In the full text you will find outlined our evidence for a previously unknown contribution of people with relatedness to Australo-Melanesians and Andaman Islanders, that we hypothesize is due to pulses of migration from a substructured Pleistocene population in Beringia.
- - -
Why NOT Namibian Khoi-San-Pygmies via the Orange River westward to Brazil?! (Bambatwa-Namaqua)
Tupi tribe ~ MButi tribe ~ tub/e = boat/teba(Heb)
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
Below is a picture of the First European in the middle, and the Paleoamericans Naia and Luzia
.
Skoglund and Reich (2016), claim that the Solutrean hypothesis should be rejected because the Anzick child carried mtDNA D4, which is also carried by the Australo-Melanesians.
This hypothesis is groundless because some of the the Australo-Melanesians. Especially the Fijians, claim they came from Tanzania, where , some people carry mtDNA M1, which Gonder claims cluster with peoples from Oceania. Skoglund and Reich (2016), argue that the earliest Native Americans crossed the Beringa into North America, and that this Beringian population is related more to South American Indians, instead of North American Indians .
They argue that this population 12,600 years ago, as represented by the ‘Anzick child of Montana was related to the Mal’ta population. Anzick child carried mtDNA D4h3a, and Y-chromosome Q-L54*(xM3) .
It is interesting that Anzick-1 was found in 1968. The Anzick-1 remains were returned to the Anzick family and analyzed by Sarah Anzick who discovered that the skeleton carried mtDNA D4h3a, which is also carried by Native Americans on the West Coast, of North America . Skoglund and Reich (2016) wrote: “The most surprising finding was that the Anzick individual is from a population more closely related to Central- and South Americans than to some northern North Americans (including all speakers of Algonquian languages studied to date), despite the apparent common ancestral origin of Native Americans across the continents. This suggests that the present-day population structure of the main ancestry in Native Americans [23] dates back to more than 12,600 years ago [25], and that this diversification divided the ancestry of present-day Native Americans into two main streams, one of which includes the ancestors of present-day Northern Native Americans analyzed (‘NNA’: Cree, Ojibwa, and Algonquin), and the other of which includes the Anzick individual and present-day Central- and South American groups (‘SA’: e.g. Mixe, Quechua, and Yaghan).”
It is surprising that given the fact that the Anzick skeleton was in the possession of Sarah Anzick who is a genomic research her that no one has questioned the results of Sarah Anzick. Since the Anzick skeleton’s DNA could have been contaminated while under the protection of the Anzick family, these results may not reflect the true ancestry of Anzick.
Skoglund and Reich (2016), argue that since the Andamanese and Australo-Melanesians carry D4h3a, this haplogroup had to have entered America via the Beringa around 12,000 BC. The presence of this haplogroup among the Australo-Melanesians is not supported by archaeological evidence.
The Fijians, for example claim they came from Tanzania. The archaeological evidence indicate that the Melanesians recently entered Melanesia from Africa. And that the Melanesian languages have an African substratum and the place-names are identical to West African placenames .
The archaeological evidence indicate that the Melenesians only arrived in their present habitation areas during the Lapita cultural expansion 3-4kya. As a result, the Australo-Melanesians were not in Eurasia 12kya, as assumed by Skoglund and Reich (2016).
Haplotypes with HVSI transitions defining 16129-16223-16249-16278-16311-16362; and 16129-16223- 16234-16249-16211-16362 have been found in Thailand and among the Han Chinese (Fucharon et al., 2001) , these haplotypes were originally thought to be members of Haplogroup M1. However, on the basis of currently available FGS sequences, carriers of these markers have been found to be in the D4a branch of Haplogroup D, the most widespread branch of M1 in East Asia (Fucharon et al., 2001; Gondor et al., 2006; Yao et al., 2002) .
The transitions 16129, 16189, 16249 and 16311 are known to be recurrent in various branches of Haplogroup M, especially M1 and D4. Gonder et al., (2006) for example, noted that the mtDNAs of Tanzanians belonging to haplogroup M1 cluster with peoples from Oceania .
Given the fact that the Melanesians recently entered the Pacific from Africa they can not be the source of the Paleoamerican population that carried mtDNA D4 to the Anzick child. The fact that the Anzick child carrid DNA related to Mal’ta man, who lived in Europe, supports the Solutrean hypothesis for some of the Paleoamericans . Since the Solutrean culture originated in Africa and was later taken to Europe it would explain the affinity between mtDNA D4a and the M1 carried by the Tanzanians who are the ancestors of the Fijians.
Between 6% and 9% of the Oase individual's genome is from Neanderthals - an unprecedented amount.
By comparison, present-day Europeans have between 2% and 4%.
Oase was probably not responsible for passing on Neanderthal ancestry to present-day Europeans. The analysis shows the man was more closely related to modern East Asians and Native Americans than to today's Europeans. Neanderthals share more alleles with East Asians and Native Americans than with Europeans, rare or absent in West Africans Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
In the full text you will find outlined our evidence for a previously unknown contribution of people with relatedness to Australo-Melanesians and Andaman Islanders, that we hypothesize is due to pulses of migration from a substructured Pleistocene population in Beringia.
^ from the above article >
Notably, Andaman Islanders, the population with the single strongest affinity to Amazonians, are not as good match for the non- Mal’ta like ancestry in Central Americans as are Chinese populations [36]. These strands of evidence suggest a minimum three-part ancestry of the Beringian populations that came to populate the Americas (Figure 1). Two of these strands were fully braided together to form the main ancestral lineage of Native Americans by time of the Beringian bottleneck. However, the third strand, with an affinity to Australasians, was not.
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
In the full text you will find outlined our evidence for a previously unknown contribution of people with relatedness to Australo-Melanesians and Andaman Islanders, that we hypothesize is due to pulses of migration from a substructured Pleistocene population in Beringia.
^ from the above article >
Notably, Andaman Islanders, the population with the single strongest affinity to Amazonians, are not as good match for the non- Mal’ta like ancestry in Central Americans as are Chinese populations [36]. These strands of evidence suggest a minimum three-part ancestry of the Beringian populations that came to populate the Americas (Figure 1). Two of these strands were fully braided together to form the main ancestral lineage of Native Americans by time of the Beringian bottleneck. However, the third strand, with an affinity to Australasians, was not.
This is pure BS. If you notice there is no archaeological support for any of these proposed migrations. Moreover, the Han don't even appear in China until after 1000 BC, so they can not be related to any population that existed in Paleolithic China to make the proposed Beringian crossing.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
It doesn't matter where the Han were prior to 1000 BC.
Genetic evidence makes it clear that the modern Han Chinese have DNA that is one of the main components that the earliest Native Americans had. The modern Chinese are descendants of a common ancestor that is also part of the primary make up of the early Native Americans
Clyde you seem very stuck in your ways. Any new genetic evidence that comes out you instantly reject if it doesn't conform to theories you haven't changed for 30 years,
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
Between 6% and 9% of the Oase individual's genome is from Neanderthals - an unprecedented amount.
By comparison, present-day Europeans have between 2% and 4%.
Oase was probably not responsible for passing on Neanderthal ancestry to present-day Europeans. The analysis shows the man was more closely related to modern East Asians and Native Americans than to today's Europeans. Neanderthals share more alleles with East Asians and Native Americans than with Europeans, rare or absent in West Africans
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: It doesn't matter where the Han were prior to 1000 BC.
Genetic evidence makes it clear that the modern Han Chinese have DNA that is one of the main components that the earliest Native Americans had. The modern Chinese are descendants of a common ancestor that is also part of the primary make up of the early Native Americans
Clyde you seem very stuck in your ways. Any new genetic evidence that comes out you instantly reject if it doesn't conform to theories you haven't changed for 30 years,
quote: The regional distribution of an ancient Y-chromosome haplogroup C-M130 (Hg C) in Asia provides an ideal tool of dissecting prehistoric migration events. We identified 465 Hg C individuals out of 4284 males from 140 East and Southeast Asian populations. We genotyped these Hg C individuals using 12 Y-chromosome biallelic markers and 8 commonly used Y-short tandem repeats (Y-STRs), and performed phylogeographic analysis in combination with the published data. The results show that most of the Hg C subhaplogroups have distinct geographical distribution and have undergone long-time isolation, although Hg C individuals are distributed widely across Eurasia. Furthermore, a general south-to-north and east-to-west cline of Y-STR diversity is observed with the highest diversity in Southeast Asia. The phylogeographic distribution pattern of Hg C supports a single coastal 'Out-of-Africa' route by way of the Indian subcontinent, which eventually led to the early settlement of modern humans in mainland Southeast Asia. The northward expansion of Hg C in East Asia started approximately 40 thousand of years ago (KYA) along the coastline of mainland China and reached Siberia approximately 15 KYA and finally made its way to the Americas.
--Zhong H1, Shi H, Qi XB, Xiao CJ, Jin L, Ma RZ, Su B.
Global distribution of Y-chromosome haplogroup C reveals the prehistoric migration routes of African exodus and early settlement in East Asia.
The Andamans/Onge appear to have pygmy and KhoiSan traits, and obviously travelled great distances over both land and open water (+18 miles to Andamans), they may have gone to Beringia or other areas.
That is not in all Asians. The article says, "occurs at frequencies up to 53% in south China, whereas only one of 177 surveyed Africans carries this archaic lineage".
So that could either make an Asian mutation with a guessed age or origin of 2.4MA or a gene from Neandertals, Denisovans, or others with possible the same or different guessed at origin date.. (somitw)
- - -
Human phylogeography and diversity Alexander H Harcourt 2016 PNAS 113:8072-8 doi 10.1073/pnas.1601068113 <http://www.pnas.org/content/113/29/8072.abstract.html?etoc#>
H.sapiens phylo-geography begins with the species' origin nearly 200 ka in Africa. First signs of the species outside Africa (in Arabia) are from 125 ka. Earliest dates elsewhere are now - 100 ka in China, - 45, maybe 60 ka in Australia, - 45 ka S-Europe, - 32 ka in NE.Siberia, - maybe 20 ka in the Americas, - arctic regions & oceanic islands last: - arctic N.America c 5 ka, - mid- & E-Pacific islands c 21 ka, - New Zealand c 0.7 ka.
Initial routes along coasts seem the most likely, given abundant & easily harvested shellfish there as indicated by huge ancient oyster shell-middens on all continents. Nevertheless, the effect of geographic barriers (mountains & oceans) is clear. The phylo-geographic pattern of diasporas from several single origins (NE.Africa to Eurasia, SE.Eurasia to Australia, NE.Siberia to America) allows the equivalent of a repeat experiment on the relation between geography & phylogenetic & cultural diversity.
On all continents, cultural diversity is high in productive low latitudes, presumably because such regions can support populations of sustainable size in a small area, therefore allowing a high density of cultures. Of course, other factors operate. S.America has an unusu.low density of cultures in its tropical latitudes. A likely factor is the phylo-geographic movement of peoples from the Old World, bringing novel & hence lethal diseases to the New World, a foretaste, perhaps, of present-day global transport of tropical diseases.
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: It doesn't matter where the Han were prior to 1000 BC.
Genetic evidence makes it clear that the modern Han Chinese have DNA that is one of the main components that the earliest Native Americans had. The modern Chinese are descendants of a common ancestor that is also part of the primary make up of the early Native Americans
Clyde you seem very stuck in your ways. Any new genetic evidence that comes out you instantly reject if it doesn't conform to theories you haven't changed for 30 years,
Genomic evidence without archaeological support is conjecture--not reality.
I do not reject genetic evidence if it has an archaeogenetic basis. The fact remains that you can not project a population back in time if that population did not exist.
