quote:Originally posted by Mansamusa: This is what you are saying, right? You don't know for sure where it orginated, You just know for sure that it did not originate from Africa. Correct me if I'm wrong.
You are wrong. It might have originated in Africa, or India, or Europe, or Siberia. I think West Asia is most likely, but of course I could be wrong.
The point is that the TMRCA of the ancestral haplotype is *not* the same as the founder age in Khoisan; for that matter the TMRCAs in Europeans and Khoisan don't even differ significantly. So claiming that this points to origin in Africa, or contradicts gene flow from Eurasia into Africa, is false. This doesn't tell us where the allele originated, only that it got to South Africa quite recently and came under selection there.
I too wish there was a lot more aDNA from outside of Europe, but it happens that in Europe there is money, expertise, infrastructure, political stability, a very extensive archaeological record, willingness to test ancient remains, and mostly good preservation conditions. There is far more from the Americas than you might think, though a lot of it is only mtDNA. I expect to see a lot more from China in the near future since Qiaomei Fu has set up her own lab there now.
Posts: 660 | From: Canada | Registered: Mar 2017
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: "finally"? GTFOH! I post only gold.
I think your advantage is that you are careless, while the other Afrocentrists from fear of being mocked as Afronuts remain reserved and skeptical. You just throw stuff against the wall and pray that it sticks. Sometimes, it actually does; most of the time, it doesn't.
Posts: 288 | From: Asia | Registered: Mar 2016
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mansamusa: "It probably came from Asia to both Europe and South Africa separately (not that we know the origin for sure of course)."
I think Europeans need to get over themselves seriously. It's a shame that the majority of ancient samples we have so far are from the most unimportant, uninteresting, and frankly useless part of the world in terms of understanding ancient and prehistoric human history--- Western Europe, one of the last places to be populated by humans and which remained outside of ancient history for millenia before the rise of the Greeks and Romans.
There is nothing in terms of ancient DNA evidence so far which makes Asia as oppossed to Africa the likely provenance for this genetic adaptation. What the fuck does it mean to go on and on about how Africa has the most diversity in the world and at the same time find it so difficult to admit to simply admit to the possibility that this particular allele developed in Africa as opposed to this weird somewhere, anywhere, except Africa explanation you are trying to articulate here.
This is what you are saying, right? You don't know for sure where it orginated, You just know for sure that it did not originate from Africa. Correct me if I'm wrong.
I don't think he's saying that... don't get me wrong, I personally think it's origin was in North Africa, but I can be completely wrong. No-one knows for certain yet, but one thing you have to be mindful of is the distribution; Low frequency on the African continent vs relaxed frequencies and even fixation elsewhere. Also our eldest carrier is OOA, The easiest explanation at this particular point is an Asian Origin, with Africa as a possibility. [/QB]
Thanks for the explanation. We expect the oldest carrier to be OOA because Africa, so far, has a grand total of zero samples old enough to conclusively disprove a non-African origin.
Posts: 288 | From: Asia | Registered: Mar 2016
| IP: Logged |
posted
lol^ "so far, has a grand total of zero samples old enough to conclusively disprove a non-African origin"
Now R-V88 is OLDER in Africa yet these mysterious "back-migrants" brought it to Africa. Herc2 for blue eyes is found in the Toubou along with SLC24A5.
The explanations are getting more bizarre as they trip over themselves. 34% "Eurasian" ancestry in a SSA population.
-------------------- Without data you are just another person with an opinion - Deming Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Why *should* it be African? Do you actually have any logic for thinking this? Don't tell me "Africa is more diverse", the TMRCA of the allele is *later* than OoA.
Posts: 660 | From: Canada | Registered: Mar 2017
| IP: Logged |
posted
First you need to disprove ANYTHING I post. We can start there.
Put up or shut the f up!. It is that simple.
quote:Originally posted by Mansamusa:
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: "finally"? GTFOH! I post only gold.
I think your advantage is that you are careless, while the other Afrocentrists from fear of being mocked as Afronuts remain reserved and skeptical. You just throw stuff against the wall and pray that it sticks. Sometimes, it actually does; most of the time, it doesn't.
-------------------- 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 capra: Why *should* it be African? Do you actually have any logic for thinking this? Don't tell me "Africa is more diverse", the TMRCA of the allele is *later* than OoA.
Because mankind had way longer to develop in Africa, then outside of Africa. Proximately the ratio is 1 to 6, based on bayes statistics.
Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mansamusa: This is what you are saying, right? You don't know for sure where it orginated, You just know for sure that it did not originate from Africa. Correct me if I'm wrong.
You are wrong. It might have originated in Africa, or India, or Europe, or Siberia. I think West Asia is most likely, but of course I could be wrong.
The point is that the TMRCA of the ancestral haplotype is *not* the same as the founder age in Khoisan; for that matter the TMRCAs in Europeans and Khoisan don't even differ significantly. So claiming that this points to origin in Africa, or contradicts gene flow from Eurasia into Africa, is false. This doesn't tell us where the allele originated, only that it got to South Africa quite recently and came under selection there.
I too wish there was a lot more aDNA from outside of Europe, but it happens that in Europe there is money, expertise, infrastructure, political stability, a very extensive archaeological record, willingness to test ancient remains, and mostly good preservation conditions. There is far more from the Americas than you might think, though a lot of it is only mtDNA. I expect to see a lot more from China in the near future since Qiaomei Fu has set up her own lab there now.
Well, I personally don't understand the dearth of samples from America or China, to be honest. But understand what I mean when I say that Europeans should get over themselves. Europeans are human and its only natural that they have a bias in favor of their own histories or cultures. But this shit is getting ridiculous. If these scientists have any respect and understanding of human history, they should know that Africa is the most important place to be studying for answers. For chrissake, recent dioscoveries have shown that we don't even know for sure how old the human species actually is. And even more importantly, we don't know where to draw the line between Eurasian and African in terms of ancient dna. Eurasian affinity in Africa is due to either one of two possibilities:
1. Post-OOA African migration from Africa to the Middle East during prehistory(which is what I personally believe). In the case of the Natufians, traditional archaeolgy paints them as bi-products of Africans who migrated from NA and intermarried with Levantine locals.
2. Multiple prehistoric Eurasian migrations from that ill-defined mass of land called Eurasia, via a process which is yet to be archaeologically delineated into the very heart of Africa. This seems to be the mainstream opinion in the world of genetics, at least.
Option number two is not without merit, considering that the majority of the oldest ancient samples are located in Eurasia. It makes sense that a genetic element found in both prehistoric African and Eurasian genetic samples would be called Eurasian if the oldest Eurasian samples are a few millenia older than the oldest ancient African sample discovered so far.
The only way this can be settled once and forever is with ancient African samples as old as or older than these Eurasian samples. But instead, we are tortured with tons of ancient dna from the most insignificant, boring, and unimportant corners of Europe. They are not even giving us stuff from the interesting parts of Europe like Rome and Greece. Just boring fuckery about the Steppes!
Posts: 288 | From: Asia | Registered: Mar 2016
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: First you need to disprove ANYTHING I post. We can start there.
Put up or shut the f up!. It is that simple.
quote:Originally posted by Mansamusa:
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: "finally"? GTFOH! I post only gold.
I think your advantage is that you are careless, while the other Afrocentrists from fear of being mocked as Afronuts remain reserved and skeptical. You just throw stuff against the wall and pray that it sticks. Sometimes, it actually does; most of the time, it doesn't.
Take it easy. Do you see me arguing against the possibility that this allele arose within Africa. You need to lighten up a bit grumps.
Posts: 288 | From: Asia | Registered: Mar 2016
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: xyyman, so your conclusion is that khosians are the direct ancestors of modern white Europeans?
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: Not that.. All humans are descendants of Khoi-San including modern Europeans.
What the author is implying is that is an African pastoral group gave it to the San. Meaning the San were black greater than 3000years ago. which may be true. Remember Europeans and Neanderthals were black as far back as 400,000yeara ago.
It was already stated. But for the sake of the argument I will repost it.
quote: Within Africa, the most private alleles were in southern Africa, reflecting those in southern African Khoesan (SAK) San and !Xun/Khwe populations (fig. S6C) (12).
--Sarah A. Tishkoff et al.
quote: 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.
--Hie Lim Kim et al. Khoisan hunter-gatherers have been the largest population throughout most of modern-human demographic history
Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mansamusa: This is what you are saying, right? You don't know for sure where it orginated, You just know for sure that it did not originate from Africa. Correct me if I'm wrong.
You are wrong. It might have originated in Africa, or India, or Europe, or Siberia. I think West Asia is most likely, but of course I could be wrong.
The point is that the TMRCA of the ancestral haplotype is *not* the same as the founder age in Khoisan; for that matter the TMRCAs in Europeans and Khoisan don't even differ significantly. So claiming that this points to origin in Africa, or contradicts gene flow from Eurasia into Africa, is false. This doesn't tell us where the allele originated, only that it got to South Africa quite recently and came under selection there.....
Well, you may be right. However, sometimes I wonder why is the idea of gene flow from Africa to Eurasia such anathema to so many. Does the NA hypothesis as explained by Elmaestro not make sense for your idea of a population that spread this genetic trait to both Euriasians(Europeans) to the North of NA and SSAs to the South?
There are tons of people who believe in the Razib Khan theory that seems to be so popular and mainstream in the genetic blogging world: The idea that between the first OOA and the Arab slave trade, Africans, with a few exceptions, never set foot out of Africa or even SSA.
I say Razib Khan becuase that gentleman has never seen African DNA outside of Africa that he has not attributed to the slavetrade.
Posts: 288 | From: Asia | Registered: Mar 2016
| IP: Logged |
posted
xyyman, you are wrong at an extraordinary rate.
Khoisan are not the ancestors of all humanity. They are as divergent from the common ancestor of modern humans as everyone else is. Heck, they aren't even the most basal branch anymore.
Khoisan also have their own light-skin alleles, not just SLC24A5, so they would probably have been only slightly darker 3000 years ago, unless there was some change in selection since then.
Posts: 660 | From: Canada | Registered: Mar 2017
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well said. Yes, they can’t identify that elusive “Eurasian backmigrants”. In that latest paper on R-V88. They conclude it is back migrants from “possibly” the Near East but provided no data from the Near East. Yet, provided data that LBK farmers carried similar haplotypes to the Toubou,
So there is again that direct North-South connection between Europe and SS Africa. Even more interesting the paper added that modern Sardinians carry the closest match to SSA Toubou.
White people are confused and unsure of their place in the world. The grew up believing they are the most important but are now finding out it was all a lie. And they just won’t give it up. Agreed. “They need to get over themselves”.
And to add salt to the wound they added this “We next tested the Toubou, who have ~30% Eurasian ancestry. The Toubou appeared to split from Eurasians ~30,000–40,000 ya, a time more recent than expected considering the African-Eurasian split 60,000–80,000 ya20” . “
Now, does that make any sense? What is wrong with these fools? How Can it be called Eurasian or be from Europe when the slit occurred BEFORE Europe was essentially occupied by AMH…..from the Middle East I might add. Lol!
quote:Originally posted by Mansamusa: [QB]
quote:Originally posted by capra: [qb] ---- lot more from China in the near future since Qiaomei Fu has set up her own lab there now. [/q]
Well, I personally don't understand the dearth of samples from America or China, to be honest. But understand what I mean when I say that Europeans should get over themselves. Europeans are human and its only natural that they have a bias in favor of their own histories or cultures. But this shit is getting ridiculous. If these scientists have any respect and understanding of human history, they should know that Africa is the most important place to be studying for answers. For chrissake, recent dioscoveries have shown that we don't even know for sure how old the human species actually is. And even more importantly, we don't know where to draw the line between Eurasian and African in terms of ancient dna. Eurasian affinity in Africa is due to either one of two possibilities:
1. Post-OOA African migration from Africa to the Middle East during prehistory(which is what I personally believe). In the case of the Natufians, traditional archaeolgy paints them as bi-products of Africans who migrated from NA and intermarried with Levantine locals.
2. Multiple prehistoric Eurasian migrations from that ill-defined mass of land called Eurasia, via a process which is yet to be archaeologically delineated into the very heart of Africa. This seems to be the mainstream opinion in the world of genetics, at least.
Option number two is not without merit, considering that the majority of the oldest ancient samples are located in Eurasia. It makes sense that a genetic element found in both prehistoric African and Eurasian genetic samples would be called Eurasian if the oldest Eurasian samples are a few millenia older than the oldest ancient African sample discovered so far.
The only way this can be settled once and forever is with ancient African samples as old as or older than these Eurasian samples. But instead, we are tortured with tons of ancient dna from the most insignificant, boring, and unimportant corners of Europe. They are not even giving us stuff from the interesting parts of Europe like Rome and Greece. Just boring fuckery about the Steppes! [/Q]
-------------------- Without data you are just another person with an opinion - Deming Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
That was a test! To see who was following. Lioness left it alone. Agreed, Khoi-San is the first to branch off from human ancestors. And Yes, A00 is proving to be older than uniparental markers found in Khoi-Sans. But the kicker is Most West Africans are E1b1a and not A00 or A1b ie very young.. Infact we are back to Berbers and Cape Verdeans. Who carry lineage as old as Khoi_san. I believe the Mbo are remnants of an ancient admixed population who adapted to live in the forest region. My brother has been to parts of Africa and he told me two places where the highest frequency of blue eyes is found in Cape Verde and the Congo. Now Herc2 is found in SSA Toubou. “Eurasian” ancestry is now being found all over Africa and these mad scientist are desperately trying to put a Eurocentric spin on it.
Do you see the pattern emerging?
quote:Originally posted by capra: xyyman, you are wrong at an extraordinary rate.
Khoisan are not the ancestors of all humanity. They are as divergent from the common ancestor of modern humans as everyone else is. Heck, they aren't even the most basal branch anymore.
Khoisan also have their own light-skin alleles, not just SLC24A5, so they would probably have been only slightly darker 3000 years ago, unless there was some change in selection since then.
-------------------- 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 xyyman: “Eurasian” ancestry is now being found all over Africa and these mad scientist are desperately trying to put a Eurocentric spin on it.
Do you see the pattern emerging?
No, it's primarily in certain coastal African countries
Posts: 42921 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
Toubou?Chad is coastal? Put down the glass Lioness! lol!
In case you missed a key point. Toubou's "Eurasian" ancestry is older than East Africa. Somehow these mysterious Eurasian migrants teleported over East Africa and reached West Africa.
-------------------- 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 xyyman: Toubou's "Eurasian" ancestry is older than East Africa. Somehow these mysterious Eurasian migrants teleported over East Africa and reached West Africa.
Through their mysterious power to navigate the second dimension, they came what we adepts call... the North. If you study the occult lore we call maps, you too can learn this.
Posts: 660 | From: Canada | Registered: Mar 2017
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mansamusa: Well, I personally don't understand the dearth of samples from America or China, to be honest.
There are hundreds of ancient DNA samples from the Americas. China... I'm guessing the government wants some control over how to spin the results and they're waiting till they've got all the infrastructure set up at home. There is some Y DNA and mtDNA and one really ancient genome wide sample, Tianyuan.
quote:The only way this can be settled once and forever is with ancient African samples as old as or older than these Eurasian samples.
You can't get those easy as wishing. Does sound like we will be getting some Neolithic Moroccan DNA in the nearish future - now if someone would do full sequencing on the Iberomaurusian instead of goddamn HVS-I *that* would be something.
Meanwhile we can use modern DNA and logic - and that says North Africa maybe (probably some), but this Out-of-Africa signature sure as fuck ain't native to South Africa, or even East Africa (you can argue for the Horn but I don't buy it).
When we figure out the genetic history of North Africa then we'll know how much of the Out-of-Africa signature is ultra-deep North African rather than West Eurasian. Very likely we have indigenous North African gene flow carrying E; maybe Basal Eurasian too; maybe more than that. Here's the thing though: African vs Eurasian stuff is childish anthroforum bullshit, so researchers aren't going to keep saying "oh yes maybe some of this ancestry never left Africa so it isn't necessarily strictly West Eurasian that's just our best reference right now" to salve everyone's butthurt. You can call it Eurocentric if you like, hell maybe it is, but these guys just aren't emotionally invested in that kind of shit. When they find out ancestry comes from Africa, like you know pretty much the entire human race, they don't aim to salve the butthurt of net-Nazis either.
Anyway, you guys can be annoyed about that, I'm not going to say you shouldn't. If North Africa does turn out to be the big kahuna you can rub it in. Call it Ancient North African if you prefer. It's just damn annoying when any study tracing MENA-like ancestry in SSA has to be a racist conspiracy instead of information about the history of SSA, which is actually interesting.
quote:But instead, we are tortured with tons of ancient dna from the most insignificant, boring, and unimportant corners of Europe. They are not even giving us stuff from the interesting parts of Europe like Rome and Greece. Just boring fuckery about the Steppes!
Lol I don't know why there is so little about Rome and Greece. I suspect there are some universities there hogging the samples to themselves that haven't got up to speed yet... no actual evidence of this though mind you. There actually are some half-assed results - a few Etruscans and such - just not much. We are supposed to be getting ancient Greeks soon.
*You* might not care about other corners of Europe, but *Europeans* do, and they can study what they damn well please.
Posts: 660 | From: Canada | Registered: Mar 2017
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by capra: No one is claiming that Europeans brought it to South Africa. It probably came from Asia to both Europe and South Africa separately (not that we know the origin for sure of course). Europeans do not represent all Eurasians. The age of the ancestral haplotype is not the age of introduction in Khoisan.
Yep. And the argument can be made that it should be even younger in Europe than the estimated 13ky, since most European HGs don't have it.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro: the A111T Haplogroup that Slc24a5 was African or near Eastern... You were warned bro.
What is an A111T haplogroup?
This is what I found.
quote:The pigmentation center is SLC24A5. The ancestral gene for light skin rs1426L54 is “predominante” among sub-Saharan African (SSA) populations (Canfield et al., 2014). The derived allele from this coding polymerphism for light skin is A111T alleles (Canfield et al., 2014). The A111T pigmentation haplotype indicate high frequencies among “light skinned” populations in Europe and East Asia.The highest frequencies of SLC24A5A111T are found in Western Europeans. Interestingly, the lowest global frequencies of SLC24A5A111T are found in SSA, the Polar Region and East Asia (EA) (Canfield et al., 2014). The frequency of A111T haplotype in EA and SSA is 0.15, while in Western Eurasia the average frequency of this mutation is 0.9 - 1.0 (Canfirld et al., 2014). The low frequency of A111T among non-western Eurasians suggest that this mutation may only account for pale skin pigmentation in Western Eurasia.
posted
aren't invested? Really Capra. You seriously believe that?
quote:Originally posted by capra: but these guys just aren't emotionally invested in that kind of shit. When they find out ancestry comes from Africa, like you know pretty much the entire human race, they don't aim to salve the butthurt of net-Nazis either. .
-------------------- 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 Elmaestro: the A111T Haplogroup that Slc24a5 was African or near Eastern... You were warned bro.
What is an A111T haplogroup?
When A111T is used, (which it bareley is), it's often reference to canfields 'c11' or post recombinant/crossover of the haplogroup.... (which is why they tend to call it a Haplotype.) the Variant is @ rs1426654. Just about every notable mention of a mutation at slc24a5 for pigmentation is referring to rs1426654, which is the variant responsible for the average difference of >15%[MI] between populations or individuals.
Posts: 1781 | From: New York | Registered: Jul 2016
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: Toubou?Chad is coastal? Put down the glass Lioness! lol!
They are nomadic R-V88 carriers, that is an African clade of R1b
Some are and others aren't.
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: “Eurasian” ancestry is now being found all over Africa and these mad scientist are desperately trying to put a Eurocentric spin on it.
Do you see the pattern emerging?
No, it's primarily in certain coastal African countries
lol Stop your lies, so-called "Africana specialist"!
Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: “We next tested the Toubou, who have ~30% Eurasian ancestry. The Toubou appeared to split from Eurasians ~30,000–40,000 ya, a time more recent than expected considering the African-Eurasian split 60,000–80,000 ya20” . “
From what I remember Spencer Wells stated early 2000 that the Toubou carry large amounts of Hg J. He called it middle eastern ancestry.
Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro: the A111T Haplogroup that Slc24a5 was African or near Eastern... You were warned bro.
What is an A111T haplogroup?
When A111T is used, (which it bareley is), it's often reference to canfields 'c11' or post recombinant/crossover of the haplogroup.... (which is why they tend to call it a Haplotype.) the Variant is @ rs1426654. Just about every notable mention of a mutation at slc24a5 for pigmentation is referring to rs1426654, which is the variant responsible for the average difference of >15%[MI] between populations or individuals.
posted
The chromosome does so the haplogroups will change accordingly.... Cmon bro lol
EDIT no shade, Just reread my previous comment, I coulda worded that better for the lay. 'c11' is the hg associated with the mutation... The Hg can "change" based on the state of the chromosome... But in theory the carrier of the "A111T" mutation had an ancestor who carried the c11 hg.
Posts: 1781 | From: New York | Registered: Jul 2016
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
What's a SNP? Do SNPs define haplogroups (like, but not only, our familiar nrY and mtDNA haplogroups)? Is A111T a SNP?
quote:Originally posted by Mansamusa: Well, I personally don't understand the dearth of samples from America or China, to be honest.
There are hundreds of ancient DNA samples from the Americas. China... I'm guessing the government wants some control over how to spin the results and they're waiting till they've got all the infrastructure set up at home. There is some Y DNA and mtDNA and one really ancient genome wide sample, Tianyuan.
quote:The only way this can be settled once and forever is with ancient African samples as old as or older than these Eurasian samples.
You can't get those easy as wishing. Does sound like we will be getting some Neolithic Moroccan DNA in the nearish future - now if someone would do full sequencing on the Iberomaurusian instead of goddamn HVS-I *that* would be something.
Meanwhile we can use modern DNA and logic - and that says North Africa maybe (probably some), but this Out-of-Africa signature sure as fuck ain't native to South Africa, or even East Africa (you can argue for the Horn but I don't buy it) .
When we figure out the genetic history of North Africa then we'll know how much of the Out-of-Africa signature is ultra-deep North African rather than West Eurasian. Very likely we have indigenous North African gene flow carrying E; maybe Basal Eurasian too; maybe more than that. Here's the thing though: African vs Eurasian stuff is childish anthroforum bullshit, so researchers aren't going to keep saying "oh yes maybe some of this ancestry never left Africa so it isn't necessarily strictly West Eurasian that's just our best reference right now" to salve everyone's butthurt. You can call it Eurocentric if you like, hell maybe it is, but these guys just aren't emotionally invested in that kind of shit. When they find out ancestry comes from Africa, like you know pretty much the entire human race, they don't aim to salve the butthurt of net-Nazis either. Anyway, you guys can be annoyed about that, I'm not going to say you shouldn't. If North Africa does turn out to be the big kahuna you can rub it in. Call it Ancient North African if you prefer. It's just damn annoying when any study tracing MENA-like ancestry in SSA has to be a racist conspiracy instead of information about the history of SSA, which is actually interesting.
quote:But instead, we are tortured with tons of ancient dna from the most insignificant, boring, and unimportant corners of Europe. They are not even giving us stuff from the interesting parts of Europe like Rome and Greece. Just boring fuckery about the Steppes!
Lol I don't know why there is so little about Rome and Greece. I suspect there are some universities there hogging the samples to themselves that haven't got up to speed yet... no actual evidence of this though mind you. There actually are some half-assed results - a few Etruscans and such - just not much. We are supposed to be getting ancient Greeks soon.
*You* might not care about other corners of Europe, but *Europeans* do, and they can study what they damn well please.
I thought the HOA was East Africa. Anyhow, I think Europeans including scientists are definiteley emotionally invested in this. We know enough about White people's history to know how obsessed they are about downplaying African history. Europeans have moved away from this obsession with Caucasian to this new obsession with Eurasians. Eurasians in the mind of lay persons and even certain academia is the equivalent of Caucasian.In the minds of the typical White person, Eurasian = Not Africa and that is good enough for them. White people define themselves as the exact opposite of the African. They will get anxiety attacks at the idea of Eurasian being partially African. I suppose we will have to wait until luck and chance provides us with ancient African samples old enough.
Europeans can absolutely study whatever they damn please. I am just saying that most of it is really insignificant in terms of understanding deep human history. Europeans are confused about their modern day geopolitical importance and their ancient importance. Today, Europe is historically relevant, in prehistory, it was one of the most useless and irrelevant places in the World. And I am not trying to hurt your feelings. It's just facts. This kind of research needs to start reflecting and understanding just how important Africa is: It is the birthplace of mankind; and may be the source of a lot of what is currently labelled Eurasian or OOA.
How many OOA movements were there? We know about the first one. What about the others. Surely, Europeans are not sufficiently lacking in imagination to genuinely believe that between the first OOA and the Arab Slave trade, Africans were crippled human beings too scared to venture beyond the yard of their mud huts. This is the basis of this Eurasian vs African divide: Little to zero African migration out of Africa before the Arab slave trade, and after the first OOA.
We need to figure these things out now! Although, I might be complaining too much considering the rapid rate at which things are moving.
Posts: 288 | From: Asia | Registered: Mar 2016
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro: The chromosome does so the haplogroups will change accordingly.... Cmon bro lol
EDIT no shade, Just reread my previous comment, I coulda worded that better for the lay. 'c11' is the hg associated with the mutation... The Hg can "change" based on the state of the chromosome... But in theory the carrier of the "A111T" mutation had an ancestor who carried the c11 hg.
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler: What's a SNP? Do SNPs define haplogroups (like our familiar nrY and mtDNA haplogroups)? Is A111T a SNP?
It's similar but different, haplogroups are arbitrary... Any set of variants(aka SNP's) can be labeled as a hg. The difference is, Uniparentals don't go through recombination, the mitochondria doesn't deal with meiosis and the region we look at in the Y chromosome is non recombinant, so it doesn't swap genes or loci in that entire region (with the X chromosome). So uniparental haplogroups make it easy to detect phylogenetic structure. With autosomal haplogroups, both parents set of genes have a direct affect on the daughter hgs and you have to worry about cross over, which can hide a mutation, etc etc.
If punos or BBH could tell us what happened with Xyymans threads, we can revisit how this is all relevant when I explained it the first time.
Posts: 1781 | From: New York | Registered: Jul 2016
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
I made a slight edit when you were composing your reply
Point I was trying to make • haplogroups are not limited to uniparentals • SNPs define haplogroups • A111T rs1426654 is a SNP So of course it's a haplogroup , and without allele recombination could it be a colour assigning gene?
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro: ... Any set of variants (aka SNP's) can be labeled as a hg. ...
SNPs aren't just any set of variants. SNPs are Single Nucleotide Polymorphisms.
Falling back on the nrY Chromosome haplogroups. STR variants can predict a Y haplogroup. Only SNPs can define a Y haplogroup (as far as my never set ass in a formal genetics classroom knows).
I readily defer to and accept precisions from college/university enrolled or matriculated students. Even sensible laymen who don't try and act like they know it all.
Point I was trying to make • haplogroups are not limited to uniparentals • SNPs define haplogroups • A111T rs1426654 is a SNP So of course it's a haplogroup , and without allele recombination could it be a colour assigning gene?
are you asking? if so, to my knowledge all you need is the mutation at rs1426654 to see the change in phenotype. Are you interested in Molecular biology and/or Biochem? protein synthesis, etc.?
Posts: 1781 | From: New York | Registered: Jul 2016
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
Not in and of themselves. Only re Diop who said we have to be up enough on them to see through biased interpretations of what those disciplines can teach us about Africana.
Sure a had a little classic genetics via Patai and via Cavilli-Sforza but only after Ausar invited me here did I do more than dip my toe into pop genetics.
When phys anth and genetics are at loggerheads I opt for genetics as proven tried and true in the case of the Ancient One.
Anyway to not veer away GG can enable dark skin AA can enable light skin
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
This "prediction" sure in hell fails. Wolof are the prime example of its failure. We have to analyze, critique, and where its warranted reject output from Academicians that contradict reality.
quote:Originally posted by Narmerthoth: ^ The University Of Maryland is a much more diverse campus, and therefore their research will reflect that.
I notice she stated a few things.
Most important was. Some groups have no admixture, yet do have light skin. And some groups with light skin do have admixture, which is obvious.
Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
I wanted to see if ES regulars would say something. I see no corrections so far. So, most people here who comment on population genetics agree that all SNPs are haplogroups?
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote: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 equatorial populations 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.
—Brenna Henn, Carlos Bustamante et al.
A Complex, Polygenic Architecture for Lightened Skin Pigmentation in the Southern African KhoeSan
The 86th Annual Meeting of the American Association of Physical Anthropologists (2017)
quote: Skin pigmentation is one of the most recognizably diverse phenotypes in humans across the globe, but its highly genetic basis has mainly been studied in northern European and Asian populations. The Eurasian pigmentation alleles are among the most differentiated variants in the genome, suggesting strong positive selection for light skin pigmentation. Light skin pigmentation is also observed in the far southern latitudes of Africa, among KhoeSan hunter-gatherers of the Kalahari Desert and other populations. The KhoeSan hunter-gatherers, believed to have diverged from other populations 100,000 years ago, maintain extraordinary levels of genetic diversity, but it is unknown whether light skin pigmentation represents convergent evolution or the ancestral human phenotype. We have collected saliva samples, ethnographic information, and pigmentation phenotypes from 123 individuals in the ≠Khomani San from the Kalahari. To understand the genetic basis for light skin pigmentation, we have genotyped and exome sequenced 91 ≠Khomani San individuals to high coverage, generating one of the largest indigenous African exome datasets sequenced outside of 1000 Genomes. Because linkage disequilibrium decay is rapid in this population, we have assessed parameters influencing phasing and imputation accuracy since ideal reference panels do not exist. We have also pursued multiple genotype/phenotype mapping methods, including a mixed model approach, admixture mapping, and linkage mapping. After controlling for admixture from European and Bantu-speaking populations, we find that globally common variants are not significantly associated with pigmentation. Rather, our results indicate that there are a multitude of rare variants in known pigmentation genes, and suggest that previously unidentified genes acting in canonical pigmentation pathways may be involved. Our results highlight the strength of diverse population studies to explain phenotypic variation in the context of human evolutionary history.
—Brenna Henn, Carlos Bustamante et al.(2013)
The Genetic Architecture Of Skin Pigmentation In Southern Africa.
Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: I wanted to see if ES regulars would say something. I see no corrections so far. So, most people here who comment on population genetics agree that all SNPs are haplogroups?
I see gramps is back. What's your take on this, gramps?
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
??
Printer-friendly view of this topic