quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: The Circle is complete. The presence of M1, U6 and etc., within Iberomaurusian genome makes it clear these haplogroups are not the result of a back migration. as I have said before Middle Eastern aDNA is African DNA.
Sumerian, Niger-Congo and Mende lol. I was trying to tell them Team Osiris dudes.
Posts: 1254 | From: howdy | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: @Capra There you go.
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: That there is no contact before ca. 12000 BC through the Strait of Gibraltar
Maybe, maybe not. The E-M78 indicates these males' ancestors came from the east. These samples do not represent the aboriginal Iberomaurusian population. Not fully, anyway. These new eastern arrivals could have lowered or obscured traces of European ancestry in the preexisting population they mixed with.
Do you identify these eastern arrivals with Afalou #28?? Do you think this explains the Afar connection? Also what of Hassi el Abiod??
Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Fourty2Tribes: I was just thinking, if this article doesn't mention Pygmies its flawed. My guess is the South Africans are admix-Ngunis. Mbutis and Ngunis.
no, the ancient South Africans are like modern Southern African Khoisan speakers such as !Kung, without the more recent admixture (they all have at least a little of East African ancestry). Nguni have a minority of ancestry from them but are very different overall.
Clyde and xyyman are floating far from the shores of reality in a sea of their own bullshit. none of this remotely supports their idiocy.
Posts: 660 | From: Canada | Registered: Mar 2017
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: Do you identify these eastern arrivals with Afalou #28?? Do you think this explains the Afar connection? Also what of Hassi el Abiod??
Good thinking by bringing him up. His remains were also found at deeper layers at the Afalou site. Can't say where he fits. Not too many analyses of Afalou 28. But he is extremely cold adapted according to Holliday. It's difficult to say where he fits.
This is part of what little we know about Afalou 28:
A similar, if less marked, clinal pattern is evident in the scatter plot of tibial length on femoral head size (Figure 2). Once again, the recent humans show a clinal pattern, with sub-Saharan Africans on average having the longest tibiae and circumpolar individuals possessing the shortest. As with the previous analysis, the North Africans are intermediate between the sub- Saharan Africans and the Europeans, whereas the Europeans tend toward longer tibiae than the Inuits. As a group, the Jebel Sahaba sample (the stars) tend to have longer tibiae for any given femoral head size than do the other fossil groups. Four of the eight Jebel Sahaba individuals (117-1, 117-6, 117-10 and 117-26) fall above the recent sub-Saharan African OLS line, with a fifth individual (117-19) falling directly on it. Three Jebel Sahaba individuals (117-18, 117-28 and 117-39) fall below the sub-Saharan OLS line. Of these, 117-28 lies above the recent North African OLS line, 117-39 falls directly on it and 117-18 falls just below it. In contrast, none of the Afalou skeletons (the grey circles) falls above the sub-Saharan African line; rather, they tend to cluster about the North African and European lines. Afalou 28 actually falls below the re- cent circumpolar human regression line for the tibial length: femoral head size relationship. Ain Dokhara 1 (the black circle) falls just above the North African and just below the sub-Saharan African OLS lines. The El Wad Natufians (the open squares) all cluster on or below the European regression line. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/oa.2315
As was the case with the bivariate analyses, among the prehis- toric skeletons, Afalou 28 looks the most extreme in its cold-adapted morphology, and note that this specimen was recovered some 2 m below the other human remains at the site (see succeeding discussions). https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/oa.2315
Perhaps the most interesting finding of this study is the dramatic difference in body proportions between Jebel Sahaba and the penecontemporary late Pleistocene Algerian sample from Afalou-Bou-Rhummel. The former evince a tropically adapted morphology, whereas the latter show a more cold-adapted body shape. This cold-adapted body form is most evident in Afalou 28, a male skeleton found buried 2 m below the other remains at the site, who was laid on his back with a child’s cra- nium at his feet (Arambourg, 1934; Camps, 1974; Lubell et al., 1984). Given the stratigraphic distance between this specimen and the other remains from Afalou-Bou- Rhummel, it is noteworthy that Afalou 28 is argued by many to be morphologically distinct from the other (later) humans from that site (Camps, 1974; Lubell et al., 1984; but see Vaufrey, 1955). https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/oa.2315
As far as the eastern connection, I've long known about new eastern arrivals after the first resettlement of post-Aterian groups (several of them, too). I just didn't know they were specifically E-M78 and how much of a demographic impact they had.
@Capra, remember me saying this (see quote below)? There is very clear evidence of migration from the east, actually. But you gotta dig deep in the archaeological side of things and ignore what a lot of opinionated researchers say about the origins and development of the Iberomaurusian and related cultures.
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: What type of affinity do you expect from Iberomaurusian aDNA? We will probably need a lot of aDNA from the Maghreb to get a clear picture because the Iberomaurusian is not one phenomenon or population:
quote:Turning to the Iberomaurusian, although the deposits at Taforalt represent a thick and fairly continuous record of human occupa- tion, there are in fact subtle variations in the cultural sequence. The clearest example is the switch from IB1 with marginally backed (‘Ouchtata’) blades and bladelets to IB2 dominated by microlithic backed bladelets. The actual transition between the two phases is marked by a sharp sedimentary contact between Units Y2/Y1.
posted
Being that there's an average 2.5 millennial separation between Afa28 and Taforalt (next oldest dated IBeromaurasian) and more than twice that between between the former and other Afalou Specimen, how do we interprate cultural continuity and how will that translate to genetics?
quote:Originally posted by capra: no, the ancient South Africans are like modern Southern African Khoisan speakers such as !Kung, without the more recent admixture (they all have at least a little of East African ancestry). Nguni have a minority of ancestry from them but are very different overall.
Clyde and xyyman are floating far from the shores of reality in a sea of their own bullshit. none of this remotely supports their idiocy. [/QB]
It's the same distance as West Africans. I was thinking they were both 'Bantu'ethnics who split from Mende and Yoruba when they split from Taforalt.
I'm saying Clyde is right because this pisses on back migration. Also, anyone who speaks to a large audience about the Sumerians speaking a Congo language is bound to get death threats.
Normally I don't like to mix linguistics with other fields because people speak the language of their location. When you have 15K old Moroccans plotting with Afars and Yemeni's while sharing ancestry with east/west Africans and Natufians it triangulates in central Africa so I could see Natufians speaking a language derived from Central Africa.
I never really got to the point of digging up all the reports talking about Afalou 28, so I don't know how old he is, and I don't have any firm ideas about what his genetic affinities are. His body proportions may be a red herring since he is just one individual (i.e. he may be an outlier in his own population). If I had to make a guess, I would say that a degree of cold adaptation occurred locally in the Maghreb. It's not unthinkable, because the Sahara is cold at night and it can even freeze there. And Nazlet Khater has a brachial index of 76, which is roughly the same as modern Europeans. So, contrary to popular belief, a degree of cold adaptation is not unthinkable just outside of the tropics or even within it. So, if Afalou 28's cold adaptation is a real thing and not an anomaly, and if he is older than the European migration to the Maghreb at the end of the Pleistocene, then there is no reason that it couldn't have happened locally.
In that case I would interpret Afalou 28 as primarily being a mixture of MSA and the earliest LSA populations, and with minimal relationship to the new population represented by E-M78. The latter population would have been more tropically adapted in my view. I can't prove this directly, of course, due to the lack of skeletal remains. But it is strongly implied in the fact that the arrival of new E-M35 carriers during the Natufian (who were obviously related to the E-M78 carriers from Taforalt) also led to more tropical body proportions in the Levant. In fact, the Afalou samples other than #28 are similar in degree of tropical adaptation as Holliday's el Wad Natufians, and both of these samples are roughly as dissimilar to their local predecessors in terms of bodyplan. So it's tempting to say that new arrivals carrying E-M35 caused an increase of tropical body proportions in both regions.
In that case, Afalou 28's mixed pattern of physical relationships (cold adapted, but with cranio-facial features consistent with African ancestry) can interpreted as simply not being affected as much by the the presumably younger European and E-M78 arrivals. Any mixture with northern and eastern populations is more likely to have made Afalou 28 more tropically adapted, because he is seemingly more cold adapted than UP Europeans (ironically) and these E-M35 carriers.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
On a side note, African ancestry in the Taforalt are more less somewhere between East African and Natufians, a good spot for Basal Eurasian, Yet they have noticeable levels of Neanderthal DNA despite there being no evidence of outlying West Eurasian Geneflow. "Basal Eurasian" is looking more like what I said it'll be.
Remember, you don't get Neanderthal DNA from being European you hang on to it by staying away from African diversity. BTW which one is Neanderthal?
Posts: 1254 | From: howdy | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: If I had to make a guess, I would say that a degree of cold adaptation occurred locally in the Maghreb. It's not unthinkable, because the Sahara is cold at night and it can even freeze there. And Nazlet Khater has a brachial index of 76, which is roughly the same as modern Europeans. So, contrary to popular belief, a degree of cold adaptation is not unthinkable just outside of the tropics or even within it. So, if Afalou 28's cold adaptation is a real thing and not an anomaly, and if he is older than the European migration to the Maghreb at the end of the Pleistocene, then there is no reason that it couldn't have happened locally.
Ironically, I remember the time that people on ES were citing the "tropical" limb proportions of AE remains as evidence that they would have arrived in Egypt from regions to the south rather than being indigenous to the eastern Sahara. This would have been between 2009 and 2011, well before the DNA Tribes reports came out.
Presumably, AE coming from the tropical south isn't a conclusion we accept any more. But if they were indeed native to the eastern Sahara like you've been maintaining, I wouldn't say the Sahara is the best place for cold adaptation.
EDIT: Of course, during the terminal Pleistocene, the Northwest African climate would have been even cooler than it is today. The northern Sahara would have been temperate rather than subtropical for example:
posted
^The LSA in North Africa (one of the sources of 'North African ancestry') is relatively young, ~30kya at most. Before that they could have lived in the Sahel or further south in Sub-Saharan Africa. The MSA in the Maghreb is much older, and so the populations there had more time to adapt to cold climate. This (i.e. more MSA ancestry) could explain why Afalou 28 is more cold adapted than E-M35 carriers. But this is just a generalization on my part. E-M35 populations undoubtedly also would have had MSA ancestry. Plus, some MSA populations in North Africa might not have been (as) cold adapted. So-called 'cultural buffering' is another factor that helps determine bodyplan (not just climate).
And thanks for the maps.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
I feel like I have to get too creative to explain the discrepancy in SSA relatedness for E1b1b if I were to Attribute Taforalts contemporary Non-Natufian ancestry to M78. Now if East Africans were originally much more "Near eastern" autosomally from the get-go... theoretically a sample like Afa28 might not be less SSA in comparison to Taforalt but less Natufian-like?
I'm looking at the Mt Haplotyple predictions of Afalou and thinking what if these supposedly more Negroid types (including Jebel Sahaba) actually turn out to be less or maybe even just as SSA than Taforalt. ..seemingly the ancestors of some Nilo-Saharan and Omotic(presumably) populations are simply a bottleneck Sans recombination away from being precursory to what we believe is Near eastern.
...Just a Thought.
Edit: I'm also saying their has to be some UP European, or even WHG correspondence with Natufians (and in turn Ibermaurasians based on Taforalts results) just off the strength of detectable patterns when referring to the Natufian genome. It's probably the missing step, the reason why East Africans or Africans with *recent Eurasian ancestry have inflated "Natufian" Signatures.
@Fourty2Tribes You Have Ust_Ishim on one end and you have Mota on the other... deductive reasoning - the populations are listed in order from most Neanderthal to least. And even though I personally understand what you're trying to say... I think the way it's communicated is flawed. For instance, statistically in your mind, what are the odds that two populations with completely different histories retain the same archaic signatures after their respective bottlenecks/drift.
Posts: 1781 | From: New York | Registered: Jul 2016
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro: Pleistocene North African genomes link Near Eastern and sub-Saharan African human populations Marieke van de Loosdrecht1, Abdeljalil Bouzouggar2,3,*,†, Louise Humphrey4, Cosimo Posth1, Nick Barton
quote:Abstract North Africa is a key region for understanding human history, but the genetic history of its people is largely unknown. We present genomic data from seven 15,000-year-old modern humans from Morocco, attributed to the Iberomaurusian culture. We find a genetic affinity with early Holocene Near Easterners, best represented by Levantine Natufians, suggesting a pre-agricultural connection between Africa and the Near East. We do not find evidence for gene flow from Paleolithic Europeans into Late Pleistocene North Africans. The Taforalt individuals derive one third of their ancestry from sub-Saharan Africans, best approximated by a mixture of genetic components preserved in present-day West and East Africans. Thus, we provide direct evidence for genetic interactions between modern humans across Africa and Eurasia in the Pleistocene.
A lot of African Papers dropped in the last few days ...Idk whats going on. blessing of the Black panther??
Africa is the birthplace of humans, specifically areas South of the Sahara. Therefore the further you go back in time the more humans get close to SSA. This should be obvious but these headlines about "Sub Saharan" mixture are implying it would be impossible for African DNA to be in Early North Africans is stupid. They are still trying to find a way to separate the history of North Africa from Africa proper...... The title tells it all.
I mean of course there is going to be a genetic relationship between Africans in Africa no matter what part of the continent and Africa and the Near East and Africa and Europe. Humans came from Africa.
They are going to keep spinning this DNA and what it means as long as they possibly can, trying to down play the fact that ALL human genes ultimately come from Africa.
And obviously 14,000 - 30,000 years ago there weren't that many "white" Eurasians running around and definitely not in Africa.
Anyway the current model of this time period is still that the older humans populations from the Aterian upwards of 40thousand years ago to 145thousand years ago died off or migrated elsewhere and a new population came into North Africa during the Iberomaurisan. Now when we say North Africa we are really talking about areas very close to the coast like Morocco and Tunisia. We are not talking about the central Sahara. There are few remains from the central Sahara when it was lush. So there is a big question about what DNA central Saharan populations carried during that time period. Anyway, since these areas are close to the coast it was always assumed that the humans there migrated from across the Mediterranean or from the Levant/Arabia. Of course they also could have come from East Africa or the interior of Africa as well. And the Hadza like DNA represents that intraAfrican gene flow and nobody should be shocked. Africans never stopped moving out of Africa and into Arabia and the Levant long after OOA. People have been moving around between these areas to some degree for a long time. It is impossible to model a "clean split" between Africans, Levantines and Arabians after OOA. Unfortunately this is still the model many of these paper go by (going back to the old African / Non African DNA tree from a few years back).
This tree can be interpreted as all "Eurasians" being a "clean split" genetically from Africans in terms of DNA, with Africa only having MTDNA L and Eurasia getting everything else. It also can be interpreted as Eurasians have no significant additional mixture with Africans since OOA. That may be true the further you get from Africa but between North East Africa, the Levant and Arabia it certainly isn't true. But this model is what creates the concept of Eurasian "backmigration" as the primary model for North African DNA which omits any African input in most cases.
Unfortunately until we get a DNA model of Africa going back 40,000 years or more without the "Basal Eurasian" model distorting the data, we will always have this problem.
quote: The importance of North Africa in the emergence of modern Homo sapiens has been traditionally neglected. However, recent archaeological and paleontological evidence increasingly points to this area as a potential source of out-of-Africa migrations [10],[11]. Recent dating of the characteristic North African lithic industry, called Aterian, has provided much older dates than previously assumed, now ranging from 145 Kya to 40 Kya [12],[13]. These Aterian people made personal ornaments with shells, a sign of modern human symbolic behavior [14]. Morphometric analyses of the 80 Kya Dar es-Soltan skull (Morocco) and of Aterian hominin teeth show similarities with early modern humans from Qafzeh and Skhul (Israel) and with the later skull of Pestera cu Oase (Romania) [15],[16].
quote: Anatomically modern humans (AMH), defined by a lightly built skeleton, large brain, reduced face, and prominent chin, first appear in the East African fossil record around 200,000 years ago [1, 2]. There is a general consensus that, while dispersing from there, they largely replaced preexisting archaic human forms [3]. Recent DNA studies also suggest that the replacement was not complete, and there was a limited, but nonzero, interbreeding with Neandertals [4], Denisovans [5], and perhaps other African forms still unidentified at the fossil level [6, 7]. As a result, modern populations might differ in the amount of archaic genes incorporated in their gene pool, which are eventually expressed and may result in phenotypic differences affecting, for example, the immune response [8] or lipid catabolism [9].
Although the general picture is getting clearer, many aspects of these processes are still poorly understood, starting from the timing and the modes of AMH dispersal. The main exit from Africa, through the Levant, has been dated around 56,000 years ago [10, 11]. However, morphologic [12, 13], archaeological [14], and genetic [13, 15–20] evidence suggest that part of the AMH population might have dispersed before that date, possibly by a Southern route into southern Asia through the horn of Africa and the Arab Peninsula.
Regardless of whether there was a single major expansion or two, several DNA studies clearly showed that genetic diversity tends to decrease [21, 22] and linkage disequilibrium to increase [23, 24] at increasing distances from Africa. This probably means that, as they came to occupy their current range, AMH went through a series of founder effects [25, 26]. These results offer an excellent set of predictions which we used in the present study to test whether current genomic diversity is better accounted for by processes involving a single major dispersal (hereafter: SD) or multiple major dispersals (hereafter: MD) from Africa.
Sometimes you can tell the order of when haplogroups arrived just by looking at the overall hg profile. When uniparentals of a certain type are overrepresented, they're typically the last to have arrived in a population. Based on this you can tell that the Taforalt sample's SSA-like autosomal ancestry primarily represents old ancestry that doesn't have hg representation because their hgs got dwarfed or displaced by newcomers. This is why, for instance, once dominant Y-DNA I and G are no longer dominant in Europe.
Until I see certain mtDNA L types I'm not convinced that the non-Natufian components in this Taforalt sample are recent SSA ancestry. This is the second time this is happening, BTW. IAM also didn't have mtDNA L. I still have to read the supp data, though. So I won't dismiss any scenario just yet.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Africa is the birthplace of humans, specifically areas South of the Sahara. Therefore the further you go back in time the more humans get close to SSA. This should be obvious but these headlines about "Sub Saharan" mixture are implying it would be impossible for African DNA to be in Early North Africans is stupid. They are still trying to find a way to separate the history of North Africa from Africa proper...... The title tells it all.
I mean of course there is going to be a genetic relationship between Africans in Africa no matter what part of the continent and Africa and the Near East and Africa and Europe. Humans came from Africa.
You already fucked up. This is why I cringe every time I see you post. ...It's not because I don't like you ...It's not because you're wrong af ...It's not because I even disagree with you
You come with the same political bullshit over and over again, preaching to the choir while simultaneously exposing the fact that you're lost over and over again. But then you act like you have a one up or even an understanding of what you comment on meanwhile you don't. AND it shows BADLY.
At the very fucking least READ the conversation that other posters are having on the previous page!!! Holy shit.
We already know you are lost, no need to grandstand either ...humble yourself and ask some fucking questions.
The authors suggest a link between Africans and near easterners, a Gradient. There's no evidence of mixture in these samples presented in the study. Your whole point crashed and fucking burned before you even got started. If we were to look at these samples reported by this study in isolation, disregarding everything we know from previous genetic studies and archaeology, these LSA north Africans would be intermediates of SSA and the Near east. NOT a "mixture." What you're attempting to argue is NOT your biggest problem (it isn't even a problem at all).
Posts: 1781 | From: New York | Registered: Jul 2016
| IP: Logged |
He is the same type who believes when we say East Africans(East African Nilotics for example) are more close to Eurasian than other Africans then that means we are saying East Africans are "mixed."
Posts: 1891 | From: NY | Registered: Sep 2014
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Africa is the birthplace of humans, specifically areas South of the Sahara. Therefore the further you go back in time the more humans get close to SSA. This should be obvious but these headlines about "Sub Saharan" mixture are implying it would be impossible for African DNA to be in Early North Africans is stupid. They are still trying to find a way to separate the history of North Africa from Africa proper...... The title tells it all.
I mean of course there is going to be a genetic relationship between Africans in Africa no matter what part of the continent and Africa and the Near East and Africa and Europe. Humans came from Africa.
You already fucked up. This is why I cringe every time I see you post. ...It's not because I don't like you ...It's not because you're wrong af ...It's not because I even disagree with you
You come with the same political bullshit over and over again, preaching to the choir while simultaneously exposing the fact that you're lost over and over again. But then you act like you have a one up or even an understanding of what you comment on meanwhile you don't. AND it shows BADLY.
At the very fucking least READ the conversation that other posters are having on the previous page!!! Holy shit.
We already know you are lost, no need to grandstand either ...humble yourself and ask some fucking questions.
The authors suggest a link between Africans and near easterners, a Gradient. There's no evidence of mixture in these samples presented in the study. Your whole point crashed and fucking burned before you even got started. If we were to look at these samples reported by this study in isolation, disregarding everything we know from previous genetic studies and archaeology, these LSA north Africans would be intermediates of SSA and the Near east. NOT a "mixture." What you're attempting to argue is NOT your biggest problem (it isn't even a problem at all).
quote:The Taforalt individuals derive one third of their ancestry from sub-Saharan Africans, best approximated by a mixture of genetic components preserved in present-day West and East Africans.
But anyway.....
quote:Originally posted by Elite Diasporan: @Elmaestro
He is the same type who believes when we say East Africans(East African Nilotics for example) are more close to Eurasian than other Africans then that means we are saying East Africans are "mixed."
It says "mixture" in the extract. Care to explain?
I mean you guys got me thinking SOMEBODY cant read. Just wanted to check and make sure I read english properly....... Because you know sometimes I do type too fast.
The overall point was that this is what you would EXPECT if OOA is valid. North African populations 20000 years ago would be both temporally and geographically intermediate, with SSA approximating the origin of all humans.
The PROBLEM has been that all these papers keep pushing ancient North Africans as "Eurasian". And I personally never agreed with that sentiment.
But anyway......
Now if you didn't agree just say so. But don't tell me what to think. I don't tell you what to think (whether I agree or not) but don't tell me what to think either.
Posts: 8889 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
"The Taforalt individuals derive one third of their ancestry from sub-Saharan Africans, best approximated by a mixture of genetic components preserved in present-day West and East Africans."
...Does this read to you as Taforalt are a mixture of Non Africans and SSA? Please do tell
Yes or no?
No long winded bullshit.... I wanna know if the problem is that you lack reading comprehension skills.
Posts: 1781 | From: New York | Registered: Jul 2016
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro: now you look fucking stupid.
"The Taforalt individuals derive one third of their ancestry from sub-Saharan Africans, best approximated by a mixture of genetic components preserved in present-day West and East Africans."
...Does this read to you as Taforalt are a mixture of Non Africans and SSA? Please do tell
Yes or no?
No long winded bullshit.... I wanna know if the problem is that you lack reading comprehension skills.
Seriously?
quote: We find a genetic affinity with early Holocene Near Easterners, best represented by Levantine Natufians, suggesting a pre-agricultural connection between Africa and the Near East. We do not find evidence for gene flow from Paleolithic Europeans into Late Pleistocene North Africans. The Taforalt individuals derive one third of their ancestry from sub-Saharan Africans, best approximated by a mixture of genetic components preserved in present-day West and East Africans. Thus, we provide direct evidence for genetic interactions between modern humans across Africa and Eurasia in the Pleistocene.
Ultimately yes, the word mixture is used in reference to East and West Africans. But that is in regards to the 1/3 of the DNA that has a "Sub Saharan" affinity. The rest they model as coming from the "Near East". Mixture was highlighted to point out the components are ALL TOGETHER in these population as a mixture of different ancestral groups. Not sure how you cannot understand that. Mixture means non homogenous, meaning some from Eurasia and some from Africa hence a composite or mixture.....
Definition of Mixture
quote: a combination of different qualities, things, or emotions in which the component elements are individually distinct.
As in 'mixture of Sub Saharan and Eurasian DNA components'.....
OK? Do you understand me now?
Posts: 8889 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
...And he keeps Going! dude you have no fucking point ...yeild, concede ..you make no sense. read my second comment on the first page... look at the third image and read the quote. just fucking quit dude.
Posts: 1781 | From: New York | Registered: Jul 2016
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro: ...And he keeps Going! dude you have no fucking point ...yeild, concede ..you make no sense. read my second comment on the first page... look at the third image and read the quote. just fucking quit dude.
Dude stop. We both know what mixture means. Stop pretending this is about the word mixture.
OK?
Whatever it is about it is not about that word is my point.
Another one of those telling people how to use english folks.
Posts: 8889 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
THE SUB-SAHARAN *GENETIC COMPONENTS* ARE APPROXIMATED
APPROXIMATED
APPROXIMATED
APPROXIMATED
AS A MIXTURE OF EAST AND WEST AFRICANS.
Yo this is unbeleivable lol. So the problem IS that this guy lacks reading comprehension skills. His poor interpretation of a fucking sentence overrides this quote
quote:Fig. S17. Weighted LD decay in Taforalt. (A-E) We estimated the weighted LD decay pattern in Taforalt using BedouinB and one sub-Saharan African population as references. Regardless of our choice of reference, no exponential decay pattern against genetic distance was observed, suggesting that there is no signal of recent admixture in Taforalt. We obtained similar results when we tested different Near Eastern references, including Sardinian, Palestinian, Natufian and Levant_N (data not shown). (F) In contrast, present-day North African Saharawi shows a clear LD decay pattern with recent admixture time estimate (17.1 ± 3.1 generations ago; p = 4.2×10-8 for the significance of exponential decay).
"the word mixture means they're not homogeneous" ...like what the fuck are you talking about?
Posts: 1781 | From: New York | Registered: Jul 2016
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't know whether to pop an Tylenol or be entertained at how hard he's tapdancing for those vacation hours.
Posts: 2508 | From: . | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro: THE SUB-SAHARAN *GENETIC COMPONENTS* ARE APPROXIMATED
APPROXIMATED
APPROXIMATED
APPROXIMATED
AS A MIXTURE OF EAST AND WEST AFRICANS.
Yo this is unbeleivable lol. So the problem IS that this guy lacks reading comprehension skills. His poor interpretation of a fucking sentence overrides this quote
quote:Fig. S17. Weighted LD decay in Taforalt. (A-E) We estimated the weighted LD decay pattern in Taforalt using BedouinB and one sub-Saharan African population as references. Regardless of our choice of reference, no exponential decay pattern against genetic distance was observed, suggesting that there is no signal of recent admixture in Taforalt. We obtained similar results when we tested different Near Eastern references, including Sardinian, Palestinian, Natufian and Levant_N (data not shown). (F) In contrast, present-day North African Saharawi shows a clear LD decay pattern with recent admixture time estimate (17.1 ± 3.1 generations ago; p = 4.2×10-8 for the significance of exponential decay).
"the word mixture means they're not homogeneous" ...like what the fuck are you talking about?
The "mixture" is the composite of the approximated Levantine plus East and West African genetic components in the ANCIENT Taforalt population. I am not talking about "recent mixture".
quote:Thus, we provide direct evidence for genetic interactions between modern humans across Africa and Eurasia in the Pleistocene.
I am talking about how those genes got to the site in Taforalt 20,000 years ago as a "mixture" of African and Levantine DNA in ancient times not recently .....
Again the point was that Africans migrating out of Africa COULD have split and went both West into North Africa and into the Levant producing that signature. Or they first went to the Levant and then moved into North Africa with no influence from local populations in Africa or lastly they first went to the Levant and then came back across North Africa and absorbed some local "North African" populations.
This is not about "recent" mixture with anything.
Posts: 8889 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
LD decay captures mixture dates going back to over ~300 generations which is an average of rough 9000 years.. the Taforalt samples are upto 15Kya... Math says that 24kyo admixture would be detected. which n respects to the date of the specimen is "recent" nonetheless admixture before 20,000 years ago would be detected.
The authors conclude that the SSA ancestry most probably represents continuity from MSA North Africans... Which was also discussed and mentioned on the previous page.
..Doug just concede.
Posts: 1781 | From: New York | Registered: Jul 2016
| IP: Logged |
quote:Fig. S17. Weighted LD decay in Taforalt. (A-E) We estimated the weighted LD decay pattern in Taforalt using BedouinB and one sub-Saharan African population as references. Regardless of our choice of reference, no exponential decay pattern against genetic distance was observed, suggesting that there is no signal of recent admixture in Taforalt. We obtained similar results when we tested different Near Eastern references, including Sardinian, Palestinian, Natufian and Levant_N (data not shown). (F) In contrast, present-day North African Saharawi shows a clear LD decay pattern with recent admixture time estimate (17.1 ± 3.1 generations ago; p = 4.2×10-8 for the significance of exponential decay).
This is an interesting quote. Not just because they failed to find a Eurasian admixture event (which is very interesting in that it cautions against baseless backmigration claims), but because it shows that a lot of these papers lack holistic analysis. The branch leading to E-M78 is only 19ky old and this Taforalt sample is 15ky old. So admixture must have happened in that interval of 4000 years (19-15ky). The admixture was probably closer to 15ky than 19ky ago, too. Sometimes all these researchers need is common sense, not high-tech tools and software.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ Which is precisely why M78 couldn't have came with SSA-like signatures and/or inversely without partial near eastern ancestry in my personal.
Posts: 1781 | From: New York | Registered: Jul 2016
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Not just because they failed to find a Eurasian admixture event (which is very interesting in that it cautions against baseless backmigration claims), but because it shows that a lot of these papers lack holistic analysis. The branch leading to E-M78 is only 19ky old and this Taforalt sample is 15ky old. So admixture must have happened in that interval of 4000 years (19-15ky). The admixture was probably closer to 15ky than 19ky ago, too. Sometimes all these researchers need is common sense, not high-tech tools and software.
an alternative common sense interpretation would be that Swenet is wrong about E-M78.
or if admixture is required, that it occurred between populations which were autosomally fairly similar to begin with. i don't think the LD test would pick that up. so what Elmaestro said, though i'm not sure how powerful these methods are with low coverage ancient genomes and lots of population drift.
PS according to a couple of sources this is pre-E-M78 with about 20% or 25% of M78 equivalent SNPs negative. given the uncertainty in TMRCAs it could have split from the ancestors of modern E-M78 a couple thousand years earlier, or ancestral E-M78 could have been next door. more likely the former.
Posts: 660 | From: Canada | Registered: Mar 2017
| IP: Logged |
If with "SSA-like" you mean recent ancestry from SSA, then I agree. If you mean that E-M78 had no admixture with North African MSA AMH ultimately from and still genetically resembling SSA populations to a degree, then I would disagree. All Palaeolithic North African skeletal remains are mixed to varying degrees with something MSA AMH. This is why there are no crown Eurasian components or skeletal remains in Africa and why the stay-at-home OOA candidates don't look exactly like 'Cro-Magnons' or anything in Eurasia (except Australasians in some cases).
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by capra: an alternative common sense interpretation would be that Swenet is wrong about E-M78.
or if admixture is required, that it occurred between populations which were autosomally fairly similar to begin with. i don't think the LD test would pick that up. so what Elmaestro said, though i'm not sure how powerful these methods are with low coverage ancient genomes and lots of population drift.
PS according to a couple of sources this is pre-E-M78 with about 20% or 25% of M78 equivalent SNPs negative. given the uncertainty in TMRCAs it could have split from the ancestors of modern E-M78 a couple thousand years earlier, or ancestral E-M78 could have been next door. more likely the former. [/QB]
Feel free to elaborate in regards to the bolded. Wrong about E-M78, in what way? That the Y-DNAs are possibly not E-M78 proper? Remember, I'm going by what the paper says. Everything I say, in fact, everything we all say, is with the assumption that the authors aren't screwing up.
So, if my reasoning is off about the admixture event because these Y-DNAs aren't E-M78 proper (but ancestral E-M78, or something else completely), then that would reflect deeper issues with the paper. I can only comment on the paper based on what it says and based on other consensus assumptions (like E-M78's approximate age). I can't do remote viewing and ESP on the genomes and comment on the paper with 100% personally verified observations.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
wrong about whatever it is that leads you to believe the Taforalt guys should have admixture 15-19 000 years ago due to their having E-M78. i'm not clear why you think that.
Posts: 660 | From: Canada | Registered: Mar 2017
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by capra: wrong about whatever it is that leads you to believe the Taforalt guys should have admixture 15-19 000 years ago due to their having E-M78. i'm not clear why you think that.
Because U6 and M1b on the one hand, and E-M78 on the other hand, don't have the same evolutionary history. And U6 and M1 also don't have the same evolutionary history. What I mean when I say "don't have the same evolutionary history" is that they were inevitably brought together at some point. And so this inevitably means that this Taforalt population came together as a result of at least three admixture events, with E-M78 being the latest one based on its age.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
sure - though U6 and pre-M1 could go way back - but why does it have to be E-M78 specifically rather than E-M35? the TMRCA of E-M35 according to YFull (not that it's gospel) is about 22-26 000 years. the TMRCAs of M1 and U6a according to this paper are 20-29 000 years. all have the same central estimate. so why not then?
Posts: 660 | From: Canada | Registered: Mar 2017
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro: And even though I personally understand what you're trying to say... I think the way it's communicated is flawed. For instance, statistically in your mind, what are the odds that two populations with completely different histories retain the same archaic signatures after their respective bottlenecks/drift.
You kind of lost me. They haven't maintained the the same signatures. Doesnt it range from 2-5.5% OoA isnt and it increases as we go back in time? With African populations the number is 0-0.5% and that number also increases as you go back in time.
Where you would estimate the percentages with F4-statistics? Is there a formula for that? I wan't to see if I can predict it.
Posts: 1254 | From: howdy | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by capra: sure - though U6 and pre-M1 could go way back - but why does it have to be E-M78 specifically rather than E-M35? the TMRCA of E-M35 according to YFull (not that it's gospel) is about 22-26 000 years. the TMRCAs of M1 and U6a according to this paper are 20-29 000 years. all have the same central estimate. so why not then?
The central theme of ~25kya in U6, M1 and E-M35 reflects similar demographic reactions to climatic conditions in North Africa during the LGM. They don't reflect the lineages coming together in the ancestral Taforalt population 25kya.
By making this sample a result of U6, M1 and E-M35 coming together 25ky ago, you're attaching way too much significance to this sample. The history of this Taforalt sample involves just a couple of threads in the larger evolutionary storyline of U6, M1 and E-M35 (and other haplogroups that have yet to be found, like L3k and E-M33). The ancestors of later Egyptians also belong to a couple of threads of this meta-population, as did ancient Libyans, Natufians and some southern Europeans. These threads all unfolded simultaneously and independantly and then came together during times of admixture, only to seperate again, starting 25kya.
And this Taforalt population has no special or central role in this storyline. It just involves a couple of threads that came together in this population. Nothing more. It would be a mistake to interpret this Taforalt sample as having formed 25kya and somehow being at the center of all this history.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Taforalt doesn't have to be at the centre of anything, it would just be one descendent population.
them lacking evidence of admixture is evidence against them being due to later admixture. so why is your scenario preferable? (genuine non-rhetorical question.)
Posts: 660 | From: Canada | Registered: Mar 2017
| IP: Logged |
Pleistocene North African genomes link Near Eastern and sub-Saharan African human populations 2018
Marieke van de Loosdrecht1
Mitochondrial consensus sequences of the Taforalt indi-viduals belong to the U6a (n = 6) and M1b (n = 1) haplogroups (15), which are mostly confined to present-day populations in North and East Africa (7). U6 and M1 have been proposed as markers for autochthonous Maghreb ancestry, which might have been originally introduced into this region by a back-to-Africa migration from West Asia (6, 7). The occurrence of both haplogroups in the Taforalt individuals proves their pre-Holocene presence in the Maghreb. We analyzed the seven ancient Taforalt in combination with four Upper Paleolithic European mtDNA genomes (22, 23) and present-day individ-uals belonging to U6 and M1 (7) in BEAST v1.8.1 (24). Using a human mtDNA mutation rate inferred from tip calibration of ancient mtDNA genomes (23), we obtained divergence es-timates for U6 at 37,000 yBP (40,000-34,000 yBP for 95% highest posterior density, HPD) and M1 at 24,000 yBP (95% HPD, 29,000-20,000 yBP) (table S15). Our estimates are con-siderably younger than those of a study using present-day data only (45,000 ± 7000 yBP for U6 and 37,000 ± 7000 yBP for M1) (7), though similar to those of (25). Moreover, we ob-serve an asynchronous increase in the effective population size for U6 and M1 (fig. S24). This suggests that the demo-graphic histories of these North and East African haplog-roups do not coincide and might have been influenced by multiple expansions in the Late Pleistocene (25). Notably, the diversification of haplogroup U6a and M1 found for Taforalt is dated to ~24,000 yBP (fig. S23), which is close in time to
.
.
How come Kefi 2016 did not show M1 ?
.
On the origin of Iberomaurusians: new data based on ancient mitochondrial DNA and phylogenetic analysis of Afalou and Taforalt populations, Rym Kefi et al. 2016
quote:Originally posted by capra: Taforalt doesn't have to be at the centre of anything, it would just be one descendent population.
See what I said in my previous post. There is no evidence of a union 25ky. What you see as a union of the three hgs just reflects reactions to the same climatic events. If you disagree then it would be nice to see evidence for this position. At 25kya U6, M1 and E-M35 only show bifurcation, not coming together and forming an ancestral population.
quote:Originally posted by capra: them lacking evidence of admixture is evidence against them being due to later admixture. so why is your scenario preferable? (genuine non-rhetorical question.)
There are several precedents in the literature of notoriously hybrid populations showing no evidence of admixture events, or showing a distorted picture of admixture events. Besides, I could ask you a similar question . Remember that your interpretation (of the three haplogroups coming together 25ky) is also inconsistent with there being no admixture event. How do you reconcile your position that these hgs came together 25ky ago, and that this result of no admixture is valid? I know you just said that it can be explained if the three streams of ancestry were already similar, but the ancestry components of this population are highly differentiated. For instance, it has to specifically be modelled as Natufian-like and Natufians themselves are also made up of highly distinct ancestry components. So why doesn't your scenario result in a detectable admixture event? It's simply not possible to avoid the conclusion that there were several common sense admixture events, whether you agree with my comments on E-M78 or not.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
I never really got to the point of digging up all the reports talking about Afalou 28, so I don't know how old he is, and I don't have any firm ideas about what his genetic affinities are. His body proportions may be a red herring since he is just one individual (i.e. he may be an outlier in his own population). If I had to make a guess, I would say that a degree of cold adaptation occurred locally in the Maghreb. It's not unthinkable, because the Sahara is cold at night and it can even freeze there. And Nazlet Khater has a brachial index of 76, which is roughly the same as modern Europeans. So, contrary to popular belief, a degree of cold adaptation is not unthinkable just outside of the tropics or even within it. So, if Afalou 28's cold adaptation is a real thing and not an anomaly, and if he is older than the European migration to the Maghreb at the end of the Pleistocene, then there is no reason that it couldn't have happened locally.
In that case I would interpret Afalou 28 as primarily being a mixture of MSA and the earliest LSA populations, and with minimal relationship to the new population represented by E-M78. The latter population would have been more tropically adapted in my view. I can't prove this directly, of course, due to the lack of skeletal remains. But it is strongly implied in the fact that the arrival of new E-M35 carriers during the Natufian (who were obviously related to the E-M78 carriers from Taforalt) also led to more tropical body proportions in the Levant. In fact, the Afalou samples other than #28 are similar in degree of tropical adaptation as Holliday's el Wad Natufians, and both of these samples are roughly as dissimilar to their local predecessors in terms of bodyplan. So it's tempting to say that new arrivals carrying E-M35 caused an increase of tropical body proportions in both regions.
In that case, Afalou 28's mixed pattern of physical relationships (cold adapted, but with cranio-facial features consistent with African ancestry) can interpreted as simply not being affected as much by the the presumably younger European and E-M78 arrivals. Any mixture with northern and eastern populations is more likely to have made Afalou 28 more tropically adapted, because he is seemingly more cold adapted than UP Europeans (ironically) and these E-M35 carriers.
I myself have suspected the possibility of indigenous North Africans evolving cold adaptated traits locally. If such is the case then this definitely would explain the cold adapted features of Natufians and thus further support their African origins.
By the way, are you aware that certain Australian aboriginal groups, specifically Tasmanians, have cold adapted traits as well?
I never really got to the point of digging up all the reports talking about Afalou 28, so I don't know how old he is, and I don't have any firm ideas about what his genetic affinities are. His body proportions may be a red herring since he is just one individual (i.e. he may be an outlier in his own population). If I had to make a guess, I would say that a degree of cold adaptation occurred locally in the Maghreb. It's not unthinkable, because the Sahara is cold at night and it can even freeze there. And Nazlet Khater has a brachial index of 76, which is roughly the same as modern Europeans. So, contrary to popular belief, a degree of cold adaptation is not unthinkable just outside of the tropics or even within it. So, if Afalou 28's cold adaptation is a real thing and not an anomaly, and if he is older than the European migration to the Maghreb at the end of the Pleistocene, then there is no reason that it couldn't have happened locally.
In that case I would interpret Afalou 28 as primarily being a mixture of MSA and the earliest LSA populations, and with minimal relationship to the new population represented by E-M78. The latter population would have been more tropically adapted in my view. I can't prove this directly, of course, due to the lack of skeletal remains. But it is strongly implied in the fact that the arrival of new E-M35 carriers during the Natufian (who were obviously related to the E-M78 carriers from Taforalt) also led to more tropical body proportions in the Levant. In fact, the Afalou samples other than #28 are similar in degree of tropical adaptation as Holliday's el Wad Natufians, and both of these samples are roughly as dissimilar to their local predecessors in terms of bodyplan. So it's tempting to say that new arrivals carrying E-M35 caused an increase of tropical body proportions in both regions.
In that case, Afalou 28's mixed pattern of physical relationships (cold adapted, but with cranio-facial features consistent with African ancestry) can interpreted as simply not being affected as much by the the presumably younger European and E-M78 arrivals. Any mixture with northern and eastern populations is more likely to have made Afalou 28 more tropically adapted, because he is seemingly more cold adapted than UP Europeans (ironically) and these E-M35 carriers.
I myself have suspected the possibility of indigenous North Africans evolving cold adaptated traits locally. If such is the case then this definitely would explain the cold adapted features of Natufians and thus further support their African origins.
By the way, are you aware that certain Australian aboriginal groups, specifically Tasmanians, have cold adapted traits as well?
Yes. Different phenotypes and genotypes (skin pigmentation, climate, ancestry, degree of limb elongation, body size [Bergmann’s rule], facial features, etc) often obsessed over are in no obligation to occur together. In some cases this can upset people’s politics. Which is what we’ve just seen with Cheddar Man.
posted
I would like to think cold adaptation was just a process of stockier people preferring cooler weather and lankier people saying f that its too cold. Beats thinking about babies dying. Could this just be another example of African diversity. Aren't tropical adapted and cold adapted populations on a bell curves?
Posts: 1254 | From: howdy | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro: ...Still going.
LD decay captures mixture dates going back to over ~300 generations which is an average of rough 9000 years.. the Taforalt samples are upto 15Kya... Math says that 24kyo admixture would be detected. which n respects to the date of the specimen is "recent" nonetheless admixture before 20,000 years ago would be detected.
The authors conclude that the SSA ancestry most probably represents continuity from MSA North Africans... Which was also discussed and mentioned on the previous page.
..Doug just concede.
I understand what your point but what you are saying has nothing to do with what I said.
When I originally said "mixture" I wasn't referring to any specific incidence of mixture as opposed to the "composite" signature overall in Taforalt which contains both Levantine and African DNA. This is the only kind of mixture I am talking about in a general sense. You really had me going there because I know I said it right the first time.
So for clarification,
quote:The authors conclude that the SSA ancestry most probably represents continuity from MSA North Africans
... MIXED WITH Levantine DNA. Somewhere somehow mixture occurred. They would be HOMOGENOUS if they only carried the African DNA and no Levanine or vice versa.
But that wasn't even the core point. It was a general statement about the fact that African DNA should be expected to be found in North Africa as you go back farther in time. That is only obvious.
The question is whether these people actually migrated to the Levant before moving to North Africa or not, which is basically what the paper is implying could have happened. The relationship with Natufians would be a sign of this possibility.
Posts: 8889 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: What you see as a union of the three hgs just reflects reactions to the same climatic events.
certainly could be independent response to parallel favourable conditions. them being part of the same population is just a nice hypothesis, not something i am claiming with great certainty. (the mixing doesn't have to happen just then either, it could be earlier.)
quote:So why doesn't your scenario result in a detectable admixture event?
the more time and drift, the less detectable the admixture signal. i don't know how much time and drift would actually be required, my point is in general this favours older over more recent admixture.
Posts: 660 | From: Canada | Registered: Mar 2017
| IP: Logged |
posted
So, you have no sources? You are just trying to work your way backwards and reconstructing events 25kya and older based on the outcome of an admixture test on a 15ky old sample? Untested admixture tools are no substitute for studying cultural change and other archaeological facts on the ground. And did you read the paper I posted twice? Because there is no evidence of cultural continuity or even unbroken sequence of the cave. IB2, which marks renewed activities at the site, immediately precedes the age of the genomes and it contains new tool types that are found also in regions further east.
quote:In this paper we have presented the first high precision record of AMS dates for the Late Pleistocene Maghreb, providing a frame- work for understanding the development of the Iberomaurusian, the oldest backed bladelet LSA technology in northwest Africa. In examining the dating evidence at Taforalt, several gaps in the sequence were noted, including one of possibly as little as 1900 calendar years separating the first appearance of the Iber- omaurusian at 22.0e21.4 ka Cal BP from the underlying non- Levallois flake technology, tentatively attributed to the MSA. A further gap in dating (but this time also coinciding with an erosive unconformity) can be seen between the earliest Iberomaurusian industry with ‘Ouchtata’ retouched blades (IB1) and one above containing microlithic backed bladelets (IB2). The duration of this gap may have been of the order of one to two thousand years and confirms that fully developed microlithic components had emerged in the Iberomaurusian by 15.5e15.0 ka Cal BP. A major accumula- tion of ashy midden deposits can be identified at Taforalt at 15.2e 14.2 ka Cal BP and use of the cave in the Iberomaurusian was shown to have continued until about 12.6 ka Cal BP (Tables 1 and 2).
quote:the more time and drift, the less detectable the admixture signal. i don't know how much time and drift would actually be required, my point is in general this favours older over more recent admixture.
This assumes they were using the right reference samples to begin with. Using Sardinians, Bedouins or Natufians to find an admixture event already is a shot in the dark. Something that either might work, or that might not. But interpreting no admixture event as reflecting reality on top of that sounds really questionable to me.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: To those who don’t get the visuals. All humanity was black skinned from Africa to Northern Europe during the Paleolithic to the early Neolithic. North Africans and Europeans ….and the Levant were black. And shockingly the Neolithics originating close to Tanzania brought the mutation for light skin beginning mid-Neolithic into North Africa, Southern Europe, Arabia, Pakistan and North Europe. We still need to resolve the East Asians.
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: Ish. Got that picture of Tarofalt?
[…]
quote: Is the internal and external morphology of the supraorbital area related to biomechanical stress? Structural analysis of the Afalou Bou Rhummel (Algeria) and Taforalt (Morocco) populations
I get the strong sense that the Taforalt of the type shown in your picture weren't sampled in this paper. I find it extremely difficult to believe that the Taforalt individual pictured here has no UP European ancestry. I will confirm later by reading the supplemental materials. For some reason I haven't been able to access the supp data. I will try again later. But, as I said in my first post, the E-M78 is totally unexpected and I think the most recently sequenced Taforalt samples come from the lowest strata with bones in them, unlike the 'regular' Taforalt samples frequently studied and discussed in the literature.
I respond a bit late, due to my busy time schedule.
Anyway, indeed the Taforalt picture is not from the paper. The paper was posted additionally, as a reference source.
Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
On a side note, African ancestry in the Taforalt are more less somewhere between East African and Natufians, a good spot for Basal Eurasian, Yet they have noticeable levels of Neanderthal DNA despite there being no evidence of outlying West Eurasian Geneflow. "Basal Eurasian" is looking more like what I said it'll be.
Remember, you don't get Neanderthal DNA from being European you hang on to it by staying away from African diversity. BTW which one is Neanderthal?
i did read that paper a long time ago, i have now re-read it. i'm not disputing change in the Iberomaurusian sequence, i'm just not clear why this has to involve substantial admixture of genetically distinct people. who is the source in your view and why do they have to be different from Taforalt? why does E-M78 have to be a recent arrival from the east? you aren't explaining your starting point here.
the ancestry of the different components is so divergent that the choice of references should not have an overwhelming impact, IIUC. the lack of admixture signal is not rock-solid proof of anything, but it is still evidence.
Posts: 660 | From: Canada | Registered: Mar 2017
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: Ish. Got that picture of Tarofalt?
[…]
quote: Is the internal and external morphology of the supraorbital area related to biomechanical stress? Structural analysis of the Afalou Bou Rhummel (Algeria) and Taforalt (Morocco) populations
I get the strong sense that the Taforalt of the type shown in your picture weren't sampled in this paper. I find it extremely difficult to believe that the Taforalt individual pictured here has no UP European ancestry. I will confirm later by reading the supplemental materials. For some reason I haven't been able to access the supp data. I will try again later. But, as I said in my first post, the E-M78 is totally unexpected and I think the most recently sequenced Taforalt samples come from the lowest strata with bones in them, unlike the 'regular' Taforalt samples frequently studied and discussed in the literature.
I respond a bit late, due to my busy time schedule.
Anyway, indeed the Taforalt picture is not from the paper. The paper was posted additionally, as a reference source.
^^^ Mike111's "real history" , it also says "Kiffian" in the URL (not sure why) ( Human remains from the "Kiffian" culture were found in 2000 at a site known as Gobero, located in Niger in the Ténéré Desert)
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
. Remember that your interpretation (of the three haplogroups coming together 25ky) is also inconsistent with there being no admixture event. How do you reconcile your position that these hgs came together 25ky ago, and that this result of no admixture is valid? I know you just said that it can be explained if the three streams of ancestry were already similar, but the ancestry components of this population are highly differentiated. For instance, it has to specifically be modelled as Natufian-like and Natufians themselves are also made up of highly distinct ancestry components. So why doesn't your scenario result in a detectable admixture event? It's simply not possible to avoid the conclusion that there were several common sense admixture events, whether you agree with my comments on E-M78 or not.
Printer-friendly view of this topic