quote:Originally posted by Tyrannohotep: Seriously, one of us should write a paper arguing for Basal Eurasian being African and submit it to some kind of journal. I'm sick of these incompetent (if not outright dishonest) academics not realizing what should be right under their noses by now. Someone needs to bring it to their attention in a place where they can see it ASAP.
Maybe it's time to stop caring about white academia and write your own material and your own periodicals. The data speaks for itself and speaking honestly, Black people lack reason not to listen to what you guys are getting at. They don't seek our approval, why seek theirs?
Posts: 2508 | From: . | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: Nobody said that in the primary research article
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: The affinity is to East and Horn Africans.
We've already talked about Lazaridis et al and their selective tests, several times.
We could not test for a link to present-day North Africans, who owe most of their ancestry to back-migration from Eurasia
You may have your own beliefs about who Natufians are related to. But the fact is Lazaridis et al tend get forgetful when it comes to running common sense tests.
Hey Laz Initially stated his Basal Eurasian was East African before the peer reviews kicked his ass... He was also the first and only mainstream "geneticist" to openly claim the Ifri m Amr Mousa were Africans. And he also silently pushed Daniel shriners recent study showing SSA in Natufians to the spotlight.
This is why I gave that analogy to him being that classmate who doesn't raises his hand. ...He knows lol.
Are you sure about that? From my memory Lazaridis et al always played confused right from the beginning by saying Basal Eurasian is either African, or Nubian Complex Arabian. Nubian Complex was a total reach and made no sense, unless they were looking for a way out because they simply didn't like leaving it at African for the time being. I gave them a pass back then because there was too little information back then to expect the average geneticist to identify Basal Eurasian's origin. Then Lazaridis et al 2016 came out and there was still no improvement. It only got worse. But that is just my view. I'm sure some disagree and think Lazaridis is on the right track. I used to be one of them. But his obvious influence on trolls online and the recent aDNA papers (Kraus, Fregel, Scheunemann) changed my mind about him.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: It says "we could not" rather than "did not". Is it a lie that they could not or is it possible they could not?
Nothing was stopping them. They simply chose to not publish the analyses involving North Africans, presumably because some North African samples were outperforming or rivaling Middle Eastern samples in terms of closeness to Natufians and farmers. Analyses posted online by bloggers certainly showed North Africans score well, despite being at a disadvantage due to the increases of post-Roman SSA ancestry that drives them away from these ancient samples.
So yes, the glaring omission of ALL North Africans from the Fst table (among other analyses) was highly suspicious. Even if they thought North Africans were Eurasian transplants, they still could have posted the North African Fst values just for transparency's sake. They could have let people make up their own minds. They need to explain why modern North Africans were left out. If they don't then I'll just assume that they're lying and that it's deliberate. Because Fregel included North African samples in the Fst analysis and they, or at least some of them, outperformed Middle Eastern populations in closeness to Natufians. So somebody in Lazaridis team did the analysis and simply omitted them and posted some non sense about "we could not use North Africans".
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Who cares about Anthromadness' take? I can't take anyone seriously who quotes Davidski on Natufians.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
So Natufians and the Near East could be the ones that have a large amount of Northern African DNA as opposed to northern Africans being the passive recipients of the Near East? Because the way I read things it always seems like North Africa has no indigenous DNA of it's own, it's DNA either originated from SSA or the West Asia.
Posts: 2508 | From: . | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: Nobody said that in the primary research article
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: The affinity is to East and Horn Africans.
We've already talked about Lazaridis et al and their selective tests, several times.
We could not test for a link to present-day North Africans, who owe most of their ancestry to back-migration from Eurasia
You may have your own beliefs about who Natufians are related to. But the fact is Lazaridis et al tend get forgetful when it comes to running common sense tests.
Hey Laz Initially stated his Basal Eurasian was East African before the peer reviews kicked his ass... He was also the first and only mainstream "geneticist" to openly claim the Ifri m Amr Mousa were Africans. And he also silently pushed Daniel shriners recent study showing SSA in Natufians to the spotlight.
This is why I gave that analogy to him being that classmate who doesn't raises his hand. ...He knows lol.
I think he also said CHG with migration from Africa. I would have to find the quote though.
Posts: 2463 | From: New Jersey USA | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
^Sounds like a Jones et al 2015 paraphrase.
quote:Given their geographic origin, it seems likely that CHG and EF are the descendants of early colonists from Africa who stopped south of the Caucasus, in an area stretching south to the Levant and possibly east towards Central and South Asia. WHG, on the other hand, are likely the descendants of a wave that expanded further into Europe.
quote:Originally posted by Oshun: So Natufians and the Near East could be the ones that have a large amount of Northern African DNA as opposed to northern Africans being the passive recipients of the Near East? Because the way I read things it always seems like North Africa has no indigenous DNA of it's own, it's DNA either originated from SSA or the West Asia.
According to ancient DNA analyses conducted by Lazaridis et al. (2016) on Natufian skeletal remains from present-day northern Israel, the Natufians carried the Y-DNA (paternal) haplogroups
1) E1b1b1b2 (xE1b1b1b2a,E1b1b1b2b) (2/5; 40%) Possible place of origin Northern Africa
2) CT (2/5; 40%) Possible place of origin Asia or East Africa
3) E-p2, specifically E1b1 (xE1b1a1,E1b1b1b1) (1/5; 20%) Possible place of origin East Africa
posted
Posted by the now defunct Dienekes. Seems like he too is reading my material. He is still not getting the part of the puzzle. It can never be an Arabian origin of AfrAsian. It is most likely Tanzania or some point further south like Malawi or Zimbabwe. Also Native American and East Asian are furtheest from modern Africans NOT Europeans or Arabians. Looking at K2 in an UNSUPERVISED Cluster chart.
Quote ----- March 25, 2018 Statistical Palaeoafricans According to a new preprint by Durvasula and Sankararaman (D+S): Using this method, we find that ~7.97±0.6% of the genetic ancestry from the West African Yoruba population traces its origin to an unidentified, archaic population This ~8% matches well the ~9% of "West Africa A" in Yoruba of the model of Skoglund et al. Figure 3D. If "West Africa A" corresponds to the Archaic Ghost of D+S, then the Mende have the most of it at ~13%.
I have long maintained that the higher genetic diversity of extant Sub-Saharan Africans is the result of admixture between "Afrasians" (a population that spawned Eurasians and much of the ancestry of Sub-Saharans and which had "low" (Eurasian-level) of genetic diversity) and multiple layers of "Palaeoafricans". It would seem that one such layer has now been discovered.
Where did the Afrasians live? Recent developments pushed back the presence of modern humans in both North Africa and the Middle East, making both regions highly competitive as the cradle of the Afrasians. The odds for Sub-Saharan Africa have greatly diminished also by the discovery of late non-sapiens H. naledi in South Africa (which was naively postulated as a cradle based on the presence there today of genetically diverse San Bushmen, but who are not descendants of even Late Pleistocene South Africans), as well as of the archaic component in the genomes of West Africans. These discoveries pile up on top of known archaic skulls of late provenance in both Central and West Africa.
Remember though, that the archaic admixture in West Africans is "less archaic" (more closely related to H. sapiens) than the Neandertal/Denisovan ancestry which contributed to extant Eurasians. All Africans (modern or archaic) are a branch within the phylogeny of Eurasians, with Australoids (and now apparently East Asians too) having the deepest known strain of human ancestry inherited from the elusive Denisovans.
------------------------
-------------------- Without data you are just another person with an opinion - Deming Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
So we agree on Iwo Eleru and West African admixture We agree on West Africans are primarily Neolithic ie Afrasian
-------------------- Without data you are just another person with an opinion - Deming Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: Posted by the now defunct Dienekes. Seems like he too is reading my material. He is still not getting the part of the puzzle. It can never be an Arabian origin of AfrAsian. It is most likely Tanzania or some point further south like Malawi or Zimbabwe. Also Native American and East Asian are furtheest from modern Africans NOT Europeans or Arabians. Looking at K2 in an UNSUPERVISED Cluster chart.
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: ^Sounds like a Jones et al 2015 paraphrase.
quote:Given their geographic origin, it seems likely that CHG and EF are the descendants of early colonists from Africa who stopped south of the Caucasus, in an area stretching south to the Levant and possibly east towards Central and South Asia. WHG, on the other hand, are likely the descendants of a wave that expanded further into Europe.
posted
Yeah. They probably know more than they're letting on, too. Notice how they mention areas further east in Asia as part of the Basal Eurasian range, way ahead of Narasimhan et al 2018's E1b findings. Probably ran some tests lowkey but were too ahead of the curve to feel comfortable putting it out there.
Archaeologically there are cultural traits linking the regions they mention. Jones et al are a well-informed team multidisciplinary-wise. It's not lost on the that CHG skeletal and cultural features are relevant. I want to say the same thing about Basal Eurasian's distribution as Jones et al, but I'm holding back because I can't confirm it with the skeletal data yet. But after Narasimhan et al's E1bs I might make what Jones et al say in that quote my official position.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
BWw let me see how long it will take for me to get banned. I will play nice.
Strange??!! I am in guys! Hmmm. I am sure many post are filtered and not displayed. No way only 37 people will post on such a ground breaking and controversial topic. Not sure why mine was allowed. I did not ask anything spectacular. It was a simple question where the is uniparental link between the Steppes pastoralist and modern Western Europeans. Lazaridis covered that already saying there is no connections.
But I will play nice.
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: [Q]
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: Posted by the now defunct Dienekes. Seems like he too is reading my material. He is still not getting the part of the puzzle. It can never be an Arabian origin of AfrAsian. It is most likely Tanzania or some point further south like Malawi or Zimbabwe. Also Native American and East Asian are furtheest from modern Africans NOT Europeans or Arabians. Looking at K2 in an UNSUPERVISED Cluster chart.
[/Q]
-------------------- Without data you are just another person with an opinion - Deming Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
BWw let me see how long it will take for me to get banned. I will play nice.
Strange??!! I am in guys! Hmmm. I am sure many post are filtered and not displayed. No way only 37 people will post on such a ground breaking and controversial topic. Not sure why mine was allowed. I did not ask anything spectacular. It was a simple question where the is uniparental link between the Steppes pastoralist and modern Western Europeans. Lazaridis covered that already saying there is no connections.
But I will play nice.
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: [Q]
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: Posted by the now defunct Dienekes. Seems like he too is reading my material. He is still not getting the part of the puzzle. It can never be an Arabian origin of AfrAsian. It is most likely Tanzania or some point further south like Malawi or Zimbabwe. Also Native American and East Asian are furtheest from modern Africans NOT Europeans or Arabians. Looking at K2 in an UNSUPERVISED Cluster chart.
From what I've read in the blogs I respect Maju's views and some others. That's about it.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic