That 80 percent is the same amount as the 80 percent that was identified by Pickrell et al 2012 as most related to the Dinka (with the remaining 20% being related to Khoisa):
quote:TreeMix infers that the Hadza are admixed between a Khoisan population (equally related to both the northwestern and southeastern Kalahari groups) and a population most closely related to the Dinka, with about 23±2% Khoisan-related ancestry] (Supplementary Fig. S20).
However, on closer inspection it's not exactly 'Dinka'. It's closer to Eurasians than Dinka are to Eurasians, making it more similar to the position of Horners to Eurasians (but with little Eurasian):
As far as Gurdasani et al, there are two purple components. They are not the same color. Use a color picker to see for yourself. I actually discussed this with Beyoku back in 2014 or early 2015. There is a possibility though that it was intended to be the same color, but came out lighter for some reason.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
When i get some time I am going to just go back and count the K's...........if there is an extra....
Posts: 2463 | From: New Jersey USA | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
@Beyoku Ahhh, thanks I take my statement back, Hadza are no longer the only m181 Carriers to my knowledge. But I do find it fishy that its the "hidden" Chadic populations who carry it... Any thoughts?
Swenet, IDK, it happens too often, I considered faulty graphics/ error in the previous studies, but when this one in 2017 (Haber) has a graph with the lowest CV showing the same pattern... I honestly can't continue to say that multiple researchers made the bone headed move of coloring Hadza similarly to "BE".
I'm going to upload something, but take it with a grain of salt, It's raw as hell... I might remove it in a few days.. https://drive.google.com/file/d/0Bzi0D1lrmvbEMi1NVXo5VXVEMjg/view?usp=sharing @K=6 There's an Orange component, might be saharan, might be East African that shows up in all east Africans, Saharans and North Africans but not in mota and West Africans(for the most part.) then there's a purple component represented by the Hotu which marks our true (as we realize now) Middle eastern/post Basal Eurasian component. Notice how the Hadza completely lacks the Hotu component but owes most of its genome to the orange. looking at its distribution in Horners etc (and the Sandawe), That purple component should be in the Hadza, but it isn't. why? I can think of one good explanation right now, being that this Middle eastern component was already accounted for between whatever ancient HG-like Ancestry the Hadza have AND that orange component which predates backmigration.
I have to look at patterns in LD to determine what can said about the potential recombination of NE lineages in the Hadza using probably globetrotter and finestructure etc. I really have a bunch of questions myself most revolving around pickrell 2014.
Posts: 1781 | From: New York | Registered: Jul 2016
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by beyoku: @Doug - Question
1 - IF you believe the L3N/L3M and M168 migrate out of Africa to Birth all Non-African diversity what issue do you have with mtdna lineages like JT, R0a1, HV, U8, etc being back migrants into the continent?
That was not the point. The point was that there are no African non SSA mtDNA lineages in Africa according to most studies of DNA. Otherwise what are they? What lineages would you expect to find in the Nile Valley that are ancestral to OOA and not L lineages, which science claims are SSA?
This is stupid and self defeatist. We already know about the arguments for and against North Africa being continually populated due to climate.
Here is your North Africa:
The Closest thing to "African non SSA lineages" we have TODAY are going to be M1 and U6 derived lineages. There is no telling what has undergone extinction. Looking at that map...and knowing their diversity....where does it seem like those humans could have went to? You saying "Thats besides the point" is only a weak attempt of you to hide from reality. IF you dont want to answer questions and support your position, why are you on Egyptsearch? O hea, to bitch and moan about why-tee.
Oh please. You claimed that "science is objective" and that it is far better than so-called 'afrocentric loons'. But the science says clearly that the only indigenous OOA related African mtDNA lineages are the L0-L4 lineages. And according to most science studies those lineages are also identified as "sub saharan". Therefore, where are the OTHER mtDNA lineages in North Africa, that were present before OOA, that are not L lineages?
Answer: there are none, according to modern science. Because according to the papers I have seen and already posted most associate the L3 lineage, which is also identified as "sub saharan", with the Northern Route out of Africa.
So the idea that there is some "non sub saharan" indigenous and ancient branch of DNA in Africa that we "don't understand" is false. All other lineages according to modern science are the result of back migrations from Eurasia.
This implicitly means that the ONLY indigenous African lineages that any population in Africa can have that is tied to OOA is an L mtDNA lineage, including Egypt.
Which means that there is no OTHER mtDNA lineages other than so-called "sub saharan" L lineages that the AE could have and not be considered as the result of "back migration" at some point after OOA.
So either modern science is wrong and M and N mtDNA lineages arose in Africa or the only "African" pre-OOA mtDNA lineages are L0-L4. Which also means all other North African populations are back migrants at some point after OOA.
All of that is according to current scientific DNA findings, unless those findings are flawed in some way.
Oh and BTW if the Africans migrating out of Africa via the Northern (or Southern for that matter) route carried L mtDNA lineages then those are the lineages that would have led to "basal Eurasian".
Posts: 8897 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I really think the Basal Eurasian Hadza stuff is just bad graphics. It makes no damn sense for ADMIXTURE to behave like that.
Haber et al 2017 K=17 - yes Hadza component is the exact same colour as the Bedouin component. But the Chipewyan component is also the exact same colour as the Sardinian component. And I see only 15 colours.
Gurdanasi et al 2014 K=16 - Hadza is a different colour than Horn/Middle East component. There's just a bunch of different purples.
Kilinc et al 2016 - Sardinian and Hadza are indistinguishable at K=20, but I see only 19 colours. At K=19 it is Onge and Papuan that are that same colour, but at K=20 and K<19 they are different.
Posts: 660 | From: Canada | Registered: Mar 2017
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro: Hadza are no longer the only m181 Carriers to my knowledge. But I do find it fishy that its the "hidden" Chadic populations who carry it...
Laal are isolate language speakers in poorly studied Central Africa, seem like pretty much exactly who would be carrying an odd branch of B.
It isn't B2 or B3 but it might be related to B1 as there's no B1 references in that paper. B1 is found rarely in Burkina Faso, Mali, Cameroon that I've heard of.
B3 is also B-M181(B2-M182), it's found in Gambia and Sierra Leone, also African-Americans. Plus there's your other rare B here and there.
Karmin et al sequenced 4 Hadza and 2 Sandawe B hg Y chromosomes, they are in B2b upper level subclades with San, Gumuz, and Pygmies (both western and eastern). Divergence times of only on order of 40 kyo using fossil calibrated rates (may not be appropriate for B though).
Posts: 660 | From: Canada | Registered: Mar 2017
| IP: Logged |
I have difficulty reading that graphic because the names of the populations aren't aligned to the bars that represent their ancestry.
As far as Basal Eurasian being associated with Hadzas' Khoisan-like ancestry, I can't reconcile the known properties of Basal Eurasian (see Lazaridis' comprehensive testing) with that explanation.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Iight gimme a week or two and I'll see how replicable it is using busbys worldwide population whole genome Analysis dataset(- FarEast Asians/Amerindians) and an updated repertoire of Ancient populations.
If there's anything, we'll take it from there.
regarding the link, like I said, the data is basically rawfootage, no post production editing. The names are shifted to the left by one space, use the search option in whatever pdf reader you're using to find your population. just about Every African population sequenced so far is included for the first time, ever. (600,000+ snps)
Posts: 1781 | From: New York | Registered: Jul 2016
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ Keep the Nuba and the Darfurians split up like that. Shits about to get real. "Don't believe me just watch."
Posts: 2463 | From: New Jersey USA | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
Further you advocated for Europe a few posts back...
quote:originally posted by Doug M: calling Greece European is Pan European.
You literally just made fun of me about this..
quote:No it isn't. Learn geography. Because otherwise what you are saying is Greece is kinda sorta in Europe but not really or China is kinda sorta in Asia
Now you seem to be changing your argument, how odd.
quote:Africa is a continent primarily historically populated by Africans. Indo Europeans, Indo Asians, Indo Aryans and Scythians are all Eurasians so there is no contradiction.
Yes it is, if your approach is a simplistic Africa=Africans, Europe=Europeans, Asia=Asians
You like to claim Africa was inhabited only by Africans, Yet Africans represent the most diverse in terms of Genetics of all of Humanity, more Diverse than the Sythian to the Han Chinese, or the Caledonian to the Persian.
Like I said your approach is very simplistic and shifty at that. Define your position and stop living in fear/paranoia of some imagined European coverup conspiracy. You have Folks like Keita and Ehret giving you a hand to pull you into 2017 level academia
Man you are simply going all over the map to sound smart without addressing the point.
The point is what populations migrating through the Nile Valley during a Northern OOA scenario WOULD NOT have been "Sub Saharan" according to modern genetics?
The point is none.
So what part of that don't you understand?
Further, if the AE were truly indigenous and not "back migrants", what lineages would they have had if not related to those original migrations out of Africa?
See the point?
You all are proposing that there is some "other" group that the AE would descend from in North Africa that is not SSA but there is no other "indigenous" lineage according to modern science that would have been populating the Nile Valley since OOA that would NOT have been tied to SSA lineages according to the current scientific definition of the mtDNA map. So what on earth are you talking about? That is what I mean by Greece is still European no matter how you slice it. It sits on the European continent, the people primarily came from the European continent and they speak Indo European languages. Yes there is mixture but that does not make Greece African. Same thing here. The only "other" population that the AE could descend from that is not related to so called "sub saharan" African DNA lineages are NON African. There is no "other".
So your point is silly to begin with.
Otherwise, please list for me the DNA lineages, parternal or otherwise that you feel the AE "should" have and still be indigenous and not SSA or Eurasian back migrants.....
I will wait.
And really the fundamental issue is someone needs to address the population history of the Nile Valley since OOA. Right now the only scenarios I see are:
1) OOA populations migrate through the Nile Valley during times of suitable environmental conditions. 2) Later populations in the Nile Valled displaced due to harsh environmental changes(likely subsequent mini wave of OOA). 3) Fluctuations in population as environmental circumstances change 4) Later settlement prior to the dynastic era either comes mainly from the South (ie so-called Sub Saharans) and Sahara (also from the South) or comes mainly from outside Africa, including resident Eurasian back migrants in coastal areas. And the last option is the middle ground option: 5) Settlements along the Nile fluctuated but there was still a presence of original populations from OOA migrations in small pockets along the Nile of NMH who moved as environmental conditions changed. Later populations would arrive from the Southern areas and add to this "basal" population and/or include some Eurasian "back migration" over time.
The last option would be required if modern Egyptians have some "echo" of the original "basal" DNA that was carried by the original OOA migrants, as some recent papers suggest.
Of course unraveling this requires more DNA samples from ancient remains and not more theorizing.
Posts: 8897 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Originally posted by Doug: 1) OOA populations migrate through the Nile Valley during times of suitable environmental conditions. 2) Later populations in the Nile Valled displaced due to harsh environmental changes(likely subsequent mini wave of OOA). 3) Fluctuations in population as environmental circumstances change 4) Later settlement prior to the dynastic era either comes mainly from the South (ie so-called Sub Saharans) or comes mainly from outside Africa, including resident Eurasian back migrants. And the last option is the middle ground option: 5) Settlements along the Nile fluctuated but there was still a presence of populations in small pockets along the Nile of NMH who moved as environmental conditions changed. Later populations would arrive from the Southern areas and add to this "basal" population and/or include some Eurasian "back migration" over time.
The last option would be required if modern Egyptians have some "echo" of the original "basal" DNA that was carried by the original OOA migrants, as some recent papers suggest.
Of course unraveling this requires more DNA samples from ancient remains and not more theorizing
Your 5-point sketch does appear to recognize the caveats Keita talks about - namely mystical use of the "Eurasian" label..
"The historical linguistic data reported earlier would apply in the case of maternal lineages as well.. it is not likely that the "northern" genetic profile is simply due to "Eurasians" having colonized supra-Saharan regions from external African sources. It might be likely that the greater percentage of haplotypes called "Eurasian" are predominantly, although not solely, of indigenous African origin. As a term "Eurasian" is likely misleading, since it suggests a single locale of geographical origins. This is because it can be postulated that differentiation of the L3* haplogroup began before the emigration out of Africa, and that there would be indigenous supra-Saharan/Saharan or Horn-supra-Saharan haplotypes. More work and careful analysis of mtDNA and the archeological data and likely probabilities is needed. Early hunting and gathering paleolithic populations can be modeled as having roamed between northern Africa and Eurasia, leaving an asymmetrical distribution of various derivative variants over a wide region, giving the appearance of Eurasian incursion." --Keita, A, Boyce, A. (2005) Genetics, Egypt, and History... History in Africa, 32, 221-246
Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by beyoku: Doug M: "Woe is me"
Dude. Give it a break. You claimed that your knowledge of "superior" science says that the AE were not "Sub Saharan". OK. Then what were they if they were not Sub Saharan?
If there is no "non SSA" ancient African lineage you can point out then what would they be but Eurasian back migrants?
Otherwise they would be some sort of so-called "sub saharan" based on how science defines mtDNA lineages.....
But see how you can't stand up when challenged and resort to diversionary tactics?
Come on break down your supreme DNA knowledge on what DNA the AE "should" have had but isn't SSA and not Eurasian.
Or to put it another way, if the Sahara was covering most of North Africa and therefore an extreme environment harboring few human populations then there are only two places later populations could come from: South of the Sahara or outside of Africa. What "other" choice is there and if there is one what DNA signature would that group carry (assuming they represent an ancient lineage of Africans that diverged from so-called "sub saharans" en-situ in North Africa separate from Eurasian back migrants).
Posts: 8897 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova: Originally posted by Doug: 1) OOA populations migrate through the Nile Valley during times of suitable environmental conditions. 2) Later populations in the Nile Valled displaced due to harsh environmental changes(likely subsequent mini wave of OOA). 3) Fluctuations in population as environmental circumstances change 4) Later settlement prior to the dynastic era either comes mainly from the South (ie so-called Sub Saharans) or comes mainly from outside Africa, including resident Eurasian back migrants. And the last option is the middle ground option: 5) Settlements along the Nile fluctuated but there was still a presence of populations in small pockets along the Nile of NMH who moved as environmental conditions changed. Later populations would arrive from the Southern areas and add to this "basal" population and/or include some Eurasian "back migration" over time.
The last option would be required if modern Egyptians have some "echo" of the original "basal" DNA that was carried by the original OOA migrants, as some recent papers suggest.
Of course unraveling this requires more DNA samples from ancient remains and not more theorizing
Your 5-point sketch does appear to recognize the caveats Keita talks about - namely mystical use of the "Eurasian" label..
"The historical linguistic data reported earlier would apply in the case of maternal lineages as well.. it is not likely that the "northern" genetic profile is simply due to "Eurasians" having colonized supra-Saharan regions from external African sources. It might be likely that the greater percentage of haplotypes called "Eurasian" are predominantly, although not solely, of indigenous African origin. As a term "Eurasian" is likely misleading, since it suggests a single locale of geographical origins. This is because it can be postulated that differentiation of the L3* haplogroup began before the emigration out of Africa, and that there would be indigenous supra-Saharan/Saharan or Horn-supra-Saharan haplotypes. More work and careful analysis of mtDNA and the archeological data and likely probabilities is needed. Early hunting and gathering paleolithic populations can be modeled as having roamed between northern Africa and Eurasia, leaving an asymmetrical distribution of various derivative variants over a wide region, giving the appearance of Eurasian incursion." --Keita, A, Boyce, A. (2005) Genetics, Egypt, and History... History in Africa, 32, 221-246
Of course. These people talking about 'superior DNA science' either don't accept the limitations of DNA and/or they don't realize that current scholarship on DNA(in terms of how DNA lineages are classified) has put them in a corner even as they tout it as "superior".
So they resort to name calling Africans who didn't come up with this classification scheme as if the African scholars are the root cause of the confusion.
Typical cop out tactics.
They don't see that the question I asked about what lineages should we expect to find in the Nile Valley are those that they should be asking the geneticists doing these studies. I mean if there is a big "gap" in knowledge about how OOA happened and what DNA splits arose where and when, wouldn't they want to try and find the answers to that question in places like the Nile Valley? You would think so. But of course instead of getting to that fundamental question they resort to calling out "SSA" relationships over time in the Nile Valley as being "more recent". OK. So what DNA would they expect ancient Nile Valley Africans to have if it wasn't SSA and not Eurasian going back 10KYA? Because that statement and conclusion of the study either implies that they expected all AE populations to descend from NON African migrants or they expect some "other" indigenous population of Africans to have inhabited the Nile but not carry so-called (as they classify it) SSA lineages.....
Those are the only choices you have if you go by the current classifications of mtDNA as defined by current scholarship. So the idea that this is an "afrocentric" theory is pure bull sh*t. Just like the African origin of all humans is a position of most modern scholarship. So is that "afrocentric" as well? And if you accept that, then you accept that if the AE were African they would have to be tied to the ancient lineages that arose in Africa. Otherwise they weren't African. Which means that according to modern science they would have to be "sub saharan" if they were truly African.
Not to mention that even in this paper they label "L0-L4" as the only African mtDNA lineages which they also associate with Sub Saharans. But they don't call out the fact that L3 was the mtDNA supposedly associated with the Northern OOA route through the Nile Valley, again according to modern science. So what "other" lineages could the AE have had if not mtDNA L0-L4 going back to OOA?
Duh.
quote: Although fossil remains show that anatomically modern humans dispersed out of Africa into the Near East ∼100 to 130 ka, genetic evidence from extant populations has suggested that non-Africans descend primarily from a single successful later migration. Within the human mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) tree, haplogroup L3 encompasses not only many sub-Saharan Africans but also all ancient non-African lineages, and its age therefore provides an upper bound for the dispersal out of Africa. An analysis of 369 complete African L3 sequences places this maximum at ∼70 ka, virtually ruling out a successful exit before 74 ka, the date of the Toba volcanic supereruption in Sumatra. The similarity of the age of L3 to its two non-African daughter haplogroups, M and N, suggests that the same process was likely responsible for both the L3 expansion in Eastern Africa and the dispersal of a small group of modern humans out of Africa to settle the rest of the world. The timing of the expansion of L3 suggests a link to improved climatic conditions after ∼70 ka in Eastern and Central Africa rather than to symbolically mediated behavior, which evidently arose considerably earlier. The L3 mtDNA pool within Africa suggests a migration from Eastern Africa to Central Africa ∼60 to 35 ka and major migrations in the immediate postglacial again linked to climate. The largest population size increase seen in the L3 data is 3-4 ka in Central Africa, corresponding to Bantu expansions, leading diverse L3 lineages to spread into Eastern and Southern Africa in the last 3-2 ka.
quote: Modern Egyptians share this profile but in addition show a marked increase of African mtDNA lineages L0–L4 up to 20% (consistent with nuclear estimates of 80% non-African ancestry reported in Pagani et al.17). Genetic continuity between ancient and modern Egyptians cannot be ruled out by our formal test despite this sub-Saharan African influx, while continuity with modern Ethiopians17, who carry >60% African L lineages, is not supported (Supplementary Data 5).
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: Its a mockery of diffusionist Afrocentrics like Mike111, Marc Washington, etc who claim every significant culture was created by blacks. Afrocentrics been claiming their ancestors and calling these people dehumanized Albinos...but they are in the wrong?
Except for Ancient Egypt, Ive never seen it used on videos and forums about authentic African History and Empires/Kingdoms.
quote:Originally posted by sudaniya: The "we was wuz kangs" line was employed and popularized as a mocking and dismissive rhetorical grenade by people who openly mocked the very notion that Africans had civilizations and organised societies led by kings and would then have the gall to assert that fact. I'm really surprised that black posters have started using the "we wuz kangs" line. I saw this on FB from certain black posters and I'm wondering what message is actually conveyed and what is gained from it.
I am pretty sure "We wuz Kings"is a racist meme promoted by the "Alt Right" in the US. It's like the Harambe meme comparing Blacks to apes.
Posts: 288 | From: Asia | Registered: Mar 2016
| IP: Logged |
quote:Khoisan hunter-gatherers have been the largest population throughout most of modern-human demographic history
The Khoisan people from Southern Africa maintained ancient lifestyles as hunter-gatherers or pastoralists up to modern times, though little else is known about their early history. Here we infer early demographic histories of modern humans using whole-genome sequences of five Khoisan individuals and one Bantu speaker. Comparison with a 420 K SNP data set from worldwide individuals demonstrates that two of the Khoisan genomes from the Ju/’hoansi population contain exclusive Khoisan ancestry. Coalescent analysis shows that the Khoisan and their ancestors have been the largest populations since their split with the non-Khoisan population ~100–150 kyr ago. In contrast, the ancestors of the non-Khoisan groups, including Bantu-speakers and non-Africans, experienced population declines after the split and lost more than half of their genetic diversity. Paleoclimate records indicate that the precipitation in southern Africa increased ~80–100 kyr ago while west-central Africa became drier. We hypothesize that these climate differences might be related to the divergent-ancient histories among human populations.
[...]
Yet Khoisan populations have maintained the greatest nuclear-genetic diversity among all human populations3, 4, 5 and the most ancient Y-chromosome and mitochondrial DNA lineages6, 7, implying relatively larger effective population sizes for ancestral Khoisan populations.
--Hie Lim Kim, Aakrosh Ratan, George H. Perry, Alvaro Montenegro, Webb Miller & Stephan C. Schuster
Received 25 Apr 2014 | Accepted 29 Oct 2014 | Published 4 Dec 2014
quote:Khoisan hunter-gatherers have been the largest population throughout most of modern-human demographic history
The Khoisan people from Southern Africa maintained ancient lifestyles as hunter-gatherers or pastoralists up to modern times, though little else is known about their early history. Here we infer early demographic histories of modern humans using whole-genome sequences of five Khoisan individuals and one Bantu speaker. Comparison with a 420 K SNP data set from worldwide individuals demonstrates that two of the Khoisan genomes from the Ju/’hoansi population contain exclusive Khoisan ancestry. Coalescent analysis shows that the Khoisan and their ancestors have been the largest populations since their split with the non-Khoisan population ~100–150 kyr ago. In contrast, the ancestors of the non-Khoisan groups, including Bantu-speakers and non-Africans, experienced population declines after the split and lost more than half of their genetic diversity. Paleoclimate records indicate that the precipitation in southern Africa increased ~80–100 kyr ago while west-central Africa became drier. We hypothesize that these climate differences might be related to the divergent-ancient histories among human populations.
[...]
Yet Khoisan populations have maintained the greatest nuclear-genetic diversity among all human populations3, 4, 5 and the most ancient Y-chromosome and mitochondrial DNA lineages6, 7, implying relatively larger effective population sizes for ancestral Khoisan populations.
--Hie Lim Kim, Aakrosh Ratan, George H. Perry, Alvaro Montenegro, Webb Miller & Stephan C. Schuster
Received 25 Apr 2014 | Accepted 29 Oct 2014 | Published 4 Dec 2014
Suffice to say there was no "Khoisan" 100,000 years ago. And at that time there was no obvious distinction between the ancestors of the khoisan and the non khoisan. The distinction would have been trivial. And at that time they weren't in South Africa yet either. Humans have been hunter gatherers since humans arose and only adopted other survival strategies relatively late (within the last 10,000 years). So of course hunter gatherers were the largest type of human population for most of human history, even after OOA. As far as I know pastoralism coincides mostly with the rise of agriculture in terms of time depth.
Keep in mind the oldest human populations in South Africa are those of the blombos cave complex and nobody knows their relationship to the Khoisan. Most assume they represent another "dead" branch of the human family.
Posts: 8897 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by beyoku: Doug M: "Woe is me"
Dude. Give it a break. You claimed that your knowledge of "superior" science says that the AE were not "Sub Saharan". OK. Then what were they if they were not Sub Saharan?
If there is no "non SSA" ancient African lineage you can point out then what would they be but Eurasian back migrants?
Otherwise they would be some sort of so-called "sub saharan" based on how science defines mtDNA lineages.....
But see how you can't stand up when challenged and resort to diversionary tactics?
Come on break down your supreme DNA knowledge on what DNA the AE "should" have had but isn't SSA and not Eurasian.
Or to put it another way, if the Sahara was covering most of North Africa and therefore an extreme environment harboring few human populations then there are only two places later populations could come from: South of the Sahara or outside of Africa. What "other" choice is there and if there is one what DNA signature would that group carry (assuming they represent an ancient lineage of Africans that diverged from so-called "sub saharans" en-situ in North Africa separate from Eurasian back migrants).
Its up to YOU to figure out what mtdna L lineages have a North African phylogeny. WE have spoke on them before. Its also up to YOU to figure out why the diversity of L lineages shows differences between the North and the South. You are attempting to learn under the guise of arguing and I am not going to assist you with that. Be humble, if you don't know something just create a thread on it or ask.
Posts: 2463 | From: New Jersey USA | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: As far as I know pastoralism coincides mostly with the rise of agriculture in terms of time depth.
And this is the main problem. YOU DONT KNOW. You are asleep at the wheel only to momentary wake up, obsess with white people, then fall asleep again.
Posts: 2463 | From: New Jersey USA | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by beyoku: Doug M: "Woe is me"
Dude. Give it a break. You claimed that your knowledge of "superior" science says that the AE were not "Sub Saharan". OK. Then what were they if they were not Sub Saharan?
If there is no "non SSA" ancient African lineage you can point out then what would they be but Eurasian back migrants?
Otherwise they would be some sort of so-called "sub saharan" based on how science defines mtDNA lineages.....
But see how you can't stand up when challenged and resort to diversionary tactics?
Come on break down your supreme DNA knowledge on what DNA the AE "should" have had but isn't SSA and not Eurasian.
Or to put it another way, if the Sahara was covering most of North Africa and therefore an extreme environment harboring few human populations then there are only two places later populations could come from: South of the Sahara or outside of Africa. What "other" choice is there and if there is one what DNA signature would that group carry (assuming they represent an ancient lineage of Africans that diverged from so-called "sub saharans" en-situ in North Africa separate from Eurasian back migrants).
Its up to YOU to figure out what mtdna L lineages have a North African phylogeny. WE have spoke on them before. Its also up to YOU to figure out why the diversity of L lineages shows differences between the North and the South. You are attempting to learn under the guise of arguing and I am not going to assist you with that. Be humble, if you don't know something just create a thread on it or ask.
I don't have to "figure out" anything. You are the one claiming to know something based on "modern science" and I just posted what modern science actually says. There is no "making it up" in this. If you agree with "modern science" then there are no "other" lineages for Africans going back to OOA other than L lineages. You simply don't want to accept that this is the point and that your argument that "Afrocentrics" created this position that in the AE have to be SSA to be African is false. Actually modern science says that.
Lets recall that a group of you folks came here raving about how "afrocentrics" were pushing that the AE were from "SSA" as I recall. So in reality what OTHER option is there according to modern science? Either they are "SSA" according to the modern scientific categorization of DNA or they are NON African.
But I assume you hit your head and forgot that this was part of the whole point about why folks should be "shook" about this study. As if there was some "other" option other than what was previously stated that only you folks had grasp of.
So in reality it shows you have no earthly idea what you are talking about......
Case in point: (where is the Nile Valley OOA branch)
There is no "other" position on human DNA classification according to modern science dude.
Either the AE were "sub saharan" and related to OOA which was "sub saharan" in origin or they were non African. That is the position of modern science (until they are shown incorrect by new data). Period. Which means the argument that there is some other lineages separate from SSA that the AE fell into without being back migrants totally null and void. UNLESS you feel that modern science is flawed which then opens up other possibilities.....
Posts: 8897 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ Why would OOA be Sub Saharan idiot? We have already gone over this:
quote: The 41,141 African haplotypes retrieved from 18,114 LD regions outside Africa were grouped according to the population of discovery (A). The haplotype composition of African and non-African (CHB + TSI) populations (B) showed more Egyptian′ (pink) and Egyptian′|Ethiopian′ (blue)-specific haplotypes in the OOA samples (relative increases from the general African population are provided for each colored section) than did the haplotype composition of the combined African populations. Non-significant (χ2i) comparisons are labeled “NS.” Of the haplotypes specific to a single African population, the Egyptian′ haplotypes (pink) showed the highest population frequency outside Africa (C), whereas the Egyptian′|Ethiopian′ haplotypes (blue) were the most frequent of those shared by two African populations (D). Bars not significantly different (tested with χ2i) from the Egyptian′ (C) or Ethiopian′|Egyptian′ (D) ones are labeled “NS.” The first bin in (C) and (D) shows the proportion of African haplotypes not present outside Africa.
quote: 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
Posts: 2463 | From: New Jersey USA | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: As far as I know pastoralism coincides mostly with the rise of agriculture in terms of time depth.
And this is the main problem. YOU DONT KNOW. You are asleep at the wheel only to momentary wake up, obsess with white people, then fall asleep again.
quote: Agriculture appears to have arisen recently <10,000 years ago ..... Although complex strategies for plant use developed early in Africa c. 17,000 BP, plant domestication was late after 4000 BP, and occurred in many different environments. ..... Cattle were the earliest domesticates in Africa. Recent studies suggest that they were probably domesticated from North African populations of wild Bos primigenius by hunter-gatherers of the eastern Sahara 10,000–8000 BP
Compared to the split between khoisan and non khoisan over 100-150KYA that is recent, like I said.
Likewise this paper also calls out the early steps toward plant domestication in Africa which I already mentioned in other threads on Basal Eurasian and Africans in the Levant during the development of farming there.
Posts: 8897 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
Further, if the AE were truly indigenous and not "back migrants", what lineages would they have had if not related to those original migrations out of Africa?
See the point?
You all are proposing that there is some "other" group that the AE would descend from in North Africa that is not SSA but there is no other "indigenous" lineage according to modern science that would have been populating the Nile Valley since OOA that would NOT have been tied to SSA lineages according to the current scientific definition of the mtDNA map. So what on earth are you talking about? That is what I mean by Greece is still European no matter how you slice it. It sits on the European continent, the people primarily came from the European continent and they speak Indo European languages. Yes there is mixture but that does not make Greece African. Same thing here. The only "other" population that the AE could descend from that is not related to so called "sub saharan" African DNA lineages are NON African. There is no "other".
So your point is silly to begin with.
Otherwise, please list for me the DNA lineages, parternal or otherwise that you feel the AE "should" have and still be indigenous and not SSA or Eurasian back migrants.....
I will wait.
And really the fundamental issue is someone needs to address the population history of the Nile Valley since OOA. Right now the only scenarios I see are:
1) OOA populations migrate through the Nile Valley during times of suitable environmental conditions. 2) Later populations in the Nile Valled displaced due to harsh environmental changes(likely subsequent mini wave of OOA). 3) Fluctuations in population as environmental circumstances change 4) Later settlement prior to the dynastic era either comes mainly from the South (ie so-called Sub Saharans) and Sahara (also from the South) or comes mainly from outside Africa, including resident Eurasian back migrants in coastal areas. And the last option is the middle ground option: 5) Settlements along the Nile fluctuated but there was still a presence of original populations from OOA migrations in small pockets along the Nile of NMH who moved as environmental conditions changed. Later populations would arrive from the Southern areas and add to this "basal" population and/or include some Eurasian "back migration" over time.
The last option would be required if modern Egyptians have some "echo" of the original "basal" DNA that was carried by the original OOA migrants, as some recent papers suggest.
Of course unraveling this requires more DNA samples from ancient remains and not more theorizing.
I think the core of this is interpretation (misunderstanding) lies within linages, which are interpreted as have risen outside of Africa, which perhaps could have had risen within Africa as bottleneck occurances.
quote: Population comparisons
Based on FST values, the mitochondrial genetic diversity of Soqotra is statistically different (P \ 0.01) from the comparative populations. An MDS plot of FST values shows that the Soqotra sample is clearly distinct from all sub-Saharan, North African, Middle East, and Indian populations (see Fig. 2). High differentiation of the East African groups such as the Sandawe, Hadza, Turu, Datog, and Burunge is shown on the left side of the graph. However, there is a general similarity of the remaining sub-Saharan African populations, particularly those from the Sahel band and the Chad Basin (with the exception of the Fulani nomads). Subsequently, there is a transitional zone formed by the populations from Ethiopia and the Nile Valley but also by some Yemeni groups, particularly the ones from the eastern parts of the country (Hadramawt). Finally, the cluster on the right part of the graph is composed by the Indian populations on the top, the Near and Middle Eastern groups in the middle and the populations of the Arabian peninsula at the bottom; Yemeni Jews being slightly different. The only outlier within the region of southwestern Asia is the Kalash sample that is situated on the extreme right part of the graph (see also Quintana-Murci et al., 2004). There is a general cline among all populations in the MDS plot from the Soqotri population to a cluster of Middle East and North African populations that splits into sub-Saharan and Indian populations.
Population differentiation of Soqotra from African, Middle East and Indian populations based on NRY-SNP data manifests a similar picture although the compara- tive populations are different and fewer than in the mi- tochondrial DNA analysis (see Fig. 3). A comparison of FST values shows that the only population that is not significantly different from Soqotra is that from Yemen (P [ 0.01). Similarly to mtDNA MDS plot, we observe a cline from the Soqotri population to a cluster of Middle East and North African populations that splits into sub- Saharan and Indian populations.
Phylogenetic affiliations
Within the Soqotri samples, we identified haplotypes belonging to three of the main branches of the mtDNA phylogeny (macrohaplogroups L, N, and R); notably hap- logroup M is absent (Table 2). There are only two sub- Saharan L haplotypes and they do not carry the 3594HpaI mutation so their classification is L3*; these haplotypes do not contain the specific mutations of L5b (23594HpaI) (Kivisild et al., 2004) and therefore they are possibly L3h2 as they both contain substitutions at 16111, 16184, and 16304 (see Behar et al., 2008). Macro- haplogroup N is represented by three different haplo- types of which only one can be unambiguously classified as N1a (it contains HVS-I motif 16147G-16172-16223-16248-16355). Two other N haplotypes have never been found outside Soqotra (see Table 2).
The most widespread mtDNA types in Soqotra belong to macrohaplogroup R (Table 2). The majority of R haplo- types can be classified as R0a [previously known as (preHV)1]. Three of the R haplotypes have not been previously reported. A network analysis of all Soqotri R0a haplotypes with additional sequences from Africa and Asia (see Fig. 4) shows a time to most recent common ancestor (TMRCA) of 23,339 6 8,232 YBP for R0a. It is shown that the majority of Soqotri R0a haplotypes fall into clade R0a1 (defined by variant 16355) whose TMRCA is 11,418 6 4,198 YBP. Furthermore, within R0a1, the unique Soqotri haplotypes form a new clade that is defined by variant 16172 and that we have named R0a1a1. Abu-Amero et al. (2007) identified a hap- lotype defined by variant 16355 and named it (preHV)1a1, thus it corresponds to R0a1a using the newer nomenclature and the unique Soqotri haplotypes are derived from this lineage). This Soqotri-specific clade has a very young TMRCA (3,363 6 2,378 YBP) that sug- gests the R0a1a1 haplotypes evolved on Soqotra and have not dispersed elsewhere. Two other Soqotri R hap- lotypes are not classified further than R* and are quite common in neighboring populations. Five haplotypes within macrohaplogroup R carry the 4216N1aIII variant that places them in clade JT. Of the JT haplotypes, two are unique to Soqotra; J1b is represented by two individuals and T* is represented by one individual.
The majority of NRY haplotypes in Soqotra belong to haplogroup J (85.7%), with most (45 out of 54) unclassified as J*(xJ1,J2) and a few (the remaining 9 samples) classified as J1 (see Fig. 5). It is interesting to note that NRY haplotypes lacking both M172 and M267, as in our unclassified J*, have not been previously identified on the Arabian Peninsula (Cadenas et al., 2008). Haplogroup E is represented at a frequency of 9.5% and three other haplogroups, F*(xJ,K), K*(xO,P) and R*(xR1b), are present in one individual each. It is worth noting that none of the ancient African haplogroups (A and B) were observed in Soqotra.
[…]
In comparison with datasets from neighboring regions, the Soqotri population shows evidence of long-term isolation and autochthonous evolution of several mitochondrial haplogroups.
—Viktor Cˇ erny ́ Out of Arabia—The Settlement of Island Soqotra as Revealed by Mitochondrial and Y Chromosome Genetic Diversity
quote:African and Middle Eastern populations shared the greatest number of alleles absent from all other populations (fig. S6B).
—Sarah A. Tishkoff, The Genetic Structure and History of Africans and African Americans
Posts: 22235 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
There is no "other" position on human DNA classification according to modern science dude.
As a side note.
I did not know this paper.
Nice map, the Neanderthal show indeed as I predicted, though they do not mention The Strait of Gibraltar it does show the route.
quote: Spanish investigators believe they may have found proof that neanderthal man reached Europe from Africa not just via the Middle East but by sailing, swimming or floating across the Strait of Gibraltar.
[…]
Cabililla de Benzú, in the Spanish north African enclave of Ceuta, are remarkably similar to those found in southern Spain, investigators said. Stone tools at the site correspond to the middle palaeolithic period, when neanderthal man emerged, and resemble those found across Spain.
"This could break the paradigm of most investigators, who have refused to believe in any contact in the palaeolithic era between southern Europe and northern Africa," investigator José Ramos explained in the University of Cadiz's research journal.
quote:Khoisan hunter-gatherers have been the largest population throughout most of modern-human demographic history
The Khoisan people from Southern Africa maintained ancient lifestyles as hunter-gatherers or pastoralists up to modern times, though little else is known about their early history. Here we infer early demographic histories of modern humans using whole-genome sequences of five Khoisan individuals and one Bantu speaker. Comparison with a 420 K SNP data set from worldwide individuals demonstrates that two of the Khoisan genomes from the Ju/’hoansi population contain exclusive Khoisan ancestry. Coalescent analysis shows that the Khoisan and their ancestors have been the largest populations since their split with the non-Khoisan population ~100–150 kyr ago. In contrast, the ancestors of the non-Khoisan groups, including Bantu-speakers and non-Africans, experienced population declines after the split and lost more than half of their genetic diversity. Paleoclimate records indicate that the precipitation in southern Africa increased ~80–100 kyr ago while west-central Africa became drier. We hypothesize that these climate differences might be related to the divergent-ancient histories among human populations.
[...]
Yet Khoisan populations have maintained the greatest nuclear-genetic diversity among all human populations3, 4, 5 and the most ancient Y-chromosome and mitochondrial DNA lineages6, 7, implying relatively larger effective population sizes for ancestral Khoisan populations.
--Hie Lim Kim, Aakrosh Ratan, George H. Perry, Alvaro Montenegro, Webb Miller & Stephan C. Schuster
Received 25 Apr 2014 | Accepted 29 Oct 2014 | Published 4 Dec 2014
Suffice to say there was no "Khoisan" 100,000 years ago. And at that time there was no obvious distinction between the ancestors of the khoisan and the non khoisan. The distinction would have been trivial. And at that time they weren't in South Africa yet either. Humans have been hunter gatherers since humans arose and only adopted other survival strategies relatively late (within the last 10,000 years). So of course hunter gatherers were the largest type of human population for most of human history, even after OOA. As far as I know pastoralism coincides mostly with the rise of agriculture in terms of time depth.
Keep in mind the oldest human populations in South Africa are those of the blombos cave complex and nobody knows their relationship to the Khoisan. Most assume they represent another "dead" branch of the human family.
You completely misinterpreted what I have posted.
There were no "Khoisan" 100,000 years ago indeed, but this about the lineages found in these people and "after the split lost more than half of their genetic diversity."
This is the core of what I've posted:
"In contrast, the ancestors of the non-Khoisan groups, including Bantu-speakers and non-Africans, experienced population declines after the split and lost more than half of their genetic diversity."Posts: 22235 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
There is no "other" position on human DNA classification according to modern science dude.
As a side note.
I did not know this paper.
Nice map, the Neanderthal show indeed as I predicted, though they do not mention The Strait of Gibraltar it does show the route.
quote: Spanish investigators believe they may have found proof that neanderthal man reached Europe from Africa not just via the Middle East but by sailing, swimming or floating across the Strait of Gibraltar.
[…]
Cabililla de Benzú, in the Spanish north African enclave of Ceuta, are remarkably similar to those found in southern Spain, investigators said. Stone tools at the site correspond to the middle palaeolithic period, when neanderthal man emerged, and resemble those found across Spain.
"This could break the paradigm of most investigators, who have refused to believe in any contact in the palaeolithic era between southern Europe and northern Africa," investigator José Ramos explained in the University of Cadiz's research journal.
I would be careful about the Neanderthal introgression into human DNA. They still haven't found the "smoking gun" yet, ie. direct evidence of Neanderthal/AMH mixture. Mostly they are speculating based on the location of Neanderthal settlements and the proposed route of human migration along with some theorizing at the molecular level. That is why "basal Eurasian" is such a conundrum for them.
quote:Originally posted by Ish Gebor:
There were no "Khoisan" 100,000 years ago indeed, but this about the lineages found in these people.
This is the core of what I've posted:
"In contrast, the ancestors of the non-Khoisan groups, including Bantu-speakers and non-Africans, experienced population declines after the split and lost more than half of their genetic diversity."
I am just referring to the absurd title of the study. The content doesn't really match the title and is very misleading.
This is a big problem with a lot of these studies.
Posts: 8897 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
There is no "other" position on human DNA classification according to modern science dude.
As a side note.
I did not know this paper.
Nice map, the Neanderthal show indeed as I predicted, though they do not mention The Strait of Gibraltar it does show the route.
quote: Spanish investigators believe they may have found proof that neanderthal man reached Europe from Africa not just via the Middle East but by sailing, swimming or floating across the Strait of Gibraltar.
[…]
Cabililla de Benzú, in the Spanish north African enclave of Ceuta, are remarkably similar to those found in southern Spain, investigators said. Stone tools at the site correspond to the middle palaeolithic period, when neanderthal man emerged, and resemble those found across Spain.
"This could break the paradigm of most investigators, who have refused to believe in any contact in the palaeolithic era between southern Europe and northern Africa," investigator José Ramos explained in the University of Cadiz's research journal.
I would be careful about the Neanderthal introgression into human DNA. They still haven't found the "smoking gun" yet, ie. direct evidence of Neanderthal/AMH mixture. Mostly they are speculating based on the location of Neanderthal settlements and the proposed route of human migration along with some theorizing at the molecular level. That is why "basal Eurasian" is such a conundrum for them.
That is true, but it shows it sides more with what I have discovered in studies Elaborated herePosts: 22235 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
There is no "other" position on human DNA classification according to modern science dude.
As a side note.
I did not know this paper.
Nice map, the Neanderthal show indeed as I predicted, though they do not mention The Strait of Gibraltar it does show the route.
quote: Spanish investigators believe they may have found proof that neanderthal man reached Europe from Africa not just via the Middle East but by sailing, swimming or floating across the Strait of Gibraltar.
[…]
Cabililla de Benzú, in the Spanish north African enclave of Ceuta, are remarkably similar to those found in southern Spain, investigators said. Stone tools at the site correspond to the middle palaeolithic period, when neanderthal man emerged, and resemble those found across Spain.
"This could break the paradigm of most investigators, who have refused to believe in any contact in the palaeolithic era between southern Europe and northern Africa," investigator José Ramos explained in the University of Cadiz's research journal.
I would be careful about the Neanderthal introgression into human DNA. They still haven't found the "smoking gun" yet, ie. direct evidence of Neanderthal/AMH mixture. Mostly they are speculating based on the location of Neanderthal settlements and the proposed route of human migration along with some theorizing at the molecular level. That is why "basal Eurasian" is such a conundrum for them.
That is true, but it shows it sides more with what I have discovered in studies Elaborated here
I think we are saying the same thing. These people are speculating which means a lot of the "conclusions" they make in these studies are really theories and subject to scrutiny.
Posts: 8897 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Not tryin to be a smart@ss or anything, but idgi... on this thing are about 20 haplogroups. The L's are getting labeled "SSA" IIRC? So if ppl are going to attribute haplogroups to a given geographic or ecological location, which of these by this line of thought be argued to correspond to the idea of an indigenous North African? Not "back migrants" or "SSA" but indigenous North African?
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: @Maestro
quote:TreeMix infers that the Hadza are admixed between a Khoisan population (equally related to both the northwestern and southeastern Kalahari groups) and a population most closely related to the Dinka, with about 23±2% Khoisan-related ancestry] (Supplementary Fig. S20).
However, on closer inspection it's not exactly 'Dinka'. It's closer to Eurasians than Dinka are to Eurasians, making it more similar to the position of Horners to Eurasians (but with little Eurasian):
.
I put a red dot on the E Afr branch where Hadza split from remaining E Afrs.
I put a blue dot where E and W Eurasians split.
I recolored the stretch in between them purple.
Comments?
Where along the purple bar would you (anybody reading this) place • the initial successful OoA migrants • any projected 'Basal Eurasians'?
Posts: 8179 | From: the Tekrur straddling Senegal & Mauritania | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged |
JK2134 is J1a2b1-P58, probably the J1-YSC234 subclade. Y-Full estimates this clade to be about 5000-6500 years old. This branch is pretty strongly associated with Semitic speakers. Bronze Age Jordanian I1705(~2100 BC) probably belonged to a related branch of J1a2b.
JK2911 is J2b1-M205, which is 4900-7600 years old by Y-Full's estimate. This is a widespread group with a notable frequency on Cyprus today. Bronze Age Jordanian I1730 (~2400 BC) also belonged to this branch.
JK2888 as we already knew is E1b1b1a1b2-V22, which is an old and widespread branch of E-M78 (7200-9800 years old by Y-Full's estimate).
IMHO JK2134 is probably of Semitic descent paternally, and JK2911 might also be.
Bronze Age Jordanians.
Posts: 1254 | From: howdy | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged |
Further, if the AE were truly indigenous and not "back migrants", what lineages would they have had if not related to those original migrations out of Africa?
See the point?
You all are proposing that there is some "other" group that the AE would descend from in North Africa that is not SSA but there is no other "indigenous" lineage according to modern science that would have been populating the Nile Valley since OOA that would NOT have been tied to SSA lineages according to the current scientific definition of the mtDNA map. So what on earth are you talking about? That is what I mean by Greece is still European no matter how you slice it. It sits on the European continent, the people primarily came from the European continent and they speak Indo European languages. Yes there is mixture but that does not make Greece African. Same thing here. The only "other" population that the AE could descend from that is not related to so called "sub saharan" African DNA lineages are NON African. There is no "other".
So your point is silly to begin with.
Otherwise, please list for me the DNA lineages, parternal or otherwise that you feel the AE "should" have and still be indigenous and not SSA or Eurasian back migrants.....
I will wait.
And really the fundamental issue is someone needs to address the population history of the Nile Valley since OOA. Right now the only scenarios I see are:
1) OOA populations migrate through the Nile Valley during times of suitable environmental conditions. 2) Later populations in the Nile Valled displaced due to harsh environmental changes(likely subsequent mini wave of OOA). 3) Fluctuations in population as environmental circumstances change 4) Later settlement prior to the dynastic era either comes mainly from the South (ie so-called Sub Saharans) and Sahara (also from the South) or comes mainly from outside Africa, including resident Eurasian back migrants in coastal areas. And the last option is the middle ground option: 5) Settlements along the Nile fluctuated but there was still a presence of original populations from OOA migrations in small pockets along the Nile of NMH who moved as environmental conditions changed. Later populations would arrive from the Southern areas and add to this "basal" population and/or include some Eurasian "back migration" over time.
The last option would be required if modern Egyptians have some "echo" of the original "basal" DNA that was carried by the original OOA migrants, as some recent papers suggest.
Of course unraveling this requires more DNA samples from ancient remains and not more theorizing.
I think the core of this is interpretation (misunderstanding) lies within linages, which are interpreted as have risen outside of Africa, which perhaps could have had risen within Africa as bottleneck occurances.
I don't see a misunderstanding. Science has known for a while now that North East Africa was the most likely exit point for OOA. So, if they were REALLY serious about understanding what lineages arose where and what the relationship is between modern populations in North East Africa and ancient populations involved in OOA they would have to do more DNA testing in those areas. Yet to date, the amount of DNA sampling across Egypt, Sudan, Ethiopia, Chad and Libya is limited. Limited to specific "subjective" analyses of relatively isolated examples rather than a comprehensive analysis across the entire region. So you get a study on "Berber" DNA focusing on one or two Berber groups in specific areas. Or you get a sample of a few modern Egyptians in certain parts of Egypt. Or a few populations in certain parts of Sudan. Then they try and extrapolate that data into large "big ticket" observations going back 50-100KYA knowing full well it is bound ti be flawed. And they don't even call out the limited value of such isolated studies relative to deeper historical periods.
But they sure do a lot of DNA testing in Europe though. Which is not "sinister" but because most of the institutions doing the research are in Europe, it makes sense that they would have more data from Europe. Plus Europe is a bit more stable and not as prone to instability as some of these other areas are. So they try and base their theories on a lot of data from Europe and a little bit of data from isolated pockets of Africa then they try and put it into a complete picture. So of course it isn't going to make sense.
That said, there has been an a priori position in science for quite a long time that African DNA lineages are limited to things like mtDNA L0-L4. So this position limits what can be truly defined as "African" going back to OOA. That means that if an ancient population is "truly African" they almost have to be SSA. Not that I agree with that, but just pointing out this is the only logical outcome if you accept the position of modern science.
This paper falls into the category of folks postulating conclusions based on limited data which makes no sense, which makes it more of a reinforcement of the a-priori position of "African indigenous" DNA being limited to SSA with all others being Eurasian. That is implicitly what is being said in this study and yet folks some folks here are implying that this dichotomy of SSA vs Eurasian came from African scholarship. Obviously testing the DNA from more mummies across Egypt would be the best situation possible. So we should expect this to be forthcoming in the future. Otherwise, it shows they really aren't serious about understanding the DNA involved with the movements of humans out of Africa. And they aren't really trying to show how various cultures since OOA in that region relate to those ancient people.
This is where folks need to be asking scholars for better clarification on positions because truly it really doesn't make any sense to resort on spotty and incomplete data.
Posts: 8897 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: [Dude. Give it a break. You claimed that your knowledge of "superior" science says that the AE were not "Sub Saharan". OK. Then what were they if they were not Sub Saharan?
If there is no "non SSA" ancient African lineage you can point out then what would they be but Eurasian back migrants?
Otherwise they would be some sort of so-called "sub saharan" based on how science defines mtDNA lineages.....
But see how you can't stand up when challenged and resort to diversionary tactics?
Come on break down your supreme DNA knowledge on what DNA the AE "should" have had but isn't SSA and not Eurasian.
Or to put it another way, if the Sahara was covering most of North Africa and therefore an extreme environment harboring few human populations then there are only two places later populations could come from: South of the Sahara or outside of Africa. What "other" choice is there and if there is one what DNA signature would that group carry (assuming they represent an ancient lineage of Africans that diverged from so-called "sub saharans" en-situ in North Africa separate from Eurasian back migrants).
Its up to YOU to figure out what mtdna L lineages have a North African phylogeny. WE have spoke on them before. Its also up to YOU to figure out why the diversity of L lineages shows differences between the North and the South. You are attempting to learn under the guise of arguing and I am not going to assist you with that. Be humble, if you don't know something just create a thread on it or ask. [/qb][/QUOTE]I don't have to "figure out" anything. You are the one claiming to know something based on "modern science" and I just posted what modern science actually says. There is no "making it up" in this. If you agree with "modern science" then there are no "other" lineages for Africans going back to OOA other than L lineages. You simply don't want to accept that this is the point and that your argument that "Afrocentrics" created this position that in the AE have to be SSA to be African is false. Actually modern science says that.
Lets recall that a group of you folks came here raving about how "afrocentrics" were pushing that the AE were from "SSA" as I recall. So in reality what OTHER option is there according to modern science? Either they are "SSA" according to the modern scientific categorization of DNA or they are NON African.
But I assume you hit your head and forgot that this was part of the whole point about why folks should be "shook" about this study. As if there was some "other" option other than what was previously stated that only you folks had grasp of.
So in reality it shows you have no earthly idea what you are talking about......
Case in point: (where is the Nile Valley OOA branch)
There is no "other" position on human DNA classification according to modern science dude.
Either the AE were "sub saharan" and related to OOA which was "sub saharan" in origin or they were non African. That is the position of modern science (until they are shown incorrect by new data). Period. Which means the argument that there is some other lineages separate from SSA that the AE fell into without being back migrants totally null and void. UNLESS you feel that modern science is flawed which then opens up other possibilities..... [/qb][/QUOTE]Great new references. But how do you account for the possibility that so-called "Eurasian" lineages may have "seeped" into the Nile Valley circa 10kya? Labeling as both Ish and Keita says is a problem.
It might be likely that the greater percentage of haplotypes called "Eurasian" are predominantly, although not solely, of indigenous African origin. As a term "Eurasian" is likely misleading, since it suggests a single locale of geographical origins. This is because it can be postulated that differentiation of the L3* haplogroup began before the emigration out of Africa, and that there would be indigenous supra-Saharan/Saharan or Horn-supra-Saharan haplotypes. More work and careful analysis of mtDNA and the archeological data and likely probabilities is needed. Early hunting and gathering paleolithic populations can be modeled as having roamed between northern Africa and Eurasia, leaving an asymmetrical distribution of various derivative variants over a wide region, giving the appearance of Eurasian incursion." --Keita and Boyde
But aside from this, can you see a scenario of "purely" "Eurasian" seepage into the valley? What's the definition of 'Eurasian" anyway? If you are not L0-L4 then you are "Eurasian"? Isn;t this a recast of the "true negro"?
A number of scholars argue that gene divergence preceded population divergence (Mishmar 2003, Cordeaux 2003 etc), so that variants, root types or prototypes of so-called "Eurasian" lineages were already established WITHIN Africa before OOA. Hence, can certain lineages be truly called "Eurasian"? This gets back to the labeling issue.
But if this is the case, couldn't these proto- variants have left Africa, undergone a bit of subsequent differentiation, and then "backflowed" into the Valley? Couldn't these then serve as a "Third Force"- neither SSA or "Eurasian" but a "transitional" type grouping that defeats your choice of either SSA or Non-African? Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova:
quote:
quote:
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: [Dude. Give it a break. You claimed that your knowledge of "superior" science says that the AE were not "Sub Saharan". OK. Then what were they if they were not Sub Saharan?
If there is no "non SSA" ancient African lineage you can point out then what would they be but Eurasian back migrants?
Otherwise they would be some sort of so-called "sub saharan" based on how science defines mtDNA lineages.....
But see how you can't stand up when challenged and resort to diversionary tactics?
Come on break down your supreme DNA knowledge on what DNA the AE "should" have had but isn't SSA and not Eurasian.
Or to put it another way, if the Sahara was covering most of North Africa and therefore an extreme environment harboring few human populations then there are only two places later populations could come from: South of the Sahara or outside of Africa. What "other" choice is there and if there is one what DNA signature would that group carry (assuming they represent an ancient lineage of Africans that diverged from so-called "sub saharans" en-situ in North Africa separate from Eurasian back migrants).
Its up to YOU to figure out what mtdna L lineages have a North African phylogeny. WE have spoke on them before. Its also up to YOU to figure out why the diversity of L lineages shows differences between the North and the South. You are attempting to learn under the guise of arguing and I am not going to assist you with that. Be humble, if you don't know something just create a thread on it or ask.
I don't have to "figure out" anything. You are the one claiming to know something based on "modern science" and I just posted what modern science actually says. There is no "making it up" in this. If you agree with "modern science" then there are no "other" lineages for Africans going back to OOA other than L lineages. You simply don't want to accept that this is the point and that your argument that "Afrocentrics" created this position that in the AE have to be SSA to be African is false. Actually modern science says that.
Lets recall that a group of you folks came here raving about how "afrocentrics" were pushing that the AE were from "SSA" as I recall. So in reality what OTHER option is there according to modern science? Either they are "SSA" according to the modern scientific categorization of DNA or they are NON African.
But I assume you hit your head and forgot that this was part of the whole point about why folks should be "shook" about this study. As if there was some "other" option other than what was previously stated that only you folks had grasp of.
So in reality it shows you have no earthly idea what you are talking about......
Case in point: (where is the Nile Valley OOA branch)
There is no "other" position on human DNA classification according to modern science dude.
Either the AE were "sub saharan" and related to OOA which was "sub saharan" in origin or they were non African. That is the position of modern science (until they are shown incorrect by new data). Period. Which means the argument that there is some other lineages separate from SSA that the AE fell into without being back migrants totally null and void. UNLESS you feel that modern science is flawed which then opens up other possibilities.....
Great new references. But how do you account for the possibility that so-called "Eurasian" lineages may have "seeped" into the Nile Valley circa 10kya? Labeling as both Ish and Keita says is a problem.
It might be likely that the greater percentage of haplotypes called "Eurasian" are predominantly, although not solely, of indigenous African origin. As a term "Eurasian" is likely misleading, since it suggests a single locale of geographical origins. This is because it can be postulated that differentiation of the L3* haplogroup began before the emigration out of Africa, and that there would be indigenous supra-Saharan/Saharan or Horn-supra-Saharan haplotypes. More work and careful analysis of mtDNA and the archeological data and likely probabilities is needed. Early hunting and gathering paleolithic populations can be modeled as having roamed between northern Africa and Eurasia, leaving an asymmetrical distribution of various derivative variants over a wide region, giving the appearance of Eurasian incursion." --Keita and Boyde
But aside from this, can you see a scenario of "purely" "Eurasian" seepage into the valley? What's the definition of 'Eurasian" anyway? If you are not L0-L4 then you are "Eurasian"? Isn;t this a recast of the "true negro"?
A number of scholars argue that gene divergence preceded population divergence (Mishmar 2003, Cordeaux 2003 etc), so that variants, root types or prototypes of so-called "Eurasian" lineages were already established WITHIN Africa before OOA. Hence, can certain lineages be truly called "Eurasian"? This gets back to the labeling issue.
But if this is the case, couldn't these proto- variants have left Africa, undergone a bit of subsequent differentiation, and then "backflowed" into the Valley? Couldn't these then serve as a "Third Force"- neither SSA or "Eurasian" but a "transitional" type grouping that defeats your choice of either SSA or Non-African?
If it were up to me that would be great but I am not the one who assigned these labels. So if folks believe that science is "objective and valid" then that is what you are stuck with. I am a layman and I don't write papers so I am just calling out the obvious. Pointing fingers at the Africans when Africans didn't create this false dichotomy is the issue.
Waaay back in the other thread talking about this paper before it was released I said that SSA has no place in African genetic history. But folks didn't hear me and so be it. It isn't like I haven't been saying the same thing multiple times for over a year or more.
But some folks are defending "modern science" vs "afrocentric loons" so they have to rock with whatever they believe in.
I really have nothing to do with it.
That said, just like we know there was migrations back and forth between Africa and Eurasia over time as a result of various environmental conditions, we also know that there were migrations from points South of the Sahara and through the Sahara as well. That is how OOA took place to begin with. So even with Eurasian back migrants, that still doesn't address what DNA profile the indigenous "non back migrants" would have had along the Nile between Ethiopia, Sudan and Egypt. Obviously the L0-L4 lineages are still the oldest lineages on earth and the "basal" lineages for all others and hence we know this is likely what dominated these regions like most of the rest of Africa. So the point is either you are going to have an AE population carrying a bunch of L lineages associated with folks further south (ignore SSA that is irrelevant) or you are going to have an AE population with a bunch of non L0-L4 lineages that arose somewhere else (or maybe even in North Africa). The point is what are those "other" lineages? Modern science has no answer to this. So at this point ruling out L0-L4 seeing as L0-L4 goes all the way back to the root of all human ancestry makes no sense, regardless of how it is labeled. And this is where this paper is just pushing a nonsensical untenable position as it doesn't answer what lineages they feel "should" have been in place along the Nile but instead just posits SSA as some "foreign" element along the Nile. Or to put it even better, doesn't put the L0-L4 lineages in context as the "dominant" lineages along the Nile South of Egypt (as one should expect). Of course later on they may do some more DNA samples and they MIGHT include some ancient Sudanese samples but we'll see. Either one, I am not the one who created this dichotomy.
And lot of this seems to be missing the forest for the trees....
Posts: 8897 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: I really have nothing to do with it.
As shown by your repeated spamming of "L0-L4" (totally ignorant of L5 and L6) you don't have much to do with anything. Just misinformation and saying the same misinformation over and over is what you're good at.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
@ Doug. Northeast Africans are a sub-set population from SSA that does not exist anymore, so by that logic, the OOA population wouldn't be SSA,, at least not by modern SSA standards. Ethiopians and Egyptians have those OOA alleles not found in modern SSA population, and diversity decreases as one leaves Africa, lol
Posts: 2595 | From: Vicksburg | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: I really have nothing to do with it.
As shown by your repeated spamming of "L0-L4" (totally ignorant of L5 and L6) you don't have much to do with anything. Just misinformation and saying the same misinformation over and over is what you're good at.
Really? Did the paper that you claim is so earth shattering not make that statement? Somehow you are on a whole different planet if you believe "I personally" made up that label for those lineages. The paper we are talking about made that assessment.
But of course you will claim that I made up those papers assigning L3 to OOA.
quote:Originally posted by .Charlie Bass.: @ Doug. Northeast Africans are a sub-set population from SSA that does not exist anymore, so by that logic, the OOA population wouldn't be SSA,, at least not by modern SSA standards. Ethiopians and Egyptians have those OOA alleles not found in modern SSA population, and diversity decreases as one leaves Africa, lol
Does it matter? The person who wrote this paper says that lineages L0 - L4 are sub saharan.
Whatever issues folks have with that need to be brought up with them.
I don't see why people keep missing this point.
Posts: 8897 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Please address my post or not address it at all. Why are you summing up African L lineages as "L0-L4". What does that even mean?
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
I am going to post this again for the last time.
No more responses to questions about who assigned L0 0 - L4 to Sub Saharan Africa or L3 to OOA. The references have been posted in the thread. Suffice to say I didn't write these papers. So folks trying to pretend that "Afrocentrics" made up this assignment are purposely playing dumb.
They know full well there is no "other" mtDNA as assigned by current scholarship that is indigenous to Africa and goes back to OOA. You can look at all the alleles you want to.
quote: Abstract
Although fossil remains show that anatomically modern humans dispersed out of Africa into the Near East ∼100 to 130 ka, genetic evidence from extant populations has suggested that non-Africans descend primarily from a single successful later migration. Within the human mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) tree, haplogroup L3 encompasses not only many sub-Saharan Africans but also all ancient non-African lineages, and its age therefore provides an upper bound for the dispersal out of Africa. An analysis of 369 complete African L3 sequences places this maximum at ∼70 ka, virtually ruling out a successful exit before 74 ka, the date of the Toba volcanic supereruption in Sumatra. The similarity of the age of L3 to its two non-African daughter haplogroups, M and N, suggests that the same process was likely responsible for both the L3 expansion in Eastern Africa and the dispersal of a small group of modern humans out of Africa to settle the rest of the world. The timing of the expansion of L3 suggests a link to improved climatic conditions after ∼70 ka in Eastern and Central Africa rather than to symbolically mediated behavior, which evidently arose considerably earlier. The L3 mtDNA pool within Africa suggests a migration from Eastern Africa to Central Africa ∼60 to 35 ka and major migrations in the immediate postglacial again linked to climate. The largest population size increase seen in the L3 data is 3–4 ka in Central Africa, corresponding to Bantu expansions, leading diverse L3 lineages to spread into Eastern and Southern Africa in the last 3–2 ka.
quote: Previous studies based on hypervariable segment I (HVS-I) diversity have shown that haplogroup L2 played a major role in the Bantu migration17,18,24. MtDNA haplogroup L2 is the sister branch of the Eastern African L3′4′6 clade that contains all the OOA diversity within haplogroup L3. While L3′4′6 originated in Eastern Africa22, haplogroup L2 probably originated in Western Africa but is nowadays widespread across the continent; it is highly frequent in many regions, such as in Western/Central and Southeast Africa (probably associated with the Bantu expansion that occurred in the last few millennia) and in Northwest, most likely due to trans-Saharan slave trade18,25. Together with haplogroup L3, it represents ~70% of sub-Saharan mtDNA variation but despite its high frequency and wide distribution, L2 was not involved in the OOA26, since most likely it was not yet arrived in Eastern Africa by that time.
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Please address my post or not address it at all. Why are you summing up African L lineages as "L0-L4". What does that even mean?
The point was this paper we are discussing assigns Lineages L0 - L4 as "Sub Saharan".
Those are the markers used to identify Sub Saharans in Egypt.
Posts: 8897 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
You know you're not making sense repeating L0-L4 a thousand times. Nobody arbitrarily sums up L lineages as "L0-L4". That is a meaningless abbreviation of African mtDNA variation.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: You know you're not making sense repeating L0-L4 a thousand times. Nobody arbitrarily sums up L lineages as "L0-L4". That is a meaningless abbreviation of African mtDNA variation.
So whats this then?
quote: Modern Egyptians share this profile but in addition show a marked increase of African mtDNA lineages L0–L4 up to 20% (consistent with nuclear estimates of 80% non-African ancestry reported in Pagani et al.17). Genetic continuity between ancient and modern Egyptians cannot be ruled out by our formal test despite this sub-Saharan African influx, while continuity with modern Ethiopians17, who carry >60% African L lineages, is not supported (Supplementary Data 5).
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: So whats this then?
They're probably just referring to an Egyptian sample with no L5 and L6. That doesn't mean that you can sum up African lineages as L0-L4. It's clear you don't know the difference between saying a specific Egyptian sample has L0-L4 and saying all African mtDNA variation consists of L0-L4. The latter is what you're doing and it makes no sense.
quote: An infant skeleton was recovered from the 6G8 cemetery (Christian Period, 500-1400 C.E.) during excavation in what is present-day Wadi Halfa, located near the Second Cataract of the Nile in the Republic of the Sudan. [...] Haplogroup was assessed by analyzing SNPs from the mitochondrial chromosome with HaploGrep. The individual was assigned to L5a1a, a branch of the ancient L5 haplogroup with origins in East Africa.
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic