...
EgyptSearch Forums Post New Topic  New Poll  Post A Reply
my profile | directory login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» EgyptSearch Forums » Egyptology » Egyptian DNA, Forumbiodiversity, sub-Saharan Africa (Page 11)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 12 pages: 1  2  3  ...  8  9  10  11  12   
Author Topic: Egyptian DNA, Forumbiodiversity, sub-Saharan Africa
Concerned member of public
Banned
Member # 22355

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Concerned member of public   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by capra:
quote:
Originally posted by Doug M:
Out of all the places on earth, the population history of Africa is the least understood but whenever they claim to want to unravel it, they come up with "ancient Eurasians" as the explanation for everything..... Seriously?

Seriously... no they don't. Do you even read frigging papers about African population history? Do you even *care* about it? Because all I see from you is obsessing about labels.

Hey man, they can't just waltz in, get permission to destructively test precious ancient remains, then recover DNA that's been sitting in a hot climate for tens of thousands of years just because they want to! They would *love* to be able to do that.

Yet you're in the same boat as him with your OOA dogma. I saw you on Eurogenes blog; some posters there criticize OOA in the comments. You, or Davidski never respond or rebut the criticisms, but just throw ad hominem.

Here's Davidski's responce about a 2017 paper by Chinese scientists who support Multiregionalism-

"ramblings of madmen"

Despite the fact the paper was written by some of the top scientists in China. And who's Davidski again? Not even a scientist and has zero qualifications, yet he's slagging off some of China's top scientists just because they question the Out of Africa religious orthodoxy.

As someone says in the comments-

quote:

The Chinese team doesn't share this strange Western fascination with Africa. They like China.

http://eurogenes.blogspot.co.uk/2017/05/some-strange-stuff-at-biorxiv-lately.html
Posts: 949 | From: England | Registered: Oct 2015  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Concerned member of public
Banned
Member # 22355

Rate Member
Icon 2 posted      Profile for Concerned member of public   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
White students walk out of class when teacher tells them we’re all from Africa
http://rollingout.com/2016/10/19/white-students-walk-class-teacher-tells-africa/

One would have to ask what on earth "black lives matter" (a political movement) has to do with science? But precisely. The OOA theory of human origins is heavily rooted in non-scientific thinking; these liberals basically think if you teach kids "we're all from Africa" everyone will be holding hands and anti-racist.

quote:
The professor proceeded to discuss the Black Lives Matter movement and how it had come about before stating that all living being descended from east Africa.

Posts: 949 | From: England | Registered: Oct 2015  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
capra
Member
Member # 22737

Member Rated:
5
Icon 1 posted      Profile for capra     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Cass/:
Yet you're in the same boat as him with your OOA dogma. I saw you on Eurogenes blog; some posters there criticize OOA in the comments. You, or Davidski never respond or rebut the criticisms, but just throw ad hominem.

Do you even know anything about genetics, Cass? Do you have the faintest idea of the methodology that Chinese paper used? Or are you the same as Clyde Winters, assuming everything is political, so you can pick and choose your evidence based on how you feel about the conclusions, without any pesky business of learning about the subject matter?
Posts: 660 | From: Canada | Registered: Mar 2017  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Elmaestro
Moderator
Member # 22566

Member Rated:
5
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Elmaestro     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
@Beyoku

What do you think about a singular event shaping the contemporaneous "Modern" genome below, through and above the Sahara starting 13,000ya - ending mid Holocene(ish) ? I do consider myself creative but I just can't see much of an explanation for how the natural genetic gradient could be disrupted to the extent that it is now without long term Isolation.

I mean if the current model(Bottleneck:Isolation) for the mechanism driving Human genetic diversity in and OOA holds true, then people will have every right to Abide by these labels. Not only that, but in the advent of OOA vs. African Isolation, all that was considered "African cultural similarity/unity" with North Africans of any stock will have to be accompanied with diffusion or admixture.

do you see where I'm going? You are right we need aDNA to KNOW for sure, but you kinda are putting all your chips into the discovery of a Key Stone African population or the explanation/question I posted above. otherwise with the evidence given by everything from a multidisciplinary approach, all doesn't add up. ...Unless we've been lying to ourselves about some of the things we feel are indigenous African which I'm not yet quite ready to accept.

Posts: 1781 | From: New York | Registered: Jul 2016  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
capra
Member
Member # 22737

Member Rated:
5
Icon 1 posted      Profile for capra     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Ish Gebor:

So why did they change it into T1a, T1a-M70 and K2-M526? It's a serious question.

Well Karafet changed K2 to T in 2008, and everyone went along with her, but she didn't explain why. I guess she just figured all the K names were getting confusing and we should use some of the leftover letters.

When they found that some men had the M184 and L206 mutations but not the M70 mutation - previously all of these were considered equivalent markers for haplogroup T - that showed that M70 marked a subclade of T, so they renamed it T1-M70, a branch of T-M184. Later they found that some men had M184 but not L206, so they made a new level, T1-L206, and demoted M70 to T1a. (You can look at the ISOGG trees for previous years and see the changes from year to year.)

When they found that L and T were on one branch of K (sharing the mutation P326) and that M, N, O, P, and S were on another (sharing M526), these branches were named K1 and K2.

This is the main reason the nomenclature changes, they keep finding new levels of branching in the tree (this is why R1b1a changed to R1b1a2, they found the L754 level). Sometimes though people just propose changes because they think it's clearer, and it may catch on or it may not. There's no fixed standard that everyone adheres to, usually people go by ISOGG but there is also a different one introduced by Karmin et al that some people are using.

This is why it is always good to include the mutation name, say K2-M70 instead of just K2, because if you say K2 what did you mean? And even using the latest terms when someone comes back and reads it again in five years it'll probably have changed again.

Posts: 660 | From: Canada | Registered: Mar 2017  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Concerned member of public
Banned
Member # 22355

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Concerned member of public   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by capra:
Do you even know anything about genetics, Cass?

No. I work with skulls/fossils. Isn't autosomal ancient DNA extraction limited to a certain time period? I mean where is the autosomal DNA for "AMH" 100,000 years ago? Obviously though ancient DNA will settle things for stuff like ancient Egypt, but this is a far more recent in time. How is ancient DNA going to help the human origins debate when there is none? We have to work with fossils.

quote:
Do you have the faintest idea of the methodology that Chinese paper used? Or are you the same as Clyde Winters, assuming everything is political, so you can pick and choose your evidence based on how you feel about the conclusions, without any pesky business of learning about the subject matter?
My point is these human origins models are heavily politicalized. In Europe and America, Multiregionalism only has a handful of scientists supporting it, but in China - its the consensus and mainstream model.
Posts: 949 | From: England | Registered: Oct 2015  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ish Geber
Member
Member # 18264

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Ish Geber     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Cass/:
White students walk out of class when teacher tells them we’re all from Africa
http://rollingout.com/2016/10/19/white-students-walk-class-teacher-tells-africa/

One would have to ask what on earth "black lives matter" (a political movement) has to do with science? But precisely. The OOA theory of human origins is heavily rooted in non-scientific thinking; these liberals basically think if you teach kids "we're all from Africa" everyone will be holding hands and anti-racist.

quote:
The professor proceeded to discuss the Black Lives Matter movement and how it had come about before stating that all living being descended from east Africa.

You gave the perfect example of the eurocentrick dogma when it doesn't suite euroloons. Thanks for posting this.


The professor proceeded to discuss the Black Lives Matter movement and how it had come about before stating that all living being descended from east Africa.

“It was dead silent,” Lundy recalls and then a student broke the silence with a “sarcastic ‘sure.’”

Karene Taylor, 19-year-old student says, “A lot of people left, it was embarrassing.”

http://rollingout.com/2016/10/19/white-students-walk-class-teacher-tells-africa/


[Roll Eyes]

Brenna Henn on panmixia.

CARTA: Ancient DNA and Human Evolution – Brenna Henn: The Origins of Modern Humans in Africa

Brenna Henn (Stony Brook Univ) explores patterns of genetic diversity across Africa and models for modern human origins in this talk. She discusses whether genetic data is concordant with archaeological data and suggests directions for future research. Series: "CARTA - Center for Academic Research and Training in Anthropogeny" [Science] [Show ID: 30979]


https://youtu.be/mWwmVXZOFbU

Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ish Geber
Member
Member # 18264

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Ish Geber     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Cass/:
quote:
Originally posted by capra:
Do you even know anything about genetics, Cass?

No. I work with skulls/fossils. Isn't autosomal ancient DNA extraction limited to a certain time period? I mean where is the autosomal DNA for "AMH" 100,000 years ago? Obviously though ancient DNA will settle things for stuff like ancient Egypt, but this is a far more recent in time. How is ancient DNA going to help the human origins debate when there is none? We have to work with fossils.

quote:
Do you have the faintest idea of the methodology that Chinese paper used? Or are you the same as Clyde Winters, assuming everything is political, so you can pick and choose your evidence based on how you feel about the conclusions, without any pesky business of learning about the subject matter?
My point is these human origins models are heavily politicalized. In Europe and America, Multiregionalism only has a handful of scientists supporting it, but in China - its the consensus and mainstream model.

Blah blah blah…. [Roll Eyes]

quote:
The study on the partial calvarium discovered at Manot Cave, Western Galilee, Israel (dated to 54.7 ± 5.5 kyr BP, Hershkovitz et al. 2015), revealed close morphological affinity with recent African skulls as well as with early Upper Paleolithic European skulls, but less so with earlier anatomically modern humans from the Levant (e.g., Skhul). The ongoing fieldwork at the Manot Cave has resulted in the discovery of several new hominin teeth. These include a lower incisor (I1), a right lower first deciduous molar (dm1), a left upper first deciduous molar (dm1) and an upper second molar (M2) all from area C (>32 kyr) and a right upper second molar (M2) from area E (>36 kyr). The current study presents metric and morphological data on the new Manot Cave teeth. These new data combined with our already existing knowledge on the Manot skull may provide an important insight on the Upper Paleolithic population of the Levant, its origin and dietary habits.
—Author(s): Rachel Sarig ; Ofer Marder ; Omry Barzilai ; Bruce Latimer ; Israel Hershkovitz

The Upper Paleolithic inhabitants of Manot Cave: the dental perspective (Year: 2017)

http://core.tdar.org/document/431657/the-upper-paleolithic-inhabitants-of-manot-cave-the-dental-perspective

Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ish Geber
Member
Member # 18264

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Ish Geber     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by capra:
quote:
Originally posted by Ish Gebor:

So why did they change it into T1a, T1a-M70 and K2-M526? It's a serious question.

Well Karafet changed K2 to T in 2008, and everyone went along with her, but she didn't explain why. I guess she just figured all the K names were getting confusing and we should use some of the leftover letters.

When they found that some men had the M184 and L206 mutations but not the M70 mutation - previously all of these were considered equivalent markers for haplogroup T - that showed that M70 marked a subclade of T, so they renamed it T1-M70, a branch of T-M184. Later they found that some men had M184 but not L206, so they made a new level, T1-L206, and demoted M70 to T1a. (You can look at the ISOGG trees for previous years and see the changes from year to year.)

When they found that L and T were on one branch of K (sharing the mutation P326) and that M, N, O, P, and S were on another (sharing M526), these branches were named K1 and K2.

This is the main reason the nomenclature changes, they keep finding new levels of branching in the tree (this is why R1b1a changed to R1b1a2, they found the L754 level). Sometimes though people just propose changes because they think it's clearer, and it may catch on or it may not. There's no fixed standard that everyone adheres to, usually people go by ISOGG but there is also a different one introduced by Karmin et al that some people are using.

This is why it is always good to include the mutation name, say K2-M70 instead of just K2, because if you say K2 what did you mean? And even using the latest terms when someone comes back and reads it again in five years it'll probably have changed again.

Thanks, this explains a lot, "but she didn't explain why". And yeah, I did look up ISOGG.

What it tells me is that a lot findings are undefined and actually uncertain, but are constantly being centered on an idea / ideal, thus the hypothesis.


Brenna Henn, in this 2014 interview on population genetics and population structure, considering African populations.

“African populations have the most genetic diversity in the world,” Henn said.“ If you compared people from the Kalahari Desert to people from Mali, they’d be as different from each other [genetically] as Italians and Chinese people.”

Why are other populations of humans so much less genetically varied than Africans? The answer, Henn explains, lies in our ancestors’ history; the groups of people that migrated out of Africa and spread throughout other continents were smaller subsets of that original, genetically diverse population.


Brenna Henn: ”AND WITHIN EACH OF THESE GROUPS THERE IS AN AMAZING AMOUNT OF DIVERSITY, […] THE DIVERSITY IS INDIGENOUS TO AFRICAN POPULATIONS”:

Tracing Family Trees, And Human History, With Genetics

http://youtu.be/Pjf0qKdzmrc


quote:
"however, the time and the extent of genetic divergence between populations north and south of the Sahara remain poorly understood"
--Brenna Henn Published: January 12, 2012DOI: 10.1371/journal.pgen.1002397: 

"Genomic Ancestry of North Africans Supports Back-to-Africa Migrations"


quote:

Human genetic variation particularly in Africa is still poorly understood. This is despite a consensus on the large African effective population size compared to populations from other continents. Based on sequencing of the mitochondrial Cytochrome C Oxidase subunit II (MT-CO2), and genome wide microsatellite data we observe evidence suggesting the effective size (Ne) of humans to be larger than the current estimates, with a foci of increased genetic diversity in east Africa, and a population size of east Africans being at least 2-6 fold larger than other populations. Both phylogenetic and network analysis indicate that east Africans possess more ancestral lineages in comparison to various continental populations placing them at the root of the human evolutionary tree. Our results also affirm east Africa as the likely spot from which migration towards Asia has taken place. The study reflects the spectacular level of sequence variation within east Africans in comparison to the global sample, and appeals for further studies that may contribute towards filling the existing gaps in the database. The implication of these data to current genomic research, as well as the need to carry out defined studies of human genetic variation that includes more African populations; particularly east Africans is paramount.

--Jibril Hirbo, Sara Tishkoff et al.

The Episode of Genetic Drift Defining the Migration of Humans out of Africa Is Derived from a Large East African Population Size

PLoS One. 2014; 9(5): e97674.
Published online 2014 May 20. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0097674

Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
capra
Member
Member # 22737

Member Rated:
5
Icon 1 posted      Profile for capra     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Man, Cass, your trolling here gets such predictable responses it's positively unsporting.

quote:
Originally posted by Cass/:
No. I work with skulls/fossils. Isn't autosomal ancient DNA extraction limited to a certain time period? I mean where is the autosomal DNA for "AMH" 100,000 years ago? Obviously though ancient DNA will settle things for stuff like ancient Egypt, but this is a far more recent in time. How is ancient DNA going to help the human origins debate when there is none? We have to work with fossils.

OK, I don't know much about fossils. So I'm not going to tell you your opinion is unjustified, or quote some unreviewed palaeontogy paper that says what I like. See how easy it is!

Actually we do have some relevant ancient DNA from northern Eurasia. It's Neanderthal and Denisovan. Hopefully we will get some aDNA from some of those interesting fossils in China.

It's not really political in the West, from what I can see. The evidence is straightforward. There's no political implications to these human origins theories in reality, people just use them for rhetorical purposes. If Multiregionalism had won out, people would be talking about how everyone is united by a million years of race-mixing. If you want to demonize Out-of-Africa, describe it as superior people from one continent conquering the world. No one's deciding whether the Negro is a man and a brother based on their common ancestry being 80 000 years ago with minimal gene flow and not a million years ago with lots of gene flow.

Anyway, we went over this before, so back to the topic. Whatever the topic was supposed to be.

Posts: 660 | From: Canada | Registered: Mar 2017  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ish Geber
Member
Member # 18264

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Ish Geber     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Cass/:
quote:
Originally posted by capra:
quote:
Originally posted by Doug M:
Out of all the places on earth, the population history of Africa is the least understood but whenever they claim to want to unravel it, they come up with "ancient Eurasians" as the explanation for everything..... Seriously?

Seriously... no they don't. Do you even read frigging papers about African population history? Do you even *care* about it? Because all I see from you is obsessing about labels.

Hey man, they can't just waltz in, get permission to destructively test precious ancient remains, then recover DNA that's been sitting in a hot climate for tens of thousands of years just because they want to! They would *love* to be able to do that.

Yet you're in the same boat as him with your OOA dogma. I saw you on Eurogenes blog; some posters there criticize OOA in the comments. You, or Davidski never respond or rebut the criticisms, but just throw ad hominem.

Here's Davidski's responce about a 2017 paper by Chinese scientists who support Multiregionalism-

"ramblings of madmen"

Despite the fact the paper was written by some of the top scientists in China. And who's Davidski again? Not even a scientist and has zero qualifications, yet he's slagging off some of China's top scientists just because they question the Out of Africa religious orthodoxy.

As someone says in the comments-

quote:

The Chinese team doesn't share this strange Western fascination with Africa. They like China.

http://eurogenes.blogspot.co.uk/2017/05/some-strange-stuff-at-biorxiv-lately.html

Hi hi hi … [Roll Eyes]


Dr Elizabeth Atkinson completed her PhD at the Washington University in St. Louis medical school where she worked on an interdisciplinary project examining the genetic architecture and evolvability of brain traits in primates. She utilized quantitative genetic tools and QTL mapping to isolate the genomic regions that affect variation in gyrification (the folding pattern of the cerebral cortex) and characterized its modularity structure in a number of biological domains: genetics, development, anatomy, and functional connectivity. She currently works with Dr. Brenna Henn on biomedical and evolution-oriented projects utilizing the lab's extensive dataset from the African Genome Variation Project. Her work will focus on identifying genetic variants associated with disease risk in African populations, investigating the evolutionary history of these risk alleles, and employing quantitative and population genetics on this genome pool with the goals of designing a SNP chip tailored for African DNA and improving sequencing methods for human groups that are underrepresented in medical studies.

IRACDA NY-CAPS Postdoctoral Scholar Profile - Dr. Elizabeth Atkinson


https://youtu.be/jUHJv6SsR5A

Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ish Geber
Member
Member # 18264

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Ish Geber     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
 -

.


quote:
Originally posted by Doug M:


Hypocrisy and double standards.

It is odd that they find an ancient Ethiopian and get a full DNA set, but instead of showing how that Ethiopian has genes that are partly ancestral to all other modern humans, they propose the opposite. And doesn't it just seem a bit too convenient to say that out of all the populations in Africa, the one most ancestral to all other humans is the only one most affected by back migration? I mean why didn't these Eurasians back migrate into other parts of Africa and affect them? It just sounds too good to be true that the downstream children of the parent magically come back later and "magically" erase all the parents genes with their own. What on earth are the odds of that happening? But people still believe this garbage. And this is where understanding where certain DNA lineage splits arose come into play.


quote:

Characterizing genetic diversity in Africa is a crucial step for most analyses reconstructing the evolutionary history of anatomically modern humans. However, historic migrations from Eurasia into Africa have affected many contemporary populations, confounding inferences. Here, we present a 12.5× coverage ancient genome of an Ethiopian male ("Mota") who lived approximately 4,500 years ago. We use this genome to demonstrate that the Eurasian backflow into Africa came from a population closely related to Early Neolithic farmers, who had colonized Europe 4,000 years earlier.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/02/160218195657.htm

Like I keep saying, if folks REALLY want to understand the history of population evolution in Africa they need to do like Lazaridis did and filter out all non African DNA and focus on finding the "basal African" gene and all the "basal Splits" that occurred in Africa.

But they wont do that and by now we should know why. Out of all the places on earth, the population history of Africa is the least understood but whenever they claim to want to unravel it, they come up with "ancient Eurasians" as the explanation for everything..... Seriously?

The problem is that there are no non-African genes, As a result, if researchers write a program that name African mtDNA genes as solely haplogroups L, and maybe M1, and African Y-Chromosomes as haplogroups A,B and E, there will always appear mtDNA L3(M,N) and Y-Chromosomes R,I,G and J found among the subjects of any study. These so-called Eurasian haplogroups will appear because, they had already existed in Africa before the various OOA events. This would explain why we see the ancient Khoisan who introduced the Aurignacian and Solutrean cultures carrying haplogroups mtDNA M,N, and U and Y-Chrmosome R into Europe between 44-20kya; and the reentry of Y-Chromosome R with the Kushites, who introduced the Bell Beaker via Morocco to Iberia and, the Yamnaya migration from the Levant, into the Steppe and thence across Europe.

They had to claim the Mota man article was an error, because the researchers reported that 6-7% of the West and Central Africans were admixed with Eurasians. Reich of Harvard University had to encourage the authors of the article to change this finding because there is no way you can explain this admixture of Eurasians and, Central and West Africans who live 5000-10,000 miles away from Eurasians.

Any thinking researcher would have had to admit that given the Geographical distance between Central and West Africans, and Eurasians the so-called Eurasian genes representing this 6-7%, must in reality be African genes carried by Eurasians. Couple this with the archaeological evidence of a migration of Sub-Saharan Africans into Europe between 44-4kya, a back migration never took place. And therefore the Eurasian genes are really African genes.

Researchers can maintain that Ethio-Semitic and Cushitic speakers are admixed with Eurasians because they live in close proximity
to the Arabs/Turks who today are lighter skinned. But this is really untenable, because as late as the Tihama culture the main centers of civilization in Ethiopia and Arabia were settled by Nubians.

Doug, glad to see your eyes are wide opened.

The hilarious part in that paper was, they used the "Neanderthal" as the Eurasian preset, to provide a distance measurement.


The Neanderthal and Aterian and Mousterian in North Africa



quote:
The two African genomes, Yoruba and Mbuti, also have slightly positive D values, indicating that they are slightly more similar to Neanderthal than Mota is. This result is likely driven by the West Eurasian component found in modern Africans.

[…]


quote:

Table S8. Neanderthal component D statistics. D(AltaiNea, CAnc; Mota, X), where AltaiNea is the Altai Neanderthal, MezNea is the Mezmaiskaya Neanderthal, CAnc is the reconstructed human-chimpanzee common ancestor, Mota is the reference and X is the tested genome.


The absence of a West Eurasian component in Mota supports the dating of the backflow into Africa, which, at ~3.5kya, is younger than our ancient genome (dated to 4.5 cya).

Given that Mota predates the backflow, it potentially provides a better unadmixed African reference than contemporary Yoruba. Thus, we recomputed the extent of the West Eurasian component in contemporary African populations using Mota, λMota,Druze, instead of Yoruba in our f4 ratio. By using this better reference, we estimated West Eurasian admixture to be significantly larger than previously estimated, with an additional 6-9% of the genome of contemporary African populations being of Eurasian origin (Fig. S6, and Table S5). Importantly, this analysis shows that the West Eurasian component can be found also in West Africa (Fig. S6), albeit at lower levels 13 than in Eastern Africa. Importantly, a sizeable West Eurasian component is also found in the Yoruba and Mbuti, which are often used a representative of an unadmixed African population.

quote:
Fig. S8. Phylogeny used in f4 ratio analysis. Phylogeny composed of three populations A, B, and C, and an outgroup O all descending from the same ancestor R. An additional population, X, is a mixture of B and C.

[...]

Table S4. Mutations defining the E1b1 haplogroup of Mota. Mutations are reported with respect to the Reconstructed Sapiens Reference Sequence. Mutations found in our sample, which are present in the reported haplogroup are shown here unless marked in bold or underlined. Underlined mutations are those present in our samples but not associated with the haplogroup determined. Bold mutations are those expected for the assigned haplogroup but absent from the sample.

[...]

Previous page: Table. S5. The proportion of West Eurasian ancestry for all African populations in our global panel. λYoruba,Druze gives estimates using Yoruba as the non-admixed reference and Druze as the source, λMota,Druze using Mota as the non-admixed reference and Druze as the source, and λMota,LBK using Mota as the non-admixed reference and LBK as a source. SE are the standard errors for these quantities.

[...]

Table S6. D statistics determining the possible source of West Eurasian ancestry in Yoruba. D(Yoruba, Mota; X, Han); where X is a range of European populations that represent possible sources of gene flow.

[...]

Table S7. D statistics determining the possible source of West Eurasian ancestry in Mbuti. D(Mbuti, Mota; X, Han); where X is a range of European populations that represent possible sources of gene flow.

[...]

Table S8. Neanderthal component D statistics. D(AltaiNea, CAnc; Mota, X), where AltaiNea is the Altai Neanderthal, MezNea is the Mezmaiskaya Neanderthal, CAnc is the reconstructed human-chimpanzee common ancestor, Mota is the reference and X is the tested genome.

[...]

Table S9. Neanderthal component based on f4 ratio. f4 (AltaiNea, Denisovan; X, Mota) / f4 (AltaiNea, Denisovan; X, MezNea), where Mota is the unadmixed reference and X is the tested population.

[...]

Table S10. Denisovan component D statistics. DYoruba, D(Denisovan, CAnc; Yoruba, X), where Yoruba is the reference and X is the tested genome, and DMota, D(Denisovan, CAnc; Mota, X), where CAnc is the reconstructed human-chimpanzee common ancestor, Mota is the reference and X is the tested genome.

---M. Gallego Llorente

Ancient Ethiopian genome reveals extensive Eurasian admixture throughout the African continent

Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Doug M
Member
Member # 7650

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Doug M     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by beyoku:
@Doug M. You are running the tired old game of ignoring non African human divergence. YES we understand that ALL humans are African and Humanity is an African species. You like others are falling back on the "We are all African...everything is African because it came from Africa" in order to NOT place a genetic descriptor or draw a line on what is "African" and what is NOT. Its cowardice.

The only game being played here is you pretending to not see the obvious contradictions as pointed out previously. You continuously keep ignoring them yet you refuse to admit you are being a hypocrite. When did OOA Africans stop being Genetically African and become Eurasians? That is the point. When did Eurasia suddenly become cut off from repeated genetic input from Africa. So if the labels used in Eurasia don't reflect the AFRICAN ancestry of those genes, then it is hypocritical to speak of "Eurasian" genes in Africa. You understand this but you are as I said playing games.

And we know you don't have the answer and are instead jumping on whatever bandwagon comes along to pretend you do.

So no, this isn't about "we are all African species". This is about serious scholarship not half baked theories.

If ancient DNA can be sampled in one specimen then they need to extract the DNA from ALL ancient samples and stop with these theoretical speculations. That is what this is about. If they can sample the DNA from the Abusir mummies then sample ALL the DNA from ancient Egyptian mummies. That is the MOST ACCURATE way to understand what DNA was where and when. But of course they play this game of "scientific speculation" and you folks go right along with it.


quote:
Originally posted by beyoku:

The main reason folks do this is to lay claim to worldwide populations of dark skinned folks IE

Because skin color is a fact of human diversity but somehow you have a problem with that. And it isn't anybody "claiming" anything, especially not me, I am just pointing out the obvious.

quote:
Originally posted by beyoku:

Clown - "The first native Americans were Black".
Reason - They are not African, they were more related to Siberians.
Clown - All humans come from Africa and the first Eurasians come from Africa.

Skin color is not limited to Africa, mr biologist. People with the same shades of skin color can be found around the world, from black to white and in between.

quote:
Originally posted by beyoku:

They dont want to face the fact that those populations they are claiming are all the way on the other end of the genetic spectrum. Too stuck on race.

Nothing to do the with fact that humans have skin color. White skin isn't unique to Europe and black skin isn't unique to Africa. Again, this is a biological fact but somehow you refuse to accept this even as you claim to be so "scientifically accruate".

quote:
Originally posted by beyoku:

As to your Second half, if you dont think a major back-migration from Arabia happened. That is even MORE Reason for you to understand that such OOA ancestry you are talking about would look more "North African" than it would "Horn African". You are left in the DUST. As for Removing all Eurasian and Isolating African specific OOA type ancestry PAGANI already attempted to do that, hence the quote you keep ignoring.

The part you keep missing is that humans were in North Africa before they settled Arabia. Your incessant focus on trying to equate African biological diversity to Eurasians who didn't even exist for 100,000 years shows you have no grasp of science or facts..... Please miss me with that nonsense. Human features and adaption to various environments in Africa started LONG BEFORE humans left Africa. And humans in Africa didn't stay in one place. Humans have been in Africa for 200,000 years which means they have moved around a lot and many groups probably existed that we don't even know about. This did not start with "Eurasians" and "horners" vs "East Africans". This is absurd and non scientific.

quote:
Originally posted by beyoku:

quote:
West Eurasian components were masked out, and the remaining African haplotypes were compared with a panel of sub-Saharan African and non-African genomes. We showed that masked Northeast African haplotypes overall were more similar to non-African haplotypes and more frequently present outside Africa than were any sets of haplotypes derived from a West African population. Furthermore, the masked Egyptian haplotypes showed these properties more markedly than the masked Ethiopian haplotypes', pointing to Egypt as the more likely gateway in the exodus to the rest of the world.
Is Egypt in "North Africa." If populations carry this ancestry migration below the Sahara would that leave some popualtions as a mix of SSA and NA Ancestry?

NOW what exactly is your contention? They just did exactly what you are requesting and discovered that Egyptians are "more OOA" than Ethiopians. Also this Egyptian African type ancestry was widespread outside of the continent compared to any other type of African Ancestry. Like I said before, you are not too familiar with the DATA...running your mouth and saying "They" need to do things that they have already DONE.

Man you stretch reality and make absurd conclusions. What on earth does "more OOA" mean? Obviously if Africans are the parent then OF COURSE the children would have a relationship to them. That doesn't make the children into the parent. If half of some group of ancient Africans crossed outside of Africa then of course later descendants of both groups would be related. That doesn't make the descendants of those who never left Africa into OOA. Your logic is flawed. But according to EEF and Basal Eurasian that group those who left weren't African anymore.

Again the hypocrisy is that they are not even labeling the genes of the Africans that left as African when they left Africa. But make a whole lot of noise about "Eurasian" genes as if OOA populations didn't carry 100% African genes.....

Not to mention labeling the descendants of those who never left as "reverse migrants" because of their close relatively close relationship to the descendants of those who left....

[Roll Eyes]

Posts: 8895 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ase
Member
Member # 19740

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Ase     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
“African populations have the most genetic diversity in the world,” Henn said.“ If you compared people from the Kalahari Desert to people from Mali, they’d be as different from each other [genetically] as Italians and Chinese people.”
But SSA is a viable biological construct. [Roll Eyes]
Posts: 2508 | From: . | Registered: Nov 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
the lioness,
Member
Member # 17353

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for the lioness,     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Ish Gebor:


Brenna Henn, in this 2014 interview on population genetics and population structure, considering African populations.

“African populations have the most genetic diversity in the world,” Henn said.“ If you compared people from the Kalahari Desert to people from Mali, they’d be as different from each other [genetically] as Italians and Chinese people.”


So does this mean a West African is as different from an Egyptian as an Italian is from a Chinese person?
Posts: 42930 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Forty2Tribes
Member
Member # 21799

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Forty2Tribes   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by the lioness,:

So does this mean a West African is as different from an Egyptian as an Italian is from a Chinese person?

Depends on all four subjects.
Posts: 1254 | From: howdy | Registered: Mar 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Concerned member of public
Banned
Member # 22355

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Concerned member of public   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by capra:
Man, Cass, your trolling here gets such predictable responses it's positively unsporting.

quote:
Originally posted by Cass/:
No. I work with skulls/fossils. Isn't autosomal ancient DNA extraction limited to a certain time period? I mean where is the autosomal DNA for "AMH" 100,000 years ago? Obviously though ancient DNA will settle things for stuff like ancient Egypt, but this is a far more recent in time. How is ancient DNA going to help the human origins debate when there is none? We have to work with fossils.

OK, I don't know much about fossils. So I'm not going to tell you your opinion is unjustified, or quote some unreviewed palaeontogy paper that says what I like. See how easy it is!

Actually we do have some relevant ancient DNA from northern Eurasia. It's Neanderthal and Denisovan. Hopefully we will get some aDNA from some of those interesting fossils in China.

It's not really political in the West, from what I can see. The evidence is straightforward. There's no political implications to these human origins theories in reality, people just use them for rhetorical purposes. If Multiregionalism had won out, people would be talking about how everyone is united by a million years of race-mixing. If you want to demonize Out-of-Africa, describe it as superior people from one continent conquering the world. No one's deciding whether the Negro is a man and a brother based on their common ancestry being 80 000 years ago with minimal gene flow and not a million years ago with lots of gene flow.

Anyway, we went over this before, so back to the topic. Whatever the topic was supposed to be.

The Out-of-Africa (OOA) theory has creationist baggage, its pseudo-science. That's why I call it religious.

I will leave you with a quote from evolutionary biologist C. Loring Brace-

"The continued enthusiasm for finding an identifiable Sub-Saharan African cradle for the origin of all 'modern' human form, then, owes more to the Judaeo-Christian faith in the traditions of a Garden of Eden than it does to anything that can be called science (Brace, 1979, 1986, 1989). There is virtually no unequivocal evidence to support that faith, and no processes or dynamics are considered by which such an origin could have occurred. As it is generally presented (Cann et al., 1987; Stringer and Andrews, 1988), this model of human origins has more in common with the 'special creation' in the 'scientific' creationist approach of Christian fundamentalism (Morris, 1974: 104, 133) than anything resembling the expectations of evolutionary biology." (Brace, 1991 [2000])

The advantage of the Multiregional model is it is Darwinian, for example it assumes phyletic gradualism ("That many species have been evolved in an extremely gradual manner, there can hardly be a doubt." ~ Darwin), the opposite of OOA theory. This is covered in detail by Wolpoff (1997), who also criticizes OOA proponents for using biblical terms, e.g. "Mitochondrial Eve". The Out of Africa theory in the 80s/90s was sometimes even named the "Garden of Eden" theory since its committed to a single (not multiple) origin centre for "anatomically modern humans".

I'm formerly a religious nutjob (many years ago now). The Multiregional model helped me make sense of the theory of evolution and drop religion; Wolpoff's major book Human Evolution (921 pages). The OOA theory isn't Darwinian, and like Brace says- it has more in common with Christian fundamentalism, than actual science. No evolutionary process has ever been offered to explain how anatomical modernity originated exclusively in Sub-Saharan Africa. That "AMH" was a speciation event has been falsified and Stringer, the leading OOA proponent no longer argues dispersing "modern" humans were a new species. Heck, OOA proponents invented this concept of "anatomical modern" and have failed to even define it.

Posts: 949 | From: England | Registered: Oct 2015  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
zarahan aka Enrique Cardova
Member
Member # 15718

Icon 1 posted      Profile for zarahan aka Enrique Cardova     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Doug says:
But make a whole lot of noise about "Eurasian" genes..

Indeed some of the establishment is using double standards and
labeling games. The point is well supported in the scientific literature.
It is interesting as Keita notes below that even among scholars
precisely defining a category such as "European"
can be often problematic. Certain ideological agendas
can be at play among scholars.

Keita referred to these ideological agendas when
he noted that the authors of one DNA study removed
non-European samples in order to manipulate final
results to match up with their preferred "racial"
model- quote- "The data in effect were tailored
to fit into the traditional racial schema." (Keita
and Kittles 1997- The persistence of) And what
Keita says about researchers using a stereotypical
"true negro" construct, but avoid defining a "true
white" also applies to DNA studies. (The Persistence Of)
These issues are quite current, are noted by top
scholars in the field, and cannot merely be waved away.


 -

“Europe can serve as a good example. If it is asked who are the “indigenous” Europeans, there would probably be a request to clarify the time depth, given that modern humans are not native to Europe and arrived there from elsewhere. (The next question therefore is at what point do they become “European” and what precisely does this mean: current limb proportions, skin color, genetic variation, language, the presence of Neanderthal DNA?) Does “indigenousness” require residency back to the upper Paleolithic, the Neolithic, and so on? Is it only a biological phenomenon requiring a “drop” of Neanderthal blood or a linguistic phenomenon requiring the speaking of Indo-European languages? Or if the question is who were the indigenous inhabitants of northern, southern, western, eastern, or central Europe, the answers would necessarily take on a different tone, based on other information. Are the Basque speakers the indigenous inhabitants of Europe, if currently spoken language phyla and families are used as “population markers,” a problematic assumption? Basque predates Indo-European, and there is some indication of some level of biological distinctiveness (Alonso et al. 2005)...

But in the case of Africa there seems to be a problem with diversity for some scholars. The Indo-European language phylum, in the standard evidence-based interpretation, did not originate in the European heartland (Ehret, personal communication, 2010). Most people in Europe today speak Indo-European languages—now considered as “indigenous” as Basque. What does it mean for the concept of European if Europe’s major language phylum did not originate in what is considered Europe proper? How much of the spread of early Indo-European was due to outright settler colonization and how much to language shift—these are questions that will likely be debated for some time. Are the Finns, Saami, and Hungarians (or their “original” ancestors)—all non-Indo-European-speaking—to be considered Europeans? Apparently so. Contrast this with ideas held by some about Berbers as “Eurasians” who speak a language family that belongs to a phylum whose proto-parent emerged in Africa using standard historical linguistic criteria and whose major history and differentiation occurred in Africa (Ehret 2002; Greenberg 1963; Nichols 1997).”

-- S. O. Y. Keita. 2010. Biocultural Emergence of the Amazigh in Africa: Comment on Frigi et al. Human Biology, (82:4)

Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944

Icon 4 posted      Profile for Tukuler   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Again, careful with Gallego-Llorente.

The throughout Africa report was rehauled
after Skoglund & Reich pointed out compatibility
error between input data and the program run.

The corrected report in Eastern Africa I states
"there is no detectable Western Eurasian component in Yoruba and Mbuti."

Posts: 8179 | From: the Tekrur straddling Senegal & Mauritania | Registered: Dec 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Tukuler   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by capra:

This is why it is always good to include the mutation name, say K2-M70 instead of just K2, because if you say K2 what did you mean? And even using the latest terms when someone comes back and reads it again in five years it'll probably have changed again.

Yes. That's the only way to ascertain the
same haplogroup across various papers
and over the years. It'll avoid two people
arguing about two different things they
think are one and the same but aren't.

Posts: 8179 | From: the Tekrur straddling Senegal & Mauritania | Registered: Dec 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Tukuler   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I think the bottom right quad would look very
different if Basal Eurasian (Pleistocene Africa/
Arabian Peninsulars) could be included.

Too bad Beduine_A with they Esan and Wambo
infused self didn't make the PCA.

 -
• TL isolated Africans
• BL at least 5% 'admixed' Africans
• BR West Eurasians & admixed EEFs
• TR East Eurasians


quote:
Originally posted by beyoku:
@ Elmaestro.

quote:
an extremely narrow definition based on genetic diversity were "Eurasians" start NOT at a geographical point but instead a figurative genetic cornerstone (All the way at the bottom.)

 -

Yes in this narrow definition the diagonal line from Khoisan all the way to the bottom would represent African diversity with genetic "Eurasians" starting at Sardinians and ancient farmer samples.

While its funny, I am not quite ready to say that, instead i think and old enough sample from Egypt would show something different....somewhat how the Natufian was modeled as part North West Africa in Oracle. Egyptology just doesnt support mass migration in antiquity. We have to account for African substructure. The ancient DNA from Kenya and Sudan may help a lot with it.

They are calling it Eurasian based on what they assume about geographic populations and NOT based on some Isolated ROOT population on that PCA. IN the Above PCA "Basal Eurasian" would be on the African cline, "Natufian" would be on the African Cline.....and definitely Any Egyptian population that contributed to Natufian. As for a lingering NE African component, we could find it but we likely need Ancient DNA that will split a population multiple ways in the way it did for Europeans removing their genetically "Homogeneous" status.....NO instead they are a combination of 3-4 different groups. BE was conceptualized a long time ago.


Posts: 8179 | From: the Tekrur straddling Senegal & Mauritania | Registered: Dec 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Clyde Winters
Member
Member # 10129

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Clyde Winters   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by capra:
You don't have to repost everything every time you reply, Clyde.

"Interestingly, the earliest offshoot of extant haplogroup R1b-M343 variation, the V88 subclade, which is currently most common in Fulani speaking populations in Africa (Cruciani et al. 2010) has distant relatives in Early Neolithic samples from across wide geographic area from Iberia, Germany to Samara (Fig. 7)."

Right. So... in the English language, Clyde, are the "distant relatives" of a group members of the group itself?

For instance, if "the British royal family are distant relatives of the Romanovs", does this mean the British royal family are the czars of Russia? If "snails and slugs are distant relatives of the octopus", are gastropods classified as cephalopods? Are members of R1b-M343 which aren't V88 not distant relatives of V88?

Since Kivisild does not say that any of the samples were V88, nor does the tree show that they are V88, where did you get the information that any of them was V88?

The information about V88 is illustrated on the Figure 7 tree under V88 stupid.

Kivisild (2017) claimed the V88 samples from Samara and Spain was in Haak et al 2015. Kivisild (2017) wrote:"Interestingly, the earliest offshoot of extant haplogroup R1b-M343 variation, the V88 subclade, which is currently most common in Fulani speaking populations in Africa (Cruciani et al. 2010) has distant relatives in Early Neolithic samples from across wide geographic area from Iberia, Germany to Samara (Fig. 7)."
.
 -

Kivisild (2017) made it clear that the Samara and Spanish samples were different from other aDNA samples. Kivisild (2017) wrote: "Late Neolithic, Early Bronze Age and Iron Age samples from Central and Western Europe have typically the R1b-L11, R1a1-Z283 and R1a-M417 (xZ645)
affiliation while the samples from the Yamnaya and Samara neighbourhood are different and belong to sub-clades R1b11-Z2105 and R1a2-Z93 (Allentoft et al. 2015; Cassidy et al. 2016; Haak et al. 2015; Mathieson et al. 2015; Schiffels et al. 2016)."

As you can see Haak et al (2015) is cited as a source. In Haak et al(2017) Table S4.2, the Samara and Spain samples were identified as R1b1.

Up to 2010, R1b1 was recognized as an African R1 subclade . Africans carried R1b1, the name for this haplogroup was changed to R-L278. In 2010, R-V88 was originally named R1b1a and ; R-V8, was named R1b1a2. Today R-V88 is named R1b1a2, and R1b1a is renamed R-L754.


.
quote:



Haak et al (2017) Table S4.2: Y-Haplogroup assignments for 34 ancient European males. See : http://biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/early/2015/02/10/013433.full.pdf


  • I0124 0.96 R1b1 Samara_HG
    I0410 3.29 R1b1 Spain_EN

.

 -

.
The identification of R1b1 as a member of the V88 subclade makes it a relative of V88.
Haak et al (2015) had only two samples from Samara and Spain, i.e., named R1b1. The R1b1 samples can be the only "distant relative" of V88 from Samara and Spain, cited by Kivisild (2017).

Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Tukuler   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Please understand the diff
• nomenclature
• defining mutation

The treeing conventional names reorder
most everytime a mutation is discovered.

Posts: 8179 | From: the Tekrur straddling Senegal & Mauritania | Registered: Dec 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
xyyman
Member
Member # 13597

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for xyyman   Author's Homepage         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
As I posted in Davidski and it was deleted. Pygmies carry yDNA P*. Significance? You cannot depend on one author. Know their polictics!!!! 4Ws.

Supposed "Eurasian" ancestry is indigenous to Africa. Don't you guys understand that as yet. It was NEVER "corrected". Because other independent studies confirms "Eurasian" ancestry is found in Africa and it is indigenous. That is the problem these racialist European scientist face. Other authors are doing research and their results contradict racialist assertions? Not everyone is on the same page ......or reading the same book. When Africans start doing their own research that will change things even more.

Get with the program Sage.


Stop mis leading the readers!!!!!!!!
------
Admixture into and within sub-Saharan Africa - Busby et al ...and many more


Abstract:

Similarity between two individuals in the combination of genetic markers along their
chromosomes indicates shared ancestry and can be used to identify historical connections between
different population groups due to admixture. We use a genome-wide, haplotype-based, analysis
to characterise the structure of genetic diversity and gene-flow in a collection of 48 sub-Saharan
African groups. We show that coastal populations experienced an influx of Eurasian haplotypes
over the last 7000 years, and that Eastern and Southern Niger-Congo speaking groups share
ancestry with Central West Africans as a result of recent population expansions.
In fact, most sub-
Saharan populations share ancestry with groups from outside of their current geographic region as
a result of gene-flow within the last 4000 years.
---



quote:
Originally posted by Tukuler:
Again, careful with Gallego-Llorente.

The throughout Africa report was rehauled
after Skoglund & Reich pointed out compatibility
error between input data and the program run.

The corrected report in Eastern Africa I states
"there is no detectable Western Eurasian component in Yoruba and Mbuti."


Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
xyyman
Member
Member # 13597

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for xyyman   Author's Homepage         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
In case you have NOT connected the dots. The authors either don't understand what they are seeing relative to West Africans with "Eurasian" haplotypes or are deliberately misleading the readers. Keep in mind Islands off Africa and Coastal West Africans carry a high frequency of R1b* which is assumed to be Eurasians. Cape Verde, Soa Tome Principe etc carry a higher frequency of blacks with blue eyes along with R1b*. Do you understand what I am getting at? This "Eurasian" admixture they are seeing in coastal West Africans are are remnant genes from Paleolithic Europeans like La Brana who had blue eyes and black skin. More blacks of paleolithic Europe was recently released in the new paper yesterday. Coastal and island West Africans carry a much higher frequency of La Brana genes than inland African. It is called isolation.

They got the dating screwed up ...that is all.

-----
Quote:
Many West African groups show evidence of admixture within the last 4 ky involving African and
Eurasian
sources. The Mossi from Burkina Faso have the oldest inferred date of admixture, at roughly 5000BCE. Across East Africa Niger-Congo speakers (orange) we infer admixture within the
last 4 ky (and often within the last 1 ky) involving Eurasian sources on the one hand, and African sour-
ces containing ancestry from other Niger-Congo speaking African groups from the west
, on the
other. Despite events between African and Eurasian sources appearing older in the Nilo-Saharan
and Afroasiatic speakers from East Africa, we see a similar signal of very recent Central West African
ancestry in a number of Khoesan groups from Southern Africa, such as the Khwe and /Gui //Gana,
together with Malawi-like (brown) sources of ancestry in recent admixture events in East African
Niger-Congo speakers.
Most events involved sources where Eurasian (dark yellow in Figure 3A) groups gave the largest
amplitudes. In considering this observation, it is important to note that the amplitude of LD curves
will partly be determined by the extent to which a reference population has differentiated from the
targe

Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Clyde Winters
Member
Member # 10129

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Clyde Winters   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by xyyman:
In case you have NOT connected the dots. The authors either don't understand what they are seeing relative to West Africans with "Eurasian" haplotypes or are deliberately misleading the readers. Keep in mind Islands off Africa and Coastal West Africans carry a high frequency of R1b* which is assumed to be Eurasians. Cape Verde, Soa Tome Principe etc carry a higher frequency of blacks with blue eyes along with R1b*. Do you understand what I am getting at? This "Eurasian" admixture they are seeing in coastal West Africans are are remnant genes from Paleolithic Europeans like La Brana who had blue eyes and black skin. More blacks of paleolithic Europe was recently released in the new paper yesterday. Coastal and island West Africans carry a much higher frequency of La Brana genes than inland African. It is called isolation.

They got the dating screwed up ...that is all.

-----
Quote:
Many West African groups show evidence of admixture within the last 4 ky involving African and
Eurasian
sources. The Mossi from Burkina Faso have the oldest inferred date of admixture, at roughly 5000BCE. Across East Africa Niger-Congo speakers (orange) we infer admixture within the
last 4 ky (and often within the last 1 ky) involving Eurasian sources on the one hand, and African sour-
ces containing ancestry from other Niger-Congo speaking African groups from the west
, on the
other. Despite events between African and Eurasian sources appearing older in the Nilo-Saharan
and Afroasiatic speakers from East Africa, we see a similar signal of very recent Central West African
ancestry in a number of Khoesan groups from Southern Africa, such as the Khwe and /Gui //Gana,
together with Malawi-like (brown) sources of ancestry in recent admixture events in East African
Niger-Congo speakers.
Most events involved sources where Eurasian (dark yellow in Figure 3A) groups gave the largest
amplitudes. In considering this observation, it is important to note that the amplitude of LD curves
will partly be determined by the extent to which a reference population has differentiated from the
targe

What's the title of this paper?

The authors are right about the relationship between the Niger-Congo speakers. This results from the fact that the Bell Beaker and Yamnaya people were Kushites, and at the base of the Kushites were the C-Group people who spoke Niger-Congo languages. As a result, they are one and the same population.

See: https://www.academia.edu/1898583/Origin_Niger-Congo_Languages

Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Clyde Winters
Member
Member # 10129

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Clyde Winters   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Tukuler:
Please understand the diff
• nomenclature
• defining mutation

The treeing conventional names reorder
most everytime a mutation is discovered.

Up to 2010, R1b1 was recognized as an African R1 subclade . Africans carried R1b1, the name for this haplogroup was changed to R-L278.Although it was called R-L278 after 2010, Haak et al (2015), continued to refer to this haplogroup as R1b1. As a result, the change in name had nothing to do with discovery of a new mutation.

.

Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
the lioness,
Member
Member # 17353

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for the lioness,     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Clyde Winters:

the Bell Beaker and Yamnaya people were Kushites

 -
Posts: 42930 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Clyde Winters
Member
Member # 10129

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Clyde Winters   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:
Originally posted by Clyde Winters:

the Bell Beaker and Yamnaya people were Kushites

 -
.  -

.


Yes they were. No one denies that R1a, is of Dravidian origin. We find that the oldest subclade of M343 is V88, which is also found among the Bell Beaker and Yamnaya people. The Dravidians came from Africa and belonged to the C-Group and spoke a Niger-Congo language, like the other Niger-Congo/Kushite people who migrated out of Middle Africa after 3000BC.

Since the Yamnaya and Bell Beaker people were carrying R1b and R1a (which is still found in Cameroon where Tamil is spoken) make it clear these people were Kushites--not Indo-European speakers.

Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
xyyman
Member
Member # 13597

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for xyyman   Author's Homepage         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
@ Dr Winters.

Admixture into and within sub-Saharan Africa - Busby et al ...

--------------------
Without data you are just another person with an opinion - Deming

Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Clyde Winters
Member
Member # 10129

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Clyde Winters   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:
Originally posted by Clyde Winters:

the Bell Beaker and Yamnaya people were Kushites

 -
Jones et al,Upper Palaeolithic genomes reveal deep roots of modern Eurasians web page, believed that there was continuity between the ancient and modern Europeans populations---this phenomena is exactly what the researchers found.

Jones et al made several observations, they wrote
quote:

EF share greater genetic affinity to populations from southern Europe than to those from northern Europe with an inverted pattern for WHG1,2,3,4,5. Surprisingly, we find that CHG influence is stronger in northern than Southern Europe (Fig. 4a and Supplementary Fig. 3A) despite the closer relationship between CHG and EF compared with WHG, suggesting an increase of CHG ancestry in Western Europeans subsequent to the early Neolithic period. We investigated this further using D-statistics of the form D(Yoruba, Kotias; EF, modern Western European population), which confirmed a significant introgression from CHG into modern northern European genomes after the early Neolithic period (Supplementary Fig. 4).

Next they noted:
quote:

We investigated the temporal stratigraphy of CHG influence by comparing these data to previously published ancient genomes. We find that CHG, or a population close to them, contributed to the genetic makeup of individuals from the Yamnaya culture, which have been implicated as vectors for the profound influx of Pontic steppe ancestry that spread westwards into Europe and east into central Asia with metallurgy, horseriding and probably Indo-European languages in the third millenium BC5,7. CHG ancestry in these groups is supported by ADMIXTURE analysis (Fig. 1b) and admixture f3-statistics14,25 (Fig. 5), which best describe the Yamnaya as a mix of CHG and Eastern European hunter-gatherers. The Yamnaya were semi-nomadic pastoralists, mainly dependent on stock-keeping but with some evidence for agriculture, including incorporation of a plow into one burial26

The culture traits of the CHG : horseback riding , meyallurgy and etc., are of Kushite, not Indo-European in origin. The only problem with the theory Jones et al, is that the earliest rulers of the land where these culkture traits originated were Kaska and Hatti speakers who spoke a non-IE languages called Khattili. The gods of the Hattic people were Kasku and Kusuh (< Kush).
The Hattic people, may be related to the Hatiu, one of the Delta Tehenu tribes. Many archaeologist believe that the Tehenu people were related to the C-Group people. The Hattic language is closely related to African and Dravidian languages for example:
  • English Hattic Egyptian Malinke (Mande
    language)

    powerful ur wr'great,big' fara

    protect $uh swh solo-

    head tup tp tu 'strike the head'

    up,upper tufa tp dya, tu 'raising ground'

    to stretch put pd pe, bamba

    to prosper falfat -- find'ya

    pour duq --- du 'to
    dispense'

    child pin,pinu den

    Mother na-a -- na

    lord sa -- sa

    place -ka -ka
The languages have similar syntax Hattic le fil 'his house'; Mande a falu 'his ]father's house'.

This suggest that the CHG were Kushites, a view supported by the Hattic name for themselves: Kashka.

The I-E speaking Hittites adopted much of Hattic culture after 1400 BC. There were other languages spoken in Anatolia, including Palaic Luwian and Hurrian. Palaic and Luwian were probably languages spoken by whites. The languages of the Hittites: Nesa, was a lingua franca used by the Luwian and Palaic speakers. This was long after the Yamnaya culture/CHG had spread into Europe from Africa.


The Hurrians spoke a non-IE language. Formerly, linguist suggested that the Hurrians were dominated by Indic speakers. Linguist of the IE languages were fond of this theory because some of the names for the earliest Indo-Aryan gods, chariots and horsemenship are found in Hurrian.

  • Hurrian Sanscrit
    Mi-it-ra Mitra
    Aru-na Varuna
    In-da-ra Indra


This made the Indo-Aryan domination of Hurrians good support for an Anatolia origin for the IE speakers. This theory held high regards until Bjarte Kaldhol studied 500 Hurrian names and found that only 5, were Indo-Aryan sounding. This made it clear that the IA people probably learned horsemenship from the Hurrians, and not the other way around.

At the base of Nesite, the language of the Hittites is Hattic. Since this language was used as a lingua franca, Nesa was probably not an IE language as assumed by IE linguist. This along with the fact that Diakonoff and Kohl never defeated the Kaska; and the Hurrians introduced horse-drawn war chariots for military purposes indicate that Anatolia probably was not a homeland for the IE speakers.

Next Jones et al acknowledges that:

quote:

Given their geographic origin, it seems likely that CHG and EF are the descendants of early colonists from Africa who stopped south of the Caucasus, in an area stretching south to the Levant and possibly east towards Central and South Asia. WHG, on the other hand, are likely the descendants of a wave that expanded further into Europe. The separation of these populations is one that stretches back before the Holocene, as indicated by local continuity through the Late Palaeolithic/Mesolithic boundary and deep coalescence estimates, which date to around the LGM and earlier. Several analyses show that CHG are distinct from another inferred minor ancestral population, ANE, making them a divergent fourth strand of European ancestry that expands the model of the human colonization of that continent.


The separation between CHG and both EF and WHG ended during the Early Bronze Age when a major ancestral component linked to CHG was carried west by migrating herders from the Eurasian Steppe. The foundation group for this seismic change was the Yamnaya, who we estimate to owe half of their ancestry to CHG-linked sources. These sources may be linked to the Maikop culture, which predated the Yamnaya and was located further south, closer to the Southern Caucasus. Through the Yamanya, the CHG ancestral strand contributed to most modern European populations, especially in the northern part of the continent.


Jones et al, make it clear that ”Given their geographic origin, it seems likely that CHG and EF are the descendants of early colonists from Africa who stopped south of the Caucasus, in an area stretching south to the Levant and possibly east towards Central and South Asia”. the African origin of these Levantines is supported by Holliday. Trenton W. Holliday, tested the hypothesis that if modern Africans had dispersed into the Levant from Africa, "tropically adapted hominids" would be represented in the archaeological history of the Levant, especially in relation to the Qafzeh-Skhul hominids. This researcher found that the Qafzeh-Skhul hominids (20,000-10,000),were assigned to the Sub-Saharan population, along with the Natufians samples (4000 BP). Holliday also found African fauna in the area. (See: Holiday, T. (2000). Evolution at the Crossroads: Modern Human Emergence in Western Asia, American Anthropologist,102(1)) .

As I have noted previously, the The Niger-Congo and Dravidian speakers were Kushites and belonged to the C-Group culture. The Kushites made corded ware and Red-and-black pottery.
.

 -

.

By 3500 BC the Dravidian and Mande tribes began to migrate out of Africa. Dr. Menges was the first archaeologist to argue that some Dravidians landed in Iran and migrated into India and the Indus Valley.
These Kushites were the ancestors of the Yamnaya or CHG culture bearers. They were the people who practiced horseback riding and etc.

The movement of the Kushite group is supported by the spread of BRW from Nubia to the Indus Valley and the South Indian megalithic.; and the Dravidian substratum in the prakrit, puranas and other languages in Eurasia.
.


 -

The Yamnaya and or CHG introduced the Agro-Pastoral traditions of the CHG. It was also the Kushites who introduced the R haplogroup carried by the CHG and the presence of V88 in early Europe.
The African origin of the CHG is supported by the following evidence:

1. The Kushites began to replace the Anu after the Great Flood, i.e., after 4000BC.

2. There is archaeological evidence of Kushites migrating into Eurasia from Middle Africa 6kya.The Kushites were the rounded headed cattle herders depicted in Saharan Rock art. They belonged to the C-Group . The C-Group was primarially composed of Niger-congo and Dravidian speakers.

'
 -

'

3. there is no archaeological evidence for a back migration of Eurasians back into Africa.

4. Cattle domestication may have appeared first in the Neat East--but evidence for the first cattle herders appears in Middle African Rock art --not the Near East. These Africans took their Agro-Pastoral traditions into Eurasia.

5. Africans domesticated the horse before the I-E people as evident in the Saharan rock art.

6. Kushites introduced chariot riding and horseback riding to the world.

7. The Corded Ware pottery traditions began in Africa among the Kushites

8. The culture terms used by the I-E speakers are of Dravidian and Niger-Congo origin.

9. The I-E people were a bunch of nomads lacking any culture as supported by the so-called Proto- I.E., terms that are not of kushite origin. The I-E speakers remained isolated in Central Asia, until they attacked Kusite centers in Western Europe and Pakistan-India after 1400BC.

Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Clyde Winters
Member
Member # 10129

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Clyde Winters   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by xyyman:
@ Dr Winters.

Admixture into and within sub-Saharan Africa - Busby et al ...

.
I read the paper I discussed on my blog web page .

Below is my response to this paper.

quote:


This paper is nonsense. It is found on hypotheses which do not reflect the African reality. Firstly,there is no Afro-Asiatic language family and the Bantu speakers did not originate in West-Central Africa. In addition, there is no discussion of archaeological evidence in support of any of the authors propositions, and as I pointed out in my article A PROTOCOL TO EVALUATE POPULATION GENETICS PAPERS web page the absence of archaeological data is the major indication that the paper lacks credibility.

Reading this paper is like reading any other racist Eurocentric article written at the turn of the 20th Century perpetuating the Hamitic myth.THE Hamitic myth states that everything of value ever found in Africa was brought there by the Hamites, allegedly a branch of the Caucasian race. Seligman formulated this hypothesis which led researchers to declare that the Fulani and Afro-Asiatic speakers were Hamites. As a result, when this study declares that the Fulani, who are not of Eurasian origin, and the Afro-Asiatic speakers have a high frequency of Eurasian (white) admixture, this paper is just reinforcing a hypothesis that lacks credibility. The results of this paper only perpetuates the Hamitic myth, many researchers had thought was abandoned--but has remained constant by geneticist who dress the hypothesis up in new clothes based on statistics, instead of actual archeaogenetics evidence.

The authors assume that the Bantu migrated out of Cameroon 2,5kya. This is ludicrous because the Bantu had been living in the Nile Valley long before 500BC.


In summary this paper is maintaining the status quo dogma that the Bantu and the rest of the Niger-Congo speakers are true Negroes, and the Afro-Asiatic speakers and Fulani are Hamites, i.e., dark skinned Caucasians. This paper offers nothing new in relation to African genetics, it is a throwback back to the 1930's racist anthropological studies.



Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
the lioness,
Member
Member # 17353

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for the lioness,     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:
Originally posted by Clyde Winters:

the Bell Beaker and Yamnaya people were Kushites

 -

Posts: 42930 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Clyde Winters
Member
Member # 10129

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Clyde Winters   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:
Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:
Originally posted by Clyde Winters:

the Bell Beaker and Yamnaya people were Kushites

 -

Jones et al,Upper Palaeolithic genomes reveal deep roots of modern Eurasians web page, believed that there was continuity between the ancient and modern Europeans populations---this phenomena is exactly what the researchers found.

Jones et al made several observations, they wrote
quote:

EF share greater genetic affinity to populations from southern Europe than to those from northern Europe with an inverted pattern for WHG1,2,3,4,5. Surprisingly, we find that CHG influence is stronger in northern than Southern Europe (Fig. 4a and Supplementary Fig. 3A) despite the closer relationship between CHG and EF compared with WHG, suggesting an increase of CHG ancestry in Western Europeans subsequent to the early Neolithic period. We investigated this further using D-statistics of the form D(Yoruba, Kotias; EF, modern Western European population), which confirmed a significant introgression from CHG into modern northern European genomes after the early Neolithic period (Supplementary Fig. 4).

Next they noted:
quote:

We investigated the temporal stratigraphy of CHG influence by comparing these data to previously published ancient genomes. We find that CHG, or a population close to them, contributed to the genetic makeup of individuals from the Yamnaya culture, which have been implicated as vectors for the profound influx of Pontic steppe ancestry that spread westwards into Europe and east into central Asia with metallurgy, horseriding and probably Indo-European languages in the third millenium BC5,7. CHG ancestry in these groups is supported by ADMIXTURE analysis (Fig. 1b) and admixture f3-statistics14,25 (Fig. 5), which best describe the Yamnaya as a mix of CHG and Eastern European hunter-gatherers. The Yamnaya were semi-nomadic pastoralists, mainly dependent on stock-keeping but with some evidence for agriculture, including incorporation of a plow into one burial26

The culture traits of the CHG : horseback riding , meyallurgy and etc., are of Kushite, not Indo-European in origin. The only problem with the theory Jones et al, is that the earliest rulers of the land where these culkture traits originated were Kaska and Hatti speakers who spoke a non-IE languages called Khattili. The gods of the Hattic people were Kasku and Kusuh (< Kush).
The Hattic people, may be related to the Hatiu, one of the Delta Tehenu tribes. Many archaeologist believe that the Tehenu people were related to the C-Group people. The Hattic language is closely related to African and Dravidian languages for example:
  • English Hattic Egyptian Malinke (Mande
    language)

    powerful ur wr'great,big' fara

    protect $uh swh solo-

    head tup tp tu 'strike the head'

    up,upper tufa tp dya, tu 'raising ground'

    to stretch put pd pe, bamba

    to prosper falfat -- find'ya

    pour duq --- du 'to
    dispense'

    child pin,pinu den

    Mother na-a -- na

    lord sa -- sa

    place -ka -ka
The languages have similar syntax Hattic le fil 'his house'; Mande a falu 'his ]father's house'.

This suggest that the CHG were Kushites, a view supported by the Hattic name for themselves: Kashka.

The I-E speaking Hittites adopted much of Hattic culture after 1400 BC. There were other languages spoken in Anatolia, including Palaic Luwian and Hurrian. Palaic and Luwian were probably languages spoken by whites. The languages of the Hittites: Nesa, was a lingua franca used by the Luwian and Palaic speakers. This was long after the Yamnaya culture/CHG had spread into Europe from Africa.


The Hurrians spoke a non-IE language. Formerly, linguist suggested that the Hurrians were dominated by Indic speakers. Linguist of the IE languages were fond of this theory because some of the names for the earliest Indo-Aryan gods, chariots and horsemenship are found in Hurrian.

  • Hurrian Sanscrit
    Mi-it-ra Mitra
    Aru-na Varuna
    In-da-ra Indra


This made the Indo-Aryan domination of Hurrians good support for an Anatolia origin for the IE speakers. This theory held high regards until Bjarte Kaldhol studied 500 Hurrian names and found that only 5, were Indo-Aryan sounding. This made it clear that the IA people probably learned horsemenship from the Hurrians, and not the other way around.

At the base of Nesite, the language of the Hittites is Hattic. Since this language was used as a lingua franca, Nesa was probably not an IE language as assumed by IE linguist. This along with the fact that Diakonoff and Kohl never defeated the Kaska; and the Hurrians introduced horse-drawn war chariots for military purposes indicate that Anatolia probably was not a homeland for the IE speakers.

Next Jones et al acknowledges that:

quote:

Given their geographic origin, it seems likely that CHG and EF are the descendants of early colonists from Africa who stopped south of the Caucasus, in an area stretching south to the Levant and possibly east towards Central and South Asia. WHG, on the other hand, are likely the descendants of a wave that expanded further into Europe. The separation of these populations is one that stretches back before the Holocene, as indicated by local continuity through the Late Palaeolithic/Mesolithic boundary and deep coalescence estimates, which date to around the LGM and earlier. Several analyses show that CHG are distinct from another inferred minor ancestral population, ANE, making them a divergent fourth strand of European ancestry that expands the model of the human colonization of that continent.


The separation between CHG and both EF and WHG ended during the Early Bronze Age when a major ancestral component linked to CHG was carried west by migrating herders from the Eurasian Steppe. The foundation group for this seismic change was the Yamnaya, who we estimate to owe half of their ancestry to CHG-linked sources. These sources may be linked to the Maikop culture, which predated the Yamnaya and was located further south, closer to the Southern Caucasus. Through the Yamanya, the CHG ancestral strand contributed to most modern European populations, especially in the northern part of the continent.


Jones et al, make it clear that ”Given their geographic origin, it seems likely that CHG and EF are the descendants of early colonists from Africa who stopped south of the Caucasus, in an area stretching south to the Levant and possibly east towards Central and South Asia”. the African origin of these Levantines is supported by Holliday. Trenton W. Holliday, tested the hypothesis that if modern Africans had dispersed into the Levant from Africa, "tropically adapted hominids" would be represented in the archaeological history of the Levant, especially in relation to the Qafzeh-Skhul hominids. This researcher found that the Qafzeh-Skhul hominids (20,000-10,000),were assigned to the Sub-Saharan population, along with the Natufians samples (4000 BP). Holliday also found African fauna in the area. (See: Holiday, T. (2000). Evolution at the Crossroads: Modern Human Emergence in Western Asia, American Anthropologist,102(1)) .

As I have noted previously, the The Niger-Congo and Dravidian speakers were Kushites and belonged to the C-Group culture. The Kushites made corded ware and Red-and-black pottery.
.

 -

.

By 3500 BC the Dravidian and Mande tribes began to migrate out of Africa. Dr. Menges was the first archaeologist to argue that some Dravidians landed in Iran and migrated into India and the Indus Valley.
These Kushites were the ancestors of the Yamnaya or CHG culture bearers. They were the people who practiced horseback riding and etc.

The movement of the Kushite group is supported by the spread of BRW from Nubia to the Indus Valley and the South Indian megalithic.; and the Dravidian substratum in the prakrit, puranas and other languages in Eurasia.
.


 -

The Yamnaya and or CHG introduced the Agro-Pastoral traditions of the CHG. It was also the Kushites who introduced the R haplogroup carried by the CHG and the presence of V88 in early Europe.
The African origin of the CHG is supported by the following evidence:

1. The Kushites began to replace the Anu after the Great Flood, i.e., after 4000BC.

2. There is archaeological evidence of Kushites migrating into Eurasia from Middle Africa 6kya.The Kushites were the rounded headed cattle herders depicted in Saharan Rock art. They belonged to the C-Group . The C-Group was primarially composed of Niger-congo and Dravidian speakers.

'
 -

'

3. there is no archaeological evidence for a back migration of Eurasians back into Africa.

4. Cattle domestication may have appeared first in the Neat East--but evidence for the first cattle herders appears in Middle African Rock art --not the Near East. These Africans took their Agro-Pastoral traditions into Eurasia.

5. Africans domesticated the horse before the I-E people as evident in the Saharan rock art.

6. Kushites introduced chariot riding and horseback riding to the world.

7. The Corded Ware pottery traditions began in Africa among the Kushites

8. The culture terms used by the I-E speakers are of Dravidian and Niger-Congo origin.

9. The I-E people were a bunch of nomads lacking any culture as supported by the so-called Proto- I.E., terms that are not of kushite origin. The I-E speakers remained isolated in Central Asia, until they attacked Kusite centers in Western Europe and Pakistan-India after 1400BC.

Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Concerned member of public
Banned
Member # 22355

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Concerned member of public   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by xyyman:
As I posted in Davidski and it was deleted. Pygmies carry yDNA P*. Significance? You cannot depend on one author. Know their polictics!!!! 4Ws.

Supposed "Eurasian" ancestry is indigenous to Africa. Don't you guys understand that as yet. It was NEVER "corrected". Because other independent studies confirms "Eurasian" ancestry is found in Africa and it is indigenous. That is the problem these racialist European scientist face. Other authors are doing research and their results contradict racialist assertions? Not everyone is on the same page ......or reading the same book. When Africans start doing their own research that will change things even more.

Get with the program Sage.


Stop mis leading the readers!!!!!!!!
------
Admixture into and within sub-Saharan Africa - Busby et al ...and many more


Abstract:

Similarity between two individuals in the combination of genetic markers along their
chromosomes indicates shared ancestry and can be used to identify historical connections between
different population groups due to admixture. We use a genome-wide, haplotype-based, analysis
to characterise the structure of genetic diversity and gene-flow in a collection of 48 sub-Saharan
African groups. We show that coastal populations experienced an influx of Eurasian haplotypes
over the last 7000 years, and that Eastern and Southern Niger-Congo speaking groups share
ancestry with Central West Africans as a result of recent population expansions.
In fact, most sub-
Saharan populations share ancestry with groups from outside of their current geographic region as
a result of gene-flow within the last 4000 years.
---



quote:
Originally posted by Tukuler:
Again, careful with Gallego-Llorente.

The throughout Africa report was rehauled
after Skoglund & Reich pointed out compatibility
error between input data and the program run.

The corrected report in Eastern Africa I states
"there is no detectable Western Eurasian component in Yoruba and Mbuti."


You post something interesting or informative like 1/10 times, but 9/10 you ruin it with this "we r all African" nonsense.
Posts: 949 | From: England | Registered: Oct 2015  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Elmaestro
Moderator
Member # 22566

Member Rated:
5
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Elmaestro     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
^If you learn how to distinguish interperation from fact, most of what Xyyman posts is interesting.... I could say the same about you ...but of course, you keep reverting back to the same sources to perpetuate the same trollish arguments.
Posts: 1781 | From: New York | Registered: Jul 2016  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Concerned member of public
Banned
Member # 22355

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Concerned member of public   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Elmaestro:
^If you learn how to distinguish interperation from fact, most of what Xyyman posts is interesting.... I could say the same about you ...but of course, you keep reverting back to the same sources to perpetuate the same trollish arguments.

I do not know what sources you mean. We're dealing with polar opposite world view/politics etc. I'm a 'white' person who doesn't believe in OOA; everyone else (white folks) I know personally and from other forums don't also believe in OOA. For 'black' people its the reverse, they all believe in OOA.
Posts: 949 | From: England | Registered: Oct 2015  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
capra
Member
Member # 22737

Member Rated:
5
Icon 1 posted      Profile for capra     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
^^^ Cass hangs out in special circles it seems

quote:
Originally posted by xyyman:
As I posted in Davidski and it was deleted. Pygmies carry yDNA P*. Significance?

Significance is that xyyman posts everything out of context. Source, which Pygmies, what SNPs did they test for?
Posts: 660 | From: Canada | Registered: Mar 2017  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
capra
Member
Member # 22737

Member Rated:
5
Icon 1 posted      Profile for capra     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
Up to 2010, R1b1 was recognized as an African R1 subclade . Africans carried R1b1, the name for this haplogroup was changed to R-L278. Although it was called R-L278 after 2010, Haak et al (2015), continued to refer to this haplogroup as R1b1. As a result, the change in name had nothing to do with discovery of a new mutation.

In 2010 L278 was added to define the R1b1 level as an alternative to P25, because the latter is prone to back-mutate. R-L278 and R1b1 are both abbreviations of R1b1-L278 and meant exactly the same thing; there is no change of name, you're just being willfully stupid.

Africans still carry R1b1, of course, since V88 is a subclade of R1b1. In 2010 Cruciani discovered the V88 SNP, and found that previously unclassified African R1b1 belonged to the clade defined by that mutation. So it is no longer referred to as R1b1*, i.e. R1b1 that does not belong to a known branch, because now it belongs to a known branch.

You should know this; you probably do know this at some level, but you are deeply dishonest.

Posts: 660 | From: Canada | Registered: Mar 2017  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
xyyman
Member
Member # 13597

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for xyyman   Author's Homepage         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Cass. You are missing the fundamental point of my post(s). There is no race and there never was. When I started on this site I believe there were races. About mid-way I realize there is no race. The facts to that is overwhelming. What you call "Caucasoid" is a myth. There is no sharp demarcation between human populations . It is a continuum with the epicenter I believe being in the Sahara and NOT sub-Saharan Africa. Caucasoid features are found both North And South of the equator. "Negroid" features are found all over the planet including outside Africa. Africans do not own "blackness" same as Europeans has no ownership of "whiteness". Paleolithic Europeans were "negroid". Neolithic Europeans entered Europe as long headed tropically adapted humans. And the latest genetic and continuing evidence emerging shows these were black people. There is no race. Ancient Europeans up to about 5000BC were black people. The white genes came from new African migrants entering Europe. Isn't that ironic. Read the genetic papers. NOTHING CAME FROM THE NORTH. NADA! NOTHING! Don't you get that yet?
Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Concerned member of public
Banned
Member # 22355

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Concerned member of public   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by capra:
[QB] ^^^ Cass hangs out in special circles it seems

lol. They're on the blog comments you sometimes visit. A month ago Davidiski decided to label Chinese Multiregionalists "madmen", but people showed up to defend their 2017 study and criticize OOA. I'm on ResearchGate and although my background isn't science- I see many palaeoanthropology discussions and people who are constantly criticizing OOA. The problem is Milford Wolpoff hasn't yet put out a research article on the recent ancient DNA finds, but he completed a major study on Neandertals this year.

Caspari, Rachel, Karen R. Rosenberg, and Milford H. Wolpoff. "Brother or Other: The Place of Neanderthals in Human Evolution." Human Paleontology and Prehistory. Springer International Publishing, 2017. 253-271.

Posts: 949 | From: England | Registered: Oct 2015  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
the lioness,
Member
Member # 17353

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for the lioness,     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by xyyman:

Africans do not own "blackness" same as Europeans has no ownership of "whiteness".

when did they acquire ownership of the property?
Posts: 42930 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Concerned member of public
Banned
Member # 22355

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Concerned member of public   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by xyyman:
Cass. You are missing the fundamental point of my post(s). There is no race and there never was. When I started on this site I believe there were races. About mid-way I realize there is no race. The facts to that is overwhelming. What you call "Caucasoid" is a myth. There is no sharp demarcation between human populations . It is a continuum with the epicenter I believe being in the Sahara and NOT sub-Saharan Africa. Caucasoid features are found both North And South of the equator. "Negroid" features are found all over the planet including outside Africa. Africans do not own "blackness" same as Europeans has no ownership of "whiteness". Paleolithic Europeans were "negroid". Neolithic Europeans entered Europe as long headed tropically adapted humans. And the latest genetic and continuing evidence emerging shows these were black people. There is no race. Ancient Europeans up to about 5000BC were black people. The white genes came from new African migrants entering Europe. Isn't that ironic. Read the genetic papers. NOTHING CAME FROM THE NORTH. NADA! NOTHING! Don't you get that yet?

Really depends how you define "race". There's multiple definitions and it usually gets into a semantic dispute. I gave up on one of the faulty race concepts year ago - that was the subspecies definition because its falsified by clines and lack of reproductive isolation between human populations because of gene flow. The fact though there is a generally smooth biological gradient across space (genetic distance is strongly correlated with geographical distance ~isolation-by-distance) doesn't prevent scientists dividing this continua for utility/operationalization ("operational taxonomic units" or "phylotypes"). So for example, one can clearly see two extremes in genetic/morphometric plots, so-called "Caucasoids" vs. "Negroids" even though they're not discontinuous. The focus of population geneticists however is local populations like ethnic groups, not "Caucasoids" or "Negroids" as larger clusters; the only reason I use these broad terms (but note for the past 4 years- I highlight them) is because this forum is obsessed with racial politics.
Posts: 949 | From: England | Registered: Oct 2015  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
the lioness,
Member
Member # 17353

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for the lioness,     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Cass who is more genetically related to a Southern Egyptian an Ethiopian or a Greek?
Posts: 42930 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
capra
Member
Member # 22737

Member Rated:
5
Icon 1 posted      Profile for capra     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Cass/:
lol. They're on the blog comments you sometimes visit.... I'm on ResearchGate and although my background isn't science- I see many palaeoanthropology discussions and people who are constantly criticizing OOA.

'Course there's people who don't believe in it, that's fine and dandy. It's good to have people not believing in things. It's your "all the white people I know don't believe in it" which is odd. But whatever, you don't know **** about genetics, I don't know **** about fossils, I don't care about your political bullshit, so I'm not going to discuss this topic any further.
Posts: 660 | From: Canada | Registered: Mar 2017  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
the lioness,
Member
Member # 17353

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for the lioness,     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
capra what are your remarks on this other thread?

http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=15;t=012221

Posts: 42930 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
capra
Member
Member # 22737

Member Rated:
5
Icon 1 posted      Profile for capra     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Sorry Lioness don't know anything about pigmentation alleles.

Xyyman's interpretation of everything is of course that if it's found in Africa, that means it necessarily came from Africa, and therefore all evidence of back-migration from Eurasia is evidence against back-migration from Eurasia. Truly, he has a dizzying intellect.

Posts: 660 | From: Canada | Registered: Mar 2017  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
the lioness,
Member
Member # 17353

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for the lioness,     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by capra:
[QB] Sorry Lioness don't know anything about pigmentation alleles.


well you already know more about genetics than most posters here, why not brush up on you pigmentation alleles?


quote:
Originally posted by capra:


Xyyman's interpretation of everything is of course that if it's found in Africa, that means it necessarily came from Africa, and therefore all evidence of back-migration from Eurasia is evidence against back-migration from Eurasia. Truly, he has a dizzying intellect.

that's more of an Ish Gegor/Clyde thing. If a Chinese person moves to Africa, bingo, all their DNA originated there

xyyman's thing is that if DNA is found in Africa it's evidence that Europeans are depigmented Africans whose ancestors live in Africa under 10,000 years ago, that's his thing
His second favorite theory is that the bantu migration never happened. He also says straight hair probably came before afro hair

Posts: 42930 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Akachi
On Vacation
Member # 21711

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Akachi         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
+ 100 Dr. Winters!
Posts: 348 | From: Atlanta | Registered: Jan 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Concerned member of public
Banned
Member # 22355

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Concerned member of public   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by the lioness,:
Cass who is more genetically related to a Southern Egyptian an Ethiopian or a Greek?

Greeks. You can look up genetic distance measured by Fst. Egyptians are closer in their autosomal DNA to Greeks than Ethiopians. I don't though have the values, but they're probably in Cavilla-Sforza's studies.

Greeks are closer to Druzes (0.0052) than Swedes (0.0084). This is why the pan-Europeanism idiocy on places like Stormfront is nonsense. White nationalism is as retarded as black nationalism (pan-Africanism).

Posts: 949 | From: England | Registered: Oct 2015  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 12 pages: 1  2  3  ...  8  9  10  11  12   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.

Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  New Poll  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | EgyptSearch!

(c) 2015 EgyptSearch.com

Powered by UBB.classic™ 6.7.3