quote:STRUCTURE uses Bayesian methods to assign individuals in a sample to source populations (Pritchard et al., 2000). Prior to this Bayesian approach, forerunners had developed related maximum likelihood approaches to population mixture and assignment (see Novembre, 2016). Because STRUCTURE’s methods are Bayesian, the authors of the most recent software documentation (version 2.3) caution that:
While the computational approaches implemented here are fairly powerful, some care is needed in running the program in order to ensure sensible answers. For example, it is not possible to determine suitable run-lengths theoretically, and this requires some experimentation on the part of the user. (Pritchard et al. 2010, p. 4, our emphasis)
Because there is an experimental art to running software of this kind (Markov Chain Monte Carlo simulation in a Bayesian analysis), re-situating the software in different project settings where researchers with different “artistry” or operating choices can create situations with different problems of interpretation of results, even when the exact same dataset is used as a starting resource.
quote:Just as there is an “art” to running STRUCTURE, there is an art to seeing “clusters” according to PCA and an art to interpreting PC variables
quote:The key here is that K may be unknown, yet the method is model-based, so a value for K must be assumed for the software to operate. What this means in practice is that the software is used in an exploratory way, by setting K to each of a series of values, 1, 2, 3, … K, in a series of computer “runs” and then interpreting the results of each run in terms of the larger context of an exploration of a series of clustering relationships.Footnote23 It’s a sort of “guess and check” method of exploration: guess that K might be some number, then check the results of assuming K is that value rather than some other value to see if the results make more sense under one model or another. Rosenberg et al. (2002) report results for K = 2 up to K = 6
-------------------- It's not my burden to disabuse the ignorant of their wrong opinions Posts: 2699 | From: New York | Registered: Jun 2015
| IP: Logged |
posted
@Maestro @Askia The thing is that I'm not necessarily against what you propose but in that case what do you make of this :
quote:All of the haplogroups analyzed here provide signs that Southwest Asia saw local population expansions from refugia, but Southwest Asia also acted as a reservoir for dispersals toward Africa (to northern Africa through the Levant and to eastern Africa via the Red Sea ; for example, the deep lineages within N1a) and Europe. These N(xR) expansions match signals from several haplogroup R lineages both within Arabia49 and toward Africa.
quote:Curiously, however, the fact that some of the branches studied here include deep lineages in eastern Africa (haplogroups I, N1a, and N1f) shows that migration back to Africa occurred a number of times between 15 and 40 ka ago .
The Arabian Cradle: Mitochondrial Relicts of the First Steps along the Southern Route out of Africa
quote:Overall, the correlation analysis and the f4 ancestry ratio statistic show that the North African component actually contributes to the signal of gene flow from Neandertals. Given that the North African autochthonous ancestry seems to be 12,000–40,000 years old [17], our hypothesis is that this ancestral population was descendant from the populations that first interbreed with Neandertals about ∼37,000–86,000 years ago [18] somewhere in the Middle East. Nonetheless further analyses in populations around the contact areas are needed to confirm this hypothesis.
quote: This suggests that most of IAM ancestry originates from an out-of-Africa source, as IAM shares more alleles with Levantines than with any sub-Saharan Africans, including the 4,500-y-old genome from Ethiopia (14). To further test the hypothesis that IAM is more closely related to out-of-Africa populations, we determined whether we could detect Neanderthal ancestry in IAM, which is typical of non-African populations. A signal of Neanderthal ancestry has been detected in modern North African populations (26). A lack of Neanderthal ancestry in IAM would imply that the signal observed today is a product of more recent migration into North Africa from the Middle East and Europe in historical times. Compared with the Neanderthal high coverage genome sequence from Altai (27) and the low-coverage sequence from Vindija Cave (28), and using the S statistic (24), we detected a Neanderthal introgression signal into IAM, suggesting derivation from the same event shared by non-African populations (SI Appendix, Supplementary Note 10).
You nor the data you posted are still not explaining why the descendants of Natufians(Levant_Chl) are showing very little of this component. The studies you posted are not addressing the real issues. They are only referencing the same position that we already know. However, let's say that this component is some ancient Eurasian component, at the end of the day it would've been absorbed by the local populations in Northeast Africa.
quote:Our high-resolution phylogenetic dissection of both haplogroups and coalescent time assessments suggest that the extant main branching pattern of both haplogroups arose and diversified in the mid-later Upper Palaeolithic, with some sub-clades concomitantly with the expansion of the Iberomaurusian industry. Carriers of these maternal lineages have been later absorbed into and diversified further during the spread of Afro-Asiatic languages in North and East Africa.
So, what is the point in really bringing up 35k year old supposed Eurasian ancestry(not denying Eurasian ancestry entered Africa around that time), when it was most likely absorbed by the time of the Neolithic period? As for Neanderthal ancestry? Okay, IAM most likely absorbed Neanderthal ancestry from southern Europe most likely. Yet what about Northeast Africa? Which if I remember correctly almost show NO Neanderthal ancestry if at all... Especially Horn of Africans.. The dark green component almost peaks in Horners, if this is the case why don't Horners show Neanderthal like ancestry? Same with Egyptians/Sudanese? I agree with certain posters(don't want to say their names in case of misrepresenting their position) that in the future we will see a split in Northeast and Northwest African indigenous ancestry, but that's a story for another time.
All in all, you are not focusing on the big elephant in the room in that Israel_C profile is not showing very LITTLE of this dark green component. The same Israel_C profile which would more than likely be the descendant of the Natufians. If this component in fact came from Eurasia, then it would've easily peaked in the Israel profile. Instead, we are not seeing that.
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: Yeah that's what I feel like as well, the chart plus all the info coming out seems to be pointing to a genetic "unity" as you put it with the Afro-Asiatic populations...plus even more interesting, it extends to the Pastoralists in Kenya and Tanzania, who that made it as far as Kerma according to one DNA study...
What DNA study? It would've been the other way around with more northern populations migrating south. These Kenyan and Tanzanian pastoralists would've received this component most likely from the Horn, and the latter most likely from Egypt/Sudan region. Heck pastoralism comes from North Africa if I'm not mistaken. Either way this component based on what I am seeing is most likely indignous to Africa. And yea I see it as a indignous component mostly found in Afro-Asiatic speakers. When Afro-Asiatic is eventually confirmed to originated around Egypt/Sudan area then everything will be tied together. Now... If its confirmed to be found in "another" location then things get a bit interesting.
Posts: 1891 | From: NY | Registered: Sep 2014
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BrandonP: It seems to me that, without more prehistoric samples from Northeastern Africa, "Natufian" is our best model for indigenous pre-OOA African ancestry in the region. Hence why you see a lot of Northeast African samples like Nubians and the East African Pastoral Neolithic getting modeled as Natufian/Dinka mixes.
What I find strange is that this abstract doesn't mention either a presence or absence of "sub-Saharan" ancestry in the Nuerat sample (Nuerat is in Middle Egypt a little north of Beni Hasan, BTW). I do expect to find a little Dinka- or Mota-like ancestry in there, maybe somewhere on the spectrum between the Abusir el-Meleq and the Kadruka samples, but we will have to wait until the results are published to verify or falsify my hunch.
Specifically Natufian without CHG or EHG.
Posts: 1891 | From: NY | Registered: Sep 2014
| IP: Logged |
mtDNA recovered for 3 of the 5 Natufians that were tested
2 individuals of mtDNA J2 1 individual N1
______________________________
Note the Levant Neolithic samples had 1 individual of Hg K, similarly 18 dynasty Amarna females as well as Tutankhamun and Akhenaten as per Yehia Gad 2020
Posts: 42919 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro: The distinct local component in the east wont be that distinct due to the fact that Eurasian ancestry would likely be a subset of it. Also, 30kya Eurasian ancestry which is likely distinct from Natufian Ancestry(due to levant_Chl mostly forming their own component), that is likely to be shared by more Africans extant and extinct than their contemporaneous Eurasian counterparts is truly hardly Eurasian.
Furthermore, in Fregel et al. 2017, download the supp and Look at the genetic distances between Taforalt and every one else, Natufian and everyone else, IAM and everyone else and yoruba and Eurasians.
Can you confidently and intellectually honestly state for the board that you believe that a Eurasian component, increased the genetic distance between IAM and other Eurasians from their predecessors?
Can you confidently state that that same Eurasian component decreased the distance between IAM and Yoruba in relation to their predecessors?
Can you intellectually state that a Eurasian component which permeated Africa that long ago is indeed Eurasian but not represented well in Natufians and their likely descendants Levant_Chl? If not Natufians which Eurasian population should we liken this ancient Eurasian ancestry to?
What you wanted to pass off as ANA is now framed in a different light. The distinct North West African component had been parsed out due to the West African related ancestry forming it's own component. Hadza also formed their own component in the run, though their ancestry was reduced to noise amounts in Taforalt. I warned you that Aterian ancestry will likely be west_African related but you insisted it was ANA. So here we have it, this shared dark green component is not West African related, it absorbed Taforalt's Hadza related ancestry, and it follows the same ANA distribution pattern calculated a couple years ago.Does this precious 30Kya Eurasian ancestry in Africans have Aterian-ANA ancestry? Why or why not?
Come now Askia and Elmaestro, your valid questions might prove too much for the poor guy.
Recall Tishkoff's 2000 STR polymorphism study These studies suggest a recent and primary subdivision between African and non-African populations, high levels of divergence among African populations, and a recent shared common ancestry of non-African populations, from a population originating in Africa. The intermediate position, between African and non-African populations, that the Ethiopian Jews and Somalis occupy in the PCA plot also has been observed in other genetic studies (Ritte et al. 1993; Passarino et al. 1998) and could be due either to shared common ancestry or to recent gene flow. The fact that the Ethiopians and Somalis have a subset of the sub-Saharan African haplotype diversity and that the non-African populations have a subset of the diversity present in Ethiopians and Somalis makes simple-admixture models less likely; rather, these observations support the hypothesis proposed by other nuclear-genetic studies (Tishkoff et al. 1996a, 1998a, 1998b; Kidd et al. 1998)that populations in northeastern Africa may have diverged from those in the rest of sub-Saharan Africa early in the history of modern African populations and that a subset of this northeastern-African population migrated out of Africa and populated the rest of the globe. These conclusions are supported by recent mtDNA analysis (Quintana-Murci et al. 1999).
Also, in Antalas's other thread on Old Kingdom aDNA which he has yet to respond, I posted:
quote: Then we have Tishkoff's 2009 autosomal study which was discussed in a thread on Mozabite Berbers here, wherein she stated: Within Africa, genetic diversity estimated from expected heterozygosity significantly correlates with estimates from microsatellite variance (fig. S4) (4) and varies by linguistic, geographic, and subsistence classifications (fig. S5). Three hunter-gatherer populations (Baka and Bakola Pygmies and San) were among the five populations with the highest levels of genetic diversity based on variance estimates (fig. S2A) (4). In addition, more private alleles exist in Africa than other regions (fig. S6A). Consistent with bi-directional gene flow (14), African and Middle Eastern populations shared the greatest number of alleles absent from all other populations(fig. S6B). Within Africa, the most private alleles were in southern Africa, reflecting those in southern African Khoesan (SAK) San and !Xun/Khwe populations (fig. S6C) (12). Eastern and Saharan Africans shared the most alleles absent from other African populations examined (fig. S6D).
'Saharan Africans' is her term for North Africans.
^ Note the blue color represents alleged "Eurasian" ancestry. It should not come as a surprise that the 'Cape Couloured' folk of South Africa who descend from natives mixed with colonial whites and Asian immigrants have it. The presumption then is that Saharan populations like the Beja and especially Mozabite also posses it due to admixture, but Tishkoff cautions against such thinking especially since the Sub-Saharan Dogon carry it also!
Dogon
^ The Dogon look no different from 'typical' Sub-Saharans i.e. "negroes" which are the only people Antalas would call 'black', yet they carry more Eurasian autosomal alleles than Mozabites!
Any answers to this?
Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
^ The Dogon look no different from 'typical' Sub-Saharans i.e. "negroes" which are the only people Antalas would call 'black', yet they carry more Eurasian autosomal alleles than Mozabites!
^^ A.I. generated art, these aren't real people
Posts: 42919 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Askia_The_Great: [QB] @Antalas
You nor the data you posted are still not explaining why the descendants of Natufians(Levant_Chl) are showing very little of this component. The studies you posted are not addressing the real issues. They are only referencing the same position that we already know. However, let's say that this component is some ancient Eurasian component, at the end of the day it would've been absorbed by the local populations in Northeast Africa.
quote:Our high-resolution phylogenetic dissection of both haplogroups and coalescent time assessments suggest that the extant main branching pattern of both haplogroups arose and diversified in the mid-later Upper Palaeolithic, with some sub-clades concomitantly with the expansion of the Iberomaurusian industry. Carriers of these maternal lineages have been later absorbed into and diversified further during the spread of Afro-Asiatic languages in North and East Africa.
So, what is the point in really bringing up 35k year old supposed Eurasian ancestry(not denying Eurasian ancestry entered Africa around that time), when it was most likely absorbed by the time of the Neolithic period? As for Neanderthal ancestry? Okay, IAM most likely absorbed Neanderthal ancestry from southern Europe most likely. Yet what about Northeast Africa? Which if I remember correctly almost show NO Neanderthal ancestry if at all... Especially Horn of Africans.. The dark green component almost peaks in Horners, if this is the case why don't Horners show Neanderthal like ancestry? Same with Egyptians/Sudanese? I agree with certain posters(don't want to say their names in case of misrepresenting their position) that in the future we will see a split in Northeast and Northwest African indigenous ancestry, but that's a story for another time.
All in all, you are not focusing on the big elephant in the room in that Israel_C profile is not showing very LITTLE of this dark green component. The same Israel_C profile which would more than likely be the descendant of the Natufians. If this component in fact came from Eurasia, then it would've easily peaked in the Israel profile. Instead, we are not seeing that.
Israel_C were not purely natufian nor predominantly natufian and other factors could be at work here. Neanderthals were not in Africa so how did Upper Paleolithic north africans ended up with it if there were no eurasian back migrations back then ? The idea that this genetic component was "absorbed" is purely speculative and based on your assumptions. There is no supporting evidence, and given the low levels of demography at the time, even a small band of hunter-gatherers could have had a significant genetic impact.
Reality back then was more complex than what you guys are proposing.
Posts: 1779 | From: Somewhere In the Rif Mountains | Registered: Nov 2021
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Askia_The_Great: [QB] @Antalas
You nor the data you posted are still not explaining why the descendants of Natufians(Levant_Chl) are showing very little of this component. The studies you posted are not addressing the real issues. They are only referencing the same position that we already know. However, let's say that this component is some ancient Eurasian component, at the end of the day it would've been absorbed by the local populations in Northeast Africa.
quote:Our high-resolution phylogenetic dissection of both haplogroups and coalescent time assessments suggest that the extant main branching pattern of both haplogroups arose and diversified in the mid-later Upper Palaeolithic, with some sub-clades concomitantly with the expansion of the Iberomaurusian industry. Carriers of these maternal lineages have been later absorbed into and diversified further during the spread of Afro-Asiatic languages in North and East Africa.
So, what is the point in really bringing up 35k year old supposed Eurasian ancestry(not denying Eurasian ancestry entered Africa around that time), when it was most likely absorbed by the time of the Neolithic period? As for Neanderthal ancestry? Okay, IAM most likely absorbed Neanderthal ancestry from southern Europe most likely. Yet what about Northeast Africa? Which if I remember correctly almost show NO Neanderthal ancestry if at all... Especially Horn of Africans.. The dark green component almost peaks in Horners, if this is the case why don't Horners show Neanderthal like ancestry? Same with Egyptians/Sudanese? I agree with certain posters(don't want to say their names in case of misrepresenting their position) that in the future we will see a split in Northeast and Northwest African indigenous ancestry, but that's a story for another time.
All in all, you are not focusing on the big elephant in the room in that Israel_C profile is not showing very LITTLE of this dark green component. The same Israel_C profile which would more than likely be the descendant of the Natufians. If this component in fact came from Eurasia, then it would've easily peaked in the Israel profile. Instead, we are not seeing that.
Israel_C were not purely natufian nor predominantly natufian and other factors could be at work here. Neanderthals were not in Africa so how did Upper Paleolithic north africans ended up with it if there were no eurasian back migrations back then ? The idea that this genetic component was "absorbed" is purely speculative and based on your assumptions. There is no supporting evidence, and given the low levels of demography at the time, even a small band of hunter-gatherers could have had a significant genetic impact.
Reality back then was more complex than what you guys are proposing.
The reality that you're subtextually proposing is that there was predominant occupations of Eurasians in Africa for at least 20k years. I don't think there's much complexity in that Idea especially if you think it's important to point out that a clearly African (based on distribution) component is likely Eurasian. That's a gross oversimplification, especially given the fact that Eurasian occupation that old would very likely have a wider distribution among Africans and not just be represented in Horners and east Africans.
For instance do you think that these biologically and Morphometrical Africans of Takorkori represents pure Eurasians during the Early Neolithic?
The complex reality could be that what you point out just an example of relatedness to Early Eurasian populace which served as a dead end outside of Afica until further expansions of North Africans ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°). If that's the case there's no reason to pointing out 30K year old Eurasians.
Posts: 1781 | From: New York | Registered: Jul 2016
| IP: Logged |
^ The Dogon look no different from 'typical' Sub-Saharans i.e. "negroes" which are the only people Antalas would call 'black', yet they carry more Eurasian autosomal alleles than Mozabites!
^^ A.I. generated art, these aren't real people
AI generated a beard on an African woman?
-------------------- It's not my burden to disabuse the ignorant of their wrong opinions Posts: 2699 | From: New York | Registered: Jun 2015
| IP: Logged |
posted
I just did a quick google search. I don't know why they are putting AI generated art when there real life pictures. It's bad enough people try to pass real life pics of people as 'Egyptians' when they're not.
Here are I'm assuming real pics of Dogon
Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^^ [QUOTE]Originally posted by Elmaestro: [qb] The distinct local component in the east wont be that distinct due to the fact that Eurasian ancestry would likely be a subset of it. Also, 30kya Eurasian ancestry which is likely distinct from Natufian Ancestry(due to levant_Chl mostly forming their own component), that is likely to be shared by more Africans extant and extinct than their contemporaneous Eurasian counterparts is truly hardly Eurasian.
Furthermore, in Fregel et al. 2017, download the supp and Look at the genetic distances between Taforalt and every one else, Natufian and everyone else, IAM and everyone else and yoruba and Eurasians.
Can you confidently and intellectually honestly state for the board that you believe that a Eurasian component, increased the genetic distance between IAM and other Eurasians from their predecessors?
Can you confidently state that that same Eurasian component decreased the distance between IAM and Yoruba in relation to their predecessors?
Can you intellectually state that a Eurasian component which permeated Africa that long ago is indeed Eurasian but not represented well in Natufians and their likely descendants Levant_Chl? If not Natufians which Eurasian population should we liken this ancient Eurasian ancestry to?
What you wanted to pass off as ANA is now framed in a different light. The distinct North West African component had been parsed out due to the West African related ancestry forming it's own component. Hadza also formed their own component in the run, though their ancestry was reduced to noise amounts in Taforalt. I warned you that Aterian ancestry will likely be west_African related but you insisted it was ANA. So here we have it, this shared dark green component is not West African related, it absorbed Taforalt's Hadza related ancestry, and it follows the same ANA distribution pattern calculated a couple years ago.Does this precious 30Kya Eurasian ancestry in Africans have Aterian-ANA ancestry? Why or why not?
Come now Askia and Elmaestro, your valid questions might prove too much for the poor guy.
Recall Tishkoff's 2000 STR polymorphism study These studies suggest a recent and primary subdivision between African and non-African populations, high levels of divergence among African populations, and a recent shared common ancestry of non-African populations, from a population originating in Africa. The intermediate position, between African and non-African populations, that the Ethiopian Jews and Somalis occupy in the PCA plot also has been observed in other genetic studies (Ritte et al. 1993; Passarino et al. 1998) and could be due either to shared common ancestry or to recent gene flow. The fact that the Ethiopians and Somalis have a subset of the sub-Saharan African haplotype diversity and that the non-African populations have a subset of the diversity present in Ethiopians and Somalis makes simple-admixture models less likely; rather, these observations support the hypothesis proposed by other nuclear-genetic studies (Tishkoff et al. 1996a, 1998a, 1998b; Kidd et al. 1998)that populations in northeastern Africa may have diverged from those in the rest of sub-Saharan Africa early in the history of modern African populations and that a subset of this northeastern-African population migrated out of Africa and populated the rest of the globe. These conclusions are supported by recent mtDNA analysis (Quintana-Murci et al. 1999).
Also, in Antalas's other thread on Old Kingdom aDNA which he has yet to respond, I posted:
quote: Then we have Tishkoff's 2009 autosomal study which was discussed in a thread on Mozabite Berbers here, wherein she stated: Within Africa, genetic diversity estimated from expected heterozygosity significantly correlates with estimates from microsatellite variance (fig. S4) (4) and varies by linguistic, geographic, and subsistence classifications (fig. S5). Three hunter-gatherer populations (Baka and Bakola Pygmies and San) were among the five populations with the highest levels of genetic diversity based on variance estimates (fig. S2A) (4). In addition, more private alleles exist in Africa than other regions (fig. S6A). Consistent with bi-directional gene flow (14), African and Middle Eastern populations shared the greatest number of alleles absent from all other populations(fig. S6B). Within Africa, the most private alleles were in southern Africa, reflecting those in southern African Khoesan (SAK) San and !Xun/Khwe populations (fig. S6C) (12). Eastern and Saharan Africans shared the most alleles absent from other African populations examined (fig. S6D).
'Saharan Africans' is her term for North Africans.
^ Note the blue color represents alleged "Eurasian" ancestry. It should not come as a surprise that the 'Cape Couloured' folk of South Africa who descend from natives mixed with colonial whites and Asian immigrants have it. The presumption then is that Saharan populations like the Beja and especially Mozabite also posses it due to admixture, but Tishkoff cautions against such thinking especially since the Sub-Saharan Dogon carry it also!
ElMaestro can you address this blue element in the TIshkoff In the article
Published online 2009 Apr 30. doi: 10.1126/science.1172257 PMCID: PMC2947357 NIHMSID: NIHMS231118 PMID: 19407144 The Genetic Structure and History of Africans and African Americans Sarah A. Tishkoff, et al 2009
African and African American populations, with the exception of the Dogon of Mali, show the highest levels of within-population genetic diversity (θ = 4Neμ, where is the level of genetic diversity based on variance of microsatellite allele length, Ne is the effective population size, and μ is the microsatellite mutation rate) (figs. S2 and S3).
The fourth PC (3.7%) is associated with the Mozabites, some Dogon, and the CMA individuals, who show ancestry from the European–Middle Eastern cluster. The fifth PC (3.1%) is associated with SAK speakers. The 10th PC was of particular interest (2.2%) because it associates with the SAK, Sandawe, and some Dogon individuals, suggesting shared ancestry.
Another geographically contiguous cluster extends across northern Africa (blue) into Mali (the Dogon), Ethiopia, and northern Kenya. With the exception of the Dogon, these populations speak an Afroasiatic language.
___________________________________
Supplement, quotes
(charts not shown)
Dogon samples were obtained from blood spots donated by participants in a cohort study of malaria incidence in Bandiagara, Mali. Ghanaian DNA was extracted onsite from whole blood, with the Purgene™ DNA extraction kit. Malian Dogon DNA samples were amplified by Whole Genome Amplification (WGA) with Illustra GenomiPhi HY™ kits provided by GE-Healthcare (Buckinghamshire, UK).
The Dogon from Mali, who speak a Niger-Kordofanian language, cluster near the Saharan populations in the phylogenetic trees (Figs. 1, S7, S8), consistent with the results from STRUCTURE analysis, showing considerable Saharan (blue) ancestry, and consistent with oral history of a northern African origin (although it should be noted that the sample size for this population, 9 individuals, is very small and many markers did not amplify well) (Figs. 5B and 5C; Table S9).
OCTOBER 1, 2000 Hemoglobin C associated with protection from severe malaria in the Dogon of Mali, a West African population with a low prevalence of hemoglobin S
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro: The reality that you're subtextually proposing is that there was predominant occupations of Eurasians in Africa for at least 20k years. I don't think there's much complexity in that Idea especially if you think it's important to point out that a clearly African (based on distribution) component is likely Eurasian. That's a gross oversimplification, especially given the fact that Eurasian occupation that old would very likely have a wider distribution among Africans and not just be represented in Horners and east Africans.
For instance do you think that these biologically and Morphometrical Africans of Takorkori represents pure Eurasians during the Early Neolithic?
The complex reality could be that what you point out just an example of relatedness to Early Eurasian populace which served as a dead end outside of Afica until further expansions of North Africans ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°). If that's the case there's no reason to pointing out 30K year old Eurasians. [/QB]
No I'm telling you that population movements between Africa and Asia have been bi-directional since at least the Upper Paleolithic period and we do have evidence of this. Meanwhile what you're proposing (eurasian admixture only after the mid Holocene) is far-fetched and not in lines with the Data. Additionally, this does not negate the idea of another local component that is still not detected properly by those tools. And eurasian ancestry has been detected for non east african SSAs
No I do not believe the Takorkori specimen would be "pure eurasians" your point ? Btw the paper also proposes a eurasian introgression during the timeframe we're talking about. As for your last sentence I stay open to that possibility it just doesn't seem to be in phase with the Data (you should reread Lazaridis et al. 2018).
Posts: 1779 | From: Somewhere In the Rif Mountains | Registered: Nov 2021
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Antalas: Israel_C were not purely natufian nor predominantly natufian and other factors could be at work here. Neanderthals were not in Africa so how did Upper Paleolithic north africans ended up with it if there were no eurasian back migrations back then ? The idea that this genetic component was "absorbed" is purely speculative and based on your assumptions. There is no supporting evidence, and given the low levels of demography at the time, even a small band of hunter-gatherers could have had a significant genetic impact.
Reality back then was more complex than what you guys are proposing.
No one is arguing "purity", certainly not me. And even if the Israel_C were not "predominantly" Natufian, they would still have significant Natufian ancestry. In fact other studies showed that Israelis from the Chalcolithic period had SIGNIFICANT ancestry that the Natufians had. As shown here. No offense, but I am having a hard time following your argument Antalas(btw that chart is from Ancient DNA from Chalcolithic Israel reveals the role of population mixture in cultural transformation), as the chart shows in that study Levantine populations during the Chalcolithic period clearly had Natufian like ancestry, meanwhile this same ancestry is not being detected in huge amounts in the Horner, Kenyan/Tanzanian pastoralist or ancient Moroccans profile in large amounts compared to the dark green(which I bet $100 on is indigenous North African) from that chart in the Swahili study. The blue in the Israel_C is Natufian ancestry and I bet $100 on it. If the Israel C were not predominantly Natufian, then can you explain why that ancestry skipped a people(Israel C) who lived in the area that ancestry is from to be found predominantly in Northeast Africans?
As for Neanderthals? No one denied Neanderthals were in Africa, however I said Neanderthal ancestry in Northwest Africa was most likely due to ancestry from southern Europe. Northeast Africans as far as I can remember have very little to no Neanderthal ancestry. Unless, you can point me to a study that shows such and I will be interested. And as for that Eurasian component from 30,000 years ago being absorbed? This is NOT "speculation", when a study I posted literally proposed that. Heck, the majority of studies propose this. Unless you're telling me that U6 never became localized?
Either way, all in all these profiles are showing dark green and not blue like Israel C which clearly raises eyebrows. Thus far I have not seen any credible evidence/theories that dismisses the dark green as indigenous North African.
Posts: 1891 | From: NY | Registered: Sep 2014
| IP: Logged |
posted
quote: Originally posted by the lioness,: quote: Originally posted by Yatunde Lisa Bey: quote: Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: Ironically genes in the saliva of modern Sub-Saharans shows such admixture with archaic Hominins which racist whites use as evidence to dehumanize said Africans. So the genetics of Sub-Saharans correlates with Nazlet Khater. Which white people are you referring to? what are their names and are the quotes of them saying these things? [/QUOTEB]
Stop gaslighting Lioness, you asked me the same exact thing in the other thread about Keita, which white supremacist you said, I produced ample evidence and you have yet to comment I AM STILL WAITING. I hope you read all and I mean ALL the sources and names of DNA scientists I referenced.
So why would anyone waste time producing evidence for you. White supremacist have been using the archaic admixture in Africans to imply that they are less than human since that study came out. You didn't answer it. You got scared and just put up some quotes, opinions of other people [QUOTE] It's a simple request, list a few names of people you think (not who someone else said this or that about), you in your own words, in one sentence naming who you think is a white supremacist. I'm tired of the bluffing, and hypothetical boogeymen
In this case with Djehuti, name the racist whites researchers who tried to dehumanize Africans by suggesting they have admixture with archaic Hominins
There is no risk here, we aren't even using our gov't name in this forum, just name the damn people first
Let's have some metaphorical balls here, and call out these evil whites by name Stop lying... the qoutes where answers, there are real dna scientist who believe Rosenbergs 5 continental races and used that study to expound on races and IQ...
Quit being a lazy gaslighter and go read ALL and I mean ALL of my links. The whole excercise of genomics was founded by a scientific racist and the whole point was to prove races exist, and negroes/ i.e. Yoruba are a subspecies of humanity.
-------------------- It's not my burden to disabuse the ignorant of their wrong opinions Posts: 2699 | From: New York | Registered: Jun 2015
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lioness...one thing I am not is is scared of debating anyone here...
And when you go back and read the Skirmish between Rosenberg and Paabo... you will see two different methods to come to the same conclusion. "human races"
When Reich says "populations" that is a euphemism for races....
-------------------- It's not my burden to disabuse the ignorant of their wrong opinions Posts: 2699 | From: New York | Registered: Jun 2015
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Yatunde Lisa Bey: Quit being a lazy gaslighter and go read ALL and I mean ALL of my links. The whole excercise of genomics was founded by a scientific racist and the whole point was to prove races exist, and negroes/ i.e. Yoruba are a subspecies of humanity.
Yea... Take this to the Deshret section pls.
Posts: 1891 | From: NY | Registered: Sep 2014
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Yatunde Lisa Bey: Lioness...one thing I am not is is scared of debating anyone here...
And when you go back and read the Skirmish between Rosenberg and Paabo... you will see two different methods to come to the same conclusion. "human races"
When Reich says "populations" that is a euphemism for races....
quote:Originally posted by Yatunde Lisa Bey: Quit being a lazy gaslighter and go read ALL and I mean ALL of my links. The whole excercise of genomics was founded by a scientific racist and the whole point was to prove races exist, and negroes/ i.e. Yoruba are a subspecies of humanity.
Yea... Take this to the Deshret section pls.
This was a continuation of a discussion started here in this thread...
Why should it be in Deshret where is Lioness feel likes she is loosing the debate she will just delete. Nah, that is cool... I end this discussion now. I have better things to do than debate common knowledge or what should be common knowledge with a troll.
-------------------- It's not my burden to disabuse the ignorant of their wrong opinions Posts: 2699 | From: New York | Registered: Jun 2015
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro: The reality that you're subtextually proposing is that there was predominant occupations of Eurasians in Africa for at least 20k years. I don't think there's much complexity in that Idea especially if you think it's important to point out that a clearly African (based on distribution) component is likely Eurasian. That's a gross oversimplification, especially given the fact that Eurasian occupation that old would very likely have a wider distribution among Africans and not just be represented in Horners and east Africans.
For instance do you think that these biologically and Morphometrical Africans of Takorkori represents pure Eurasians during the Early Neolithic?
The complex reality could be that what you point out just an example of relatedness to Early Eurasian populace which served as a dead end outside of Afica until further expansions of North Africans ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°). If that's the case there's no reason to pointing out 30K year old Eurasians.
No I'm telling you that population movements between Africa and Asia have been bi-directional since at least the Upper Paleolithic period and we do have evidence of this. Meanwhile what you're proposing (eurasian admixture only after the mid Holocene) is far-fetched and not in lines with the Data. Additionally, this does not negate the idea of another local component that is still not detected properly by those tools. And eurasian ancestry has been detected for non east african SSAs
No I do not believe the Takorkori specimen would be "pure eurasians" your point ? Btw the paper also proposes a eurasian introgression during the timeframe we're talking about. As for your last sentence I stay open to that possibility it just doesn't seem to be in phase with the Data (you should reread Lazaridis et al. 2018). [/QB]
You're moving the goalpost a bit buddy. You insinuated that the dark green component should be attributed to more ancient Eurasian Admixture in Africa. I'm arguing against that. One of my major talking points which you quoted above is the fact that Eurasian ancestry that old would not be localized. You provided further evidence for that by presenting the studies that highlight neanderthal components in Africa all of which included west Africans who do not carry the dark green component. So the initial question remains. Why are you mentioning 30+kyo Eurasian admixture in the context of the graph if you don't even believe that the N* carrying saharans with some Mechtoid Morphological affinities were pure Eurasians?
Posts: 1781 | From: New York | Registered: Jul 2016
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Yatunde Lisa Bey: This was a continuation of a discussion started here in this thread...
Why should it be in Deshret where is Lioness feel likes she is loosing the debate she will just delete. Nah, that is cool... I end this discussion now. I have better things to do than debate common knowledge or what should be common knowledge with a troll.
1. Lioness is no longer moderator of Deshret.
2. This is the Egyptology section where genetics is an important discussion. If you have a problem with genetics then this section is not for you.
3. Saying genetics was created to prove race/and that Blacks are subhumans is extremely laughable considering that genetics literally break down the very foundations of "race." Yea certain people with agendas can TRY and manipulate genetics, but genetics in itself does not prove race in general exist. Seriously, welcome to a thing called "science."
4. Was genetics "racist" when modern genetics proved that humans come from Africa? Or DNAtribes? Or how about that predictor by Zahi Hawass showing Ramses III being e1b1a? Was it "racist" then?
And yea thank you for ending this discussion.
@Elmaestro
Yea, good point. Eurasian ancestry that old would've been more widespread in Africa.
Posts: 1891 | From: NY | Registered: Sep 2014
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Yatunde Lisa Bey: This was a continuation of a discussion started here in this thread...
Why should it be in Deshret where is Lioness feel likes she is loosing the debate she will just delete. Nah, that is cool... I end this discussion now. I have better things to do than debate common knowledge or what should be common knowledge with a troll.
1. Lioness is no longer moderator of Deshret.
2. This is the Egyptology section where genetics is an important discussion. If you have a problem with genetics then this section is not for you.
3. Saying genetics was created to prove race/and that Blacks are subhumans is extremely laughable considering that genetics literally break down the very foundations of "race." Yea certain people with agendas can TRY and manipulate genetics, but genetics in itself does not prove race in general exist. Seriously, welcome to a thing called "science."
4. Was genetics "racist" when modern genetics proved that humans come from Africa? Or DNAtribes? Or how about that predictor by Zahi Hawass showing Ramses III being e1b1a? Was it "racist" then?
And yea thank you for ending this discussion.
I get what " science " is but that was not the question. The question was what was the long term goal of Eugenics, which led to the discovery of " dna" and what is the current goal of genetics. What people, governments and scientists do with the information gleaned from "science" How is "genetics" and "science" framed for the general public consumption. THAT was the question and yes I end the discussion again here . While leaving some info
Fatal Invention: How Science, Politics, and Big Business Re-create Race in the Twenty-first Century Paperback – September 1, 2012
quote:This groundbreaking book by legal scholar and social critic Dorothy Roberts examines how the myth of race as a biological concept―revived by purportedly cutting-edge science, race-specific drugs, genetic testing, and DNA databases―continues to undermine a just society and promote inequality in a supposedly “post-racial ...
Backdoor to Eugenics 2nd Edition by Troy Duster (Author)
quote:The study of knowledge formation is at once one of the most funda- mental and complex issues in human history. At specific points in time, select social questions emerge for critical, detailed, close inspection and the laying on of the tightest strictures of the prevailing epistemology of a culture. In the present period, this path is identified as science , but every culture and every epoch has its equivalent claim to faith in procedures of investigation that resolve matters in areas deemed knowable and worth knowing.
quote:. In the tradition of the sociology of knowledge, the major point here is that even when there is fraud , bodies of scientific work on the genetics of a phenomenon in such a hotly contested arena take on lives of their own, and often can produce and have direct social policy spinoffs.
PSG Lecture 15 Dec 2021 - Eugenics: A Dark History and Troubling Present Dr Adam Rutherford
1. Good to know that Lioness is no longer moderator of Deshret
2. While the R3 Dna test was great, know this, there will never be another DNA test of a Rameside Pharaoh, because they are ALL likely E1b1a even the semetic looking Seti I and R2
-------------------- It's not my burden to disabuse the ignorant of their wrong opinions Posts: 2699 | From: New York | Registered: Jun 2015
| IP: Logged |
posted
I thought you said you were done? If you want to critique genetics then do it in the Deshret.
Posts: 1891 | From: NY | Registered: Sep 2014
| IP: Logged |
2. While the R3 Dna test was great, know this, there will never be another DNA test of a Rameside Pharaoh, because they are ALL likely E1b1a even the semetic looking Seti I and R2
who was the grandfather of R3 ?
Posts: 42919 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro: The reality that you're subtextually proposing is that there was predominant occupations of Eurasians in Africa for at least 20k years. I don't think there's much complexity in that Idea especially if you think it's important to point out that a clearly African (based on distribution) component is likely Eurasian. That's a gross oversimplification, especially given the fact that Eurasian occupation that old would very likely have a wider distribution among Africans and not just be represented in Horners and east Africans.
For instance do you think that these biologically and Morphometrical Africans of Takorkori represents pure Eurasians during the Early Neolithic?
The complex reality could be that what you point out just an example of relatedness to Early Eurasian populace which served as a dead end outside of Afica until further expansions of North Africans ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°). If that's the case there's no reason to pointing out 30K year old Eurasians.
No I'm telling you that population movements between Africa and Asia have been bi-directional since at least the Upper Paleolithic period and we do have evidence of this. Meanwhile what you're proposing (eurasian admixture only after the mid Holocene) is far-fetched and not in lines with the Data. Additionally, this does not negate the idea of another local component that is still not detected properly by those tools. And eurasian ancestry has been detected for non east african SSAs
No I do not believe the Takorkori specimen would be "pure eurasians" your point ? Btw the paper also proposes a eurasian introgression during the timeframe we're talking about. As for your last sentence I stay open to that possibility it just doesn't seem to be in phase with the Data (you should reread Lazaridis et al. 2018).
You're moving the goalpost a bit buddy. You insinuated that the dark green component should be attributed to more ancient Eurasian Admixture in Africa. I'm arguing against that. One of my major talking points which you quoted above is the fact that Eurasian ancestry that old would not be localized. You provided further evidence for that by presenting the studies that highlight neanderthal components in Africa all of which included west Africans who do not carry the dark green component. So the initial question remains. Why are you mentioning 30+kyo Eurasian admixture in the context of the graph if you don't even believe that the N* carrying saharans with some Mechtoid Morphological affinities were pure Eurasians? [/QB]
Indeed, nobody argued anything about "purity" so that is another strawdoll. The argument is that there is continuity between Sub-Sahara and and North Africa.
That is why North Africans are genetically closer to West Africans than the latter is to South Africans. And the reason why West Eurasians (Europeans and Southwest Asians) cluster close to North Africans is not only due to admixture of the former to the latter because of back-migrations but admixture going the other way around which is why West Eurasians carry specific African markers. This was known since the late 90s with Cavalli-Sforza's study
L. LUCA CAVALLI-SFORZA Genes, peoples, and languages Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA Vol. 94, pp. 7719 –7724, July 1997
Also the point about Tishkoff is that due to the fact that Eurasians originated from Northeast Africa it would be easy to mistake ancient alleles indigenous to the area for those that back-migrated from Eurasia proper. This is why even armchair experts like Razib Khan are starting to admit that the autosomal marker 'Basal Eurasian' is actually African in origin.
And of course the argument you vehemently deny but is true is that North Africans were indeed black. As shown by the Egyptians in their own portraiture not to mention melanin tests done on their mummies as well as genetic tests.
And so were the Natufians again according to genetic tests.
So you fail on all counts. And please don't give me any ridiculous argument on definitions of 'black' since you won't give one for 'white' but sure do post a lot examples of it from modern coastal Amazigh who don't reflect the populations we discuss!
-------------------- Mahirap gisingin ang nagtutulog-tulugan. Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Askia_The_Great: I thought you said you were done? If you want to critique genetics then do it in the Deshret.
I am done
-------------------- It's not my burden to disabuse the ignorant of their wrong opinions Posts: 2699 | From: New York | Registered: Jun 2015
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: Indeed, nobody argued anything about "purity" so that is another strawdoll. The argument is that there is continuity between Sub-Sahara and and North Africa.
That is why North Africans are genetically closer to West Africans than the latter is to South Africans.
This lists ancient samples and South Africans from 12,000 and 2000BP Are either of these referring to San and Khoi people? what samples is this derived from? I have not heard of aDNA recovered from South Africa 12,000 BP
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
L. LUCA CAVALLI-SFORZA Genes, peoples, and languages Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA Vol. 94, pp. 7719 –7724, July 1997
This outdated 25 year old article is the type of thing beyoku was warning about, even Tukuler schooled you on numerous times, yet you cling to it, posting it year after year for polemical reasons
Posts: 42919 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Askia_The_Great: No one is arguing "purity", certainly not me. And even if the Israel_C were not "predominantly" Natufian, they would still have significant Natufian ancestry. In fact other studies showed that Israelis from the Chalcolithic period had SIGNIFICANT ancestry that the Natufians had. As shown here. No offense, but I am having a hard time following your argument Antalas(btw that chart is from Ancient DNA from Chalcolithic Israel reveals the role of population mixture in cultural transformation), as the chart shows in that study Levantine populations during the Chalcolithic period clearly had Natufian like ancestry, meanwhile this same ancestry is not being detected in huge amounts in the Horner, Kenyan/Tanzanian pastoralist or ancient Moroccans profile in large amounts compared to the dark green(which I bet $100 on is indigenous North African) from that chart in the Swahili study. The blue in the Israel_C is Natufian ancestry and I bet $100 on it. If the Israel C were not predominantly Natufian, then can you explain why that ancestry skipped a people(Israel C) who lived in the area that ancestry is from to be found predominantly in Northeast Africans?
As for Neanderthals? No one denied Neanderthals were in Africa, however I said Neanderthal ancestry in Northwest Africa was most likely due to ancestry from southern Europe. Northeast Africans as far as I can remember have very little to no Neanderthal ancestry. Unless, you can point me to a study that shows such and I will be interested. And as for that Eurasian component from 30,000 years ago being absorbed? This is NOT "speculation", when a study I posted literally proposed that. Heck, the majority of studies propose this. Unless you're telling me that U6 never became localized?
Either way, all in all these profiles are showing dark green and not blue like Israel C which clearly raises eyebrows. Thus far I have not seen any credible evidence/theories that dismisses the dark green as indigenous North African.
Why are we even arguing ? My proposal was simply that the component could potentially be an older Eurasian component, given that migrations dating back to the Upper Paleolithic are known, and that's also what some papers, such as Hodgson et al 2014, have suggested. However, I am also open to the possibility of an African autochthonous origin, which I find interesting.
As for Israel_C like I said it isn't that simple such stark contrast with the other samples can for instance be explained by genetic drift. Don't rely too heavily on it because it's likely that future papers will present new results and modeling that may change the current chart. Anyway the hypothesis that Neanderthal ancestry was mediated by WHG is not supported by archaeology, and if I recall correctly, one of Lazaridis' latest paper showed no evidence of WHG contribution to IBM.
Posts: 1779 | From: Somewhere In the Rif Mountains | Registered: Nov 2021
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro: You're moving the goalpost a bit buddy. You insinuated that the dark green component should be attributed to more ancient Eurasian Admixture in Africa. I'm arguing against that.
Ok then what do you make of all the material and genetic evidence of such old back to Africa migrations ? You'll tell me that U6 didn't have an extensive expansion in NW Africa ? How did Afalou end up with middle eastern HGs like JT or T2 ?
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro: One of my major talking points which you quoted above is the fact that Eurasian ancestry that old would not be localized. You provided further evidence for that by presenting the studies that highlight neanderthal components in Africa all of which included west Africans who do not carry the dark green component. So the initial question remains. Why are you mentioning 30+kyo Eurasian admixture in the context of the graph if you don't even believe that the N* carrying saharans with some Mechtoid Morphological affinities were pure Eurasians? [/QB]
I don't get it. Why wouldn't an old Eurasian component be localized in Africa, while the African component would be, if they are of the same age ? In the case of Takorkori, I don't see why you expect me to find them perfectly eurasian in 5k BC ? Because they carry an ancestral N lineage ?
Posts: 1779 | From: Somewhere In the Rif Mountains | Registered: Nov 2021
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: This outdated 25 year old article is the type of thing beyoku was warning about and Tukuler schooled you on numerous times, yet you cling to it for polemical reasons [/QB]
He does this everytime, ignoring all the latest studies and he reminds me of Afrocentrists who rely on early 20th-century anthropological papers to support their unfounded claims. It's just a clown that's why serious members constantly ignore him.
Posts: 1779 | From: Somewhere In the Rif Mountains | Registered: Nov 2021
| IP: Logged |
And of course the argument you vehemently deny but is true is that North Africans were indeed black. As shown by the Egyptians in their own portraiture not to mention melanin tests done on their mummies as well as genetic tests.
And so were the Natufians again according to genetic tests.
So you fail on all counts. And please don't give me any ridiculous argument on definitions of 'black' since you won't give one for 'white' but sure do post a lot examples of it from modern coastal Amazigh who don't reflect the populations we discuss! [/QB]
Hahahaha I thought there was no such thing as "black ancestry" ?? Now suddenly the "genetic tests" are confirming that "North Africans were indeed black" ? Thanks for contradicting yourself XD
Did you forget your words ? :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: I thought we already explained to your dumbass multiple times before that a category is only as valid as it is logical. In this case "black" is simply a descriptor of color. There is nothing invalid about it. However you are correct in that the category only describes skin color alone and not ancestry OR culture. The category itself though is no more "racist" or even "Eurocentric" than is the label "white". Hence why non-European Indians also use the label to describe very dark peoples especially in the south, or Southeast Asians use the term to describe aboriginal types. This is why when people identify themselves ethnically, they use actual ethnic names NOT skin color or race, except in the West where blacks are a minority to the predominant whites. Even then 'black' in and of itself is not an ethnic identity though Black American, Black Canadian, etc. is because of the particular cultural groups labeled by skin color.
Again you said :
However you are correct in that the category only describes skin color alone and not ancestry OR culture.
So how could genetic tests detect it ?
Posts: 1779 | From: Somewhere In the Rif Mountains | Registered: Nov 2021
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Antalas: Why are we even arguing ? My proposal was simply that the component could potentially be an older Eurasian component, given that migrations dating back to the Upper Paleolithic are known, and that's also what some papers, such as Hodgson et al 2014, have suggested. However, I am also open to the possibility of an African autochthonous origin, which I find interesting.
And the bolded is exactly what I am disagreeing with. No one is denying that there was a migration into North Africa during the Paleolithic but just HOW widespread was the distribution of that ancestry?? I agree with Elmaestro that it couldn't have been that large for it to have little impact throughout Africa. Like I said the dark green I bet $100 that its indigenous Northeast African. And it being indigenous Northeast African does not mean you are no longer "North African" my Berber brotha from another motha...
quote:Originally posted by Antalas: As for Israel_C like I said it isn't that simple such stark contrast with the other samples can for instance be explained by genetic drift. Don't rely too heavily on it because it's likely that future papers will present new results and modeling that may change the current chart. Anyway the hypothesis that Neanderthal ancestry was mediated by WHG is not supported by archaeology, and if I recall correctly, one of Lazaridis' latest paper showed no evidence of WHG contribution to IBM. [/QB]
As for the bolded we shall wait and see. But currently as far as I can see the Israel_C had significant Natufian ancestry and yet very little to none of the green. It is what it is...
Posts: 1891 | From: NY | Registered: Sep 2014
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Askia_The_Great: And it being indigenous Northeast African does not mean you are no longer "North African" my Berber brotha from another motha...
I did not argued because of this because like you said african or eurasian it wouldn't change much in regards to how I plot. However, I don't like the tendency among some Panafricanist members here to "Africanize" everything and their insinuation that there were no Eurasian back migrations prior to the Holocene. Reality is always more complex and nuanced.
Posts: 1779 | From: Somewhere In the Rif Mountains | Registered: Nov 2021
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Antalas: You're moving the goalpost a bit buddy. You insinuated that the dark green component should be attributed to more ancient Eurasian Admixture in Africa. I'm arguing against that.Ok then what do you make of all the material and genetic evidence of such old back to Africa migrations ? You'll tell me that U6 didn't have an extensive expansion in NW Africa ? How did Afalou end up with middle eastern HGs like JT or T2 ?
Why are you just naming Eurasian haplogroups? Aren't you supposed to be arguing that the dark green component (Which absorbed Hadza-related Ancestry) is just Earlier Eurasian ancestry? Do you not see that Taforalt in addition to the dark green component has clear Eurasian ancestry (represented by blue)??
quote:I don't get it. Why wouldn't an old Eurasian component be localized in Africa, while the African component would be, if they are of the same age ? In the case of Takorkori, I don't see why you expect me to find them perfectly eurasian in 5k BC ? Because they carry an ancestral N lineage ?
Because you're arguing the Green component is just older Eurasian ancestry. They would be a juicy representative of what could be old Eurasian Ancestry, given their profile and MT Haplogroup. not only that but they play in well with my last statement in which you partially accepted but don't seem to fully understand. Also, in regards to the localization of just onlder Eurasian, if you trace neanderthal DNA like you tried to do earlier you'll see how widespread this Eurasian ancestry was.
Posts: 1781 | From: New York | Registered: Jul 2016
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Panafricanist Members"....Do you even know what Pan-africanism is...
You know what...let me shut up, yall are having a civil and academic conversation....
quote:Originally posted by Antalas:
quote:Originally posted by Askia_The_Great: And it being indigenous Northeast African does not mean you are no longer "North African" my Berber brotha from another motha...
I did not argued because of this because like you said african or eurasian it wouldn't change much in regards to how I plot. However, I don't like the tendency among some Panafricanist members here to "Africanize" everything and their insinuation that there were no Eurasian back migrations prior to the Holocene. Reality is always more complex and nuanced.
Posts: 8804 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
@ElMaestro How would ANA be represented in this model ? If these aren't UP eurasians who are they ? Aterians ? Takarkori as an Aterian relict pop. ?
Posts: 1779 | From: Somewhere In the Rif Mountains | Registered: Nov 2021
| IP: Logged |
posted
@El Maestro, in my post above, posted 05 April, 2023 12:07 PM , That has the Tishkoff chart that has the Dogon on it as well as some quote from the articles text as well as more details in the supplement quoted. How do you think that is explainable, all that blue Eurasian component?
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: So far as regard Dogon Y DNA it is one study's Dogon Y DNA E1a 45.4 E1b1a 43.6
sample of 55, this could be the highest frequency of E1a in Africa
E-M132/E1a has been found in the remains of one Guanche (1/30) from the Canary Islands, and one Bimbape (1/16) from El Hierro that has been dated to the 10th century CE.
Distribution
E-M132 Frequencies in select populations E-M132 is found most often in West Africa, and today it is especially common in the region of Mali.
________________________
As for mtDNA it's harder to find data
Four of the six Dogon subjects analyzed belong to the L2 cluster (0.7), whereas the other two are L3 (0.3)
~ Mitochondrial DNA Variation in Mauritania and Mali and their Genetic Relationship to Other Western Africa Populations A. M. Gonzalez ´ 1,∗, V. M. Cabrera 2006
___________ ^^^ (very small sample size)
___________________________________
Another geographically contiguous cluster extends across northern Africa (blue) into Mali (the Dogon), Ethiopia, and northern Kenya. With the exception of the Dogon, these populations speak an Afroasiatic language.
The second PC (6.1%) distinguishes the Hadza; the third PC (4.9%) distinguishes Pygmy and SAK individuals from other Africans. The fourth PC (3.7%) is associated with the Mozabites, some Dogon, and the CMA individuals, who show ancestry from the European–Middle Eastern cluster.
~ The Genetic Structure and History of Africans and African Americans Sarah A. Tishkoff, 2009
.
.
Yet in that Tishkoff pie chart the Dogon are resembling Mozabites whose DNA was also classified as 54% Eurasian mtDNA by Coudray, 2009
Tishkoff's article was based on just 9 individuals Dogon There is very little genetic data on them generally as far as I know
Posts: 42919 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:@ElMaestro How would ANA be represented in this model ? If these aren't UP eurasians who are they ? Aterians ? Takarkori as an Aterian relict pop. ?
@Antalas. I'm not sure who/what you mean by these?
But hopefully it's addressed in the following. there was a separation of who would become biological north Africans loosely identifiable as ANA. We will eventually be able to see a western cluster and an eastern cluster. The western cluster will be due to mixture with local populations with relicit human biological traits and local adaptations. Them plus the addition of an un-cited UP Eurasian group on the WHG cline will then form the Iberomaurasian. The local populations could very well be Aterian related. The eastern cluster will later follow the distribution we see in the graph Beyoku posted. They in combination with whichever proximal population will go on to become preedynastic Nilers, Horners and etc.
@Lioness. I thought it was covered that Tiskoffs Dogon samples were likely mislabeled? Dogon are not ~50% Eurasian.
@Jari LoL
Posts: 1781 | From: New York | Registered: Jul 2016
| IP: Logged |
....According to Tishkoff, one of the main conclusions of her study is that the world population samples produced 14 genetic clusters, and that 9 of them were in Africa. She said the clusters represent "genetically divergent ancestral population clusters". "You're seeing more diversity in one continent than across the globe". Clearly, according to Tishkoff, the 14 clusters she identified represent 14 ancestral populations, each with its own individual migratory history, existing separately from the other 13 ancestral populations for a long enough time to develop their own genetic profile, discernable today in Tishkoff's study. [Another important conclusion is that "the new findings will help medical researchers tailor drug treatments for different groups of Africans rather than treating them as homogenous."]
But identifying a genetic cluster doesn't automatically mean it represents an ancient population cluster. In her previous study from 2004, "Implications of biogeography of human populations for ‘race’ and medicine", she analyzed Rosenberg's genetic study of the 52 global populations of the HGDP samples, which resulted in 6 clusters. The clusters consisted of entire continents, except one which was made up exclusively by the Kalash in the mountains of north Pakistan. Tishkoff said that this 6th cluster "probably reflects high levels of inbreeding and genetic drift in that group". That's very likely and I completely agree. So in this case we have an example of a genetic cluster that doesn't represent an ancestral population, and in fact, the exact opposite, an extremely recent population cluster.
In this study, Tishkoff hasn't looked into this, because 3 of the 14 genetic clusters are almost certainly the result of inbreeding. In graph S10 (page 34) of the supplementary file of the study, they are the Dogon (gray), Hadza (yellow), and Mbugu (white). The latter 2 have less then 10,000 people, like the Kalash, and are clear candidates for inbreeding. The Dogon are instead almost a million people, but their samples were treated differently than the rest. "Because the inclusion of closely related individuals can impact population genetic inferences, we took the conservative approach of excluding individuals inferred to be third degree or more closely related. An exception was made in the case of the Dogon as it is difficult to reliably infer relative pairs in a small sample." The Dogon consisted of 9 samples (the average was 20). They were exempted from a test of relatedness, which means inbreeding can't be ruled out. And they form a cluster to which they belong 100% and which isn't found in any other population in any amount. This is identical to the Kalash or the Hadza, and it's to be expected from inbreeding. All the Dogon samples came from the same small city. I would easily consider the Dogon, Hadza, and Mbugu clusters to be the artifact of inbreeding, like the Kalash in Rosenberg's study, and discard them. That leaves 11 global genetic clusters, 6 of which are found in Africa.
quote:Originally posted by Doctoris Scientia: Repost.
Here's a post from a friend of mine on another forum, Aware-Dog, his input should be inciteful in regard to the situation.
"Doctoris Scientia, they used the data from the unsupervised structure runs to identify the populations having a high frequency of distinct ancestral clusters, in order to be used as training populations to run the supervised structure analysis. (read pg.7 in the supp. material)
Also, in the main paper (not the supplementary material), the results of the Supervised structure run for Africa were the only ones reported by Tishkoff and her team(fig. 5b), this is the only data pertinent to Africa.
And even if you want to play it safe, in regard to the Beja and Beta Israel by taking into account the averages of both the supervised and unsupervised structure run results; the possibly North African and/or Eurasian Saharan/Dogon cluster would only obviously account for 23-27% of their ancestry. Take away about half for ancient common ancestry with non-Africans that Northeast and North Africans possess and you would be left with approximately 12-14% of what can be described as potential Non-African admix in northerly Northeast Africans, not as significant." In regard to the 2 paragraph... optimized? I'm going to have to ask him.
^The Mozabite, 70-75% (medium of 73%) African. In regard to a medium of the Western Eurasian/"Saharan/Dogon" cluster from the Global + African runs.
The Global Unsupervized STRUCTURE only includes 10 African cluster, the African optimized (the last table) includes 14. Those results are not unsupervised. My numbers are from chart not labeled as unsupervised by the way.
i.e., in both the Global and African run, the blue color indicates ambiguous admixture, in regards Africans in particular. Either indicating indigenous North African/Saharan and/or Eurasian admixture.
The plots make it more obvious in regard to the fact that the Beja and Beta-Israel cluster with other Northeast Africans who lack the possibly Eurasian Saharan/Dogon cluster. While the Mozabite, being North African slightly moves in the direction of Eurasia.
But hopefully it's addressed in the following. there was a separation of who would become biological north Africans loosely identifiable as ANA. We will eventually be able to see a western cluster and an eastern cluster. The western cluster will be due to mixture with local populations with relicit human biological traits and local adaptations. Them plus the addition of an un-cited UP Eurasian group on the WHG cline will then form the Iberomaurasian. The local populations could very well be Aterian related. The eastern cluster will later follow the distribution we see in the graph Beyoku posted. They in combination with whichever proximal population will go on to become preedynastic Nilers, Horners and etc.
Well believe it or not that's something I had already proposed before but I didn't expect it to be that high and even though there is some morphological similarities between Aterians and IBMs, there are also noticeable differences between the two. If IAM/IBM was predominantly ANA like in this chart, I don't believe the differences would have been as pronounced (it's also in contradiction with all the previous models). Even the two industries are completely different and there is a chronological gap between them.
It's all very confusing tbh and I don't have a deep understanding of the topic as you guys do but I recall papers suggesting that Aterians may have played a role in the OOA (but you rejected this in a discussion we had a few months ago) and another one highlighted high Basal eurasian ancestry for both IBM/natufian...
Posts: 1779 | From: Somewhere In the Rif Mountains | Registered: Nov 2021
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Back migrations" is simply another term for "mixture." Some of yall think "back migrations" means a group of Eurasians en masse got up and walked all through Africa which is not the case. Mixture can enter Africa in North or Northeast and be spread by other Africans who interact with each other, it's not a case of a "pure" group of Eurasians migrating all throughout Africa. If an African American with significant European mixture moved to Africa and started a family with an African woman, their children would have some of that European mixture. If someone took DNA samples of their kids 3000 years later and found "European" ancestry in their remains, does that mean "Europeans" migrated into Africa and brought that mixture? No!
Posts: 2595 | From: Vicksburg | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Elijah The Tishbite: "Back migrations" is simply another term for "mixture." Some of yall think "back migrations" means a group of Eurasians en masse got up and walked all through Africa which is not the case. Mixture can enter Africa in North or Northeast and be spread by other Africans who interact with each other, it's not a case of a "pure" group of Eurasians migrating all throughout Africa. If an African American with significant European mixture moved to Africa and started a family with an African woman, their children would have some of that European mixture. If someone took DNA samples of their kids 3000 years later and found "European" ancestry in their remains, does that mean "Europeans" migrated into Africa and brought that mixture? No!
So you're saying Eurasians never settled in the Maghreb or Egypt
Instead Africans left Africa, mixed with Eurasians (but not too much) and then went back into Africa
Posts: 42919 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
^^ I think what Elijah The Tishbite is saying is back migration is used as a god of the gaps.
Posts: 1254 | From: howdy | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ Precisely, the point! They always fall back on back-migrations as the explanation while ignoring the OOA expansions prior. But evidence from groups like the Natufians is changing all that.
"[The Shuqbah Natufian] type may be described as Mediterranean, but with a distinct bias towards the African variety of that stock represented by the predynastic people of Egypt. [...] The later cave dwellers of Shukbah practiced a rite which is still observed by many negro tribes of Africa. They removed one or both upper central incisors in youth, which resulted in atrophy of the corresponding alveolar part of the upper jaw and in an upgrowth of the unopposed lower incisors." Keith 1931 pp. 210-11
It's not a coincidence that academics have such a hard time pinning down the genetic and morphological hallmarks of West Eurasians without inadvertently infringing on populations who don't fit for various reasons. Skeletally, what many call 'Caucasoid' are morphological tendencies that can rise and fall in frequency in many distinct human lineages independent of admixture. This is because the first mtDNA M and N carriers were already evolved in this morphological direction, to some extent. (We can see this, for instance, in the general appearance of Ksar Hill I. This fossil is among the oldest we have of Upper Palaeolithic colonists of West Eurasia). And if some of the first mtDNA M and N carriers already show precocious morphological tendencies in this so-called 'Caucasian' direction, the first L3 people must have shared those variations as well. Based on evolutionary principles, one would expect those variations to decrease as we look deeper in the history of Ksar Hill's ancestors. For instance, we might imagine that the mtDNA L3 people had such precocious tendencies more than the L3'4 people, who might have had them more than the L3'4'6 people, and so on.
Ksar Akil I Juvenile (Bergman and Stringer 1989) is one example in a long line of fossils that refute the fallacy that 'Caucasian' features = European, or even West Eurasian.
These apomorphic variations predate 'Caucasians' and explain why some Africans are phenotypically and genetically intermediate. Note that I'm not saying that Eurasian admixture here and there doesn't contribute to this intermediate position of some African populations. What I'm saying is that if you strip those 'intermediate' Africans of their Eurasian contributions, you might get a genetic profile similar to, say, Mota (who is intermediate), as opposed to one that you'd expect to find more likely in equatorial inner Africa. In other words, a Berber speaker stripped of all Eurasian ancestry would still look somewhat like Berbers, albeit with darker skin on par with equatorial Africans. So, the sentiment out there that living North Africans would necessarily blend in with a crowd of 'black Africans' (as lay people often put it) when stripped of their Eurasian ancestry is a myth. The same applies to East Africa. Mota's lack of Eurasian ancestry doesn't stop him from being genetically (and likely also morphologically) intermediate. In this article I will make the case that 'Basal Eurasian' is a later departure from the Y DNA CT / mtDNA L3'4'6 people than Mota. Moreover, I will make the case that they departed from the L3'4'6 stem before the M and N people did.
In the past (late 19th to early 20th century) European academics postulated the 'Hamitic Hypothesis' that is "caucasoid" migration into Africa to explain such traits. But modern genetics has debunked that and now show the opposite-- Africans migrating into West Eurasia prior to back-migrations if not concurrent.
-------------------- Mahirap gisingin ang nagtutulog-tulugan. Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Elijah The Tishbite: "Back migrations" is simply another term for "mixture." Some of yall think "back migrations" means a group of Eurasians en masse got up and walked all through Africa which is not the case. Mixture can enter Africa in North or Northeast and be spread by other Africans who interact with each other, it's not a case of a "pure" group of Eurasians migrating all throughout Africa. If an African American with significant European mixture moved to Africa and started a family with an African woman, their children would have some of that European mixture. If someone took DNA samples of their kids 3000 years later and found "European" ancestry in their remains, does that mean "Europeans" migrated into Africa and brought that mixture? No!
So you're saying Eurasians never settled in the Maghreb or Egypt
Instead Africans left Africa, mixed with Eurasians (but not too much) and then went back into Africa
Why do you assume North Africa was uninhabited until "Eurasians" migrated there? North Africa has evidence of being inhabited longer than modern humans were in Eurasia.
Posts: 2595 | From: Vicksburg | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Elijah The Tishbite: "Back migrations" is simply another term for "mixture." Some of yall think "back migrations" means a group of Eurasians en masse got up and walked all through Africa which is not the case. Mixture can enter Africa in North or Northeast and be spread by other Africans who interact with each other, it's not a case of a "pure" group of Eurasians migrating all throughout Africa. If an African American with significant European mixture moved to Africa and started a family with an African woman, their children would have some of that European mixture. If someone took DNA samples of their kids 3000 years later and found "European" ancestry in their remains, does that mean "Europeans" migrated into Africa and brought that mixture? No!
So you're saying Eurasians never settled in the Maghreb or Egypt
Instead Africans left Africa, mixed with Eurasians (but not too much) and then went back into Africa
Why do you assume North Africa was uninhabited until "Eurasians" migrated there? North Africa has evidence of being inhabited longer than modern humans were in Eurasia.
North Africa was inhabited, I never said it wasn't. The population density is unknown and it depends on the time period and how much desertification vs green it had (and when it was greener we can only speculate there were a lot more people ) and the specific location
Are you saying Eurasians never settled in the Maghreb or Egypt?
Posts: 42919 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Elijah The Tishbite: "Back migrations" is simply another term for "mixture." Some of yall think "back migrations" means a group of Eurasians en masse got up and walked all through Africa which is not the case. Mixture can enter Africa in North or Northeast and be spread by other Africans who interact with each other, it's not a case of a "pure" group of Eurasians migrating all throughout Africa. If an African American with significant European mixture moved to Africa and started a family with an African woman, their children would have some of that European mixture. If someone took DNA samples of their kids 3000 years later and found "European" ancestry in their remains, does that mean "Europeans" migrated into Africa and brought that mixture? No!
So you're saying Eurasians never settled in the Maghreb or Egypt
Instead Africans left Africa, mixed with Eurasians (but not too much) and then went back into Africa
Why do you assume North Africa was uninhabited until "Eurasians" migrated there? North Africa has evidence of being inhabited longer than modern humans were in Eurasia.
North Africa was inhabited, I never said it wasn't. The population density is unknown and it depends on the time period and how much desertification vs green it had (and when it was greener we can only speculate there were a lot more people ) and the specific location
Are you saying Eurasians never settled in the Maghreb or Egypt?
Migrations were bi-directional
Posts: 2595 | From: Vicksburg | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic