posted
Thank you Sage. This is why I keep busting his chops. One stupid unsubstantiated remark after another. :rolleyes:
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler:
quote:Originally posted by beyoku: The Brown Component is a statistical anomaly.
The Red Component is not anything special......its just a generic African component centered on Homogeneous West African samples.
.
.
TOPIC REFERENCE: Schuenemann2017 Supplemental Figure 4 ADMIXTURE program graph K=16
Each color is an ancestral population by definition.
What is a statistical anomaly How is it qualified and quantified? What makes Erythrea anomalous? What other topic K's are anomalies and why?
What is special? How is it qualified and quantified? What makes Atlantic-Niger not special? What other topic K's are not special and why not? Which topic K's are special, by what measurements?
-------------------- Without data you are just another person with an opinion - Deming Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
Don't look now but earliest appearance does not guarantee origin, neither temporally nor geographic ally.
There's always an excuse when it comes to bona fide Africa stuff that somehow never apply to the precious 'West Eurasians'.
Plainly seen, the Erythrean element steadily declines over time in the Levant because it was never augumented by ongoing emigration from its obvious sources unlike the Anatoli and especially the Caucasus elements did.
Genetics isn't a vacuum filler. Archeoanthropology, linguistics, and history are proofs of who entered and left the Levant and when they did.
Roughly, very roughly, a line drawn from Nouakchott to Merca porously delineates two way African substructure. North of it evidences the origin and spread of Erythrea West.
No modern SW Asiatics have more Erythrea K than the Horn and northern Africa save Beduin B, Teimaniym, and Saudis who incidently line the Red Sea.
Yemen(Sanaa) and a small part of Saudi are East Erythrea. That's why their level of the Erythrea K exceeds Beduin A, Egyptian, Palestinian, Yemen, Jordan, and all other SW Asiatics.
Did I redux Schuenamann's graph for nothing? My retained brainstorming results from zooming out and observing the color patterns.
Ancients aside, Qemant/Beta Israel/Ethiopian Jew and Somali are the highest in the brown K except for Beduin B. Those two populations are exactly in Erythrea West. In schuenamanns graph Somali display no Anatoli/Caucasus influx. Ethiopian Jew shows a Caucasus substratum and a very little --salmon K-- Mala(Dalit) 4 out of 7 @ insignificant (statistical anomaly?) levels.
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro: @Tukuler Consider the temporal aspects of these charts... This is all statistics so we're dealing with "probablies" and not "absolutelies" BUT a huge sign that a STRUCTURAL component is an anomaly is if descendants or later groups can better represent source populations... For exmple Negev Beduoins Tend to score more of the natufian component than Natufians ....clearly they can't be the source or best represent the source of Natufian ancestry... and they clearly show signs of relatively recent admixture from other middle eastern and African groups.
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
Um, I know ES is personality driven but I asked those questions for the sake of clarity and expansion . Hopefully Beyoku will respond. Why?
I want this thread to be robust while STICKING TO Schuenemann2017 sup fig 4 ADMIXTURE @ K=16 with primary focus on K9 BROWN which amounts to 99% in one Natufian and 86 & 84% in two other Natufians and nowhere else. The remaining 3 Natufians clock in at ~71%.
The highest Beduin B frequency is 79% in one sample only. 9 of them exceed the lowest three Natufians sampled. 2 of them equal the lowest three Natufians. The remaining 7 are less than the lowest three Natufians
I will say this about you. You do not repeat or blindly accept what these report authors put down. However much I may disagree with your conclusions they result from independent thinking. You busted out the refugium nonsense, no ice prohibited trans-Gibraltar immigration before the Holocene. You saw through the Luxmanda diversion that covered up Hora. You realize the importance of Botswana and Malawi re 'Bantu Expansion'. And other stuff I can't recall at the moment.
For me all that makes up for when you reach beyond your grasp. But nothing excuses your racialism and homophobia. Then again, ES thrives on characters and personality. Nuff said!
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: Thank you Sage. This is why I keep busting his chops. One stupid unsubstantiated remark after another.
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler:
quote:Originally posted by beyoku: The Brown Component is a statistical anomaly.
The Red Component is not anything special......its just a generic African component centered on Homogeneous West African samples.
.
.
TOPIC REFERENCE: Schuenemann2017 Supplemental Figure 4 ADMIXTURE program graph K=16
Each color is an ancestral population by definition.
What is a statistical anomaly How is it qualified and quantified? What makes Erythrea anomalous? What other topic K's are anomalies and why?
What is special? How is it qualified and quantified? What makes Atlantic-Niger not special? What other topic K's are not special and why not? Which topic K's are special, by what measurements?
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
Man I sure can't pay you but gratefully appreciate your profession view to name Ms Schue's K colors to adopt and use in this thread?
Also any reason cyan is Iranian over Caucasus? I don't remember, and too lazy to look up, if proto-Iranians migrated across the Caucasus or only the Zagros.
quote:Originally posted by Tyrannohotep:
quote:Originally posted by beyoku: 1 - They are mainly RECENT migrants from the Near East containing ancestry that is much different from the African Natives. Different from what would be found in the Earlier or southern dynasties. (they have mostly bronze age levantine ancestry)
Like you said, obtaining more Y-DNA haplogroups from this sample would shed more light on these mummies' ancestry. But looking at the ADMIXTURE charts, the three Abusir-el-Meleq mummies' ancestry seems to resemble Levantine people from the Bronze Age than the Neolithic
So while I'm not ready yet to write off the entire sample as all recent foreign migrants, I do believe a significant chunk of their unambiguously Levantine-like ancestry can be traced to Bronze Age rather than Neolithic movements.
posted
Two offtopic and/or homophobic posts removed
@Tukuler Anomalous =/= Insignificant The problem is that the argument can be made that that brown component is misleading as an indicator of source Admixture or even close relatedness.
A coherent conclusion of how that brown component came to be can't be made. So when you say...
"Genetics isn't a vacuum filler. Archeoanthropology, linguistics, and history are proofs of who entered and left the Levant and when they did. " -Tukuler
I Agree, Which I why I credit your breakdown however caution literal interpretation of that Brown component. It didn't originate anywhere. It's a computational anomaly, ...a model of incomplete data. We see this with newer studies. AT BEST you can say that the brown component "originates" at the Natufian sites not Erytrea... given the fact that one of the Natufians are 100%, the next highest group are Isreali (correct me if I'm wrong.)
I can pretty much say with confidence that no African population will outscore Near easterners for that same component, not an ancient Erytrean, nor a modern one.
Posts: 1784 | 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 |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
Yepper
Everything pointing to Eurasia is unquestionable.
Anything points to Africa must be explained away amd the data masked in fluff.
So I'm not repeating for a 3rd or 4th time the facts apparent in the reduxes. Her ADMIXTURE data unassailably shows individual and geographic ranking and I've put in the work of formatting the ADMIXTURE for birdseye view and cyphered the frequencies. Not taking rhetoric into account, everyone's entitled to their opinion.
Anomalies? Freqs like .0n% could be insignificant noise. The Gui bar is very unexpected for an East Asian people (data lodged between Han and Daur). Must be misseated southern Africa Gui. The Damara bar is unexpected knowing their history. K9 Brown Erythrea? Not a demonstration of any statistic anomaly I know about (and I don't claim to know everything or to know better than the other reggins). Supported by multidisciplinary investigation. No mulberry bush. No monkey. No weasel. No dizzying chase until brain goes pop.
posted
Blah! Blah! Blah! Bs! BS! BS! Smoke! Smoke! Smoke! Spin! Spin! Spin! You really believe what you just wrote there?! Ha! HA! hA! You do realize you are exposed?!
You can’t play both sides youngster. Either you support the truth or you are a liar.
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro: Two offtopic and/or homophobic posts removed
@Tukuler Anomalous =/= Insignificant The problem is that the argument can be made that that brown component is misleading as an indicator of source Admixture or even close relatedness.
A coherent conclusion of how that brown component came to be can't be made. So when you say...
"Genetics isn't a vacuum filler. Archeoanthropology, linguistics, and history are proofs of who entered and left the Levant and when they did. " -Tukuler
I Agree, Which I why I credit your breakdown however caution literal interpretation of that Brown component. It didn't originate anywhere. It's a computational anomaly, ...a model of incomplete data. We see this with newer studies. AT BEST you can say that the brown component "originates" at the Natufian sites not Erytrea... given the fact that one of the Natufians are 100%, the next highest group are Isreali (correct me if I'm wrong.)
I can pretty much say with confidence that no African population will outscore Near easterners for that same component, not an ancient Erytrean, nor a modern one.
-------------------- 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 |
Definition of anomalous 1 : inconsistent with or deviating from what is usual, normal, or expected : irregular, unusual Researchers could not explain the anomalous test results. 2 a : of uncertain nature or classification an anomalous figure in the world of politics b : marked by incongruity or contradiction : paradoxical
This is what you guys came up with...."anomalous!!!"
You people are obtuse...YOU deeply believe we all fall for your bs
ob·tuse əbˈt(y)o͞os,äbˈt(y)o͞os/Submit adjective 1. annoyingly insensitive or slow to understand.
But
How can the brown component be an anomaly when it makes up about 80% of Bedouins, 95% of Natufians, 60% of Somalis found right across North Africa(50%) including native Canary Islanders and lower frequency in Sub-Saharan Africa. What are you smoking ElMaestro? That is some good stuff.
The problem with some of you white people and Negros is you are really convinced all black people are stupid. We will believe any BS that comes out your mouth.
Anomaly! Ha! HA! HA! HA! …at K16?! SMH
-------------------- Without data you are just another person with an opinion - Deming Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
OK the weekend's over now. Beyoku?
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler:
quote:Originally posted by beyoku: The Brown Component is a statistical anomaly.
The Red Component is not anything special......its just a generic African component centered on Homogeneous West African samples.
.
.
TOPIC REFERENCE: Schuenemann2017 Supplemental Figure 4 ADMIXTURE program graph K=16
Each color is an ancestral population by definition.
What is a statistical anomaly How is it qualified and quantified? What makes Erythrea anomalous? What other topic K's are anomalies and why?
What is special? How is it qualified and quantified? What makes Atlantic-Niger not special? What other topic K's are not special and why not? Which topic K's are special, by what measurements?
posted
Can we spot the double standard and spin? ------------ Quote @Tukuler Anomalous =/= Insignificant The problem is that the argument can be made that that brown component is misleading as an indicator of source Admixture or even close relatedness.
----------------
@xyyman Anomalous =/= Insignificant The problem is that the argument can be made that that red component is misleading as an indicator of source Admixture or even close relatedness.
-------
Originally posted by beyoku: The Brown Component is a statistical anomaly.
The Red Component is not anything special......its just a generic African component centered on Homogeneous West African samples.
" targeted brown component be an anomaly when it makes up about 80% of Bedouins, 95% of Natufians, 60% of Somalis found right across North Africa(50%) including native Canary Islanders and lower frequency in otherSub-Saharan Africans. "
-------------------- Without data you are just another person with an opinion - Deming Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler: OK the weekend's over now. Beyoku?
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler:
quote:Originally posted by beyoku: The Brown Component is a statistical anomaly.
The Red Component is not anything special......its just a generic African component centered on Homogeneous West African samples.
.
.
TOPIC REFERENCE: Schuenemann2017 Supplemental Figure 4 ADMIXTURE program graph K=16
Each color is an ancestral population by definition.
So you are telling me that the Somali are a composite of Natufian, Yoruba and Hadza?
Or is it 50% Local North East African (Erythrea) 40% Yoruba and 10% Hadza? Are you also arguing the Dinka are 75% Yoruba? Where does Basal Eurasian fit in?
Posts: 2463 | From: New Jersey USA | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
And when am i gay all of a sudden?
Posts: 2463 | From: New Jersey USA | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
I just need clarity and expansion on the particulars, which you deleted. thank you.
In regards to the topic graph:
quote: What is a statistical anomaly? How is it qualified and quantified? What makes Erythrea anomalous? What other topic K's are anomalies and why?
What is special? How is it qualified and quantified? What makes Atlantic-Niger not special? What other topic K's are not special and why not? Which topic K's are special, by what measurements?
. .
Please quote me saying what you question? It's not me. It's Schuenemann2017 ADMIXTURE @ K=16 saying Somalis have Erythrea, Atlantic-GreatLakes, and East African Hunter Gatherer ancestral population components. Her Dinka ancestral population components are Atlantic GreatLakes, East African Hunter Gatherer, Erythrea, and Rainforest Hunter Gatherer. The ultimate origin of the red as red is East Africa. That's elementary. Please supply a collected spit or cheek swabbed Basal Eurasian sample's ADMIXTURE data. No, but seriously, force fitting BE into the Late Pleistocene and the Holocene?
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler: I just need clarity and expansion on the particulars, which you deleted. thank you.
In regards to the topic graph:
quote: What is a statistical anomaly? How is it qualified and quantified? What makes Erythrea anomalous? What other topic K's are anomalies and why?
What is special? How is it qualified and quantified? What makes Atlantic-Niger not special? What other topic K's are not special and why not? Which topic K's are special, by what measurements?
. .
Please quote me saying what you question? It's not me. It's Schuenemann2017 ADMIXTURE @ K=16 saying Somalis have Erythrea, Atlantic-GreatLakes, and East African Hunter Gatherer ancestral population components. Her Dinka ancestral population components are Atlantic GreatLakes, East African Hunter Gatherer, Erythrea, and Rainforest Hunter Gatherer. The ultimate origin of the red as red is East Africa. That's elementary. Please supply a collected spit or cheek swabbed Basal Eurasian sample's ADMIXTURE data. No, but seriously, force fitting BE into the Late Pleistocene and the Holocene?
What are YRI ancestral populations?
-------------------- It's not my burden to disabuse the ignorant of their wrong opinions Posts: 2721 | From: New York | Registered: Jun 2015
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
To me they'd be the peoples who met mingled and finally became Benin-Nigerian Yoruba.
1st Big Backstep: Possible Rainforest HG already in Bight of Benin Influx of E-M2 from the 'Sudanese' Neolithic Sahara when West African Monsoon retreated.
Next Big Backstep: From Sahara E-M2 predecessors back to early and pre-Holocene Great Lakes perimeter as far as Malawi.
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: Can we spot the double standard and spin? ------------ Quote @Tukuler Anomalous =/= Insignificant The problem is that the argument can be made that that brown component is misleading as an indicator of source Admixture or even close relatedness.
----------------
@xyyman Anomalous =/= Insignificant The problem is that the argument can be made that that red component is misleading as an indicator of source Admixture or even close relatedness.
-------
Originally posted by beyoku: The Brown Component is a statistical anomaly.
The Red Component is not anything special......its just a generic African component centered on Homogeneous West African samples.
" targeted brown component be an anomaly when it makes up about 80% of Bedouins, 95% of Natufians, 60% of Somalis found right across North Africa(50%) including native Canary Islanders and lower frequency in otherSub-Saharan Africans. "
Exactly you fool... It isn't a double standard as both of those examples are clearly establishing my point. As much as all those African populations are the same the spread of that brown component represents the same source population.
The red peaks in West Africa so it's labeled West African The brown peaks in Natuf so its labeled Natufian
Neither of the two represents a single population... It's merely a clustering Algorithm.
Do you think before you speak baka! lol
Posts: 1784 | From: New York | Registered: Jul 2016
| IP: Logged |
posted
huh?! WT..are you saying my man? If I didn't know better I would think you are the Explorer.
He talks in circles like that.
So is it an anomaly or a source population. Isn't it the point that is being made ....ie OP. Sage suggest Erythrea . He may right but I think the source is further south...maybe Tanzania or even Zimbabwe. You don't see any DNA results for x-Mugabe country. This is just by eye-balling the genetic pattern. IBD testing can verify that.
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro: [Q] [QUOTE]Originally posted by xyyman: [q] Can we spot the double standard and spin? ------------ Q As much as all those African populations are the same the spread of that brown component represents the same source population.
[/Q]
-------------------- Without data you are just another person with an opinion - Deming Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
You just can't get your lies lined up ...can you? SMH. Which is it? Fake ass!
----------------- quote : As much as all those African populations are the same the spread of that brown component represents the same source population.
---------------- Quote @Tukuler Anomalous =/= Insignificant The problem is that the argument can be made that that brown component is misleading as an indicator of source Admixture or even close relatedness.
-------------------- 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 |
-------------------- 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 |
Under what demographic or isolation circumstances does autosomal ancestry that you call "Erythrea" originate in our around the "Northern Horn"before the date of Natufian 14,000 years ago?
Would you attach any uni-parental markers to that spread?
Posts: 2463 | From: New Jersey USA | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
You wanna accuse sloppy thinking and anachronism? The man who tried to interject a purely statistic non-fossil 80kya entity (link) lacking ADMIXTURE data into the late Pleistocene & Holocene? <<laughing myself to tears>>
I answered questions from you once though you couldn't bother to answer any questions I asked you and your latest is already covered in the thread.
Nothing more from me to you until you stop sidestepping and explain your rather emotional response as requested twice already.
=-=
quote:Originally posted by beyoku: The Brown Component is a statistical anomaly.
The Red Component is not anything special......its just a generic African component centered on Homogeneous West African samples.
.
.
TOPIC REFERENCE: Schuenemann2017 Supplemental Figure 4 ADMIXTURE program graph K=16
Each color is an ancestral population by definition.
What is a statistical anomaly How is it qualified and quantified? What makes Erythrea anomalous? What other topic K's are anomalies and why?
What is special? How is it qualified and quantified? What makes Atlantic-Niger not special? What other topic K's are not special and why not? Which topic K's are special, by what measurements?
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler: I answered questions from you once though you couldn't bother to answer any questions I asked you and your latest is already covered in the thread.
Keep believing Northeast Africans didn't enter the Levant and engender the Natufians.
Nothing more from me to you until you stop sidestepping and explain your rather emotional response.
=-=
quote:Originally posted by beyoku: The Brown Component is a statistical anomaly.
The Red Component is not anything special......its just a generic African component centered on Homogeneous West African samples.
.
.
TOPIC REFERENCE: Schuenemann2017 Supplemental Figure 4 ADMIXTURE program graph K=16
Each color is an ancestral population by definition.
What is a statistical anomaly How is it qualified and quantified? What makes Erythrea anomalous? What other topic K's are anomalies and why?
What is special? How is it qualified and quantified? What makes Atlantic-Niger not special? What other topic K's are not special and why not? Which topic K's are special, by what measurements?
A statistical "Anomaly" is the autosomal component peaking in Heterogenous/composite populations like the Masaai, or Sandawe, or Fulani, or African Americans, or New World Latinos, or Kalash....or when a component peaks due to inbreeding and not genetic isolation. Or when a population has 2 homogeneous components due to familial relationships in the samples. See what El-Maestro wrote, the Brown component does not represent ONE real genetic component derived from ONE population just as the Red component centered on Yoruba does not mean Dinka and Somali have large chunks of Ancestry (Recent or Ancient) that derived from West African Yoruba.
The point of Yoruba (Red) not being "Special" was in reference to XYY and his supposed "Eureka" moment regarding Red ADMIXTURE and the Makrani.
I didn't say North East Africans didnt enter the levant. Like i said, I am trying to understand the larger narrative of ancestry that you call "Erythrea" traveling out the Horn 15kya. If you cant establish this...your narrative is somewhat like a house of cards. My main point being....were Ethiopians "North East Africans" 14 to 15 thousand years ago..........or were they East Africans 15 thousand years ago only to absorb North East African Migrants many thousands of years later? Looking at the ancient DNA we have so far, it would seem they were East African and absorbed the Northerners later....this is especially the case when looking at Y-dna. Why would Natufians and Arabians be more North East African than Somali....or Modern Southern Egyptians and Sudanese? Why would MODERN Arabians and Jews be more North East African than Egyptians from 3000 years ago...right around the time Ramesses III is E1b1a?
Posts: 2463 | From: New Jersey USA | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
Another non answer. You need to copy and paste each question one by one and answer. No more slip sliding.
The major component of a population is an anomaly? Your response is a house of cards sitting on a sandy beach at rising tide. Denying the sources of the continentals who engendered the Natufians yet admitting continentals moved into the Levant. Double minded?
My narrative as you call it doesn't need your approval to be valid. Who you think you are? You need to slowly digest all the info I packed into this thread. Skimming it boggled you or you read it soley with intent to be anti.
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
At the least you must present right here your own independent analysis of Schue's ADMIXTURE graph, sticking to her given sample set, from a multidisciplinary approach if you're able to.
You think my analysis stinks. Fine. Thank you for your critique.
Please also contribute to the Taforalt Brown thread. No Erythrea K there, you'll like that. Though in the end you'll probably conclude it stinks too.
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: [Q] "Anomalous =/= Insignificant".
Definition of anomalous 1 : inconsistent with or deviating from what is usual, normal, or expected : irregular, unusual Researchers could not explain the anomalous test results. 2 a : of uncertain nature or classification an anomalous figure in the world of politics b : marked by incongruity or contradiction : paradoxical
This is what you guys came up with...."anomalous!!!"
You people are obtuse...YOU deeply believe we all fall for your bs
ob·tuse əbˈt(y)o͞os,äbˈt(y)o͞os/Submit adjective 1. annoyingly insensitive or slow to understand.
But
How can the brown component be an anomaly when it makes up about 80% of Bedouins, 95% of Natufians, 60% of Somalis found right across North Africa(50%) including native Canary Islanders and lower frequency in Sub-Saharan Africa. What are you smoking ElMaestro? That is some good stuff.
The problem with some of you white people and Negros is you are really convinced all black people are stupid. We will believe any BS that comes out your mouth.
Anomaly! Ha! HA! HA! HA! …at K16?! SMH []
-------------------- Without data you are just another person with an opinion - Deming Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler: At the least you must present right here your own independent analysis of Schue's ADMIXTURE graph, sticking to her given sample set, from a multidisciplinary approach if you're able to.
You think my analysis stinks. Fine. Thank you for your critique.
Please also contribute to the Taforalt Brown thread. No Erythrea K there, you'll like that. Though in the end you'll probably conclude it stinks too.
I think you are kind of talking in riddles. I will tell you where we agree and where we disagree.
I agree Natufian have African ancestry, Africans migrated through the Sinai into Levant.
Mushabians, likely related to Iberomaurusians, probably the precursors of populations that contributed to the ancestors of Natufian were NOT East African. IMO they may have East African ancestry but primarily be composed of Ancestry native to the North of the Continent, long differentiated from their neighbors to the south. Not Mota, or Dinka, Or Hadza type ancestry that is native to SSA - See Taforlat for what to expect.
The old argument has Cushitic type people in the Horn (think Erythrea) carrying a recent Afroasiatic linguistic package and E-M35 lineages into the Nile Valley, Maghreb and Levant. I think this is where you get your Northern Horn origin for the Brown component regardless of its peak hypothesis : 'Horners being North East Africans.'
The NEW data shows E-M35 having a LONG separation though time and space in the North with MUCH of the E-M35 derived lineages in the horn being much later North African and Saharan derivatives. Therefore adding evidence that Horn Africans are East Africans (Mota/Dinka/Hadza) with North African ancestry. This combination of ancestry CREATES the composite component we identify as Cushitic. This "Cushitic" type ancestry or Erythrea type ancestry, created by the combining of the two regions IMO is not old enough to be in the Horn at the age of Natufian because that admixture event that far south had yet to occur.
SO my guess is Ancient Ethiopians, the age of Natufian.....going back 14 thousand years are going to be (Mota/Dinka/Hadza).....the type of ancestry they could contribute to the North is ONLY going to be (Mota/Dinka/Hadza) because Erythrea is only to be found further North.....so it cant have an origin in the Northern Horn.....if its a later intruder to the Northern Horn. M78 is a late intruder to the Northern Horn. IMO arguing the brown component comes from the Northern Horn is akin to saying Egyptians received M78 from the Somali.
Ancient DNA from North Africa showed Natufian to be admixed with North Africans....a North African component centered on the Maghreb. The latest publication shows Natufian having North African AND MOTA ancestry to the tune of 25-35%
Later Ancient DNA.......I can almost guarantee will bifurcate North African ancestry into that of the Maghreb and that of the lower Nile Valley...Probably increasing the African ancestry in Natufian, absorbing most of the Natufian type ancestry in Horners.
Summed up: Levantines, including Natufian have Egyptian ancestry. Horners have Egyptian ancestry. The Brown component in its African context is Egyptian and not Northern Horn....and Horners have it only because they absorbed Egyptians. The date in which Horn Africans absorbed Egyptians post dates the remains of both Taforalt and Natufian by 1000's of years, with an upper bound of 10,000 years. In the article where they say that Natufian and Taforalt could have a common ancestor perhaps of North African origin........that is your source for much of the ancestry contained within that brown component.
The brown component comes from a Computer algorithm...when you change the K and or introduce additional samples these components will move around like musical chairs. Computer output that has Somali as 40% Yoruba are nearly useless for trying to retrace African migration.
Posts: 2463 | From: New Jersey USA | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
Upper Egypt Northern Sudan may be as plausible, --with movement SE as well as N onto W and E --, as Erythrea as the 09 brown geographic origin. Call it Nubia Brown, same difference, same significance.
Schue's Somali bear no 'MidEast' cyan nor Anatoli navy but heavy Atlantic-GreatLakes red, noticeable EAfr HG steel with a Rainforest HG olive substratum. They have more 09 brown than any NAfrs and all but 3 MidEast populations. But none of the NAfr ME cyan navy or mint.
Loosdrecht's Natufian composition is here in the Taforalt Brown thread (link). Schuenemann's ADMIXTURE is the focus of analysis here. It doesn't support a ~30% African composition. You're choosing which is right or wrong. I accept both, "every prophet in her/his house" so to speak.
All the components are from a computer algorithm, so what? and I wrote about changing K's in the OP, big deal.
All the K9 Erythrea heavy hitters are at either end of the Red Sea. 4 of 5 of these majority brown carriers are at the south end of the Red Sea. K9 Erythrea Brown.
BTW you really underestimate Hadza. Rank the 02 Hadza steel carriers and check the pattern.
Can you recommend <5yr old E-M215 reports to bring me up to speed.
posted
Nubia Brown vs Horn Brown are two totally different things. Nubia is at the forefront and source of agriculture/pastoralism/pottery/statehood etc. The Horn is a a very late recipient.
In any case focusing on Natufian Brown and its implications in Africa is as similar as focusing on French Blue (Pagani) and France’s genetic impact on all these Shb Saharan Areas:
posted
Anyone remember how Ehret placed the origin of Afrasan languages along the Red Sea coast of Sudan to Somalia? I agree with Beyoku that modern Horners are probably mixed between southward-moving Saharans and whoever was living in the Horn beforehand. But I can see why Tukuler is identifying the "brown component" as Erythrean. Unless Ehret has somehow misplaced the original homeland of Afrasan, it seems reasonable to assume that these proto-Afrasans along the Red Sea coast (along with other Saharans) would have been related to whatever ancestry the brown component represents. Or is this no longer the case?
posted
@Brandon. You could argue it but still you are focusing too much on contemporary Horn Africans. Trombetta and Cruciani (V68/V1515) and Pagani and Taforalt and even the latest Y-DNA on the green Sahara supports data of this type of ancestry entering the Red Sea Coast and Horn somewhat late from the Eastern Sahara and Norh Africa. Why base the name and hypothesize the origin on something they received? it’s like calling Cushitic languages “Horn African” when it clearly looks like they spread south from the Eastern Sahara or Southern Egypt where their earliest forerunners can be found today :Beja. AA looks more to be North African with Levantine and Southern Ethiopian outliers.
FYI V1515 southern migration from the North post dates the age of Natfuian and Taforalt. Horn Africans are some the interesting NOW but as you go back in time their composite type ancestry will dissolve in favor of MOTA/Hadza/Dinka type ancesrty. I think we have seen enough ADMIXTURE Runs and are familiar with Horn African uni-parental profile to know their ancestry having large chunks of West African is not optimal or an accurate indication of where their ancestors come from......it’s a non starter......like the French ancestry in Pagani.
Posts: 2463 | From: New Jersey USA | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
Upper Egypt Northern Sudan may be as plausible, --with movement SE as well as N onto W and E --, as Erythrea as the 09 brown geographic origin. Call it Nubia Brown, same difference, same significance.
Non-Schuenemann ADMIXTURE based Eurocentric French diversion absurdity aside, whether choosing Jebel Sahaba or Erythrea West as points of origin, 09 brown reps a major ancestral foundation from NEAfr sources for most the Africans north of the rough Nouakchott to Merca line as well as many Arabian plate peoples.
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler: Upper Egypt Northern Sudan may be as plausible, --with movement SE as well as N onto W and E --, as Erythrea as the 09 brown geographic origin. Call it Nubia Brown, same difference, same significance.
Non-Schuenemann ADMIXTURE based Eurocentric French diversion absurdity aside, whether choosing Jebel Sahaba or Erythrea West as points of origin, 09 brown reps a major ancestral foundation from NEAfr sources for most the Africans north of the rough Nouakchott to Merca line.
Considering the Continuity between Taforalt, IAM, KEB and Modern Magrhebi.....how much Maghreb Ancestry do these North Africans have in this study?
Posts: 2463 | From: New Jersey USA | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
There is no Maghreb component in Schuenemann's ADMIXTURE.
I'm beginning to think you ignore her graph.
The 08 mint distinguishing northern Africans west of Egypt seems ultimately Steppe derived. 100% or maximum frequency in Steppe & Western Hunter Gatherers. By appearances, introduced via north Mediterranean contacts.
You need to revisit the initial posts on pg 1.
Gimme a second, I'm a post the reserved zooms of the Maghreb and the Mashreq sections revealed when I sorted brown majority and plurality populations. EDIT: Done.
I found it interesting that frequency sorting reduced 3 geographies Red Sea, northern Africa, and Middle East in that order. Then I got to non-discriminating brainstorming within reason.
posted
The labeled “Near East/Arabians” are the Bedouins who are closest to indigenous Africans(North Africans) which provide the substrate for people of the Levant and Arabia. No wonder they are closest to the Natufians and Abusir….based upon the targeted SNPs. And carry a large fraction of the brown component.
Understand were are talking a few miles. So expecting a sharp divide between peoples on both sides of the Red Sea …in ancient times….. is absurd.
The follow-up is to determine the direction of migration this can be done through TreeMix, IBD, Codis STR, or Haplogroup assignments (uniparental markers) through ancestral haplotypes. We know the results to the uniparental markers. Yep! Kenya and Tanzania.
-------------------- Without data you are just another person with an opinion - Deming Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler: There is no Maghreb component in Schuenemann's ADMIXTURE.
I'm beginning to think you ignore her graph.
The 08 mint distinguishing northern Africans west of Egypt seems ultimately Steppe derived. 100% or maximum frequency in Steppe & Western Hunter Gatherers. By appearances, introduced via north Mediterranean contacts.
That's is my point .......There is no Maghreb component! That is why this ADMIXTURE run is inadequate in assessing African substructure in Natufian and Africans. I have SEEN the full K=2-XX, at no point did a North African component centered on the Maghreb materialize. I dont even think a Horn African component materialized......Everything was pretty much uninformative due to a lot of the K being sucked up in needless international diversity. I wrote about these details in a thread that seems to be gone as I went through every post in the main thread and didnt find it.
Furthermore, how does the steppe derived argument work in the face of Taforalt/IAM/KEB/Contemporary Maghreb native continuity? It doesn't really. The whole 12kya Eurasian back migration al Henn et al is dead in the water too. The "all SSA comes from Slavery" is also dead in the water. The composite SSA/North African profile found in Taforlat is due to a very old admixture event.
Ultimately any ADMIXTURE results showing North Africans carrying a major component peaking in Natufian has been superseded by the older Taforlat Specimens showing a lot of continuity and the presence of North African ancestry in Natufian. I fail to see why we are discussing Natufian brown (old news) in a bubble outside of the context of Taforalt.
Posts: 2463 | From: New Jersey USA | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler: There is no Maghreb component in Schuenemann's ADMIXTURE.
I'm beginning to think you ignore her graph.
The 08 mint distinguishing northern Africans west of Egypt seems ultimately Steppe derived. 100% or maximum frequency in Steppe & Western Hunter Gatherers. By appearances, introduced via north Mediterranean contacts.
That's is my point .......There is no Maghreb component! That is why this ADMIXTURE run is inadequate in assessing African substructure in Natufian and Africans. I have SEEN the full K=2-XX, at no point did a North African component centered on the Maghreb materialize. I dont even think a Horn African component materialized......Everything was pretty much uninformative due to a lot of the K being sucked up in needless international diversity. I wrote about these details in a thread that seems to be gone as I went through every post in the main thread and didnt find it.
Furthermore, how does the steppe derived argument work in the face of Taforalt/IAM/KEB/Contemporary Maghreb native continuity? It doesn't really. The whole 12kya Eurasian back migration al Henn et al is dead in the water too. The "all SSA comes from Slavery" is also dead in the water. The composite SSA/North African profile found in Taforlat is due to a very old admixture event.
Ultimately any ADMIXTURE results showing North Africans carrying a major component peaking in Natufian has been superseded by the older Taforlat Specimens showing a lot of continuity and the presence of North African ancestry in Natufian. I fail to see why we are discussing Natufian brown (old news) in a bubble outside of the context of Taforalt.
-------------------- 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 |
Do you have something specific you want me to elaborate on or are you just brain farting?
Posts: 2463 | From: New Jersey USA | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
Deal with Schuenemann for what it is not what you want it to be.
From the start you refuse to analyze Schuenemann to extract what's given.
You're just weighing her against your prior expectations. That's not how analysis works.
We know you don't like Schuenemann2017 since it came out.
quote:Originally posted by beyoku: This study is ****.
I retract all good I had to say about the authors and how "Smart" they were not to use Yoruba as the lone African SSA reference.
Not liking the report because it's not what you were so certain it was going to be
doesn't tell us what the ADMIXTURE graph factually presents or what can be made of those facts.
Operating in Showdown Mode is detrimental to analysis. You can smackdowns self erected strawmans and pooh pooh from here to there and the factual data of the color coded ancestral populations remains.
You're just presenting your views on Natufians. You are not presenting SCHUENEMANN ADMIXTURE DATA nor saying anything about what it is which has nothing to do with agreeing or disagreeing with it.
You wanna be OneUp on the reggins? Fine. Don't share Schuenemann2017 ADMIXTURE graph at other than K=16 level for all to analyze for themselves.
Nothing trumps your opinion and any geneticists not parroting your opinion is just not valid regardless of being cited a hundred times over in the field.
And yes you do have valid opinions but they're no better than other informed opinions. Diametrically opposed fact supported views are both valid. Geneticists don't all agree with each other. Don't force it. Calm down sit back take some hours/days to see validity where you don't like it.
Neither Schuenemann(majority Erythrea component Natufians) nor Loosdrecht(majority Levantine component Natufians) observed populations emerge and grow over the last 25000 years. Rejecting the one only accepting the other is a subjective conclusion inline with nothing but one's prior expectations.
Currently I'm looking at both, seeing what each is actually saying, examining interdisciplinary evidence, not pitting one against the other in a death match.
If misunderstood previously LET IT BE CLEAR NOW, examining various ADMIXTUREs will yield different results as will K progression within the very same graph. I never said one graph will be superior ignore the rest. I said let's see what they say.
posted
Almost two years ago beyoku sent me the entire run from Shuenemman (however you spell it) ...I plotted it and posted it a few times even here on ES. This was prior to any relevant ancient North African publications. The point of the day is that it's old news. The components from K=16 is as meaningful for the Origin of the Natufian Autosome as that Red component is for all Africans. Analyzing these studies in a vacuum will lead nowhere... It's the same reason why African ancestry in Natufians have been denied since 2016... If Mushabians for example where indexed and sorted with Schues Q-MAtrix, they would have as much or even less "Natufian brown" as Modern horners despite being the known African ancestors of Natufians Which clearly wouldn't be very telling.
Sidenote: when will it be time that we attempt to reconstruct inner continental African genetic history. We're on the brink of fully seeing that strong modern components are derived from intercontinental admixture. No one seems to care, but that could be game changing for all human history.
Posts: 1784 | From: New York | Registered: Jul 2016
| IP: Logged |
posted
So Beyoku has the entire run from k2 to K16 to K? but refuse share but shared the New Kingdom haplogroups which was never "published". ...........(long pause!). OK! wink!
He is no longer a "wannabe" ...he is the man?
"Almost two years ago beyoku sent me the entire run from Shuenemman "
edit: now looking at k3 - to K? Thanks for sharing.
-------------------- 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 |
-------------------- Without data you are just another person with an opinion - Deming Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
Flim-flam! Analysis: The populations are not the same plus the individuals are conflated. Conclusion: That is not a Schuenemann production.
Though I trust it's informed, what was said about Mushabians remains pure what IF speculation.
Schuenemann 01 RED is extremely valuable in meaning for all Africans. Jola are Atlantics. In your ADMIXURE it's seen Jola component appears 8100 years ago in Hora Malawi. Schuenemann 01 RED reflects its GreatLakes more recent origin, spread and snowballing expansion to the Atlantic after Saharan residence (not its more remote origins and travels before the Holocene and more than any mid-late Holocene eastward movements).
Analysis comes first. Comparison follows. Conclusions come last.
As an IT specialist NatGeo would close the account if upon reveiwing my corps analysis they kept hearing about RoyalGeo in that analysis.
Imagine having left eye vision problems and the doctor does no left eye analysis except telling you how much better your right eye is?
Also any methodology assuming the latest genetic reports mean earlier ones are useless is plain down crazy, check their reference bibliographies. Some older works are preferred. Some newer works are ignored.
Opinions? Fine! But that's all they are.
Anybody got something to say about Schuenemann2017 based on Schuenemann? Analysis of Schuenemann not based on Schuenemann? Your paper will be returned incomplete. If submitted again as was it'll get you a failure.
Sidenote: your sidenote is totally off topic. But ... African substructure is not driven by any such Eurocentricity like African non-agency and passive reception.
African substructure is learned by analyzing 01 Taforalt 02 Hora 8100 03 Fingara 6000 04 Chencherere 5200 05 Mota 4500 06 Luxmanda 3000 07 Fingara 2500 08 SAfr 2000 09 Pemba 1400 10 Zanzibar 1400 11 SAfr 1300 12 Pemba 700 13 Kenya 400 not by chasing West Eurasians in Africa. Especially when not discerning native OoA genetic matter from purely derived in Eurasia genetic matter in West Eurasians.
Somebody direct me to where African descent amateurs without attitude discuss the above, not showdown each other or oneup each other for the approval of ???
Meanwhile y'all keep pushing yall's preferred agenda and ignoring the Taforalt Brown thread.
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
This thread's taken a turn away from its purpose.
I refuse to be further baited.
I will ignore further posts not saying a thing about ancestral populations, sample set, components, elements, eras, and frequencies actually published in Schuenemann2017 Supplementary Fig. 4
posted
WHAAAAT! What do you mean this is not Schuenemann. You mean Beyoku tried tricking us ....again ...like his New Kingdom haplogroup dataset that was never released?
What is up with Beyoku!! Is he a double agent(Get Smart)…to the old heads. loL!
You are catching on.... Quote 'Also any methodology assuming the latest genetic reports mean earlier ones are useless is plain down crazy, check their reference bibliographies. Some older works are preferred. Some newer works are ignored. "
-------------------- 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 |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic