posted
African origin for Madagascan dogs revealed by mtDNA analysis. --Ardalan A1
Madagascar was one of the last major land masses to be inhabited by humans. It was initially colonized by Austronesian speaking Indonesians 1500-2000 years ago(xyyman comment- WE KNOW THIS IS A LIE NOW), but subsequent migration from Africa has resulted in approximately equal genetic contributions from Indonesia and Africa, and the material culture has mainly African influences. The dog, along with the pig and the chicken, was part of the Austronesian Neolithic culture, and was furthermore the only domestic animal to accompany humans to every continent in ancient times. To illuminate Madagascan cultural origins and track the initial worldwide dispersal of dogs, we here investigated the ancestry of Madagascan dogs. We analysed mtDNA control region sequences in dogs from Madagascar (n=145) and compared it with that from potential ancestral populations in Island Southeast Asia (n=219) and sub-Saharan Africa (n=493). We found that 90% of the Madagascan dogs carried a haplotype that was also present in sub-Saharan Africa and that the remaining lineages could all be attributed to a likely origin in Africa. By contrast, only 26% of Madagascan dogs shared haplotypes with Indonesian dogs, and one haplotype typical for Austronesian dogs, carried by more than 40% of Indonesian and Polynesian dogs, was absent among the Madagascan dogs. Thus, in contrast to the human population, Madagascan dogs seem to trace their origin entirely from Africa. These results suggest that dogs were not brought to Madagascar by the initial Austronesian speaking colonizers on their transoceanic voyage, but were introduced at a later stage, together with human migration and cultural influence from Africa.
East African origins for Madagascan chickens as indicated by mitochondrial DNA. - Herrera MB1, Abstract The colonization of Madagascar by Austronesian-speaking people during AD 50-500 represents the most westerly point of the greatest diaspora in prehistory. A range of economically important plants and animals may have accompanied the Austronesians. Domestic chickens (Gallus gallus) are found in Madagascar, but it is unclear how they arrived there. Did they accompany the initial Austronesian-speaking populations that reached Madagascar via the Indian Ocean or were they late arrivals with Arabian and African sea-farers? To address this question, we investigated the mitochondrial DNA control region diversity of modern chickens sampled from around the Indian Ocean rim (Southeast Asia, South Asia, the Arabian Peninsula, East Africa and Madagascar). In contrast to the linguistic and human genetic evidence indicating dual African and Southeast Asian ancestry of the Malagasy people, we find that chickens in Madagascar ****ONLY***** share a common ancestor with East Africa, which together are genetically closer to South Asian chickens than to those in Southeast Asia. This suggests that the earliest expansion of Austronesian-speaking people across the Indian Ocean did not successfully introduce chickens to Madagascar. Our results further demonstrate the complexity of the translocation history of introduced domesticates in Madagascar.
Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
One of the many selective post deleted by Davidski. He is running scared. Lol! Didn’t I tell you all San carried as much Neanderthal ancestry as East Asians? Now you know why Arnaiz-Villen was correct. /////// A few of you may have missed the approx. 10-15 post Davidski proposed was “uninteresting” or “illogical” and deleted. Lol! I will try to repost from what I can recollect from memory. The discussion was why do Europeans carry less “Neanderthal” ancestry than East Asians and Native Americans. And that ties into why Basal Eurasian/EEF/Natufians and most modern Africans (non-Eurasian He! He! He!) carry negligible or zero Neanderthal ancestry. Davidski doesn’t see how this ties in to European genetic history the logical scholar he is(sic). I said ‘most” modern Africans. Why?
What the authors are saying is that archaic “admixture” in African Hunter gatherers and Modern Europeans occurred at the same time and on the same locus!!!! Now, we know that Basal Eurasian/EEF/non-Eurasians(he! He! He!)/Natufians carry zero Archaic Ancestry. Davidski. What does your logic tell you?
This are some important excerpts from the study that was deleted. What does it have to do with European genetic history? ---- Evolutionary History and Adaptation from High-Coverage Whole-Genome Sequences of Diverse African Hunter-Gatherers - Joseph Lachance(Thanks to Ish-Gebor) Quote: Comparisons with a South African San Genome In a previous study the whole-genome of a San hunter-gatherer from South Africa (KB1) was sequenced using Roche/454 and Illumina technologies (Schuster et al., 2010). After converting coordinates from hg18 (GRCh36) to hg19 (GRCh37), a list of positions where KB1 differs from the human reference genome was downloaded from the GALAXY server (http://main.g2.bx.psu.edu/)..... Shared ancestry and/or gene-flow between the San and other hunter-gatherer populations can also be estimated
The D-test uses counts of shared derived alleles to infer relative levels of gene flow and/or common ancestry. There appears to be slightly more gene flow and/or closer ancestry between the San and Pygmy individuals than between San and Hadza or Sandawe individuals.
In addition, the Sandawe contain a Y chromosome haplogroup lineage associated with the expansion of Afro-Asiatic speakers (E1b1b1).
Therefore, the simplest interpretation of these data is that introgressed regions in extant human populations represent neutrally evolving vestiges of archaic sequences. In short, we find that low levels of introgression from an unknown archaic population or populations occurred in the three African hunter-gatherer samples examined, consistent with findings of archaic admixture in non-Africans (Reich et al., 2010).
To the newbies. Do you want to know what the author means by “SHARED ANCESTRY or gene flow”?
Quotes throughout the study: “Shared ancestry and/or gene-flow between the San and other ……shared derived alleles to infer relative levels of gene flow and/or common ancestry” ---
Now do you know why San and Japanese are grouped together by HLA per Arnaiz-Villens? Coon was correct in this instance.
-------------------- 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
To those who are not following. Austronesians did NOT migrate to Africa. These are all Africans. Genetics will make liars of “historians”. Remember I stated sometime ago that there may have been a land bridge across the Indian Ocean.
Remember populations of the Seychelles carry yDNa-O but apparently the haplotypes of O found in South East Asia is a subset found in Seychelles. Meaning there was no “back-migration” to Africa.
As to San-Japanese. Yes, Dr Winter is correct the San were the first Eurasians. The Morphology shows that also. Cass where is the anthropology paper you were trying to find? “ a China man in Africa”.
Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
Be like xyyman! Just completely ignore all contradictory evidence and you too can win all arguments and believe whatever you like about anything.
Posts: 660 | From: Canada | Registered: Mar 2017
| IP: Logged |
posted
Xyyman: "To those who are not following. Austronesians did NOT migrate to Africa."
That was recent, 1,000 yrs ago to Madagascar, also to Yemen, India, part of the monsoon sailing trade.
" These are all Africans. Genetics will make liars of “historians”. Remember I stated sometime ago that there may have been a land bridge across the Indian Ocean."
Nope, a "bridge" of coracles (paleolithic) and canoes (Neolithic).
"Remember populations of the Seychelles carry yDNa-O but apparently the haplotypes of O found in South East Asia is a subset found in Seychelles. Meaning there was no “back-migration” to Africa."
Seychelles were settled recently by people of India, I thought. No aboriginal population, unlike Andamans.
"As to San-Japanese. Yes, Dr Winter is correct the San were the first Eurasians. The Morphology shows that also. "
posted
Humans never migrated from Austronesia to Madagascar . They are all African. If the pig, chicken, dogs, linguistic is African. Then they are all African. Therefor the The Malagasy language is African along with the people. If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, it is a duck.
Quote: Other genetic contribution from Southwest Asia or India, as may be anticipated considering the long history of sea trade between the African east coast and the Persian Gulf region, and later the Indian subcontinent [21,22], is not indicated but cannot be ruled out. Therefore, our data gives a distinct indication that the domestic dog population in Madagascar was founded ***solely*** from African dogs with no contribution from Austronesian related populations. It also suggests some European influence, and while genetic contribution from Southwest Asia and India is not indicated, it remains possible. These results are in general agreement with other datasets. Linguistic evidence suggests an Indonesian origin for the Malagasy language [5–7] and human population genetics suggests a dual Indonesian and African origin for the Malagasy people [23,24], but archaeological evidence suggests an African origin for the material culture [3]. An African origin of Madagascan dogs, as part of the material culture, agrees with this scenario. The African origin of domestic animals is also supported by linguistic evidence showing that the word for dog, as well as most other animals and domesticates in Madagascar, is adopted from African Bantu languages [2,8,9]. Dogs, together with pigs and chickens, were important domestic animals in the Austronesian culture [4]. Therefore, it would be expected that dogs were brought in in the colonization of major new areas, and a seemingly total absence in Madagascar of dogs with Austronesian heritage is therefore surprising.
-------------------- 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
Genetics will make liars of historian. Eg ancient Canary Islanders carried R1b-M269 BEFORE the colonization by the Spanish. Do you know geographically(distance) was probably impossible for these ancient r1b-M269 carriers to be anything but indigenous…Canary Islanders. Genetics will make liars of historians. ----- Quote by DDeden:
"Remember populations of the Seychelles carry yDNa-O but apparently the haplotypes of O found in South East Asia is a subset found in Seychelles. Meaning there was no “back-migration” to Africa."
Seychelles were settled recently by people of India, I thought. No aboriginal population, unlike Andamans.
-------------------- 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
There you go. You paste a paragraph that says the Malagasy language is Austronesian and that Malagasy people are a mix of Southeast Asian and East African genetically, bold the bits about stuff that's African, and declare victory.
Are you even a real person? Is this all some long-running troll job?
Posts: 660 | From: Canada | Registered: Mar 2017
| IP: Logged |
Again understand what they are saying and what they are doing. African dogs carry all haplotypes carried around the world because African dogs carry more diversity.
Understand the premise here. Either ALL dogs from around the globe somehow back-migrated to Africa (as humans) or Africans took their dogs with them which later differentiated and adapted like modern Humans. Which one makes more sense.
---
Complex population structure in African village dogs and its implications for inferring dog domestication history -
Adam R. Boykoa High genetic diversity of East Asian village dogs has recently been used to argue for an East Asian origin of the domestic dog. However, global village dog genetic diversity and the extent to which semiferal village dogs represent distinct, indigenous populations instead of admixtures of various dog breeds has not been quantified. Understanding these issues is critical to properly reconstructing the timing, number, and locations of dog domestication. To address these questions, we sampled 318 village dogs from 7 regions in Egypt, Uganda, and Namibia, measuring genetic diversity >680 bp of the mitochondrial D-loop, 300 SNPs, and 89 microsatellite markers. We also analyzed breed dogs, including putatively African breeds (Afghan hounds, Basenjis, Pharaoh hounds, Rhodesian ridgebacks, and Salukis), Puerto Rican street dogs, and mixed breed dogs from the United States. Village dogs from most African regions appear genetically distinct from non-native breed and mixed-breed dogs, although some individuals cluster genetically with Puerto Rican dogs or United States breed mixes instead of with neighboring village dogs. Thus, African village dogs are a mosaic of indigenous dogs descended from early migrants to Africa, and non-native, breed-admixed individuals. Among putatively African breeds, Pharaoh hounds, and Rhodesian ridgebacks clustered with non-native rather than indigenous African dogs, suggesting they have predominantly non-African origins.**** Surprisingly,**** we find ***similar mtDNA haplotype diversity**** in African and East Asian village dogs, potentially calling into question the hypothesis of an East Asian origin for dog domestication.
-------------------- 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
I don’t usually like making assumptions. I like to start from a position of strength and I get my strength knowing the FACTS. So, I am going to break from my MO and assume you are somewhat knowledgeable and have a decent level of intelligence. If YOUR role here is to antagonize me you are not doing a very good job. But let us move past that for now
If you read the papers I posted you will understand what the authors are doing. They are combining genetic FACTS and the fiction taught in academia. But since you have a reading comprehension problem. I will explain what this is about.
FACT 1 – Madagascan dogs are NOT genetically related to Indonesian dogs FACT 2 – Madagascan chicken are from East Africa FACT 3 – Madagascan vocabulary for domesticated animals are African Bantu(linguistic) FACT 4 – Madagascan people carry lineage and genomes found in BOTH Indonesia and Africa
Hypothesis 1 - There are supposed evidence that Indonesians rowed there boats thousands of miles to Madagascar for no apparent reason. Written by lying European “historians”.
Guess what my money is on?
quote:Originally posted by capra: There you go. You paste a paragraph that says the Malagasy language is Austronesian and that Malagasy people are a mix of Southeast Asian and East African genetically, bold the bits about stuff that's African, and declare victory.
Are you even a real person? Is this all some long-running troll job?
Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
You really are hopelessly sunk in your own bullshit. You'd have to swim a mile upward just to catch a glimpse of reality.
If any piece of evidence agrees with your retarded preconceptions, it must be correct, because you are right. If any piece of evidence disagrees, it's an error or an evil white man's lie, because, as previously established, you are right.
So African dogs and chickens are vital evidence, but Austronesian human genes and languages mean nothing.
Using these simple rules of evidence you will soon build an insurmountable mountain of bullshit. The internet is littered with crackpot theories built using exactly this method.
But of course it's no good telling you this. No weapon can pierce the armour of wilful stupidity.
Posts: 660 | From: Canada | Registered: Mar 2017
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've never thought of the Austronesian speakers that way,I just assume they were skilled boat people who develop the technical know-how to navigate, my only issue was implying the Austronesian got to Madagascar first even though africa is closer and Indonesia is like 6-7x the distance what interesting about about both groups being African is some of the blacks in the Pacific claiming that they were Africans,I take no issue in them saying that just want to know how true that is.
Posts: 1123 | From: New York | Registered: Feb 2016
| IP: Logged |
" No weapon can pierce the armour of wilful stupidity."
-------------------- 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
Don’t you see the problem here and how you mind is being fugked?! It is another lie. Just as West African , Mansa Musa, Van Sertima or who could not sail across the Atlantic to America the Austronesians were NOT sailing back-to-Africa. Get ahold of yourself. Lol!,
Quote: “I've never thought of the Austronesian speakers that way,I just assume they were skilled boat people who develop the technical know-how to navigate”
Reminder. If it walks talks and quacks…well it is a duck. Regardless to how it is spun. Ignore Capra and his detraction.
-------------------- 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
Dodo birds (big pigeons) were in the isolated Seychelles, no people until Euro sailors came & wiped out the dodos. I don't know where the O group were from, maybe escaped slaves? The Zanzibar area had central African slave markets there.
The only land bridge was the Indian Ocean coast similar to today after the Ice Age ended.
Bantus brought Asian crops (yams) & animals (zebu) to SEAfrica before Austronesians from Borneo arrived (empty-handed?) at Madagascar.
Madagascar had been occupied by hunting & gathering people before both Bantu & Borneo people arrived. Who were they? Dahalo, A KhoiSan Sandawe-like Rift Valley group of elephant hunters, but called zebu rustlers in Madagascar.
My thesis: Pygmies carrying roundshields used them as coracles to cross from Cambodia to Phu Quoc island where they found friendly wolves, and tamed them, 1st domesticates.
As a FYI. It is always prudent to demonstrate where I am wrong. “saying” without data showing I am wrong don’t get you nowhere, you become a chatter box. Like an irritating mosquito on the wall.
-------------------- 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
My comment wasn't to imply people were intending to travel to new lands but if they had the know-how and if certain passages or opening at critical points in history permitted travel than why is it a leap to assume it couldn't occured,the only time it has happened when whites were supposedly blown off from their journey to asia.
Posts: 1123 | From: New York | Registered: Feb 2016
| IP: Logged |
posted
From article: Thus, African village dogs are a mosaic of indigenous dogs descended from early migrants to Africa, and non-native, breed-admixed individuals. Among putatively African breeds, Pharaoh hounds, and Rhodesian ridgebacks clustered with non-native rather than indigenous African dogs, suggesting they have predominantly non-African origins.'
That makes sense to me. Africa had jackals and wild hunting dogs unrelated to domestic dogs, which descend from (an isolated subset of) Tibetan gray wolves (plus some later northern wolf admixture).
posted
' *** Surprisingly,**** we find ***similar mtDNA haplotype diversity**** in African and East Asian village dogs, potentially calling into question the hypothesis of an East Asian origin for dog domestication.' --- I agree, but I'll stick with my Phu Quoc Pygmy Coracle Pulling thesis unless something substantial outweighs it.
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: “saying” without data showing I am wrong don’t get you nowhere, you become a chatter box. Like an irritating mosquito on the wall.
Don't be an idiot. You could look up the references from the study that you posted, or spend thirty seconds googling.
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: Don’t you see the problem here and how you mind is being fugked?! It is another lie. Just as West African , Mansa Musa, Van Sertima or who could not sail across the Atlantic to America the Austronesians were NOT sailing back-to-Africa. Get ahold of yourself. Lol!,
Quote: “I've never thought of the Austronesian speakers that way,I just assume they were skilled boat people who develop the technical know-how to navigate”
Reminder. If it walks talks and quacks…well it is a duck. Regardless to how it is spun. Ignore Capra and his detraction.
You're better off denying the Austronesians had a big genetic impact (i.e. arrived in very small numbers), rather than outright denying a migration happened. There's too much evidence for the latter, it cannot be denied. I mean what about Malagasy language? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malagasy_languagePosts: 949 | From: England | Registered: Oct 2015
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: “saying” without data showing I am wrong don’t get you nowhere, you become a chatter box. Like an irritating mosquito on the wall.
Don't be an idiot. You could look up the references from the study that you posted, or spend thirty seconds googling.
He's got a valid point though about why these people suddenly decided to row their boats thousands of km across the ocean. Has anyone ever explained it? And did you run away from the thread debunking the migration from Steppe?
posted
People are migrating to other lands to seek out opportunity or escape trouble at home as we speak. Thousands of years of history record people sailing across seas to new countries (like my great-grandparents did). This is completely ordinary human behaviour and I don't understand why people act like it's some mystery.
In this case it's pretty far away from where they started, but nothing special by Austronesian standards. They settled practically every tropical island south of Taiwan and west of America. Once they knew it was there (I'd guess due to someone blown off course in the Indian Ocean trade between Asia and Africa) then it was a whole bunch of land up for grabs.
There may have been other people in Madagascar already, AFAIK there is some archaeological evidence but it's debatable. Madagascar is over 400 km from the mainland at the closest point, the Mozambique Channel is not particularly safe, and the prevailing winds blow from the southeast, so it's not like you would easily find it from Africa not knowing it was there.
Posts: 660 | From: Canada | Registered: Mar 2017
| IP: Logged |
posted
People move around a lot today because of modern transport. The Austronesian migration into Madagascar supposedly took place 2000 years ago. Long-distant migrations back then were very rare to non-existent.
Posts: 949 | From: England | Registered: Oct 2015
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: Don’t you see the problem here and how you mind is being fugked?! It is another lie. Just as West African , Mansa Musa, Van Sertima or who could not sail across the Atlantic to America the Austronesians were NOT sailing back-to-Africa. Get ahold of yourself. Lol!,
Quote: “I've never thought of the Austronesian speakers that way,I just assume they were skilled boat people who develop the technical know-how to navigate”
Reminder. If it walks talks and quacks…well it is a duck. Regardless to how it is spun. Ignore Capra and his detraction.
You're better off denying the Austronesians had a big genetic impact (i.e. arrived in very small numbers), rather than outright denying a migration happened. There's too much evidence for the latter, it cannot be denied. I mean what about Malagasy language? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malagasy_language
You underestimate the Austronesian impact in Asia.
Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic