quote:Genetic diversity across human populations has been shaped by demographic history, making it possible to infer past demographic events from extant genomes. However, demographic inference in the ancient past is difficult, particularly around the out-of-Africa event in the Late Middle Paleolithic, a period of profound importance to our species' history. Here we present SMCSMC, a Bayesian method for inference of time-varying population sizes and directional migration rates under the coalescent-with-recombination model, to study ancient demographic events. We find evidence for substantial migration from the ancestors of present-day Eurasians into African groups between 40 and 70 thousand years ago, predating the divergence of Eastern and Western Eurasian lineages. This event accounts for previously unexplained genetic diversity in African populations, and supports the existence of novel population substructure in the Late Middle Paleolithic. Our results indicate that our species' demographic history around the out-of-Africa event is more complex than previously appreciated.
Keep in mind that this particular back-migration predates the split between Western Eurasians on the one hand and Eastern Eurasians and Oceanians (as in Melanesians and Aboriginal Australians) on the other. So the people involved would most probably have still looked "black" rather than anyone's idea of "Caucasoid".
posted
More intra-African population substructure, no more no less if this is true. Did they even test any remains, or is this one of their statistical model studies where they infer?
Posts: 2595 | From: Vicksburg | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Why on earth are they so worried about humans migrating back to Africa 70,000 years ago? All the genes those people carried at that time were African anyway. What is the genetic marker or mutation they are using to claim that these genes were "Eurasian"? None of what they are saying is making absolutely any sense and is hypocritical. Eurasian genes stay Eurasian even 50,000 years later, but African genes magically become non African only after a few thousand years....... These clowns are ridiculous.
Posts: 8889 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Elijah The Tishbite: More intra-African population substructure, no more no less if this is true. Did they even test any remains, or is this one of their statistical model studies where they infer?
posted
Ha! Ha! These are not even worth reading anymore. More spin to explain Europeans being 90% African. Not worth the paper it is printed on. African and independent scientist really needed get their hands on this technology to get at the truth.
-------------------- 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 hope everyone understands that when you make an inference--LOL--You are making a guess.
-------------------- C. A. Winters Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
quote:Originally posted by One Third African:
quote:Originally posted by Elijah The Tishbite: More intra-African population substructure, no more no less if this is true. Did they even test any remains, or is this one of their statistical model studies where they infer?
As far as I can tell, it's the latter.
whole genome sequencing data from the Simons Genome Diversity Panel (SGDP) [35] and the Human Genome Diversity Panel (HGDP) [48] to investigate population structure around the OoA event.
35. Mallick, S. et al. The Simons Genome Diversity Project: 300 genomes from 142 diverse populations. Nature 538, 201–206 (2016)
48. Bergstr ̈om, A. et al. Insights into human genetic variation and population history from 929 diverse genomes. bioRxiv, 674986 (2019).
So no aDNA just stats-on-moderns type inferencing.
Could the article allude to mislabeled Sardine and Anatoli genomes ubiquitous throughout and very early in Africa?
Just a subset of the same set of African that made the OoA and truly back migrated (unbeknownst to them)?
Presupposes no part of the OoA genomed population remained in Africa?
Man a'mighty that title is a paradox, lemme xlate: Ancient admixture into Africa from Africans
Ancient admixture into Africa from the ancestors of non-Africans
Our analysis suggests that a population ancestral to present-day Eurasians contributed as much as a third of the genetic material in many modern African populations. We find no difference in inferred admixture proportions when using French Europeans or Han Chinese as extant representatives of the donor population, indicating that the admixing population must have split from the out-of-Africa population before the East/West Eurasian divergence, implying a lower bound on the timing of the admixture of approximately 40kya [20]. It appears that our results suggest that the migrating population was more similar to present-day French and Chinese populations than to Papuans. However, up to 5% of the genomes of some present-day Papuans have been suggested to derive from archaic introgressions [37], and these contributions will have reduced the inferred levels of admixture into Africans when using Papuans as a representative of the Eurasian ancestors. The alternative explanation, of an earlier divergence of Papuans and Eurasian ancestors, is possible but contested; in light of documented Eurasian admixture into Oceania, the effects of this early isolation are likely to be small relative to the large confounding effects of Denisovan admixture
Posts: 42918 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
We find evidence for substantial migration from the ancestors of present-day Eurasians into African groups between 40 and 70 thousand years ago, predating the divergence of Eastern and Western Eurasian lineages.
This is very very poor wording.
Anywho, ....so who's still looking forward to physical Basal Eurasians? Anybody?
Posts: 1781 | From: New York | Registered: Jul 2016
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ancient DNA meets science fiction. Eurasians from 70,000 to 40,000 years ago with no Neanderthal admixture.
Posts: 288 | From: Asia | Registered: Mar 2016
| IP: Logged |
posted
For this to even make sense there would have to be some genes that arose specifically outside of Africa after the Africans left. And those genes would have had to dominate the entire sub-group of Africans, or as they call them Eurasians, in order to make them a separate genetic lineage from the Africans who stayed behind. Something like that is going to depend primarily on theories of Neanderthal mixture because there is no scenario of populations leaving Africa and suddenly having non African genes to go back and deposit back into the genes that they carried out of Africa.
Posts: 8889 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro: We find evidence for substantial migration from the ancestors of present-day Eurasians into African groups between 40 and 70 thousand years ago, predating the divergence of Eastern and Western Eurasian lineages.
This is very very poor wording.
Anywho, ....so who's still looking forward to physical Basal Eurasians? Anybody?
What confuses me about these admixture claims, is that populations back then consisted out of very small pockets (max 100 people). And ever thing was done by foot over extremely long distance. Chances for one group to have encountered another group of people seems highly unlikely to me. And yeah you can apply a Bayesian model on that one as well.
I wonder why the authors didn't show the actual migration and industry relating to this migration route or routes.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: For this to even make sense there would have to be some genes that arose specifically outside of Africa after the Africans left. And those genes would have had to dominate the entire sub-group of Africans, or as they call them Eurasians, in order to make them a separate genetic lineage from the Africans who stayed behind. Something like that is going to depend primarily on theories of Neanderthal mixture because there is no scenario of populations leaving Africa and suddenly having non African genes to go back and deposit back into the genes that they carried out of Africa.
Agreed
By the logic they apply all Africans should have that admixture. So what is it? How does it translate into alleles?
Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Why on earth are they so worried about humans migrating back to Africa 70,000 years ago? All the genes those people carried at that time were African anyway. What is the genetic marker or mutation they are using to claim that these genes were "Eurasian"? None of what they are saying is making absolutely any sense and is hypocritical. Eurasian genes stay Eurasian even 50,000 years later, but African genes magically become non African only after a few thousand years....... These clowns are ridiculous.
I suspect they are looking of a justification to colonize Africa.
I think it should be a requirement in these papers, to explain what the intent and goal is for their "research".
Is this serious???
quote:Population sizes and migration rates are modeled as piece-wise constant across 32 exponentially spaced epochs from 133 to 133016 generations in the past, corresponding to 3.8 thousand to 3.8 million years ago (3.8kya–3.8Mya) using a generation time g = 29 years [5].
[…]
This data set comprises individuals from four African (Yoruban, San, Mbuti, and Biaka) and nine non-African populations (Druze, Han, Karitiana, two Papuan populations, Pathan, Pima, Sardinian, and Yakut).
[…]
Migration Pre-dates East-West Eurasian Divergence
To assess whether the inferred back-migration shows variation across the descendants of the OoA event, we repeated the analyses using three representative non-African groups in the SGDP: Han Chinese, French European, and Papuans. Since simulations show that SMCSMC has little power to detect migration predating 70kya, and to exclude Holocene migration, the epoch we use to calculate real-data IMFs comprise the period of peak inferred migration up to the period of diminishing power (30–70kya); we use this epoch for all subsequent analyses. Inferred IMFs are not significantly di↵erent between Han Chinese and European populations in non-Afroasiatic populations (p=0.14, two-tailed paired t-test; Figs. 1h and S6, Table S1), consistent with migration occurring before the European-East Asian split approximately 40kya [20].
~Christopher Bernard Cole, Sha Joe Zhu, Iain Mathieson, Kay Prfüer, Gerton Lunter
Ancient admixture into Africa from the ancestors of non-Africans
Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro: Anywho, ....so who's still looking forward to physical Basal Eurasians? Anybody?
There is the Hofmeyr skull from South Africa circa 36 kya. Its features are apparently closer to those of Upper Paleolithic Europeans than to extant southern Africans, so it might represent a population related to BE which drifted far to the south.
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: Ha! Ha! These are not even worth reading anymore. More spin to explain Europeans being 90% African. Not worth the paper it is printed on. African and independent scientist really needed get their hands on this technology to get at the truth.
Have you worked with the software program SMCSMC?
Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
Ancient admixture into Africa from the ancestors of non-Africans
We find evidence for substantial migration from the ancestors of present-day Eurasians into African groups between 40 and 70 thousand years ago, predating the divergence of Eastern and Western Eurasian lineages.
Our analysis suggests that a population ancestral to present-day Eurasians contributed as much as a third of the genetic material in many modern African populations. ______________________________
Does this statement have political implications? If so what are they?
Posts: 42918 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
But they're in Africa, eh?, these fossils those genomists didn't sample them?
African = African. African ≠ Eurasian, basal nor nare notherwise.
Intentional mislabeling Africans in Africa as something other than they are which is African.
But if they are black how can they be white? -G Sergei - But if they are African how can they be Eurasian? -Y Tu-
A hundred years later, a related discipline. Jusss A runnin the same game with anotha name, thass all.
=-=-=-=
quote: Our analysis suggests that a population ancestral to present-day Eurasians contributed as much as a third of the genetic material in many modern African populations.
Makes about as much sense as Bowcock/Cavalli-Sforza's infamous phrase.
Dark whites of the continent. Caucasian north and east Africa. Hamites by any name do smell quite the same. Ancestral present-day Europeans as 3rd Africa's genomics. Hamitic Hypothesis newest improvement -- can begin before the Upper Paleolithic now.
=-=-=-=
Tends to support the following abrupt BMH hypothesis and co-opt early gradual AMH=BMH of Africa for Euros.
quote: This list doesn't exhaust all the possible ways of defining "modern behavior", but it gives you some idea of what archeologists look for. But when do we see these different behaviors first crop up in the archeological record? There are two basic camps in the debate. The first is what I call the "late, abrupt hypothesis", which means that the capacity for modern human behavior didn't evolve until very late, about 50,000 to 40,000 years ago.
The second camp, called the "early, gradual hypothesis", claims that the capacity for modern behavior developed beginning a couple hundred thousand years ago, and that we see archeological evidence of modern behavior over many tens of thousands of years. Advocates of the late, abrupt idea consider the arrival of modern humans in Europe and the explosion of cave art, jewelry, carvings, complex tools, and other inventions on that continent between 40,000 and 30,000 years ago to mark the big event - the dawn of modern human cultural behavior. But advocates of the early, gradual interpretation point to evidence in Africa of pigment grindstones, complex tools, and specialized types of foraging, such as fishing, which are all earlier than 50,000 years old. According to this idea, then, it wasn't one single genetic change that spurred the development of modern human behavior. Instead, the capacity was built up slowly, and modern behavior became more and more advanced over time.
It turns out that one member of our research group, Alison Brooks, is a strong supporter of this second hypothesis. She's done a lot of research to show that there's evidence of beads and other symbolic behavior, like cave art, in Africa between 90,000 and 70,000 years old. Part of her interest in working with our team at Olorgesailie is to see whether there's more evidence one way or the other about the evolution of modern behavior
quote:Originally posted by Mansamusa: Ancient DNA meets science fiction. Eurasians from 70,000 to 40,000 years ago with no Neanderthal admixture.
-------------------- Without data you are just another person with an opinion - Deming Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: Ha! Ha! These are not even worth reading anymore. More spin to explain Europeans being 90% African. Not worth the paper it is printed on. African and independent scientist really needed get their hands on this technology to get at the truth.
Have you worked with the software program SMCSMC?
-------------------- Without data you are just another person with an opinion - Deming Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro: Anywho, ....so who's still looking forward to physical Basal Eurasians? Anybody?
There is the Hofmeyr skull from South Africa circa 36 kya. Its features are apparently closer to those of Upper Paleolithic Europeans than to extant southern Africans, so it might represent a population related to BE which drifted far to the south.
If I was looking for Basal Eurasian one of the last specimen I'd attribute it to is one that shows morphological affinities to Africans and UP Europeans (those analyzed). Basal Eurasian was specifically characterized as differentiated from both those groups of people.
I'll just say it again. You won't find Basal Eurasians. They don't exist.
It's just Africans, and there probably wasn't some grandiose migration as the OP article suggests, just gradual mixture on the continent, Isolation then regrouping etc, etc. This article literally provided evidence for all Africans having "Basal Eurasian" like Admixture. And somehow we can still treat this component as somehow differentiate from Africans, by even labeling it as such "basal Eurasians" or "Eurasian ancestors".
I find it very hard to be objective about the framing of all of this. It's borderline satirical.
Posts: 1781 | From: New York | Registered: Jul 2016
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: I haven't. Link?
quote:Originally posted by Ish Geber:
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: Ha! Ha! These are not even worth reading anymore. More spin to explain Europeans being 90% African. Not worth the paper it is printed on. African and independent scientist really needed get their hands on this technology to get at the truth.
quote:Originally posted by Mansamusa: Ancient DNA meets science fiction. Eurasians from 70,000 to 40,000 years ago with no Neanderthal admixture.
Correct based on archae0ology the only Eurasians at this time were Neanderthals
Yes, you are right. I completely overlooked that one.
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: come on Clyde stop joking around
Clyde is right. They've been telling that the Cro Magnon started to inhabit Europe about 40Ky and replaced the Neanderthal.
quote:But a large volcano that erupted in Italy around the time of Neanderthal demise may have hurt both populations. On top of that, a cooling climate event around 40,000 years ago in Europe may have "delivered the coup de grâce to a Neanderthal population that was already low in numbers and genetic diversity, and trying to cope with economic competition from incoming groups of Homo sapiens," says Chris Stringer of the Natural History Museum in London.
[...]
Stringer praised the new research: "The overall pattern seems clear—the Neanderthals had largely, and perhaps entirely, vanished from their known range by 39,000 years ago."
-------------------- Without data you are just another person with an opinion - Deming Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Why on earth are they so worried about humans migrating back to Africa 70,000 years ago? All the genes those people carried at that time were African anyway. What is the genetic marker or mutation they are using to claim that these genes were "Eurasian"? None of what they are saying is making absolutely any sense and is hypocritical. Eurasian genes stay Eurasian even 50,000 years later, but African genes magically become non African only after a few thousand years....... These clowns are ridiculous.
-------------------- Tehutimes Posts: 115 | From: north america | Registered: Jan 2014
| IP: Logged |
posted
I concur this is a roundabout way to deny the humanity of Africaness.Are any studies done to determine how Asian the Orientals are & how white the Euros/Eurasians have been genetically altered by back migration into those lands. Does the variety of eye shapes, hair colors/textures,& nasal forms still confound"certain academics"?
-------------------- Tehutimes Posts: 115 | From: north america | Registered: Jan 2014
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tehutimes: I concur this is a roundabout way to deny the humanity of Africaness .Are any studies done to determine how Asian the Orientals are & how white the Euros/Eurasians have been genetically altered by back migration into those lands. Does the variety of eye shapes, hair colors/textures,& nasal forms still confound"certain academics"?
^^^^^^^ THIS
-------------------- 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 Tehutimes: Are any studies done to determine how Asian the Orientals are & how white the Euros/Eurasians have been genetically altered by back migration into those lands.
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro: Anywho, ....so who's still looking forward to physical Basal Eurasians? Anybody?
There is the Hofmeyr skull from South Africa circa 36 kya. Its features are apparently closer to those of Upper Paleolithic Europeans than to extant southern Africans, so it might represent a population related to BE which drifted far to the south.
If I was looking for Basal Eurasian one of the last specimen I'd attribute it to is one that shows morphological affinities to Africans and UP Europeans (those analyzed). Basal Eurasian was specifically characterized as differentiated from both those groups of people.
I'll just say it again. You won't find Basal Eurasians. They don't exist.
It's just Africans, and there probably wasn't some grandiose migration as the OP article suggests, just gradual mixture on the continent, Isolation then regrouping etc, etc. This article literally provided evidence for all Africans having "Basal Eurasian" like Admixture. And somehow we can still treat this component as somehow differentiate from Africans, by even labeling it as such "basal Eurasians" or "Eurasian ancestors".
I find it very hard to be objective about the framing of all of this. It's borderline satirical.
As far as I can glean, the main line of evidence for this ancestry having anything to do with non-Africans is its descent from a bottleneck. If we find out this bottleneck happened somewhere in northern Africa (possibly, say, as a result of a Saharan dry spell), then so much for that signifying a Eurasian back-migration.
If people really insist on differentiating African from non-African ancestry, I would think Neanderthal admixture would be a better metric. Though even that hinges on the assumption that Neanderthals never migrated into North Africa.
quote:Originally posted by Mansamusa: Ancient DNA meets science fiction. Eurasians from 70,000 to 40,000 years ago with no Neanderthal admixture.
Correct based on archae0ology the only Eurasians at this time were Neanderthals
Yes, you are right. I completely overlooked that one.
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: come on Clyde stop joking around
Clyde is right. They've been telling that the Cro Magnon started to inhabit Europe about 40Ky and replaced the Neanderthal.
quote:But a large volcano that erupted in Italy around the time of Neanderthal demise may have hurt both populations. On top of that, a cooling climate event around 40,000 years ago in Europe may have "delivered the coup de grâce to a Neanderthal population that was already low in numbers and genetic diversity, and trying to cope with economic competition from incoming groups of Homo sapiens," says Chris Stringer of the Natural History Museum in London.
[...]
Stringer praised the new research: "The overall pattern seems clear—the Neanderthals had largely, and perhaps entirely, vanished from their known range by 39,000 years ago."
No, Eurasia does not mean just Europe and the Neanderthals did not get immediately replaced as soon as humans colonized their territory
A small group from a population in East Africa, bearing mitochondrial haplogroup L3 and numbering possibly fewer than 1,000 individuals,crossed the Red Sea strait at Bab el Mandib, to what is now Yemen, after around 75,000 years ago. A recent review has also shown support for the northern route through Sinai/Israel/Syria (Levant). Their descendants spread along the coastal route around Arabia and Persia to the Indian subcontinent before 55,000 years ago. Other research supports a migration out of Africa between about 65,000 and 50,000 years ago. The coastal migration between roughly 70,000 and 50,000 years ago is associated with mitochondrial haplogroups M and N, both derivative of L3.
A fragment of a jawbone with eight teeth found at Misliya Cave, Israel, has been dated to around 185,000 years ago. Layers dating from between 250,000 and 140,000 years ago in the same cave contained tools of the Levallois type which could put the date of the first migration even earlier if the tools can be associated with the modern human jawbone finds.
Along the way H. sapiens interbred with Neanderthals and Denisovans,
Posts: 42918 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by One Third African:As far as I can glean, the main line of evidence for this ancestry having anything to do with non-Africans is its descent from a bottleneck. If we find out this bottleneck happened somewhere in northern Africa (possibly, say, as a result of a Saharan dry spell), then so much for that signifying a Eurasian back-migration.
If people really insist on differentiating African from non-African ancestry, I would think Neanderthal admixture would be a better metric. Though even that hinges on the assumption that Neanderthals never migrated into North Africa.
Well, we have a good deal of aDNA from Eurasia. We can easily define what is putative non-African. scientists are so good at it, that they can statistically model multiple lines of ancestry in Eurasia without the physical remains to go with it. What scientist seem to not be good at, is doing the same with Africans. partially because because of the absence of aDNA but what I feel plays a bigger factor is the attempts at branding African ancestry as a Eurasian.
enter: "Basal Eurasian" "para-Eurasian" & "deep ancenstry" --> ancestry that is not putative non-African... but treated as if it is.
These statistical phenomena were never appropriately tested in Africans but calculated with the assumption that it isn't found in or is differentiated from "SSA." (in most cases)
The issue lies with perception and framing. these lineages could have predated the expansion out of Africa but they're still looked at as inherently non African. When in reality what we consider African today, is a mixture of many groups people who historically roamed the continent (and abroad.)
So essentially Africa is publicly defined as whatever that is not found in Eurasians. That's flawed because we don't truly know the extent of the overlap between ancient Africans and modern Eurasians. That definition automatically cleaves about a third of modern African diversity.
In all actuality, since Africans maintained a larger gene pool throughout ancient history. What's considered Eurasian should be defined by what's for sure not African, considering have the aDNA to determine that.
Not to mention, these researchers are smart enough to know the difference between saying "Eurasians are descended from a group that underwent an extreme bottleneck" and "bottlenecked individuals are Eurasians." There's not nearly enough evidence to suggest the latter, but it's the model we use to identify and define these genetic signatures...
...It's pretty unscientific if you think about it.
Posts: 1781 | From: New York | Registered: Jul 2016
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: No, Eurasia does not mean just Europe and the Neanderthals did not get immediately replaced as soon as humans colonized their territory
I have no idea what you are talking about. Nowhere was this mentioned by anyone. Perhaps you need to read, or reread my previous posts.
The first true successful expansion was 40Ky.
Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro: Well, we have a good deal of aDNA from Eurasia. We can easily define what is putative non-African. scientists are so good at it, that they can statistically model multiple lines of ancestry in Eurasia without the physical remains to go with it. What scientist seem to not be good at, is doing the same with Africans. partially because because of the absence of aDNA but what I feel plays a bigger factor is the attempts at branding African ancestry as a Eurasian.
enter: "Basal Eurasian" "para-Eurasian" & "deep ancenstry" --> ancestry that is not putative non-African... but treated as if it is.
These statistical phenomena were never appropriately tested in Africans but calculated with the assumption that it isn't found in or is differentiated from "SSA." (in most cases)
The issue lies with perception and framing. these lineages could have predated the expansion out of Africa but they're still looked at as inherently non African. When in reality what we consider African today, is a mixture of many groups people who historically roamed the continent (and abroad.)
So essentially Africa is publicly defined as whatever that is not found in Eurasians. That's flawed because we don't truly know the extent of the overlap between ancient Africans and modern Eurasians. That definition automatically cleaves about a third of modern African diversity.
In all actuality, since Africans maintained a larger gene pool throughout ancient history. What's considered Eurasian should be defined by what's for sure not African, considering have the aDNA to determine that.
Not to mention, these researchers are smart enough to know the difference between saying "Eurasians are descended from a group that underwent an extreme bottleneck" and "bottlenecked individuals are Eurasians." There's not nearly enough evidence to suggest the latter, but it's the model we use to identify and define these genetic signatures...
...It's pretty unscientific if you think about it.
Indeed. Which is what has been said on ER/Reloaded etc for over a decade, on the distorted labeling, stereotypical typing, selective sampling, etc. There is truly nothing new under the sun as far as some of these issues are concerned.
======================================================================== Originally posted by lioness:
quote: the lioness, Member # 17353 - posted 03 June, 2020 05:11 PM
Ancient admixture into Africa from the ancestors of non-Africans
We find evidence for substantial migration from the ancestors of present-day Eurasians into African groups between 40 and 70 thousand years ago, predating the divergence of Eastern and Western Eurasian lineages.
Our analysis suggests that a population ancestral to present-day Eurasians contributed as much as a third of the genetic material in many modern African populations. ______________________________
Does this statement have political implications? If so what are they?
Well, we have known for almost 2 decades or more that Europeans have roughly one-third African lineages. Later studies don't necessarily duplicate this % but still show substantial European mixture with non-Europeans. So why don't many Europeans go around referring to themselves as "mixed"? What political implications do you think this has?
-------------------- Note: I am not an "Egyptologist" as claimed by some still bitter, defeated, trolls creating fake profiles and posts elsewhere. Hapless losers, you still fail. My output of hard data debunking racist nonsense has actually INCREASED since you began.. Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
Indeed, which confirms what I say above. The latest aDNA study doesn't change many fundamentally underlying issues. Why is it that many Europeans, using the same "race" models they glibly apply to Africans and Africa, why don't they apply the same to themselves and point out that they are "mixed"? How is it, as Keita points out in published papers, that scholars don't define a stereotypical "true white"? How about north of Italy or Greece, without the taint of possible "negro elements" from the Mediterranean region?
The same general point goes back to ancient AMH populations, who as your article shows had limb proportions more typical of "sub Saharan" bleks. QUOTE:
"Unlike Neanderthals, the limb segment proportions of these early Homo sapiens sapiens do not exhibit a cold climate adaptation despite the fact that they inhabited Europe during the coldest interval of the entire Upper Pleistocene."
Such peoples would themselves be a piece of the package, making Europeans, in part, "mixed." What would be the implications for assorted race models if white people were to start identifying themselves "properly" as "mixed"? What the soul-crushing implications for assorted "white" identity "tough guys"?
-------------------- Note: I am not an "Egyptologist" as claimed by some still bitter, defeated, trolls creating fake profiles and posts elsewhere. Hapless losers, you still fail. My output of hard data debunking racist nonsense has actually INCREASED since you began.. Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
Well, we have known for almost 2 decades or more that Europeans have roughly one-third African lineages. Later studies don't necessarily duplicate this % but still show substantial European mixture with non-Europeans. So why don't many Europeans go around referring to themselves as "mixed"? What political implications do you think this has?
If it's true the political implications might be some Europeans think they are superior to Africans and Asians would have a harder time claiming it if they would describe themselves as a mix of Africans and Asians.
-unless they thought the mixing itself makes them superior. You can away come up with anything to justify why your tribe is better than the next tribe.
But is it true? Are Europeans actually a "hybrid" offspring of Africans and Asians have children together?
Let's say it's true. Europeans are mixed
___________________________
Ancient admixture into Africa from the ancestors of non-Africans
We find evidence for substantial migration from the ancestors of present-day Eurasians into African groups between 40 and 70 thousand years ago, predating the divergence of Eastern and Western Eurasian lineages.
Our analysis suggests that a population ancestral to present-day Eurasians contributed as much as a third of the genetic material in many modern African populations. ______________________________
So could this also be true if Europeans first admit to their own mixed-ness?
Posts: 42918 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
What do you think would be the political implications if true?
-------------------- Note: I am not an "Egyptologist" as claimed by some still bitter, defeated, trolls creating fake profiles and posts elsewhere. Hapless losers, you still fail. My output of hard data debunking racist nonsense has actually INCREASED since you began.. Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by zarahan aka Enrique Cardova: What do you think would be the political implications if true?
I'm not sure but I'm noticing people don't like this:
quote: Ancient admixture into Africa from the ancestors of non-Africans
We find evidence for substantial migration from the ancestors of present-day Eurasians into African groups between 40 and 70 thousand years ago, predating the divergence of Eastern and Western Eurasian lineages.
Our analysis suggests that a population ancestral to present-day Eurasians contributed as much as a third of the genetic material in many modern African populations.
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
That Europeans are 1/3 ancestral Rainforester + 2/3 ancestral Sanfrancisco Chinese as proposed by Bowcock/Cavilli-Sforza > 25 yrs ago is utterly absurd. Tell me what other geneticists either co-sign or repeat that outdated nonsense? None ttbomk.
Euros are surely admixed but only one genomist, Brucato (2017), was bold enough to publish an ADMIXTURE showing a theshhold significant 3% African admixture into NW Europeans. See some this and that.
ISGR on CEU Utah sample
code:
CEU details
Population: CEPH Code: CEU Description: Utah residents (CEPH) with Northern and Western European ancestry Superpopulation: European Ancestry Superpopulation code: EUR
Purplish, orange, and dark blue bands of the ADMIXTURE have southern Asia and Persian Gulf peoples exemplars. Indonesia Banja, India Gujarat Brahmins, Saudi Arabia Arab, Iran Iranians. Each of whom have a bare 2.7% to a substantial 19% African mix in themselves.
They and the Ugandan BaTwa, South African Karretjie, Nigeria Yoruba, Kenya Swahili Lamu, Ethiopia Ari Blacksmith, Ethiopia Somali, Sudan Sudanese genotypes have mixed their way into the pristine peoples of northwest Europe, otherwise undetected by dare say any other genomic research article in print.
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:Originally posted by zarahan aka Enrique
Well, we have known for almost 2 decades or more that Europeans have roughly one-third African lineages. Later studies don't necessarily duplicate this ...
... why don't many Europeans go around referring to themselves as "mixed"? What political implications do you think this has?
... some Europeans think they are superior to Africans and Asians [so] would have a harder time claiming it if they would describe themselves as a mix of Africans and Asians.
-unless they thought the mixing itself makes them superior.
You can away come up with anything to justify why your tribe is better than the next tribe.
But is it true? Are Europeans actually a "hybrid" offspring of Africans and Asians have children together?
posted
Yep, and as I said above, later studies do not show Cavalli-Sforza's mix percent, but they do show Europeans are admixed.
Euros are surely admixed but only one genomist, Brucato (2017), was bold enough to publish an ADMIXTURE showing a theshhold significant 3% African admixture into NW Europeans.
^^Yep, the African admixture you show concerns NW Europeans. It is to be expected that they show less mixture, compared to other Euros of the Mediterranean region closer to Africa, as in Iberia, Italy, Greece, etc.
-------------------- Note: I am not an "Egyptologist" as claimed by some still bitter, defeated, trolls creating fake profiles and posts elsewhere. Hapless losers, you still fail. My output of hard data debunking racist nonsense has actually INCREASED since you began.. Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
Admixture in the past is not going to match contemporary admixture.
So if you are talking from 40-70,000 years ago, almost all of these populations were African, with some small amount of mixture due to "new" DNA lineages that may have arose outside of Africa. The problem is that you need actual DNA evidence from those ancient populations to see what DNA lineages came from where to establish what lineages arose outside Africa.
At various other points since then various populations in Europe and Asia would have had more or less mixture based on migration events. Case in point the Neolithic expansion and so-called 'EEF'.
More recent historic events would explain other forms of mixture including Mediterranean exchanges between North Africa and Greece, the Carthagenian expansion into Europe and the Islamic expansion into Spain. Not to mention since colonization a lot of European settler populations have mixture from natives and Africans in various areas of settlement.
Posts: 8889 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: @Ish. Most of those links are dead
I've fixed them.
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: @Ish. Most of those links are dead
. It is interesting that when you discuss certain articles that prove Eurocentric dogma is wrong--the links disappear or are changed
.
I made a mistake in the linking sequence.
-------------------- Without data you are just another person with an opinion - Deming Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
Naw ain't talkin any old mixture, talking African black mixture/ancestry.
The point I'm making is genomicist ADMIXTURE graphs do not expose the Inner African component in Europe, any part of Europe.
That's what makes Brucato a breakthrough. I guess publishing it in a Comoros article was stealth genius. And he chose the creme de la creme European geo-population in the northwest. Hafta cred Hodgson 2014 for an 'honest' CEU ADMIXTURE though only Yoruba was noted as an ancestor.
Mallick 2017 displays no African parentage for Euros @ K=12 and data from 142 populations
Schuenemann 2017 shows no African black in Europeans
Baker 2017 couldn't find African black mommies and daddies in Europe's family tree
We see the Wiki genetic hist of Eur ADMIXTURE reveals but 2/25 Euro subpops (2/9 south Euro subpops) have any Inner African ancestral components (K=7).
Moral of the story Basically the same data yields differing mapping when it comes to Europeans having African black parentage.
Genomic data sez what scientists want it to say, no?
quote:Originally posted by zarahan aka Enrique Cardova: ... they do show Europeans are admixed. ... NW Europeans. It is to be expected that they show less mixture, compared to other Euros of the Mediterranean region closer to Africa, as in Iberia, Italy, Greece, etc.
-------------------- Without data you are just another person with an opinion - Deming Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic