YRI can claim a basal position to Eurasians. But neither of the two groups fit between the other and Eurasians. Just replace khoisan with with Ancient north African.
EDIT: Trying to Orient yourself by pulling peices of a post apart to engagethem in isolation is a waste of time... please cut to the chase and give a definitive answer as to when the pn2 and also L3 carrying Yorubans hop off the AMH train and quit with the run around. It should be so easy right... since we attaching whole populations to uniparental haplogroups lol
Posts: 1781 | From: New York | Registered: Jul 2016
| IP: Logged |
posted
Is there someone who understands what elMaestro is talking about in the post above me? Pls step forward and translate to English.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
Do you know any good papers that calculate the autosomal split time of YRI? From what I recall ther is no consensus, but the good ones show split times >80kya. And what I mean when I say "good" is that the dates include the split times of other populations with the general list of estimates making sense.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ Very funny nigga ...I'm guessing we'll end this here. As I sense that you finally got the point and is saving face.
Asking when E-PN2 and L3 Yorubans jumped off the "AMH train" (your terminology) is equivalent to asking you to crack the voynich Manuscript it seems lol.
Posts: 1781 | From: New York | Registered: Jul 2016
| IP: Logged |
posted
Saving face? Lowkey you've changed the goalpost to only count YRI L3 and Pn2. So now you're comparing Basal Eurasian autosome-derived split estimate with two haplogroups. What type of skewed comparison is that? That's after making a bunch of other mistakes, like assuming the BE date is the actual split time, even though no population ever derives from a single clean split, not even isolated Native Americans or Australians. So how do you know there aren't multiple admixture events inflating and/or deflating that split time estimate? You're all over the place. But I'll entertain your skewed comparisons for now, to see if you did your homework on at least one count. But I bet you botched that too. We'll see of YRI autosomal split times are smaller than the BE split time.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
No goal poast has been changed, you literally just attempted to suggest without actually saying that yorubans autosomally are represntative of over 80,000 years of continuity. Me pointing out two haplogroups was just to highlight how petty your initial premise was (that L1-L2 bullshit). Now you're mentioning other methods of dating split times when I approach you with a simple question as it relates to Kamm's 2018 methods specifically. You still can't answer the question.
I honestly don't care if you personally believe that I take 80kya literally as a clean split, because its irrelevant...
Here's what's important
"How are North Africans not a subset of SSA, but Eurasians are?" -Swenet
"Both Khoisan and YRI can claim a basal position to Eurasians. But neither of the two groups fit between the other and Eurasians. Just replace khoisan with with Ancient north African." -Me
Let's try this experiment with your cookie cutter logic cited above
"How are Khoisan not a subset of SSA, but Eurasians are?" The question sounds stupid as hell now doesn't it....?
Posts: 1781 | From: New York | Registered: Jul 2016
| IP: Logged |
posted
Umm...weren't the Mande like Soninke originally in northern Africa and then they moved south?
Posts: 2508 | From: . | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro: No goal poast has been changed, you literally just attempted to suggest without actually saying that yorubans autosomally are represntative of over 80,000 years of continuity. Me pointing out two haplogroups was just to highlight how petty your initial premise was (that L1-L2 bullshit). Now you're mentioning other methods of dating split times when I approach you with a simple question as it relates to Kamm's 2018 methods specifically. You still can't answer the question.
Of course I did not say Yoruba represent >80ky of unbroken continuity. I just told you these autosomal split times aren't real historical events. You're the only one here who thinks they're real events. That's why you keep comparing BE split times with YRI hgs, demanding answers for problems that don't exist. But keep making a fool of yourself thinking a man named Basal Eurasian was born 80ky ago and that a man named Yoruba was born after 50ky ago based on Pn2's age. Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lmao Try #101: In Kamms model with mbuti splitting 96kya and crown Eurasian 45kya.... when did the Yoruban Autosome jump off the AMH train? Adjust it for Pygmy admixture, ghost admixture and the obvious later admixture however which way you want.... lol.
I'll wait for someone else to post estimates a bit more credible than this. But you can already tell YRI are never going to make elMaestro's estimate of <80ky. That's why he spams YRI L3 and Pn2 instead of making valid comparisons with relevant data.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro: Lmao Try #101: In Kamms model with mbuti splitting 96kya and crown Eurasian 45kya.... when did the Yoruban Autosome jump off the AMH train? Adjust it for Pygmy admixture, ghost admixture and the obvious later admixture however which way you want.... lol.
Here we go... Classic grandstanding... I'll just quote myself until you can answer the question. this is almost as bad as chasing around the Eurocentric trolls
Posts: 1781 | From: New York | Registered: Jul 2016
| IP: Logged |
posted
On the one hand he admits the dates aren't literal, on the other hand he is using the dates to reconstruct the relative autosomal split times of YRI and BE (using uniparentals of all things). The funny part is elMaestro is going to flip flop to my position in another thread in the future. Just watch how this guy habitually adopts positions he attacked before like nothing happened.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
This is why you don't mix autosomal split times with haplogroup dates, and why split times usually aren't historical. Populations split and then meet each other again, making most autosome-derived split times conflations of actual split times and admixture events:
quote: In this study, we focus on two aspects of African population genetics, 1. the nature of population structure in Africa going back in time and 2. the timing of the Out-of-Africa event. To address these questions, we assembled a dataset with whole genome sequences from 162 individuals using both in-house sequencing and publicly available sources. These samples span 22 populations worldwide. These include eleven African populations which we use to dissect the population substructure in Africa. In addition, we also have 2 Middle Eastern, 5 European and 4 East/Central Asian populations which inform the population split time estimates for the Out-of-Africa event and the European-Asian split. We find extensive population structure in Africa extending back to before the Out-of-Africa event. The Ethiopian populations, Amhara and Oromo, show evidence of mixing beyond 15 kya. The Maasai and Luhye merge with the Ethiopian populations to form a panmictic East African population ~40kya. We find evidence for extensive mixing between east and west African populations before 50kya. Among the pygmy populations, we see recent gene flow between the Batwa and Mbuti. All African populations except the San merge into a single population around 110 kya. The San exchange migrants with the other African populations beginning ~120 kya. We estimate the Out-of-Africa event to have occurred ~75kya and the European-Asian split to ~25kya.
As far as applying this to the 80ky admixture date of BE... we don't know when BE actually split, since BE is likely a mixture, like all other populations. And how does one give a mixed population a single split date, when it consists of two or more populations?
Now watch elMaestro casually post something to this effect a month from now, like he wasn't vehemently arguing against this. You just can't make up what these people do online. Pure entertainment.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
All of this and still no answer to one simple question. As if people can't literally just scroll up and see that your directing an argument to noone.
Now you're all about how it was "me first" again, all that classic baby shit which I' won't even continue to entertain. Boy quit reaching and answer the damn question. lmao.
quote:Lmao Try #103: In Kamms model with mbuti splitting 96kya and crown Eurasian 45kya.... when did the Yoruban Autosome jump off the AMH train? Adjust it for Pygmy admixture, ghost admixture and the obvious later admixture however which way you want.... lol.
We can pretend that I believe that this statistical model is literal (even though my point as it relates to BE clearly suggests otherwise,) for the time being if it gets you to stop pulling that strawman out your ass, and answer the question.
posted
elMaestro, enjoy your posturing on ES all you want. You know as soon as you log in to ABF or elsewhere your posts are not respected. You get the silent treatment there in conversations that matter. That is, when you're not on the sidelines watching others debate. But like I said, keep posturing on ES with your gibberish. It seems to be working for you here. As long as you and I know.
I've said what I have to say.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:elMaestro, enjoy your posturing on ES all you want. You know as soon as you log in to ABF or elsewhere your posts are not respected. You get the silent treatment there. But like I said, keep posturing on ES with your gibberish. It seems to be working for you here. As long as you and I know.
I've said what I have to say.
^^ All cool we done here, but would you mind editing your post so that you're also mentioning something on-topic. I don't wanna look biased for not deleting irrelevant junk ...Please and thanks
Posts: 1781 | From: New York | Registered: Jul 2016
| IP: Logged |
posted
The problem is trying to model African DNA evolution as simply a split between North African and Sub Saharan African. Firstly it is problematic for understanding "African" genetic evolution because most of the times North African is a proxy for Eurasian back migration, as in the U lineages which supposedly arose in Eurasia. Second because Eurasian DNA like U isn't older than 50-60kya and therefore cannot be the basis of any defining DNA lineages IN Africa going back upwards of 80kya. And if all humans ultimately originated in Sub Saharan Africa hundreds of thousands of years ago, such a split is irrelevant to the ultimate relationship of all humans to that origin in Sub Saharan Africa. In other words it would only be relevant if North Africans were an indigenous (non Eurasian) population that split off from other Africans long before OOA and had a much greater distance from non Africans than Non Africans to Sub Saharans because of the age of the split. But no such population exists as the definition of "North African". A good potential candidate for such a population would be the 300,000 year old skulls found recently in North Africa (Jebel Irhoud). But as far as we know those populations are unrelated to any modern populations. Lastly the bottom line is that "North African" vs "Sub Saharan" is simply a way of LIMITING indigenous African DNA to being exclusively Sub Saharan which we all know is false. This is why most papers mentioning "North African" vs "Sub Saharan" DNA point out that "North Africa" is representative of Eurasian back migration. Meaning it is not defined as "African" in origin.
Understanding "African" genetic evolution over 300,000 years imposes no "North African" vs "Sub Saharan" dichotomy. It only requires understanding relationships between various populations at different times over 300,000 years LEAVING OUT any Eurasian mixture and focusing ONLY on African DNA lineages moving around in Africa.
Also, keep in mind that most times when folks talk about "North African" DNA they are primarily talking about DNA less than 20,000 years old which is to say LONG AFTER OOA and primarily based around "Eurasian" mixture since that time. It makes absolutely no sense to try and conflate this relatively recent concept of North African, with populations in Africa that have been around for over 50,000 years.
And because most North African studies are exclusively focused on Coastal populations, any remnants of DNA from prior to 20,000 years ago is likely to be missed. This is due to the fact that the populations with such older lineages either migrated due to the Saharan wet/dry periods or were isolated in small pockets and their descendants most likely found in small numbers among various Central and Southern Saharan populations, which are not often included in "North African" DNA studies. Which is another reason why this model of "North African" vs "sub Saharan" is skewed. It uses MODERN North Africans as a proxy for "ALL" North Africans going back 50,000 years which makes absolutely no sense and is exclusively biased towards modern populations with Eurasian admixture (coastal North Africans).
Most papers talking about so-called African DNA however START with contemporary "North Africans" as the basis for ALL North African DNA going back thousands of years as if Eurasians have been in North Africa since OOA and we know they haven't. So obviously you can't even pretend this model has anything to do with OOA or African DNA evolution within the continent.
quote: Despite the amount of knowledge about North African populations obtained from palaeoarchaeological data, more studies are needed to investigate the recent history of this region (Arauna et al., 2017 Arauna LR, Mendoza-Revilla J, Mas-Sandoval A, Izaabel H, Bekada A, Benhamamouch S, Fadhlaoui-Zid K, et al. 2017. Recent historical migrations have shaped the gene pool of Arabs and Berbers in North Africa. Mol Biol Evol 34:318–329.[PubMed], [Web of Science ®], [Google Scholar]). Indeed, genetic studies point out that modern North Africans constitute a heterogeneous group, whose ancestry is a result of at least three admixture events from populations outside Africa: a “back-to-Africa” gene flow (12,000 ya), a Near East gene flow (1400 ya) and migrations from south-Saharan Africa resulting from the slave trade (1200 ya) (Arauna et al., 2017 Arauna LR, Mendoza-Revilla J, Mas-Sandoval A, Izaabel H, Bekada A, Benhamamouch S, Fadhlaoui-Zid K, et al. 2017. Recent historical migrations have shaped the gene pool of Arabs and Berbers in North Africa. Mol Biol Evol 34:318–329.[PubMed], [Web of Science ®], [Google Scholar]; Henn et al., 2012 Henn BM, Botigué LR, Gravel S, Wang W, Brisbin A, Byrnes JK, Fadhlaoui-Zid K, et al. 2012. Genomic ancestry of North Africans supports back-to-Africa migrations. PLoS Genet 8:e1002397.[Crossref], [PubMed], [Web of Science ®], [Google Scholar]). Genome-wide autosomal studies reveal a gradient of likely autochthonous Maghrebi ancestry that is reduced from West to East and an opposite cline of Near East ancestry with a westward decrease (Henn et al., 2012 Henn BM, Botigué LR, Gravel S, Wang W, Brisbin A, Byrnes JK, Fadhlaoui-Zid K, et al. 2012. Genomic ancestry of North Africans supports back-to-Africa migrations. PLoS Genet 8:e1002397.[Crossref], [PubMed], [Web of Science ®], [Google Scholar]). However, geographic distance and genetic diversity were not found to be correlated in North African populations, probably because of heterogeneous or unbalanced admixture (Arauna et al., 2017 Arauna LR, Mendoza-Revilla J, Mas-Sandoval A, Izaabel H, Bekada A, Benhamamouch S, Fadhlaoui-Zid K, et al. 2017. Recent historical migrations have shaped the gene pool of Arabs and Berbers in North Africa. Mol Biol Evol 34:318–329.[PubMed], [Web of Science ®], [Google Scholar]). Y-chromosome data show an east–west cline from the Near East compatible with a Neolithic demic expansion (Arredi et al., 2004 Arredi B, Poloni ES, Paracchini S, Zerjal T, Fathallah DM, Makrelouf M, Pascali VL, et al. 2004. A predominantly neolithic origin for Y-chromosomal DNA variation in North Africa. Am J Hum Genet 75:338–345.[Crossref], [PubMed], [Web of Science ®], [Google Scholar]), as well as a bidirectional gene flow from North Africa to Iberia (Bosch et al., 2001 Bosch E, Calafell F, Comas D, Oefner PJ, Underhill PA, Bertranpetit J. 2001. High-resolution analysis of human Y-Chromosome variation shows a sharp discontinuity and limited gene flow between Northwestern Africa and the Iberian Peninsula. Am J Hum Genet 68:1019–1029.[Crossref], [PubMed], [Web of Science ®], [Google Scholar]).
And this is where the confusion comes from. Some folks who talk of a theoretical model of "North African" DNA as a branch of DNA from which OOA occurred are talking about a different model of African DNA history than most of these papers on DNA in Africa are talking about. These papers are talking of North Africa having been the result of Eurasians since 20kya ago and therefore has nothing to do with OOA. THAT MODEL of Eurasian backflow into North Africa is the dominant model of MOST papers on the genetic history of Africa and MODERN North Africans are always proxies for "Eurasians" in this model.
The problem is that when they get actual ancient DNA from North Africa, this model falls apart. And the model is already fragile as it tries to sustain itself by continually showing linkages between Eurasia and North Africa even if the evidence doesn't support it. This is how you get the recent paper which states: Pleistocene North African genomes link Near Eastern and sub-Saharan African human populations as if anybody should be shocked or surprised by this.
And as more actual ancient DNA from across Africa is found that is upwards of 10 to 20kya the more we will see this model is flawed.
Posts: 8890 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
First you post spam 5 times, then you want to make mod threats because I said the truth about your posturing. You have no high ground once you start spamming questions that are just your own confusion talking (i.e. I'm under no obligation to answer random gibberish questions about Yoruba).
You can delete all my posts if you want to. You tried to provoke me with repeated spam questions. Don't try to follow the rules now that vindictiveness suits you.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
“back-migration” is a myth. Both the autosomal and uniparental markers is consistent with Isolation By Distance ie Founder Effect ie Genetic Surfing. With a source population in SSA East Africa…at least the Neolithic, mid-Holocene. That SSA group can be found maybe in Tanzania or Malawi.
For those of you who can follow to some degree. Natufians are NOT Basal Eurasian although they both SHARE the same ancestral population. That is why Natufians are NOT related to Western Europeans. BE is the ancestral population of Western Europeans.
Some authors have COMBINED BE and Natufians depending on the scope of the paper. But they are two DIFFERENT groups of ancient populations both ORIGINATING in SS East Africa and bifurcation taking place along the Nile or in the Eastern Sahara.
quote:Originally posted by [Q]
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro: [q]The ball is in your court for an explanation as to why SSAs dont make a good proxy for Native north African after all these years.[/q]
Is there a sub-Saharan population you can name that has a particularly close genetic affinity to Basal Eurasian and OOA---without back-migrant admixture? [/Q]
-------------------- 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 data in the paper Pleistocene North African genomes link Near Eastern and sub-Saharan African human populations could be modeled as Africans moving out of Africa into the Levant or as Levantines moving out of the Levant into Africa. My money is on the Africans moving out of Africa into the Levant. But the standard DNA model of North Africa always posits that the flow was the other direction..... And this is just one of the more recent episodes of continuous movements of Africans out of Africa into Eurasia. This has happened numerous times since OOA. Which of course would make a clinal relationship between Africans and Eurasians regardless of "backmigration". Yet all models of North African DNA history focus exclusively on promoting the idea of "backmigration" as if Africans didn't and weren't migrating continuously outward over the last 80 thousand years.
El-Maestros point. -Kamms BE split times shows them to be Africans (W/o a question) -However BE might not be representative a single population -North Africans probably weren't a subset off Sunsaharan Africans. -unadmixed Saharan/Sahelian Populations might highlight all of the above when analyzed with aDNA.
Heres a popular image on here
^Notice how after Mbuti we have Non-Africans, then we have Basal Eurasian descending from them. That Non_African Node includes Africans who were the ancestors of populations like the Yoruba, the Dinka, the Masai and more. The fact that Kamms estimates puts BE so close to Mbuti's split highlights this. Which is why I have been asking the simple question above.
To Me Basal Eurasian and North Africans aren't synonyms (at least they don't seem like it yet), For one, SSAs like Mota can and have been used as a stand in for Basal Eurasian. This is not because Basal Eurasians were SSA or a subset of SSA but because Eurasians are a subset of Africans and Basal Eurasians were African. Right now, North Africans including all of the ancient North Africans can not fit as Basal Eurasian. Which is why mainstream scientist are giving credit to backmigration and also suggesting more and more that Basal Eurasian is Middle eastern.
Everything that isn't seen as absolutely SSA is treated as Eurasian, when in all actuality thousands of years ago, SSA as we know it now might not have existed. At that time there probably were no SubSaharan Africans for North Africans to be a subset of.Posts: 1781 | From: New York | Registered: Jul 2016
| IP: Logged |
posted
The green component can also be found in ancient and modern East Africa and Natufians. Along with Taforalt but not in modern West Africa.
This pattern is consistent with an Sub-Saharan East African origin of both Natufians and Taforalt
BTW- Did I miss it? I just noticed that no Europeans were included in the Fig 2B!!!!! But Fig 2A has Taforalt in between West Africans and Europeans and notice East Africans are not included in Fig 2A
Significance? Man the crocked Europeans! It is always a good idea to revisit those papers! I missed it the first time around.
BTW – keep in mind these are SUPERVISED AIM meaning that they were preselected. Another set of AIM will tell a completely different story. Understand the game!
They are trying to parse out migration and demographics so these specific Aim were chosen for whatever reason.
-------------------- 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 |
I'm not able to access the text of this paper. But it reports the SSA/non-SSA split as taking place anywhere between 60 and 120 kya. But it is from 2012, so maybe more recent findings have revised the date.
quote:In the second paragraph of the subsection entitled 'African and non-African split' in this article, both instances of the range '60,000–120,000 years ago' were incorrectly written as '120,000–160,000 years ago'. The editors apologize for this mistake.
EDIT: This more recent paper estimates the West African/non-African split as taking place 70-80 kya:
quote:We inferred that the separation between hunter-gather populations and other populations happened around 120,000 to 140,000 years ago with gene flow continuing until 30,000 to 40,000 years ago; separation between west African and out of African populations happened around 70,000 to 80,000 years ago, while the separation between Maasai and out of African populations happened around 50,000 years ago.
posted
Hey man! you stealing my thunder. Agree on all points. Just want to add that west Africans-Iwo eleru?
Notice in that chart above that Canary Islanders carry traces of the Iwo Eleru? Purple. If these are ancient Canary Islanders and not modern, author did not specify, that would be a bombshell. Now I see why they would not include Southern Europeans in the mix. lol! They will also carry heavy doses of PURPLE. SMH! Data manipulation of crocked researchers?!
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro: [Q] For the lurkers and those in the stands.
El-Maestros point. -Kamms BE split times shows them to be Africans (W/o a question) -However BE might not be representative a single population -North Africans probably weren't a subset off Subsaharan WestAfricans. -unadmixed Saharan/Sahelian Populations might highlight all of the above when analyzed with aDNA.
H [/Q]
-----------------
Hmmm! good point! I never thought about this. But that would agree with Mbuti carrying Green, brown and purple components in my chart above.
quote: "^Notice how after Mbuti we have Non-Africans, then we have Basal Eurasian descending from them. That Non_African Node includes Africans who were the ancestors of populations like the Yoruba, the Dinka, the Masai and more. The fact that Kamms estimates puts BE so close to Mbuti's split highlights this. Which is why I have been asking the simple question above.
This is could be one of the reasons why West Africans and Europeans who show no formal evidence of mixing with each other share more alleles despite Eurasians (including east Asians and Europeans) all having the most recent common ancestor."
I will give you that one. This will align with McEvoy et al ........
-------------------- 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: [QB] Hey man! you stealing my thunder. Agree on all points. Just want to add that west Africans-Iwo eleru?
Notice in that chart above that Canary Islanders carry traces of the Iwo Eleru? Purple. If these are ancient Canary Islanders and not modern, author did not specify, that would be a bombshell. Now I see why they would not include Southern Europeans in the mix. lol! They will also carry heavy doses of PURPLE. SMH! Data manipulation of crocked researchers?!
If Yoruba and Mende are completely purple how are you so sure that the purple component elsewhere is indicative of Iwo Eleru-type admixture?
posted
Since you are good at this. Can you include Southern European populations in the mix in Fig2B. I would like to see their purple component…..tic! toc! Tic! Toc!
quote:Originally posted by capra:
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: But Fig 2A has Taforalt in between West Africans and Europeans and notice East Africans are not included in Fig 2A
Oromos and Somalis ffs
-------------------- 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
@ELmaestro. See the question I asked Capra. There is a reason why Europeans weren’t included in Fig2B. If there is heavy purple in Southern Europeans ..there is you missing link. This pattern is indicative of sub-structure within Africa. Notice also the Khoi-San do NOT carry purple. Again indicative of sub-structure within Africa. My guess these are the Iwo-Eleru. Also this has to SUPERVISED testing otherwise Khois-San will also carry West African admixture like we know from historical times. So the researchers has “filtered out” “Bantu” ancestry in the Khoi-San ie SUPERVISED to get a clear picture of ancient demographics.
-------------------- 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
if you need me to explain where well-known African peoples are from i can help you with that. if you want to run ADMIXTURE you are on your own.
Posts: 660 | From: Canada | Registered: Mar 2017
| IP: Logged |
posted
How are you going to reconstruct the movement and DNA history of Africans which is over 200,000 years old by a model of DNA that starts in Eurasia? Eurasian DNA isn't even 100,000 years old. Yet here we have folks trying to use modern Eurasians as a base population for what happened in Africa before said Eurasians even existed.
I am not sure why folks are even following this line of reasoning. Basal Eurasian, EEF and all other "Eurasian" oriented models have no place in understanding the population history and DNA evolution of Africans IN Africa.
The only time Sub Saharan as a "branch" of African DNA becomes relevant is in reference and relationship to Eurasian back migration. Otherwise "Sub Saharan" has no place or relevancy in Ancient African DNA understanding.
Most papers on African DNA are based on a Eurasian frame of reference and this is the fundamental problem. You aren't going to backwards calculate the existence of various populations in Africa from modern Eurasians. Isn't possible.
Posts: 8890 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
He! He! You got me! I am lazy like that. I need to really spend time digging into these software and start posting. Problem is most run off Ubuntu /Unix and Mac’s. Most of my college coding was Windows based.
Anyways to T-Rex/Swenet’s point. The separation cannot be that old > 50,000years. Why? The direct sampling of aDNA confirms this. Eg mtDNA-H is at significant levels up to 6000 years ago in Europe. SLC24A5 is absent in Western Europe up to about 6000years ago. Etc etc Direct testing of aDNA put the separation much more recent than we thought. Keep in mind HBs/sickle Cell and its age and origin. Clearly there was a second MAJOR migration within the last 8000years.
Look at all lines of evidence…unlike the researchers. LoL!
quote:Originally posted by capra: if you need me to explain where well-known African peoples are from i can help you with that. if you want to run ADMIXTURE you are on your own.
-------------------- 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
Lucas Martin would have resolved this already. The present management at DNAtribes is scared. DNAConsultants also screwed things up and when they reported on the Amarnas. It seems only Eurocentrics have control of the a analytical tools.
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: He! He! You got me! I am lazy like that. I need to really spend time digging into these software and start posting. Problem is most run off Ubuntu /Unix and Mac’s. Most of my college coding was Windows based.
Anyways to T-Rex/Swenet’s point. The separation cannot be that old > 50,000years. Why? The direct sampling of aDNA confirms this. Eg mtDNA-H is at significant levels up to 6000 years ago in Europe. SLC24A5 is absent in Western Europe up to about 6000years ago. Etc etc Direct testing of aDNA put the separation much more recent than we thought. Keep in mind HBs/sickle Cell and its age and origin. Clearly there was a second MAJOR migration within the last 8000years.
Look at all lines of evidence…unlike the researchers. LoL!
quote:Originally posted by capra: if you need me to explain where well-known African peoples are from i can help you with that. if you want to run ADMIXTURE you are on your own.
-------------------- 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 |
Recent African gene flow responsible for excess of old rare genetic variation in Great Britain Alexander Abstract Population genomic studies can reveal the allele frequencies at millions of SNPs, with the numbers of observed low frequency SNPs increasing as more genomes are sequenced. Rare alleles tend to be younger than common alleles and are especially useful for studying demographic history, selection and heritability. However, allele frequency can be a poor proxy for allele age, as genetic drift and natural selection can lead to alleles that are both rare and old. In order to allow joint assessments of allele frequency and allele age, a new estimator of allele age was developed that can be applied to variants of the lowest observed frequencies (singletons). By examining the geographic and age distribution of very rare variants in a large genomic sample from the UK, we identify new evidence of gene flow from Africa into the ancestors of the modern UK population. A substantial proportion of variants with observed frequencies as low as 1e-4 are orders of magnitude older than can be explained without African gene flow and are found at much higher FREQUENCIES within modern African populations. We estimate that African populations contributed approximately 1.2% of the UK gene pool and did so approximately 400 years ago?????. These findings are relevant both to our understanding of human history and to the nature of rare variation segregating within populations: a variant that is rare because it is a recent mutation in the direct ancestor of the population will have had a very different evolutionary history than an ancient one that has persisted at high frequencies in a diverged population and only recently arrived through migration
----
It is not really 400 years that would imply there was an orgy between Africans and the British 400years ago. eThat would mean most white women were having balck babies. That did not happen. The statistical calculation is off but the African genes is there....
-------------------- 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 |
I'm not able to access the text of this paper. But it reports the SSA/non-SSA split as taking place anywhere between 60 and 120 kya. But it is from 2012, so maybe more recent findings have revised the date.
quote:In the second paragraph of the subsection entitled 'African and non-African split' in this article, both instances of the range '60,000–120,000 years ago' were incorrectly written as '120,000–160,000 years ago'. The editors apologize for this mistake.
EDIT: This more recent paper estimates the West African/non-African split as taking place 70-80 kya:
quote:We inferred that the separation between hunter-gather populations and other populations happened around 120,000 to 140,000 years ago with gene flow continuing until 30,000 to 40,000 years ago; separation between west African and out of African populations happened around 70,000 to 80,000 years ago, while the separation between Maasai and out of African populations happened around 50,000 years ago.
I think the YRI-OOA split times are relatively recent in the 2nd paper because of sampling bias. West Eurasians are mixed with Basal Eurasian and so split times derived from them are unreliable. This becomes very clear when Asians are included. The paper below includes relatively unmixed Asians ("relatively unmixed" meaning less post-OOA African ancestry), and the results are much more realistic:
quote:The average separation times from the East African populations, i.e., those located in the most plausible site of departure of AMH expansions [26] (Table 1), are distributed along a range spanning from 60K to 100K years ago. Extreme divergence values were observed for Europe and Caucasus on the one hand, and for Australia and New Guinea on the other, respectively, at the lower and the upper tails of the distribution. Even considering the full range of uncertainty around these estimates (95 % of the confidence interval), we observed no overlap, with Europe having an upper confidence limit 77K/71K years ago (depending on the LD measure used, respectively, the r2 and σ2 statistic) and Australia having a lower confidence limit 88K/80K years ago.
Might read the first paper later to confirm whether it's sample bias.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Of course, all of this is just deceitful Eurocentric sleights of hand. The Ancient Egyptians amply portrayed who they were. They were an indigenous Africa who migrated from much below Upper Egypt along the banks of the Nile to found the world's first technological civilization.
They broadcasted who they were to the world by that gigantic Sphinx of unmistakable African physiognomy. Then their Panel of Peoples distinguished themselves and the Nubian neighbors from the non-Africans of West Asia. A caveat though: some of those sculptures have been doctored and even fabricated with deciful ideological intent-as in that brandished around Nefertiti bust. This is the authentic Nefertiti.
In a field fraught with ideological commitments, articles that claim to peer reviewed are often not. Outside readers have no idea of the veracity or accuracy of the claims given obvious constraints. Yet some research has been honest enough to let the cat out of the bag. https://www.theapricity.com/forum/archive/index.php/t-205248.html
The sensible solution re the AEs is to attach most credence to how they portrayed themselves--not relying on very possibly very bogus ideologically tainted research put out by unmonitored academics.
In this regard, who the AEs were is a "case closed' situation. Nothing more to add.
posted
You people need to stop believing some of these frauds on here. Here is a sample of research going down. Chicken coming home to roost ? They are finding deep pre-historical presence of African genes in Western Europe and are struggling to explain it. Lol! ------ Quote: “We applied our method to estimate tc for 21,992,410 of the rarest variants in the UK10k3 whole-genome population sequencing sample that has been filtered to remove close relatives and individuals of non-European ancestry. The distribution of estimated values revealed a dramatic excess of variation that is both old and rare -- well beyond what is predicted by previous models of UK or European human history. Figure 1 shows the means and standard deviations of the distributions of log(tc ) values for variants found 2, 3, 4, 5, 10, and 25 times in the UK10k sample of 3,621 individuals (7,242 haplotypes), and compares them with predictions from five published models of UK and European demographic histories9–13 as well as new models with additional admixture events from an African population or diverged archaic human group. For all of the lowest frequency classes, the observed data contain variants that are far too old to have been generated by the published models (all of which returned mean simulated tc distributions considerably smaller than for the observed data). The models proposed by”
“Admixture from archaic humans will have introduced old alleles, and some of these are expected to appear at the lowest frequencies in the UK10K sample. However, we found that admixture with archaic humans does not introduce sufficiently rare alleles in the numbers necessary to explain the discrepancy.”
-------------------- 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 is why we need to include Southern Europeans ....PURPLE-Iwo Eleru??!!! in the Admixture Chart. "Pretty please!"
What does the study show? 1. They pulled samples from a database of 3600 PURE British 2. In other words these people are supposedly NOT recently or visible admixed 3. They found that The British citizens on a wide spread scale carry African genetic markers 4. They tried to estimate the age of the “introgression” and ruled archaic admixture (ie pre-modern human like Neanderthals) 5. The bracketed a range commencing 2000 generations ago(ie 50000years) 6. They have no exact match to a specific African population. My take is this is the “purple”-Iwo-Eleru. This is why they removed the Europeans purple from that chart above. It will screw with their hypothesis if Europeans show up carrying Iwo-Eleru DNA
-------------------- 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 |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
lol
Printer-friendly view of this topic