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?
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.
I believe the equation they used was, (test,YRI ; Neanderthal,chimp) or an equivalent. When I say the same archaic signatures I don't mean in terms of percentage. I'm saying there were many Archaic hominids, each with their own unique genetic make-up, what are the odds that certain drifted AMH all retain Altai Neanderthal signals in specific if they had different histories?
-Lets dial it back and look at the correlation you suggest for African_diversity/Neanderthal. Europeans for example are technically the least genetically diverse population on the planet, however they also have the least amount of Neanderthal-Denisovan ancestry, second only to continental Africans. How would you go about explaining that pattern?
-Lets look at the temporal aspect. Mota has the least Neanderthal Admixture of any ancient specimen, yet he's older than the ancient south Africans and also have less Neanderthal signature that just about all contemporary east Africans, how would you reconcile with that as well?
Posts: 1781 | From: New York | Registered: Jul 2016
| 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.
Just outa respect I'ma cut to the chase and answer the question that you should have been asked. The leading postulation on ES as of now is that the most recent mixture represented by the Taforalt is a mixture between Africans ....and Africans. Not Levantines or Eurasians. Taforalt wasn't suggested to be the composite that you suggest due to "mixture". The authors don't necessarily conclude on that. It's the Natufians lacking "SSA" admixture who raise the question of which direction geneflow occurred if it occurred. Do you understand? You are completely off the mark with your talk of mixture. You came in all wrong and you shifted your position a lil bit but you're still wrong. You can still be HOMOGENEOUS and be modeled as two different populations. You can model Yorubans as MButi and Mota. But are yorubans a mixture between Mota and Mbuti... no. are Yorubans relatively homogeneous? yes.
So all in all your core point was unnecessarily introduced, and our interaction was a detraction from much much more interesting conversations from basically every other poster in this thread.
I'm done.
Posts: 1781 | From: New York | Registered: Jul 2016
| IP: Logged |
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?
There is no one particular source I'm using. My observations are based on my own analysis and connecting the dots based on clues from archaeology and population genetics. The paper describes what makes IB2 different. And what makes IB2 different is part of a larger context involving contemporary cultures from the east. As far as genetically distinct people, what do you mean with that?
quote:Originally posted by capra: why does E-M78 have to be a recent arrival from the east? you aren't explaining your starting point here.
As I said previously, E-M78 is not consistent with M1b (or U6, for that matter). I also argued that they therefore must have been brought together recently (some point after the LGM given E-M78's age). Your response to that was why couldn't they have been brought together 25kya. My response to that was that these three hgs expanded during the LGM and that the structure of these hgs is inconsistent with the formation of a new population. The only way for you to argue that E-M78 does not represent new migration is if you argue that a precursor of that hg was present during IB1 and that it turned into E-M78, locally, during IB2. But that is not how haplogroup evolve and the archaeology of IB1 and IB2 argue against that. So, please explain to me your scenario of how E-M78 originates at Taforalt. I really want to see how you do it.
quote:Originally posted by capra: 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.
In some ways we're dealing with a unique situation and I don't think this has ever been performed on similar samples before. So I don't think we know what LD decay tests would say under unusual admixture scenarios. Do we have examples of Palaeolithic samples tested in this manner? If that supposed lack of admixture is valid, then the tools used to come to that conclusion should have a good track record.
Somehow I don't think it's a coincidence that I don't recall anyone doing LD decay tests on Palaeolithic samples. Or maybe I'm just out of the loop.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
how can E-M78 be 'inconsistent' with U6 or M1? that's not a thing. of course a precursor of a haplogroup can be present locally and evolve into the haplogroup in question, this necessarily must happen somewhere. there's no reason to think it happened at Taforalt. i don't understand what you are trying to communicate here. obviously some E-M35 guys could hook up with some U6 and M1 girls, their descendants could go to the Maghreb, a series of mutations could accumulate on the Y chromosome of one male lineage leading to M78, etc. there is some reason you think this is unlikely due to *archaeology*, so just tell me what the archaeological story is and stop faffling around vaguely about haplogroups.
genetically distinct as in we would expect them mixing to leave an LD signal. mostly SSA or mostly WE mixing would give large LD blocks with affinity to the references. mixing of populations with similar admixture LD already would not.
i don't recall anyone doing ALDER on ancient DNA either, but there's a first time for everything. there are several decent quality genomes, conditions are good. there is a simple explanation for the lack of a signal - the admixture is old. but then the authors did put this result in the supp info with cautious phrasing, so clearly should not be taken as divine revelation. Posts: 660 | From: Canada | Registered: Mar 2017
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro: I believe the equation they used was, (test,YRI ; Neanderthal,chimp) or an equivalent. When I say the same archaic signatures I don't mean in terms of percentage. I'm saying there were many Archaic hominids, each with their own unique genetic make-up, what are the odds that certain drifted AMH all retain Altai Neanderthal signals in specific if they had different histories?
Its all in framing. People studied Neanderthal and Denisovan so that along with 'unidentified' is what they find.
quote:
-Lets dial it back and look at the correlation you suggest for African_diversity/Neanderthal. Europeans for example are technically the least genetically diverse population on the planet, however they also have the least amount of Neanderthal-Denisovan ancestry, second only to continental Africans. How would you go about explaining that pattern?
Europeans lack diversity as a population but not as individuals. If you compare them to Asians they are less diverse however if you compare the average European to the average Asian its not a pronounced difference. I would bet that they would typically be more diverse than the average east Asian.
I wish we could test the colorful dots. If they are the least diverse people its a wrap. I assume they are because they are inbreeding in remote places however I have heard arguments to the contrary.
Supposedly Paupans are more diverse than Europeans because they don't kill and replace each other. I think they might be thinking in terms of diversity within one group instead of diversity within all people.
quote: -Lets look at the temporal aspect. Mota has the least Neanderthal Admixture of any ancient specimen, yet he's older than the ancient south Africans and also have less Neanderthal signature that just about all contemporary east Africans, how would you reconcile with that as well? [/QB]
quote: “Almost all of us agree there was some back-to-Africa gene flow, and it was a pretty big migration into East Africa,” says Skoglund. “But it did not reach West and Central Africa, at least not in a detectable way.” The error also undermines the paper’s original conclusion that many Africans carry Neanderthal DNA (inherited from Eurasians whose ancestors had interbred with the group).
Yet again you have people who are 99% SSA Africa and 0.3% Neanderthal.
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.
Just outa respect I'ma cut to the chase and answer the question that you should have been asked. The leading postulation on ES as of now is that the most recent mixture represented by the Taforalt is a mixture between Africans ....and Africans. Not Levantines or Eurasians. Taforalt wasn't suggested to be the composite that you suggest due to "mixture". The authors don't necessarily conclude on that. It's the Natufians lacking "SSA" admixture who raise the question of which direction geneflow occurred if it occurred. Do you understand? You are completely off the mark with your talk of mixture. You came in all wrong and you shifted your position a lil bit but you're still wrong. You can still be HOMOGENEOUS and be modeled as two different populations. You can model Yorubans as MButi and Mota. But are yorubans a mixture between Mota and Mbuti... no. are Yorubans relatively homogeneous? yes.
So all in all your core point was unnecessarily introduced, and our interaction was a detraction from much much more interesting conversations from basically every other poster in this thread.
I'm done.
The extract you posted says this:
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,
Of course I haven't read the whole paper but that is what you posted in the OP.
That is what I am going by.
Not sure how or why you keep saying that this is not what the extract you posted says.
And I don't get the impression from that extract that this population was only composed of African DNA. Of course there is going to be some "Eurasian" DNA in that population. The Levantines would have Eurasian DNA along with African DNA (Natufian).
I know other folks have been speaking of mixture on this thread but I am not talking about that mixture.
But I get your point.
THAT SAID, this does go and show that this would have been a population that never left Africa or was a branch of the same population that entered the Levant as the Natufian affinity shows, but instead went to the West across North Africa.
Probably one of the waves of the Africans moving around during the last Saharan wet phase.
This is something I have always said concerning the history of North Africa. And it would be that wave of Saharans prior to and up to the last wet phase that would have carried many of the genes we call "Eurasian" today and are labelled as "backmigrants" from Eurasia.
This is partly confirmation of that. This also confirms something I said a long time ago about Africans moving out of Africa partly being responsible for the rise of Agriculture in the Levant.
This model could easily be assumed just going by what we already know about North African history and the Sahara. Unfortunately when the Basal Eurasian and EEF papers came up there wasn't enough African DNA to go by to support the assumption.
Posts: 8890 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by capra: how can E-M78 be 'inconsistent' with U6 or M1? that's not a thing.
I never said it’s inconsistent with M1. Although a case can be made for that as well if you go back far enough (see comments below). What I said is that E-M78 is inconsistent with M1b. If you deny that, or its significance, I don’t know what to say. As far as U6, it most likely originated in West Eurasia, and it is concentrated in northwest Africa. E-M35, on the other hand, has ‘recent’ common ancestry with E-V38, and therefore originates on the other side of the continent. It’s also consistent with mtDNA L (more specifically, mtDNA L3) going all the way back to E-P2, at least. Bringing this all together as far as these Taforalt genomes, we can safely conclude that the shared history involving E-M35, U6 and M1 is severely constrained by E-M35’s relationship with E-V38 and association with L3 at least since E-P2 (but likely before that). Continuing this line of thinking, U6 and whatever Y-DNA it came to Africa with/whatever it became associated with once stepping foot in North Africa, is not E-M35 which is only 25ky old and therefore, too young. E-M35 is contemporary with U6a, not with U6abdc. After U6 arrived, M1b likely spread to northwest Africa with some form of E-M35 (E-L19[?]), but it definitely wasn’t E-M78, since these hgs are not typically found in association with each other. This then leaves an early (or ancestral) form of E-M78 free to arrive in Taforalt later, with the time of its arrival depending on its age.
quote:Originally posted by capra: of course a precursor of a haplogroup can be present locally and evolve into the haplogroup in question, this necessarily must happen somewhere. there's no reason to think it happened at Taforalt.
What you're talking about is a mutation, not a haplogroup. A mutation is not a haplogroup and haplogroups don’t evolve on their own. If you say they do then show me a modern population that is in the process of spontaneously developing its own hg. That simply doesn’t happen. When you test living samples for their hgs, you will just see they have private mutations. They’re not in the process of spontaneously developing their own hgs. That is simply not how it works.
quote:Originally posted by capra: i don't understand what you are trying to communicate here. obviously some E-M35 guys could hook up with some U6 and M1 girls, their descendants could go to the Maghreb, a series of mutations could accumulate on the Y chromosome of one male lineage leading to M78, etc. there is some reason you think this is unlikely due to *archaeology*, so just tell me what the archaeological story is and stop faffling around vaguely about haplogroups.
What you're asking me is to connect the dots for you and do your research for you. Some of our disagreements involve basics on how haplogroups evolve and their phylo structure and distribution. These are not things I should have to explain in depth to justify my position on E-M78. If you challenge my position on E-M78, I'm assuming you will know what it means when I say that E-M78 is associated with M1a, not with M1b. You may not agree this was the case in ancient times, but you should at least know what I mean when I say that. If I mention that twice and you don't understand, how is it my job to then give the backstory on E-M78? Same thing with the archaeology. Sources cited. What more do you want from me?
To write a full exposition? So you can sit back and give denials and opinions, while you're trying to reconstruct history from a admixture test that hasn't proven itself? With no corroborating sources or analysis? Don't think so
quote:i don't recall anyone doing ALDER on ancient DNA either, but there's a first time for everything. there are several decent quality genomes, conditions are good. there is a simple explanation for the lack of a signal - the admixture is old. but then the authors did put this result in the supp info with cautious phrasing, so clearly should not be taken as divine revelation.
I have seen no evidence that that is SSA ancestry or even that it forms a clade with any SSA population (evidence of that may be in the supps, but I haven't read those yet). The Medieval Moroccan genomes couldn’t be closely modeled as any modern day SSA population. Are you saying you know for a fact that doesn’t affect LD decay tests? I don’t know why you’re insisting on technology that has no track record. We simply have no idea how this technology would perform on Palaeolithic samples, let alone when it comes to this type of ancestry.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
I run LD decay tests on ancient specimen ... Results can vary based on how the researchers call the variants and preprocessing of said variants. With that being said if a population has received admixture from two sources adequately represented in the dataset you would at the very least get some semblance of a curve ancient or not. Even if the test fails.
Posts: 1781 | From: New York | Registered: Jul 2016
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Bringing this all together as far as these Taforalt genomes, we can safely conclude that the shared history involving E-M35, U6 and M1 is severely constrained by E-M35’s relationship with E-V38 and association with L3 at least since E-P2 (but likely before that).
E-M35 split from its sister branch 20 000 years before our samples. of course coming from the east is most likely. there is no need for pre-E-M35 to have been associated with U6 the whole time, naturally. there is also no need for them to coalesce at the same time when they were in the same population either. or for only U6 and M1 to have been present. or for them to have stuck with whatever opposite sex counterparts they were with in the first place.
E-M78 is found with all kinds of mt haplogroups. uniparental markers drift in and out of association with each other all the time. M1b would not be obliged to tag along if early E-M78 branches had migrated from west to east. M1a and E-Z830 were probably still in the east, but even that is hardly certain. the evidence of modern phylogeographic associations after 14 000 years of drift just isn't that strong.
quote:This then leaves an early (or ancestral) form of E-M78 free to arrive in Taforalt later, with the time of its arrival depending on its age.
sure, entirely possible.
quote:What you're talking about is a mutation, not a haplogroup. A mutation is not a haplogroup and haplogroups don’t evolve on their own. If you say they do then show me a modern population that is in the process of spontaneously developing its own hg. That simply doesn’t happen. When you test living samples for their hgs, you will just see they have private mutations. They’re not in the process of spontaneously developing their own hgs.
wtf are you talking about? are you trying to say haplogroups don't drift to high frequency in modern populations?
quote:What you're asking me is to connect the dots for you and do your research for you.
dude, this is a discussion forum, the whole point is to share ideas and results. just say what you think. or if you don't want to share it for some reason, then don't. no need for histrionics.
Posts: 660 | From: Canada | Registered: Mar 2017
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: A mutation is not a haplogroup
yes it is
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
haplogroups don’t evolve on their own.
yes they do
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
If you say they do then show me a modern population that is in the process of spontaneously developing its own hg.
Modern populations have greatly reduced genetic variation because their populations are no longer in isolation where separate developments would occur.
However allele frequencies of a population change over generations due to chance and genetic drift occurs in all populations.
Take any modern population and separate some of them into isolation for thousands of years and they will spontaneously develop their own hg.
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: A mutation is not a haplogroup
yes it is
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
haplogroups don’t evolve on their own.
yes they do
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
If you say they do then show me a modern population that is in the process of spontaneously developing its own hg.
Modern populations have greatly reduced genetic variation because their populations are no longer in isolation where separate developments would occur.
However allele frequencies of a population change over generations due to chance and genetic drift occurs in all populations.
Take any modern population and separate some of them into isolation for thousands of years and they will spontaneously develop their own hg.
mutation + isolation + drift = new haplogroup
Just a question, Should AA's be assigned new haplogroups? They have admixture with different African ethnic groups and eurasians, they have isolation and drift from original popuolations, and a new environment, epigenetics of chattal slavery.. not counting forced changed haplogroups by rape... just curious
-------------------- It's not my burden to disabuse the ignorant of their wrong opinions Posts: 2699 | From: New York | Registered: Jun 2015
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: A mutation is not a haplogroup
yes it is
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
haplogroups don’t evolve on their own.
yes they do
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
If you say they do then show me a modern population that is in the process of spontaneously developing its own hg.
Modern populations have greatly reduced genetic variation because their populations are no longer in isolation where separate developments would occur.
However allele frequencies of a population change over generations due to chance and genetic drift occurs in all populations.
Take any modern population and separate some of them into isolation for thousands of years and they will spontaneously develop their own hg.
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro: I run LD decay tests on ancient specimen ... Results can vary based on how the researchers call the variants and preprocessing of said variants. With that being said if a population has received admixture from two sources adequately represented in the dataset you would at the very least get some semblance of a curve ancient or not. Even if the test fails.
I said Palaeolithic samples, not just any ancient sample. Most available West Eurasian and African samples within the last 10ky are genetically connected in some way shape or form, so finding admixture events in those cases is not surprising.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: A mutation is not a haplogroup
yes it is
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
haplogroups don’t evolve on their own.
yes they do
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
If you say they do then show me a modern population that is in the process of spontaneously developing its own hg.
Modern populations have greatly reduced genetic variation because their populations are no longer in isolation where separate developments would occur.
However allele frequencies of a population change over generations due to chance and genetic drift occurs in all populations.
Take any modern population and separate some of them into isolation for thousands of years and they will spontaneously develop their own hg.
mutation + isolation + drift = new haplogroup
Swenet is right. So do you know how many mutations occur? That is way more than there are supposed Haplogroups.. However, fact is that a mutation is an additive to the creation of what eventually becomes a Haplotype.
quote:Every time human DNA is passed from one generation to the next it accumulates 100–200 new mutations, according to a DNA-sequencing analysis of the Y chromosome.
[…]
This number — the first direct measurement of the human mutation rate — is equivalent to one mutation in every 30 million base pairs, and matches previous estimates from species comparisons and rare disease screens.
[…]
Extrapolating that result to the whole genome gives a mutation rate of around one in 30 million base pairs.”
quote: The word "haplotype" is derived from the word "haploid," which describes cells with only one set of chromosomes, and from the word "genotype," which refers to the genetic makeup of an organism. A haplotype can describe a pair of genes inherited together from one parent on one chromosome, or it can describe all of the genes on a chromosome that were inherited together from a single parent.
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.
I believe the equation they used was, (test,YRI ; Neanderthal,chimp) or an equivalent. When I say the same archaic signatures I don't mean in terms of percentage. I'm saying there were many Archaic hominids, each with their own unique genetic make-up, what are the odds that certain drifted AMH all retain Altai Neanderthal signals in specific if they had different histories?
-Lets dial it back and look at the correlation you suggest for African_diversity/Neanderthal. Europeans for example are technically the least genetically diverse population on the planet, however they also have the least amount of Neanderthal-Denisovan ancestry, second only to continental Africans. How would you go about explaining that pattern?
-Lets look at the temporal aspect. Mota has the least Neanderthal Admixture of any ancient specimen, yet he's older than the ancient south Africans and also have less Neanderthal signature that just about all contemporary east Africans, how would you reconcile with that as well?
Interesting you mentioned Mota.
quote:By extrapolation, we infer that the Basal Eurasian population had lower Neanderthal ancestry than non-Basal Eurasian populations and possibly none (ninety-five percent confidence interval truncated at zero of 0-60%; Fig. 2; Methods). The finding of little if any Neanderthal ancestry in Basal Eurasians could be explained if the Neanderthal admixture into modern humans 50,000-60,000 years ago 11 largely occurred after the splitting of the Basal Eurasians from other non-Africans
—Iosif Lazaridis et al. (2016)
Genomic insights into the origin of farming in the ancient Near East
quote: Ghost populations also lurk in ancient DNA. While analysing high-quality genomes of a Neanderthal and a Denisovan, a team led by Reich and Montgomery Slatkin at the University of California, Berkeley, noticed a peculiar pattern: present-day sub-Saharan Africans are more closely related to Neanderthals than they are to Denisovans 4. But evidence from other ancient genomes suggested that the two archaic groups were equally related to present-day Africans. After weighing the possibilities, the scientists realized that they might have uncovered another ghost population.
[…]
These discoveries are only the beginning. The Akey and Reich teams found that the genomes of east Asians possess, on average, slightly more Neanderthal DNA than do people of European ancestry. Akey sees this as possible evidence that Neanderthals interbred with ancient humans on at least two separate occasions: once with the ancestors of all Eurasians, and later with a population ancestral only to east Asians. And Akey believes that humans are likely to bear genetic scraps from other extinct species, including some that interbred with the ancestors of humans in sub-Saharan Africa.
quote:The interpretation of the Irhoud hominins has long been complicated by persistent uncertainties surrounding their geological age. They were initially considered to be around 40 thousand years (kyr) old and an African form of Neanderthals
—JJ Hublin et al. New fossils from Jebel Irhoud, Morocco and the pan-African origin of Homo sapiens
Nature volume 546, pages 289–292 (08 June 2017) doi:10.1038/nature22336
quote:Originally posted by Ish Gebor: Swenet is right. So do you know how many mutations occur? That is way more than there are supposed Haplo groups. However, fact is that a mutation is an additive to the creation of what eventually becomes a Haplotype.
Yep. Mutations are commonplace and happen every generation. Only some mutations take hold and potentially turn into haplogroups, and out of those that do, only some cross the threshold of becoming permanently entrenched in a population's haplogroup profile. And out of all the haplogroups that make it this far, only some turn into a major founding ancestor of the importance of E-M78 in world history. Meaning, there are levels to this hg stuff. And unbroken continuity/relative stability of the type that folks are assigning to this Taforalt population are not conducive to the formation of new haplogroups. Hence, my observation earlier that haplogroups never form spontaneously. Certainly not those that make it to the world stage as E-M78 did.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ But apparently folks like lioness seem to not know these facts yet insists on arguing on the issue. Why?
Posts: 26239 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ But apparently folks like lioness seem to not know these facts yet insists on arguing on the issue. Why?
Beats me. All I know is when I don't know I just stfu and listen/lurk. Of course I get carried away sometimes and speak out of turn, but some people are trying to be in your face with their preconceived opinions to the point where they're basically catfishing on a lot of subjects.
How do you think these results relate to Egyptians of this general time period? If this sample's SSA-like ancestry is primarily specific to the Maghreb, I think postglacial Egyptians will end up looking something like this, but with their own mixture and proportion of SSA-like ancestry. This would include Lower Nile Valley MSA AMH ancestry.
I also expect that some postglacial Egyptians will have Basal Eurasian as the majority of their African ancestry with comparatively minor other contributions (as must have been the case with the Africans who mixed with the recent Natufian and farmer samples) and that some will have SSA-like ancestry that, unlike North African MSA AMH ancestry, came directly from the south (e.g. L2 in PPN).
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have been reading over the data and.....................I dont think Taforalt are "Mixed" in the same way people are thinking they are "partly Natufian partly African".
All the commentary i see outside of ES simply has it wrong. We are going to need MORE ancient DNA to really know what we are looking at. They are all still making the same mistake of not accounting for African substructure. They aint learned shit. In all commentary have seen about the study the word "Substructure" is MIA. Its also not in the article.
Taforlat are not partly Naufian/Hadza/Mende because Dinka are NOT 90% Yoruba. Somali are not a combination of Yoruba and Natufian. Mota do not have more North African ancestry than Mozibites and Saharawi.
Posts: 2463 | From: New Jersey USA | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by beyoku: I have been reading over the data and.....................I dont think Taforalt are "Mixed" in the same way people are thinking they are "partly Natufian partly African".
All the commentary i see outside of ES simply has it wrong. We are going to need MORE ancient DNA to really know what we are looking at. They are all still making the same mistake of not accounting for African substructure. They aint learned shit. In all commentary have seen about the study the word "Substructure" is MIA. Its also not in the article.
Taforlat are not partly Naufian/Hadza/Mende because Dinka are NOT 90% Yoruba. Somali are not a combination of Yoruba and Natufian. Mota do not have more North African ancestry than Mozibites and Saharawi.
Unfortunately, our premise that native African ancestry wouldn't all fall into one "SSA" cluster doesn't seem to have occurred to most commentators outside ES. Instead, most of them simply assume that all stay-at-home African ancestry must be "sub-Saharan". You'd think more bloggers and academics would realize that the sort of substructure we're proposing is an inevitable development from OOA theory, but they haven't connected the dots yet.
quote:Originally posted by beyoku: I have been reading over the data and.....................I dont think Taforalt are "Mixed" in the same way people are thinking they are "partly Natufian partly African".
All the commentary i see outside of ES simply has it wrong. We are going to need MORE ancient DNA to really know what we are looking at. They are all still making the same mistake of not accounting for African substructure. They aint learned shit. In all commentary have seen about the study the word "Substructure" is MIA. Its also not in the article.
Taforlat are not partly Naufian/Hadza/Mende because Dinka are NOT 90% Yoruba. Somali are not a combination of Yoruba and Natufian. Mota do not have more North African ancestry than Mozibites and Saharawi.
Unfortunately, our premise that native African ancestry wouldn't all fall into one "SSA" cluster doesn't seem to have occurred to most commentators outside ES. Instead, most of them simply assume that all stay-at-home African ancestry must be "sub-Saharan". You'd think more bloggers and academics would realize that the sort of substructure we're proposing is an inevitable development from OOA theory, but they haven't connected the dots yet.
Its actually worse than that. Its plain old stupidity either consciously or unconsciously. That is how we get statements like this:
quote: The Natufians lack DNA from Africa, Krause says. This suggests that both groups inherited their shared DNA from a larger population that lived in North Africa or the Middle East more than 15,000 years ago, the team reports today in Science.
Posts: 2463 | From: New Jersey USA | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tyrannohotep: Unfortunately, our premise that native African ancestry wouldn't all fall into one "SSA" cluster doesn't seem to have occurred to most commentators outside ES. Instead, most of them simply assume that all stay-at-home African ancestry must be "sub-Saharan". You'd think more bloggers and academics would realize that the sort of substructure we're proposing is an inevitable development from OOA theory, but they haven't connected the dots yet.
wtf? come over to Anthrogenica and Eurogenes and explain it all to us. seriously, man. Posts: 660 | From: Canada | Registered: Mar 2017
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tyrannohotep: Unfortunately, our premise that native African ancestry wouldn't all fall into one "SSA" cluster doesn't seem to have occurred to most commentators outside ES. Instead, most of them simply assume that all stay-at-home African ancestry must be "sub-Saharan". You'd think more bloggers and academics would realize that the sort of substructure we're proposing is an inevitable development from OOA theory, but they haven't connected the dots yet.
wtf? come over to Anthrogenica and Eurogenes and explain it all to us. seriously, man.
But people on both forums keep quoting this: "The Natufians lack DNA from Africa, Krause says. This suggests that both groups inherited their shared DNA from a larger population that lived in North Africa or the Middle East more than 15,000 years ago, the team reports today in Science." ANd still arguing that Natufians......PN2 dominated Natufians dont have African ancestry. Even after the latest few publications. Even after this publication that caught them with their pants down regarding North Africans and their SSA affinities.
Posts: 2463 | From: New Jersey USA | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by beyoku: Its actually worse than that. Its plain old stupidity either consciously or unconsciously. That is how we get statements like this:
I would pin it on racism/eurocentrism but I've noticed that some of these geneticist/biologist are indeed stupid.
Yet Sergi Castellano, an evolutionary biologist at the Max Planck Institute discovers homo-sapien genes in a 50K Neanderthal toe and floats this nonsense in the media.
quote: A new analysis of her ancient genome has found that this so-called “Altai” Neandertal inherited DNA from modern humans from Africa, including a gene that may have been involved in speech.
quote:Originally posted by beyoku: But people on both forums keep quoting this: "The Natufians lack DNA from Africa, Krause says. This suggests that both groups inherited their shared DNA from a larger population that lived in North Africa or the Middle East more than 15,000 years ago, the team reports today in Science." ANd still arguing that Natufians......PN2 dominated Natufians dont have African ancestry. Even after the latest few publications. Even after this publication that caught them with their pants down regarding North Africans and their SSA affinities.
yeah, Chad is quoting that in response to people who are *trying to model Natufians with the latest African aDNA*.
the Natufian-SSA f4s didn't have to turn out that way. Natufians could have come up with a nice Mota signal or whatever, they didn't. you act like people are trying to squirm out of Natufian having PN2-linked African ancestry (or vice versa). well no, some people are trying to find it anyway, and some people aren't.
and yes, it's a dumb quote, but reporters.
PS i don't know what scenario you are actually thinking of but you could request a qpGraph from Chad
PPS those of you who aren't idiots actually should post on Anthrogenica and Eurogenes if you don't already, African genetic topics peter out too quickly.
Posts: 660 | From: Canada | Registered: Mar 2017
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by beyoku: But people on both forums keep quoting this: "The Natufians lack DNA from Africa, Krause says. This suggests that both groups inherited their shared DNA from a larger population that lived in North Africa or the Middle East more than 15,000 years ago, the team reports today in Science." ANd still arguing that Natufians......PN2 dominated Natufians dont have African ancestry. Even after the latest few publications. Even after this publication that caught them with their pants down regarding North Africans and their SSA affinities.
People who can barely comprehend African population substructure as is, will probably also struggle in imagining how it might've been 10's of thousands of years ago.
BTW does anyone know if someone called the variants for the Taforalt? ...I've been too busy to really do anything lately.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
quote:Originally posted by capra: yeah, Chad is quoting that in response to people who are *trying to model Natufians with the latest African aDNA*.
the Natufian-SSA f4s didn't have to turn out that way. Natufians could have come up with a nice Mota signal or whatever, they didn't. you act like people are trying to squirm out of Natufian having PN2-linked African ancestry (or vice versa). well no, some people are trying to find it anyway, and some people aren't.
and yes, it's a dumb quote, but reporters.
Ironically, Mota universally does worse than YRI in the Natufian F4 problems...
Jokes aside I find your comment here disingenuous for the simple fact that there's only so many ways you can explain the African ancestry in Natufians. It all comes back to representative sampling, period. I don't know if it's the mythical "basal Eurasian" portions screwing heads up or what, but the inability to connect dots cannot just be a product of pure ignorance, imo.
Posts: 1781 | From: New York | Registered: Jul 2016
| IP: Logged |
posted
could you kindly explain what the PN2-linked African ancestry is and why it doesn't show up in f4, then? (could be very minor and obscured by noise/ascertainment bias/whatever, but that would be pretty boring.)
seriously, all this tut-tutting without presenting any actual argument is getting old.
Posts: 660 | From: Canada | Registered: Mar 2017
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro: [QB] 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.
For a visual representation... The Sky-Blue component comes to mind... which isn't precisely Berber-North African. Posts: 1781 | From: New York | Registered: Jul 2016
| IP: Logged |
posted
i'm not seeing how moving the Near Eastern into Africa helps any? could you explain a little more clearly what you are envisioning here?
Posts: 660 | From: Canada | Registered: Mar 2017
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by capra: in the above ADMIXTURE graph? half Anatolian farmer and half something shared with Sudanese Arabs, Beja, etc, we'll call it Northeast African.
So what are you talking about..? "Moving the near east" if the Near east (Natufian) were split with a component that peaks in the Hadereb and is found in the Zaghawa. Granted some non-African is absorbed, but the pattern is what's important for what I believe is P-N2-linked Ancestry.
^Also important is the noise level SSA ancestry that you'd typically find in non Africans, mostly Middle-Near Easterns, that is absorbed by itPosts: 1781 | From: New York | Registered: Jul 2016
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
Strict North African - sub-Saharan dichotomy in population genetics is on its way out. Why? The obvious, Sahara is neither their N Afr nor their SS Afr.
As saying since day one there was an indigenous N Afr group resembling W C & E Afrs while not being either of them.
Until data from Wargla, Algerian Haratine and places like the Chotts and the Tuat are in the data repositories, African population genetics will continue uncovering these 'surprising' no supposedly longer extant as recently as 700 ya statistical pops.
Possible descent membership of ghost-like pops of black pre-Saharans & Saharans: • Frontinus' Carthaginian auxiliaries • Nygbenitae Æthiopians • Cerne Ethiopians • Dyris (Atlas Ethiopians) • Melanogaetuli • Tarraelian Ethiopians • Oecalicae • Nigritae • Gymnete Pharusii • Perorsi • Hesperii Appianus' Numidica 5 Western Ethiopians
Blacks darker than the Afers abounded in N Afr south of the Tunisian/Algerian chotts, i.e.; 34 degrees north.
Black does not mean negro. Black does not mean sub-Saharan.
Loosdrecht's comment an unknown Taforalt signal proxy can be no more basal than aSouthAfrica, iiutc, (2kya) fits the above Greco-Latin recorded Saharan N Afrs. Where ever then look for it than in surviving Oases and Chotts Saharans their likeliest descendents?
posted
if Natufians, Mota, Yoruba, etc got E-PN2 through ancestry related to this component, then they will share drift related to this component that other people don't.
Posts: 660 | From: Canada | Registered: Mar 2017
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by capra: if Natufians, Mota, Yoruba, etc got E-PN2 through ancestry related to this component, then they will share drift related to this component that other people don't.
This is a weird assessment from someone like you. I can tell you that yeah All three of those samples or their ancestors did share Drift.... for one; look at any global PCA... You can circle Natufians and Africans without the inclusion of non P-N2 Carriers. The question is why do all three of them seemingly occupy a different space genotypically. But that's neither here nor there. I'm looking at M35 when I look at Natufians, so if they were Africans, what would they look like when those folks migrated north-east. Which ever shared drift Attributed to P-N2 between the groups you mentioned predates this.
Lets Say Nazlet Khater Via F3 resembles Taforalt, but the F4 with chimp and Natufians has East Africans like Hadza, & Mota showing the stronger signals than for Taforalt AND Neandethal signals are lower or even comparable to Taforalt? would there be anything left to discuss?
Posts: 1781 | From: New York | Registered: Jul 2016
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by beyoku: Its actually worse than that. Its plain old stupidity either consciously or unconsciously. That is how we get statements like this:
quote: The Natufians lack DNA from Africa, Krause says. This suggests that both groups inherited their shared DNA from a larger population that lived in North Africa or the Middle East more than 15,000 years ago, the team reports today in Science.
Conclusion: access to more technology and advanced tools can make you more stupid.and out of touch with reality.
quote:Figure 68.3 Natufian skulls from Eynan (left) and Hayonim cave (right); frontal view. Large morphological variations between sites exist in this population
Large morphological variation (which indicates we're not dealing with a single homogeneous population) and with African phenotypes present means recent admixture, period. If the tools disagree, then the tools have no bearing on reality. Simple as that. As I said on the previous page, no amount of fancy software tools can beat common sense.
Whenever they say Natufians don't have African ancestry, remember that it's always these people who say that:
No understanding of archaeology, bioanthropology or anything. Just a bunch software dabblers online running computer software.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ The problem isn't necessarily the tools themselves so much as the people using them. Sometimes the problem lies in their interpretation of the data, other times in the methodology or the samples used, and still other cases the problem is both. In the right hands, the software can still do wonders. For instance, the ADMIXTURE graph Elmaestro posted above gives the lie to the claim that Natufians didn't have any Northeast African ancestry (as represented by the cyan component shared by them and various Northeast African populations).
posted
^I agree. I know that the problem often lies with the people using these tools. But sometimes the software tools really do churn out bogus results. I was mainly addressing the fact that relying on software to reconstruct history for you is just dumb. Some people think these software tools are oracles or something. That by running the software, they're tapping into reality. That is what I think should also be addressed. When you read the blogs you see all these claims left and right that have no basis in reality. Only in software and in their abuse of that software. Lol. SMH.
Remember that whole Llorente mess and bloggers claiming massive invasion of Sub-Saharan Africa by Eurasians. All these gullible blog 'experts' jumped on the bandwagon. Which shows that they're not grounded in archaeology or any other discipline other than dabbling with software tools. They will believe all sorts of bogus results coming out of these software tools, even if it completely goes against common sense.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Archaeology is very underrated when it comes to these discussions. ^
But it makes sense as some of our opponents like to throw out multi-disciplinary arguments.
Posts: 1891 | From: NY | Registered: Sep 2014
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tyrannohotep: Unfortunately, our premise that native African ancestry wouldn't all fall into one "SSA" cluster doesn't seem to have occurred to most commentators outside ES. Instead, most of them simply assume that all stay-at-home African ancestry must be "sub-Saharan". You'd think more bloggers and academics would realize that the sort of substructure we're proposing is an inevitable development from OOA theory, but they haven't connected the dots yet.
wtf? come over to Anthrogenica and Eurogenes and explain it all to us. seriously, man.
But people on both forums keep quoting this: "The Natufians lack DNA from Africa, Krause says. This suggests that both groups inherited their shared DNA from a larger population that lived in North Africa or the Middle East more than 15,000 years ago, the team reports today in Science." ANd still arguing that Natufians......PN2 dominated Natufians dont have African ancestry. Even after the latest few publications. Even after this publication that caught them with their pants down regarding North Africans and their SSA affinities.
My God. I thought there was something wrong with me. Krause claims that the Natufians have no African DNA onsesentence before saying that Natufians and Iberomaurasians may have a common ancestor in North Africa, like WTF. The English language cannot take that kind of strain!
Posts: 288 | From: Asia | Registered: Mar 2016
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Elite Diasporan: Archaeology is very underrated when it comes to these discussions. ^
But it makes sense as some of our opponents like to throw out multi-disciplinary arguments.
Of course. And they have full support to keep the charade going because population geneticists are generally doing the same thing as far as throwing out multi-disciplinary data.
Imagine the amount of multi-disciplinary data you have to ignore to get to the point of erasing the continent of Africa in a presentation about the formation of Eurasian ancestry:
^I guess their advanced tools and software told them that was okay.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
The genetic structure of the world’s first farmers 2 Iosif Lazaridis1 2016
The samples include Epipaleolithic Natufian hunter-gatherers from Raqefet 125 Cave in the Levant [12,000-9,800 BCE];
A population without Neanderthal admixture, basal to other Eurasians, may have plausibly 185 lived in Africa. Craniometric analyses have suggested that the Natufians may have migrated 186 from north or sub-Saharan Africa25,26, a result that finds some support from Y chromosome 187 analysis which shows that the Natufians and successor Levantine Neolithic populations 188 carried haplogroup E, of likely ultimate African origin, which has not been detected in other 189 ancient males from West Eurasia [Supplementary Information, section 6] 7,8. However, no 190 affinity of Natufians to sub-Saharan Africans is evident in our genome-wide analysis, as 191 present-day sub-Saharan Africans do not share more alleles with Natufians than with other 192 ancient Eurasians [Extended Data Table 1]. [We could not test for a link to present-day North 193 Africans, who owe most of their ancestry to back-migration from Eurasia27,28.] The idea of 194 Natufians as a vector for the movement of Basal Eurasian ancestry into the Near East is also 195 not supported by our data, as the Basal Eurasian ancestry in the Natufians [44±8%] is 196 consistent with stemming from the same population as that in the Neolithic and Mesolithic 197 populations of Iran, and is not greater than in those populations [Supplementary Information, 198 section 4]. Further insight into the origins and legacy of the Natufians could come from 199 comparison to Natufians from additional sites, and to ancient DNA from north Africa.
The ‘Basal Eurasians’ are a lineage hypothesized13 to have split off prior to the differentiation 155 of all other Eurasian lineages, including both eastern non-African populations like the Han 156 Chinese, and even the early diverged lineage represented by the genome sequence of the 157 ~45,000 year old Upper Paleolithic Siberian from Ust’-Ishim11. To test for Basal Eurasian 158 ancestry, we computed the statistic f4[Test, Han; Ust’-Ishim, Chimp] [Supplementary 159 Information, section 4], which measures the excess of allele sharing of Ust’-Ishim with a 160 variety of Test populations compared to Han as a baseline. This statistic is significantly 161 negative [Z<-3.7] for all ancient Near Easterners as well as Neolithic and later Europeans, 162 consistent with their having ancestry from a deeply divergent Eurasian lineage that separated 163 from the ancestors of most Eurasians prior to the separation of Han and Ust’-Ishim. We used 164 qpAdm7 to estimate Basal Eurasian ancestry in each Test population. We obtain the highest 165 estimates in the earliest populations from both Iran [66±13% in the likely Mesolithic sample, 166 48±6% in Neolithic samples], and the Levant [44±8% in Epipaleolithic Natufians] [Fig. 2], 167 showing that Basal Eurasian ancestry was widespread across the ancient Near East.
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
How did I miss that?
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic