quote:Originally posted by Tukuler: [QB] Uniparentals reveal important deep rooted stock parentage that autosomes may completely overshadow no matter if settled, migratory, or exode (permanent one-way distant mass movement). /QB]
This is a wonderful find. If I am reviewing this correctly a whopping 31% (6 out of 19) samples extracted from Bronze Age Gonur Tepe carry "sub-saharan" YDNA haplogroup A.
What do you all know about the context and background of the samples used? Were these high status individuals, warriors, farming class/yeomen?
-------------------- Black Roots. Posts: 2007 | From: Washington State | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
no, there is no evidence that they carry Sub-Saharan A. they presumably carry some form of modern human Y DNA, but it could be frickin' Neanderthal for all the actual SNPs covered.
Posts: 660 | From: Canada | Registered: Mar 2017
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by capra: no, there is no evidence that they carry Sub-Saharan A. they presumably carry some form of modern human Y DNA, but it could be frickin' Neanderthal for all the actual SNPs covered.
So the paper is being revised and republished?
-------------------- Black Roots. Posts: 2007 | From: Washington State | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
it hasn't actually been published yet, it's a preprint, a draft put out for review. yes, it will probably be revised quite a bit before it is peer reviewed and published in a journal.
Posts: 660 | From: Canada | Registered: Mar 2017
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by capra: it hasn't actually been published yet, it's a preprint, a draft put out for review. yes, it will probably be revised quite a bit before it is peer reviewed and published in a journal.
thx
-------------------- Black Roots. Posts: 2007 | From: Washington State | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well obviously if OOA is true one would expect stronger connections to Africa the further back one goes in time. What may be surprising to some is the extent of possible subsequent migrations of Africans since OOA far into parts of Eurasia. Could this be evidence of such later waves? Time will tell.
We have discussed this before at length and many other authors, including Europeans, Asians and Africans have discussed the presence of black folks (not necessarily Africans) in parts of Asia and into Mesopotamia. I mean you literally have the "black heads" of Sumer from ancient art. So this isn't new stuff at all.
I guess the real question is whether the genetic data from this paper is reliable or not.
Posts: 8897 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
There is virtually no evidence that A is found at the frequency suggested by certain posters in the ancient Gonur specimen.
for representation Look at this image from a file that was posted several times in this thread already. A file which shows us the complete reads logged by the program the scientists/researchers used. This file was posted by the lead Author himself
This is a screenshot of what you will immediately see in the file heres a quick breakdown of whats going on.
-There are 27 rows each representing an gene(allele) captured and reported by the program...For reference, typically 1000's of these would be needed to accurately define a haplogroup, and hundreds if you want a ballpark estimate. Here, this individual has twenty seven reported.... twenty seven
...But it gets worse.
Out of all 27 Alleles none of them have mutation present ...no polymorphism, no variant... all ancestral. This doesn't mean that this person belong to an ancestral haplogroup, it litterally means that THERE'S NO DATA -NONE
So by default the program reports a base Haplogroup, A. As a person who've use this program before to call Y-Dna haplogroups I can assure you that getting an A... means that the run failed...I know, counter intuitive
A lot of breath was wasted in this thread, this is a heads up for those who might be fooled into believing there's evidence of something when there isn't. please be very vigilant in what you decide to read and beleive and try to get involved and ask questions
Even I was signing a different tune before I reviewed the contents of the study myself, however dishonesty helps noone here at this point in time.
Edit: there's actually 29 alleles here, but 27 unique assignments and 27 come of the tounge a bit better imo XDPosts: 1781 | From: New York | Registered: Jul 2016
| IP: Logged |
posted
from a commentor "Share › − Avatar Shi Huang • a day ago Why no discussion at all on Y and mtDNA data? May be something inconvenient? Why were Y chr haplotype A and BT so commonly found in ancient Turkmenistan (in supplementary table), when only CT are thought to have left Africa in the OOA model?"
-------- make up your mind! schock and jive?
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro: [QB] []/] Everybody's questioning them tbh. And looking at the output I posted above they have reason to. When sequencing the did a poor job of targeting Y-Snps. This is surprisingly bad for an aDNA paper. We might have to eat these calls.[/] [/Q]
Quote: “ From the author
This is a first? "[b]*****In the spirit of open science****,
"*****In the spirit of open science****, the authors of this study are inviting anyone who wishes to look carefully at this manuscript to write to us to let us know (a) if you find any errors, and (b) if you have any suggestions for changes that we could incorporate in the revision. We are also posting the data for the 362 newly reported ancient samples on our website and are open to suggestions for new analyses to include in our final submitted manuscript. If you wish to access the full analysis dataset including previously published samples some of which require a signed letter affirming certain conditions before for data release, please write to David Reich (reich@genetics.med.harvard.edu)"”
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro: [QB] Attention
There is virtually no evidence that A is found at the frequency suggested certain posters in the ancient Gonur specimen. …..Out of all 27 Alleles none of them have mutation present ...no polymorphism, no variant... all ancestral. [/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 |
-------------------- It's not my burden to disabuse the ignorant of their wrong opinions Posts: 2707 | From: New York | Registered: Jun 2015
| IP: Logged |
posted
can you link/source or blow that up? Can't read it.
Here is an interest post on the blog…to you “scholars” on linguistics and “documented” text and history. This is where you come in. What this guy is saying. Is it true. If what he is saying is true then we should not even have discussion. Sage, DJ, Lioness, Capra, Swenet, T-Rex etc.
Did the ancient text originate in the south and not the north of India. The south is dominated by blacks. Did farmers it come from the “Near East”/Africa?
--------------------------------------------------------------------- Avatar Abhijit Adhikari Vagheesh Narasimhan • 2 days ago Dr. Narasimhan, Respectfully submitting my two bits, some may not stand your scrutiny but a few may.
1. "While we do not have access to any DNA directly sampled from the Indus Valley Civilization (IVC)". 2. 3. 4. Brahmins and Bhumihars are not the same. Bhumihars may not be the custodians of ancient texts, they were just landlords. North Indian Brahmins have nothing to do with South Indian Brahmins in the context of sharing the writing of ancient Sanskrit texts. The ancient Sanskrit texts, were all supposed to have been written in Southern India, therefore there can be no linkage proved between the arrival of Iranian agriculturists, Steppe_EMBA, Steppe_MLBA, their mixing with IVC to create ANI and using that to prove that Sanskrit language was passed on to Indians as part of IE language sharing. The texts were written much earlier and in South India, where no admixture sharing was found with the west asian or central asian immigrants. Thus if anything, this proves that the ancient knowledge originated within peninsular India. In any case, Sanskrit has more than 90% of the IE language words as compared to any other language in the world (ancient or modern), and so this very strongly suggests that the IE language moved outward from India and not moved in from outside.
5. South Asians have Steppe ancestry due to Steppe_MLBA cluster, and also high frequency of R1a haplogroup, both of which are absent in Yamnaya, which were of the Steppe_EMBA descent. So how does this lead to a suggestion that Late Proto-Indo-European was the language of the Yamnaya? This is no proof at all that IE was the language of the Yamnaya. And from there the authors go on to suggest that this proto-IE language was the precursor of the advanced Sanskrit language developed in Indian peninsula because of the arrival of the Steppe population in India? 6. 7. 8. This is the theory being propounded for South Asia:
West Asian agricultural technology spread from an origin in the Near East in the 7th and 6th millennia BCE via the Iranian plateau
-----------------------------------
-------------------- 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
Blowing smoke again ElMaestro? Not sure where this is going but….. You are becoming a suspicious dude. Just saying.
Shi Huang BS. in Genetics, Fudan Univ.; Ph.D. in Biochemistry, UC Davis; Faculty previously at SBP Institute San Diego, and now Central South Univ., China
-------------------- 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
lol, Shi Huang is devoted to proving the Out-of-Africa didn't happen and that humanity originated in the vicinity of China.
Posts: 660 | From: Canada | Registered: Mar 2017
| IP: Logged |
posted
To the newbies who are following. What were the preceding posts about? Dr Huang a qualified genetic scientist is questioning why these African Haplogroups (A &E) not given a smidgen of attention or discussion in the paper. Capra and others deflected and said the results are fake. It is not real they said. But Dr Huang is stating it is impossible for these to NOT be yDNA A. But the author hedged. He admitted these may be African yDNA A but it could “possibly” be due to contamination or damage. So are ALL the samples “damaged” or “contaminated”. I thought with new technology they can “authenticate” ancient DNA. Capra, ElMaestro? Should I check the methodology? Did they do due diligence?
But the author is being slick, his response to one commenter was…..”we think the autosomes were more important than the haplogroups”….. so the uniparental markers weren’t discussed. Man, Talk about deflection and delusions. Thoughts ELMaestro? Is Dr Huang correct?
-------------------- 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
Typical of Europeans…”shoot the messenger”!!!! Let me spell it out Capra. Is what Dr Huang saying correct? Can they be anything else but yDNA A? Fugk Dr Huang’s personal belief! Are these yDNA A and E? Are all the samples contaminated?
BTW- He may be right the data may show A00(in Asia) or some very basal form of AMH. A000? lol! Who knows, but definitely comparable to Africans
quote:Originally posted by capra: lol, Shi Huang is devoted to proving the Out-of-Africa didn't happen and that humanity originated in the vicinity of China.
-------------------- 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 |
OH! And where are the supposed experts on ancient text on here? Did Sanskrit arrive from Africa with the Neolithics? Speaking with these Hindu researchers that work with me they have no clue but claim they are Hindu Nationalist. Man talk about a mind fugk!
-------------------- 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
Looking at the comments and blogs. This is a cluster F of a study……their interpretation, theories, historical knowledge and dates and sample sets are all screwed up. The only thing we can trust is what the DNA data shows based upon the computer.
-------------------- 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
^^ interesting development, the conversations posted
quote:Originally posted by capra: lol, Shi Huang is devoted to proving the Out-of-Africa didn't happen and that humanity originated in the vicinity of China.
Recent studies have established that genetic diversities are mostly maintained by selection, therefore rendering the present molecular model of human origins untenable. Using improved methods and public data, we have revisited human evolution and derived an age of 1.91-1.96 million years for the first split in modern human autosomes. We found evidence of modern Y and mtDNA originating in East Asia and dispersing via hybridization with archaic humans. Neanderthals and Denisovans were archaic Africans with Eurasian admixtures and ancestors of South Asia Negritos and Aboriginal Australians. Verifying our model, we found more ancestry of Southern Chinese from Hunan in Africans relative to other East Asian groups examined. These results suggest multiregional evolution of autosomes and East Asia origin of Y and mtDNA, thereby leading to a coherent account of modern human origins.
That the existing tree may be unrealistic is also shown by the fact that while haplotypes with few sequence variations from the ancestor of F, C, D, E, NO, KxLT, or K are routinely found in present day people, none could be found for the putative ancestors of likely African origins, including BT, CT, or CF. Also, the branching pattern in Africans often involves one branch, such as A00, with few or no sub-branches while the other branch A0-T accounting for all of the remaining haplotypes on Earth, which is odd and against branching patterns known in experimental biology such as embryonic differentiation into three layers with each layer giving rise to multiple cell types.
The single origin Out of Africa model assumes that there was a relatively recent common ancestral population for Homo sapiens which already showed most of the anatomical features shared by present day people. This population originated in Africa ~200,000 years ago, followed by an initiation of African regional differentiation, subsequent radiation from Africa, and final establishment of modern regional characteristics outside Africa (Cann et al., 1987; Stringer and Andrews, 1988). These modern Africans replaced the archaic Homo in Eurasia with limited genetic mixing (Fu et al., 2015; Fu et al., 2014; Green et al., 2010; Meyer et al., 2012; Vernot and Akey, 2014). Support for this model comes from the African location of the earliest fossils of modern humans (White et al., 2003) and the Neutral theory interpretation of the greater genetic diversity in Africans (Cann et al., 1987). The difficulties with this model include the discrepancy between autosomal and Y/mtDNA age, the Y haplotype A00 with age >300,000 years (Mendez et al., 2013), AMH fossils of ~100,000 years old in Hunan of China (Liu et al., 2015), and the generally weaker support from fossils and stone tools relative to the multiregional model. Most fatal to the Out of Africa model, however, is that the theoretical foundation for it, the Neutral theory, is widely known to be incomplete or has yet to solve the century old riddle of what determines genetic diversity (Leffler et al., 2012). Obviously, inferring human origins by using genetic diversity data must wait until one has a complete understanding of what genetic diversity means. The standard for such an understanding should of course be a complete and coherent account of all known puzzles related to genetic diversity. The unusual admixed features of the Aboriginal Australians have yet to be explained by any model (Stringer and Andrews, 1988). A list of morphological features aimed at defining modern humans would exclude both modern Aboriginal Australians and Neanderthals, indicating some shared traits between the two (Wolpoff and Caspari, 2007). Also unexplained is the origin of Negritos in South Asia. Despite the obvious phenotypic similarities and close Y and mtDNA relationships, no special autosomal relationship has yet been found between Negritos and African pygmies or even among different Negrito groups in South Asia (Mondal et al., 2016).
Y chromosome phylogeny The existing Y phylogenetic tree depends on inferring derived alleles and in turn requires the validity of the infinite site assumption, which means no maximum genetic distance and no recurrent mutations. However, this assumption can be proven invalid even just by the existing Y tree itself, since the tree shows numerous recurrent mutations that were simply ignored without valid reasons (Supplementary Table S7), especially for the early branches with some such as KxLT and HIJK contradicted by as much as 50% of all relevant SNPs (Poznik et al., 2013). That the existing tree may be unrealistic is also shown by the fact that while haplotypes with few sequence variations from the ancestor of F, C, D, E, NO, KxLT, or K are routinely found in present day people, none could be found for the putative ancestors of likely African origins, including BT, CT, or CF. Also, the branching pattern in Africans often involves one branch, such as A00, with few or no sub-branches while the other branch A0-T accounting for all of the remaining haplotypes on Earth, which is odd and against branching patterns known in experimental biology such as embryonic differentiation into three layers with each layer giving rise to multiple cell types.
posted
At the time of that post Shi Huang didn't know how the haplogroups were determined in the study. Neither did I or anyone else who gave these assignments the time of day. & when I say eat these calls I meant this is all we're getting... we might never know the actual Haplogroups of these samples. The problem isn't the program, or the method... but the lack of Y-SNP data. This is Ancient DNA, IDK if they'll get around to resolving this.
So Xyyman ...Now we know you are simply dishonest. I asked you several times if you read the file and or understood it... and you deflected. Now everyone knows whats going on including you. ...Let's see how far you continue to dig yourself into the scum hole.
By the way ...Notice how the Chimp... a Fucking chimp was also assigned to haplogroup APosts: 1781 | From: New York | Registered: Jul 2016
| IP: Logged |
It was not long ago, in the 90’s, among the sands of the eastern Karakum desert, archaeology scientists discovered a huge necropolis dating back to the 3-2 millennia B.C. in the oasis of Mary. There was once a capital city, called today Gonur Tepe (translated from Turkmen as “Grey hill”) with its palace and few temples that could compete with erections of Assyria and Babylon.
One of the most interesting discoveries is the burial underground premises found in the eastern part of the big pool. Everything there showed that this was the burial of local elites of that period. Archaeologists dug 5 tomb-vaults in total; each of them looked like a house with several rooms. Two of the tombs had burials of several people. Most probably bodies belonged to the servants, who, according to ancient customs, were supposed to escort their master to the other world. It was also according to traditions that the burial place was filled with valuable things that once belonged to the deceased.
^ not sure when this was written but they say " Most probably bodies belonged to the servants," but there are some more interesting details about the site at the link. They also say
" proving that Gonurians believed in Zoroastriasm." but I've read reasonable dispute about that
I don't think they would have had Khosian servants or whatever their role was there in 2500 BC
haplogroup A Africans, in my opinion, would be least likely leaving Africa at that time and much older remains in Eurasia are not Hap A and other remains at Gonur Tepe are of other Hgs
or, if further support if found there could be a future headline
quote:
Daily Mail. May 2018
South African DNA discovered in ancient Turkmenistan site
posted
Nice try ElMaestro. As I said you may be young enough to be my son. I am uncle to a 22year old. Your erratic strategy will not work, I teach my young ones they don’t teach me. First off – the author never denied these were yDNA A. He is convinced may be yDNA A. The “read” is correct. The spin he gave is it may be contamination or aDNA damage. Maybe a Khoi-San or Sudanese was one of the lab technicians pulling the sample. Lol! May be they did not do due diligence and confirm aDNA (degradation) as most modern research labs started doing? Reich Labs is top notch....supposedly
Are you are lawyer or student ElMaestro? Really?! The author did not deny the reads are correct. He said possible contamination etc. You moved from “low reads” to …”we may never know” SMH. You know I have you figured out? Don’t you?
And yes, I saw the Chimp the first time I looked at the data. Also a modern Irula(hence my picture of the Irula). So the data is correct it is an ancestral form of YDNA either A or A00 or earlier. But since it is from a HUMAN that is only about 4000year old. We have to assume yDNA A or A00 or the like but definitely xBT.
-------------------- 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: Nice try ElMaestro. As I said you may be young enough to be my son. I am uncle to a 22year old. Your erratic strategy will not work, I teach my young ones they don’t teach me. First off – the author never denied these were yDNA A. He is convinced may be yDNA A. The “read” is correct. The spin he gave is it may be contamination or aDNA damage. Maybe a Khoi-San or Sudanese was one of the lab technicians pulling the sample. Lol! May be they did not do due diligence and confirm aDNA (degradation) as most modern research labs started doing? Reich Labs is top notch.
Are you are lawyer or student ElMaestro? Really?! The author did not deny the reads are correct. He said possible contamination etc. You moved from “low reads” to …”we may never know” SMH. You know I have you figured out? Don’t you?
And yes, I saw the Chimp the first time I looked at the data. Also a modern Irula(hence my picture of the Irula). So the data is correct it is an ancestral form of YDNA either A or A00 or earlier. But since it is from a HUMAN that is only about 4000year old. We have to assume yDNA A or A00 or the like but definitely xBT.
If it all works out, what would the headline be?
Posts: 42939 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
South African DNA discovered in ancient Turkmenistan site
----
Really??? Africans in the Harrapan Valley!!
"The E1b samples are E1b1a and DNATribes analysis
From DNATribes(April 2014)- quote:: ==== Ancient Eurasian and African Ancestry in Europe Background: New Genomes from Ancient Europe Recently published ancient genomes from Europe, Siberia, and North America have provided new insights about the early migrations that have shaped the genetic structure of Europe. In particular, a new tree analysis of Eurasian population history models modern Europeans as a mixture of at least three ancient populations: Early European Farmers (EEF), Western European Hunter-Gatherers (WHG), Ancient North Eurasians (ANE), and Eastern Non-Africans (ENA).2 Some of these ancient populations (such as WHG hunter-gatherers) did not leave genomic traces outside of Europe; other ancient populations (such as the EEF “First Farmers”) left traces across a wider range of territories in both Europe and the Middle East (illustrated in Figure 1). Within this agricultural zone range, EEF farmers came in contact with other ancient populations: In Europe and West Asia, EEF populations mixed with North Eurasians (including Siberian relatives of WHG hunter-gatherers). In the Arabian Peninsula, EEF farmers mixed with ancestral Sub-Saharan Africans RELATED to modern Nigerian, Gambian, and Botswanan populations. In Armenia and Georgia, EEF farmers mixed with South Asian (Indian Subcontinent) populations.
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: Nice try ElMaestro.
If it all works out, what would the headline be?
-------------------- 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: First off – the author never denied these were yDNA A. He is convinced may be yDNA A. The “read” is correct. The spin he gave is it may be contamination or aDNA damage.
That's what I don't get. Another thing is, why are some of the A candidates listed as A-T, while others are listed as just A, if it's just a matter of missing Y SNPs? And if the answer is that the software is spitting out bogus results, why did he speculate about damage and contamination? If it's just the software giving arbitrary assignments, why didn't they intervene? Why put obviously bogus output in the paper, and presumably with no caveat? The explanations don't really add up. I will look into this later.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: Nice try ElMaestro. As I said you may be young enough to be my son. I am uncle to a 22year old. Your erratic strategy will not work, I teach my young ones they don’t teach me. First off – the author never denied these were yDNA A. He is convinced may be yDNA A. The “read” is correct. The spin he gave is it may be contamination or aDNA damage. Maybe a Khoi-San or Sudanese was one of the lab technicians pulling the sample. Lol! May be they did not do due diligence and confirm aDNA (degradation) as most modern research labs started doing? Reich Labs is top notch....supposedly
Are you are lawyer or student ElMaestro? Really?! The author did not deny the reads are correct. He said possible contamination etc. You moved from “low reads” to …”we may never know” SMH. You know I have you figured out? Don’t you?
And yes, I saw the Chimp the first time I looked at the data. Also a modern Irula(hence my picture of the Irula). So the data is correct it is an ancestral form of YDNA either A or A00 or earlier. But since it is from a HUMAN that is only about 4000year old. We have to assume yDNA A or A00 or the like but definitely xBT.
Nope... save it. How do you know they're xBT when there's no SNP above P167/PF1430 available?
...the talk of contamination is irrelevant here, btw.
Erratic strategy lol? So literally showing the data is a strategy. I see where your head is at ...Keep it up.
According to Xyyman Africans share haplogroups with chimps everybody
Keep digging.
Posts: 1781 | From: New York | Registered: Jul 2016
| IP: Logged |
posted
Narasimhan explained clearly and correctly what's going on.
in response to Shi Huang asking why there is no discussion of Y and mt data, he said they focussed on autosomal as most important (which it is) and will go over the uniparental markers carefully next. it's a preprint not a finished product, they just chucked in the output from the software (which turned out to be embarassingly bad output lol).
in response to Shi Huang's question about why there is A and BT, he said "low coverage samples are likely to be A/BT because all other informative sites are missing", which is exactly the case.
Shi Huang said "if you have SNPs that define the haplotype as A there is no way you can also find SNPs defining it as non-A...." this is *false*. (i expect he's hoping to find is something to favour his theory that haplogroup A is a subclade of haplogroup F.)
Narasimhan responded, correctly, that damage and contamination can both result in *SNPs defining A and non-A in the same sample*. he is *not* saying that this is what happened in these samples; as he already said, the A assignment is due to *low coverage*. these do *not* have positive calls for A (or anything else), as Elamestro has already explained.
in addition to damage and contamination (and sequencing errors), contradictory SNPs can arise through recurrent and back-mutation. a well known case is SRY10831, which mutated in BT and back-mutated in R1a1, so that R1a1 men have the same SNP as A(xBT) men.
xyyman will continue lying his ass off about this, of course.
@Swenet - the A0-T one has a derived call for A0-T. Narasimhan's reference to damage and contamination was in response to what Shi Huang said about contradictory calls.
Posts: 660 | From: Canada | Registered: Mar 2017
| IP: Logged |
There are 15 alleles captured from the Y chromosome.... As a reminder 1000s are typically required for an accurate assignment, 100s are need for a good ballpark estimate.
...here we have 15. and one mutation is present, it turns out to be L1085.
...It'd be very difficult to describe the buckets of salt you should take this assignment with.
Posts: 1781 | From: New York | Registered: Jul 2016
| IP: Logged |
posted
I am really happy I dug deeper. Man! This is some astonishing stuff. This is a remarkable coincidence. BOTH two advanced civilization Persia and IVC has the heaviest African presence in Asia. WOOOWWWWW!!!!! This is no chance occurrence.
My God! We have been lied to for how long?. Holy Shit!
Now we see these ancient peoples are carrying African DNA. Man they had us going for hundreds of years. But give credit to Sergi and Coon to a lesser extent.. He(Sergi) figured it out over 100years ago. I was fortunate to read his book which trained me to look for clues.
DNATribes sealed the deal.
-------------------- 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
When I first read Sergi’s book I almost fell out my chair. I said to myself. “no way” . But as the aDNA and modern DNA papers started coming out I found it remarkable that all the data confirmed he was correct. So I stopped looking at the phenotype and concentrated on the scientific and geographic data. Man was he right! Then Lucas Martin came on the scene and added fuel to the flame. I was sold when I read Rosenberge et al(2002). This is a done deal!!
-------------------- 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 |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
If there's no contamination or damage it's not aDNA. With aDNA conclusions can only be drawn from what's there. Complaining about what's missing doesn't change that.
_ _ _ _ _
JUS 4 PHUN
When I saw Chimp as A I simply thought it meant the hominid-ape split. Chimp is often used as human outgroup. Chimp helps us understand our own selective sweeps.
Perry's A00 nrY proved older than Jebel Irhoud's bones.
At some point in time Chimp and Hominid shared a daddy. Whether his nrY Hg survived in either species, I don't know. Full sequence studies on Chimp Y chromosome don't address this.
An interesting read : Sahelanthropus tchadensis, a species believed to be an early human precursor.
S. tchadensis, or Toumaď fossils have been dated to the proposed interval period between the initial divergence and the final human-chimp genetic split.
The Toumaď species has what are considered distinctive human features and consequently has been regarded as evidence that the lineages must have split before Toumaď's era, estimated at 6.5 to 7.4 million years ago.
"It is possible that the Toumaď fossil is more recent than previously thought," Nick Patterson, a senior research scientist at the Broad Institute, said in a statement.
"But if the dating is correct, the Toumaď fossil would precede the human-chimp split. The fact that it has humanlike features suggests that human-chimp speciation may have occurred over a long period, with episodes of hybridization between the emerging species."
quote:Originally posted by capra: @Swenet - the A0-T one has a derived call for A0-T. Narasimhan's reference to damage and contamination was in response to what Shi Huang said about contradictory calls.
Makes sense now. Their hg table is confusing though, because it makes it seem like they have more Y SNP information for their A samples than they have for their A0-T sample, when it's supposedly the A samples that lack information. Normally it would be the A0-T assignment that is used to indicate that most useful information is lacking.
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro: ...It'd be very difficult to describe the buckets of salt you should take this assignment with.
Why? What else could it be?
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
The chimp being assigned to A is an error in the program,,, I literally said this at the top of the page.... We don't share Adam Y with chimps... This is just an example of how the program interprets a LACK OF DATA.
There are 29 and 15 alleles counted on the Y chromosome for the specimen I cited respectfully. Fucking 29 and 15... that is not enough to correctly assign whether or not a species is human or not!
There is a lack of data
There is a lack of data
There is a lack of data
We are making presumptions based on evidence that DOES NOT EXIST.
This particular problem has little to nothing to do with Contamination. All of these samples were treated and have respectable contamination coefficients. Let that go, that quote about contamination was taken out of context.
For the A samples and E1b1a samples there are simply not enough alleles to suggest the haplogroup they belong to period.
This thread has became anti-scholar and psuedoscientific... I'm on the verge of suggesting censorship.
Posts: 1781 | From: New York | Registered: Jul 2016
| IP: Logged |
posted
Scholarship? Who here is a genetic "scholar"? Taking your ball and going home again?
I am beginning to wonder if all these “steppes” nonsense is to somehow a plan to disenfranchise African from their rightful place in human history. Geographically we can see why Africans will have a huge presence in Persia and IVC. I figured it out for Sardinia and Etruscan(being on the western side of Italy- I called it) But never paid serious attention to IVC and Persia. Now this paper has enlightened me. Listening to all the “spin” on here have me convinced these Euronuts are panicking and freaking out. They are losing control. This is not what they anticipated. They thought we would go with the autosomal spin and results. HA! HA! Ha! Who cares about the Steppes autosome? Really? My son carries my Haplogroup. Period! And his descendants would also. And all generations from that point on would carry it. They will all be my male descendants! That is how it works! These were African men …fugking and having babies! 1000’s of year ago in Persia and IVC peri-phery.
Man what a shocker!
-------------------- Without data you are just another person with an opinion - Deming Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro: ...It'd be very difficult to describe the buckets of salt you should take this assignment with.
Why? What else could it be?
I couldn't even give you a statistical estimate with the snp count so low. ...which is the problem.
Posts: 1781 | From: New York | Registered: Jul 2016
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
If it's all so screwy why even present it for peer review?
Homo and Pan in fact share a male ancestor millions of years ago. Either his signal • remains in us and Pan, • evolved separate lineages specific to either us or Pan, • or disappeared in either us, Pan, or both.
In any case root of A00 and A0 had to come from somewhere. Whether from Pan or our common ancestor? Anybody who claims to really know is trippin'.
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: Scholarship? Who here is a genetic "scholar". Taking your ball and going home again?
This isn't my thread... If the God mods allow, You can lie all you wan't here... but note I'm not on your side anymore. You virtually admitted to being an anti-intellectual and a lair. You lost me uncle. I'm done with you.
Glad to know you believe Africans are chimps btw.
Posts: 1781 | From: New York | Registered: Jul 2016
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler: If it's all so screwy why even present it for peer review?
Homo and Pan in fact share a male ancestor millions of years ago. Either his signal remains, evolved, or disappeared.
In any case root of A00 and A0 had to come from somewhere. Whether from Chimp or our common ancestor? Anybody who claims to really know is trippin'.
Did you miss the many times I stated haplogroups were arbitrary. That A is assigned to the human root? We've had the chimp genome for years... In-fact, the chimps ref Y chromosome is used to establish the human root A, how? By targeting the difference in human and Chimp Y chromosome lineage.
To help everyone understand: It is impossible for a chimp to be A.
Edit: To answer the question as to why post this for peer review I can only guess, and my best guess is they did so to avoid omission. The paper is trash anyways... Apparently we now conclude on the geographic and cultural origin of a whole language phylum due to steppe ancestry be present in all IE speakers. This is the type of confirmation bias I often speak out against, but it's the highlight of this paper.
Posts: 1781 | From: New York | Registered: Jul 2016
| IP: Logged |
posted
I am not lowering my self to your level. Not even going to respond to that bait statement. Enjoy! Ssshheeh! kids. SMH. ! Let me move on.
That’s one thing with Europeans. You push enough buttons and they don't have their way(tantrum) then their true nature comes out. What is the name of that gene? VAMX? I created a thread on it on ESR.
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro:
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: Scholarship? Who here is a genetic "scholar". Taking your ball and going home again?
This isn't my thread... If the God mods allow, You can lie all you wan't here... but note I'm not on your side anymore. You virtually admitted to being an anti-intellectual and a lair. You lost me uncle. I'm done with you.
Glad to know you believe Africans are chimps btw.
-------------------- 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
“”This isn't my thread... If the God mods allow, You can lie all you wan't here... but note I'm not on your side anymore. You virtually admitted to being an anti-intellectual and a lair. You lost me uncle. I'm done with you.””
You millennials think it is about sides. No young man. It is about correcting the wrongs and setting the record str8. Too much reality TV and alliances(Survivor?). Your data and argument has to stand on it’s own. I don’t need friends I have more than enough . I want the truth to be told. It is that simple.
-------------------- 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: “”This isn't my thread... If the God mods allow, You can lie all you wan't here... but note I'm not on your side anymore. You virtually admitted to being an anti-intellectual and a lair. You lost me uncle. I'm done with you.””
You millennials think it is about sides. No young man. It is about correcting the wrongs and setting the record str8. Too much reality TV and alliances(Survivor?). You data and argument has to stand on it’s own. I don’t need friends I have more than enough . I want the truth to be told. It is that simple.
Which is why I won't stand by and allow you to vibrantly lie to people about evidence we don't have. Independent thinking is great, but dishonesty isn't.
you're feeding people fairytales Unc,'and now you shown us all that you're doing it on purpose. I ain't apart of no faction, but hypothetically speaking... If you were to disappear or go on vacation, etc. I wouldn't care to ask for/about you anymore.
Anyways... lets hear about how us Africans are Chimps and how Europeans are trying to hide that fact.
Posts: 1781 | From: New York | Registered: Jul 2016
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
Haplogroups are not arbitrary.
Hg's are SNP mutation combos related by descent.
It is not arbitrary that A0 does not descend from A00.
It is not arbitrary A00 and A0 have a common ancestor.
How can Pan not have the precursor to the root of A00/A0.
That is all Chimp's A0 designation here indicates. If there's no non-Homo 'bin' any non/pre-Homo or any ancestors of hominids will fall into A0. Who tf believes Chimps can carry Homo sapiens MSY A0 before its defining mutations existed?
keep in mind this is not a Hollywood script but from an actual "scientific" presentation. Are they interested in the truth or European propaganda and false dominance.
Question - do they all look gay? Gay agenda interningle in there? Just asking? Mods you can remove the question.
-------------------- 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 beyoku: As of yesterday a lot of the Y SNP calls are supposed to be bogus. They were using some new automatic caller that apparently sucks. They were alerted to it and are supposedly going to “check” their data.
See the comments on the original twitter post.
As far as I am aware this is still the case for anything sans the E-Z830's. SMH...
Posts: 2463 | From: New Jersey USA | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler: [QB] Haplogroups are not arbitrary.
Hg's are SNP mutation combos related by descent.
It is not arbitrary that A0 does not descend from A00.
It is not arbitrary A00 and A0 have a common ancestor.
How can Pan not have the precursor to the root of A00/A0.
That is all Chimp's A0 designation here indicates. If there's no non-Homo 'bin' any non/pre-Homo or any ancestors of hominids will fall into A0. Who tf believes Chimps can carry Homo sapiens MSY A0 before its defining mutations existed?
I'm not the best communicator but I'ma try my best to relay this concept as simply as I can.
"Hg's are SNP mutation combos related by descent."
>Ok ...When looking at the snp combos, we analyze the overlap between those carried by humans and Chimps.
>We then find a combination of snps to the exclusion of variants shared with chimps.
>After overlapping variants shared with chimps are disregarded we find the root.
>We called the root A
>It turned out that A wasn't really the earliest human defining Y haplogroup
>So we had to label the earlier mutation something ...which is where get A0 and A00.
>So yes phylogenetically A0 and A00 have common ancestors.. but it wont be A, because A as well as A00 and A0 were Arbitrarily labeled that way to denoted the Human Male Y chromosome lineage.
The chimp being Assigned to A by Yhaplo is not a result of Chimps being a common ancestro or at the root of the human tree. -for one. Chimps aren't our ancestors, if anything they'll belong to a paragroup to A -for two. If you ran the genome of corn, yes the crop, corn... It would be assigned haplogroup A by YHaplo.
The absence of reads causes the program to Auto-assign to Haplogroup A.
Let me know if you understand.
Posts: 1781 | From: New York | Registered: Jul 2016
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
Sweetback: "Where you get this 'we' shit?"
Just as a heads up before it gets hot up in here. I hold a hard science degree and an 18 year career with a Fortune 500 IT multinational corporation in the Hudson Valley.
I don't think you mean anything by it but when you start talking to me about being tricked or writing me a primer I start getting tight.
You can call it A you can call it TigerLilly but you can't change the mutations. Fact is SNP mutations define haplogroups. Letters of the Latin alphabet do not define haplogroups.
What I understand is VMN's Chimp was A simply by program default. Who is going to deny VMN's own explanations as to how the program he used works? Capra laid that out quite succinctly.
That said, everything I wrote about Pan Homo and MSY is factual. Doubt it? Go read up.
Lemme go chill. Don't wanna misunderstand any presentations here. Everybody's put in valuable contributions. I don't have to agree with them all. I strongly disagree with a hella lotta it. Because I do doesn't make it unviable. It just makes it another point of view.
quote:Originally posted by beyoku: As of yesterday a lot of the Y SNP calls are supposed to be bogus. They were using some new automatic caller that apparently sucks. They were alerted to it and are supposedly going to “check” their data.
See the comments on the original twitter post.
As far as I am aware this is still the case for anything sans the E-Z830's. SMH...
Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
You can know how the program works for yourself https://github.com/23andMe/yhaplo see the details here. Matter-fact I advise you to even test it.
I know the program, I used it previously which is how I was able to recognize the output.
Shared sequence between Chimp and Homosapiens is irrelevant, for reasons I (tried to) explained one post above. I think I just do a poor job of explaining things all together.
quote:>After overlapping variants shared with chimps are disregarded we find the root.
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro: ...It'd be very difficult to describe the buckets of salt you should take this assignment with.
Why? What else could it be?
I couldn't even give you a statistical estimate with the snp count so low. ...which is the problem.
99.999999999999999999999999999999999% of all modern human hgs are A0-T. And the remaining ones are unlikely to have this mutation. So one might as well say that this is A0-T. The only real uncertainty this small amount of Y SNP data is whether it is African or Eurasian.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic