quote: It [skin color] is not a political or social attribute.
Skin color is a sociopolitical feature.
No it is not. Skin color is a fact of biology, just like genes, ear shape, cranial shape and everything else.
Sometimes you say the most out of touch stuff for someone whose supposedly black. Do you enjoy ruining threads to derail and argue over the dumbest sh!t? I'm not saying human features are not a fact of biology. But that doesn't mean that humans don't assign ideas and prejudices to those features which have real sociopolitical repercussions. In that sense human features and DNA have become politicized by humans even if though they are natural.
quote:Nobody is talking about that, because that is cosmetic surgery which happens all over the planet. This does not change skin color into a non biological trait of humans. Come on man.
It is a procedure done because people are being discriminated against for their features. Calling it "cosmetic" is not changing the REASON behind why millions of people across the planet are doing it. YOU stop "lying." And stop saying that nobody was talking about humans politicizing body parts to create this idea of race. I was talking about it! And I was NOT even talking to you.
quote: Politicization of biological features does not make those features less biological.
False dichotomies as usual. No one was denying these features biologically exist because they're politicized.
quote:You cant blame skin color or any other feature for the existence of racism or other politicized aspects of human sociology. That makes no sense.
Who said I was saying racism is justified? All I was arguing was that biological features are politicized which is fundamental to understanding the SOCIAL reality of race. Do you still want to argue over stupid sh!t or are you don-- you know what don't answer that. I'm not entertaining anymore of this fvckery from you. Sometimes I have to wonder if you've been planted here because you will singlehandedly nosedive important threads into the ground derailing on things that are ridiculous. You will carry on with this for pages if I let you, which I will not. So bark all you want I'll be ignoring you until you have something meaningful to say.
Oshun stop trying to turn everything into drama.
Discussing skin color in the context of biology is not politics. That is my point.
And anybody who is doing honest research into biology has the right to discuss skin color just like any other aspect of biology without being considered being "political".
What is political is trying to claim that since you don't agree (not necessarily you personally) on some particular biological assessment that somehow, now that aspect of biology is political and should be avoided.
No it isn't is all I am saying.
Folks playing games trying to duck and hide by moving the goal posts are the problem.
So like I said, no matter what metric is discussed, social and political agendas can and will come into play and there is no need trying to avoid it.
That is the point I was making. It wasn't a personal attack against you but you keep taking it that way.
I fundamentally disagree with the idea that folks need to "avoid" certain topics because they feel it is "political". If you can't stand the heat then stay out of the kitchen is my philosophy. Meaning if you are following the facts and evidence honestly nothing should stop you from your pursuits.
This was in response to this statement:
quote:Originally posted by Oshun:Genetic information or not, if most of ES expresses the opinions you have (that Torres Strait Islanders/Aboriginals are black), genetics will have little meaning for people trying to prove race under the radar. it'll be back to craniometrics, collecting hair samples and watching white internet anthropology boards promise each other that their society couldn't possibly treat anyone with those features as black. But back to the main point: The mixture could've been in either direction. East Africa is where Eurasians left Africa and AE features were generally not outside the realm of possibility for indigenous adaptations.
posted
why would skin color on a biological level be worth spending a long time talking about?
Posts: 42919 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler: Why is it only modern negros who limit black to Africans, who taught them that, and why do they accept it without question?
Arabian Peninsular 'Zanj' probably had no idea who was beyond Indonesia to the east and south but going by 21st century 3rd Millennia values • Black fella must be stripped from the Abos • New Guinea? No more. Forget their looks. • Melanesia must be a big lie unless the name means the black soil.
Black has been reduced in meaning to negro because in the USA the people who called themselves Negroe changed their label to Black and now deny there are any other blacks but the Blacks, ie., them and enslaved West African ethnic groups they came from.
Sheeit, I mean who can't say African when they mean an African black? Neither negro nor black are regional identifiers like Caucasus caucasian caucasoid Mongolia mongol mongoloid buy negroes don't catch what happened with ????? negro negroid
There is a Caucasus place language culture There is a Mongolia place with language and culture Where is any negro place language culture. Likewise where is the national piece of geography called black that has a language Blackese spoken by blackesians;?
Wow a people adopting a name of their condition and rejecting that of their geographic origin. Is there any other peoples who've ever done so on a national scale.
So you're saying this ahistorical definition is at the root of the problem? It is true, that we mostly see this "Black Egypt theory wrapped around the question of whether they're related to Sub Saharan or West Africans. They are typically illustrated to be the only ones treated as black. If that's not true then that means blackness has to extend beyond those groups.
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: So then what part of it was I misrepresenting? I really want to know and pls be clear in your explanation, because it sounds to me like you want to have all the benefits of your theory, but when I sum up what's dubious about it you want to distance yourself from it, saying I'm misrepresenting you. How is it a strawman when I say that your position necessitates that NE African came with all or most of the Neanderthal in the TAF sample? You've just confirmed it's not in the SSA components. If it's not in the NE African component either, then why are we even having this conversation? Because if it's not in the NE African component, then it's in the Eurasian component. If it's in the Eurasian component, then you can't say elevated Neanderthal in TAF means BE isn't NE African.
realistically with The non SSA portion of taforalt fitted best if not perfectly by Natufian how can you explain the discrepancy in neanderthal DNA in the Eurasian part of taforalts genome?
Laz's Basal Eurasian -Has no Neanderthal -Has no SSA
things I thought it was safe to say -Taf probably has more NE-African Ancestry than Laz's Natufians -Taf probably has more NE-African Ancestry than Iran_N
Things that are a reality -Taf Has more neanderthal than Iran_N -Tafs Eurasian has proportionately more Neanderthal than Natufians
If NEA =Basal Eurasian all of the above can not be true unless you want to make the claim that somehow taforalt is are only sample where elevated neanderthal signals are accompanying SSA ancestry.... or that whatever Eurasian influence in Taforalt had substantially more neanderthal than non african/BE Near eastern ancestors despite their non African portion of their genomes fitting almost perfectly with Natufian.... Both of these claims have no basis other than the assumption that BE = NE African.
also Notice how the only Eurasian group to show outlying shared drift with the Non-African portion of the Taforalt are caucus populations. Another aspect that shouldn't be possible if pure BE is shared with Taforalts green component and the Basal eurasian successors.
quote:Based on what data?
you can scroll up and look at lioness' first table.
quote:Notice again that you are, in fact, saying that NE African is a big source of Neanderthal in the MENA populations they mixed with. Yet when I start addressing that you say I'm misrepresenting your position. You are shooting yourself in the foot by turning ancient Egypt into a hotbed of Neanderthal already by 15kya. But to respond to your argument, what is your evidence that the Neanderthal-admixed NE Africans donated more African ancestry to circum-Mediterranean groups than to Iranians?
smh I said all of those populations have more neanderthal than Iranians.. that is a fact. I didn't say that NEA is responsible for all of their Neanderthal signals. the groups I listed shown solid evidence of African admixture whether its Uniparentals or admixture, it was only until loosdrecth when we see North African signals in Iran_N iirc and even then they're somewhat lower than those from places of closer proximity to N.Africa. Dstats consistently show Iranians to be the most distant (share the least alleles) out of all populations we know for a fact harbor NE African ancestry. More proof of this is seen in table S6 from loosdrecth 2018
My question to you is; are you gonna commit to proving that Iranians have more North East Ancestry than Taforalt, Natufians and IAM?
quote: As stated in my previous post, my position is that all African migration reduces Neanderthal ancestry. Even if the migrating Africans are 90% Eurasian. Barring some unusual scenarios, that 10% African ancestry would reduce Neanderthal in Eurasians by 10%. This is basic math. So, unless you're saying the E-M78 migrants to TAF were 100% Eurasian, they would have lowered TAF Neanderthal affinity. The fact that the Neanderthal affinity is still elevated in the TAF sample doesn't mean that it wasn't lowered. It just means that it's still relatively high despite being lowered.
So are you going with this? the fact that the Eurasian ancestors of Taforalt just had extremely high Neanderthal in comparison to that of non Africans?
quote:It didn't show itself? What is it supposed to look like when it shows itself? Pls explain in detail. They're all supposed to group in a big cozy cluster? I don't think that is how it works.
you opened by making a comparison to WHG and the fact that there's no 100% WHG specimen. Yet still WHG populations are grouped together in pca and they form a distinct cluster in ADMIXTURE consistently. Same thing goes for EEF populations, ANE-east Eurasians, etc. etc. Hotu is 50% BE, yet never finds his way in a NE African corner... why not? Why does CHG, Hotu and Iranians fail to show respectable levels of north African signals given the fact that they harbor such a high % of BE?
You're gonna have to commit to something. and explain all these inconsistencies. reminder: 50% of hotus DNA is according to you North East African.... Show a me anything that hints at an overlap between North East Africa and Hotu genetically.
Posts: 1781 | From: New York | Registered: Jul 2016
| IP: Logged |
Lioness what’s up with the copy and paste? You got something to say?
What percent of Luxmanda was Neanderthal?
good question, this hasn't been calculated yet... how long are you willing to wait for the answer?
Posts: 1781 | From: New York | Registered: Jul 2016
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
I never in my life associated the fact of the AEs blackness had a thing to do with them being stereotype below of the Sahara Africans or West Africans because I never learned West Africans held a patent on blackness.
[Hell, even Little Black Sambo is a Tamil ]
Blame it on J A Rogers J G Jackson Massey Higgins Churchward standard reading and conversation in my youth. Today there's nothing out there like Rogers or Jackson that's up to speed for this millennia. Except maybe for Walker, if not expensive and inaccessible.
Walk in off the street Black Books stores? A thing of the past. Street vendors used to stock stuff like vanSertima's Journals. But they gotta eat too and nothing puts bacon on the table like 'Urban' ahem 'Literature'.
I had Tarharka's Blackmanhood that examined several Nile and NE Afr groups like the Galla for AE roots of the Middle Kingdom founders. Old yet fundamental for my contributions to the Uah ka lineage threads. https://www.google.com/search?q=uah+ka+egyptsearch
Nothing in Hansberry's Africa & Africans about W Afr Egyptians, nor in Doc Ben's Black Man of the Nile and his Family, iirc. Same for William's Destruction of Black Civilization.
The world is ever changing.
With nothing out there and dismissive of previous black generations' works I do understand embracing the, 'mainstream' defined, hunting grounds from where Africans were kidnapped and made into negroes/abeed.
It's just that I'll never agree to it. Stuck in my ways. See no reason to adapt.
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro: If NEA =Basal Eurasian all of the above can not be true unless you want to make the claim that somehow taforalt is are only sample where elevated neanderthal signals are accompanying SSA ancestry
I don’t agree with some of your premises. I just want to point that out, since I’m not addressing them because I want to stay on the main points. But by not not saying anything, I’m not implicitly agreeing with them. I just want it to be clear that I don’t agree with things like treating the SSA-related component as being entirely ‘SSA’. It’s SSA-related; not "SSA", in the same way that the remaining 60-65% of TAF ancestry is Natufian-related, not actually Natufian. And this is relevant for several reasons. For instance Basal Eurasian may lack SSA ancestry, but that doesn’t mean it lacks SSA-related ancestry. Yet that is what you’ve just implied, since you said BE has no SSA ancestry. Anyway, since at least some of that SSA-related component has a long history in the Maghreb (Aterians), and since Iberia was the last stronghold of Neanderthals in Europe, why should I:
--accept your claims that TAF’s SSA-related component has direct relationships with modern SSA populations (I believe you made a direct link between YRI and TAF’s SSA-related component) --accept your claim that the general lack of Neanderthal in modern SSA populations tells us SSA-related populations elsewhere in time and space must automatically also lack it. --accept your claim that TAF’s elevated Neanderthal is a problem for those who believe Basal Eurasian is a form of NE African ancestry. --accept your claim that Neanderthal can only be assigned to the narrow choices you’ve offered (NE African or SSA). For instance, you’ve never proven that the elevated Neanderthal isn’t Aterian- or U6-linked. Not to mention other possibilities you've completely overlooked in your eagerness to pin it on NE Africans. Your attempts to link it to NE Africans in light of all these unexplored options seem willful.
quote:or that whatever Eurasian influence in Taforalt had substantially more neanderthal than non african/BE Near eastern ancestors despite their non African portion of their genomes fitting almost perfectly with Natufian
Neanderthal in Eurasians is a matter of single digit percentages. Theoretically speaking, I highly doubt that, say, 5% extra Neanderthal in TAF’s Eurasian would no longer make Natufians a good fit. That’s not how it works.
quote:you can scroll up and look at lioness' first table.
That table shows Mota as having more Neanderthal than YRI? I don’t see it in that table.
quote:the groups I listed shown solid evidence of African admixture whether its Uniparentals or admixture, it was only until loosdrecth when we see North African signals in Iran_N iirc and even then they're somewhat lower than those from places of closer proximity to N.Africa. Dstats consistently show Iranians to be the most distant (share the least alleles) out of all populations we know for a fact harbor NE African ancestry.
None of this proves Iranians have less NE African. Iranians have Russian EHG-related ancestry, among other things. The circum-Mediterranean samples have WHG-related ancestry, among other things. WHG is closer to at least some types of African ancestry than EHG is, according to D stats. How do you know that doesn’t explain Iranians being more distant to some Africans using D stats? And how are you turning broad genome-wide closeness comparisons into something very specific, like who has more NE African?
quote:Yet still WHG populations are grouped together in pca and they form a distinct cluster in ADMIXTURE consistently.
Circum-Med Farmers are said to be mostly WHG-related. I don’t see farmers clustering with WHG in your PCA. Likewise, Iranian and CHG are said to be mostly EHG. I don’t see them clustering with EHG in your PCA. Since they don’t even cluster closely with the samples they’re most related to, why should they form a cozy BE cluster, just because a minority of their ancestry is Basal Eurasian? As far as ADMIXTURE, BE carriers have lined up before in a BE-like fashion in many papers.
I've posted this type of information before, including Fregel et al's ADMIXTURE analysis. Why act like you haven't seen it? Because it proves BE is not a hypothetical component, and because it proves BE is African?
quote:50% of hotus DNA is according to you North East African.... Show a me anything that hints at an overlap between North East Africa and Hotu genetically.
Going by Lazaridis et al, I think Hotu is >60% NE African, not 50%. According to the f3 table you’ve posted before, the least admixed modern East Africans (Dinka and Hadza) achieve the most negative f3 value with Hotu, while admixed East Africans achieve the most negative f3 statistic with Greeks, Sardinians and Saudis. No Natufians, Levantine farmers or European farmers even show up in this f3 table. You can’t explain this with your claim that circum-Med farmers have more NE African than Hotu does. But I certainly can explain this as indicating you’re wrong about a host of claims, including your claim that Hotu lags behind in terms of NE African ancestry.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler: Why is it only modern negros who limit black to Africans, who taught them that, and why do they accept it without question?
Arabian Peninsular 'Zanj' probably had no idea who was beyond Indonesia to the east and south but going by 21st century 3rd Millennia values • Black fella must be stripped from the Abos • New Guinea? No more. Forget their looks. • Melanesia must be a big lie unless the name means the black soil.
Black has been reduced in meaning to negro because in the USA the people who called themselves Negroe changed their label to Black and now deny there are any other blacks but the Blacks, ie., them and enslaved West African ethnic groups they came from.
Sheeit, I mean who can't say African when they mean an African black? Neither negro nor black are regional identifiers like Caucasus caucasian caucasoid Mongolia mongol mongoloid buy negroes don't catch what happened with ????? negro negroid
There is a Caucasus place language culture There is a Mongolia place with language and culture Where is any negro place language culture. Likewise where is the national piece of geography called black that has a language Blackese spoken by blackesians;?
Wow a people adopting a name of their condition and rejecting that of their geographic origin. Is there any other peoples who've ever done so on a national scale.
So you're saying this ahistorical definition is at the root of the problem? It is true, that we mostly see this "Black Egypt theory wrapped around the question of whether they're related to Sub Saharan or West Africans. They are typically illustrated to be the only ones treated as black. If that's not true then that means blackness has to extend beyond those groups.
@ Lioness don't even waste your time giving it attention. He'll find a new thread to ruin for several pages with his trolling before long.
Oshun what are you saying? That anybody who uses the term black is "non Scientific"? LOL!
Folks here on ES don't just talk about skin color. We have been discussing every aspect of biology since before you, Swenet, Lioness and others even came along. It is funny to see folks sit here and pretend that they introduced genetics analysis to this forum when we were discussing that long before they even got here.
The point is that even if folks decided to talk about Genetics and not skin color it would not change the issue regarding AE as being portrayed as primarily white by the larger academic or scientific community. And that has been the crux of the whole issue since the beginning of European anthropology. There is no way to duck or dodge that.
In fact this whole issue of cranial affinities reflects the same mentality as the basis for calling AE "Eurasian" comes from the study of crania in the fist place. It didn't come about because of people using the word black on ES.
Posts: 8889 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
What skin tone is "black" and what skin tone is not "black" has no scientific standard. So if you see the term in a scientific article it's a social term leaking in
Comparatively when limb ratios are discussed they are physically measured and numerical length recorded and classified as "tropical" or "cold adapted"
Posts: 42919 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Folks here on ES don't just talk about skin color.
We have been discussing every aspect of biology since before you, Swenet, Lioness and others even came along.
It is funny to see folks sit here and pretend that they introduced genetics analysis to this forum when we were discussing that long before they even got here.
. Face it Doug Nobody gives a fart much less a shit about pre-forum split ES. The ES we knew and were attracted to is dead.
Times change. Everything evolves.
A new crew managed to get actual administration of the forum and they don't care for user input. ES belongs to them and they're making a board that no longer has black intetests in mind. The top disrupting troll from our day is now an off the leash moderator 100% approved by the administrator. 2 non-blacks dictated that blacks shut up and don't dare voice the facts of Muslim and Jew anti-black racism and mgmt not only allowed it but said nothing about it. But then mgmt is not a team with a plan for ES, that is except for one of them that runs the forum entrusted to their care as a personal blog. But hey, don' nobody cyar 'bout that, in fact, they just love it. ES is dead, long live ES!
Tell you what though, I love those memes Oshun puts up when you two get to dusting it up. They crack me up and lighten my mood, like dopamine! The one with the preying mantis still makes me lol.
posted
@swenet It's hard to debate this with you because your whole argument is already of the assumption that NEAfrican is already confirmed BE. For the most part you're basically saying "Basal eurasian being NE African is evidence to why basal Eurasian is is North East African"
Also none of those graph show's a Basal eurasian cluster... are you trying to pull a fast one? you know for a fact that those north African components would evaporate in the face of the ancient caucus/Iranians, stop playing. They aren't even persistent with ancient North African samples who should carry the most BE... unless you have a strong argument for why they dont/shouldn't Gold component Conversley your Druze light blue component, is a no show in African populations we'd expect to see harbor NE African ancestry ie Somali.
direct relationship or not, statistically speaking Taforalts has a strong West African component. The components were discovered using modern populations.. given the fact that they share variants/freq with these modern populations it is quite unlikely that somehow the portion of taforalt that is SSA has completely different properties such as: .. "Accompanies more neanderthal variants." -So like the authors, I wont assume they do for the sake of Basal Eurasian being NE African.
I also won't just assume Hotu and Iran_N have the more pure North East African admixture than any other sample we've analyzed before. Why is the burden on me to disprove this? please enlighten me, was it always common knowledge that those populations have the most NE african ancestry?? Prior to the spotlight being placed on Iranians & Hotu (partially by I) no one was jacking that Idea; that ancient caucus populations were more African than actual Africans... So how can you dust aside uniparental data, and structural analysis, which consistently show distinction between Mediterraneans/North-Africans and caucus/East-Arabian populations? and blame all of the discrepancy in formal stats on possible WHG ancestry in africans? ...how did I allow you to hand me the burden of proof?? lol
--- ""Going by Lazaridis et al, I think Hotu is >60% NE African, not 50%. According to the f3 table you’ve posted before, the least admixed modern East Africans (Dinka and Hadza) achieve the most negative f3 value with Hotu, while admixed East Africans achieve the most negative f3 statistic with Greeks, Sardinians and Saudis. No Natufians, Levantine farmers or European farmers even show up in this f3 table. You can’t explain this with your claim that circum-Med farmers have more NE African than Hotu does. But I certainly can explain this as indicating you’re wrong about a host of claims, including your claim that Hotu lags behind in terms of NE African ancestry."" -Swenet
Um, yeah I can, and have been trying to to for months... but first off this point is bad, as these east African populations host variable Eurasian admixture, so they'll share drift accordingly... however as a result their Natufian components are bolstered in STRUCTURE and admixture runs as the former populations originally shared ancestry best fitted as Natufians, ppnb, etc.. Did this not click with you yet after all of these years? on the other hand I still haven't seen any significant overlap with Hotus 60% and North East Africa specifically... And before you try to pull a fast one. Hotu giving the lowest Z score to unadmixed Africans aren't only restricted to East Africans
Lastly, You missed the fact that I believe NE africans carried SSA, which should appear to you as the most parsimonious explanation but because to you, Laz's BE = NEAfrican... all of it has to be in the green (non African component) of taforalt. which now requires an exotic explanation as to why Taforalt has elevated neanderthal Admixture. Yes most of the neanderthal is probably U6 linked or Aterian introgression. But are you telling us that the UP European source admixture in Taforalt and non African in Natufians were genetically Identical with the exception of neanderthal variants, where those in North Africa carried the most neanderthal?? That how'd you'd have to explain the anomaly that is visually displayed in figure s19 - loosdrecht 2018
Side note* a positive Z-score from f4(Chimp, Altai; Yoruba, Mota) heavily implies Mota carries more neanderthal than YRIPosts: 1781 | From: New York | Registered: Jul 2016
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Folks here on ES don't just talk about skin color.
We have been discussing every aspect of biology since before you, Swenet, Lioness and others even came along.
It is funny to see folks sit here and pretend that they introduced genetics analysis to this forum when we were discussing that long before they even got here.
. Face it Doug Nobody gives a fart much less a shit about pre-forum split ES. The ES we knew and were attracted to is dead.
Times change. Everything evolves.
A new crew managed to get actual administration of the forum and they don't care for user input. ES belongs to them and they're making a board that no longer has black intetests in mind. The top disrupting troll from our day is now an off the leash moderator 100% approved by the administrator. 2 non-blacks dictated that blacks shut up and don't dare voice the facts of Muslim and Jew anti-black racism and mgmt not only allowed it but said nothing about it. But then mgmt is not a team with a plan for ES, that is except for one of them that runs the forum entrusted to their care as a personal blog. But hey, don' nobody cyar 'bout that, in fact, they just love it. ES is dead, long live ES!
Tell you what though, I love those memes Oshun puts up when you two get to dusting it up. They crack me up and lighten my mood, like dopamine! The one with the preying mantis still makes me lol.
I really don't care who runs the site and conspiracy theories don't win arguments. That is not why I post here, since the site was never black run to begin with.
The fact is this whole issue is about semantics and game playing with terminology. African bio anthropology covers the entire continent of Africa into prehistory. Dividing it up based on relationship to Eurasia is the problem. Hence the views of North East Africans being "Eurasian" even if they are mostly indigenous Africans.
This is why I don't buy into that nonsense of NA vs SSA in historical anthropology in Africa. If it is indigenous it is African. Period. This implies all Africans historically have a relationship biologically and no need to introduce non Africans as the basis for such a relationship. And there is no proof of some "alternate branch" of Africans that we cant find that was far distant to other Africans to warrant some other terminology in reference to their ultimate origins.
Posts: 8889 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
You seem aware of the arena we’re forced to play in. Yet still you’re oblivious to the rules.
You chose to ignore the rules but you want to play the game.
As a result you can’t play the game effectively or realize when they’re others who can help you win.
If you weren’t complaining about labels you would have realized that the point you are trying to make (without actually committing to it). Has legs underneath as it relates to genetics for the first time since laz 2016.
I honestly don’t see what all the fuss is about.
Posts: 1781 | From: New York | Registered: Jul 2016
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro: Also none of those graph show's a Basal eurasian cluster... are you trying to pull a fast one?
How do the yellow component (Martiniano et al) and the Ethio-Somali+Maghrebi component (Hodgson et al) differ from Basal Eurasian’s attributes? And, if not BE, what else could these components be?
quote:you know for a fact that those north African components would evaporate in the face of the ancient caucus/Iranians, stop playing.
Samples forming their own component does not mean they still can’t be ‘sister components’. You can’t say Caucacus and Iranian samples would cluster apart and stop there. The next step in proving your argument would be measuring the genetic distance of these components and showing they’re distant to North Africans. You love posting half-baked arguments. Luhya may form their own component rather than a YRI component. Some Khoisan populations form their own components compared to other Khoisan. So what? That doesn’t mean they’re not sister components.
quote:given the fact that they share variants/freq with these modern populations it is quite unlikely that somehow the portion of taforalt that is SSA has completely different properties such as: .. "Accompanies more neanderthal variants."
Why? Is there some sort of magical shield constantly at work to prevent SSA-related population from picking up Neanderthal? The ancient ancestors of modern West Eurasians had much higher Neanderthal than their modern descendants, but somehow SSA-related populations are forever confined to a Neanderthal percentage of <0.5%, just because modern SSA populations presently don't have more? How do you justify such a dogmatic position of unchanging Neanderthal in over 330k years? No evidence supports this, so this is all you speaking here, so don’t try to appeal to authority by mentioning Loosdrecht. Notice that you still haven’t addressed this despite the fact I’ve brought this up several times. What are you basing it on that, in the last >330ky history of SSA-related populations, not one of them picked up Neanderthal?
quote:So like the authors, I wont assume they do for the sake of Basal Eurasian being NE African.
You don’t have to assume anything. But why are you overlooking the possibilities I mentioned? That is what I expect you to address. Let me reiterate. Why did you repeatedly give out two possible sources of Neanderthal in TAF (i.e. NE African and SSA-related), when there are more possible sources? I find it interesting you're trying to play this off like you’re not doing this to keep Basal Eurasian out of Africa.
quote:Hotu giving the lowest Z score to unadmixed Africans aren't only restricted to East Africans
If you want to argue that NE African ancestry does not play a role in Hotu being the closest to unmixed East Africans, there are ways of proving that. But this information you posted does not introduce any new relevant information to the fact is that:
*Hotu is closer to ‘unmixed’ East Africans than Natufians are. *Hotu is closer to ‘unmixed’ East Africans than to any known ‘unmixed’ African population.
BTW, in regards to your own data, I can’t help but notice the Mota-Hotu clade is the strongest with Hadza, YRI, Mende and Hausa as the target compared to Dinka. How do you explain this clade getting stronger with increased distance to NE Africa? I thought you said NE African is not particularly involved in Hotu’s estimated 60% Basal Eurasian?
quote:Lastly, You missed the fact that I believe NE africans carried SSA, which should appear to you as the most parsimonious explanation but because to you, Laz's BE = NEAfrican... all of it has to be in the green (non African component) of taforalt. which now requires an exotic explanation as to why Taforalt has elevated neanderthal Admixture. Yes most of the neanderthal is probably U6 linked or Aterian introgression. But are you telling us that the UP European source admixture in Taforalt and non African in Natufians were genetically Identical with the exception of neanderthal variants, where those in North Africa carried the most neanderthal?? That how'd you'd have to explain the anomaly that is visually displayed in figure s19 - loosdrecht 2018
No. I’m saying that you, as the person who was trying to pin elevated Neanderthal on NE African, have to prove it did not come with, for instance, U6. Your claim, your responsibility. In my view, U6 doesn’t explain TAF's elevated Neanderthal. I said in my post to lioness that I think the autosomal representation of U6 in North Africa is smaller than the uniparentals suggest. So, naturally, my prediction is that there isn't enough U6-linked Neanderthal in North Africa to cover TAF's elevated Neanderthal. I’ve already been looking into North Africans’ elevated Neanderthal since 2014, and I don’t think it’s U6. But I’m not passing off my views as fact, nor am I going against 8 years worth of evidence by saying NE African comes with elevated Neanderthal. You are. So it’s perfectly legitimate for me to ask how you came to that conclusion.
quote:Side note* a positive Z-score from f4(Chimp, Altai; Yoruba, Mota) heavily implies Mota carries more neanderthal than YRI
Not impressive. BTW, I’m still waiting for the sources you talked about, that supposedly “overturned” Mota having the least Neanderthal.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
@elmaestro
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler: Exactly who are Fula1 and Fula2?
Fula2 are very Soninke.
@dougm ES Egyptology forum not black run? Who knew that back then? If 'ausar' wasn't presenting himself as black I would 've never accepted his invitation to join ES. Search EGYPTSEARCH. do all those reviews read like they're talking about a non-black forum.?
@tL It's impossible to live thru the past. These are the good old days. I'm concerned about good new days and plans to prevent them. But yes you're succeeding in rewriting ES into your vision the one you've had since you were Lion.
@ED Your threat is vague People can't comply to something if that something is not clearly explained. Precisely what is ticking you off so bad that doesn't bother the OP yet you would close his thread?
@Oshun Because crania don't exist in a bubble, have to look at Nekhen from all ends for crania context which surely mean as much as an interpretation of teeth and skull shapes and/or measurements.
The number of cemeteries operational in the Naqada III period, when the desert was almost completely abandoned by the living, is harder to assess. We know that burial at HK6 was resumed, the Fort cemetery continued to grow in a south and westward direction, and activity at HK30G appears to have commenced. Other cemeteries are date only on the basis of surface observations or the brief reports of Quibell. All of these need to be re-confirmed.
Hierakonpolis is one of the few sites at which widely separated and distinct cemeteries for the different segments of society have been found. Extensive excavations by the current Expedition at the workers cemetery at HK43 and the elite cemetery at HK6 provide a unique opportunity to study the remains of individuals of different social status all from this same site and all dating to the same time. As a result we can see what it really meant to be rich and poor at about 3600BC. The differences are profound.
EDIT 06 01 2018 More from Hierakonpolis online
At the royal cemetery at Qustul near Abu Simbel, one of the main centers of A-Group culture, the rulers are shown wearing the White Crown of Upper Egypt. The elite graves there are long rectangular shafts cut into the bedrock with a side chamber sealed by a big stone slab. Surrounding the graves were cattle burials. A grave similar to this was found in the elite cemetery at Hierakonpolis (HK6, Tomb 2), and it's also surrounded by cattle burials.
A few sherds of the distinctive A-Group pottery have been recorded at Hierakonpolis, particularly in the extensive cemetery by the Enclosure of Khasekhemwy, where more than a century ago French archaeologist Henri de Morgan discovered graves containing the complete A-Group bowls now in the Brooklyn Museum. Nubian pottery has also been reported from the Main Deposit in the floodplain town of Nekhen and at the predynastic temple (HK29A).
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro: you know for a fact that those north African components would evaporate in the face of the ancient caucus/Iranians, stop playing.
CHG and EEF are sister components. Pls stop going against the evidence in your biased quest to keep BE out of Africa. In terms of genetic distance, seemingly separate ADMIXTURE clusters like CHG, EEF, Mahrebi, etc. form a loose group with BE as their main common denominator. CHG forming their own component from other BE-admixed components in ADMIXTURE is a half-baked argument. It means nothing. All Basal Eurasian-admixed components have lower distance among each other compared to nearby components. And when tested for f3 'treeness' with Mota, the resulting clade is to the exclusion of most 'unmixed' SSA samples, with Dinka being the least excluded, Hadza being much more excluded, and YRI intermediate. Meaning, the exclusion becomes more pronounced as you move away from NE Africa.
Figure 2 | The relationship between Caucasus hunter-gatherers (CHG), western hunter-gatherers and early farmers. (a). Alternative phylogenies relating western hunter-gatherers (WHG), CHG and early farmers (EF, highlighted in orange), with the appropriate outgroup f3-statistics. (b). The best supported relationship among CHG (Kotias), WHG (Bichon, Loschbour), and EF (Stuttgart), with split times estimates using G-Phocs15 SourcePosts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Can some of you guys who want to go into more conversation about about non black mods/admins/owners do that in PM or something? I don't want my topic locked over the matter.
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro: you know for a fact that those north African components would evaporate in the face of the ancient caucus/Iranians, stop playing.
CHG and EEF are sister components. Pls stop going against the evidence in your biased quest to keep BE out of Africa.
What are you proposing Elmaestro gains by arguing BE wasn't originally from Africa ? I'm fairly new to BE so I have no idea where this conversation is going.
Posts: 2508 | From: . | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
@Oshun See what elMaestro posted here. See how the North Africans on that tree are conceptualized as Sub-Saharan population with non-African ancestry. By getting rid of Basal Eurasian, elMaestro thinks all that will be left is various Africans SSA-related components and various backmigrated components. Very obvious why this appeals to people with certain politics.
quote:Originally posted by Tyrannohotep: I’m confused. Is Elmaestro seriously arguing that BE isn’t African now? What explains this bizarre plot twist?
Lol. He's not just saying this now out of nowhere. This goes all the way back when he used to say there is no such thing as a North African component. This was when it was still cool to say you expect AE to be transplants from DNA Tribes' Great Lakes and South Africa regions. So elMaestro said I was I Hamiticist for saying North African aDNA will be EEF or Natufian-related + various other African components. Then North African aDNA came out and he slowly started backtracking since it proves that there is, in fact, a North African component. But nowadays I can't keep up with the aDNA bending and spinning anymore. What little I've been able to make up from his theory is that there is a "Lazaridis Basal Eurasian", which is supposedly a false construct, and "what is confused as Basal Eurasian". According to him, the latter "what is confused as Basal Eurasian" can be various things, including 100% Eurasians with no African ancestry and Eurasians who are mixed with various SSA-related ancestry. Never mind that all known Basal Eurasian carriers form a loose group that has the same ancestry as a shared trait. This is confirmed by testing these populations' genetic distance. But he deliberately ignores that and nitpicks and misrepresents data. What it boils down to is that he thinks North Africa was Sub-Saharan African. See his post here and here. But when I ask him if he's back to claiming there is no such thing as a North African component, he denies it.
Anyway, now that TAF shows elevated Neanderthal, he sees an opportunity to pin this extra Neanderthal on ancient NE Africans. As you know, one of Basal Eurasian's attributes is that it lowered Neanderthal in Eurasia. So, by pinning TAF's elevated Neanderthal on NE Africans, he thinks he's proving that Basal Eurasian couldn't have come from NE Africa. Where he's ultimately going with these fallacies is that ancient North Africans have no real pre-OOA component beyond Dinka or something phylogenetically close. He's said before that, "technically, Dinka are Basal Eurasian". Which weird, but no weirder than other things he's said.
The irony is that this is exactly what the anti-African bloggers are saying--that Africans have no diversity of the kind that bridges the gap in between Sub-Saharan Africans and Eurasians.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Oshun: Can some of you guys who want to go into more conversation about about non black mods/admins/owners do that in PM or something? I don't want my topic locked over the matter.
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro: you know for a fact that those north African components would evaporate in the face of the ancient caucus/Iranians, stop playing.
CHG and EEF are sister components. Pls stop going against the evidence in your biased quest to keep BE out of Africa.
What are you proposing Elmaestro gains by arguing BE wasn't originally from Africa ? I'm fairly new to BE so I have no idea where this conversation is going.
There are no human remains that are regarded as "Basal Eurasian". The weird thing is how these researchers (and some members here) will discuss this hypothetical BE in the same breath as actual human remains that were found
So since there are no human remains people can just define it's characteristics how they would want it to be if it existed
Posts: 42919 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
BE is real. BE is not the only 'population' based solely on statistics, the same statistics analyzing sampled chromosomes.
There are African statistical populations but since they're not Lazar-ade nobody's talking about them.
Erectus snd Heidelbergensi (sp) kin can only be discovered through stats. The soil ate them away so genetic implications are their 'remains'.
How about you STOP constantly complaining about the state of ES just because YOU don't like the way its going and instead PM one of the mods to suggest how we can improve the forum. This thread is not the place for your constant complaining.
You were mod and gave up the title. When that troll was trolling the place and people kept asking you to do something you kept saying "I'm retired", Punos Rey on the other hand was FORCED to speak with Sam just to get this forum back in order. Deal with it. And once again this thread is not the place.
Posts: 1891 | From: NY | Registered: Sep 2014
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler: BE is real. BE is not the only 'population' based solely on statistics, the same statistics analyzing sampled chromosomes.
There are African statistical populations but since they're not Lazar-ade nobody's talking about them.
Erectus snd Heidelbergensi (sp) kin can only be discovered through stats. The soil ate them away so genetic implications are their 'remains'.
If BE is about 80,000 years old, we'd have to find the remains of humans 80,000 years old to have any leads on a "pure" BE lineage. Has it ever been demonstrated that it is possible to extract DNA that old? Well... even if it's been done, it probably wouldn't be easy to do often.
Posts: 2508 | From: . | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
You guys still arguing over Basal Eurasian. HA! Ha! HA! ElMaestro has issues. Nevertheless, BE cannot be anything else BUT African. It first appeared in Africa BEFORE Europe…didn’t it? BE/EEF IIRC is really EEF (Not ANE or WHG). If I remember correctly per Lazaridis La Brana dated to 6000bc, was 100% WHG with no EEF/BE. While Luxmanda, at 3000BC was already 60% EEF/BE while Malawi Hora dated at 8000bc already had 20% BE. BE cannot possible be anything but African most likely Southern African!!!
-------------------- 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
A reminder. Back to the BASICS…BE=EEF. BE does not mean non-African. DNATrIbes has it in Africa. Skoglund et al has it in Malawi 3000years before it appears in Europe. YES!!! 3000 YEARS BEFORE EUROPE!!! So WTF are you people arguing about?
-------------------- 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
We also know that that model above is incorrect and most likely “supervised” because recent DNA data has shown MButi do carry “Eurasian” ancestry. Infact the now famous SLC45A2 derived is carried by Mbuti.
-------------------- 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
As far as there being "no skeletal remains of Basal Eurasian". Be wary of hypocrites who talk all day about components that have not yet been linked to ancient bones, but who want to put up a fake "formal" pretense and lecture people about Basal Eurasian needing skeletal evidence. Readers, listen to known trolls at your own risk.
They go around the forum talking about "Basal Eurasian need bones to prove it" but fail to follow their own advice when they make threads about such and such population being "86% Arabian" without having any bones to link ancestry to, let alone to make one type of Arabian the epitome of "Arabian".
None of the green components below have bones to go along with their ancestry components. Anti-African trolls have no problem when you talk about these green components. But as soon as you talk about Basal Eurasian being African they want to hold the conversation hostage by pretending to be interested in skeletal remains. They're not interested in skeletal remains. They're just here to voice their underlying butthurt, using scientific parsimony as a pretext.
They're not interested in skeletal remains or they would reject all components without accompanying skeletal remains. This would mean you can't talk about genetics because bones of ancestral components are never found since they represent snapshots frozen in time. With the limited fossils we have it's highly unlikely to find any of the green ancestral components. At best we can find samples that partially derive from them. That goes for all these green components.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
^I think all of those samples (the red ovals) are mixed with ancestry other than the green ancestral components that epitomize their ancestry. For instance, the real EEF is Anatolian farmer (EEF is Anatolian Farmer + WHG ancestry foreign to it). And even Anatolian farmer has some extra foreign WHG, presumably inherited in Anatolia, that removes it somewhat from the admixture event that chart depicts (West Eurasian [Y-DNA G(?)] + Basal Eurasian [E-V13(?)]).
quote:The Anatolian Neolithic In the Levant and Iran we have Epipalaeolithic/Mesolithic samples and can thus compare the first Neolithic populations with the hunter-gatherers that preceded them. There are currently no samples of Epipalaeolithic Anatolians, but we observe that the Neolithic Anatolians are genetically shifted towards Europe in the PCA (Fig. 1b) and have ancestry from an ancestral population related to European hunter-gatherers according to ADMIXTURE analysis (Extended Data Fig. 2a). This should not be interpreted as evidence of ancestry from actual hunter-gatherers from Europe; while this is not implausible for our sample from Northwestern Anatolia 17 , we have previously seen that populations of the ancient Near East are also differentially related to European hunter-gatherers. This suggests that populations related to European hunter-gatherers existed in the Near East and may be included in the Epipalaeolithic/Mesolithic ancestors of the Neolithic Anatolians without any need for a direct migration from Europe.
I think the EEF ancestral population lived during the Epipalaeolithic, somewhere in the eastern Mediterranean Basin or close by. This would make 7ky old Stuttgart a young and watered down example of the Epipalaeolithic EEF ancestral population. In that sense I would say we don't have bones of the actual ancestral EEF population.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
Cool. Caveats noted, saw em in Laz. Didn't read Fig 3 on green to red significance.
I was only going by Laz2014 pg 409c fg 2 tb 1 - legend xdf 3 - K=20 left xdt 2 - D stat reps
SI 8 &/o more relevant supps
Just that bones are associated with those approximate(ANE)/clade(WHG)/cluster(EEF) VS those non-3 letter greenies above them I may wrongly see as the only boneless statisticals.
That's about all I'm good for. Analyzing, critiquing, or co-opting BE & kin are beyond me. Still don't know what to make of Loschbour NEF YRI.
Have fun with the 'bone'-heads!
EDIT Like the Tecuhtli & Xotalanca in Red Nails. Thx 4/t ancient Anatoli link below probably the world's first civ @ Çatal Hüyük also in Turkey. Believe it or not I first found out about them in an art book on NearEast and, yup, EEF cluster includes samples nowhere east of 15 degrees East. Are any available?
posted
^If you're interested, I'm banking on these people and related populations (e.g. Catal Hoyuk) to bridge some of the gap in between Stuttgart and the people ancestral to EEF:
quote:Archaeologists have made a remarkable find in a 12,000-year-old stone temple in southeastern Turkey. Among tens of thousands of animal bones and a statue that may depict a kneeling figure holding a human head, researchers have uncovered the remains of human skulls that were stripped of their flesh and carved with deep, straight grooves running front to back.
Note the skull modifications and how they recall Arthur Keith's descriptions of cuts on some of the skulls his Natufian sample.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ok... I'll try to take one more crack at this... Since everyone is confused.
Laz's Basal Eurasian has two defining properties... 1. No SSA 2. No Neanderthal
taforalt is ~37% SSA. this portion of Taf is roughly SSA
This portion is not SSA, and closely resembles Natufian.
^^Logic and previous studies involving the patterns between SSA and neanderthal admixture says that this portion should harbor two things: 1.Basal Eurasian ** 2. Majority of the Neanderthal% **
---
Two Things to also keep in mind: -1. Taforalt and other neighboring populations should have a respectable amount of NE African ancestry. -2. Basal Eurasian at ~44% of Iran_N was capable of bringing their neanderthal down to proportions lower than Taf who is already almost 40% SSA as (seen above).
So as far as logic goes This (below) portion of taf is coming up short on BE
_ Swenet chooses to conflate his Idea of NE ancestry: -which has BE = NE African ancestry With the issue I'm addressing: -disproportionate levels of neanderthal in a BE population.
To create the argument for me that: -North East African ancestry increases Neanderthal in populations we believe have decent levels of north East African ancestry. (no where did I state this but moving on)
All I'm doing is highlighting that if** NE-African is Basal Eurasian it would be horribly represented in a specimen we know should have direct ancestry from North East Africa. Hence:
quote:Considering the dual ancestry of the Taforalt individuals, we can explain the Altai affinity in 472 Taforalt as a dilution of its Natufian-related ancestry with its significant proportion (~36.5%) ofsub-Saharan African ancestry. Interestingly, the Neanderthal ancestry in Taforalt is higher than in early Neolithic Iran (Iran_N, f4 = 0.000628, Z = 1.934). We can therefore deduce that the Taforalt individuals are not genetically closer to the hypothetical Basal Eurasian population than the early Holocene populations from Iran""
-Loosdrecht 2018
To me: North East Africans were most likely not Laz's pure BE and also came with some SSA ancestry in Taforalt. I won't bother repeating what I beleive BE is because this convo can barely stay focused as is.
According to Swenet, the above can never be true with regards to data we currently have... Swenet wants me to prove: -That Neanderthal estimates actually has a negative correlation with SSA -That Iraninas and hotu aren't more North East Africans than ..North east africans currently residing in North east Africa and every-other african we have genomes for. - That there wasn't a super neanderthal localized in North Africa but failed to touch North East africans in anyway...
...I'm on the hot seat for believing that Laz's BE not being Ancient NE African is a more parsimonious explanation than the three possibilities listed above inverted.
Posts: 1781 | From: New York | Registered: Jul 2016
| IP: Logged |
posted
@Elmaestro It's not about a "hot seat". It's about posting evidence for your claims. You've not posted evidence for one single claim you made and most of the time you're simply not making any sense. Here is one case in point, where you're just stating non-sense as fact:
quote:Laz's Basal Eurasian has two defining properties... 1. No SSA 2. No Neanderthal
1) No analysis has ever shown that it's impossible for Basal Eurasian carriers to spread with some SSA or SSA-related ancestry. You made that up. Shame on you for doing this over and over again, just so you can attack an African origin of this component.
2) Populations carrying Basal Eurasian are said to have no Neanderthal in the sense that they didn't inherit it during the introgression event 55ky ago. But this doesn't mean that the BE populations who lowered Neanderthal in Eurasia had no Neanderthal. Up to a certain percentage, BE populations could have picked up Neanderthal without it interfering with their ability to lower Neanderthal in Eurasia. This is just like African Americans who have Neanderthal, but they still can cause drops in Neanderthal in their interracial offspring. If an Afram male is 50% African, he will cause a 50% drop in Neanderthal in his interracial offspring (compared to his in-laws). It's a complete nonsensical fallacy that inheriting Neanderthal necessarily takes away Africans' ability to cause BE-like drops in Neanderthal. Yet this is exactly what you're saying. You're saying NE Africa is no longer a credible source of Basal Eurasian because NE Africans didn't lower the elevated Neanderthal in TAF. Aside from the fact that you have never proven that NE African migrants failed to lower TAF's Neanderthal, you have also never proven that inheriting Neanderthal makes NE Africans incapable of lowering Neanderthal in Eurasia.
Your posts are filled with these kinds of half-baked arguments that only seem to impress YOU. You think you've posted evidence, but you never did. This causes the conversation to constantly go in loops because you act like you're posting evidence, but you're not. When I ask for evidence, you keep posting the same fallacies instead of actual evidence.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
1) Somebody remind me if "Basal Eurasian" has anything to do with the topic of Predynastic Hierakonpolis crania
2) Anybody who does not agree with Lazaridis' view of "Basal Eurasian" would at some point need stop talking about Lazaridis, stop using his "EEF" and "ANE" abbreviations in verbatim lingo and then provide a different source that defines what "Basal Eurasian" means and also present data, not Lazaridis data supporting the hypothetical existence of a "Basal Eurasian"
Posts: 42919 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote: Oeiginally posted by Tukuler: EDIT Like the Tecuhtli & Xotalanca in Red Nails. Thx 4/t ancient Anatoli link below probably the world's first civ @ Çatal Hüyük also in Turkey. Believe it or not I first found out about them in an art book on NearEast and, yup, EEF cluster includes samples nowhere east of 15 degrees East. Are any available?
As you know, at some point going east the samples transition from a northeastern Med type affinity, to an Iranian farmer type affinity. Mesopotamia is one big unsampled area. Maybe this is where the two met or interacted with another farmer population that buffered both.
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: @Elmaestro It's not about a "hot seat". It's about posting evidence for your claims. You've not posted evidence for one single claim you made and most of the time you're simply not making any sense. Here is one case in point, where you're just stating non-sense as fact:
quote:Laz's Basal Eurasian has two defining properties... 1. No SSA 2. No Neanderthal
1) No analysis has ever shown that it's impossible for Basal Eurasian carriers to spread with some SSA or SSA-related ancestry. You made that up. Shame on you for doing this over and over again, just so you can attack an African origin of this component.
2) Populations carrying Basal Eurasian are said to have no Neanderthal in the sense that they didn't inherit it during the introgression event 55ky ago. But this doesn't mean that the BE populations who lowered Neanderthal in Eurasia had no Neanderthal. Up to a certain percentage, BE populations could have picked up Neanderthal without it interfering with their ability to lower Neanderthal in Eurasia. This is just like African Americans who have Neanderthal, but they still can cause drops in Neanderthal in their interracial offspring. If an Afram male is 50% African, he will cause a 50% drop in Neanderthal in his interracial offspring (compared to his in-laws). It's a complete nonsensical fallacy that inheriting Neanderthal necessarily takes away Africans' ability to cause BE-like drops in Neanderthal. Yet this is exactly what you're saying. You're saying NE Africa is no longer a credible source of Basal Eurasian because NE Africans didn't lower the elevated Neanderthal in TAF. Aside from the fact that you have never proven that NE African migrants failed to lower TAF's Neanderthal, you have also never proven that inheriting Neanderthal makes NE Africans incapable of lowering Neanderthal in Eurasia.
Your posts are filled with these kinds of half-baked arguments that only seem to impress YOU. You think you've posted evidence, but you never did. This causes the conversation to constantly go in loops because you act like you're posting evidence, but you're not. When I ask for evidence, you keep posting the same fallacies instead of actual evidence.
Long story short... now you want me to prove Basal Eurasian is not characteristic of having no SSA and and Neanderthal. Everything I posted you've done the same thing... thrown hypotheticals. have me debating "how do you really know that's." while still conflating your personal truths with common knowledge. bro please understand that....
...I don't have to show NE africans didn't lower Tafs neanderthal.. I have to show Basal Eurasianas defined by Lazaridisdidn't lower Tafs neanderthalsignificantly.
To which you just have to scroll up.
You wan't me to provide evidence to disprove your hypothetical claims, so that you can give me another hypothetical problem to address. For instance I posted f3 problems and somehow you arrived at a conclusion that distance from NE-Africa increases the Z score as if Hadza are the most distant from NE Africa genetically and geographically. And also as if you don't know both YRI Hausa etc. has unique archaic introgression as west Africans. --but let me guess, you gonna wan't me to prove that Yorubans really have archaic admixture. or that the Hadza are really east Africans?
-I explained that Neighboring BE harboring populations (to Africa) generally harbor more neanderthal than Iranians and Hotu... You ask for evidence that hotu and Iran_N doesn't have more NE African ancestry than nearby populations including an 15,000 year old North African.
-Also, you seem to wan't me to prove that Hotu isn't the closets non African population to East Africans represented by the Dinka, the closest non-admixted african to Eurasians... which I won't do because that's a point I brought to most peoples attention. However you're using this as evidence that Hotu has the most NE-African ancestry, which is either dishonest or a mistake on your part cuz even when we force African signals out of Neolithic Eurasians These guys tend to come up short. From sheunamen 2017 Abusir studyuse the search function & start at K7 to save time From ME -But lemme guess, Now I have to prove that East African signals in Natufians, PPNB, EEF etc. are indicative of NE african admixture or something just as bizarre
Now you're telling me that broken components that loosely follows BE populations in Modern Poulations are sister components (no way to prove this but I'll even accept that) when I made the observation that BE signals are extremely pervasive in ancient populations who DIRECTLY CARRY HIGH LEVELS OF BE. And somehow the proposed phylogenetic positioning of EEF and CHG are evidence against this. Are you arguing EEF ad CHG splat from North East Africans? lemme guess you wan't me to prove that they didn't?
And lastly, You also want me to provide evidence for positions I did not even take (such as "NE african ancestry increases neanderthal"). -lets not forget how you swept aside loosdrecht's neanderthal stats, but I don't really care about that anymore.
I had a simple premise, the shit ain't impressive.. but more and more researchers are leaning towards shit like this. After I previously predicted this will continue to happen. One example. And for every supporting line of evidence, you retaliate with a hyothetical or a complaint about how researchers are lying and dishonest.
[insert crying tyrese meme] what more do you want from me lol
I'm not answering no more "maybe if's" Swenet... The main argument here is whether or not Hotu followed by Iran_N are the most North East African populations ever sampled. You aren't saying a damn thing unless you're providing evidence that this is true.
Posts: 1781 | From: New York | Registered: Jul 2016
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Oshun: They'll go for older remains if they realize the black Egypt theory hasn't been put to rest. I actually do believe that the DNA tribes DNA was possibly correct. What we could be seeing were the genetic differences of the Egyptian population based on distance from the Near East and Sub Saharan Africa. This would also explain Beyoku's data because what he posted was Old Kingdom information. Hassan's Nubian data doesn't seem to be heavily Near Eastern and the southern Egyptians were closest to Nubians. Even in Irish's study HRK and UEG pair with Nubians before Lower Egyptians.
This is admittedly off topic. But consider that Egyptian royalty tended to be inbred, apparently since they wanted to preserve the "divinity" of their bloodline. Maybe the ostensible resemblance between the royal mummies' MLI scores and those African populations with the least OOA admixture reflects that practice? If Egyptian royals were invested in maintaining the purity of their lineage, they might have avoided interbreeding with foreign immigrants when it came to producing heirs. Therefore, the genetics of the Pharaohs and their Great Wives might have been less "mixed" than those of their subjects.
I remember Swenet observing once that there was some overlap in alleles between the Amarna mummies and those of Rameses III and his son, despite them coming from different families from different regions of Egypt. So possibly elite Egyptians were more "pure" Northeast African than the rest of the population, though I am not sure of that.
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro: For instance I posted f3 problems and somehow you arrived at a conclusion that distance from NE-Africa increases the Z score as if Hadza are the most distant from NE Africa genetically and geographically.
Lol. Nah. I'm definitely stopping this conversation. You are seriously trying to argue Hadza are not the most genetically and geographically distant Africans in your f3 list?
quote:We estimated divergence times of 98,000 to 96,000 years for Hadza ancestry from Eastern Pygmy and Khoisan ancestries, respectively, followed by divergence times of 89,000 and 88,000 years for Western Pygmy and Sandawe ancestries, respectively, and then followed by divergence times of 81,000 to 76,000 years for Arabian, Berber, eastern and southern Bantu-speaking, Nilo-Saharan, and Western NigerCongo ancestries (table 3). These divergence times are all before Out-of-Africa, and therefore support early divergence of Hadza ancestry. In contrast, we estimated divergence times for Sandawe ancestry of 55,000–34,000 years (table 3). These divergence times are after Out-of-Africa but before the ancestral split of present-day speakers of Niger-Congo and Nilo-Saharan languages.
You're taking this "Hadza is pre-OOA" lie too far. Your political bias is clouding your judgment. Pls stop lying to people who don't know better. SMH.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Oshun: They'll go for older remains if they realize the black Egypt theory hasn't been put to rest. I actually do believe that the DNA tribes DNA was possibly correct. What we could be seeing were the genetic differences of the Egyptian population based on distance from the Near East and Sub Saharan Africa. This would also explain Beyoku's data because what he posted was Old Kingdom information. Hassan's Nubian data doesn't seem to be heavily Near Eastern and the southern Egyptians were closest to Nubians. Even in Irish's study HRK and UEG pair with Nubians before Lower Egyptians.
This is admittedly off topic. But consider that Egyptian royalty tended to be inbred, apparently since they wanted to preserve the "divinity" of their bloodline. Maybe the ostensible resemblance between the royal mummies' MLI scores and those African populations with the least OOA admixture reflects that practice? If Egyptian royals were invested in maintaining the purity of their lineage, they might have avoided interbreeding with foreign immigrants when it came to producing heirs. Therefore, the genetics of the Pharaohs and their Great Wives might have been less "mixed" than those of their subjects.
I remember Swenet observing once that there was some overlap in alleles between the Amarna mummies and those of Rameses III and his son, despite them coming from different families from different regions of Egypt. So possibly elite Egyptians were more "pure" Northeast African than the rest of the population, though I am not sure of that.
I think it's probably easier to explain their genetic lineages through the cline theory proposed by other Egyptologists who'd made those conclusions after looking at Egyptian crania. The Amarnas and Ramses were likely of more southern Egyptian roots than the Abusir sample. The NK also started gathering territory into Nubia which would've likely given southern Egyptians and Nubians more opportunity to mingle. Even if they didn't come from the exact same places in southern Egypt, I imagine that DNA was probably something that could be expected south of Thebes although waning in it's prevalence.
Posts: 2508 | From: . | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro: For instance I posted f3 problems and somehow you arrived at a conclusion that distance from NE-Africa increases the Z score as if Hadza are the most distant from NE Africa genetically and geographically.
Lol. Nah. I'm definitely stopping this conversation. You are seriously trying to argue Hadza are not the most genetically and geographically distant Africans in your f3 list?
quote:We estimated divergence times of 98,000 to 96,000 years for Hadza ancestry from Eastern Pygmy and Khoisan ancestries, respectively, followed by divergence times of 89,000 and 88,000 years for Western Pygmy and Sandawe ancestries, respectively, and then followed by divergence times of 81,000 to 76,000 years for Arabian, Berber, eastern and southern Bantu-speaking, Nilo-Saharan, and Western NigerCongo ancestries (table 3). These divergence times are all before Out-of-Africa, and therefore support early divergence of Hadza ancestry. In contrast, we estimated divergence times for Sandawe ancestry of 55,000–34,000 years (table 3). These divergence times are after Out-of-Africa but before the ancestral split of present-day speakers of Niger-Congo and Nilo-Saharan languages.
You're taking this "Hadza is pre-OOA" lie too far. Your political bias is clouding your judgment. Pls stop lying to people who don't know better. SMH.
On one end I’m glad and relieved you want to end the discussion. On the other I’m disapointed you took the bait lmaoo.
Previously Sweeney said : the Hadza effect is due to extensive North East African Admixture Now swenet says: Hadza should be the most distant set of Africans from North East Africans Previously swenet says: NC split happened over 90,000-120,000 years ago and that’s a “low estimate” Now swenet quotes: NC splitting between 80 and 71k
You just did more for my hadza theory in the last three pages than I even attempted to :lol: ps. Western Nigeria is closer and more accessible from the Nile valley than north Tanzania?? Welp I learn something everyday
But ima releive you from explaining your way out of this because you weren’t using the f3 problems correctly anyways. Instead you can tell everyone which non-mixed african population truly is the closest to Iran_N and explain why and how that is? Lol
Only thing I’d advise you talk about is why you beleive Iranians are the most pure North East African population we’ve seen to date. That’s the question you should stop running from.
Posts: 1781 | From: New York | Registered: Jul 2016
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro: Previously Sweeney said : the Hadza effect is due to extensive North East African Admixture Now swenet says: Hadza should be the most distant set of Africans from North East Africans
Your point? Is this another one of your half-baked arguments? Where is the inconsistency? I can't say Hadza have northeast African ancestry, while still maintaining they're distant from NE Africans in overall genome-wide affinity?
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: More on Hadza being primarily a mix of Khoisan-like and East African ancestry:
quote:TreeMix infers that the Hadza are admixed between a Khoisan population (equally related to both the northwestern and southeastern Kalahari groups) and a population most closely related to the Dinka, with about 23±2% Khoisan-related ancestry] (Supplementary Fig. S20).
As this paper indicates, Hadza cluster like a northeast/East African population when their Khoisan ancestry is taken into account/separated in treemix:
When you factor in their Khoisan-like ancestry, their position on the Human tree is different and closer to Khoisan:
My positions are on record. As are your f3 values showing Hadza are nothing like the pre-OOA population you imagine them to be.
And stop lying and confusing laypeople. Talking bout "Hadza effect" and "technically Basal Eurasian". SMH. But you're going to be exposed by aDNA from NE Africa soon enough. Only a matter of time. Just make sure you have the same energy then.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro: Only thing I’d advise you talk about is why you beleive Iranians are the most pure North East African population we’ve seen to date. That’s the question you should stop running from.
I addressed all points up until the point I saw you're delusional and barely intelligible in what you're trying to say. Let me be absolutely clear in that being the reason why I'm stopping the conversation. I don't even understand what you trying to say half of time and your posts are all your own half-baked claims and arguments. You don't cite sources and ignore requests to cite sources you alluded to.
As everyone can read from the exchanges, I never ran from a single point. Just know though that if you keep lying about questions not being addressed as you did before, I won't do the back and forth with you. I will flag your post. You've been warned. You're not going to tell me you're baiting me when you're a moderator. And you're definitely not going to lie about me.
quote:On the other I’m disapointed you took the bait lmaoo.
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
What percent of Luxmanda was Neanderthal? 
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
? I'm fairly new to BE so I have no idea where this conversation is going.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic