quote:Doug says Which then means that all of these OOA populations 60,000 years ago were still primarily Africans. But they have a hard time calling them Africans. Because what else would they be at that time frame? These people are just warped in their nonsense.
You're already changing your position... Now the earliest OOA peoples are "primarily", but not fully African? So how much "primarily" % African ancestry does someone have to be to labelled African?
Afrikaners descend from recent (17-19th century Dutch colonists), but they call themselves Afrikaners, not Dutch. According to you though, they should be Dutch? Posts: 949 | From: England | Registered: Oct 2015
| IP: Logged |
Modern Day Coptic Northern Sudanese Priest Rev Farag, who also serve in the ruling party in Northern Sudan. There are 3 million people in Northern Sudan that follow the Orthodox faith. These people are primarily Egyptians and NOrthern Sudanese of varies backgrounds.
quote:Originally posted by sudaniya: I have never personally come across a Sudanese Copt,
Ethiopian and Sudan orthodox Christians side by side
This is incorrect. We don't have 3 million Orthodox Christians in Sudan - Coptic or otherwise. The entire Christian population (of all denomimations) is under 2 million.
Posts: 1568 | From: Pluto | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Doug: Again, this is really not directed at you so much as the mentality of those producing these charts and studies to begin with who I am saying are more concerned with painting a picture of Eurasian history with NO AFRICAN influence.
So, you're saying they tampered with the chart? Yes or no. No need for long winded walls of text.
I didn't say that and you can read. You keep trying to change the discussion going all the way back to the other thread where this started. Like I said, whatever charts or graphs you produce don't contradict what I said which is that Africans and African DNA has been in the Levant and Eurasia since the birth of humans in Africa and their migrations out of Africa. No charts or graphs you can show are going to contradict that. And again, this isn't YOU it is those producing these works, you simply want to pretend that these folks aren't promoting an agenda in removing or downplaying African input into Eurasia and the Levant throughout history.
So lets move on. You aren't really addressing anything I am saying as opposed to dodging. I have been saying this since day one but of course you are going to claim that is "too political".
Posts: 8897 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
So the DNA of this EFF population can be found even in the Dinka? Who were they and when did they admix with people in Northeast Africa?
Posts: 1568 | From: Pluto | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ish Gebor: Does this mean you carry predominantly R1b1* and A1b?
I took a Net Geo test and I was R-DF19 and L3b1a. It just hit me how this dawned on me that Europeans post their haplogroups in different percentiles. Even though I prefer Albino Apocalypse this is why I don't mind the term White Supremacy. But yeah I'm R1b1a21blahblahblah. Most likely I got it from my great grandfather along with my last name. He was white.
It also dawned on me that this is why DNATribe's score was low in Modern Egypt. I had to look at it from my Great Grandfather's POV. My Tribe's TestPosts: 1254 | From: howdy | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ish Gebor: Does this mean you carry predominantly R1b1* and A1b?
I took a Net Geo test and I was R-DF19 and L3b1a. It just hit me how this dawned on me that Europeans post their haplogroups in different percentiles. Even though I prefer Albino Apocalypse this is why I don't mind the term White Supremacy. But yeah I'm R1b1a21blahblahblah. Most likely I got it from my great grandfather along with my last name. He was white.
It also dawned on me that this is why DNATribe's score was low in Modern Egypt. I had to look at it from my Great Grandfather's POV. My Tribe's Test
"Albino apocalypse"? Do you mean to say that you want these "albinos" dead? That's crazy talk. Europeans are not albinos... their skin colour is just a derivative of their adaptation to their environment.
Posts: 1568 | From: Pluto | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Doug: Again, this is really not directed at you so much as the mentality of those producing these charts and studies to begin with who I am saying are more concerned with painting a picture of Eurasian history with NO AFRICAN influence.
So, you're saying they tampered with the chart? Yes or no. No need for long winded walls of text.
I didn't say that and you can read. You keep trying to change the discussion going all the way back to the other thread where this started. Like I said, whatever charts or graphs you produce don't contradict what I said which is that Africans and African DNA has been in the Levant and Eurasia since the birth of humans in Africa and their migrations out of Africa. No charts or graphs you can show are going to contradict that. And again, this isn't YOU it is those producing these works, you simply want to pretend that these folks aren't promoting an agenda in removing or downplaying African input into Eurasia and the Levant throughout history.
So lets move on. You aren't really addressing anything I am saying as opposed to dodging. I have been saying this since day one but of course you are going to claim that is "too political". [/qb]
So, if nothing contradicts what you're saying, and if there is no tampering, then what is stopping you from giving a description of the purple component in Africans? Is it EEF-like or not?
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ish Gebor: Does this mean you carry predominantly R1b1* and A1b?
I took a Net Geo test and I was R-DF19 and L3b1a. It just hit me how this dawned on me that Europeans post their haplogroups in different percentiles. Even though I prefer Albino Apocalypse this is why I don't mind the term White Supremacy. But yeah I'm R1b1a21blahblahblah. Most likely I got it from my great grandfather along with my last name. He was white.
It also dawned on me that this is why DNATribe's score was low in Modern Egypt. I had to look at it from my Great Grandfather's POV. My Tribe's Test
Never did one and I am not planning to, for several reasons.
Anyway, the percentage of European Y-DNA in Black American males, confirms history.
quote:Originally posted by sudaniya:
quote:Originally posted by Fourty2Tribes:
quote:Originally posted by Ish Gebor: Does this mean you carry predominantly R1b1* and A1b?
I took a Net Geo test and I was R-DF19 and L3b1a. It just hit me how this dawned on me that Europeans post their haplogroups in different percentiles. Even though I prefer Albino Apocalypse this is why I don't mind the term White Supremacy. But yeah I'm R1b1a21blahblahblah. Most likely I got it from my great grandfather along with my last name. He was white.
It also dawned on me that this is why DNATribe's score was low in Modern Egypt. I had to look at it from my Great Grandfather's POV. My Tribe's Test
"Albino apocalypse"? Do you mean to say that you want these "albinos" dead? That's crazy talk. Europeans are not albinos... their skin colour is just a derivative of their adaptation to their environment.
I think he is an African American. They have somewhat different experiences with whites.
Posts: 22235 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Doug says Which then means that all of these OOA populations 60,000 years ago were still primarily Africans. But they have a hard time calling them Africans. Because what else would they be at that time frame? These people are just warped in their nonsense.
You're already changing your position... Now the earliest OOA peoples are "primarily", but not fully African? So how much "primarily" % African ancestry does someone have to be to labelled African?
Afrikaners descend from recent (17-19th century Dutch colonists), but they call themselves Afrikaners, not Dutch. According to you though, they should be Dutch?
Colored dots indicate genetic diversity. Each new group outside of Africa represents a sampling of the genetic diversity present in its founder population. The ancestral population in Africa was sufficiently large to build up and retain substantial genetic diversity.
--Brenna M. Henna, L. L. Cavalli-Sforzaa,1, and Marcus W. Feldmanb,2 Edited by C. Owen Lovejoy, Kent State University, Kent, OH, and approved September 25, 2012 (received for review July 19, 2012)
Posts: 22235 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
Wait people can have multiple haplogroups.. at differing percentages??? And Albino apocalypse??? Is that saying genocide??? what is that saying that relates to the thread?
Posts: 2508 | From: . | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
He's Using "Albino Apocalypse" in a way interchangeable with "White supremacy" ..It isn't the Albinos that are target of genocide, it's everyone else... insert, "zombie Apocalypse" The zombies aren't the ones in danger, etc, etc.
And we only belong to a single sex related Halpogroup. on a chromosome in question you can have multiple snps indicative of many Hgs. Because Y and mtdna mutates linearly, a binary assignment can be given to snps in a perceived order of mutation. However a previous mutation at an assigned snp in a late descendant can mutate again and hide or mis-categorize a hg. So you have to use probability to determine a most likely haplogroup based on all detectable markers, including STRs and snps.
Posts: 1781 | From: New York | Registered: Jul 2016
| IP: Logged |
And the question is being asked: "get 10 skittles out of the bag" and put them on the table. The person in the testpanel picks 10 skittles of the same color.
Is that bias sampling or accurate sampling, or perhaps both?
quote:Originally posted by Oshun: Wait people can have multiple haplogroups.. at differing percentages??? And Albino apocalypse??? Is that saying genocide??? what is that saying that relates to the thread?
Sarah Tishkoff (U. Pennsylvania) Part 1: African Genomics: Human Evolution
quote:Originally posted by Doug: Again, this is really not directed at you so much as the mentality of those producing these charts and studies to begin with who I am saying are more concerned with painting a picture of Eurasian history with NO AFRICAN influence.
So, you're saying they tampered with the chart? Yes or no. No need for long winded walls of text.
I didn't say that and you can read. You keep trying to change the discussion going all the way back to the other thread where this started. Like I said, whatever charts or graphs you produce don't contradict what I said which is that Africans and African DNA has been in the Levant and Eurasia since the birth of humans in Africa and their migrations out of Africa. No charts or graphs you can show are going to contradict that. And again, this isn't YOU it is those producing these works, you simply want to pretend that these folks aren't promoting an agenda in removing or downplaying African input into Eurasia and the Levant throughout history.
So lets move on. You aren't really addressing anything I am saying as opposed to dodging. I have been saying this since day one but of course you are going to claim that is "too political". [/qb]
So, if nothing contradicts what you're saying, and if there is no tampering, then what is stopping you from giving a description of the purple component in Africans? Is it EEF-like or not? [/QB]
What on earth is "EEF Like"? EEF is a broad category of various populations across Europe, the Levant and Anatolia. Can you define what makes something "EEF Like"? I can define what makes something African. I can define what makes something Eurasian. This obsession with these "new" labels as if they provide anything meaningful to the discussion is the problem.
And this is my point. What study is this chart with the purple on it from? What DNA lineages or components does it represent? And why is it so difficult to call those components Eurasian or African?
Either that purple component reflects African ancestry in Europe or it reflects Eurasian ancestry in Africa. I can't say without the data.
That is my point. EEF is not a "better" way of describing human migrations between Africa and Europe. By definition EEF is primarily concerned about migrations of populations WITHIN EUROPE, by specifically filtering out African ancestry. I don't see why you keep trying to get around that. Yet you keep promoting a skewed concept as an absolute reference for ancestral migrations between Europe and Africa.
From the main study;
quote: PCA of modern reference populations (18, 19) and projected ancient individuals. The Greek and Anatolian samples reported here cluster tightly with other European farmers close to modern-day Sardinians; however, they are clearly distinct from previously published Caucasian hunter-gatherers (20). This excludes the latter as a potential ancestral source population for early European farmers and suggests a strong genetic structure in hunter-gatherers of Southwest Asia. Central and East European (C./E. European), South European (South Eur.). Ancient DNA data: Pleistocene hunter-gatherer (Plei. HG) (20, 21, 22), Holocene hunter-gatherer (Holocene HG) (2, 4, 13, 20, 23), Neolithic (2, 4, 12, 13, 24), Late Neolithic/Chalcolithic/Copper Age (LN/Chalc./CA) (13, 25), and Bronze Age (13). Ancient samples are abbreviated consistently using the nomenclature “site-country code-culture”; see SI Appendix, Table S14 and Dataset S1 for more information. A 3D PCA plot can be viewed as a 3D figure (https://figshare.com/articles/Hofmanova_et_al_3D_figure_S4/3188767).
quote: For each allele-matching analysis (A) and (B), we performed the following four mixture model analyses (though here “modern” groups exclude ALT,DEN, who are not used as surrogates for reasons described above):
(I) “all moderns” – form each ancient and modern genome using all modern groups as surrogates
(II) “all moderns + ancients” – form each ancient and modern genome using all modern+ancient groups as surrogates
(III) “ancients + Yoruba” – form each ancient and modern genome using all other ancient genomes, plus the modern Yoruba, as surrogates
(IV) “ancients (excluding BR) + Yoruba” – form each ancient and modern group using the modern Yoruba and all other ancient genomes except BR2 as surrogates
In each case, a group cannot use itself as a surrogate or else it would match itself exactly. Under allele-matching analysis (B), the same groups we disallow as donors are also disallowed as surrogates for mixture model analyses (I) and (II). For analyses (III) and (IV), we were interested in how modern and ancient groups relate ancestrally to different sets of ancient genomes. We also included the Yoruba as a surrogate in (III) and (IV), since our ancient samples contain no proxies for sub-Saharan Africa and e.g. several West Eurasian groups we use here have been shown to have recent African admixture [121].
The bolded part is key. They are not modeling Africa as a source of any significance in any of these models. And using the Yoruba is the same tired old tactic of pretending that Africa starts somewhere south of the Sahara. This allows them to model all these populations as MINUS African ancestry..... Which makes sense on one hand but on the other hand it is dishonest. Also note in all these supplements, it is very hard to find where they clearly list the actual MDNA or YDNA. So they are using all these other mixture analyses based on specific allelles to hide the actual DNA relationships which themselves would indicate the African components especially in the ancient populations.... But whatever, if you don't see that by now, it is because you don't want to see it. This is theoretical framework meant to provide a way of identifying specific population relationships within Eurasia by masking out all others, especially Africans. But the problem with that is we know that IN REALITY you cannot model ancient population movements around the Levant and Eurasia without including Africa. Yet this is precisely what they have done here.
In other words they took this picture and removed everything on the left side:
Which kind of contradicts the following:
quote: The increasing abundance of human genetic data has shown that the geographical patterns of worldwide genetic diversity are best explained by human expansion out of Africa. This expansion is modelled well by prolonged migration from a single origin in Africa with multiple subsequent serial founding events. We discuss a new simulation model for the serial founder effect out of Africa and compare it with results from previous studies. Unlike previous models, we distinguish colonization events from the continued exchange of people between occupied territories as a result of mating. We conduct a search through parameter space to estimate the range of parameter values that best explain key statistics from published data on worldwide variation in microsatellites. The range of parameters we use is chosen to be compatible with an out-of-Africa migration at 50-60Kyr ago and archaeo-ethno-demographic information. In addition to a colonization rate of 0.09-0.18, for an acceptable fit to the published microsatellite data, incorporation into existing models of exchange between neighbouring populations is essential, but at a very low rate. A linear decay of genetic diversity with geographical distance from the origin of expansion could apply to any species, especially if it moved recently into new geographical niches.
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
quote:Originally posted by sudaniya: So the DNA of this EFF population can be found even in the Dinka? Who were they and when did they admix with people in Northeast Africa?
Thanks for correcting the caption to the Copt pic. But is the ID wrong too? Is the guy a Sudani Copt of Sudanese background? He's not Egyptian is he?
What I was trying to say about the Dinka from Laz. It's not the Dinka mixed by 'EEF'. Its MidEasterners. * Syrian = Dinka + Europe_EN * Saudi = Dinka + Anatolia_N
I don't have my hands on the 2016 supplement. I'm guessing Anatolia_N is the Near Eastern precursor to EEF proper (Anatolian farmers spread west into Europe) and Europe_EN is a bit later in time. Dinka are Laz's only Nilo Saharan samples.
This is based on f3-statistics where allele frequencies for SNPs are equated to show if a Test population is an admixture of two Reference populations, yes no or maybe.
If the f3-stat is negative and its error score, Z, is less than -3 then there was mixture between Ref_1 and Ref_2 in the Test population. Posts: 8179 | From: the Tekrur straddling Senegal & Mauritania | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by sudaniya: So the DNA of this EFF population can be found even in the Dinka? Who were they and when did they admix with people in Northeast Africa?
Thanks for correcting the caption to the Copt pic. But is the ID wrong too? Is the guy a Sudani Copt of Sudanese background? He's not Egyptian is he?
What I was trying to say about the Dinka from Laz. It's not the Dinka mixed by 'EEF'. Its MidEasterners. * Syrian = Dinka + Europe_EN * Saudi = Dinka + Anatolia_N
The dinka displayed a purported non-african component... Sudaniya was referring to that. It isn't necessarily EEF, but since EEF shares drift with other neolithic groups from whereverdafuq it would seem like a "related" group was integrated into the dinka genome.
the interesting part is Non African Admixture in Sahelian/west african populations goes further back, and are probably from a different source population compared to East Africa. But there is an overlap in admixed sahelian groups and North East African groups, though they do not necessarily generate or fall into the same genetic clusters.
I would like to trace the sahelian component in the Abusir mummies, it's absence or presence would say a lot about this sample of remains.
Posts: 1781 | From: New York | Registered: Jul 2016
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ This still makes me wonder, what is this non-African component?
quote:
Dataset preparation for population genetic analyses Genotypes were called in GD13a at sites which overlapped those in the Human Origins dataset (Lazaridis et al.17, filtered as described in Jones et al.24) using GATK Pileup44.
quote: The site has been directly dated to 9650)9950 calBP (11), showing intense occupation over two to three centuries. The economy of the population has been shown to be that of pastoralists, focusing on goats (11). Archaeobotanical evidence is limited (16) but the evidence present is for two)row barley, probably wild, and no evidence for wheat, rye or other domesticates. In other words the overall economy is divergent from the classic agricultural mode of cereal agriculture found in the Levant, Anatolia and Northern Mesopotamian basin.
[…]
We compared GD13a with a number of other ancient genomes and modern populations (6, 17–29), using principal component analysis (PCA) (30), ADMIXTURE (31) and outgroup f3 statistics (32) (Fig. 1). GD13a did not cluster with any other early Neolithic individual from Eurasia in any of the analyses. ADMIXTURE and outgroup f3 identified Caucasus Hunter)Gatherers of Western Georgia, just north of the Zagros mountains, as the group genetically most similar to GD13a (Fig. 1B&C), whilst PCA also revealed some affinity with modern Central South Asian populations such as Balochi, Makrani and Brahui (Fig. 1A and Fig. S4). Also genetically close to GD13a were ancient samples from Steppe populations (Yamanya & Afanasievo) that were part of one or more Bronze age migrations into Europe, as well as early Bronze age cultures in that continent (Corded Ware) (17, 23), in line with previous relationships observed for the Caucasus Hunter)Gatherers (26).
[...]
Figure Legends:
Fig. 1. GD13a appears to be related to Caucasus Hunter Gatherers and to modern South Asian populations.
A) PCA loaded on modern populations (represented by open symbols). Ancient individuals (solid symbols) are projected onto these axes.
B) Outgroup f3(X, GD13a; Dinka), where Caucasus Hunter Gatherers (Kotias and Satsurblia) share the most drift with GD13a. Ancient samples have filled circles whereas modern populations are represented by empty symbols.
C) ADMIXTURE using K=17, where GD13a appears very similar to Caucasus Hunter Gatherers, and to a lesser extent to modern south Asian populations.
The mitochondria of GD13a (91.74X) was assigned to haplogroup X, most likely to the subhaplogroup X2. Haplogroup X2 is present in modern populations from Europe, the Near East, Western and Central Asia, North and East Africa, Siberia, and North America (7). Haplogroup X2 has been associated with an early expansion from the Near East (7, 8) and has been found in early Neolithic samples from Anatolia (9), Hungary (10) and Germany (11).
quote:S5. Principal component analysis shows that Southern Asian populations are the closest contemporary populations to the Iranian herder GD13a was placed close to the Southern Asian samples, specifically between the Balochi, Makrani and Brahui populations of South Asia. (Fig. S4). Of the ancient samples, GD13a falls closest to hunter-gatherers from the Caucasus (Fig. S4).
quote: S7. Outgroup f3 statistics show that GD13a shares the most genetic drift with Caucasus Hunter-gatherers
We used outgroup f3-statistics to estimate the amount of shared drift between GD13a and contemporary populations. This was performed on the dataset described in section S6 using the qp3Pop program in the ADMIXTOOLS package (13). We computed f3(X, GD13a; Dinka), where X represents a modern population and Dinka, an African population equally related to Eurasians, acts as an outgroup (Fig. S7). We also repeated this analysis where X represents ancient individuals/populations. Among the ancient populations, Caucasus hunter-gatherers (Kotias and Satsurblia) have the closest affinity to GD13a (Table S3), followed by other ancient individuals from Steppe populations from the Bronze age and modern populations from the Caucasus.
—M. Gallego-Llorente,
The genetics of an early Neolithic pastoralist from the Zagros, Iran
What I was trying to say about the Dinka from Laz. It's not the Dinka mixed by 'EEF'. Its MidEasterners. * Syrian = Dinka + Europe_EN * Saudi = Dinka + Anatolia_N
The dinka displayed a purported non-african component... Sudaniya was referring to that. It isn't necessarily EEF, but since EEF shares drift with other neolithic groups from whereverdafuq it would seem like a "related" group was integrated into the dinka genome.
.
OK, did I take a wrong turn? Help me out.I can't find any in Laz (2013) Ext Data Fig 3. What's the nonAfrican component Who reports on it in detail?
Posts: 8179 | From: the Tekrur straddling Senegal & Mauritania | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged |
Copts in Sudan may refer to people born in or residing in Sudan of full or partial Coptic origin.
Sudan has a native Coptic minority, although many Copts in Sudan are descended from more recent Coptic immigrants from Egypt.Copts in Sudan live mostly in northern cities, including Al Obeid, Atbara, Dongola, Khartoum, Omdurman, Port Sudan, and Wad Medani. They number up to 500,000, or slightly over 1% of the Sudanese population. Due to their advanced education, their role in the life of the country has been more significant than their numbers suggest.They have occasionally faced forced conversion to Islam, resulting in their emigration and decrease in number.
Modern immigration of Copts to Sudan peaked in the early 19th century, and they generally received a tolerant welcome there. However, this was interrupted by a decade of persecution under Mahdist rule at the end of the 19th century. As a result of this persecution, many were forced to relinquish their faith, adopt Islam, and intermarry with the native Sudanese. The Anglo-Egyptian invasion in 1898 allowed Copts greater religious and economic freedom, and they extended their original roles as artisans and merchants into trading, banking, engineering, medicine, and the civil service. Proficiency in business and administration made them a privileged minority. However, the return of militant Islam in the mid-1960s and subsequent demands by radicals for an Islamic constitution prompted Copts to join in public opposition to religious rule.
Dozens Killed As 2 Attacks Target Coptic Christians In Egypt April 9, 2017
At least 44 people were killed and more than 100 injured after suspected suicide bombings in two different Egyptian cities at Coptic Christian churches Sunday.
The interior ministry said one of the explosions was a bombing in Mar Gerges church in Tanta, a city in the north of Egypt in the Nile Delta, located between Cairo and Alexandria. The church was full at the time with worshippers observing Coptic Christian Palm Sunday.
Health ministry spokesman Khaled Mujahed told Egyptian state television that at least 27 people were killed and 78 injured.
Just hours later and about 80 miles away in Alexandria, a second explosion outside the Mar Markas church killed 16 people and injured 41 others, Mujahed confirmed to state television.
NPR's Jane Arraf adds that the Coptic Pope was in the building, but unharmed by the attack.
Reporter Bel Trew, Egypt correspondent for the Times of London, told NPR that the pope was leading prayers when the suspected bomber attempted to enter the church. Security forces managed to keep the attacker outside, but at least three officers were killed.
The Islamic State claimed responsibility for both explosions through its semi-official Amaq news agency.
quote:Originally posted by Doug: Either that purple component reflects African ancestry in Europe or it reflects Eurasian ancestry in Africa.
And this is why I asked the question. It gets right to the heart of things. Your answer exposes why you don't get it. The purple component in living Africans isn't either African or Eurasian.
For someone who insists that my terms don't work, you're the one who keeps bumping into problems, trying to fit a square peg in a round hole. Whatever pitfalls there may be with my terminology, at least I can accurately predict things and I can explain things. You cannot even explain what that purple component is. So why lecture people on whether or not to use it?
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Doug: What on earth is "EEF Like"? EEF is a broad category of various populations across Europe, the Levant and Anatolia. Can you define what makes something "EEF Like"?
In the analysis below, which of the non African samples fits best into the pred Egyptian sample?
When you answer that, you will have the answer to your question.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler: OK, did I take a wrong turn? Help me out.I can't find any in Laz (2013) Ext Data Fig 3. What's the nonAfrican component Who reports on it in detail?
Wait, hold up...
I mixed up the ethnic groups lol. though I figured Sudaniya was referring to the small amount of "Basal Eurasian" ancestry in the Dinka as detected by Lazaridis (2014) fig S3 and Stora (2016) fig S4. I mixed mandenka with dinka as seen by the fact that I mistakenly Identified the Dinka as a western/sahelian African group. Nonetheless I feel that If presented under ADMIXTURE along with ancient neolithic samples we would see some ancient admixture show up in western/Sahelian groups as well. wherever a sahelian cluster forms, some of its admixture pops up in north East African populations. (sometimes in replacement of said YRI admixture at a lower cluster(~<K=4)
but anyways I'ma PM you the Graph of the pre-print for Lazaridis 2013, It's hard to distinguish the colors with the most recent color scheme.
quote:Originally posted by Ish Gebor: ^ This still makes me wonder, what is this non-African component?
Are you open to the Idea that the Natufians could have been an early African genetic Isolate until mixing with late levant Neolithic people?
Posts: 1781 | From: New York | Registered: Jul 2016
| IP: Logged |
posted
Admixture chart including the mandenka (a poor Sahelian representative but one nonetheless). Posts: 1781 | From: New York | Registered: Jul 2016
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
I went and looked again and I still don't see any Basal Eurasian there. Just 5 ancient Eurasians. ADMIXTURE doesn't distinguish common origins from a mixture event. There's no corroboration for Han - Dinka or Indian - Dinka admixture events.
That type of inference fell apart at K= 16 where with the * "Masai-maximized East African component", * "a component maximized in the East African Hadza", and * "an African farmer component maximized in the Yoruba" there's no room for anybody else in Dinka ancestry.
Laz's f3-stats about Dinka show his * Syrians, * Saudis, and * Polish Jews are admixed with Dinka.
Cases of outside bloodlines in Africans remain showing through to the max K, like the bars for the Black Americans and the Ethiopian Jews for instance.
Thanks for the Stora reference. Seems promising. Will study it soon.
For the Sahel, Laz has Gambians to go along with Senegal's Mandenka and Stuttgart is the ancient Neolithic in Ext Data Fig 3.
I need the Laz (2016) supplement. I have Laz (2013) and (2014) and I commented on how his Peers soft shoed what he said about African culture and morphology re Basal Eurasian and re the Natufians.
In my book based on anthropology and archaeology, the Natufians descend from the cohabitation of local Levantines and some incoming Africans over about 2000 years of time.
Oh, one important caveat about K=2 that I will keep bringing up is, in global runs the split is not African vs Eurasian nor so-called subSaharan vs all else, but Stay at Home African vs got Out of African.
Posts: 8179 | From: the Tekrur straddling Senegal & Mauritania | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by sudaniya: "Albino apocalypse"? Do you mean to say that you want these "albinos" dead? That's crazy talk. Europeans are not albinos... their skin colour is just a derivative of their adaptation to their environment.
I use Albino Apocalypse as a synonym for White Supremacy. A lot of times when you use the terms White Supremacy melinated people will argue that they aren’t supreme. Nevermind that they have more land, resources, wealth etc people will argue and participate in it. I prefer albino apocalypse because white people are objectively albino. You could say all you want about why they are. You might be right but it doesn’t change the fact that their light skin/hair/eyes/freckles come from the same types of genetic mutations that cause albinism in anyone else down through much of the animal kingdom. I call it an apocalypse because there is no greater threat to the world than White Supremacy. If the human race falls in the next 200 years it will be either the destruction of the environment, a new super weapon, nuclear war, or a disease created by people attempting to maintain white hegemony.
quote:Originally posted by Oshun: Wait people can have multiple haplogroups.. at differing percentages??? And Albino apocalypse??? Is that saying genocide??? what is that saying that relates to the thread?
They are the same haplogroups. R-DF19 is an abbreviation for some long r1b1a sub-haplogroup. The race of albinos has caused a many genocide but I was mainly referring to their wealth and ability/desire to distance themselves from Africa. I Nat-geo reported an African and European haplogroup and one is many digits longer than other.
Posts: 1254 | From: howdy | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged |
I see Beyoku matrix dodged my question on EEF fixation for slc24a5, creates a new thread... then teases someone by pointing to the skin color of an ambiguous mummified skull, with no caption or description... what is dis madness? lmao
I'm currently trying to figure out if the AEgptians were just color blind... Looking at our neighboring EEF descendant populations ... Tunisians... un admixed Morrocans, EUROPEANS..?
But that's light work, what we do need to find is >5000bp non African-like admixture in east Africa. At least a smidget. I don't know why a convergence in upper eastern Africa shaping the East African landscape late Holocene doesn't seem obvious. I see some people still saying there's a mysterious North East African (component?) not related to SSA (as defined by geneticists), when if anything, this study has literally tied the noose around the neck and tilted the chair under that Idea... Yes Sudaniya, you've been left hanging... well, almost.
quote:Originally posted by Ish Gebor:
I did read somewhere in a study that east Africa isn't considered sub Sahara. I forgot which paper it was, but I will look it up.
Here's my proposal, everyone cut the sh!t and admit that their universal interpretation of an SSAn is a probable Ancestor of an African American... Cuz it's definitely not about geographic location and if we're excluding east Africa, it ain't about genetics, or even skin color for that matter.
... I mean, really, almost every genetics related study equated SSA =\= Non African drift and we're sifting through the Sahara for obscurities to Identify extant and extinct African populations. For a population over 5000 years ago to be considered indigenous they will HAVE TO CARRY SOME FORM of East African-SSA(Labeled) ancestry, PERIOD.... there's no going around it, either A.Egypt was a transplant or there was a convergence on the Nile, no "inbetweens" make logical sense in totality.
I agree with this right here. It is hard for me to believe that southern pre dynastic Egyptians would have no east african SSA. Even in the abstract for the new paper, it states that the mummies were 20% less SSA then the modern inhabitants. Th modern inhabits are like 20% SSA. Modern day Nubians have about 40-50% east african SSA. Do you remember Tishkoff's paper on African DNA?
Look at the purple component in the Beja. They originated in northern sudan. Now I also believe obviously that there was some sort of basal Eurasian like component in north African populations. I think there were probably multiple types of these groups in the saharan, I don't think they were all the same, probably varying in the level of affinity with sub-sharan africans. Also about the purple component that every keeps on talking about.... in another paper concerning the horn of africa.... there is something that was called "Ethio somali" which was present. It seemed like a Eurasian affiliated component but it had more affinity with sub-sharan africans then the full blown Eurasian components.
One blogger thinks its just the computer shitting out things ...
You got the remember that these admixture programs are not foul proof and they will **** out certain things at different times.
Based upon DNA tribes and the re-analysis of it by certain members here. I think ancient egyptian were probably a mix of SSA east African and a indigenous Saharan component (this component does have some affinity to SSA but obviously it is distinctly different
Posts: 89 | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Doug: Either that purple component reflects African ancestry in Europe or it reflects Eurasian ancestry in Africa.
And this is why I asked the question. It gets right to the heart of things. Your answer exposes why you don't get it. The purple component in living Africans isn't either African or Eurasian.
For someone who insists that my terms don't work, you're the one who keeps bumping into problems, trying to fit a square peg in a round hole. Whatever pitfalls there may be with my terminology, at least I can accurately predict things and I can explain things. You cannot even explain what that purple component is. So why lecture people on whether or not to use it?
No Swenet, you are being defensive as usual instead of understanding what is being said. If the purple component represents a DNA lineage of some ancient African population that migrated into Europe or in other words a DNA lineage of African extraction, then it represents African ancestry in Europe. On the other hand if it represents ancient Eurasian migrations into Africa with a DNA lineage of Eurasian origin it is a Eurasian lineage. Yes those are perfectly reasonable explanations for the ANCESTRAL relationships between the two groups based on a shared DNA lineage or biological component.
Come on man stop playing games.
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:Originally posted by Doug: What on earth is "EEF Like"? EEF is a broad category of various populations across Europe, the Levant and Anatolia. Can you define what makes something "EEF Like"?
In the analysis below, which of the non African samples fits best into the pred Egyptian sample?
When you answer that, you will have the answer to your question.
More games. You are just determined to force people to agree with your nonsense. Why don't YOU answer the question since YOU are the one who supports the idea of "EEF"? I don't have to answer because I never agreed with the concept of EEF to begin with. You just don't want to accept it and keep playing these games as if to suggest suddenly the ONLY way to describe biological mixture in and between Africa, Europe and the Levant is by "EEF". Here is the problem. EEF is a component that is the result of algorithms designed to explicitly EXCLUDE African populations from the Eurasian target groups. So your question makes no sense. What you should be ANSWERING is what is "EEF like" which is what I asked. Somehow you know there is no fixed definition of EEF. So why don't you find out what Lazirdis and these other authors of these studies propose as the definition of "EEF" and stop playing games with me. The whole reason I asked you the question is because there IS NO fixed definition of what EEF is. And if you know what this definition is then simply provide it. That's all. I don't support the concept, I don't believe the definition is reliable and even relevant to Africa and hence do not see it as a useful term relative to ancient African population history. But this is the part you keep trying to defend even though it isn't YOUR WORK that is being referenced. I don't even understand the absurd desire to defend terminology and meta populations using abstract formulas at this point.
There is nothing about EEF that couldn't be said in other ways, such as early European neolithic farming communities received substantial mixture from Levantine, Anatolian and other Near Eastern neolithic communities, which also included some African DNA ancestry.
quote: An “Early European Farmer” (EEF) cluster includes Stuttgart, the ~5,300 year old Tyrolean Iceman1 and a ~5,000 year old Swedish farmer4.
Patterns observed in PCA may be affected by sample composition (SI10) and their interpretation in terms of admixture events is not straightforward, so we rely on formal analysis of f-statistics8 to document mixture of at least three source populations in the ancestry of present Europeans. We began by computing all possible statistics of the form f3(Test; Ref1, Ref2) (SI11), which if significantly negative show unambiguously8 that Test is admixed between populations anciently related to Ref1 and Ref2 (we choose Ref1 and Ref2 from 5 ancient and 192 present populations). The lowest f3-statistics for Europeans are negative (93% are >4 standard errors below 0), with most showing strong support for at least one ancient individual being one of the references (SI11). Europeans almost always have their lowest f3 with either (EEF, ANE) or (WHG, Near East) (SI11, Table 1, Extended Data Table 1), which would not be expected if there were just two ancient sources of ancestry (in which case the best references for all Europeans would be similar). The lowest f3-statistic for Near Easterners always takes Stuttgart as one of the reference populations, consistent with a Near Eastern origin for Stuttgart’s ancestors (Table 1). We also computed the statistic f4(Test, Stuttgart; MA1, Chimp), which measures whether MA1 shares more alleles with a Test population or with Stuttgart. This statistic is significantly positive (Extended Data Fig. 4, Extended Data Table 1) if Test is nearly any present-day West Eurasian population, showing that MA1-related ancestry has increased since the time of early farmers like Stuttgart (the analogous statistic using Native Americans instead of MA1 is correlated but smaller in magnitude (Extended Data Fig. 5), indicating that MA1 is a better surrogate than the Native Americans who were first used to document ANE ancestry in Europe7,8). The analogous statistic f4(Test, Stuttgart; Loschbour, Chimp) is nearly always positive in Europeans and negative in Near Easterners, indicating that Europeans have more ancestry from populations related to Loschbour than do Near Easterners (Extended Data Fig. 4, Extended Data Table 1). Extended Data Table 2 documents the robustness of key f4-statistics by recomputing them using transversion polymorphisms not affected by ancient DNA damage, and also using whole-genome sequencing data not affected by SNP ascertainment bias. Extended Data Fig. 6 shows the geographic gradients in the degree of allele sharing of present-day West Eurasians (as measured by f4-statistics) with Stuttgart (EEF), Loschbour (WHG) and MA1 (ANE).
By Lazirdis' OWN STUDY the deterimination of "EEF like" requires complex statistical analysis of ancient biological data and none of his work included the Nile Valley or other parts of Africa as part of the sample set or reference populations within this group. But here you come trying to claim with simple spamming of bits and pieces of various data that somehow you can generate similar conclusions to those made by Lazirdis that are heavily derived based on all sorts of principle mixture analyses, from some one or two pieces of data in some chart. You don't make any sense. You should just wait for the authors of these studies to come out with a paper claiming EEF mixture in ancient North Africa. Because they are the ones who made up the concept and therefore have to show the relationship of the meta population to Africans, who are explicitly EXCLUDED from their original work. I don't understand why this is something so hard to accept. EEF is not an absolute reference for mixture between Eurasia and Africa. The statistical models used to define it make such simple comparisons to populations in Africa misleading best and impossibly convoluted at worst.
So here's another hint: Does Lazirdis, et al, consider these populations EEF Like? That is the question you SHOULD be asking. The term EEF is specifically based on their attempts to model the population history of Europe during the Neolithic it is not intended to be an absolute reference on the biological history of other populations and farming outside of Europe. It isn't even an absolute reference to the population history of people in Eurasia associated with the spread of farming.
The point being that if you are going to use those terms from Lazirdis and others as a way of modeling African population history, then you need to define those terms in a way relevant to that history. Otherwise you are comparing apples and oranges. Or like I said in the when to use black and not to thread, you are trying to turn the great grandchildren into daddy.
Posts: 8897 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Another long wall of text filled with confused conjecture. Aint nobody got time for that.
Bottom line, all relevant northeast Africans need an EEF-like component to model them. Sign up to a conspiracy theorist forum with all that paranoid "Lazaridis et al are out to get us" gibberish.
Your terminology doesn't work, hence why you keep repeating unsupported gibberish, like:
quote: Originally posted by Doug M: If the purple component represents a DNA lineage of some ancient African population that migrated into Europe or in other words a DNA lineage of African extraction, then it represents African ancestry in Europe. On the other hand if it represents ancient Eurasian migrations into Africa with a DNA lineage of Eurasian origin it is a Eurasian lineage.
You made that either/or scenario up. The populations who have that purple today have both African and non African uniparentals. Game over for you.
Anyone with three brain cells can deduce from this that you can model AE genomes using varying proportions of EEF + different types of African ancestry.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Another long wall of text filled with confused conjecture. Aint nobody got time for that.
Bottom line, all relevant northeast Africans need an EEF-like component to model them. Sign up to a conspiracy theorist forum with all that paranoid "Lazaridis et al are out to get us" gibberish.
Your terminology doesn't work, hence why you keep repeating unsupported gibberish, like:
quote: Originally posted by Doug M: If the purple component represents a DNA lineage of some ancient African population that migrated into Europe or in other words a DNA lineage of African extraction, then it represents African ancestry in Europe. On the other hand if it represents ancient Eurasian migrations into Africa with a DNA lineage of Eurasian origin it is a Eurasian lineage.
You made that either/or scenario up. The populations who have that purple today have both African and non African uniparentals. Game over for you.
Anyone with three brain cells can deduce from this that you can model AE genomes using varying proportions of EEF + different types of African ancestry.
Swenet, stop making up stuff. You aren't some authority on genetics and anthropology to say what is or isn't required to understand human biological history. The fact is that Lazirdis was modeling European population history and therefore not African biological history or Asian biological history. His models are based on mixture analysis of NON AFRICAN populations. So how you can conclude that some mixture scenarios FOR AFRICA require "NON AFRICAN" population models is the issue. And no, this doesn't mean that there was no Eurasian ancestry over time in Africa. But what it means is this:
quote:Ancient human genomes suggest three ancestral populations for present-day Europeans
Is not intended to describe the population history of Africa. The reference populations are:
quote: We sequenced the genomes of a ~7,000 year old farmer from Germany and eight ~8,000 year old hunter-gatherers from Luxembourg and Sweden. We analyzed these and other ancient genomes1–4 with 2,345 contemporary humans to show that most present Europeans derive from at least three highly differentiated populations: West European Hunter-Gatherers (WHG), who contributed ancestry to all Europeans but not to Near Easterners; Ancient North Eurasians (ANE) related to Upper Paleolithic Siberians3, who contributed to both Europeans and Near Easterners; and Early European Farmers (EEF), who were mainly of Near Eastern origin but also harbored WHG-related ancestry. We model these populations’ deep relationships and show that EEF had ~44% ancestry from a “Basal Eurasian” population that split prior to the diversification of other non-African lineages.
These models and labels along with the populations used are designed explicitly to FOCUS SPECIFICALLY ON EUROPEAN BIOLOGICAL ANCESTRY. That is what this means: '“Basal Eurasian” population that split prior to the diversification of other non-African lineages. In other words they are specifically LEAVING OUT African ancestry.
It is not designed to fit 'universally' and therefore IS NOT REQUIRED for African biological history.
What you are trying to do is a cheap mans version of
quote:Ancient human genomes suggest three ancestral populations for ancient Nile Valley Africans
or
quote:Ancient human genomes suggest three ancestral populations for ancient Africans in the Sahara and Northern Africa
Somehow featuring "Basal Eurasian" as a key component. But of course no such paper exists. Nobody is saying this except you, trying to fit square pegs into round holes semantically. EEF and Basal Eurasian are by definition EUROPEAN META POPULATIONS focusing specifically on Eurasian ancestry among a wide range of Europasian populations BY FILTERING THE AFRICAN ANCESTRY OUT. But that doesn't matter to you because it must also still apply to African populations even though those populations are explicitly excluded. So you make up your own imitation of Lazirdis' study and try to apply it to Africans... Come on man.
You are simply lost trying to turn this into some relevant model for African biological ancestry. Those labels don't even make any sense in an African context. The reference populations would be different and the labels used would be different reflecting the African context.
And here is the hypocritical part, you see a study which specifically focuses on excluding Africans from Eurasian biological history and you have no problem with that, then turn right around and claim that somehow studies of African biological history HAVE TO INCLUDE Eurasian ancestry.... How come you don't apply the same standards to Africa, as in using only African based populations for your reference of African biological history and exclude Eurasian ancestry? If it is OK for one why isn't it OK for the other?
Sounds backwards to me.
Posts: 8897 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The funny part is that Doug has no idea how damning any of this is.
Doug still thinks he can come back from this. He just keeps talking.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: The funny part is that Doug has no idea how damning any of this is.
Doug still thinks he can come back from this. SMH.
So I take it that this proves that "basal Eurasian" applies to Africa huh? Really? Said who? Because according to your silliness, "Basal Eurasians" are also ancestral to Africans too...... but gee why did Lazirdis not say this?
Hmmmm...... I know, maybe he wasn't using African populations as a reference and focusing ONLY on Eurasians. Makes sense to me. But not to Swenet. According to the Mr Biological expert Lazirdis really meant to apply these models Africans also. I don't recall any Nile Valley populations referenced by Lazirdis. But of course Swenet knows better..... In fact, NO PAPER focusing on "Early European Farmers" or "Basal Eurasians" include ANY Nile Valley or Saharan African populations as references. But don't worry, Swenet is going to find a way to include them even though they don't apply....
Strange.
quote: Prof Thomas said it could be seen as a "federal" origin of farming: "Different and genetically distinct populations were all engaged in this same general project, albeit exchanging ideas with each or other or sometimes coming up with the same idea independently."
Interestingly, what the early farmer populations do share is ancestry from an enigmatic group of humans known as Basal Eurasians. After humans left Africa, this population split away from other non-Africans and somehow interbred less with Neanderthals. But it's unclear where exactly these ancient people resided until they mixed with the ancestors of the farmers.
"Maybe they were hiding somewhere in North Africa, maybe they were hiding in the Middle East - somewhere with fewer Neanderthals. We just don't know," said Prof Thomas.
Basal Eurasians are often referred to as a "ghost population", as they are only inferred from genetic data through their ancestral contribution to other human groups like the first Middle Eastern farmers - and by extension modern human groups from India to western Europe.
posted
Doug, you're confused. No one needs Lazaridis. People have been making links between North Africans and early European farmers since the skeletal samples were excavated in the 20th century. You have no idea what you're doing or what you're talking about. Look at table 5's affinities of your precious "farmer" populations who supposedly colonized the Levant. The Levantine Jericho sample doesn't even look like them. Now look at table 5's affinities of predynastic Egyptians and the German Neolithic sample (or all the farmer samples in table 5, for that matter).
You're living in your own figment-filled teletubbyland. You don't see that?
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Doug, you're confused. No one needs Lazaridis. People have been making links between North Africans and early European farmers since the skeletal samples were excavated in the 20th century. You have no idea what you're doing or what you're talking about. Look at table 5's affinities of your precious "farmer" populations. Then look at table 5's affinities of predynastic Egyptians and the German Neolithic sample.
You're living in your own teletubbyland. You don't see that?
You keep trying to defend usage of the term to describe this relationship. I do not agree with it because of all the times I have shown you it is explicitly designed to REMOVE AFRICA from the equation but you keep dancing around it no matter how many times I SHOW YOU that authors like Lazirdis did this as part of their BASE methodology. So stop pretending to have a point. You don't. "Basal Eurasian" and "EEF" are terms that really have no place in the discussion of African biological history because as they are defined they LEAVE OUT the African component by definition, which is NOT REALITY.
You just keep spinning and spinning and spinning trying to dodge that simple fact.
quote: Basal Eurasians are often referred to as a "ghost population", as they are only inferred from genetic data through their ancestral contribution to other human groups like the first Middle Eastern farmers - and by extension modern human groups from India to western Europe.
You keep trying to defend usage of the term to describe this relationship. I do not agree with it because of all the times I have shown you it is explicitly designed to REMOVE AFRICA from the equation
quote: Basal Eurasians are often referred to as a "ghost population", as they are only inferred from genetic data through their ancestral contribution to other human groups like the first Middle Eastern farmers - and by extension modern human groups from India to western Europe.
Interestingly, what the early farmer populations do share is ancestry from an enigmatic group of humans known as Basal Eurasians. After humans left Africa, this population split away from other non-Africans and somehow interbred less with Neanderthals. But it's unclear where exactly these ancient people resided until they mixed with the ancestors of the farmers.
A Working Model of the Deep Relationships of Diverse Modern Human Genetic Lineages Outside of Africa Mark Lipson David Reich Mol Biol Evol (2017)
More recent (Neolithic and later) western Eurasians, such as Europeans, are mostly descended from the western clade but with an additional component of “Basal Eurasian” ancestry (via the Near East) splitting more deeply than any other known non-African lineage (Lazaridis et al. 2014, 2016). The timing of the eastern/western split is uncertain, but several papers (Gutenkunst et al. 2009; Laval et al. 2010; Gravel et al. 2011) have used present-day European and East Asian populations to infer dates of initial separation of 40–45 kya (adjusted for a mutation rate of 0.5×10−90.5109 per year; Scally 2016). Interestingly, two early modern Eurasians (Ust’-Ishim (Fu et al. 2014), from ∼45 kya in western Siberia, and Oase 1 (Fu et al. 2015), from ∼40 kya in Romania) have been found that share little or no ancestry with either clade, unlike any known present-day population.
After the divergence of Dinka from non-Africans, the next split point on the modern human lineage in our model is that between the major eastern and western clades (the node labeled “Non-African”—although we note that the split point of Basal Eurasian would be deeper.) This split is soon followed on the western Eurasian branch by the split between K14 and Ust’-Ishim (i.e., their respective modern-human ancestry components). The original Ust’-Ishim analysis (Fu et al. 2014) inferred a near-trifurcation at this point, and we wished to test whether K14 (and other western Eurasians) and Ust’-Ishim form a statistically supported clade. In fact, while the best-fitting position for Ust’-Ishim is on the western lineage (0.6 shared drift), the inferred 95% confidence interval for this point overlaps the eastern/western split (standard error 0.4 for the Ust’-Ishim split position), so that we cannot confidently resolve the branching order. We therefore continue to regard this cluster as approximately a trifurcation; while we show Ust’-Ishim at its best-fitting split point in figure 1, we color-code it as a basal non-African rather than a member of the western clade.
Posts: 42937 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
Notice that even when table 5 is posted, and there is no reference to Lazaridis' terminology in the post he's supposedly addressing, Doug still keeps raving on about Lazaridis like a confused turd.
Is Doug cognitively challenged?
quote: Actually, the fact that so many European Neolithic groups in Figure 4 tie more closely to the Late Dy- nastic Egyptians near the Mediterranean coast than they do with modern Euro- peans provides suggestive support for an eastern Mediterranean source for the people of the European Neolithic at an even earlier time level than Bernal sug- gests for the Egyptian-Phoenician colonization and influence on Greece early in the second millennium BC (Ammerman and Cavalli-Sforza, 1973, 1979; Bernal, 1987:2; Cavalli-Sforza et al., 1993; Sokal et al. 1991)
—Brace et al 1993
^No one needs Lazaridis et al to know their conclusions in regards to the affinities of the components stand. Nor does anyone need Lazaridis to know that Doug is a complete delusional turd when he says that his fictitious "Nile Valley farmers" from Wadi Kubbaniya 22ky ago were responsible for the Neolithic Revolution. The old Nile Valley populations before the Holocene bear no special relationships to (pre)dynastic Egyptians, as shown by the distinctiveness of Wadi Halfa in table 5.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
A Working Model of the Deep Relationships of Diverse Modern Human Genetic Lineages Outside of Africa Mark Lipson David Reich Mol Biol Evol (2017)
More recent (Neolithic and later) western Eurasians, such as Europeans, are mostly descended from the western clade but with an additional component of “Basal Eurasian” ancestry (via the Near East) splitting more deeply than any other known non-African lineage (Lazaridis et al. 2014, 2016). The timing of the eastern/western split is uncertain, but several papers (Gutenkunst et al. 2009; Laval et al. 2010; Gravel et al. 2011) have used present-day European and East Asian populations to infer dates of initial separation of 40–45 kya (adjusted for a mutation rate of 0.5×10−90.5109 per year; Scally 2016). Interestingly, two early modern Eurasians (Ust’-Ishim (Fu et al. 2014), from ∼45 kya in western Siberia, and Oase 1 (Fu et al. 2015), from ∼40 kya in Romania) have been found that share little or no ancestry with either clade, unlike any known present-day population.
After the divergence of Dinka from non-Africans, the next split point on the modern human lineage in our model is that between the major eastern and western clades (the node labeled “Non-African”—although we note that the split point of Basal Eurasian would be deeper.) This split is soon followed on the western Eurasian branch by the split between K14 and Ust’-Ishim (i.e., their respective modern-human ancestry components). The original Ust’-Ishim analysis (Fu et al. 2014) inferred a near-trifurcation at this point, and we wished to test whether K14 (and other western Eurasians) and Ust’-Ishim form a statistically supported clade. In fact, while the best-fitting position for Ust’-Ishim is on the western lineage (0.6 shared drift), the inferred 95% confidence interval for this point overlaps the eastern/western split (standard error 0.4 for the Ust’-Ishim split position), so that we cannot confidently resolve the branching order. We therefore continue to regard this cluster as approximately a trifurcation; while we show Ust’-Ishim at its best-fitting split point in figure 1, we color-code it as a basal non-African rather than a member of the western clade.
"Divergence of Dinka from Non-Africans"? What exactly does this mean?
Swenet:
When did this EFF population (or one like it) venture into the Nile valley that they would seem to have such close affinities with predynastic Egyptians? What component ofancient Egyptian DNA is comprised of these "Eurasians"?
Posts: 1568 | From: Pluto | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
More recent (Neolithic and later) western Eurasians, such as Europeans, are mostly descended from the western clade but with an additional component of “Basal Eurasian” ancestry (via the Near East) splitting more deeply than any other known non-African lineage (Lazaridis et al. 2014, 2016). The timing of the eastern/western split is uncertain, but several papers (Gutenkunst et al. 2009; Laval et al. 2010; Gravel et al. 2011) have used present-day European and East Asian populations to infer dates of initial separation.
[....]
After the divergence of Dinka from non-Africans, the next split point on the modern human lineage in our model is that between the major eastern and western clades (the node labeled “Non-African”—although we note that the split point of Basal Eurasian would be deeper.)
"Divergence of Dinka from Non-Africans"? What exactly does this mean? ?
Lipson's using Dinka as his unmixed African reference. Lazaridis uses Mbuti most of the time and Mota once. A lot of studies use Yoruba.
Posts: 20 | Registered: Sep 2007
| IP: Logged |
More recent (Neolithic and later) western Eurasians, such as Europeans, are mostly descended from the western clade but with an additional component of “Basal Eurasian” ancestry (via the Near East) splitting more deeply than any other known non-African lineage (Lazaridis et al. 2014, 2016). The timing of the eastern/western split is uncertain, but several papers (Gutenkunst et al. 2009; Laval et al. 2010; Gravel et al. 2011) have used present-day European and East Asian populations to infer dates of initial separation.
[....]
After the divergence of Dinka from non-Africans, the next split point on the modern human lineage in our model is that between the major eastern and western clades (the node labeled “Non-African”—although we note that the split point of Basal Eurasian would be deeper.)
"Divergence of Dinka from Non-Africans"? What exactly does this mean? ?
Lipson's using Dinka as his unmixed African reference. Lazaridis uses Mbuti most of the time and Mota once. A lot of studies use Yoruba.
More recent (Neolithic and later) western Eurasians, such as Europeans, are mostly descended from the western clade but with an additional component of “Basal Eurasian” ancestry (via the Near East) splitting more deeply than any other known non-African lineage (Lazaridis et al. 2014, 2016). The timing of the eastern/western split is uncertain, but several papers (Gutenkunst et al. 2009; Laval et al. 2010; Gravel et al. 2011) have used present-day European and East Asian populations to infer dates of initial separation.
[....]
After the divergence of Dinka from non-Africans, the next split point on the modern human lineage in our model is that between the major eastern and western clades (the node labeled “Non-African”—although we note that the split point of Basal Eurasian would be deeper.)
"Divergence of Dinka from Non-Africans"? What exactly does this mean? ?
Lipson's using Dinka as his unmixed African reference. Lazaridis uses Mbuti most of the time and Mota once. A lot of studies use Yoruba.
But Dinka carry very old stems. Why would they use them as reference?
Posts: 22235 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
It seems each gets used to represent a particular unmixed from outside of Africa stock.
Yoruba - African farmer Mbuti - shorties Mota - N E African omotic Dinka - Nilo-Saharan
There are others who could also sub out, like the Ju Huan who get some play too.
Posts: 8179 | From: the Tekrur straddling Senegal & Mauritania | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
Whoops
Posts: 8179 | From: the Tekrur straddling Senegal & Mauritania | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged |
See the conversation in the 'black' thread. I've already discussed this many times in that thread. For instance:
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Also, some SSA populations today might have this component to a degree. But as you can see in the study in question (Pagani et al 2012) and others, this ancestry is not common in SSA. It still exists in the Sahara, though, although it's nowadays mixed with the same ancestry from descendants of EEF from Europe. So, not all 'Basal Eurasian' in Africa is pure and it's not always easy to identify how much of it is African (meaning: never left Africa) and how much of is due to back migration by descendants of EEF and related Middle Eastern groups.
quote:It brought to Africa a Y chromosome lineage (R1b-V88) whose closest relatives are widespread in present-day Eurasia; we estimate from sequence data that the Chad R1b-V88 Y chromosomes coalesced 5,700–7,300 years ago. This migration could thus have originated among Near Eastern farmers during the African Humid Period.
This blurred component is the purple component you see here. Today, this purple component isn't fully African and it's not fully backmigrated Basal Eurasian + Eurasian, either.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: We're going in circles.
Nah Swenet, we are making progress because you are explaining yourself. But you still aren't defining literal.
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: As I've already pointed out, your own source (DNAconsultants) has the frequency of the Thuya and Akhenaten "genes" higher in Egypt and Somalia than anywhere else. So why even still bring up what DNAconsultant says about African Americans' frequency at this point? Why does it make sense to you to still bring up a lower frequency as evidence of what you're saying when your source says the peaks are in northeast Africa? There are southern and Central Africans in DNAconsultants' database and they are mentioned in your own quotes from DNAconsultants as having lower frequencies. So why speculate about southern and Central Africans having "much more of these genes"? This is wishful thinking.
Look at the list. Living Egyptians and Somalis have ancestry in common and the Somali, Adaima Muslims and Upper Egyptians are at the top of the list. What more is there to say? By contrast, The Ovambo and Tanzanian samples are outscored by highly admixed Egyptian Muslims from Adaima. Even though there is no non African ancestry hampering their ability to score well (as is the case in the North African samples), Ovambo and Tanzanians barely outscore the Coptic, Greek and Moroccan samples. The Somali sample outscores samples with such mediocre scores with more than a full point. Very suspect if the pharaonic alleles are supposed to match DNA that is in DNA Tribes Great Lakes and South Africa regions. There is obviously a trend in that list, which is also reflected in the fact that Thuya's and Akhenaten's "rare genes" have a completely different distribution than the "rare genes" from SSA:
Somalia is located in SSA and every mummy had a high MLI score in the horn. There are reasons why other regions have higher MLI ratings. The allele that is shared by 50% of Somalis is shared by 1/3 of African Americans. The MLI score is based not just on frequency but also on rarity, exclusivity and probably frequency of combinations. That is why I brought up African Americans. This is the same system, that with the same STRs would tell us that Keanu Reeves is east Asian and European despite being poor at discerning admixtures.
The rarest allele in Consultant’s analysis (D18S51=19) is also the most exclusive to Africa in their analysis. Then you have SSA exclusive alleles like CSF1PO=6 D7S820=6, D18S51=8, FGA=31 that are almost nonexistent in your chart or exclusively SSA.
Posts: 1254 | From: howdy | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged |
quote: Genetic signatures of both historic and prehistoric migration events are also observed in other regions of Africa [18,42,57,60–62]. For example, an analysis of microsatellite, INDEL and SNP polymorphisms in the nuclear genome showed that populations from central/southern Sudan, such as the Nuer and Dinka, have the highest proportion of Nilo-Saharan ancestry, with decreasing frequency observed in populations from northern Kenya to northern Tanzania in East Africa. These data suggest a Sudanese origin of Nilo-Saharan-speaking populations, with subsequent migration(s) southeastward to East Africa [18]. In addition, Nilo-Saharan-speakers from Sudan, Tanzania, Kenya and Chad also clustered closely with Afroasiatic Chadic- speaking populations from the southern Lake Chad Basin in genetic structure analyses, suggesting that these Chadic-speakers of Nilo-Saharan ancestry likely migrated westward from a Sudanese homeland to Lake Chad and adopted an Afroasiatic language at some point in their history without significant genetic exchange [18]. This shift in language may have occurred through interactions with proto-Chadic Afroasiatic-speakers who migrated from the central Sahara to the Lake Chad Basin around 8 kya [6,56,58,63]. These genetic data are in general agreement with archaeological and linguistic studies that advocate a common origin of Nilo- Saharan populations in eastern Sudan, with subsequent migration events northward to the eastern Sahara, westward to the Chad Basin, and southeastward into Kenya and Tanzania [6, 64].
--Michael C. Campbell and Sarah A. Tishkoff
The Evolution of Human Genetic and Phenotypic Variation in Africa
Posts: 22235 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Notice that even when table 5 is posted, and there is no reference to Lazaridis' terminology in the post he's supposedly addressing, Doug still keeps raving on about Lazaridis like a confused turd.
Is Doug cognitively challenged?
quote: Actually, the fact that so many European Neolithic groups in Figure 4 tie more closely to the Late Dy- nastic Egyptians near the Mediterranean coast than they do with modern Euro- peans provides suggestive support for an eastern Mediterranean source for the people of the European Neolithic at an even earlier time level than Bernal sug- gests for the Egyptian-Phoenician colonization and influence on Greece early in the second millennium BC (Ammerman and Cavalli-Sforza, 1973, 1979; Bernal, 1987:2; Cavalli-Sforza et al., 1993; Sokal et al. 1991)
—Brace et al 1993
^No one needs Lazaridis et al to know their conclusions in regards to the affinities of the components stand. Nor does anyone need Lazaridis to know that Doug is a complete delusional turd when he says that his fictitious "Nile Valley farmers" from Wadi Kubbaniya 22ky ago were responsible for the Neolithic Revolution. The old Nile Valley populations before the Holocene bear no special relationships to (pre)dynastic Egyptians, as shown by the distinctiveness of Wadi Halfa in table 5.
How does this chart defend or justify the use of the term "Basal Eurasian" in African populations? The point about Lazirdis and most of the other researchers defining these terms are that they do not use African populations as part of any refrence population related to EEF (because Africa is filtered out). So how do you shoehorn Africa into this is the question without revising the models and mixture charts used to define EEF and Basal Eurasian in the first place? The point being that All of the reference populations in the Levant and Near East have some level of African DNA ancestry but those are not considered relevant to the point of understanding Basal Eurasian and EEF. I keep saying this and you keep ignoring it, but keep trying to claim that whatever data you are using supports it no matter how the original authors and scholars who defined the term are NOT USING that data in their own work.
So I am going to say it again, if Europeans can filter out all data related to African DNA ancestry in order to model the population history of Europe, then why can't we filter out Eurasian ancestry to model the population history of Africa? If it is not "VALID SCIENCE" to filter out Eurasian ancestry in Africa, why is it "VALID SCIENCE" to filter out African ancestry in Europe? Lets be consistent here. In theory if you REALLY WERE SERIOUS you would address this fundamental contradiction in terms. None of those African populations listed in your chart occur in any of the studies of EEF or Basal Eurasian. I already told you why. Yet you keep posting these populations and relationships from Africa and claiming that this "proves" Basal Eurasian and EEF is relevant to Africa. I say no, it proves that you are scared to filter out Eurasian DNA when studying African populations, but have no problem parroting terminology from folks who have made it blatantly clear that their definition of the terms "EEF" and "Basal Eurasian" have no African components. Yet you keep trying to put them in an African context when the fact is that both of these terms refer to ancient populations with African ancestry that is MASKED or hidden in order to understand Eurasian population history. This is the root of the issue. So of course any usage of these terms in an African context is going to be nothing but a case of nonsensical double talk instead of using terms and phrases that logically and equivocally state the facts without obtuse and contradictory logic.
Case in point R1b-V88. Nowhere in any source study do you see anybody who is discussing EEF or Basal Eurasian talking about this DNA lineage. Nowhere. The only place you see people bringing this up is on forums on the net. But here is the key point, which underlies what I have been saying. The original authors who defined these terms were not using simple DNA lineage relationships. They went far beyond that and used very complex models of mixture among specific targeted populations and algorithms to rule out and filter out 'unwanted' or 'irrelevant' lineages , using mostly modern DNA and a little bit of ancient DNA. And hence you will see no simple charts of DNA lineages like R1b-V88 listed by Lazirdis or any other scholar researching Basal Eurasian or EEF. It is amateurs who are making up these "extended" relationships outside of the original published scholarship.
Not to mention the same authors of said studies only mention Africa as an "OUTGROUP" in their work, meaning they explicitly left out any and all populations in Africa near the Levant and Europe as part of their work. And these are precisely the populations that are being called into question by folks on the net, going back to the age old game of trying to define the ancient DNA ancestry and relationships in Northern Africa as a proxy of Europe instead of focusing specifically on movements of populations within Africa and ignoring non Africans (like Lazirdis does).
quote: We used the ADMIXTUREGRAPH software8,15 to fit a model (a tree structure augmented by admixture events) to the data, exploring models relating the three ancient populations (Stuttgart, Loschbour, and MA1) to two eastern non-Africans (Onge and Karitiana) and sub-Saharan Africans (Mbuti). We found no models that fit the data with 0 or 1 admixture events, but did find a model that fit with 2 admixture events (SI14). The successful model (Fig. 2A) confirms the existence of MA1-related admixture in Native Americans3, but includes the novel inference that Stuttgart is partially (44 ± 10%) derived from a lineage that split prior to the separation of eastern non-Africans from the common ancestor of WHG and ANE. The existence of such “Basal Eurasian” admixture into Stuttgart provides a simple explanation for our finding that diverse eastern non-African populations share significantly more alleles with ancient European and Upper Paleolithic Siberian hunter-gatherers than with Stuttgart (that is, f4(Eastern non-African, Chimp; Hunter-gatherer, Stuttgart) is significantly positive), but that hunter-gatherers appear to be equally related to most eastern groups (SI14). We verified the robustness of the model by reanalyzing the data using the unsupervised MixMapper7 (SI15) and TreeMix21 software (SI16), which both identified the same admixture events. The ANE/WHG split must have occurred >24,000 years ago (as it must predate the age of MA13), and the WHG/Eastern non-African split must have occurred >40,000 years ago (as it must predate the Tianyuan22 individual from China which clusters with Asians to the exclusion of Europeans). The Basal Eurasian split must be even older, and might be related to early settlement of the Levant23 or Arabia24,25 prior to the diversification of most Eurasians, or more recent gene flow from Africa26. However, the Basal Eurasian population shares much of the genetic drift common to non-African populations after their separation from Africans, and thus does not appear to represent gene flow between sub-Saharan Africans and the ancestors of non-Africans after the out-of-Africa bottleneck (SI14).
Bottom line the earliest populations of the Levant and Eurasia were Africans. Period. But using the models proposed by Lazirdis and others behind EEF and Basal Eurasian, they are explicitly trying to rule that sort of terminology out which is why I am against such terms. They are explicitly filtering out such African gene flow into Eurasia by definition. Note they tried to claim that the OOA populations became "NON AFRICAN" because of Neanderthal mixture as soon as they crossed from Africa. But they can't find that mixture in these populations from the Levant so they made up a new "framework" to justify calling the first populations of the Levant "Non African", when that is simply impossible. Lazirdis himself even admmits there was subsequent African mixture in the Levant and Near East but as usual that aspect is downplayed and ignored by most of his work and those who are doing similar research. Hence they are focused on what happened AFTER humans left Africa and therefore any African data is LEFT OUT. That is why no African populations in the Sahara, along the African Mediterranean or in the Nile Valley are listed as reference populations, ancient or modern, even though we all know and they admit these ancient populations had impacts on Eurasia.
Posts: 8897 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
At one point E-M78 was considered Eurasian, a supposed Caucasian gene to support "a" narrative.
quote: E-M78 represents 74.5% of haplogroup E, the highest frequencies observed in Masalit and Fur populations.
--Hisham Y. Hassan,1 Peter A. Underhill,2 Luca L. Cavalli-Sforza,2 and Muntaser E. Ibrahim1*
Y-Chromosome Variation Among Sudanese: Restricted Gene Flow, Concordance With Language, Geography, and History
Posts: 22235 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ish Gebor: Does this mean you carry predominantly R1b1* and A1b?
I took a Net Geo test and I was R-DF19 and L3b1a. It just hit me how this dawned on me that Europeans post their haplogroups in different percentiles. Even though I prefer Albino Apocalypse this is why I don't mind the term White Supremacy. But yeah I'm R1b1a21blahblahblah. Most likely I got it from my great grandfather along with my last name. He was white.
It also dawned on me that this is why DNATribe's score was low in Modern Egypt. I had to look at it from my Great Grandfather's POV. My Tribe's Test
How do you reconcile such low scores though? Your highest score with the Bahamas is 2 Million. The highest average of these mummies is 326.
Your Indus valley score is 14.7, your Arabian score is 23. This is lower than the Average Horn of Africa and Sahelian score of ALL these mummies. Take a look at the low scores for the Elder lady KV35El. Her highest score is 20.87 - Your genome is more likely in Arabia than this mummy is anywhere in Africa. Your Highest European score of South Portugal is 24.72...compare that score to these mummies scores.
Posts: 2463 | From: New Jersey USA | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ish Gebor: Does this mean you carry predominantly R1b1* and A1b?
I took a Net Geo test and I was R-DF19 and L3b1a. It just hit me how this dawned on me that Europeans post their haplogroups in different percentiles. Even though I prefer Albino Apocalypse this is why I don't mind the term White Supremacy. But yeah I'm R1b1a21blahblahblah. Most likely I got it from my great grandfather along with my last name. He was white.
It also dawned on me that this is why DNATribe's score was low in Modern Egypt. I had to look at it from my Great Grandfather's POV. My Tribe's Test
Does being part albino affect your thought process?
Posts: 42937 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic