posted
Doug do you understand how broad and diverse mtHg L is?
Do you know Hgs are arbitrarily designed/labeled? your complaints are almost the equivalent of saying the Canadian/US border shouldn't exist because not everyone below it is a U.S. citizen.
Posts: 1781 | From: New York | Registered: Jul 2016
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro: Doug do you understand how broad and diverse mtHg L is?
Do you know Hgs are arbitrarily designed/labeled? your complaints are almost the equivalent of saying the Canadian/US border shouldn't exist because not everyone below it is a U.S. citizen.
Dude. This isn't about "me" understanding anything.
You guys are simply pathetic in trying to avoid the obvious that any issues with the assignments or classifications of these haplogroups go back to those making those assignments. "I" didn't write this paper. You know that but instead of addressing the flaws in the paper and the logical contradictions within, you fall back to pretending that the flaws are with "me" as if "I" have anything to do with it.
The point was if you guys are "so down" with science then you have to deal with the contradictions within the scientific community with the same energy and vigor that you presume to challenge "me" for calling out those contradictions.
But you won't do that.
This is the point.
Posts: 8889 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
How does this Nubian's mtDNA L5 fit in your "L0-L4" model?
So wait, I showed you where the paper uses the term "L0 - L4" and you proceed to talk about L5 and L6?
Really?
How do you go from one "L" to another?
Why do you presume to speak for the people that wrote this paper? You aren't the writer so any issues you have with it you need to bring it up with them. Stop playing the fence so dam much.
Bottom line take whatever "L" you want those folks classify it as "sub Saharan". There is no running away from it no matter how you try. Now you have a problem with that, you need to bring it up with them.
There are no "other" African mtDNA lineages going back to OOA that are "indigenous African" according to this classification based on current "science". Stop playing these silly games.
Posts: 8889 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Either address my post or don't address it at all. The authors you're quoting are talking about an Egyptian sample's mtDNA L diversity. Nowhere do they condone reducing continental Africa's mtDNA L pool to "L0-L4".
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Either address my post or don't address it at all. The authors you're quoting are talking about an Egyptian sample's mtDNA L diversity. Nowhere do they condone reducing continental Africa's mtDNA L pool to "L0-L4".
I posted the wrong link earlier.
We are talking about the report that is the subject of this thread. They are saying that "L0 -L4" defines "sub Saharan" mtDNA lineages.
Point still stands. I didn't make this assignment.
quote: We observe highly similar haplogroup profiles between the three ancient groups (Fig. 3a), supported by low FST values (<0.05) and P values >0.1 for the continuity test. 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).
The point is they are defining "sub saharan" based on the presence of mtDNA L0 - L4.
That is the point and title of the paper. And on top of that they refer to the Henn paper which they use to model the split between North Africa and "Sub Saharan" Africa based on back migration.
Therefore, I don't know how you can pretend not to understand what is being said.
After all you were the one of the folks promoting this paper.
What did you think they were classifying as "Sub Saharan"? Go ahead and accept the "L" for what it is.
Posts: 8889 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Doug says: The point is they are defining "sub saharan" based on the presence of mtDNA L0 - L4. Quote:
"Modern Egyptians share this profile but in addition show a marked increase of African mtDNA lineages L0–L4 "
For all PRACTICAL purposes, they are using that L range to say "sub-Saharan". Sure. The increase in those lineages is what allows them to say: "Ancient Egyptian mummy genomes suggest an increase of Sub-Saharan African ancestry in post-Roman periods."
Without them there would be no "increased Sub-Saharans" to compare against or report.
-------------------- Note: I am not an "Egyptologist" as claimed by some still bitter, defeated, trolls creating fake profiles and posts elsewhere. Hapless losers, you still fail. My output of hard data debunking racist nonsense has actually INCREASED since you began.. Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
ATTENTION the thread topic article was finally published May 31 after this thread was made I have copied a lot of the text and images from it and those have been added to the original post in page 1
Posts: 42919 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
commentary about Ancient Mummy Genomes article. I find the title of the article to be dumb but there is some interesting commentary below
" But ultimately what’s great about this paper is that they have ancient autosomal DNA. That is, genome-wide results." __________________________________________________
Because modern people care about the Afrocentrist question, the extent of Sub-Saharan African ancestry is highlighted in this paper. I do not think this is actually the most interesting aspect. But I’ll get to that. Since this post will be read by a fair number of people I’ll talk about the relationship of ancient and modern Egyptians to (Northern) Europeans and Sub-Saharan Africans.
The figure to the left is looking at 90 ancient Egyptian mitochondrial genomes (and some modern ones in the two rightmost columns). Since mtDNA is copious it was relatively easy to extract and analyze. Haplogroup L, the red to orange shades in the bar plots, are associated without dispute with Sub-Saharan Africa. Haplogroup U6, M1 and a few others may be “back to Africa” variants of different periods (they are generally found in Afro-Asiatic groups).
What you can see is that somewhat more than half of Ethiopia’s mtDNA lineages are L, in keeping with the whole genome estimate of Sub-Saharan African ancestry in most Cushitic populations. In Egypt there is a difference over time; haplogroup L goes from low frequencies to much higher frequencies in modern periods. The ~20% fraction in the modern samples is in line with the population wide admixture one sees in modern Egyptians of Sub-Saharan admixture.
I actually recomputed the haplogroups to a finer granularity from the supplements. A quick inspection of mtDNA haplogroup frequencies shows that ancient Egyptians are not typical of modern Europeans. Not that much H, and lots of T, J and K. What that does remind me of are Early European Farmers. These people, who brought agriculture to Europe from Anatolia contributed a large fraction of the ancestry of modern Southern Europeans, and a lesser component to Northern Europeans.
But ultimately what’s great about this paper is that they have ancient autosomal DNA. That is, genome-wide results.
They got three samples of reasonably high quality. More precisely: “Two samples from the Pre-Ptolemaic Periods (New Kingdom to Late Period) had 5.3 and 0.5% nuclear contamination and yielded 132,084 and 508,360 SNPs, respectively, and one sample from the Ptolemaic Period had 7.3% contamination and yielded 201,967 SNPs.”
You can see the three samples on this bar plot. What is interesting is that they’re all pretty similar.
What you can see here is that to a great extent ancient Egyptians were descended from a population closely related to Natufians, or Natufians themselves. This easily explains the mtDNA affinity to Neolithic farmers: Natufians and Anatolian Neolithic populations were sister populations. The f3 statistic which looks at shared drift shows an affinity of ancient Egyptians with ancient farmer populations with Near Eastern provenance, but also with modern Sardinians. This is a common pattern, as ancient groups do not have later migration waves, with the Sardinians the modern population closest to this.
You see in the bar plot that northern Levantine populations are placed between Anatolian Neolithics and Natufians, as one might expect based on their geographical position and gene flow between these two regions. Additionally, the cyan color is associated with eastern farmers from the Zagros. I’ve already talked about gene flow from this area to the Levant recently. If you compare the Bronze Age Sidon samples I think you’ll see broad affinities with these Late Period Egyptians.
The PCA gives us results consonant with the model-based clustering. If you plot the genetic variation of ancient Egyptians they’re closest to Neolithic eastern Mediterranean populations. No great surprise.
Not the modern Egyptians. Why? It’s pretty clearly because modern Egyptians are shifted toward Sub-Saharan Africans. But there is also another component: modern Egyptians have more of the cyan eastern farmer component. What could this be?
An immediate thought comes to mind. We focus a great deal on Sub-Saharan African slavery. One reason is that it is visible. Black Africans are physically distinct from most Middle Eastern populations. But Egypt was long the center of another slave trade: “white slaves” from the Caucasus. Circassians. For hundreds of years Mamluks were recruited from the Caucasus as military slaves. They eventually became the ruling class of Egypt, until their decimation in the 19th century under Muhammad Ali (who himself was an Albanian Ottoman who never learned to speak Arabic well).
As noted in the paper earlier work looking at patterns in ancestry tracts and LD decay had made it obvious that much of the admixture of Sub-Saharan ancestry in Egypt, as in much of the Middle East, is relatively recent. In particular, it dates to the Islamic period, when trade and conquest took on new dimensions in Africa and north into Central Asia. One way ethnic minorities like Assyrians and Lebanese Christians differ from their Muslim neighbors is that they have much lower fractions of Sub-Saharan African ancestry, and no East Asian component. The latter might surprise, but remember that Central Asian Turkic slaves have been prominent in Muslim armies since at least the 9th century.
But some of the Sub-Saharan ancestry in Egyptians is old. The ancient Egyptian samples have it. To have none of it would seem strange, considering the history of contact between Nubia and Egypt, dating back to the Old Kingdom. Second, there is evidence of low levels of Sub-Saharan African gene flow into Southern Europeans. How did that happen? The highest fractions are in Spain, and can there be attributed to the Moorish period. But that explanation does not hold in much of Italy, where there are a few percent of haplogroup L. This probably is due to south-to-north gene flow across the Mediterranean during the Classical period. Some of the peoples on the south shore of the Mediterranean almost certainly already had some Sub-Saharan African admixture.
Not getting into the details of it, there are ways to explicitly model gene flow into a target population from donors defined by a phylogeny. In this case the authors tested various models of gene flow from Sub-Saharan Africans and Eurasians (non-Africans) to generate allele frequency patterns we see in modern Egyptians and ancient Egyptians.
What they consistently found is that modern Egyptians are about twice as much Sub-Saharan African as ancient Egyptians. The proportions for modern Egyptians ranged from ~10 to ~20 percent Sub-Saharan African against a Eurasian background, with a bias toward the higher values (depending on which populations you put into the phylogeny for non-Africans), and ~0 to ~10 percent for the ancient Egyptians, again with a bias toward the higher values. The pattern is consistent in these tests.
An issue here is that we’re going off three samples. That being said, the authors observe that despite differences in contamination/quality and time period they’re very concordant with each other. If I had to bet I think Old Kingdom samples would have somewhat less Sub-Saharan and eastern farmer ancestry. But the basic pattern persisted down to the Roman period, and was only shifted by admixture due to slavery.
And not to belabor the point, but a paper from a few years ago which had some Copt samples looks familiar in its broad outlines. You see that the Copts have very little Sub-Saharan African ancestry, though it does seem to be evident (the marker set is in the hundreds of thousands of SNPs). Additionally, they are quite distinct from the Qatari Arab sample.
Unfortunately the data for this paper just published is not on the European Nucleotide Archive. I really want to dig a little deeper into it.
What are the takeaways here? Egypt has been the sink for a lot of migration and gene flow over the past several thousand years, and probably earlier. Not surprising considering that it was relatively wealthy in the aggregate. The Natufian population that the Late Period Egyptians resemble the most did not have Sub-Saharan African ancestry according to earlier research. These Late Period Egyptians do have some. This is reasonable in light of the long interaction with Nubia which is historically attested. Similarly, there was clearly gene flow from Southwest Asia. This is again historically attested, especially in the Nile Delta (though foreign garrisons of mercenaries are recorded in Upper Egypt as well).
The Roman period probably did introduce some gene flow from Southeast Europe and Southwest Asia. But these populations are not that distinct from Egyptians.
Similarly, the Islamic period also brought in different peoples from Arabia and the Caucasus. But the most salient dynamic during the Islamic period was a massive trans-Saharan slave trade (though the Caucasus impact may have been comparable, and I think these results support the proposition that it was).
It seems entirely likely that the Copts are descended from a mix of Roman era Egyptians. Not only do they resemble the people in the Fayum portraits, but the circumstantial genetic data is that they have fewer “exotic” components which increased in frequency during the Islamic era. This would be exactly parallel to ethno-religious minorities in the Levant and Iraq.
One curious element to me is the suggestion gene flow before ~5,000 BCE between Sub-Saharan Africa and the lower Nile valley was low. If it hadn’t been low, it seems unlikely that the fraction of Sub-Saharan ancestry (or shift in that direction in relation to other Eurasians) in Copts would be so small.
So what explains the lack of earlier gene flow? I think the answer is going to be the fact that the human demographic landscape is characterized by lots of local population extinctions. As ancient DNA sampling coverage gets better and better meta-population dynamics are coming into focus, and we see gene flow, and die offs, in several areas. It is fashionable to say that human population variation is characterized by clines. But much of this clinal aspect is an outcome of the period after massive admixture over the last ~10,000 years.
And yet it may not be that the period before the Holocene was not clinal. Rather, it may be that large depopulations of areas of human occupation fragmented clinal ranges, and resulted in new range expansions from “core” zones.
About ~8,000 years ago there was a major desertification period in the Sahara desert. Many trans-Saharan populations may have gone extinct during this time due to rapid climate change. Eventually repopulation may have occurred from outside of the Sahara, so that post-Natufian Levantines and Sub-Saharan Africans from what today call the Sahel pushed up and down the Nile drainage basic respectively, meeting in the zone of Nubia on the boundary of history and prehistory.
Unlike many other areas of the world we have a long attested record of Egyptian history. As we get more mummy samples it seems likely that we’re get a crisper, clearer, picture. And the time transects will not be narrative blind; we already know the general arc of Egyptian history. If, for example, we see a new ancestral component around ~1500 B.C., in Egypt it’s not mysterious what this might be: the Hyksos.
This is just the prologue to a fascinating book that will be written over the next decade.
Posts: 42919 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
^ this is a screen shot of supplement figure 3 from the thread topic article Ancient Mummy Genomes..
Supplementary Data 3 Comparison of mitochondrial and nuclear Haplogroups. As the nuclear results do not have any specific enrichment applied for mitochondrial DNA retrieval, there are cases where the position was either not covered (yellow) or covered with less than 3 reads (red). Matching mutations were marked in green respectively between both captures.
*** I had a glitch so the headings are messed up. I couldn't post it properly Maybe somebody else can post it
haplogroups listed:
J1d U6a2 M1a1
_________________________________
also see
4. Supplementary Data 4 Results of the genetic distance computation with Arlequin between 56 populations from Europe, Africa, the middle East, Asia and the Ancient Egyptian metapopulation investigated in this study. 5. Supplementary Data 5 Results and details of a population continuity test between our investigated three ancient Egyptian populations and modern populations from Egypt and Ethiopia in the respective region.
Posts: 42919 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova: Doug says: The point is they are defining "sub saharan" based on the presence of mtDNA L0 - L4. Quote:
"Modern Egyptians share this profile but in addition show a marked increase of African mtDNA lineages L0–L4 "
For all PRACTICAL purposes, they are using that L range to say "sub-Saharan". Sure. The increase in those lineages is what allows them to say: "Ancient Egyptian mummy genomes suggest an increase of Sub-Saharan African ancestry in post-Roman periods."
Without them there would be no "increased Sub-Saharans" to compare against or report.
For now. Who knows what may change down the road.
FWIW I haven't been able to find any studies of the mtDNA in Sudanese populations to compare against.
Posts: 8889 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Another Nature article calling out the "Sub Saharan" mtDNA lineages specifically:
quote: As mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) is uniparentally inherited, it undergoes negligible recombination at the population level, and mutations acquired over time have subdivided the human population into several discrete haplogroups. The major haplogroups arose 40,000–150,000 years before present (YBP) and have defined different human populations as they migrated out of Africa and populated the globe. The African root was the source of four lineages specific for sub-Saharan Africa: L0, L1, L2 and L3 (130,000–200,000 YBP). Two more haplogroups, M and N, arose from the African haplogroup L3 65,000–70,000 YBP to populate the rest of the world.
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". [/QB]
I am surprised that Doug says this. Ish Gebor, Clyde and xyyman take the opposite position that there are no non-African haplogroups.
If Doug is saying that Haplogroup L is the only original African mtDNA lineage what about on the YDNA side? A similar position would be that only YDNA groups A and B and E are original to Africa. I don't know if he is saying this also
Posts: 42919 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:But some of the Sub-Saharan ancestry in Egyptians is old. The ancient Egyptian samples have it. To have none of it would seem strange, considering the history of contact between Nubia and Egypt, dating back to the Old Kingdom. Second, there is evidence of low levels of Sub-Saharan African gene flow into Southern Europeans. How did that happen? The highest fractions are in Spain, and can there be attributed to the Moorish period. But that explanation does not hold in much of Italy, where there are a few percent of haplogroup L. This probably is due to south-to-north gene flow across the Mediterranean during the Classical period. Some of the peoples on the south shore of the Mediterranean almost certainly already had some Sub-Saharan African admixture.
These people are delusional. I hope they get cocky and open the flood gates.
Posts: 1254 | From: howdy | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged |
Also several things were said there. If you say it's delusional you would have to break it down and say what particulars are delusional and why
Posts: 42919 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
Derived SLC24A5 in ancient Egyptian. Ancestral for SLC45A2. Tropical Africans carry a relatively ghigh frequency of derived SLC24A5 --
-- A Complex, Polygenic Architecture for Lightened Skin Pigmentation in the Southern African KhoeSan ALICIA R. MARTIN1,2,3,
April 21, 2017 , Studio 7 Add to calendar
While >200 genes have been associated with pigmentation in animal models, fewer than 15 have been directly associated with skin pigmentation in humans. This has led to its characterization as a relatively simple quantitative trait. We show that skin color is more variable in admixed and[/b] equatorial populations [/b]by comparing phenotypes from ~5000 individuals in >30 populations, providing evidence of increased polygenicity closer to the equator. ***Strikingly***, no quantitative gene discovery efforts for pigmentation have yet been published in continental Africa, despite skin pigmentation varying more there than any other continent. Light skin pigmentation is observed in the southern latitudes of Africa among KhoeSan hunter-gatherers of the Kalahari Desert. The KhoeSan are unique in their early divergence from other populations, dating back at least ~100,000 years. We demonstrate that skin pigmentation is highly heritable (h2>0.85), with similar estimates from pedigrees identified via ethnographic interviews, unrelated population-based samples, and haplotype sharing. Further, genes previously associated with skin pigmentation, rapidly evolving genes, and pigmentation genes discovered in animal models explain significantly more heritability than random genes. We show that some canonical pigmentation loci, including SLC24A5, are polymorphic in the KhoeSan and at higher frequency than explained by recent European admixture alone. We identify novel skin pigmentation loci, including near SMARCA2 and TYRP1, using a genome-wide association approach complemented by targeted resequencing in >440 individuals. Our results suggest that pigmentation loci can evolve rapidly in response to latitude and highlight the utility of studying geographically and genetically diverged populations for understanding human adaptation.
---
My point?
-------------------- Without data you are just another person with an opinion - Deming Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Fourty2Tribes: Its from Khan above. I'll answer why they are delusional in an upcoming video. I say they because Khan is using the same code speech.
posted
Funny. He is probably looking at the chocolaty coons with white women like Clarence Thomas wondering wtf. I'm on the fence but is does seem like he is pussyfootingly labeling these ancient Egyptians as Hyksos.
quote:Unlike many other areas of the world we have a long attested record of Egyptian history. As we get more mummy samples it seems likely that we’re get a crisper, clearer, picture. And the time transects will not be narrative blind; we already know the general arc of Egyptian history. If, for example, we see a new ancestral component around ~1500 B.C., in Egypt it’s not mysterious what this might be: the Hyksos.
Notice the wink wink nod nod ignoring of Jama and BMJ. Thats what I mean. Compared to those studies this is a new ancestral component.
Posts: 1254 | From: howdy | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged |
According to the poster the Ptolemaic era sample has the most SSA ancestry. While the other two have less in comparison. The Iran Neolithic admixture seems to be the second highest but is higher in the Ptolemaic era sample
Thoughts?
@Capra glad to see you're still here. Posts: 1891 | From: NY | Registered: Sep 2014
| IP: Logged |
posted
Good post, Basal Eurasian doesn't seem to have a negative correlation with "SSA" admixture, interesting to actually see the gradual increase I initially though we'd see. This whole thing makes too much sense to be true though, somethings up.
Glad we actually got some African aDNA though, even if they might be migrants.
Posts: 1781 | From: New York | Registered: Jul 2016
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlessedbyHorus: A good poster from Forumbiodiversity posted this. Tests on the Ancient Samples have been done. Here are their K6 scores.
According to the poster the Ptolemaic era sample has the most SSA ancestry. While the other two have less in comparison. The Iran Neolithic admixture seems to be the second highest but is higher in the Ptolemaic era sample
Thoughts?
@Capra glad to see you're still here.
One could interpret it as an echo of a wave of migration from North East Africa leading up to the Neolithic and reaching into Iran.
But it is odd how they use very specific groupings for Non Africans but for Africans you get "Sub Saharan". It would be more informative to have "Central Saharan pastoral, Khartoum Mesolithic, Eastern Desert Nomad, Fayum Neolithic, Nabta Playa, Old Kingdom Giza, Naqada predynastic,Predynastic A group, etc.
Seeing how the current DNA groupings are defined it will be hard to detect an African wave if the current labels of what DNA lineages came from where still stand. For example, what if populations went back and forth between NE Africa and Eurasia? Then what? Is it African or Eurasian?
Posts: 8889 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by capra: What are Jama and BMJ?
The samples that led to the Amarna and Ramses iii ancestry test. Its a weak conspiracy. The black unconscious community could correct wikipedia if they put half as much group effort to it as they put to pseudo science festivals and flagging rival channels on a white own platform.
quote: What was removed was as I recall material that was original research/synthesis (ie combining two sources to make a point) and/or material not from scientific journals, eg DNA Tribes. Dougweller (talk) 10:04, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
I have issues with the all or nothing nature of STR test but they arent making that argument and even if they did it would not be valid. The reason why they did not include Jama and BMJ is this...
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro: Good post, Basal Eurasian doesn't seem to have a negative correlation with "SSA" admixture, interesting to actually see the gradual increase I initially though we'd see. This whole thing makes too much sense to be true though, somethings up.
Glad we actually got some African aDNA though, even if they might be migrants.
Thanks.
But can you elaborate what you mean by when you say "Basel Eurasian doesn't seem to have a negative correlation with "SSA" admixture."
Posts: 1891 | From: NY | Registered: Sep 2014
| IP: Logged |
posted
There's an Idea that Natufian/Early farmer like components or basal Eurasian affinity will be directly affected by SSA admixture similar to how BE is to Neanderthal admixture. I forgot where I read that from but I figured it would be viable. however, it doesn't seem like that's so much the case as opposed to an EHG (seen as WHG here) vs. SSA negative correlation, even in contemporary populations. However we're only looking at 3 people. So there could be something there I ain't seeing yet.
Posts: 1781 | From: New York | Registered: Jul 2016
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: Ish Gebor, … take the opposite position that there are no non-African haplogroups.
You keep saying this about me, but I never NEVER made that claim.
What I have stated and shown is that most on the so called back migration acclaimed Hg's are most likely indigenous to the continent. That is what patterns show.
Many of these supposed studies make abrupt geographical distinctions, while there was obviously a smooth traditional gene-flow. And they have held on this idea from decades ago, when it's obviously incorrect.
Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: Ish Gebor, … take the opposite position that there are no non-African haplogroups.
You keep saying this about me, but I never NEVER made that claim.
What I have stated and shown is that most on the so called back migration acclaimed Hg's are most likely indigenous to the continent. That is what patterns show.
Many of these supposed studies make abrupt geographical distinctions, while there was obviously a smooth traditional gene-flow. And they have held on this idea from decades ago, when it's obviously incorrect.
To me it seem some folks are scared to openly and publicly challenge the status quo on this point. This paper in the OP blatantly lays out the position that Northern Africa in ancient history was associated with "Non African" peoples because of 'Non African' DNA lineages. And of course the only "African" DNA lineages are "Sub Saharan". And this is the current position of a great many geneticists in the scholarly community.
Of course it is hard to challenge something when you don't have any "independent" means of acquiring data and doing your own analysis. So even those who do their own analysis on published data aren't really able to change anything.
But we will see if they apply their newfound ability to extract DNA to more ancient specimens across a more representative sample from ancient populations or do they keep using carefully selected specimens.
Posts: 8889 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
@ Doug Why not just come out and make the case that basal lineages stemming from Mtdna N are African in origin? That is basically what you are getting at. Why pussy foot around the issue? Just say it and be SPECIFIC about it.
Posts: 2463 | From: New Jersey USA | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by beyoku: @ Doug Why not just come out and make the case that basal lineages stemming from Mtdna N are African in origin? That is basically what you are getting at. Why pussy foot around the issue? Just say it and be SPECIFIC about it.
The point is that there is no definitive conclusion on whether M or N and other lineages did or did not arise in Africa. Are you suggesting that the possibility is some sort of "radical Afrocentric" concept?
I mean science revises theories and positions all the time. Why should this be no different? The likelihood that the theories about lineages and geographic origins are flawed is very high. So this isn't necessarily a "conspiracy theory". I just don't get why folks come on a forum where folks are investigating the possibilities about past events then sit there and question why folks are investigating the possibilities about past events. If you think that science is correct then what is the point? I can read their papers myself and see what they believe. So what is the point of you being on the forum? Are you upholding the status quo or challenging it? Because lately a lot of folks have been sounding like they are defending the status quo.
Posts: 8889 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
It's not about defending or challenging some status quo. It's about being true to what one makes of the data after one approaches it w/o trying to enforce a priori convictions.
Otherwise all one is doing is first shooting your arrow and then drawing a bullseye around where it hit.
quote:Originally posted by beyoku: @ Doug Why not just come out and make the case that basal lineages stemming from Mtdna N are African in origin? That is basically what you are getting at. Why pussy foot around the issue? Just say it and be SPECIFIC about it.
The point is that there is no definitive conclusion on whether M or N and other lineages did or did not arise in Africa. Are you suggesting that the possibility is some sort of "radical Afrocentric" concept?
The likelihood that the theories about lineages and geographic origins are flawed is very high.
There is no definite proof, but its a consistency of evidence that makes one draw a conclusion. Again you are pussyfooting around the subject and will not just put your cards on the table and tell us how you REALLY feel. Other members are quite CLEAR when they argue Y-dna R, T, D, or J ....or mtdna X, H, I, W, T, or J have an origin on the African continent. You are being an intellectual coward and pussyfooting around the subject. You question L3 being only SSA and all derived M/N being back-migration but at the same time dont want to argue the idea of Derived M/N lineages being native to geographic Africa.
Posts: 2463 | From: New Jersey USA | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: Ish Gebor, … take the opposite position that there are no non-African haplogroups.
You keep saying this about me, but I never NEVER made that claim.
What I have stated and shown is that most on the so called back migration acclaimed Hg's are most likely indigenous to the continent. That is what patterns show.
Many of these supposed studies make abrupt geographical distinctions, while there was obviously a smooth traditional gene-flow. And they have held on this idea from decades ago, when it's obviously incorrect.
Observing your behavior you never acknowledge and haplogroup as being non-African. Whenever the topic comes, any haplogroup being suggested to be non_African you never acknowledge it up you put up phylogenetic trees suggesting that it is African
quote:Originally posted by Ish Gebor:
What I have stated and shown is that most on the so called back migration acclaimed Hg's are most likely indigenous to the continent. That is what patterns show.
That's your other opinion. That back migration is impossible. Instead of saying outright what you do is whenever back migration is suggested you say it didn't happen. You don't take responsibility for taking a stance. You just act on the stance. In the past few years there are numerous articles suggesting back migration from Eurasia to Africa did occur sometimes.
Posts: 42919 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler: It's not about defending or challenging some status quo. It's about being true to what one makes of the data after one approaches it w/o trying to enforce a priori convictions.
Otherwise all one is doing is first shooting your arrow and then drawing a bullseye around where it hit.
This. Except for one thing.
My argument for it goes back to curlycarly. She's a woman from Texas with a southern European phenotype. She took a region of origin genetic test and the top three countries of origin were Somalia, Sudan and Spain. Her human ancestors probably spent more time evolving in inner Africa than Somalia. When people draw haplogroups out of Africa they don't show how big the base is or how often lineages recoil except for the swoop back through Egypt.
The one thing: I don't know if Doug is talking about that model or a model where all or nearly all of the major haplogroups begin in Africa and we just don't see it this way because Africa is genetically segregated .
I'm interested in what people looked like so lineage frequencies/patterns matter in how they coincide with phenotype. I'm stumped. This could look like anything
JK2134 776-569 cal BC quote: 0.00% Ancestral_S_Eurasian 0.00% East_Asian 25.22% Iran_Neolithic 61.91% Natufian 8.00% WHG 4.86% Sub_Saharan JK2911 769-560 cal BC quote: 2.31% Ancestral_S_Eurasian 1.94% East_Asian 24.59% Iran_Neolithic 57.60% Natufian 6.64% WHG 6.93% Sub_Saharan JK2888 97-2 cal BC
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
The point I m making is both Doug and Beyoku already have their minds made up and neither can hear the other nor want to hear the other (putting data and methodology aside, Doug has an intelligent analysis and is well grounded from a sociological (i.e., university field Afrocentric) stance.
AFAIHR no uniparental haplogroup is no guarantee of no individual's phenotype.
quote:Originally posted by beyoku: @ Doug Why not just come out and make the case that basal lineages stemming from Mtdna N are African in origin? That is basically what you are getting at. Why pussy foot around the issue? Just say it and be SPECIFIC about it.
The point is that there is no definitive conclusion on whether M or N and other lineages did or did not arise in Africa. Are you suggesting that the possibility is some sort of "radical Afrocentric" concept?
The likelihood that the theories about lineages and geographic origins are flawed is very high.
There is no definite proof, but its a consistency of evidence that makes one draw a conclusion. Again you are pussyfooting around the subject and will not just put your cards on the table and tell us how you REALLY feel. Other members are quite CLEAR when they argue Y-dna R, T, D, or J ....or mtdna X, H, I, W, T, or J have an origin on the African continent. You are being an intellectual coward and pussyfooting around the subject. You question L3 being only SSA and all derived M/N being back-migration but at the same time dont want to argue the idea of Derived M/N lineages being native to geographic Africa.
No the point is why are you concerned about me challenging something in current scholarship? I have stated my position numerous times on the idea that some lineages assigned to Eurasia arose in Africa and this issue is also part of scholarly debate. So what is your point and position?
I have always been an independent thinker defending what I believe here for over 10 years. So this notion about mebing scared to say what I want is hilarious.
I don't really have time for petty disagreements.
Posts: 8889 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: Observing your behavior you never acknowledge and haplogroup as being non-African. Whenever the topic comes, any haplogroup being suggested to be non_African you never acknowledge it up you put up phylogenetic trees suggesting that it is African
You are making up stuff, as usually. A phylogenetic tree is meaningless when it doesn't show actual transitions. These folks write their papers, as if there is / was a border patroller. Which is PURE NONSENSE labeling.
Keep running …
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: In the past few years there are numerous articles suggesting back migration from Eurasia to Africa did occur sometimes.
When you get the nitty gritty, you'll notice that these papers you talk about mostly are based on old Eurocentric historical doctrines.
Note, in particularly from the 37:00 minute onwards the question on DNA and historical narratives, which it's very interesting.
J. .P Mallory speaks on Indo-European Dispersals and the Eurasian Steppe at the Silk Road Symposium held at the Penn Museum held in March 2011.
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: That's your other opinion. That back migration is impossible. Instead of saying outright what you do is whenever back migration is suggested you say it didn't happen. You don't take responsibility for taking a stance. You just act on the stance.
Sure,…this is why they revamp the same sample sets over and over (take the Yoruba). Surly these trees are being altered (adapted / remodeled) when it doesn't suit the "program".
Meanwhile we have Sara Tishkoff, with the largest sample set on Africans who says the following:
quote:African and Middle Eastern populations shared the greatest number of alleles absent from all other populations (fig. S6B).
—Sarah A. Tishkoff et al. The Genetic Structure and History of Africans and African Americans
Or:
quote:To resume, our results clearly reject the scenario put forward so far of a strict correlation between the Arab expansion in historical times and the overall pattern of distribution of J1-related chromosomes. Similarly, the causal association between STR-defined haplotypes and ethnic groups appear without any robust support, making its use inadequate for forensic or genealogical purposes. Instead, J1 variation provided the genetic background to correlate climatic changes to human demographic and socio-cultural events scarcely documented in the archaeological record – the dispersal of hunter gatherers after the termination of glacial conditions in the late Pleistocene and the desertification-driven retreat of tribes of Saharan and Arabian foragers in the transition to a food-producing economy.
—Sergio Tofanelli et al.
J1-M267 Y lineage marks climate-driven pre-historical human displacements
European Journal of Human Genetics (2009) 17, 1520 – 1524
Or:
quote: Whereas inferred IBD sharing does not indicate directionality, the North African samples that have highest IBD sharing with Iberian populations also tend to have the lowest proportion of the European cluster in ADMIXTURE (Fig. 1), e.g., Saharawi, Tunisian Berbers, and South Moroccans. For example, the Andalucians share many IBD segments with the Tunisians (Fig. 3), who present extremely minimal levels of European ancestry. This suggests that gene flow occurred from Africa to Europe rather than the other way around.
--Laura R. Botiguéa,1, Brenna M. Henn et al
Gene flow from North Africa contributes to differential human genetic diversity in southern Europe (July 16, 2013)
I didn't make up the above, as you keep suggesting.
Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by beyoku: @ Doug Why not just come out and make the case that basal lineages stemming from Mtdna N are African in origin? That is basically what you are getting at. Why pussy foot around the issue? Just say it and be SPECIFIC about it.
The point is that there is no definitive conclusion on whether M or N and other lineages did or did not arise in Africa. Are you suggesting that the possibility is some sort of "radical Afrocentric" concept?
The likelihood that the theories about lineages and geographic origins are flawed is very high.
There is no definite proof, but its a consistency of evidence that makes one draw a conclusion. Again you are pussyfooting around the subject and will not just put your cards on the table and tell us how you REALLY feel. Other members are quite CLEAR when they argue Y-dna R, T, D, or J ....or mtdna X, H, I, W, T, or J have an origin on the African continent. You are being an intellectual coward and pussyfooting around the subject. You question L3 being only SSA and all derived M/N being back-migration but at the same time dont want to argue the idea of Derived M/N lineages being native to geographic Africa.
No the point is why are you concerned about me challenging something in current scholarship? I have stated my position numerous times on the idea that some lineages assigned to Eurasia arose in Africa and this issue is also part of scholarly debate. So what is your point and position?
@Doug - YOU HAVE NO POSITION. You have an IDEA you want to play chess but you refuse to move any piece on the chess board. I challenge you because you are being an intellectually coward or simply being LAZY about the argument. You are not directly attacking the issue with real data and reasoning and instead are just writing booombastic 'complain' paragraphs over and over. Disagreeing with published authors is not real scholarship. If someone is going to sit and say derived N lineages are "African" and form an entire religion around it that helps them duck and dodge any idea of Non-African input or migration back onto the continent.........they are going to have to come hard with some EVIDENCE. At LEASE have the balls to put your idea on RECORD as far as SPECIFICS.
As to "MY Position" - Again you are not going to learn from me under the guise of an argument. Sorry.
@Tukuler - I understand EXACTLY what Doug M is saying but his comments basically suggest we sit back and do nothing, nor think nothing. Furthermore my mind is FAR from made up....You would actually be surprised. Right now I just work with what we have....IE: Its quite obvious that Haplogroup E and A are probably West African......why do we call them East African? Are we appealing to authority? ....Does the LABEL we put on the marker really matter when the population MOVEMENTS and what lineages wax/wane is really what we are discussing? Not really.
Posts: 2463 | From: New Jersey USA | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
After the dispersal of modern humans Out of Africa, around 50–70 ky cal BP1,2,3,4 or earlier based on fossil evidence5, hominins with similar morphology to present-day humans appeared in the Western Eurasian fossil record around 45–40 ky cal BP, initiating the demographic transition from ancient human occupation [Neandertals] to modern human [H o m o sapiens] expansion on to the continent1"
[...]
The haplogroup of PM1 falls within the U clade [Fig. 1B and Supplementary Table 3], which derived from the macro-haplogroup N possibly connected to the Out of Africa migration around 60–70 ky cal BP1,2,3,4. In line with this, the Peştera cu Oase individual that lived on the current territory of Romania, albeit slightly earlier than PM1 [37–42 ky cal BP] also displays haplogroup N9.
—Hervella et al. 2016
Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by beyoku: @ Doug Why not just come out and make the case that basal lineages stemming from Mtdna N are African in origin? That is basically what you are getting at. Why pussy foot around the issue? Just say it and be SPECIFIC about it.
The point is that there is no definitive conclusion on whether M or N and other lineages did or did not arise in Africa. Are you suggesting that the possibility is some sort of "radical Afrocentric" concept?
The likelihood that the theories about lineages and geographic origins are flawed is very high.
There is no definite proof, but its a consistency of evidence that makes one draw a conclusion. Again you are pussyfooting around the subject and will not just put your cards on the table and tell us how you REALLY feel. Other members are quite CLEAR when they argue Y-dna R, T, D, or J ....or mtdna X, H, I, W, T, or J have an origin on the African continent. You are being an intellectual coward and pussyfooting around the subject. You question L3 being only SSA and all derived M/N being back-migration but at the same time dont want to argue the idea of Derived M/N lineages being native to geographic Africa.
No the point is why are you concerned about me challenging something in current scholarship? I have stated my position numerous times on the idea that some lineages assigned to Eurasia arose in Africa and this issue is also part of scholarly debate. So what is your point and position?
@Doug - YOU HAVE NO POSITION. You have an IDEA you want to play chess but you refuse to move any piece on the chess board. I challenge you because you are being an intellectually coward or simply being LAZY about the argument. You are not directly attacking the issue with real data and reasoning and instead are just writing booombastic 'complain' paragraphs over and over. Disagreeing with published authors is not real scholarship. If someone is going to sit and say derived N lineages are "African" and form an entire religion around it that helps them duck and dodge any idea of Non-African input or migration back onto the continent.........they are going to have to come hard with some EVIDENCE. At LEASE have the balls to put your idea on RECORD as far as SPECIFICS.
As to "MY Position" - Again you are not going to learn from me under the guise of an argument. Sorry.
@Tukuler - I understand EXACTLY what Doug M is saying but his comments basically suggest we sit back and do nothing, nor think nothing. Furthermore my mind is FAR from made up....You would actually be surprised. Right now I just work with what we have....IE: Its quite obvious that Haplogroup E and A are probably West African......why do we call them East African? Are we appealing to authority? ....Does the LABEL we put on the marker really matter when the population MOVEMENTS and what lineages wax/wane is really what we are discussing? Not really.
Dude stop clowning yourself. I wasn't asking you for help. And I wasn't asking for your approval to have an opinion.
So if you aren't replying with anything substantive why keep replying to me?
You come off as if you represent scholarly consensus as opposed to just being a layman with an opinion. The point being you aren't writing any papers or changing the minds of these who are.
Posts: 8889 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
Beyoku and forum
After apologizing for offering a counter view Doc Ben taught me to disagree all I want to as long as I had evidence in support.
We cannot imagine future evidence will come along and vindicate our view. We can only go on what we got right here and now.
No need to reject a report that didn't meet expectations. There should be no expectation when approaching new phenomena. We should be ready to critically embrace as far as its • sample set • data • methodology • tools • findings • author(s) interpretation • biases to ferret, if any, factual errors or spin. Then on to analysis and synthesis or misfit to an accumulated multi-disciplinary database partially at one's mental recall but physically available for ready reference and proof of facts.
No denialism and ignoring what the samples say but also no Eurocentrics hyping it up and saying this completely means the AE were not Africans along with ignoring past Egypologist studies.
Posts: 1891 | From: NY | Registered: Sep 2014
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler: The point I m making is both Doug and Beyoku already have their minds made up and neither can hear the other nor want to hear the other (putting data and methodology aside, Doug has an intelligent analysis and is well grounded from a sociological (i.e., university field Afrocentric) stance.
AFAIHR no uniparental haplogroup is no guarantee of no individual's phenotype.
Just to be clear, my perspective on this issue goes back to the other thread where certain folks began claiming that folks should be "shaking in their boots" because of this paper. The folks making this claim suddenly have become "pro defenders" of what science has to say about Genetics and Africa as if they are "insiders" or somehow part of the scholarly community. It is as if they want "special recognition" as if they are "part of the team" doing this work.
Come on give me a break.
But this is why certain folks seem to be so defensive about other folks comments on published papers.
If these folks really do want to pursue a career in science and anthropology then more power to them. But I am not into this idea of "professional" amateur forum posters trying to act like they are more important than they really are.
If that offends people then so be it but I wasn't the one running around calling folks "Afrocentric radicals" and all other such stuff behind this one paper. And now the paper is out and these same folks want to run off and pretend that they don't have a position on the data that THEY were telling everybody on the forum to be looking out for. And certainly current scholarship isn't asking input from anybody on this forum for the direction on or methodology they use in their work. I am a layman with my own observations and that is as far as it goes, but some folks like to pretend this is more than that.
Like I said before multiple times, if they were serious about understanding the genetic history of the Nile Valley during and after OOA along with populations in AE they would sample more ancient specimens. And the authors themselves point out that this paper is not enough to "prove" anything across all of Egypt's history. This paper simply shows that they are able to get complete DNA from SOME mummies and not from others. It remains to be seen whether that will work on all mummies and ancient remains or not. So even though we may HOPE to get definitive DNA data on these ancient populations, it may not be consistent. Meaning the speculation and theorizing will go on for years both within scholarship and among amateurs on these forums some of whom will be trying to pretend this paper means more than it really does.
I went to school at the height of the Afrocentric era and as far as Afrocentrism goes, scholarly Afrocentrism has failed to produce any graduates equipped in STEM to go into Anthropology to study African biological history across the board, not just in Egypt. Egyptsearch and posters on it just shows that there are some folks with the skill and ability to do their own research even if they are not professional anthropologists. But at the end of the day science and scholarship doesn't recognize ideas unless you write papers conforming to scholarly standards. Outside of that, ranting and raving on a forum, cheer leading certain scholars or rejecting others only has meaning mostly to other laymen. I wholeheartedly support taking their energy and passion and actually pursue the study of anthropology. But other than that this is just a forum full of folks having opinions and flaming each other like has been going on for many years.... Therefore if you REALLY want to make a change then you have to actually get into the field of anthropology and publish your own scientific observations. Otherwise, don't expect much to change any time soon.
Posts: 8889 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
No denialism and ignoring what the samples say but also no Eurocentrics hyping it up and saying this completely means the AE were not Africans along with ignoring past Egypologist studies.
Me thinks the genetic structure of Coptics originated around that time which is why these mummies are so similar to the Coptics. Again what I think.
Posts: 1891 | From: NY | Registered: Sep 2014
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic