• p.9
  ... Stuttgart is partially (44 ± 10%) derived from a
  “Basal Eurasian” lineage that split prior to the separation of eastern non-Africans from the
  common ancestor of WHG and ANE. If this model is accurate, the ANE/WHG split must have
  occurred >24,000 years ago since this is the age 6 of MA1 and this individual is on the ANE
  lineage. The WHG must then have split from eastern non-Africans >40,000 years ago, as this is
  the age of the Chinese Tianyuan sample which clusters with eastern non-Africans to the
  exclusion of Europeans 28. The Basal Eurasian split would then have to be even older. A Basal
  Eurasian lineage in the Near East is plausible given the presence of anatomically modern humans
  in the Levant 29 ~100 thousand years ago and African-related tools likely made by modern
  humans in Arabia 30,31. Alternatively, evidence for gene flow between the Near East and Africa 32,
  and African morphology in pre-farming Natufians 33 from Israel, may also be consistent with the
  population representing a later movement of humans out of Africa and into the Near East.

• p.140 (SI p.99)
  A single such admixture event into Stuttgart (as in Fig. S14.2e) would fully explain #3, i.e., that all
  eastern non-Africans are more closely related to hunter-gatherers than to Stuttgart. Such an idea is
  also archaeologically plausible on account of the Near Eastern related admixture that we have
  detected in Stuttgart. The Near East was the staging point for the peopling of Eurasia by anatomically
  modern humans. As a result, it is entirely plausible that it harbored deep Eurasian ancestry which did
  not participate in the initial peopling of Eurasia, but was much later brought into Europe by Near
  Eastern farmers. More speculatively, some basal Eurasian admixture in the Near East may reflect the
  early presence of anatomically modern humans 9 in the Levant, or the populations responsible for the
  appearance of the Nubian Complex in Arabia 10, both of which date much earlier than the widespread
  dissemination of modern humans across Eurasia. Finally, it could reflect continuing more recent gene
  flows between the Near East and nearby Africa after the initial out-of-Africa dispersal, perhaps
  associated with the spread of Y-chromosome haplogroup E subclades from eastern Africa 11,12 into the
  Near East, which appeared at least 7,000 years ago in Neolithic Europe 13, or the detection of African
  skeletal morphology in Epipaleolithic Natufians from Israel 14.

• p.143 (SI p.102)
  We conclude that
  (i) gene flow into the Karitiana originated from a basal West Eurasian population and
  (ii) Neolithic farmers such as Stuttgart had admixture from a Basal Eurasian population is consistent with the evidence.
  ... We should caution that this population is termed “Basal Eurasian” on account of its
  phylogenetic position in the model (basal to all Eurasian groups and contributing only to Stuttgart),
  but its geographical distribution in the past is unknown. Fitted parameters, however, indicate that
  Basal Eurasians share with other Eurasians most of the (Mbuti->non_African) genetic drift associated
  with “Out-of-Africa” populations.

Note that Basal Eurasian and a few other names
are "ghost" i.e., statistic derived, hypothetical,
i.e., model populations.
 

---

Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 
.

ten years ago:

Phylogeny of Mitochondrial DNA Macrohaplogroup N in India, Based on Complete Sequencing: Implications for the Peopling of South Asia
Malliya gounder Palanichamy*, Chang Sun*, Suraksha Agrawal, Hans-Jürgen Bandelt, Qing-Peng Kong, Faisal Khan, Cheng-Ye Wang, Tapas Kumar Chaudhuri, Venkatramana Palla, Ya-Ping Zhang
*These authors contributed equally to this article.

2004



Subcontinental ancestry of the most basal Eurasian/Oceanian branches of the mtDNA phylogeny. South Asian and western Eurasian haplogroups are defined as described in the present study; for East Asian haplogroups, see Kong et al. (2003); for haplogroup P, see Forster et al. (2001); O and S are newly defined here on the basis of the data from Ingman and Gyllensten (2003). Potential coalescences based only on a single highly variable site are disregarded.

_______________________________________

Molecular phylogeography of Palearctic and Nearctic ciscoes
DV Politov, JW Bickham, JC Patton - Annales Zoologici Fennici,

2004 -


http://www.google.com/url?q=http://www.sekj.org/PDF/anzf41/anzf4

The A-group and its central haplotype AU12239 dominate all American populations by
frequency. The basal haplotype of this lineage (AU12239) is separated from the basal
Eurasian haplotype (AU1) by a distance of 6 pairwise difference


___________________________________


Human Mitochondrial DNA and the Evolution of Homo sapiens
By Hans-Jürgen Bandelt, Martin Richards, Vincent Macaulay

2005


 

---

Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
 
Nice find. I need to read myself but based upon what you posted, the key points are:

Quote:
1. Alternatively, evidence for gene flow between the Near East and Africa 32,
and African morphology in pre-farming Natufians 33 from Israel, may also be consistent with the
population representing a LATER movement of humans out of Africa and into the Near East.****(later movement = Saharans)****

Seem like I am not the only one that have a problem with the label BASAL EURASIAN.

Quote
2. We should caution that this population is termed “Basal Eurasian” on account of its
phylogenetic position in the model

Quote
3. Finally, it could reflect continuing more recent gene flows between the Near East and nearby Africa after the initial out-of-Africa dispersal, perhaps associated with the spread of Y-chromosome haplogroup E subclades from eastern Africa(This what DNATribe speculated)


In the first version. Basal Eurasian is closer to Yoruba.

Quote
4. Basal Eurasians share with other Eurasians most of the (Mbuti->non_African).
 

---

Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
 
So Basal Eurasian could be y-DNA hg-E as evidenced by Natufians

They already speculated that Yoruba has closer connection to Basal Eurasian throug the Bedoiun Proxy. (not)MButi...and San who is an older population.
 

---

Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
 
Many readers do NOT realize some of these models are hypothetical and based upon statistical models.

TreeMix and other software can determine "direction" but it is rarely used.

At first glance it does NOT look like there is any new revelations.

Spin- Why call it "basal Eurasian" if it is East Afrian Farmers genetic material.

==
Quote:
Note that Basal Eurasian and a few other names
are "ghost" i.e., statistic derived, hypothetical,
i.e., model populations.
 

---

Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by xyyman:


Seem like I am not the only one that have a problem with the label BASAL EURASIAN.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:

quote:

---

Originally posted by xyyman:


Seem like I am not the only one that have a problem with the label BASAL EURASIAN.

---

stop fronting, you've been promoting Basal Eurasian for weeks

and it was the DNA Tribes version at that

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by xyyman:
[QB] They are trying to JUSTIFY the label "Basal Eurasian". Don't you get that?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:

quote:

---

Originally posted by xyyman:
[QB] They are trying to JUSTIFY the label "Basal Eurasian". Don't you get that?

---

do I have to go into the other threads to quote your infatuation with the Basal Eurasian concept ?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by xyyman:
Here is a thought! - if essentially ALL AFRICANs carry the genetic material then it is NOT Eurasian. LOL!

To those who are missing the salient point. Lazaridis just agreed with DNATribes.

---

Orrrrrrr, all Africans are Eurasian.


It's amazing how everybody in Africa has Eurasian mixture.
 

---

Posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate (Member # 20039) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Trollkillah # Ish Gebor:

It's amazing how everybody in Africa has Eurasian mixture.

---

It's not amazing at all, it's pretty common, especially in recent time (with ease of transportation, population expansion due to agriculture, foreign conquests and colonisation) for neighboring regions to exhibit traces of bi-directional gene-flows between the different regions. The contrary would be surprising.
 

---

Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
 
You like the simple things in life? Don't you? I can tell. A meat and potatoes kind of guy.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Trollkillah # Ish Gebor:

It's amazing how everybody in Africa has Eurasian mixture.

---

It's not amazing at all, it's pretty common, especially in recent time (with ease of transportation, population expansion due to agriculture, foreign conquests and colonisation) for neighboring regions to exhibit traces of bi-directional gene-flows between the different regions. The contrary would be surprising.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Trollkillah # Ish Gebor:

quote:

---

Originally posted by xyyman:
Here is a thought! - if essentially ALL AFRICANs carry the genetic material then it is NOT Eurasian. LOL!

To those who are missing the salient point. Lazaridis just agreed with DNATribes.

---

Orrrrrrr, all Africans are Eurasian.


It's amazing how everybody in Africa has Eurasian mixture.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by xyyman:
You like the simple things in life? Don't you? I can tell. A meat and potatoes kind of guy.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Trollkillah # Ish Gebor:

It's amazing how everybody in Africa has Eurasian mixture.

---

It's not amazing at all, it's pretty common, especially in recent time (with ease of transportation, population expansion due to agriculture, foreign conquests and colonisation) for neighboring regions to exhibit traces of bi-directional gene-flows between the different regions. The contrary would be surprising.

---

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Trollkillah # Ish Gebor:

It's amazing how everybody in Africa has Eurasian mixture.

---

It's not amazing at all, it's pretty common, especially in recent time (with ease of transportation, population expansion due to agriculture, foreign conquests and colonisation) for neighboring regions to exhibit traces of bi-directional gene-flows between the different regions. The contrary would be surprising.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Trollkillah # Ish Gebor:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Trollkillah # Ish Gebor:

It's amazing how everybody in Africa has Eurasian mixture.

---

It's not amazing at all, it's pretty common, especially in recent time (with ease of transportation, population expansion due to agriculture, foreign conquests and colonisation) for neighboring regions to exhibit traces of bi-directional gene-flows between the different regions. The contrary would be surprising.

---

I was being sarcastic, because in all actuality it's BS.

And Africans are limited to Hg E and Hg L, right?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Trollkillah # Ish Gebor:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Trollkillah # Ish Gebor:

It's amazing how everybody in Africa has Eurasian mixture.

---

It's not amazing at all, it's pretty common, especially in recent time (with ease of transportation, population expansion due to agriculture, foreign conquests and colonisation) for neighboring regions to exhibit traces of bi-directional gene-flows between the different regions. The contrary would be surprising.

---

I was being sarcastic, because in all actuality it's BS.

And Africans are limited to Hg E and Hg L, right?

---

If you were being sarcastic then are you are being ignorant and stupid. Denying what is evident for everybody else is ridiculous.

African haplogroups are A, B and E for Y-DNA and L for MtDNA. It doesn't mean African populations are not admixed at various degree with other non-African populations (and haplogroups) like any population in the world. Haplogroups are just a mean to trace and follow those migrations path through time.

---

Really?

So explain how it's possible the African component remained Hg L solely? And never went beyond the mutation of L?

And so it's for Hg E. And why for example isn't Y-DNA Hg R African?
 

---

Posted by Trollkillah # Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by xyyman:
Africans even carry the "East Asian" components at K3. Ha! Ha! Ha!

Read more: http://egyptsearchreloaded.proboards.com/thread/1676/lazaridis-ver2-basal-eurasian-explained?page=1#scrollTo=10024#ixzz34r3q0YJj

---

Yeah, everybody migrated back to Africa. All studies fail to explain how these hunter gathering populations "navigated back"


Remember, these populations were a set of parcels. With only a few hundred to a few thousand members.


Volume 285, 8 February 2013, Pages 44–56

Genetic evidence for the colonization of Australia



http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1040618211002278
 

---

Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 
Trollkillah's right. If hunter gatherers left Africa and later wanted to return home it would be impossbile to find their way back to Africa.
They would need compasses or some type of navigational gear
 

---

Posted by Trollkillah # Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:
Trollkillah's right. If hunter gatherers left Africa and later wanted to return home it would be impossbile to find their way back to Africa.
They would need compasses or some type of navigational gear

---

And this is just one group, the actual claims are that multiple groups have "returned to Africa". And these "returnees" spread all over Africa, quickly too, yet it took native Africans tens and thousands of years in the multi-regional concept, to move from one place to another within Africa itself.


I urge people to do a dropping test, in the middle of Africa, without modern day tools, and navigate from one place to another. Let's say from central Africa to the South, the North, East or West. No modern tools etc... allowed. Strictly hunter gatherers tools and way.

In fact I urge these "scientists" who claim all these "back migrations" to do this dropping test as described above, in the previous column. To see if their BtA concept is approved.


Thus far, I have always see them travel with local people, who give them guidance. Yet, they have the never to write this shyt behind their desks.
 

---

Posted by Child Of The KING (Member # 9422) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Trollkillah # Ish Gebor:

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:
Trollkillah's right. If hunter gatherers left Africa and later wanted to return home it would be impossbile to find their way back to Africa.
They would need compasses or some type of navigational gear

---

And this is just one group, the actual claims are that multiple groups have "returned to Africa". And these "returnees" spread all over Africa, quickly too, yet it took native Africans tens and thousands of years in the multi-regional concept, to move from one place to another within Africa itself.


I urge people to do a dropping test, in the middle of Africa, without modern day tools, and navigate from one place to another. Let's say from central Africa to the South, the North, East or West. No modern tools etc... allowed. Strictly hunter gatherers tools and way.

In fact I urge these "scientists" who claim all these "back migrations" to do this dropping test as described above, in the previous column. To see if their BtA concept is approved.


Thus far, I have always see them travel with local people, who give them guidance. Yet, they have the never to write this shyt behind their desks.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by xyyman:
FYI- LOL! .This recent study now proposes that Sub-Saharans/Yorubans now have Neanderthal Admixture. BTW other researchers conclude it is NOT Neanderthal admixture but internal African sub-structure.

So. Sorry. No buses, trains and railcars giving Europeans men access into inner Africa to copulate with the women. He! He!
-------
6. Prufer, K. et al. The complete genome sequence of a Neanderthal from the Altai Mountains. Nature 505, 43-49, (2014).

quote:

---

Originally posted by xyyman:
You like the simple things in life? Don't you? I can tell. A meat and potatoes kind of guy.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Trollkillah # Ish Gebor:

It's amazing how everybody in Africa has Eurasian mixture.

---

It's not amazing at all, it's pretty common, especially in recent time (with ease of transportation, population expansion due to agriculture, foreign conquests and colonisation) for neighboring regions to exhibit traces of bi-directional gene-flows between the different regions. The contrary would be surprising.

---

---

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by xyyman:
What is really fascinating is that the Sandawe and Hadza carry more "non-African" genetic material than AFRAMS!!!! Which proves even further that ALL these genetic material is African origin.

DNATribes got the African origin correct but the population may not be the Nilo-Saharans. The Hadza and Sandawe and far south.

---

 

---

Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:
Trollkillah's right. If hunter gatherers left Africa and later wanted to return home it would be impossbile to find their way back to Africa.
They would need compasses or some type of navigational gear

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Trollkillah # Ish Gebor:

quote:

---

Originally posted by xyyman:
What is really fascinating is that the Sandawe and Hadza carry more "non-African" genetic material than AFRAMS!!!! Which proves even further that ALL these genetic material is African origin.

DNATribes got the African origin correct but the population may not be the Nilo-Saharans. The Hadza and Sandawe and far south.

---

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Trollkillah # Ish Gebor:

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:
Trollkillah's right. If hunter gatherers left Africa and later wanted to return home it would be impossbile to find their way back to Africa.
They would need compasses or some type of navigational gear

---

And this is just one group, the actual claims are that multiple groups have "returned to Africa". And these "returnees" spread all over Africa, quickly too, yet it took native Africans tens and thousands of years in the multi-regional concept, to move from one place to another within Africa itself.


I urge people to do a dropping test, in the middle of Africa, without modern day tools, and navigate from one place to another. Let's say from central Africa to the South, the North, East or West. No modern tools etc... allowed. Strictly hunter gatherers tools and way.

In fact I urge these "scientists" who claim all these "back migrations" to do this dropping test as described above, in the previous column. To see if their BtA concept is approved.


Thus far, I have always see them travel with local people, who give them guidance. Yet, they have the never to write this shyt behind their desks.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by xyyman:


Anyone has anything on the Taa and Ju Huang groups of Africa???? They seem to be the few African groups WITHOUT "Basal Eurasian" AND "East Asian" genetic material. Who are they people?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:
Trollkillah's right. If hunter gatherers left Africa and later wanted to return home it would be impossbile to find their way back to Africa.
They would need compasses or some type of navigational gear

---

LOL. Its not that they would need navigation tools so much as a reason to return to Africa., i.e., did the weather/climate change? Was there am invasion?

No matter the cause of the back migration, it would be supported by archaeological evidence for changes in the material culture of a hunter gather population. This change would involve bringing some of the new tools and minerals used to make the tools, arrows etc., of European manufacture back to Africa with them.

We just have archaeological evidence of tools being taken out of Africa into Europe, not the other way around. We see people exiting Africa to find new places to settle in Europe, and can make the inference that genes that appear in Europe today, may have expanded across Africa before the various OoA exits.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Trollkillah # Ish Gebor:

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:
Trollkillah's right. If hunter gatherers left Africa and later wanted to return home it would be impossbile to find their way back to Africa.
They would need compasses or some type of navigational gear

---

And this is just one group, the actual claims are that multiple groups have "returned to Africa". And these "returnees" spread all over Africa, quickly too, yet it took native Africans tens and thousands of years in the multi-regional concept, to move from one place to another within Africa itself.


I urge people to do a dropping test, in the middle of Africa, without modern day tools, and navigate from one place to another. Let's say from central Africa to the South, the North, East or West. No modern tools etc... allowed. Strictly hunter gatherers tools and way.

In fact I urge these "scientists" who claim all these "back migrations" to do this dropping test as described above, in the previous column. To see if their BtA concept is approved.


Thus far, I have always see them travel with local people, who give them guidance. Yet, they have the never to write this shyt behind their desks.

---

If you simply follow the Mediterranean coastline it takes you out of Africa and then following it back takes you back into Africa

---

Yes, that's the simplistic way of reasoning.

But, to some degree true. Thus making coastal North Africans carry more admixture. As we have always stated of the site.


However, archeological and anthropological evidence shows outgoing not incoming industries. Which brings us back to the multiple back migrations claim. During a time, when these Hg had small populations sets.
 

---

Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
 
Use the Cluster chart above. It is clear the Taa, Ju Huoan and Naro has no "basal Eurasian". ALL other African groups carry "basal Eurasian" including Yorubas. Obviously the basal Eurasian "split" occured amounts the Khoisan click speakers. Their mtDNA lineage is L0*. It seems like the Sandawe related groups is ancestral to ALL AMH groups that carry "basal Eurasian" including indigenous Africans.

Here are the pictures...

Read more: http://egyptsearchreloaded.proboards.com/thread/1676/lazaridis-ver2-basal-eurasian-explained#ixzz352lGFEKZ



 

---

Posted by beyoku (Member # 14524) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by xyyman:
........ Khoisan click speakers. Their mtDNA lineage is L0*. It seems like the

---

Source?
 

---

Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
 
Thanks to TP for giving me the clue for solving this puzzle.



any challengers


And now the pictures for those who learn through them.


For those who don't know. Some populations of the Great Lakes carry the genotype for blue eyes.

Sergi solved this a long time ago.

Notice that Ju Huoan are further south to other Khoisan.

Read more: http://egyptsearchreloaded.proboards.com/thread/1676/lazaridis-ver2-basal-eurasian-explained#page=2#ixzz352rVhFtD
 

---

Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by beyoku:

quote:

---

Originally posted by xyyman:
........ Khoisan click speakers. Their mtDNA lineage is L0*. It seems like the

---

Source?

---

I have to thank TP for giving me the clue to crack the code. That Table she/he put up broke it wide open for me. I saw that table before. I remembered Dr. Winters and I discussed it when looking at mtDNA hg-M in Nigerians. That Sarah Tishkoff chart sealed the deal. Case closed. I always speculated the source for “non-African/Basal Eurasian” was NOT that far North on the Nile as DNATribes put it. Now it is clear to see that the source may be “a “ Khoisan near the Great Lakes.of Africa. Both the AIM and the haplogroup lineage confirms that.. They both align and corroborate each other.
In case you did not get it Beyoku. Look at the chart TP posted with the Khoisan group. “My” Chart shows the division/grouping of the Khoisan groups. Only ONE group of Khoisan carry the “non-African/Basal Eurasian” AIM. Get it! got it!


 

---

Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
 
Don’t get it. Lazaridis and his crew know fully well the “non-African-basal Eurasian” is the incorrect label since the AIM has an African(Great Lakes) origin. That is why he is trying to BS his way into justify the use of the label in version 2. He knew the label is wrong. If I can figure it out, they know it also.

DNATrbies flow chart is correct. “Nom-African” = “Basal Eurasian” OOA. All occurred WITHIN Africa. The location is NOT the Horn but further inland. At least that population now lives at the Great Lakes in Africa. This also aligns with the Amarna’s /Rameses III and DNA Tribis related regions of Great Lakes, South Africans(San) and West Africans. It also aligns with Sergi’s Great Lakes orgin for the EurAfrican and the Neolithics.

My guess, if I am a betting man, is, the Amarnas tested AIM profile, if published, will be very similar to Nama group and Rameses will be closer to the Sandwe/Hadza. See K2/K3 in Lazaridis et al
This only means there were SIGNIFICANT population shifts over the last 5000years WITHIN AAfrica….also.
 

---

Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 
it's called the Bantu migration
 

---

Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
 
^Ssssshh!

Continuing. To those who are still puzzled. The Sandawe and Hazda (hunter gathers?) and other Great Lakes region groups have more “non-African/basal Eurasian” AIM than AFRAMS at K2/K3. per Lazaridis et al. Significance?
 

---

Posted by beyoku (Member # 14524) on :
 
I don't see anything on L0*
 

---

Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
 
Here is more…it is all coming together now. Loving it!!!
---------
From the Sarah Tishkoff and Brenna Henn Paper:

Quote:
The presence of Khoisan linguistic groups in Tanzania was earlier considered to support A ***PALEOBIOLOGICAL-BASED MODEL***, indicating that Khoisan populations inhabited all southern Africa and much of eastern Africa (as far north as Egypt; Tobias 1964; Bra¨uer 1978).

Click languages, spoken only in Africa with the exception of the extinct Damin ritual language of Australia (Hale 1992), are among the richest of all human languages in terms of the number of distinct phonemes (Gu¨ldemann and Vossen 2000). Greenberg included all languageswithclickconsonants in theKhoisan(or ‘‘Khoe-San’’) language family. Although they share the element of click consonants, African click languages are highly divergent
 

---

Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
 
L0*=sub-haplogroup. L0d, L0k etc. see sub group branching in table posted. L0* not the "unassigned" Hg.
 

---

Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
 
Here is more
------
Quote:
Y-chromosome studies (Knight et al. 2003) in the Hadza and Ju|’hoansi San indicated a deep separation between the 2 groups (.40 kya; Knight et al. 2003).

The Hadza language is now considered by some linguists to be a linguistic isolate, genealogically unrelated to other click languages (Ruhlen 1991; Sands 1998), although others have suggested that Hadza may have similarities with Afro-Asiatic languages (Elderkin 1982). Overall, proposed linguistic relationships among the click languages (fig. 1) predict deep genetic divergence between these 3 groups (Cavalli-Sforza et al. 1988).

----

The AIM published by Lazaridis et al also confirms this. “Non-African- and Basal Eurasian” are NOT found in the Ju Hoansi!!

Damn!! I am good! Is that too egotical Sage? Am I over the top? Huh? Get the picture?
 

---

Posted by beyoku (Member # 14524) on :
 
Maybe then you mean L0..the * implies exactly what you say it doesn't.
 

---

Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
 
SMH. in this context. * implies sub-groups of L0 as seen in the branching tree. It does not imply "unassigned" L0. In other words *=wildcard.

Holding the stick on the wrong end ...brother!


Anyways--


===

(Wood ET2003), Contrasting patterns of Y chromosome and mtDNA variation in Africa: evidence for sex-biased demographic processes

Quote:
In the context of comparable published data for other African populations, analyses of each of these independently inherited DNA segments indicate that click-speaking Hadzabe and Ju|’hoansi are separated by genetic distance as great OR GREATER than that between ANY OTHER PAIR of African populations. Phyloge-netic tree topology indicates a basal separation of the speak ancient ancestors of these click-speaking peoples. That genetic divergence does not appear to be the result of recent gene flow from neighboring groups
(got that Lioness. No Bantu Expansion!!)

======
 

---

Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 
xyyman has no overriding theory,
it's just one long rambling rant that he makes up as he goes along
 

---