posted
What we have is the EEF and Basal Eurasian papers came out a few years back and basically some folks were trying to use this and model ancient African DNA history up to and including the Neolithic, which is problematic.
Ultimately what we have from the EEF and Basal Eurasian papers and more recent papers is:
1) Natufian DNA connected to Africa 2) Natufians potentially connected to the origin of the Neolithich in the fertile crescent 3) EEF as a downstream marker for European populations during the Neolithic not directly tied to the populations of the fertile crescent who originated farming 4) Iberomaurisan tied to an ancestral population that is also ancestral to the Natufians 5) The Iberoumarisian DNA and those ancestral to them predate the Neolithic. 6) Modern Anatolian, Turkish and Levantine populations not directly descended from ancient Neolithic populations.....
Posts: 8889 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
^Nice synopsis of where we are today. The novice reader gets it twisted with the label "Eurasian". Even the authors admit the label "Eurasian' is misleading and does not mean it is of Eurasian origin.
-------------------- Without data you are just another person with an opinion - Deming Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Keep in mind these issues can be resolved by the layman. Some of the aDNA of these ancient humans is freely available. But currently Eurodogs control that narrative as far as data manipulations. The tools are out there for freelance researchers and free thinkers to do independent work. The Amarnas was a lesson learned. We all had the STR dataset of King Tut and his family and only about 2 years AFTER DNATribes said "hold on'. "We have enough to STR to align the Amarnas within geographic homeland". And we got South Africa and the Great Lakes and West Africa being 3rd. DNAConsultants soon followed. Then John Q Public realized the tools was always out there to do and confirm independently. I am 100% confident that the BAM files of the Abusir mummies can align with a geographic region or population The broad stroke "Eurasian" is a smoke screen. Hold on to your BAM files. It is coming. You will be able to do your own analysis. I am speculating TreeMix and GPS and MOMI2 will work!!!. Maybe others. The Private Genetic companies have the capability but they won't talk.
Remember it was Shriner who recently showed the Natufians indeed do have much as 29% African ancestry after initial reports show they had no African ancestry. Get it through your heads. It is all a game by nefarious Eurocentric researchers. It is about how the data is manipulated. It is impossible for the Abusir to be anything but pure Sub Saharan African when 2000 years Earlier Luxmanda, 1000miles deeper into Africa has 60% "Eurasian" AIM with mtDNA L2a. Mota(4000BCE) also had "Eurasian" AIM then he did not then he did then he did not then he did. lol! In addition their relatives 100miles away (Amarnas) within the same time period were pure Sub Saharan African. Stay tuned!
-------------------- 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 the problem, if they are 'Playing games' and Laymen have to do their own analysis to get the truth, then doesn't that make the research invalid? That is quite extreme don't you think? Not that I disagree there has always been an agenda in anthropology, but they have to make it look credible.
If African scholars were doing that nobody would give their work the time of day....
That said, my own perspective is that they rely too much on a-priori models based purely on speculation and hypotheticals when it comes to throwing around the label "Eurasian" in ancient African DNA. Obviously more actual ancient DNA from Africa will reveal that. This shows the limitations of such speculative models. And some people put to much faith in these models.
Most of these papers are coming at it from a European perspective in terms of understanding "Eurasian" genetic history after OOA. Africa is thrown in as almost an afterthought, with the main issue being they don't have a lot of ancient DNA from Africa to use in their work.
As for playing games, specifically concerning AE, we will see when and if more DNA results are published from more well known mummies and other remains found there....
Posts: 8889 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: huh!? Is this what they said? Where
Where did you look?
So you too didn't bother to read the photocopies I posted from Lazaridis 2014 and supplement? I ought to roll my eyes like a bitch.
It's what the inventors had published. It's not them that's talking bullshit out their ass. They a 100% straight up about • current YRI to find NEF in EEF • Roman era NA+SSA ≈ 4th Euro ancestral component
I tried 3X to get S13 the same size as title page and S12 but despite pixel width it still came out smaller so just zoom or read your own copy of the letter and its supplements.
I noted in my break down of the Lazaridis paper when it first came out that he could not disentangle YRI from BE/EEF. ...henece he used Bedouins as a proxy for BE. His follow-up paper(2016) placed BE in Africa..most likely.
I can dig it out on ESR?
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler: So you too didn't bother to read the photocopies I posted from Lazaridis 2014 and supplement. I should roll my eyes like a bitch.
It's what the inventors had published. It's not them that's talking bullshit out their ass. They a 100% straight up about • YRI to find NEF in EEF • NA+SSA ≈ 4th Euro ancestral component
I tried 3X to get S13 the same size as title page and S12 but despite pixel width it still came out smaller so just zoom or read your own copy of the letter and its supplements.
-------------------- 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 |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
Na a go shovel Mensa.
I was of the same vibe and extracted African relevancies to post back then like a chart of f stats where the Africans are ingroup contributors.
Independent minded analysis of geneticists' publications is all we can do until more of Africa's scientists have the leisure and loot to do origins and evolution. They now rightly mostly focus on actual genes related to serious life threatening diseases.
I was looking over Triska 2015 who used genome to show transSahel relationships. It also focused on specificg disease vector genes. So I those Afr studies may hold some pop gen goodies waiting for the right mind to see the connections.
He's not a geneticist but Bouzouggar's work put the kibosh on Kefi's bullshit. I went to get more of his stuff and Researchgate has his pic. He's a Berber black!
Look how long it took. But time is on our side. Real multidisciplinary population genetics work not impotent whining and wishful denial and burial of fact.
Abdeljalil Bouzouggar PhD National Institute of Archaeological Sciences and Heritage · Department of Prehistory
Abdeljalil Bouzouggar, archéologue et professeur à l'INSAP – Lavieec
-------------------- 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
This was taken from Davidski when the Mota paper was just released. Here are some quote sthat got my attention
Comments: Lank said... Would you be able to get ahold of the Mota genome? Would be interesting to see a few things.
1) How it relates to other Africans 2) How it relates to "Basal Eurasian" 3) How it fits into modern variation overall (it shows a 'Eurasian' pull in the paper's PCA, but nothing in the formal stats)
October 8, 2015 at 1:41 PM Davidski said... I'll see what I can do
October 8, 2015 at 3:37 PM truth said... Well, looking at global PCAs one could see that West-Africans some pull towards West-Euriasians in regards to the more Paleo-Africans, so that didn't come as a surprise, however I didn't expect that for Mbutis.
German Dziebel said... @Roy King
"If, indeed, a major Eurasian back migration into Africa occurred circa 1000 BCE, then the Neolithic source population must have avoided the ANE component that we now see in most Near Eastern populations."
All of the SSAfrican populations, including San, are shifted toward Ma'ta (prototypical ANE in Eurasia) vs. K14.
October 8, 2015 at 9:04 PM German Dziebel said... @Tobus
"This isn't "Basal Eurasian", it's post-Neolithic West Eurasian."
In SI, Sardinian keeps coming up as the likeliest source for West Eurasian admixture in SSAfrica (including Mbuti), hence my earlier hunch. Basal Eurasian is attested in an ancient Eurasian sample (K14), which is still closer to Lithuanians than a later but BE-richer Stuttgart. So I'm just connecting the dots. BE must be a subset of West Eurasian diversity exported into Africa, not a subset of African diversity imported into Neolithic Europe.
"Check the Z-scores in Tables S10/S11 (of the original Seguin-Orlando K14 paper), the San/Mbuti scores aren't significant indicating these these pops are outgroups to the MA-1/Kostenki branch."
Look at the plot I included in the referenced post. When K14 and MA-1 are directly compared, all SSA, including San, shift toward MA-1.
October 9, 2015 at 1:37 AM MfA said... Karl_K said... I'm sure a 10,000 year old African genome will show additional Eurasian back-flow into modern African populations.
Indeed, I think there is still some room for additional Neanderthal ancestry for contemporary populations, with using older African ancient DNA.
October 9, 2015 at 1:39 AM Chris Davies said... "Admittedly though, I am skeptical that all of the Eurasian admixture arrived so late"
I agree. I think Maju is correct. Many of the F,G,H,I,J,K Y DNA haplogroups found in Sudan could be the result of an Eurasian back-migration as early as the Palaeolithic. And then spread to other African populations. Even the Mbuti have haplogroup J.
------------------------------end
Statistics is not my forte but obviously this is being used to make inferences. The start off with the assumption that region of highest frequency = place of origin. But Isolation by Distance with Founder Effect FROM Africa will show same geographic pattern. But undoubtedly the Mota genomes threw this thing wide open and these laymen are playing around with the tools to make their point. Of course this can be much simpler like comparing uniparental markers(and sub-clades) between geographic regions. We know how that story unfolds.
-------------------- Without data you are just another person with an opinion - Deming Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
-------------------- Without data you are just another person with an opinion - Deming Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Why don't you tell me? HE! HE! HE! I know we are kinda slow........
-------------------- 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
Just another reminder that Bio-Anthropology is one of the few scientific areas where it's normal to blatantly warp information for political reasons. In some places it's more normal than abnormal.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic