Swenet looking at this Lazaridis chart we see some locations shown, West Eurasian, Onge (one of the Andamanese), loschbour is in Luxebourg etc, etc
So on what continent would "Non-African" be on ? and if you can get more specific if possible the likely regions where we see the first "Non-African" , thanks, lioness
posted
My answer, using recent snippets. Not writing a long post right now, because I don't know if your intention is serious. If you want the full context, read the quotes. If you want a quick answer, read the bolded parts.
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: ^The LSA in North Africa (one of the sources of 'North African ancestry') is relatively young, ~30kya at most. Before that they could have lived in the Sahel or further south in Sub-Saharan Africa.
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Which is one of the reasons one would infer the existence of an as yet undiscovered homeland from which these tools spread once in North Africa. Based on all the evidence, the most likely place is somewhere in between the Maghreb, the Upper Nile/East SSA/Great Lakes and the Levant. Which is where northeast Africa is. Although ultimately the North African LSA came from eastern Sub-Saharan Africa, as I said before.
But I also think mtDNA N actually represents an OOA migration event distinct from M (the latter, I think spread with D-M174, while the former spread with CF).
If this is correct, this [mtDNA M] OOA migration could have happened shortly before 35ky ago, as this is when we find assemblages in India (e.g. at Patne) that have distinct links with assemblages in Sub-Saharan Africa (specifically, in parts of SSA along the Indian Ocean). The links are different from how the Aurignacian and Ahmarian link to these SSA assemblages (i.e. assemblages found at sites like Patne are much closer to the SSA ones, while the Ahmarian and Aurignacian are closer to others, found in North Africa). This is consistent with these Indian industries representing another (and later) OOA migration.
Read the paper below to get up to speed quickly (if you're not already). Although be mindful that Mellars et al lump all Indian microlithic industries together, even though the full suite of commonalities with the SSA assemblages are much younger than his combined sample. Because of this, he overestimates the age of the SSA commonalities and makes his ideas more vulnerable to refutation. He also fails to realize that mtDNA M and N cannot be lumped as if they have the same distribution. Their unique distributions should be taken into account. This doesn't mean one has to subscribe to my idea of two OOA migrations. However, to treat M and N as having the same genetic history (and merely having preserved better in Asia compared to West Eurasia) is clearly wrong.
So this is my answer. In my view, most of the so-called non-African component originated:
"specifically, in parts of SSA along the Indian Ocean" --Swenet
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
ENA - mtDNA M + Y-DNA D + DE* + various MSA (loosely) WHG - mtDNA N + Y-DNA CF + various MSA (loosely) Basal Eurasian - mixture of mtDNA M1 + Y-DNA E-M215 + L3k and other L3s + various MSA (North African MSA in particular) (loosely)
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: So this is my answer. In my view, most of the non-African component originated:
"specifically, in parts of SSA along the Indian Ocean" --Swenet [/QB]
Do you think that when Lazaridis put "Non-African" on this chart he was referring to people who had never left Africa? Seriously, I'm trying to understand this
Posts: 42918 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
He called it "non-African". What more is there to say?
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: He called it "non-African". What more is there to say?
You posted DNA Tribes' interpretation. That doesn't count and it's not peer reviewed either
There's a lot to say obviously. If Lazaridis called it "non African" and there is nothing more to say than it could not have been in SSA as you said.
Also I'm not sure if Lazaridis supports Arabian route OOA either as the tribes map suggests
Posts: 42918 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
It makes no sense to call an African population that never even left Africa "non-African" even if later they did leave Africa. They would be African until, at minimum, leaving Africa.
If you want to talk about this in a more logical manner it would begin with
1) Basal Eurasian Africans (BEA) (my term)
then we would get to the point Lazaridis refers to>
2) Non Africans (this would be a population living outside of Africa long enough acquire genes not found in Africa)
3) Basal Eurasians (also formed outside of Africa)
this is a way of making the Lazaridis chart make more sense However I would simplify it to two
1)Basal Eurasian Africans (BEA)
2) Non African Basal Eurasians
Didn't you recently make a post talking about spin in bioanthropolgy? This is how we un-spin it to end the confusion
Posts: 42918 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
I posted DNA Tribes' interpretation to help you visualize my take on things. I didn't post them as a 'source'.
So where is the punchline. You challenged me to give my take only to segue to Lazaridis and what he thinks?
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: I posted DNA Tribes' interpretation to help you visualize my take on things. I didn't post them as a 'source'.
So where is the punchline. You challenged me to give my take only to segue to Lazaridis and what he thinks?
read my updated last post
The topic is the Lazaridis chart so there is no segue, it's about Lazaridis, the one who has started all this recent talk of "Basal Eurasian" (and their "Non-African" ancestors)
Posts: 42918 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
I see you have it all figured out. You don't need my take in this new segue about Laz word games.
But one thing I want to know is your take on the "non-African" stage. Where did it originate and when? References to specific archaeological cultures and sites would be nice.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:There's a lot to say obviously. If Lazaridis called it "non African" and there is nothing more to say than it could not have been in SSA as you said.
Also, are you saying that Lazaridis presides over and dictates the facts on Basal Eurasian? I hope that's not what you're saying.
Lazaridis did not discover BE. They're just the first to gain momentum with the concept in genetics. If you want to worship Laz and think of BE as his intellectual property, that's your right. But I don't have to treat Laz semantic label stickers--that's exactly what they are--as gospel. If he says "non-African" I don't have to take him at his word. My investigations are my investigations. What matters is evidence, not Laz approval.
First you ask my take, then you say I'm scared, and when I respond, this Laz worship is all you have to say?
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
Is there already a name for the node within L3 that M and N branched from? I'm talking about the one I've circled in red here.
Since you seem to support M taking the southern route out of Africa and N taking a separate route to the north, wouldn't it make sense if this "MN" was originally African?
posted
Isn't that encircled node mtDNA L3 itself? I think the entire 70ky old horizontal bar is mtDNA L3. I think the vertical lines are populations traveling or staying put in some place, while the horizontal lines (e.g. L3eikx and L3bcd) represent population growth. I have my ideas on where M and N were, but I can't say for certain yet. I do think that when mtDNA N left, mtDNA M was still in Africa.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Also, are you saying that Lazaridis presides over and dictates the facts on Basal Eurasian? I hope that's not what you're saying.
Lazaridis did not discover BE. They're just the first to gain momentum with the concept in genetics. If you want to worship Laz and think of BE as his intellectual property, that's your right. But I don't have to treat Laz semantic label stickers--that's exactly what they are--as gospel. If he says "non-African" I don't have to take him at his word. My investigations are my investigations. What matters is evidence, not Laz approval.
First you ask my take, then you say I'm scared, and when I respond, this Laz worship is all you have to say? [/QB]
I complained about Lazaridis' vague hypothetical use of this term "Basal Eurasian" when his articles first came out
I don't understand why you don't agree with me that it makes no sense to call an African population "Basal Eurasian" that hadn't even left Africa at that point- with no mention of "Africa" in the name of such population
If you want to refer to such a population I hope you are not using this term "Basal Eurasian" instead of something like "Basal Eurasian Africans" or "Proto Eurasian Africans" because it is Eurocentric to do otherwise. "Basal Eurasian" with the word Africa, in my opinion should be used for a population located outside of Africa and different on a genetic level to some extent from their ancestors the "Basal Eurasian Africans".
Posts: 42918 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
Trying to discern an African BE against a distantly related population that has BE but left Africa many thousands of years ago seems like stuff people are in preliminary phases of trying to sort out.
Posts: 2508 | From: . | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Also, are you saying that Lazaridis presides over and dictates the facts on Basal Eurasian? I hope that's not what you're saying.
Lazaridis did not discover BE. They're just the first to gain momentum with the concept in genetics. If you want to worship Laz and think of BE as his intellectual property, that's your right. But I don't have to treat Laz semantic label stickers--that's exactly what they are--as gospel. If he says "non-African" I don't have to take him at his word. My investigations are my investigations. What matters is evidence, not Laz approval.
First you ask my take, then you say I'm scared, and when I respond, this Laz worship is all you have to say?
I complained about Lazaridis' vague hypothetical use of this term "Basal Eurasian" when his articles first came out
I don't understand why you don't agree with me that it makes no sense to call an African population "Basal Eurasian" that hadn't even left Africa at that point- with no mention of "Africa" in the name of such population
If you want to refer to such a population I hope you are not using this term "Basal Eurasian" instead of something like "Basal Eurasian Africans" or "Proto Eurasian Africans" because it is Eurocentric to do otherwise. "Basal Eurasian" with the word Africa, in my opinion should be used for a population located outside of Africa and different on a genetic level to some extent from their ancestors the "Basal Eurasian Africans". [/QB]
In that quote it sounded like you were saying that evidence doesn't matter and that Laz say-so means a SSA origin is precluded.
BTW, I'm not interested in labels, changing labels or changing the world. I'm interested in substance in history, population genetics, bioanthropology, etc. I already know what these components are and what people spread them. That's enough for me. Taking on academia is not my fight. I have other things to do in life than worry about trolls and liars in academia playing word games.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Taking on academia is not my fight. I have other things to do in life than worry about trolls and liars in academia playing word games.
Let us know when you take them on
Posts: 42918 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
You seem to not know whether you want to start a Basal Eurasian African petition or to worship Laz's say-so.
I still don't know what the purpose was of trying to get me to answer that question. You implied there was going to be some sort of refutation or counterevidence.
Am I glad I saw this coming and didn't waste time writing a brand new OP with all the bells and whistles.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote: The Basal Eurasian split must be even older, and might be related to early settlement of the Levant or Arabia prior to the diversification of most Eurasians, or more recent gene flow from Africa. However, the Basal Eurasian population shares much of the genetic drift common to non-African populations after their separation from Africans, and thus does not appear to represent gene flow between sub-Saharan Africans and the ancestors of non-Africans after the out-of-Africa bottleneck (SI14).
quote: The Basal Eurasian split must be even older, and might be related to early settlement of the Levant or Arabia prior to the diversification of most Eurasians, or more recent gene flow from Africa. However, the Basal Eurasian population shares much of the genetic drift common to non-African populations after their separation from Africans, and thus does not appear to represent gene flow between sub-Saharan Africans and the ancestors of non-Africans after the out-of-Africa bottleneck (SI14).
Ancient human genomes suggest three ancestral populations for present-day Europeans
Also from Lazaridis but more importantly
quote:"Over the Ice Age, Neandertal ancestry seems to have been reduced in Europe[10]by natural selection against Neandertal variants[40,41]; a further reduction was effected during the Neolithic period by migration from the Near East whose populations descended in part from a postulated group of “Basal Eurasians”[16,24], a population that split off from other non-Africans before they split off from each other. Basal Eurasians are consistent with having no Neandertal ancestry at all[24] and may have split from other non-Africans ~101-67kya[42]. It is unknown whether the Basal Eurasians represent descendants of early modern humans in the Near East, or a later entrant into the region."
The evolutionary history of human populations in Europe Iosif Lazaridis 2018
...The SSA-North African geographical groupings are interesting, don't ya think?
Posts: 1781 | From: New York | Registered: Jul 2016
| IP: Logged |
-------------------- 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
The evolutionary history of human populations in Europe Iosif Lazaridis 2018?????
-------------------- 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
yep lmao There's a lot of things that aren't resolved but one thing that He seems sure of is that there's almost no-direct relationship between N.Africans (represented by what we've discovered so far) and Basal Eurasian.
-------------------- 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
They are estimated population splitting times. The only one without a ?, the >430 kya, refers to the age of the Sima de los Huesos remains: https://www.nature.com/articles/nature17405Posts: 660 | From: Canada | Registered: Mar 2017
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by capra: They are estimated population splitting times. The only one without a ?, the >430 kya, refers to the age of the Sima de los Huesos remains: https://www.nature.com/articles/nature17405
Apparently "Archaic Eurasian" = Neanderthal or pre-Neanderthal
Posts: 42918 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Apparently "Archaic Eurasian" = Neanderthal or pre-Neanderthal
No. It's just another example of Lazaridis lying and playing word games. The mtDNAs carried by the so-called "archaic Eurasians" are just a bit older than Y DNA A00. The best way to describe them is African AMH, not Eurasian.
Basically, if you let Lazaridis tell it, all OOA migrations are Eurasians. Africans have never stepped foot outside of Africa because they become Eurasians by default the moment they do. You just can't make this up. Lazaridis is showing his true face. Good to have it on record that it's not an accident, but a pattern.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by capra: They are estimated population splitting times. The only one without a ?, the >430 kya, refers to the age of the Sima de los Huesos remains: https://www.nature.com/articles/nature17405
Apparently "Archaic Eurasian" = Neanderthal or pre-Neanderthal
Quite literally yes, though it might be quite the misnomer as the term "Eurasians" highlight the modern populations with introgression as opposed to a confirmed geographic reality.... politics aside.
Posts: 1781 | From: New York | Registered: Jul 2016
| IP: Logged |
As everyone can see quite clearly, the ~400ky admixture event involving Neanderthals is not "pre-Neanderthal" and it's not "archaic Eurasian". It's African AMH (anatomically modern human).
------------
Let's look objectively at that Lazaridis tree. This is what I see. And I haven't even read the paper yet.
Lazaridis created a bogus "Archaic Eurasian" construct. The component he's talking about is actually closest to modern-day Africans. Several papers have studied this component, and they came to the conclusion that it has affinities reminiscent of modern Africans.
Lazaridis created a bogus non-African construct that he knows can't be non-African since it predates his 50ky old "Main Eurasians".
Lazaridis made it look like his "Basal Eurasian" and "Main Eurasians" are sister populations, when he knows for a fact that Basal Eurasian is closer to modern African populations.
Lazaridis deliberately left his Taforalt-based North African construct suspended in the middle of the graph, while connecting all other constructs to the tree. Like he hasn't done this before. I've already discussed Lazaridis habit of omitting North Africans from his analysis and his bogus excuses for doing so.
Lazaridis has isolated Sub-Saharans in the tree by flanking them with his "archaic Eurasian" and "non-African" constructs. So, basically, he's trying to make it seem like Africans play no role in world history. According to the tree above, Africans don't even play a role in their own history. After all, all OOA migrants are Eurasians. And since genetics is the only thing that counts (who cares about archaeology?), we'll just white-wash African cultures in Eurasia, too. Just slap the label "Eurasian" or "non-African" on it. No one will even notice.
Now watch the Lazaridis worship continue as he continues to lie and decorate his trees with his politics.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Swenet lets' use one of these Lazarids maps, the earlier or more recent one I can make a blank version and then fill it in with the Swenetian analysis or add or subtract some branches if you give me instructions, can work on it later today or tonight. I think that would be fun. We can also clearly delineate what happens inside Africa and what occurs outside Africa.
For instance an OOA population migrates to Arabia. They will have to be there thousands of years for a new haplogroup to form and then to be regarded as in part "non-African"
So for a while, a few thousand years at minimum they will be regarded as Africans who migrated into Eurasia
Posts: 42918 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
In your view what reasons would Lazaridis has to lie? I know from previous discussions you have noted the pattern of him not "exuding some important contexts." However, in your view what would his politics be? Because I do remember Truthcentric even stating that those in this field can still be bias.
Posts: 1891 | From: NY | Registered: Sep 2014
| IP: Logged |
posted
@Lioness Let's see a detailed photoshopped tree with your take first, then we'll see. I already explained my views a thousand times. Ever since your "King Tut is Indian" days (smh) you have not laid out how you see these components in the big picture. So let's see some specifics for once.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Elite Diasporan: @Swenet
In your view what reasons would Lazaridis has to lie? I know from previous discussions you have noted the pattern of him not "exuding some important contexts." However, in your view what would his politics be? Because I do remember Truthcentric even stating that those in this field can still be bias.
I don't know what his specific reason is. All I can look at is patterns in his work that are consistent with an agenda.
As a scientist he can't use those labels. You can't call something "non-African" and then say in the main text you don't know what that component is and that part of it may have arisen in Africa. As a scientist, he knows what the data allows him to conclude and what not.
To understand what I mean you have to study African OOA migrations and then see how researchers react when they publish DNA involving those cultures. Generally speaking, they all react the same way. They're evasive, they draw weird conclusions and the work is subpar in specific areas. What I mean with subpar in specific areas is that it's subpar when it is convenient for them. Look at the North African construct in that tree posted above. Why is it the only thing that's suspended in the middle of nowhere and why is there no arrow going to it from Basal Eurasian? That is not based on any analysis. That is purely him drawing what he wants to draw on that tree. And he's only doing it to the African components, including the "Archaic Eurasian" component, which is really African. The rest of tree is consistent with what we know so far. So that tells me things tend to go wrong when he speaks on OOA migrations and African componnets. It's a pattern.
Note what I say about Mesolithic Europeans. A couple of weeks later Cheddar Man's DNA is published and it confirms that he is not purely WHG. Now look at the analyses of Cheddar Man's genetics. The analysis are shabby and they're not talking in-depth about the non-WHG component. They're ignoring it. To me that's being manipulative. Lazaridis does the same thing. I see the same suspicious low standards in Lazaridis work when it comes to what he focuses on and what he ignores in his work. When it comes to North Africa's relationship to Basal Eurasian he suddenly becomes forgetful and doesn't remember how to move forward and get to the bottom of things. To me that's trolling and lying.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
Could it be that he does not see the African genetic influence on a world stage as important? Or that he just flat out underestimates it? Could it be that he wouldn't be able to grasp Africans being OUTSIDE the continent?
This is exactly why we need more Africans in this type of field. Just in my opinion.
Edit:
I remember reading that post.
Posts: 1891 | From: NY | Registered: Sep 2014
| IP: Logged |
posted
One thing about the data we're dealing with is that it doesn't matter what your beliefs are going in. This type of evidence has a way of being in your face. You can be a skeptic but when you run enough data it becomes a matter of whether you're willing to accept what the data is telling you.
I think you're giving people like Lazaridis too much benefit of the doubt. In my book they're manipulative and unwilling to give fair analysis. If you're interested in African genetics you're not going to get a fair shake from them. When they find evidence of African migration they just look for ways to explain it away.
Remember Farrel et al? Don't let these people pull the wool over your eyes. When you see them go to great lengths to avoid the conclusion of African admixture, it's politically driven.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: @Lioness Let's see a detailed photoshopped tree with your take first, then we'll see. I already explained my views a thousand times. Ever since your "King Tut is Indian" days (smh) you have not laid out how you see these components in the big picture. So let's see some specifics for once.
In the second pic the term basal is not applied correctly. Basal in genetics refers to branch or lineage on a tree that is subjacent compared to the other branches. What you call "Basal Eurasian" in the 2nd pic does not fit that description.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
Now read the paper below as far as its comments about African ancestry in the Middle East. In your view, how does the paper below differ from the papers above? If you look closely, the papers above are all doing the same thing Lazaridis is doing. The paper below, on the other hand, is fair and balanced (at least as far as I can remember from reading a long time ago).
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: One thing about the data we're dealing with is that it doesn't matter what your beliefs are going in. This type of evidence has a way of being in your face. You can be a skeptic but when you run enough data it becomes a matter of whether you're willing to accept what the data is telling you.
I think you're giving people like Lazaridis too much benefit of the doubt. In my book they're manipulative and unwilling to give fair analysis. If you're interested in African genetics you're not going to get a fair shake from them. When they find evidence of African migration they just look for ways to explain it away.
Remember Farrel et al? Don't let these people pull the wool over your eyes. When you see them go to great lengths to avoid the conclusion of African admixture, it's politically driven.
Ah... Now I see what you mean.
Posts: 1891 | From: NY | Registered: Sep 2014
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah, now I definitely get where you are coming from. In my opinion they been tapdancing around African ancestry in the Middle East since the early 2000s with the Jewish study but that's another different story.
Anyways, the second study is very blatant in their tapdancing. Because wouldn't those "Arabians" have been Africans or Basel Eurasian? They are essentially acting like once Africans stepped foot outside the continent then they immediately became Eurasian.
Not only that but we already know of the Nubiean complex sites of Arabia which if I remember correctly shows Africans inhabiting Arabia before further migrating across the globe.
quote:The discovery of the typically northeast African Nubian Levallois technology in southern Arabia represents a clear technological connection between northeast Africa and the Arabian Peninsula [12]. In Arabia, Nubian technology was initially identified in southwest Oman [12] and attributed to the Nubian Complex of Dhofar. Prior to this, comparable cores had been found in Hadramawt, eastern Yemen [5], [6], [27], [30], however, due to sampling constraints in Yemen and the lack of chronological control over these surface assemblages, researchers remained impartial as to whether these cores were related to Levallois-based industries from Africa or the Levant.
What is African technology doing in Arabia? During the middle paleolithic... Like you said they do ignore archaeology.
Also your final link isn't working. At least not for me.
Edit: Read that study on a different site. Some key points I got.
quote:his result seemed to correspond well with Yemen’s geographical position. When data became available from sampling of different areas within Yemen (Černý et al., 2008), an interesting pattern emerged. Despite western Yemen’s geo-graphical and cultural proximity to East Africa, the western populations from Ta’izz, Tihama and Hajja cluster together with Middle Eastern and North African samples (Fig. 1). On the other hand, the population from Hadramawt to the east shows afnity to the East African populations (Černý et al., 2008). Not only does the given pattern indicate the gene ow from populations in Africa, West Eurasia and South Asia, but even more interestingly it shows that these inuences are dif-ferently reected in different regional samples.
This was a very big key point.
quote:5 MtDNA Structure of Yemeni Population 73Sub-Saharan HaplogroupsL-haplogroups comprise the most ancient branching of the human mtDNA phylogeny in Africa. It is intriguing that frequency of L-haplogroups in Yemeni populations increases with the increasing distance from Bab al Mandab strait, the natural link between Africa and southern Arabia. The prevalence of L-types in eastern Yemen together with the population afnity observed between Hadramawt and East Africa raises the question of whether this pattern could reect Paleolithic gene ow(s) from Africa. Phylogeographic analysis has shown that the most frequent L-haplotypes in Yemen belong to ancient clade L0a (Kivisild et al., 2004; Černý et al., 2008). However, it is present in the form of more recent African haplogroups such as L0a1, L0a1a and L0a2. Haplogroups L0a1 and L0a1a are suggested to have originated in East Africa approximately 33.4 (SE 16.6) ka and 27.4 (SE 18.0) ka, respectively (dating based on HVS-I sequences) (Salas et al., 2002).
Still not down reading but what I get is that.
1. They do not ignore archaeology.
2. They do not ignore North African ancestry like Lazaridis does.
3. They do NOT try and say Africans quickly became Eurasians once they step out of Africa.
4. They do not ignore haplogroup L.
5. They do not try and Eurasionize E1b like Lazaridis was doing.
Another edit:
Also addressing the first top you posted. Yeah what the heck is "Arabian admixture"?
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: @Elite Diasporan
See these papers and see how they're tapdancing around ancient African ancestry in the Middle East:
Now read the paper below as far as its comments about African ancestry in the Middle East. In your view, how does the paper below differ from the papers above? If you look closely, the papers above are all doing the same thing Lazaridis is doing. The paper below, on the other hand, is fair and balanced (at least as far as I can remember from reading a long time ago).
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: I like the first pic better.
In the second pic the term basal is not applied correctly. Basal in genetics refers to branch or lineage on a tree that is subjacent compared to the other branches. What you call "Basal Eurasian" in the 2nd pic does not fit that description.
1) What you are saying is that Basal should be below (subjacent) compared to the other branches. So does the original chart below has Basal Eurasian in such a position? I don't know what you mean.
2) Do you think "basal eurasian" is a valid enough concept to be put on to a chart describing human ancestry with no question mark or anything to indicate it's hypothetical where the other branches of the chart represent existing populations and skeletal remains.
3) Do you think the below chart is good or that or more of the branch names should be changed? If the later which name or names should be changed?
quote:Originally posted by Elite Diasporan: Yeah, now I definitely get where you are coming from. In my opinion they been tapdancing around African ancestry in the Middle East since the early 2000s with the Jewish study but that's another different story.
Anyways, the second study is very blatant in their tapdancing. Because wouldn't those "Arabians" have been Africans or Basel Eurasian? They are essentially acting like once Africans stepped foot outside the continent then they immediately became Eurasian.
Not only that but we already know of the Nubiean complex sites of Arabia which if I remember correctly shows Africans inhabiting Arabia before further migrating across the globe.
this is the point of contention; Basal Eurasian vs African. Are those Arabian populations indicative of isolation and continuity in the region. If they are they'd("biased researchers") have basis for concluding Basal Eurasian as non-African.
Murmurs on the street is that some researchers are finally looking at Ancient African substructure, however in conjunction with the 85kya AMH(confirmed) finger found in Arabia. Common sense will say that people are banking on this being our basal Eurasian.
They set the stage... so they can dance the night away. However they'll eventually find that everything doesn't fit neatly in to their models and skeleton graphs.
Posts: 1781 | From: New York | Registered: Jul 2016
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Elite Diasporan: Yeah, now I definitely get where you are coming from. In my opinion they been tapdancing around African ancestry in the Middle East since the early 2000s with the Jewish study but that's another different story.
Anyways, the second study is very blatant in their tapdancing. Because wouldn't those "Arabians" have been Africans or Basel Eurasian? They are essentially acting like once Africans stepped foot outside the continent then they immediately became Eurasian.
Not only that but we already know of the Nubiean complex sites of Arabia which if I remember correctly shows Africans inhabiting Arabia before further migrating across the globe.
quote:The discovery of the typically northeast African Nubian Levallois technology in southern Arabia represents a clear technological connection between northeast Africa and the Arabian Peninsula [12]. In Arabia, Nubian technology was initially identified in southwest Oman [12] and attributed to the Nubian Complex of Dhofar. Prior to this, comparable cores had been found in Hadramawt, eastern Yemen [5], [6], [27], [30], however, due to sampling constraints in Yemen and the lack of chronological control over these surface assemblages, researchers remained impartial as to whether these cores were related to Levallois-based industries from Africa or the Levant.
What is African technology doing in Arabia? During the middle paleolithic... Like you said they do ignore archaeology.
Also your final link isn't working. At least not for me.
Edit: Read that study on a different site. Some key points I got.
quote:his result seemed to correspond well with Yemen’s geographical position. When data became available from sampling of different areas within Yemen (Černý et al., 2008), an interesting pattern emerged. Despite western Yemen’s geo-graphical and cultural proximity to East Africa, the western populations from Ta’izz, Tihama and Hajja cluster together with Middle Eastern and North African samples (Fig. 1). On the other hand, the population from Hadramawt to the east shows afnity to the East African populations (Černý et al., 2008). Not only does the given pattern indicate the gene ow from populations in Africa, West Eurasia and South Asia, but even more interestingly it shows that these inuences are dif-ferently reected in different regional samples.
This was a very big key point.
quote:5 MtDNA Structure of Yemeni Population 73Sub-Saharan HaplogroupsL-haplogroups comprise the most ancient branching of the human mtDNA phylogeny in Africa. It is intriguing that frequency of L-haplogroups in Yemeni populations increases with the increasing distance from Bab al Mandab strait, the natural link between Africa and southern Arabia. The prevalence of L-types in eastern Yemen together with the population afnity observed between Hadramawt and East Africa raises the question of whether this pattern could reect Paleolithic gene ow(s) from Africa. Phylogeographic analysis has shown that the most frequent L-haplotypes in Yemen belong to ancient clade L0a (Kivisild et al., 2004; Černý et al., 2008). However, it is present in the form of more recent African haplogroups such as L0a1, L0a1a and L0a2. Haplogroups L0a1 and L0a1a are suggested to have originated in East Africa approximately 33.4 (SE 16.6) ka and 27.4 (SE 18.0) ka, respectively (dating based on HVS-I sequences) (Salas et al., 2002).
Still not down reading but what I get is that.
1. They do not ignore archaeology.
2. They do not ignore North African ancestry like Lazaridis does.
3. They do NOT try and say Africans quickly became Eurasians once they step out of Africa.
4. They do not ignore haplogroup L.
5. They do not try and Eurasionize E1b like Lazaridis was doing.
Another edit:
Also addressing the first top you posted. Yeah what the heck is "Arabian admixture"?
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: @Elite Diasporan
See these papers and see how they're tapdancing around ancient African ancestry in the Middle East:
Now read the paper below as far as its comments about African ancestry in the Middle East. In your view, how does the paper below differ from the papers above? If you look closely, the papers above are all doing the same thing Lazaridis is doing. The paper below, on the other hand, is fair and balanced (at least as far as I can remember from reading a long time ago).
6) Balanced papers are not trying to turn closeness to Africans (whether in the form of mtDNA L or in the form of the autosomal basal-ness that results from inheriting mtDNA L) into 'standard OOA ancestry'. What I mean with that is that they’re not trying to say “even though it looks African, it can’t be African because it was always there. Using the reference populations we’ve carefully nitpicked, and by omitting analyses we don’t want you to see, we can honestly say that we can’t detect African ancestry. Therefore, the African ancestry we never really took the time to investigate, must be regarded as non-African.”
7) With balanced papers you actually walk away with an understanding of the genetic history of regions. The other papers I posted are like Lazaridis in that they distort history. Mechanically listing software tool output is easy. It doesn’t mean you understand the genetic history of the region or that you know enough to form an opinion. One good example of this is that these new-age geneticists generally never talk about Semitic ancestry. They don’t even have as much as a passing mention of Semitic OOA people and their genetic traces in aDNA or living people. This means that the most important holocene admixture events in the Middle East are completely missing from these papers. Now let's look at the balanced paper I posted. It doesn't mention Semitic people by name, but it does mention cultural influences that could be from Semitic people:
quote:Agriculture appeared on the Yemeni scene at the beginning of the Bronze Age (ca. 5–3 ka), when Neolithic groups formed larger and more seden- tary communities and also began producing pottery. The pot- tery, and especially its impressed decoration, bears generic family resemblances to roughly contemporary wares in northeast Africa and some scholars argue for Yemeni partici- pation in a cultural network that spanned the Red Sea (e.g. Fattovich, 1997; Buffa and Vogt, 2001).
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
I already explained my views a thousand times. Ever since your "King Tut is Indian" days (smh) you have not laid out how you see these components in the big picture. So let's see some specifics for once.
Printer-friendly view of this topic