posted                         

quote:

---

It should be common knowledge by now that human beings in their modern form, Homo sapiens, first evolved in Africa. Exactly when we emerged on the scene remains uncertain (recent fossil discoveries suggest it may have happened over 300,000 years ago, a hundred millennia earlier than we originally thought), but whenever it was, most of our species’s history of existence would have played out on the so-called “Dark Continent”. It would have been no earlier than 70,000 years ago — and possibly as soon as 55,000 years ago — when the ancestors of all people outside of Africa would wander out of the continent and colonize the rest of the habitable world.

This would not have been the first dispersal of hominin apes out of Africa, mind you. Much in the press has been made of the fact that between 1–7% of modern human ancestry outside our ancestral continent comes from the descendants of earlier emigrants such as the Neanderthals and Denisovans. What may not be so widely publicized, however, is that the famous “Out of Africa” migration between 70–55,000 years ago would not have been the last movement of Homo sapiens from Africa into Eurasia and beyond, either. There is in fact a plethora of compelling evidence that humans from Africa continued to venture out and leave a permanent genetic mark on the ancestry of their Eurasian kin— even the “white” peoples of Europe.

I don’t mean a light dash, either. Almost one third of European ancestry descends from African admixture within the last 55,000 years.

---

Posts: 7073 | From: Fallbrook, CA | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:
Informative article for lay people. But why not use scientific images only, in a scientific article?

---

I wanted to show my personal vision of how these prehistoric people might have looked. But you and the others raise a valid point about choosing more scientific illustrations for my presentation.

Maybe this one of a Neolithic man from Jericho could work instead? I was hoping for something with more color, personally.


UPDATE: I cut out my artwork and replaced it with both the reconstruction of the Neolithic Jericho man and some prehistoric Egyptian rock art. It should look more scientifically presentable now.

--------------------
Brought to you by Brandon S. Pilcher

My art thread on ES

And my books thread

Posts: 7073 | From: Fallbrook, CA | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tyrannohotep:
By the way, do you guys also know of places where I can share the link to my article? I don't want to post it on ForumBiodiversity or any other "alt-right" community since it'll be casting pearls before swine. Is there something like an anthro-themed FB group or a subreddit that I could post this on?

---

Posts: 7073 | From: Fallbrook, CA | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tyrannohotep:
^ Thank you!

Now, if I may ask this again after the distraction with lioness...

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tyrannohotep:
By the way, do you guys also know of places where I can share the link to my article? I don't want to post it on ForumBiodiversity or any other "alt-right" community since it'll be casting pearls before swine. Is there something like an anthro-themed FB group or a subreddit that I could post this on?

---

---

Posts: 1891 | From: NY | Registered: Sep 2014  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by Elite Diasporan:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tyrannohotep:
^ Thank you!

Now, if I may ask this again after the distraction with lioness...

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tyrannohotep:
By the way, do you guys also know of places where I can share the link to my article? I don't want to post it on ForumBiodiversity or any other "alt-right" community since it'll be casting pearls before swine. Is there something like an anthro-themed FB group or a subreddit that I could post this on?

---

---

Why don't you try emailing this to major news sites? Anyways... I would suggest:


1. Anthrogenica

2. Twitter(if you have a following)

3. Tumblr

I know I tried to share this on many sites. I also tweeted it to "big names" on twitter lol.

---

Posts: 7073 | From: Fallbrook, CA | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                      

https://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/94/15/7719.full.pdf


from the above:

quote:

---

"One reasonable hypothesis is that the genetic distance
between Asia and Africa is shorter than that between Africa
and the other continents in Table 1 because both Africans and
Asians contributed to the settlement of Europe, which began
about 40,000 years ago.

---

Posts: 42925 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                      

quote:

---

https://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/94/15/7719.full.pdf

Genes, peoples, and languages
L. LUCA CAVALLI-SFORZA
1997

What we know of the occupation of different continents (1)
shows that West Asia was first settled around 100,000 years
ago, although perhaps not permanently. Oceania was occupied
first from Africa, more or less at the same time as East Asia
(both probably having been settled by the coastal route of
South Asia), and then from East Asia both Europe and
America were settled, the latter certainly from the north, via
the Bering Strait (then a wide land passage). The dates are
approximately known, and the genetic distances corresponding
to the splits in the unweighted pair–group method with
arithmetic mean tree (or approximately the averages of appropriate
columns and other entries in Table 2; see also ref. 1)
are in reasonable agreement with them. This is indicated by the
approximate constancy of the ratios D/T (genetic distance/
time of first settlement) in Table 2. There is a marked
uncertainty in the time of occupation of the Americas, and
genetic data suggest the earlier dates are correct.
But if very small groups of people were responsible for the
initial settlement, as suggested also by other considerations, genetic drift
may have been especially strong and the time of settlement,
calculated from genetic distances, will be in excess.
One reasonable hypothesis is that the genetic distance
between Asia and Africa is shorter than that between Africa
and the other continents in Table 1 because both Africans and
Asians contributed to the settlement of Europe, which began
about 40,000 years ago. It seems very reasonable to assume
that both continents nearest to Europe contributed to its
settlement, even if perhaps at different times and maybe
repeatedly. It is reassuring that the analysis of other markers
also consistently gives the same results in this case. Moreover,
a specific evolutionary model tested, i.e., that Europe is
formed by contributions from Asia and Africa, fits the distance
matrix perfectly (6). In this simplified model, the migrations
postulated to have populated Europe are estimated to have
occurred at an early date (30,000 years ago), but it is impossible
to distinguish, on the basis of these data, this model from that
of several migrations at different times.
THE OVERALL CONTRIBUTIONS FROM ASIA AND AFRICA WERE ESTIMATED TO BE AROUND
TWO-THIRDS AND ONE-THIRD, RESPECTIVELY.

---

last sentence ^^^

He is not saying here is not that today's European is 1/3 African due to admixture.
That is a face value interpretation of the above

According to OOA theory
the ancestors of Asians were once Africans. there was a genetic split by drift and mutation
and hence there are haplogroups that geneticists regard distinguishing Asians from Africans at the same time descendant of them

So he is talking about these two groups, Asians and Africans contributing to a later group 30,000 or so years ago who would later also become genetically distinct, Europeans
(as would Native Americans and earlier splits Oceanians)

Before Europeans there would have been Asians and Africans mixing for a while and one would see their respective haplogroups, perhaps males with a combination of on one side an African and in their other side of their parent ancestry Asian, just as if today an Asian and an African were to have a child together

However today, like Asians, Europeans have now evolved their own haplogroups according to
geneticists

So what Sfroza is talking about when he's talking about 1/3 (and I do not understand the method and it's execution that he uses to come up with this particular ratio)
but he is talking about Europeans at a time prior to when there were biological "Europeans"
when they were, according to him just mixed people of Asian and Africa descent with no unique haplotypes > yet

The Sforza article does not address the current amount of African admixture that Europeans have

For instance the most common YDNA group of Europeans today is only estimated tp be 4,500–9,000 BP
That's R1b-M269, well after the 30,000 years ago Sfroza if talking about.
Just look at that fact, R1b-M269 is a haplogroup that geneticists regard as European, not Asian or African and defiantly not Eats Asian. So right there it defeats the idea of 1/3 applying to modern day Europeans.
The most common E clade in Europeans is V13.
I was not able to find a statement on the percentage of all Europeans who carry this group. However this is the one clade of E that is more common outside of Africa so it is unclear as to regard this as African DNA or not.


So if his theory is correct
Europeans WERE one third African

not ARE

What they are today would have to be supported by other peer reviewed articles addressing African admixture in Europeans.
I looked for such an article but didn't find one yet that made a statement about modern Europeans as a whole but there is this chart



Human Genomic Diversity Where the Mediterranean Joins the Atlantic
Candela L Hernández

https://academic.oup.com/mbe/article/37/4/1041/5670533

Molecular Biology and Evolution, Volume 37, Issue 4, April 2020, Pages 1041–1055, https://doi.org/10.1093/molbev/msz288
Published: 09 December 2019

Posts: 42925 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010  |  IP: Logged |