As we well know on this site, modern East and West Africans populations are united between each others through the E-P2(PN2) Y-DNA haplogroup, and various MtDNA counterpart haplogroups (L3eikx, L2a, etc), from a time period after the main OOA migrations. So at a relatively recent time in relation to human history.
What Dienekes did with the dodecad results (LINK) is a bit what Tishkoff did in her genetic history of African and African-American study discussed in the thread linked posted above. Which is what all the studies based on the admixture software (with the colored bar) should do. That is also include the genetic distance between the various putative population components (aka the various Ks, aka the various colored bars).
Here's the version from the Tiskoff study: http://i48.tinypic.com/8ydx.jpg (also available in the threads linked above and in the Tiskoff Supplementary Online Material DOWNLOAD )
I won't repost it in here since I've already discussed it in the threads linked above. Basically, it used autosomal STR genetic distance between population components (at K=14) found using the admixture software. We can see that generally African populations are closer to each others than they are to non-African populations. Same for non-African populations within each non-African sub-groups respectively. Notably the Cushitic and Niger-Kordofanian populations are relatively close to each others. This graph also has the advantage of using the Euclidean genetic distance which I prefer to the Fst which measure population differentiation (although Fst is often used in such study). The Tiskoff study also use a much larger number of populations.
Since in the Tishkoff study since Cushitic and Niger-Kordofanian speakers are relative close to each others while showing no sign of recent admixtures, we can deduce this genetic closeness if from their common origin. A common origin postdating the OOA migrations (as the Cushitic/Niger-Kordofanian speakers are closer to each others than they are to any non-African populations).
I post this globe13 results from the Dienekes analysis because it's informative. It also used SNPs while Tiskoff was using autosomal STRs. So it give us another point of view. Adding to the point of view already provided by uniparental analysis.
The results are basically similar: East and West African populations, and African populations in general, are very close to each others. Especially if you remove the more recent Eurasian component from recent post-OOA back migrations by Semitic (ethio-semitic) and Muslim Arabs speakers (See Pagani (2014)) .
A neighbor-joining tree of the 13 components based on the Fst divergences:
It's similar to the Tiskoff genetic distance tree above but this time using SNP data and the FST divergence formula instead of the D-square Euclidean genetic distance formula.
Clearly we can see East and West African clustering close to each others.
Here's the TreeMix plot for those interested: Palaeo_African are basically modern San people. I don't know why they are called Palaeo since they are not more Palaeo than any other modern populations as they went through about the same number of generations and mutations than other populations since the time of their common origin with them. Again, we can again East and West Africans clustering close to each others.
From this blogger analysis we also got the spreadsheet with the FST "distances" between populations as well as the percentage of the K-Populations component(like East African, West African, Artic) for each populations sampled (like Somali, Yoruba, etc).
We can see for example at the last line at the bottom that the West African population cluster (at K=13) is the closest to the the East African population cluster with a value of 0.046. Something we already know since I just posted the neighbor-joining tree above.
What is good for us is we can see what populations were used (where the data were taken). We can see Yoruba populations as well as East Africans from the Pagani study were used for example. So a good diversity of East African populations (Oromo, Somali, Amhara, Afar, Ari, etc).
For example, using the spreadsheets above, generated by the blogger running the software, Ethiopian Jews got 51.4% of the East African component. It also has a large recent Southwest Asian component at 39.2%. A very low 0.2% recent West African component. This show that while the East and West African component are very close to each others (from the Fst Distance), Ethiopians Jews have basically no recent admixture with West Africans after their moment of separation from them. That is the separation of the E-P2 lineage into the P2/e1b1a andd P2/e1b2b lineages.
A bit similar for Somali. The Somali population sample from the Pagani study (position 271 on the spreadsheet) has 62.3% of the East African component at K=13. They got 33.2% of recent SouthWest Asian component and 0.8% of recent West African component.
This show that while the East and West African component are very close to each others (from the Fst Distance), Somali have basically no recent admixture with West Africans after their moment of separation from them. That is the separation of the E-P2 lineage into the P2/e1b1a andd P2/e1b2b lineages.
Of course you must always view those as estimate. They are often based on small samples sizes but it gives us a good general idea of the situation. We can see again the genetic closeness of the East African and West African SNP population clusters. This genetic closeness is not the product of recent admixtures between those 2 populations but from their common ancestral origin in Northeast Africa. The E-P2 population. So basically both East and West African populations have their common origin in Northeast Africa at a time period after the OOA migrations but before the foundation of the Ancient Egyptian state.
As mentionned above, this is also in line with the Y-DNA haplogroup analysis of modern East and West Africans populations:
quote: Using the principle of the phylogeographic parsimony, the resolution of the E1b1b trifurcation in favor of a common ancestor of E-M2 and E-M329 strongly supports the hypothesis that haplogroup E1b1 originated in eastern Africa, as previously suggested [10], and that chromosomes E-M2, so frequently observed in sub-Saharan Africa, trace their descent to a common ancestor present in eastern Africa .
-- from A New Topology of the Human Y Chromosome Haplogroup E1b1 (E-P2) Revealed through the Use of Newly Characterized Binary Polymorphisms (Trombetta 2011)
For example, Yoruba are over 90% from the P2 haplogroups (P2/e1b1a(E-M2)). For Somali it's over 80% (P2/e1b1b) of their population. Using frequency value from the Hirbo study (starting at Appendix 6a ii, p195) (download here).
Basically, this tell us, modern West and East Africans have their common paternal origin in Northeastern Africa. This common origin postdate the main OOA migrations of non-Africans (since E-P2 appeared after that time) and is thus relatively recent in term of human history.
Posted by beyoku (Member # 14524) on :
What about this plot.
Posted by Gor (Member # 21978) on :
There are virtually no genetic clusters. They most commonly appear by error if you polarize genetic data by excluding 'intermediate' populations (note the plot and tree diagrams above exclude many):
"[T]he inclusion of such [intermediate] samples demonstrates geographic continuity in the distribution of genetic variation and thus undermines traditional concepts of race." - Bamshad, Michael J., Wooding, Stephen, Salisbury, Benjamin A., & Stephens, J. Claiborne. 2004. "Deconstructing the relationship between genetics and race". Nature Reviews Genetics, 5,. 598–609
"The suspicion that we will find continuity should be piqued by the observation, acknowledged even by died-in-the-wool populationists like Risch and Wade, that there are, at least, “intermediate groups” found at the geographic and genetic boundary between two races, such as Ethiopians and Somalis between those to their north and south or South Asians between East Asians and Europeans, where the lines between the populations are blurred. Suspicion is also warranted by the fact that as geographically intermediate regions are added to the data, the genetic markers used to identify continental clusters become less powerful." - Glasgow, Joshua. (2009). A Theory of Race. Routledge. p. 104
"[C]lines might seem to contrast with work that has described human genetic variation as ‘clustered’" and:">75% of the total variance of pairwise FST can be captured by geographic distance alone. Adding information on genetic clusters to this model captures only an extra 2% of the variance." - Handley, Lori J. Lawson, Manica, Andrea, Goudet, Jérôme, & Balloux, François. 2007. Going the distance: Human population genetics in a clinal world. Trends in Genetics, 23, 432–439
What population is 'genetically closer' is relative to who is being compared, but there are no population clusters. There are barely any discontinuities in the genetic continuum. The only possible exception is if you found a steeper slope in a clinal trait such as skin colour (e.g. Sahara desert).
The "genetic cluster" stuff is the worst form of racial pseudo-science spouted across blogs and forums. Oddly most people criticize the old ids and oids via cranial measurements, but then embrace this genetic form of typology - which is exactly the same.
Posted by Gor (Member # 21978) on :
quote:Originally posted by Gor: Oddly most people criticize the old ids and oids via cranial measurements, but then embrace this genetic form of typology - which is exactly the same. [/QB]
"Moreover, as Armelagos and colleagues pointed out many studies in [...] genetics continued to employ typological methods to typological ends [...] Their conclusion in 1982 was that using genetic traits, many studies of populations are just as typological (Armelagos et al. 1982)" (Caspari, 2010)
Posted by Gor (Member # 21978) on :
Continued:
"Because we do not (yet) have vast data banks of genetic data collected in every corner of the world (at least not at the disposition of scientific researchers), claims about genetic clusters of human beings—that is, about the structure found within a species of more than 7 billion people— are often based on samples that are relatively very small. Pritchard et al. (2000) tested their Structure algorithm with a sample of 72 Africans and 90 Europeans; Rosenberg et al. (2002) published an article in Science entitled “Genetic Structure of Human Populations” based on a sample of 1,056 individuals; and Paschou et al. (2007) sought to demonstrate the utility of their PCA method with a sample of 274 people. Moreover, large “sampling gaps” in the data available clearly skew the picture of human genetic diversity (Serre and Pääbo 2004:1682; see also Wilson et al. 2001:268 on the need for “geographically exhaustive” data). When Serre and Pääbo (2004) analyzed the widely used HGDP-CEPH Human Genome Diversity Cell Line Panel,2 they found not only a dearth of individuals from North Africa, for example, but a complete absence of indigenous people from North America."
"Given the relatively small numbers and limited locations of human beings who have been genotyped, the distribution of individuals sampled is important for any assessment of population structure. Serre and Pääbo (2004) argued that sampling often concentrates on “the extremes of continental land masses” (p. 1680), maximizing the geographic and therefore genetic distance between individuals presumed to belong to distinct continental clusters. Without “a sampling strategy that maximizes the geographic distribution of samples and keeps similar sample size for each geographical area,” they warned, researchers risked falsely creating “apparent substructures” (Serre and Pääbo 2004:1681). In contrast, when these researchers designed a study that sampled individuals “such that their geographic distribution around the world approximates the distribution of the human population as a whole and includes areas where Africa, Asia, and Europe meet,” the pattern of genetic variation they found was “one of gradients of allele frequencies that extend over the entire world, rather than discrete clusters” (Serre and Pääbo 2004:1679-1680)." http://www.asanet.org/journals/ST/Sept14STFeature.pdf American Sociological Association 2014
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Gor: There are virtually no genetic clusters. They most commonly appear by error if you polarize genetic data by excluding 'intermediate' populations (note the plot and tree diagrams above exclude many):
"[T]he inclusion of such [intermediate] samples demonstrates geographic continuity in the distribution of genetic variation and thus undermines traditional concepts of race." - Bamshad, Michael J., Wooding, Stephen, Salisbury, Benjamin A., & Stephens, J. Claiborne. 2004. "Deconstructing the relationship between genetics and race". Nature Reviews Genetics, 5,. 598–609
However, somebody who makes this continuity argument would subscribe to the OOA theory
but you on the other hand are a multiregionalist Therefore clustering under such a scenario would be even more pronounced, there would be no ancestral connections between the regions, no overlap between these populations, no continuity
Posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova (Member # 15718) on :
So AmunRa, Dinekes own diagram below shows the Africans clustering?
Posted by beyoku (Member # 14524) on :
^ dienekes is not peer reviewed. He used his clusters to show resolution in Eurasians. This is the issue Amun ra is running from:
Look how long the sub Saharan cline is. Its obvious some Africans are closer to the Bedouin than they are the to the Khoisan.
In fact.........The Cline between Click speakers ALONE: Ju Hoan North to Hadza/Sandawe is longer than the cline of ALL the Eurasians combined....! From Sardinians...through all the ancient samples...to Indians, Europeans, Melanesians, East Asians and on to Amerindians.
Yet he still think all Africans are close to each other,. Posted by Gor (Member # 21978) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:Originally posted by Gor: There are virtually no genetic clusters. They most commonly appear by error if you polarize genetic data by excluding 'intermediate' populations (note the plot and tree diagrams above exclude many):
"[T]he inclusion of such [intermediate] samples demonstrates geographic continuity in the distribution of genetic variation and thus undermines traditional concepts of race." - Bamshad, Michael J., Wooding, Stephen, Salisbury, Benjamin A., & Stephens, J. Claiborne. 2004. "Deconstructing the relationship between genetics and race". Nature Reviews Genetics, 5,. 598–609
However, somebody who makes this continuity argument would subscribe to the OOA theory
but you on the other hand are a multiregionalist Therefore clustering under such a scenario would be even more pronounced, there would be no ancestral connections between the regions, no overlap between these populations, no continuity
No connections, or continuity between regions? You appear to misunderstand Multiregional evolution, which is based on inter-regional gene flow via a global isolation by distance model (IBD) within a single polytypic species:
"It would therefore appear that an isolation-by-distance model is one possible resolution of the different sources of data addressing human origins. It should be noted that such a model is not merely consistent with multiregional evolution, it is multiregional evolution (Wolpoff et al., 1984; Relethford, 1998; Templeton, 1998, emphasis in original)." ( Hawks & Wolpoff, 2001)
According to IBD, genetic similarity between populations decreases as the geographic distance between them increases. However the measure of 'similarity' is relative to population size, i.e. if you have a much larger population, more genes are going to spread out from there. The population in Africa was far larger throughout the Pleistocene than any other continent, so Multiregionalism only discusses those very few traits that show a spatial or geographical frequency distribution by drift, or selection:
quote:My findings may seem contradictory to the prediction of regional continuity under a multiregional model, which is that the greatest similarity over time will be within regions. However, this prediction would be contradictory only if we expect all traits to show a pattern of regional continuity. However, proponents of the multiregional model do not suggest that all traits will show continuity. In reality, regional continuity is expected only for some traits as the result of genetic drift and selection acting to maintain high frequencies of a trait within a region.
And this is why Multiregionalism chooses to only focus on the world perhiperies or what it calls "edges" e.g. Europe, North-East Asia and Indonesia or Australia. Here populations were the smallest throughout the Pleistocene, and regional continuity is easier to detect in the fossil record. Most palaeo-anthropologists however now agree there is far less regional continuity than was first proposed by Wolpoff, Wu and Thorne. Instead of 10+ skeletal traits, it is now looking only 2-4 per each region. This is why Stringer recently wrote Multiregionalism has "shifted close to that of the Assimilation Model".
Posted by Gor (Member # 21978) on :
Last I looked Dienekes was supporting "Out of Arabia" (or West Asia) opposed to "Out of Africa". He claims, or at least this the impression i got - the original AMH were proto-Caucasoid (there's a quote in Howells, 1997 where he calls the Skhul and Qafzeh skulls proto-Caucasoid and that seems to be his source).
Posted by Gor (Member # 21978) on :
I have to say the Howells quote is rather strange. I don't see anything "Caucasoid" about the Skhul/Qafzeh crania, and even Coon (1962) considered most, or even all of them to be "Australoid". However there was a lot of crazy stuff like Australoids being labelled "Archaic Whites" once (e.g. Sonia Cole's 'Races of Man'), so this is probably what is meant by the prefix "proto", and what Howells was using.
quote:There are also survivors of an ancient ‘archaic White’ or PalaeoAsiatic stock which was probably widespread before the Caucasoids and the Mongoloids became differentiated. Survivors of this stock are grouped in the Australoid division of mankind, which includes the Australian aborigines.
- Cole, 1963
Posted by Fourty2Tribes (Member # 21799) on :
quote:Originally posted by Gor: Last I looked Dienekes was supporting "Out of Arabia" (or West Asia) opposed to "Out of Africa". He claims, or at least this the impression i got - the original AMH were proto-Caucasoid (there's a quote in Howells, 1997 where he calls the Skhul and Qafzeh skulls proto-Caucasoid and that seems to be his source).
Compared to a squid isnt any human or ape a proto-oid of any kind?
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
Neanderthals did not evolve into humans as Wolpoff's multiregional hypothesis states Europeans are, in fact, 97.5% African Homo sapien. We do have evidence of this, because we can can look at the spread of genes in Europe and compare it to the spread of African genes and it is obvious that due to their much smaller variation and certain matches that they come from a particular branch of Africans. The variation from this point of divergence has also be measured to about about 55,000 years, while African variations alone are least 140,000 years. (The fossil evidence points to about 50,000 years for the exodus from Africa.)he MRO concept is not even a theory. Because it makes no concrete predictions that can be falsified. We now have several mtDNA studies of Neanderthals, and this year the Planck Institute published a draft Neanderthal genome. So multi-regionalism (at least as far as Europe is concerned) is a dead duck
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
It's obvious the problem lies in the fact that some people are totally ignorant about matters of bio-anthropology. Such folk either rely on outdated info OR (either wittingly or unwittingly) misinterpret or distort updated info.
Posted by Gor (Member # 21978) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: Neanderthals did not evolve into humans as Wolpoff's multiregional hypothesis states Europeans are, in fact, 97.5% African Homo sapien. We do have evidence of this, because we can can look at the spread of genes in Europe and compare it to the spread of African genes and it is obvious that due to their much smaller variation and certain matches that they come from a particular branch of Africans. The variation from this point of divergence has also be measured to about about 55,000 years, while African variations alone are least 140,000 years. (The fossil evidence points to about 50,000 years for the exodus from Africa.)he MRO concept is not even a theory. Because it makes no concrete predictions that can be falsified. We now have several mtDNA studies of Neanderthals, and this year the Planck Institute published a draft Neanderthal genome. So multi-regionalism (at least as far as Europe is concerned) is a dead duck
Read the migration matrix example in the Relethford paper I posted:
quote:What does this all mean? This simple example shows clearly that, given enough time, the accumulated ancestry of any population will be dominated by the largest population. This is intuitive: The larger the population, the greater the proportion of genes.
What you are posting is compatible with Multiregional evolution (MRE). In fact it is what MRE predicts:
quote:Based on these findings and the hypothesis of a larger long-term African population, I suggest that the multiregional model predicts that biological distances based on many traits will show that recent modern fossil samples are more similar to earlier samples from Africa than they are to samples from the same geographic region. I also suggest that regional continuity will be found in a small number of traits, but not all traits.
So it is a prediction of MRE that recent or living (Holocene) "Europeans" derive most of their genes from Africa (a relic of Pleistocene/2 mya population size being greater there). So like I said: when discussing isolation-by-distance, population size has to be taken into account. If there is a far larger population exerting genes - spatial genetic 'similarity' via IBD is only going to refer to those traits as the result of genetic drift (and possibly a lesser extent selection) where there will still be geographical differentiation through a continuous gradient of mean frequencies in a small number of traits, distributed across space to the max regional edges of occupation. This is why MRE originally choose 10+ cranial traits at the peripheral/edge regions by studying the fossil record there (e.g. Europe and Indonesia). MRE deliberately chose the peripheral regions on purpose because this was where population sizes were the smallest throughout the Pleistocene (e.g. Wolpoff, 2011 estimates European occupants were no more than 8% of the global human population). MRE does not propose however these edge regions are discontinuous "clusters" or "races" of any sort.
As far as the genetic and fossil (morphological)data goes, all the evidence is consistent with MRE, albeit a much "weaker" model than was originally proposed in the 80's, 90's or early 2000's. Even Stinger recently accepted this, but the "Out of Africa" theory consensus has changed itself too, to accommodate minor gene flow with non-Africans. I would say this debate has never been really resolved.
Posted by Gor (Member # 21978) on :
quote:Our findings reveal the timing of divergence of western Eurasians and East Asians to be more than 36,200 years ago and that European genomic structure today dates back to the Upper Paleolithic and derives from a meta-population that at times stretched from Europe to central Asia.
Then we have this:
And:
"It seems to derive Europeans as a 3-way mixture that is basically identical to that of Lazaridis et al., with some relabeling of populations (MHG=WHG and NEOL=EEF)".
Why this is all invalid -
"Yet, the legacy of racial thinking lingers throughout the human sciences. Populations are often still treated as more or less independently evolving subspecies, in both analyses of their relationships and in theories of their origin [...] Who else would analyze populations this way? The answer is surprisingly many, as tree analysis requires the assumption of branching (independent evolution) in order to be valid and tree analysis is the normal way that the genetic relationships of populations (or races) are shown. Relationship trees for human populations fail to meet the criterion of treeness: if trees validly depict relationships, we can expect that all the endpoints on one side of a split (i.e., populations or races) are equally related to all the endpoints on the other side. This is clearly not the case for human populations (Templeton, 1997)." ( Wolpoff & Caspari, 2001)
*There never was "divergence" between any human population: this would require branching through isolation.
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
quote: Abstract Archeological and paleontological evidences point to East Africa as the likely area of early evolution of modern humans. Genetic studies also indicate that populations from the region often contain, but not exclusively, representatives of the more basal clades of mitochondrial and Y-chromosome phylogenies. Most Y-chromosome haplogroup diversity in Africa, however, is present within macrohaplogroup E that seem to have appeared 21 000–32 000 YBP somewhere between the Red Sea and Lake Chad. The combined analysis of 17 bi-allelic markers in 1214 Y chromosomes together with cultural background of 49 populations displayed in various metrics: network, multidimensional scaling, principal component analysis and neighbor-joining plots, indicate a major contribution of East African populations to the foundation of the macrohaplogroup, suggesting a diversification that predates the appearance of some cultural traits and the subsequent expansion that is more associated with the cultural and linguistic diversity witnessed today. The proto-Afro-Asiatic group carrying the E-P2 mutation may have appeared at this point in time and subsequently gave rise to the different major population groups including current speakers of the Afro-Asiatic languages and pastoralist populations.
This is an interesting paper. Although, Afro-Asiatic languages do not exist, it does provide support for the Saharan, Not East African origin of the Negro-African languages. Eyoab et al, believe that these languages and haplogroup E , originated in the Sahara, not East Africa
quote:
The subclades of the network some of which are associated with the practice of pastoralism are most likely to have taken place in the Sahara, among an early population that spoke ancestral language common to both Nilo-Saharan and Afro-Asiatic speakers, although it is yet to be determined whether pastoralism was an original culture to Nilo-Saharan speakers, a cultural acquisition or vice versa; and an interesting notion to entertain in the light of the proposition that pastoralism may be quite an antiquated event in human history.17 Pushing the dates of the event associated with the origin and spread of pastoralism to a proposed 12 000–22 000 YBP, as suggested by the network dating, will solve the matter spontaneously as the language differences would not have appeared by then and an original pastoralist ancestral group with a common culture and language50 is a plausible scenario to entertain. Such dates will accommodate both the Semitic/pastoralism-associated expansion and the introduction of Bos taurus to Europe from North East Africa or Middle East.55 The network result put North African populations like the Saharawi, Morocco Berbers and Arabs in a separate cluster. Given the proposed origin of Maghreb ancestors56, 57, 58, 59 in North Africa, our network dating suggested a divergence of North Western African populations from Eastern African as early as 32 000 YBP, which is close to the estimated dates to the origin of E-P2 macrohaplogroup.30, 60 It can be further inferred that the high frequency of E-M81 in North Africa and its association to the Berber-speaking populations25, 30, 32, 60, 61 may have occurred after the splitting of that early group, leading to local differentiation and flow of some markers as far as Southern Europe.30, 60, 62
Posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate (Member # 20039) on :
quote: Abstract Archeological and paleontological evidences point to East Africa as the likely area of early evolution of modern humans. Genetic studies also indicate that populations from the region often contain, but not exclusively, representatives of the more basal clades of mitochondrial and Y-chromosome phylogenies. Most Y-chromosome haplogroup diversity in Africa, however, is present within macrohaplogroup E that seem to have appeared 21 000–32 000 YBP somewhere between the Red Sea and Lake Chad. The combined analysis of 17 bi-allelic markers in 1214 Y chromosomes together with cultural background of 49 populations displayed in various metrics: network, multidimensional scaling, principal component analysis and neighbor-joining plots, indicate a major contribution of East African populations to the foundation of the macrohaplogroup, suggesting a diversification that predates the appearance of some cultural traits and the subsequent expansion that is more associated with the cultural and linguistic diversity witnessed today. The proto-Afro-Asiatic group carrying the E-P2 mutation may have appeared at this point in time and subsequently gave rise to the different major population groups including current speakers of the Afro-Asiatic languages and pastoralist populations.
This is an interesting paper I was already familiar with. I suppose then I do agree with you, in light of the evidence of this paper, that the homeland of Obenga's "African Common Stock" (Negro-African) language (LINK), the mother language of Niger-Kordofanian, Nilo-Saharan, Cushitic and Chadic speakers, would be around the Northeastern African region between the Red Sea and Lake Chad. This is the position I always maintained.
This is confirmed in this paper by the origin of the E haplogroups in this region (as well as the descendant E/E-P2 haplogroup lineage).
As mentioned in the quote above from the study, the E haplogroup, which is the parent haplogroup of E-P2, is the most common haplogroup in Africa (East, West, North, South). It is the most common haplogroup among NK, Cushitic and Chadic speakers. For example, over 90% of Yoruba and 80% of Somali populations are from the E lineage. Those populations also share many MtDNA haplogroup counterparts (L3eikx, L2a, etc).
Populations from the E lineage would then spread to the (rest of the) Sahara, other regions in East Africa, and then eventually West Africa and Southern Africa.
The dating of 21 000–32 000 YBP for the E haplogroup is also interesting even if, like glottochronology estimates, those are only estimates based of a subjective rates of change.
A 21 000–32 000 YBP dating for the origin of the E haplogroup would situates it well after the OOA migrations of non-Africans (around 65 000 years ago). So East and West Africans, as well as most African populations from the E lineage, would share a whooping 33 000+ years of shared history (65 000-32 000= 33 000), admixtures, and biological and morphological change/adaptation and continuity before any back migration of Eurasians. The value is actually higher, hence the +, since they also share the downstream E-P2 lineage which appeared obviously at a later date (later than 21 000–32 000 years before present). This explain the why East and West African ancestral populations would be so close to each other from the blogger "Admixture software" runs exposed above in this thread (as well as other peer-reviewed studies) in relations to non-African populations.
Posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate (Member # 20039) on :
In my reply above, I mention "biological and morphological change/adaptation and continuity before any back migration of Eurasians". Beside obvious variant such as skin color/basic appearance. Post-cranial morphological measurements would be an example of such shared origin. Dissimilarities between modern East and West Africans would be relatively recent and subsequent to the separation and migration of the E-P2 population (which developed afterward into P2/E1b1a and P2/E1b1b) in different regions of Africa (Sahara, West Africa, Horn Africa, East Africa, etc), where people from the E and P2 lineage now lives.
Posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate (Member # 20039) on :
What is important for people to consider is that modern African people (like Niger-Kordofanian/Cushitic/Chadic speakers, East/West Africans, Somali, Yoruba, Bantu, Wolof) are relatively recent immigrants to their current locations(regions). By recent, in this case, we mean after 10kya, thus during the Holocene.
Here's a quote from the book called The Origins of Modern Humans: Biology reconsidered (p23-24). Similar analysis can also be seen in other literature:
quote:Emergence of Distinctive Regional Groups in Africa
Curiously, although modern humans appeared very early in Africa, there was a very long delay until the appearance of individuals who can not be distinguished metrically and morphologically from the living inhabitants of each part of Africa . In fact, almost all Africa Late Pleistocene hominins [Edit:between 120kya and 10kya] are easily distinguished from living Africans (Anderson, 1968; Brothwell and Shaw, 1971; Gramly and Rightmire, 1973; Twiesselmann, 1991; Muteti et al., 2010; Angel et al., 1980; de Villiers and Fatti, 1982; Angel and Olsen Kelly, 1986; Habgood, 1989; Howells, 1989; Boaz et al., 1990; Allsworth-Jones et al., 2010), and it is not until the Holocene that this situation changes (Rightmire, 1975, 1978b, 1984b; de Villiers and Fatti, 1982; Bräuer, 1984b; Habgood, 1989).
So basically, modern African people arrived at their current location AFTER the late pleistocene period during the Holocene, after 10 000BC. This is something we already know because modern West Africans carried Green Saharan artifacts with them (LINK). Humans specimens before 10 000BC are completely different than modern Africans. From genetics and linguistics we know modern African people like West/East Africans and Bantu people are relatively recent immigrants to their current locations (for East Africans it is population movements within East Africa). Through the Bantu migrations but also through the Niger-Kordofanian migrations which is much less studied than the Bantu migrations but also mentioned in literature. Bantu people are basically West African people from the Niger-Kordofanian family who migrated from their Cameroon-Nigerian border homeland to their current location in the southern half of Africa. Only in the region around Sudan, could Late Pleistocene-Holocone continuity be found. Which is perfectly fine for us since it's the putative location of the Niger-Kordofanian family homeland as well as the homeland of the E1b1/E-P2 populations, the most common lineage in Africa(Yoruba, Somali, etc) and in African-Americans.
Posted by Dead (Member # 21978) on :
Very true, but there is another interpretation.
The reason for the lack of sub-regional craniometric continuity, or geographical structure within Africa throughout the Pleistocene was the result of the very large population size resident there, hence morphology was always heterogeneous and not homogenous, i.e. easily distinguishable like in peripheral Europe or Northeast Asia (through genetic drift and much smaller population sizes).
However it is interesting to note that the Cape or southern coast of South Africa had the smallest population in Pleistocene Africa and so there might be some limited regional continuity there in the fossil record from the Middle/Late Pleistocene to Holocene (recent) San or Khoisan:
"The earliest good evidence for what might be a distinct pattern of regional evolution in Africa is an example of centre and edge in a more limited application. This evidence may well be at an African periphery - in this case, along the southern Cape." (Wolpoff & Caspari, 1997)
There were a couple of studies from the 70s/80s, showing a close similarity between certain dimensions of Khoisan post-crania/crania to the Klasies remains, stretching back possibly to Border Cave and even Saldanha man.
In two multivariate studies Rightmire (1979, 1981) found Border Cave 1 was closest to Bushman and Hottentot male centroids, this was supported by Campbell (1984). Earlier Drennan and Singer (1955:365) felt that Saldanha 2 preserved the proportions of "Bushman, Hottentot and pre-Khoisan jaws." More recently Wolpoff (1996, 1999)has discussed the skeletal continuity in the Klasies post-crania, which he links to Khoisan.
The hypothetical fossil sequence would be:
Saldanha > Border Cave > Klasies > Khoisan (San)
Posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate (Member # 20039) on :
^^^Yes, what you're talking about is the Boskop-like people which may show continuity from the late Pleistocene to the Holocene with modern Khoisan people.
In my analysis of the genetic closeness of East/West African populations as well as the common origin of modern Niger-Kordofanian, Cushitic and Chadic speakers (link) , I implicitly (and also explicitly did) exclude modern Khoisan speakers and Mbuti-Aka related people from both aspects. Khoisan and Mbuti-Aka related people are part of a much earlier diversification on the continent. In my opinion (informed of course), Khoisan people could also have their common origin in Eastern Africa, but left the other populations in the region from which would later descends modern East/West African people, and as well as OOA people too(CT and L3 lineage) at a much earlier date (the proposed Khoisan ancient homeland in East Africa needs to be analyzed further). Khoisan and Mbuti-Aka related people are not from the CT and L3 lineages in great proportion. Haplogroups only present in those populations in small proportions due to recent admixtures with iron-age agro-pastoralists (Bantu) and to a lower degree, a bit earlier, with East-African pastoralists.
So Khoisan and Mbuti-Aka related people were not part of the CT/L3 and E/P2 populations which were the source of OOA migrants and, later on, modern East/West African populations.
Posted by beyoku (Member # 14524) on :
quote:Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate: What is important for people to consider is that modern African people (like Niger-Kordofanian/Cushitic/Chadic speakers, East/West Africans, Somali, Yoruba, Bantu, Wolof) are relatively recent immigrants to their current locations(regions). By recent, in this case, we mean after 10kya, thus during the Holocene.
Here's a quote from the book called The Origins of Modern Humans: Biology reconsidered (p23-24). Similar analysis can also be seen in other literature:
quote:Emergence of Distinctive Regional Groups in Africa
Curiously, although modern humans appeared very early in Africa, there was a very long delay until the appearance of individuals who can not be distinguished metrically and morphologically from the living inhabitants of each part of Africa . In fact, almost all Africa Late Pleistocene hominins [Edit:between 120kya and 10kya] are easily distinguished from living Africans (Anderson, 1968; Brothwell and Shaw, 1971; Gramly and Rightmire, 1973; Twiesselmann, 1991; Muteti et al., 2010; Angel et al., 1980; de Villiers and Fatti, 1982; Angel and Olsen Kelly, 1986; Habgood, 1989; Howells, 1989; Boaz et al., 1990; Allsworth-Jones et al., 2010), and it is not until the Holocene that this situation changes (Rightmire, 1975, 1978b, 1984b; de Villiers and Fatti, 1982; Bräuer, 1984b; Habgood, 1989).
So basically, modern African people arrived at their current location AFTER the late pleistocene period during the Holocene, after 10 000BC. This is something we already know because modern West Africans carried Green Saharan artifacts with them (LINK). Humans specimens before 10 000BC are completely different than modern Africans. From genetics and linguistics we know modern African people like West/East Africans and Bantu people are relatively recent immigrants to their current locations (for East Africans it is population movements within East Africa). Through the Bantu migrations but also through the Niger-Kordofanian migrations which is much less studied than the Bantu migrations but also mentioned in literature. Bantu people are basically West African people from the Niger-Kordofanian family who migrated from their Cameroon-Nigerian border homeland to their current location in the southern half of Africa. Only in the region around Sudan, could Late Pleistocene-Holocone continuity be found. Which is perfectly fine for us since it's the putative location of the Niger-Kordofanian family homeland as well as the homeland of the E1b1/E-P2 populations, the most common lineage in Africa(Yoruba, Somali, etc) and in African-Americans.
This is retarded. Just because the populations dont LOOK The same that doesnt mean they are not the ancestors of later Africans that adapted insitu. See Europe for some examples......Better Yet seem America. According to Amun ra all previous humans in African cease to exists and Pn2/L3 folks just fall from the sky in the Holocene. Complete garbage.
SO the Mesolithic remains from Sudan and the Sahara are not the ancestors of Africans that now live in Sudan and the Sahara?
Posted by Manu (Member # 18974) on :
West Africans are Ancient East Africans mixed with Archaic Hominids of West Africa.
Modern Horn Africans are Ancient East Africans mixed with some West Eurasian.
That is the main difference between West Africans and Ethiopians etc..
Posted by beyoku (Member # 14524) on :
quote:Originally posted by Manu: West Africans are Ancient East Africans mixed with Archaic Hominids of West Africa.
Modern Horn Africans are Ancient East Africans mixed with some West Eurasian.
That is the main difference between West Africans and Ethiopians etc..
This is equally retarded non-sourced nonsense. "East Africans" and "West Africans" cannot be reduced down to ONE thing.
Posted by Manu (Member # 18974) on :
Obviously I meant the dominant Niger-Congo group of West Africa and not weird genetic odd balls like the Pygmies or Fulanis of West Africa.
Same for East Africa, ex Pygmies & Hadza/Sandawe they are all basically variants of the same group only differing in Bantu and/or West Eurasian ancestry.
Posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate (Member # 20039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Manu: Archaic Hominids
Archaic hominids are like Homo heidelbergensis, Homo rhodesiensis, Homo neanderthalensis.
Modern human populations are not admixed with them at anything above 0-6% as far as we know. Archaic admixtures in modern Africans is a possibility but still being questioned and investigated.
Sorry for using wiki which is often erroneous or incomplete, but it's a bit off-topic and I didn't study the issue of admixtures with archaic hominids in depth:
West Africans are obviously mixed with some kind of local Archaic Hominid.
There's no point of denying. It's only a matter of time before scientists confirm it. This reminds me of the time when Neanderthal admixture was denied in Eurasians, now it has been confirmed. Same thing will happen to West Africans and a local Archaic Hominid.
Posted by beyoku (Member # 14524) on :
quote:Originally posted by Manu: West Africans are obviously mixed with some kind of local Archaic Hominid.
There's no point of denying. It's only a matter of time before scientists confirm it. This reminds me of the time when Neanderthal admixture was denied in Eurasians, now it has been confirmed. Same thing will happen to West Africans and a local Archaic Hominid.
Obvious why...because you say so? What is your source. Where is the genetic evidence? And why have all you Euro clown dumbasses have this idea way prior to old lineages like A00 in West africa.
Posted by Dead (Member # 21978) on :
Statistical differences in haplogroup frequencies between populations may be the result of population structure as opposed to being considered reliable markers of phylogeny.
Example: "Many proposals for haplogroup A's origin suggest it was associated with the ancestral population of Southern Africa's hunter-gatherers. This is because Haplogroup A lineages are frequent among the San people." - Wikipedia
This assumption is false. Haplogroup A could have originated outside of Africa.
Furthermore MtDNA and Y-DNA is not population history. Neither are (neutral) phylogenetic markers.
"The vast majority of studies employing mtDNA as an evolutionary marker have not attempted to test the basic assumptions and predictions of the neutral model: a constant mutation rate, a stationary allele frequency distribution, and a correlation between polymorphism levels and divergence. The omission of these tests limits our ability to interpret the results of these analyses, but perhaps more importantly it misses an opportunity to understand the nature of selection operating on mitochondria. We suggest that the focus of mitochondrial study should shift away from using mtDNA as a tool for inference of population history towards studies of the ecology and biochemistry of the mitochondrion itself." http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15012752
"The variation of the nonrecombining region of the Y chromosome (NRY) has been successfully used to study human origins and population histories, based on the assumption that Y chromosome variation is selectively neutral." http://www.ucl.ac.uk/tcga/tcgapdf/LluisQM-JMG-03-TC.pdf
This assumption for Y-DNA has shown also recently to be incorrect. As also noted you have to take into account population structure (i.e. size) when studying the frequency of a haplogroup. You cant just find it at high frequency somewhere and then claim it originated there.
Posted by Manu (Member # 18974) on :
quote:Originally posted by beyoku: Obvious why...because you say so? What is your source. Where is the genetic evidence? And why have all you Euro clown dumbasses have this idea way prior to old lineages like A00 in West africa.
The evidence will be found over time. Especially with the advent of full genome sequencing and more advanced tools.
IMO, all modern populations that sport primitive features at high frequencies are suspect of having archaic hominid ancestry.
Those extreme brow ridges of Papuans and Australian Aborigines can now be explained by archaic hominid ancestry.
Soon the extreme wide noses of West Africans can be explained by archaic hominid ancestry.
Posted by Dead (Member # 21978) on :
Only Holocene male aborigines have a high frequency of medium to large brow-ridges:
"For example: medium to large brow ridges identified on 84.6% of males from coastal N.S.W. and on 81.1% of males from Queensland, but on only 9.6% of females from coastal N.S.W. and 10.6% of females from Queensland (medium only as none displayed the large size)." (Habgood, 2003)
Most females are small, to absent. However early anthropology books rarely reported this sexual dimorphism in Australian Aborigines.
Posted by Dead (Member # 21978) on :
The "Australoid" type (at least as a mean statistical phenotypic abstraction) really is silly. On average you only find most of the "Australoid" measurements/non-metrics in Australian Aborigine males, not the females. It is very unlike the Caucasoid/Negroid/Mongoloid in this sense. Probably this also explains why modern forensic scientists do not recognise Australoids (unlike the other three).
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
@Manu
You might just want to leave this one alone. You're in way over your head. West Africans don't have excessive cranial superstructures (unlike Europeans). In fact, according to some, West Africans are the most "modern" in such variables. And modern day West Africans don't resemble prehistoric West African skulls cracked up to be archaic humans, either.
In fact, the highly gracile nature of modern SSAs is precisely why they've historically been misinterpreted as a "new" race (i.e. the myth of the recent "negro", which is supposedly no older than 10kya) with no genetic continuity with more robust forebears elsewhere on the continent.
Case in point:
quote:Originally posted by Amun Ra the Ultimate: Curiously, although modern humans appeared very early in Africa, there was a very long delay until the appearance of individuals who can not be distinguished metrically and morphologically from the living inhabitants of each part of Africa .
SMGDH
Posted by Manu (Member # 18974) on :
West Africans have the highest nasal index scores on the planet of any major population group.
You can't hide these facts.
This is a primitive trait and obviously points to archaic hominid ancestry.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
Primitive, how so? How did you establish this? You're not making any sense.
Nasal bridge elevation and elongation is also a trait influenced by the forces of selection. These are related to the relative lack of moisture in inspired air (Glanville, 1969). --Brace 1993
Posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate (Member # 20039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Manu: West Africans have the highest nasal index scores on the planet of any major population group.
You can't hide these facts.
This is a primitive trait and obviously points to archaic hominid ancestry.
For one, West Africans, has any Africans share a wide range of nasal index. Secondly, it has been demonstrated scientifically that modern West Africans, which are recent migrants from East Africa, share no continuity with late Pleistocene human remains in West Africa which are more archaic. Your "theory" has been proven to be false.
Your theory is proven to be false by science, there's nothing more to say about it.
The only continuity with ancient remains and West Africans (Niger-Congo speakers) has been found in (north-) Eastern Africa.
See here (as one of the many examples in literature): -Taken From Cranial Discrete Traits in a Byzantine Population and Eastern Mediterranean Population Movements by F. X. RICAUT and M. WAELKENS (2008)
This affinity pattern between ancient Egyptians and sub-Saharans has also been noticed by several other investigators (Angel 1972;Berry and Berry 1967, 1972; Keita 1995) and has been recently reinforced by the study of Brace et al. (2005), which clearly shows that the cranial morphology of prehistoric and recent northeast African populations is linked to sub-Saharan populations (Niger- Congo populations).
This is caused by the ancient origin of West Africans, the greater part of their ancestry, in North-Eastern Africa as discussed in this thread.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
I see some people are still in chronic denial about the position of the Naqada (Naq), Kerma (Ker) and Gizeh (Giz) samples relative to the non-Nile Valley African samples in Ricaut et al 2008. Hence, the selective posting of excerpts to substantiate manipulative, but see-through arguments which no self respecting scholar would ever make. All it ends up doing is expose the lying ES propagandists for what they really are: selective cut and paste gurus.
quote: Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate: This is caused by the ancient origin of West Africans, the greater part of their ancestry, in North-Eastern Africa as discussed in this thread.
Posted by Manu (Member # 18974) on :
quote:Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate: For one, West Africans, has any Africans share a wide range of nasal index. Secondly, it has been demonstrated scientifically that modern West Africans, which are recent migrants from East Africa, share no continuity with late Pleistoce human remains in West Africa which are more archaic. Your "theory" has been proven to be false.
West Africans have the widest noses on the planet. Fact.
Record level nasal index scores over 100 are found there.
Obvious archaic hominid ancestry is obvious.
Posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate (Member # 20039) on :
^^^There's nothing to be in denial about. There's both similarities and differences between Naqada and Kerma samples, and even Nabta Playa samples, and modern West Africans/Niger-Congo speakers.
Similarities are caused of their common origin with them, the differences are caused by the subsequent separation/migrations of West Africans to their current modern locations and subsequent in situ adaptations/genetic drift of each groups respectively (see here) .
Fig. 1. Neighbor-joining dendrogram for a series of prehistoric and recent human populations (Craniofacial measures)
Clearly, we can see Niger-Congo speakers (Tanzania, Dahomey, Congo), Nubians, Somali, Naqada clustering on the same branch. Completely distinct from modern Eurasian populations like in Egypt, Middle East, Italy, France, or Germany.
Same for post-cranial analysis:
So West Africans are not exactly similar to ancient East Africans like Kerma, Naqada, Nabta Playa, etc, but share some morphological similarities too like Craniofacial measures and post-cranial/limb-proportion measurements. The similarities are from their common origin with those ancient specimens in Eastern Africa, the differences from their subsequent migrations to their current locations in West/Central/Southern Africa.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate: Completely distinct from modern Eurasian populations like in Egypt, Middle East, Italy, France, or Germany.
According to what data, selective cut and paste guru? Certainly not according to the distance values cited in the paper you're manipulating.
Posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate (Member # 20039) on :
^^ I think you're the one in denial here.
Posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate (Member # 20039) on :
As we can see from the origin of the E-P2(e1b1) lineage (see here) , which form over 90% of their paternal ancestry, and the homeland of the Niger-Kordofanian languages (see here) , modern West Africans are "recent" migrants to West Africa from their ancient East African homeland. A common origin they share of course with modern East Africans who are also from their E-P2/e1b1 lineage in great proportions.
It's also important to note that West African populations like Yoruba populations share the CT Y-DNA lineage and the L3 MtDNA lineage with OOA migrants in great proportion.
For example: Yoruba Y-DNA CT: 93.1% Yoruba MtDNA L3: 45.45%
Those are the proportion of haplogroup lineages they share with non-Africans OOA migrants (before any back migrations). Similar analysis can be made for other West African populations (using for example haplogroup frequencies from Hirbo, starting at Appendix 6a ii, p195).
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate: ^^ I think you're the one in denial here.
The data speaks for itself, cut and paste guru. Any three year old can look it up, hold your manipulative claims against the papers you're wilfully distorting and verify that my assessment of your chronic denial is spot on. In Brace et al 2005's analysis, the Prehistoric NEAfrica is equidistant vis-a-vis the Niger-Congo speaking sample and West Eurasians:
So why misrepresent those dendrograms and make up fairy tales about them, charlatan?
Posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate (Member # 20039) on :
^^^You're being ridiculous and grasping at straws. My analysis of the Brace study is the same as 'F. X. RICAUT and M. WAELKENS's as well as "several other investigators" (as posted above).
This affinity pattern between ancient Egyptians and sub-Saharans has also been noticed by several other investigators (Angel 1972;Berry and Berry 1967, 1972; Keita 1995) and has been recently reinforced by the study of Brace et al. (2005), which clearly shows that the cranial morphology of prehistoric and recent northeast African populations is linked to sub-Saharan populations (Niger- Congo populations). - -Taken From Cranial Discrete Traits in a Byzantine Population and Eastern Mediterranean Population Movements by F. X. RICAUT and M. WAELKENS (2008)
We can of course see similar patterns in term of uniparental haplogroups, autosomal STR and autosomal SNP genetic analysis as demonstrated in this thread.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
Still in denial, aren't you? Were the Neolithic Eurasian samples closest to the NEAfrican sample per Brace 2005 et al's analysis, or not? What is the order of relationships of the NEAfrican sample to the other samples? At what point does the Niger Congo speaking sample come in? How does this order of relationships gel with what you have manipulated Brace et al 2005 to represent for several years now? Lying troll!
quote:Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate: Completely distinct from modern Eurasian populations like in Egypt, Middle East, Italy, France, or Germany.
Posted by Dead (Member # 21978) on :
quote:West Africans have the widest noses on the planet. Fact.
Record level nasal index scores over 100 are found there.
Obvious archaic hominid ancestry is obvious.
Australian aborigines have the highest mean Nasal Index. Nose width is strongly correlated with tooth size. Aborigines also have the highest mean Dental Index, but West African populations are not far off from them.
From the studies of living subjects I have seen, aborigines come out hyper-platyrrhine. Most populations from West Africa however do not and fall under 100. Of course though they're still platyrrhine, between 85 - 99.9:
quote:Oladipo et al., (2009) conducted an anthropometric assessment of Nasal parameters of Itsekiris and Urhobos ethnic group of Nigeria with the aim of comparing the nose type among the two ethnic groups. Their results showed that on the average, Urhobos had a mean Nasal index of 89.63 and the Itsekiris had a mean index of 90.74.
The nasal index of the Igbos, yorubas and Ijaws were determined by Oladipo et al., (2006).
The Igbos had a mean nasal index of 94.1± 0.37, Yorubas 89.2±0.30 and the Ijaws 96.37±1.06.
Anthropometric study of the nasal index of bekwara ethnic group of cross river state, nigeria International Research Journal of Applied and Basic Sciences. 2013. Vol, 5 (10): 1262-1265 http://www.irjabs.com/files_site/paperlist/r_1588_131009104937.pdf Posted by Dead (Member # 21978) on :
quote:Secondly, it has been demonstrated scientifically that modern West Africans, which are recent migrants from East Africa, share no continuity with late Pleistocene human remains in West Africa which are more archaic.
Do you mean they lacked morphological or genetic continuity?
My view is only the former. Holocene Africans show little to no craniometric relationship to Pleistocene Africans (excluding the Khoisan, see above) because there was a shift in skeletal heterogeneity on the continent to (sub)regional population structures - where mean statistical phenotypic complexes (e.g. "Negroid"/broad African "Aethiopid"/elongated African) emerged or became distinctive. This is why the oldest "Negroid" remains are only 7,000 or 8,000 years old. Hierneux (1974) also discusses the recent fossil origin of the "elongated African".
Posted by Manu (Member # 18974) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dead: Australian aborigines have the highest mean Nasal Index. Nose width is strongly correlated with tooth size. Aborigines also have the highest mean Dental Index, but West African populations are not far off from them.
From the studies of living subjects I have seen, aborigines come out hyper-platyrrhine. Most populations from West Africa however do not and fall under 100. Of course though they're still platyrrhine, between 85 - 99.9:
That does not bode well for West Africans as we already know that Australian Aborigines have Archaic Hominid admixture, LOL.
Besides this, modern Abos are mostly admixed with Anglo-Australians and now have lower nasal index score than in the past.
West Africans are largely unmixed and thus are #1 major population group on the planet with the highest mean nasal index.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by Manu: That does not bode well for West Africans as we already know that Australian Aborigines have Archaic Hominid admixture, LOL.
Dravidians have those NI's as well. Are you saying Dravidians have the same amount of archaic admixture as Australians or that a cline exists among Dravidians where those with more narrow noses have less archaic admixture than those with broader noses? What about Andaman Islanders? They have broad noses, but I don't recall them having excesses of archaic admixture compared to other mainland Asians. Papuans have approx. the same amount of archaic admixture as Australian Aboriginals and their nasal skeletal is in many ways similar to that of West Eurasians despite the fact that Papuans and Australian Aboriginals have archaic admixture from the same source and in similar amounts.
You don't address what anyone is telling you. You're just repeating your previous claims and peppering them with empty buzz words like "obviously" and "fact". Again, documentation of your claims with citations would be required to even begin to entertain this idea of yours.
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
quote:Originally posted by Manu:
quote:Originally posted by Dead: Australian aborigines have the highest mean Nasal Index. Nose width is strongly correlated with tooth size. Aborigines also have the highest mean Dental Index, but West African populations are not far off from them.
From the studies of living subjects I have seen, aborigines come out hyper-platyrrhine. Most populations from West Africa however do not and fall under 100. Of course though they're still platyrrhine, between 85 - 99.9:
That does not bode well for West Africans as we already know that Australian Aborigines have Archaic Hominid admixture, LOL.
Besides this, modern Abos are mostly admixed with Anglo-Australians and now have lower nasal index score than in the past.
West Africans are largely unmixed and thus are #1 major population group on the planet with the highest mean nasal index.
This is false. South Indians and Munda people in India have large nasal indexes.
.
Posted by Manu (Member # 18974) on :
South Indians do not have Denisovan admixture. They just have the generic 2%-4% Neanderthal found in most mainland Eurasians.
As for Andaman Islanders, their noses are not as wide as those of West-Central Africans. Besides they are an inbred group who have been isolated from the rest of humanity for 20 kya. Not really representative of modern humans.
You will not find an exogenous non-tribal large population group with extremely high (90+ to 100+) nasal index scores as West Africans anywhere on the planet.
Posted by Manu (Member # 18974) on :
Onge (Andaman) Nasal Index: 87.43
Igbo Nasal Index: 107.62 Yoruba Nasal Index: 110.30
Anyhow, Onges are inbred & lived on a tiny island for 10s of thousands of years. They are not representative of the original out of africa humans.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
@Manu
Whether you like it or not, West Africans, Australians, Andaman Islanders and many Dravdiians overlap in their range of NIs. And by admitting that Dravidians don't stand out in their proportion of archaic DNA, you've just undermined your own claim that there is a causal relationship between archaic DNA and high NIs in Australians and West Africans.
Posted by Manu (Member # 18974) on :
There are no non-inbred populations with nasal index scores over 110 other than some West African groups.
This screams archaic ancestry.
The Yoruba number over 40 million (definitely not inbred) and they have scored over 110 on some nasal index studies:
World record in wide noses goes to West Africans, hands down.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by Manu: There are no non-inbred populations with nasal index scores over 110 other than some West African groups.
This is a completely arbitrary goal post. It's also circular reasoning. Of course there aren't many populations with NIs higher than 110, and that's because there aren't many populations who are adapted to environmental conditions that are more conducive to this trait than the West Africans in question.
Posted by Dead (Member # 21978) on :
Mean Igbo NI is 94, Yoruba, 89 (Oladipoet al., 2007).
You have to take sample size into account. Your source is only 114 individuals for Igbo, and a mere 78 for Yoruba. The source I cited, covered 750 for each. Really studies though should cover at least 1000.
Posted by Manu (Member # 18974) on :
Yoruba Male mean Nasal Index 110.30 Eliakim-Ikechukwu (2012)
quote:World record in wide noses goes to West Africans, hands down.
You're making a fool out of yourself. Nasal index data from several West African ethnic groups has been posted and the overall picture demonstrates that West Africans can't be distinguished from groups which you yourself admitted don't stand out genetically in terms of their levels of archaic DNA (i.e. Dravidians and others).
You've been told that modern day Sub Saharan Africans have the lowest expression of so called "continuity" traits (e.g. infraglabellar notch, supraorbital torus, overall robusticity), which have been used in the past to gauge cranio-facial similarity of modern humans to regional archaic humans.
Your way of dealing with these facts (which we already know you can't address rationally)? Picking arbitrary measurements and making them out to be archaic traits (without having proven this link, first), ignoring all the cranio-facial traits which have been demonstrated to characterize archaic humans and spamming pictures in a lame attempt to outdo the much more comprehensive NI data I posted. Really?
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
Bump, since Amun-Ra is apparently still running his mouth. Forfeited his own credibility by becoming known for repeatedly running out of his own damn threads when others mop up his trademark fairy tales, but still tries to push his imaginary narrative of others being dishonest "wasists" when he thinks the people he habitually runs away from, aren't around.
You were saying, what exactly?
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Still in denial, aren't you? Were the Neolithic Eurasian samples closest to the NEAfrican sample per Brace 2005 et al's analysis, or not? What is the order of relationships of the NEAfrican sample to the other samples? At what point does the Niger Congo speaking sample come in? How does this order of relationships gel with what you have manipulated Brace et al 2005 to represent for several years now? Lying troll!
quote:Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate: Completely distinct from modern Eurasian populations like in Egypt, Middle East, Italy, France, or Germany.
Posted by Dead (Member # 21978) on :
quote:You've been told that modern day Sub Saharan Africans have the lowest expression of so called "continuity" traits (e.g. infraglabellar notch, supraorbital torus, overall robusticity), which have been used in the past to gauge cranio-facial similarity of modern humans to regional archaic humans.
Then why are the earliest "anatomically modern" fossils claimed to derive from Sub-Saharan Africa?
Between 200,000-40,000 BP., virtually all fossils from Sub-Saharan Africa are still "robust"/"archaic", or at least retain plenty of the latter features even if there are some discernable "modern" traits in the morphology:
"It is often claimed that “AMHs” date from up to 200 ka ago, yet no such specimens exist. The skulls from Omo Kibish offer some relatively modern features as well as substantially archaic ones; especially Omo 2 is very robust indeed (McDougall et al., 2005). Their dating, also, is not secure, and Omo 2 is a surface find. The much more complete and better dated Herto skull, BOU-VP- 16/1, is outside the range of all recent humans in several cranial measurements (White et al., 2003)—and is just as archaic as other specimens of the late Middle Pleistocene, in Africa or elsewhere. The lack of “anatomically modern” humans from sub-Saharan Africa prior to the supposed Exodus is glaring: the Border Cave specimens have no stratigraphic context; Dar es Soltan is undated; and the mandibles of Klasies River Mouth lack cranial and post-cranial remains. The Hofmeyr skull from South Africa, about 36 ka old, features 'intermediate' morphol- ogy (Grine et al., 2007, 2010)." (Bednarik, 2013)
Skulls in Sub-Saharan Africa are not even "anatomically modern human" by Stringer's criteria as recent as 40,000 years ago.
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dead:
quote:You've been told that modern day Sub Saharan Africans have the lowest expression of so called "continuity" traits (e.g. infraglabellar notch, supraorbital torus, overall robusticity), which have been used in the past to gauge cranio-facial similarity of modern humans to regional archaic humans.
Then why are the earliest "anatomically modern" fossils claimed to derive from Sub-Saharan Africa?
Between 200,000-40,000 BP., virtually all fossils from Sub-Saharan Africa are still "robust"/"archaic", or at least retain plenty of the latter features even if there are some discernable "modern" traits in the morphology:
"It is often claimed that “AMHs” date from up to 200 ka ago, yet no such specimens exist. The skulls from Omo Kibish offer some relatively modern features as well as substantially archaic ones; especially Omo 2 is very robust indeed (McDougall et al., 2005). Their dating, also, is not secure, and Omo 2 is a surface find. The much more complete and better dated Herto skull, BOU-VP- 16/1, is outside the range of all recent humans in several cranial measurements (White et al., 2003)—and is just as archaic as other specimens of the late Middle Pleistocene, in Africa or elsewhere. The lack of “anatomically modern” humans from sub-Saharan Africa prior to the supposed Exodus is glaring: the Border Cave specimens have no stratigraphic context; Dar es Soltan is undated; and the mandibles of Klasies River Mouth lack cranial and post-cranial remains. The Hofmeyr skull from South Africa, about 36 ka old, features 'intermediate' morphol- ogy (Grine et al., 2007, 2010)." (Bednarik, 2013)
Skulls in Sub-Saharan Africa are not even "anatomically modern human" by Stringer's criteria as recent as 40,000 years ago.
.
.
LOL
.
Posted by Dead (Member # 21978) on :
Yes, Clyde it must be hard for you to ever challenge your dogma, and actually for a change look at something called evidence.
Posted by Dead (Member # 21978) on :
I remember I posted several years back that the OOA theory is a hoax. I got laughed at.
I'm glad to now see respectable paleo-anthropologists and archaeologists such as Bednarik coming out and saying exactly what I have posted for years...
quote:The replacement hypothesis proposes that “modern humans” evolved only in sub-Saharan Africa, through a speciation event rendering them unable to breed with other hominins. They then spread throughout Africa, then to Asia, Australia and finally to Europe, replacing all other humans by exterminating or out- competing them. In this critical analysis of the replacement hypothesis it is shown that it began as a hoax, later reinforced by false paleoanthropological claims and a series of flawed genetic propositions, yet it became almost universally accepted during the 1990s and has since dominated the discipline.
Note that Reiner Protsch who founded the OOA theory was shown to have falsified all his data and in 2003 he was dismissed from the University of Frankfurt.
Posted by Dead (Member # 21978) on :
quote:Originally posted by Manu: World record in wide noses goes to West Africans, hands down.
This poor chap has had his photo used across this forum since at least 2010. I wonder what he would say if he saw this. lol
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dead:
quote:You've been told that modern day Sub Saharan Africans have the lowest expression of so called "continuity" traits (e.g. infraglabellar notch, supraorbital torus, overall robusticity), which have been used in the past to gauge cranio-facial similarity of modern humans to regional archaic humans.
Then why are the earliest "anatomically modern" fossils claimed to derive from Sub-Saharan Africa?
Between 200,000-40,000 BP., virtually all fossils from Sub-Saharan Africa are still "robust"/"archaic", or at least retain plenty of the latter features even if there are some discernable "modern" traits in the morphology:
"It is often claimed that “AMHs” date from up to 200 ka ago, yet no such specimens exist. The skulls from Omo Kibish offer some relatively modern features as well as substantially archaic ones; especially Omo 2 is very robust indeed (McDougall et al., 2005). Their dating, also, is not secure, and Omo 2 is a surface find. The much more complete and better dated Herto skull, BOU-VP- 16/1, is outside the range of all recent humans in several cranial measurements (White et al., 2003)—and is just as archaic as other specimens of the late Middle Pleistocene, in Africa or elsewhere. The lack of “anatomically modern” humans from sub-Saharan Africa prior to the supposed Exodus is glaring: the Border Cave specimens have no stratigraphic context; Dar es Soltan is undated; and the mandibles of Klasies River Mouth lack cranial and post-cranial remains. The Hofmeyr skull from South Africa, about 36 ka old, features 'intermediate' morphol- ogy (Grine et al., 2007, 2010)." (Bednarik, 2013)
Skulls in Sub-Saharan Africa are not even "anatomically modern human" by Stringer's criteria as recent as 40,000 years ago.
Moreover, you're talking about ancient African skulls failing to cluster with modern African ones. You don't want to open that can of worms buddy, trust me:
^Some Mesolithic Europeans (Lochsbour & Moča)
Posted by Dead (Member # 21978) on :
Europeans were 'regionally distinctive' in terms of craniometry long before populations in Africa. Southeast Asians or Javans ("Australoids") are the oldest. They go back easily over 700,000 years.
"This unique combination of regional features of the Javan morphology was stable for at least 700,000 years, while other characteristics continued evolving." (Frayer et al., 1993)
Europeans have been 'regionally distinctive' since at least the early Late Pleistocene.
I'm only talking about up to 4-5 metric/non-metric traits. What was falsified was the massive lists of Wolpoff et al. from the 80s/90s.
Alan Thorne first predicted in 1980 that the "Australoid" cranial morphology would appear in the fossil record the earliest, the "Negroid" last. The fossil data shows he is correct.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
Dude, what exactly are you arguing? As you hinted at yourself, Lahr and others wiped the floor with key foundations of Wolpoff's work, but what does that have to do with the matter at hand? Multireginalism has been refuted completely; they're reduced to rewriting their main tenets and shifting goalposts as new data comes in and picking fights with/trying to falsify extreme versions of OOA, which very few OOA proponents support, even back in the day. OOA can survive perfectly with measures of archaic introgression; multiregionalism can't survive if migrating humans from Africa are the basic template for all modern day humans.
I also don't understand why you keep saying OOA is a hoax when you say you subscribe to assimilation. Do you have any idea how crazy that sounds?
Posted by Dead (Member # 21978) on :
The Assimilation Model (AM) has always been a Multiregional Evolution (MRE) variant. It has been since it was proposed in 1989. Fred Smith received his PhD under Wolpoff, and his model in the 90s was never considered an "intermediate" compromise between MRE and OOA, but a 'weak', or watered down version of MRE. Smith and Wolpoff both also wrote some of their papers together against OOA. As Stringer came to note this year: Wolpoff has now shifted his ideas "close to that of the Assimilation Model". In fact I would argue MRE today and AM are virtually identical.
What has been falsified is the hardcore or 'classic' MRE of the 80s/90s by Wolpoff et al, not the Assimilation or revised 'weak' MRE.
'Weak' MRE is supported well by the fossil record, an excellent overview can be found in Habgood (2003).
Regionally continuous distinctive "Australoid" features x 5 = 1, 2, 6, 7, 8
(1) flatness of the frontal bone [viewed in the sagital plane] (2) posterier placement of minimum frontal breadth (6) Excessive facial prognathism (7) Prominent zygomacillary (malar) tuberosity (8) Eversion of the lower border of the zygomatic
Like I said, there's evidence for 'weak' MRE: a combination of 4-5 regionally continuous craniometric traits in Southeast Asia, Europe and East Asia that was never terminated/disappeared throughout the Pleistocene.
Of this list i would only remove (6) because the Sangiran 17 crania was more recently reconstructed as almost orthognathic. It was basically a faulty reconstruction from the 80s showing it as having marked facial prognathism.
Baba, H.; Aziz, F.; Narasaki, S. (2000). "Restoration of the face of Javanese Homo erectus Sangiran 17 and re-evaluation of regional continuity in Australasia". Acta Anthropologica Sinica 19: 34–40.
quote:I also don't understand why you keep saying OOA is a hoax when you say you subscribe to assimilation. Do you have any idea how crazy that sounds?
Not at all, because Assimilation denies "AMH" had an exclusive African origin. Instead it argues most (but not all) "modernity" traits originated there, which I have no problem with given its much larger population size throughout the Pleistocene.
And my point is that Europeans, South-East Asians etc., were regionally distinctive hundreds of thousands of years before Africans. The cranial discontinuity you are trying to show for Europeans are not the regional traits that uniquely characterised the perhiperal regions (incl. Europe) on Earth throughout the Pleistocene, where they are still found in high frequency there today.
Posted by Dead (Member # 21978) on :
In response to your Mesolithic skulls, I'll give you a quote Howells (1995).
quote:Nine of ten Portuguese Late Mesolithic skulls from Muge sites north of Lisbon are read, if not closely, as European, with one exception, thus a pretty positive statement. In fact, with the female preference for Zalavar, this could be even refine to "South European" or, in typological readings of old, ""Mediterranean."
Kurgans are burial mounds widespread in Central Asia( see Anthony 1985). These specimens are not given a locality in the catalogue in Oslo, but were apparently gathered around the headwaters of the Yenesei River in eastern Siberia in the vincinity of Krasnoyarsk, and represent Scythians, seminomadic horse breeders of late prehistoric times. The affinities of both skulls are clearly European, a matter of interest in the ethnic relations of Scythians generally.
Four of five Danish Neolithic crania are also European in affiliation. The Ertebolle skull, however, is well removed from any modern population except Ainu. The Ainu, though Asiatic, are a population so generalized as not to be very indicative. In other analyses (Howells 1989), Ainu are apt to cluster with either European or Guam.
Holocene population history is very different though to the Pleistocene because of the population size changes.
The 4-5 regionally distinctive/continuous European traits don't probably all even appear in Howell's used measurements btw.
Posted by Dead (Member # 21978) on :
I cannot find the European tickbox in Habgood like he did for south-east asia, but ill post them here later. They're in Frayers 90s papers. Habgood tested them with his tickbox and 4-5 apply.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
I agree with some of the things you're saying. But simple logic dictates that the feasible hypotheses among assimilation are, effectively, just variants of OOAT, not MRT. Any self-respecting origin theory that falls under assimilation has to take in account the empirical evidence that human genes predominantly come from a single source, or it will fall under orthodox MRT (which predicts that human genes will structure according to region, with interregional exchanges) and become falsified by default.
If the regional continuity acknowledged in assimilation is due to a lot of admixture of archaics with AMHs, it may detract from OOAT more and more, as the amount of admixture increases beyond the modest levels allowed for by replacement and hybridization, but it will be even more unlike MRT, which says that Eurasian holocene humans are, with respect to AMHs from Africa, unbroken continuations from regional archaics (i.e. no special role from African AMHs, if any).
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:The cranial discontinuity you are trying to show for Europeans are not the regional traits that uniquely characterised the perhiperal regions (incl. Europe) on Earth throughout the Pleistocene, where they are still found in high frequency there today.
Maybe. But I'm just nuancing the claims made in this thread that Africa is somehow unique in it's supposed lack of continuation; as demonstrated, Africa is not special in this regard.
Also, under OOA the "negroid" configuration is not a special one. In other words, there is no reason why the stereotyped West African pattern should represent the continent. Even if Thorne's prediction, i.e. that the Australoid craniofacial configuration predates the "negro" configuration, is true (which it is, but only because he has narrowly defined "negro" to include only a seemingly recent cranio facial pattern in the African record), you're still dealing with two native African phenotypes, with the former (Australian Aboriginal), or it's ancestral form, simply having gone extinct there today.
Posted by .Charlie Bass. (Member # 10328) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dead:
quote:Originally posted by Manu: World record in wide noses goes to West Africans, hands down.
This poor chap has had his photo used across this forum since at least 2010. I wonder what he would say if he saw this. lol
His look is not even typical for for West-Central Africans, that's why its dumb for people to keep spamming this pic.
Posted by Dead (Member # 21978) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Maybe. But I'm just nuancing the claims made in this thread that Africa is somehow unique in it's supposed lack of continuation; as demonstrated, Africa is not special in this regard.
I'm arguing Africa is unique, or rather was throughout the Pleistocene. It had the largest population size. So the reason the African fossil record preserves poor 'regional continuity' in skeletal features - is because of this morphological heterogeneity. In contrast the small peripheral populations outside of Africa, like in Europe, but especially Java, possessed a regionally distinctive or homogenous set of diagnostic traits because their mean craniometric variation (through genetic drift) was much lower.
Since Africans were so heterogenous, it would be very rare, to impossible, to find the combination or ensemble of cranial traits that characterized a peripheral region during the Pleistocene there. These unique 'regional complexes' Thorne and Wolpoff (1981) coined " morphological clades". So if you look at that combination of 4-5 "Australoid" traits from Habgood (2003) none appear together on an African fossil. Back in the 80s and 90s, far too big lists of these features were made. Most now have now been removed. The original "Australoid" regional traits numbered 12-17 in number, but they're now down to 4 or 5. So this is why Multiregionalism has been watered down. But those morphological clades still exist, even if the number of traits have been massively reduced.
quote: Also, under OOA the "negroid" configuration is not a special one. In other words, there is no reason why the stereotyped West African pattern should represent the continent.
There was no regional/subregional morphological structure there during the Pleistocene, just a highly heterogenous (geographically undifferentiated) meta-population. But the exception of limited continuity could have been at the peripheral of Africa itself:
Border Cave > Klasies > Khoisan (San) ???
"The earliest good evidence for what might be a distinct pattern of regional evolution in Africa is an example of centre and edge in a more limited application. This evidence may well be at an African periphery - in this case, along the southern Cape." (Wolpoff & Caspari, 1997)
And the reason why 'negroid' is sometimes used to stereotype the whole African continent is because that morphology in a lot of people's minds (usually just based on the nose) is what they regard the geographically undifferentiated African phenotype looked like. But of course this is false if you look at multivariate studies on crania.
Posted by Dead (Member # 21978) on :
quote:Originally posted by .Charlie Bass.: QUOTE]His look is not even typical for for West-Central Africans, that's why its dumb for people to keep spamming this pic. [/QB]
Well for some reason 'Manu' is trying to argue that mean nasal index for West African populations is 110. It isn't. Its around 90 for each ethnic group or population in West Africa. But 90 is still platyrrhine (broad nosed). Pointing out on average that West Africans are broad nosed is not wrong.
Posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate (Member # 20039) on :
^^^What you say is ridiculous. We know West Africans are relative recent migrants to their current location for the most part because they carry haplogroups in great proportion which we know originate in (North-)Eastern Africa. They also carried Green Saharan artifacts with them when they migrated southward during the desertification of the Sahara. And of course it has been determined that there's no continuity with Pleistocene specimen and modern West Africans (aka modern West Africans are "recent" migrants to their current locations. They migrated there during the Holocene period).
For example: Yoruba Y-DNA CT: 93.1% Yoruba MtDNA L3: 45.45%
This also happens to be haplogroup they have in common with OOA migrants (which are all CT and L3 descendants).
It's not recent admixture because they share upstream (aka older aka before the OOA migrations) hgs with OOA migrants not downstream (aka more recent) ones.
The genetic closeness of East and West Africans (which are E-P2 carrier at over 80% of their populations) is also another clue of their shared recent common origin in North-Eastern Africa (as discussed in the OP):
East and West Africans also share various MtDNA haplogroups like L3eikx, L2a, L0a, etc.
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
Back to the dodosaur days
Posted by Dead (Member # 21978) on :
Physical anthro/fossils are more reliable than the modern genetic craze.
quote:At best, the genetic information explains how modern humans might have originated if the assumptions used in interpreting the genes are correct, but those conditions are only hypothetical, and one theory cannot be used to test another. The fossil record is the real evidence for human evolution, and it is rich in both human remains and archaeological sites stretching back for two million years. Unlike the genetic data, fossils can be matched to the pre-dictions of theories about the past with-out relying on a long list of assumptions.
- Thorne & Wolpoff, 2003
Fossils still require an interpretation, and there are biases and assumptions involved, but there are far less of these involved than genetics.
Posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate (Member # 20039) on :
^^^ Don't be ridiculous, genetics provide much more discriminative power than physiology. For example, individuals around the world can have all kind of limb proportions (which ultimately posses a limited number of different values it can takes), but genetic can help you identify your father or grandfather with a 99.99% certainty (it is often used in paternity test).
For example, if you share the E-P2 haplogroup with someone, it means you share at least one paternal grandfather. If you share a lot of autosomal DNA, it means you share a lot of ancestors.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Don't be ridiculous, genetics provide must more discriminative power than physiology.
So, since you apparently apply this explanation to cope emotionally with the way Brace' Egyptian samples cluster; which E-M2 peaking African population clusters craniofacially with a pooled Neolithic European sample over the Niger-Congo samples employed by Brace et al? Is there any real word precedent for this science fiction?
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
@Dead
When it comes to archaic-AMH continuity, I think there is no regional continuity because there is no evidence that Africa's AMHs evolved from different African archaic humans. There may have been more than one mtDNA Eve, though, but in my view these women and their male counterparts would have postdated the emergence of African AMHs, i.e. lead back to the same archaic human.
When it comes to AMH-holocene continuity in Africa, I believe continuity can be found in some cases. Devilliers and Brauer have shown in their analyses that, at least the Bantu phenotype (but not necessarily the West African form), has continuity in Upper Palaeolithic South Africa and East Africa. I believe UP candidates have also been found for the original Afro-Asiatic speakers, but the evidence is more tentative for them. The Khoisan phenotype probably can't be traced further back than the early/mid-holocene using the available skeletal record, with much certainty. I don't buy into the aspects of Pinhasi's work where he claims to be able to identify their ancestral forms in various African UP remains. Nilo-Saharans can probably be identified with Mesolithic Nile Valley Nubians.
Posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate (Member # 20039) on :
@Swenet I believe East and West African populations, and subgroups from those, are not exactly similar but the physiological/phenotypic differences between the various modern East and West African populations POSTDATE the separation of the E-P2 carriers into 2 different groups (P2/e1b1a, P2/e1b1b). That is after the migration of West Africans toward the Sahara and West Africa and after the migrations of East Africans within East Africa.
There's both differences and similarities between East and West Africans.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
Don't worry, I know all about your talent for writing science fiction on ES--no need to run it by me again. But what I need you to do, without running from your own thread for once, is to give me a precedent of where a population which supposedly peaks in E-M2, has more cranio-facial affinity with a pooled sample of neolithic European farmers than with a Niger-Congo speaking sample. Can you do this?
Posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate (Member # 20039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Don't worry, I know all about your talent for writing science fiction on ES--no need to run it by me again. But what I want you to do, without running from your own thread for once, is to give me a precedent of where a population which supposedly peaks in E-M2, has more cranio-facial affinity with neolithic European farmers than with a Niger-Congo speaking sample. Can you do this?
Don't be an idiot. What does this have to do with anything in this thread? Instead of asking me questions, why don't you just give us your own opinion directly about the situation?
For example, you can explain what the neolithic Europeans farmers has to do with East/West Africans and their genetic closeness.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
This is hilarious. Never met someone who is so thoroughly full of bs and yet so willing to grab the mic and start lecturing people about what it all means. When someone asks you a tough question, your first instinct (you've done this many times) is to deflect the attention away from your own glaring incompetence. You're posting all these dendrograms, you're swearing that you know how to interpret these data and that the people who reject your claims are racists, but the second you're asked to reconcile one of the numerous gaping discrepancies in your posts, you deflect and pretend you weren't swearing you knew it all a second ago. Are you really that incompetent?
Posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate (Member # 20039) on :
^^^I would still like Swenet to say to us how he reconciles all the data. Not just cranio-facial measurements, but also uniparental DNA, autosomal STR and SNP data and post-cranial/limb-proportion data as I exposed in this thread and other threads (See: LINK ). All those show us East and West African sharing close affinities relatively to other populations.
The following data is all taken from the sources stipulated in the LINK above.
This is the cranial measurements of a diverse set of African and non-African populations (Brace 2005): Fig. 1. Neighbor-joining dendrogram for a series of prehistoric and recent human populations (Craniofacial measures)
Here while Somali and Niger-Congo speakers are on the same branch, they could still be closer to each others than they are (there's no intermediary populations), but overall this still shows affinities between Niger-Congo speakers and East Africans like Somali. For example, Somali are closer to Niger-Congo speakers than Natufians populations (a population Swenet likes a lot for some reason). If you don't believe me, believes X. RICAUT and M. WAELKENS from the study called "Cranial Discrete Traits in a Byzantine Population and Eastern Mediterranean Population Movements (2008)" where the Brace study is mentioned.
It says:
quote:This affinity pattern between ancient Egyptians and sub-Saharans has also been noticed by several other investigators (Angel 1972;Berry and Berry 1967, 1972; Keita 1995) and has been recently reinforced by the study of Brace et al. (2005), which clearly shows that the cranial morphology of prehistoric and recent northeast African populations is linked to sub-Saharan populations (Niger- Congo populations). - From From Cranial Discrete Traits in a Byzantine Population and Eastern Mediterranean Population Movements by F. X. RICAUT and M. WAELKENS (2008)
Also, as I said above, populations can share some craniofacial traits (but not some other craniofacial traits) and still not be genetically/historically related to each others. Physiology doesn't have the same discriminative power as genetics. As two populations can develop independently similar cranio-facial measurements for a few traits and still not be related genetically or historically.
But still, here above, we can see Niger-Congo speakers have some affinities with Somali populations (and we know from genetics Somali are not recently admixed with West Africans. They just share a common recent (post OOA) origin with them.)
Now here, Swenet wants you to ignore post-cranial measurements and genetic analysis in general.
- From Population Affinities of the Jebel Sahaba Skeletal Sample (Holliday 2013)
Here, on those post-cranial measurments, we can clearly see East and West Africans clustering much closer to each others than they do with Eurasians populations like France, Afalou, El Wad or Germany.
Same thing obviously for DNA (uniparental, autosomal (SNP-STR)), since they are the subject of this thread:
STR:
SNP:
This can also can be observed here (autosomal STR): LINK
East and West Africans also share various Y-DNA (E-P2) and MtDNA (L3eikx, L2a, L3bd, etc) not shared with Eurasian populations.
Genetic analysis provide more discriminative power because if populations share haplogroups or a large sets of autosomal DNA, it's because they share ancestors for sure.
So Swenet wants to talk about cranio-facial measurements which doesn't even do him that much good, but wants people to ignore uniparental DNA, autosomal STR and SNP data and post-cranial measurements. In all those cases we can see East and West Africans being much closer to each others than they are to Eurasians populations. They also share E-P2 and various L3 haplogroups which we know originate in North-Eastern Africa after the OOA, in great proportion of their genome. All this is discussed in the first few posts of this thread.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
I rest my case. I've already demonstrated how astronomically clumsy you are. You're told numerous times that everything you post about AEs is false per the scientific data, and everytime you're confronted with this, you deflect, cry 'racist' or post even more bs. That is, barring the times you didn't sh!t your pants and run away. Lol.
You don't even know what you're posting. The SNP and the STR data you've posted above don't say what you're saying, either. You deliberately stick to posting misleading dendrograms and excerpts from Ricaut, because the second you start posting genetic pairwise distances you'll end up looking like a buffoon, just like the Brace data I posted made you look like an incompetent buffoon for citing him, without having the faintest idea as to what he and his data actually say.
Posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate (Member # 20039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
You don't even know what you're posting. The SNP and the STR data you've posted above don't say what you're saying, either.
Ok, I'll bite. What do they say according to you?
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
Deflecting again to distract away from your own incompetence? Post pairwise distance data where various African populations aren't pooled and where Eurasian data is also available. We'll see how long the claims you've expressed here and elsewhere, last, when the data is bare and naked, and you can't hide behind your usual crutches.
Posted by .Charlie Bass. (Member # 10328) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dead:
quote:Originally posted by .Charlie Bass.: QUOTE]His look is not even typical for for West-Central Africans, that's why its dumb for people to keep spamming this pic.
Well for some reason 'Manu' is trying to argue that mean nasal index for West African populations is 110. It isn't. Its around 90 for each ethnic group or population in West Africa. But 90 is still platyrrhine (broad nosed). Pointing out on average that West Africans are broad nosed is not wrong. [/QB]
It actually varies and he needs to take samples and sample size into consideration, but according to Hiernaux, sub-saharan comprises 92% of the world's variation in nasal index, if the average nasal index was 110 like he said this cannot be so he lies:
quote:In sub-Saharan Africa, many anthropological characters show a wide range of population means or frequencies. In some of them, the whole world range is covered in the sub-continent. Here live the shortest and the tallest human populations, the one with the highest and the one with the lowest nose, the one with the thickest and the one with the thinnest lips in the world. In this area, the range of the average nose widths covers 92 per cent of the world range: only a narrow range of extremely low means are absent from the African record. Means for head diameters cover about 80 per cent of the world range; 60 per cent is the corresponding value for a variable once cherished by physical anthropologists, the cephalic index, or ratio of the head width to head length expressed as a percentage.....
Hair form has rarely been quantified by physical anthropologists, who usually content themselves with broad divisions like 'straight', 'wavy', 'curly' and 'spiralled'. Only the last two categories are frequent in the populations of sub-Saharan Africa, and spiralled hair, which may be more or less tightly spiralled, occurs in many more populations than curly hair. An extreme is the 'peppercorn' hair of the Khoisan people, in which spiralling is so tight that the hair forms tufts which appear to leave bare patches on the surface of the scalp.
One of the features that physical anthropologists measure on the skulls is prognathism, or facial protrusion. A straight face is said to be orthognathous. Prognathism may be total or subnasal, that is restricted to the region below the nose. This character is hard to evaluate on the living, except in radiographs. In sub-Saharan Africa, individuals vary from orthognathism to extreme prognathism and large population differences may be observed between populations.
All this is evidence of the great biological diversity of the peoples living in sub-Saharan Africa.
Jean Hiernaux
The People of Africa
pgs 53, 54
Posted by Dead (Member # 21978) on :
Charlie Bass, you seem to label virtually everything 'typology' without understanding it. I can understand you saying this at somewhere at Anthroscape where they think "Baltids" and "Arabids" are platonic fixed types or real, but calculating a mean nasal index from a population is not typology, the average/mean is a statistical abstraction. It is only used as a study tool.
I have no idea why you are criticizing these as 'typology':
Mean nasal index in West & Central Africa is platyrrhine (broad-nosed). It falls between 85 - 99.9, but you find some Pygmy populations who are 100 - 114.9 and hyper-platyrrhine (very-broad nosed). The only exception to this is in the Sahel belt or northern extremity of West Africa, which borders the Sahara. Sahelian populations like the Hausa tend to be mesorrhine, but you're mistaken if you think there is a narrow nosed/leptorrhine West African population.
Mean Nasal index maps out well on the Koppen climate map that records average annual and monthly temperature and precipitation/humidity.
The only narrow nosed (leptorrhine) populations in Sub-Sahara Africa are from the Horn. This is also what Hierneux (1974) shows. His "elongated Africans" are not West/Central "broad African" ('Negroid') populations.
Posted by .Charlie Bass. (Member # 10328) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dead: Charlie Bass, you seem to label virtually everything 'typology' without understanding it. I can understand you saying this at somewhere at Anthroscape where they think "Baltids" and "Arabids" are platonic fixed types or real, but calculating a mean nasal index from a population is not typology, the average/mean is a statistical abstraction. It is only used as a study tool.
I have no idea why you are criticizing these as 'typology':
Mean nasal index in West & Central Africa is platyrrhine (broad-nosed). It falls between 85 - 99.9, but you find some Pygmy populations who are 100 - 114.9 and hyper-platyrrhine (very-broad nosed). The only exception to this is in the Sahel belt or northern extremity of West Africa, which borders the Sahara. Sahelian populations like the Hausa tend to be mesorrhine, but you're mistaken if you think there is a narrow nosed/leptorrhine West African population.
Mean Nasal index maps out well on the Koppen climate map that records average annual and monthly temperature and precipitation/humidity.
The only narrow nosed (leptorrhine) populations in Sub-Sahara Africa are from the Horn. This is also what Hierneux (1974) shows. His "elongated Africans" are not West/Central "broad African" ('Negroid') populations.
Nasal index isn't typology, no one is saying that, what I am saying is that it varies in SSA and the Horn is not the only place with narrow noses people, Fulani and other Sahelian population and Tutsi and Bahima who are in Central Africa.
Posted by Dead (Member # 21978) on :
The Sahelian populations like Hausa are still mesorrhine, not narrow.
Ok, Hierneux (1974), reports a study where Tutsi are 69.5. But this is right on the border of leptorrhiny-mesorrhiny (70).
"[Mean] Nasal index (ratio of the width and height of the nose) is 70 with the Tutsi." - Office de l'information et des relations publiques pour le Congo belge et le Ruanda-Urundi, 1960
Actual leptorrhiny in SSA as a mean/average is only found among populations in the Horn:
"The noses of Somalis, Amharas, and Gallas are leptorrhine, with nasal indices of 66, 68, and 69, respectively." - Coon, 1939
Posted by Dead (Member # 21978) on :
If you look at the above map you can see why leptorrhiny as a population mean is confined to the Horn. It is the only sizable dry/arid eco-region [coloured red] in Sub-Saharan Africa (excluding the kalahari desert to the south).
Posted by DD'eDeN (Member # 21966) on :
That makes me think that maybe
(Som)-ali = (Kalah)-ari
that is, ari = ali = orange-reddish-yellow dawn/tawny
which matches ati (Eskimo & Cree): dog (before northern wolf admixture)
and also anjing (Malay): dog (and thus (an)dingo)
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
Full day gone by; looks like he's shitting his pants and running from his own thread again.
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Deflecting again to distract away from your own incompetence? Post pairwise distance data where various African populations aren't pooled and where Eurasian data is also available. We'll see how long the claims you've expressed here and elsewhere, last, when the data is bare and naked, and you can't hide behind your usual crutches.
Posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate (Member # 20039) on :
^^You're trolling and being stupid and ridiculous, while at the same time avoiding answering any questions about your positions.
Look at my reply to you just above where it says:
This can also can be observed here (autosomal STR): LINK
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate:
Look at my reply to you just above where it says:
This can also can be observed here (autosomal STR): LINK
Question: why are you even lecturing on these matters, when you're clearly every bit as ignorant as the average layperson? You're arguably even more confused than a layperson who is light years ahead of you by not carrying the sick baggage that is causing you to posture as some sort of guru of African population genetics, when it's obvious to those in the know that you're at square sub-zero.
Dendrograms are NOT pairwise distance data. Dendrograms do NOT allow for individual cross- population comparisons--certainly not the elaborate cross-comparison information you imagine you've deduced from them, for several years now.
No more stalling, no more deflecting, no more confused replies that only serve to demonstrate the fact that you never had the the faintest clue what you're talking about, either now or in the past few years.
Post pairwise distance data RIGHT NOW or admit that you have no idea what you're talking about.
And NO. I'm under no obligation to offer my opinion on anything. Why? So the spotlights are off your crackpot claims and you can sit back and wilfully reject all the peer-reviewed data I post at a whim, or simply vacate the thread and start over elsewhere two days later with the EXACT same disproved crackpot claims, as you have done for the past two years? Don't think so.
Posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate (Member # 20039) on :
^^It's obvious to anybody reading this forum you're the one who is trolling and being an ignorant. You're just like a little baby whining about the FACTS I exposed in this thread without having anything to say, any argumentations, to contradict them.
But for a moment let me speak to the guy behind the Swenet character for a moment. Yes, you typing on the keyboard. What does it change in your life if East and West African have a common origin (for most of their genome) in Northeastern Africa after the OOA migrations? Why are you so mad about the relationship of people from the E-P2 lineages in Africa?
Why are you so upset about it? I don't see how this affect your life.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
Dendrograms are NOT pairwise distance data. Dendrograms do NOT allow for individual cross- population comparisons--certainly not the elaborate cross-comparison information you imagine you've deduced from them, for several years now.
No more stalling, no more deflecting, no more confused replies that only serve to demonstrate the fact that you never had the the faintest clue what you're talking about, either now or in the past few years.
Post pairwise distance data RIGHT NOW or admit that you have no idea what you're talking about and that your claims are unproven mumbo jumbo you made up one day.
Posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate (Member # 20039) on :
I know Swenet is just acting retarded and trolling me but I'll bite, since I like to post about it:
Figure S7: Neighbor-joining tree from pairwise (δμ)2 microsatellite genetic distances between populations
You can also look at Figure 1 in the main document. The genetic structure and history of Africans and African Americans by Tishkoff (2009) is a peer-reviewed study.
Those are pairwise genetic distances between African and World populations.
Among other thing, we can see most Cushitic speakers being much closer to other African populations like Niger-Kordofanian speakers than non-African populations. Which is evident of course. Genetically speaking they share a common E-P2 origin with Niger-Kordofanian speakers for a large part of their genome.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote: Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate: Among other thing, we can see Cushitic speakers being much closer to other African populations like Niger-Kordofanian speakers than non-African populations. Which is evident of course.
Confused little puppy, aren't you? Actual geneticists have contradicted this, but you went as far as calling them liars. Armed with what academic sources, one might ask? Nothing, just pictures and a self- authored monologue filled with figments from your own rabid imagination.
But what else do you expect from a known charlatan who has all the trouble in the world complying with a request as simple as:
Post pairwise distance data RIGHT NOW or admit that you have no idea what you're talking about and that your claims are unproven mumbo jumbo you made up one day. --Swenet
Which is not an unreasonable request, seeing as actual transparent and verifiable work dedicated to investigating this very issue properly (not by gawking at dendrograms and making up your own wishful fairytales, like Mr. Windbag here), has come to a conclusion radically different from this charlatan's self-authored quackery:
While this Ethio-Somali IAC is found primarily in Africa, it has clear non-African affinities --Hodgson et al 2014
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote: Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate: From The genetic structure and history of Africans and African Americans by Tishkoff (2009)
quote: Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate: The genetic structure and history of Africans and African Americans by Tishkoff (2009) is a peer-reviewed study.
BTW, anyone who has looked at Tishkoff's Ks can clearly see that Saharan/West Eurasian blue and Cushitic purple alternate in some of their analyses. They are clearly not entirely mutually exclusive, an idea that Mr. Windbag here just can't seem to compute for the life of him. Must be too abstract an idea for his sensory input oriented mind.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
Can't even defend his bankrupt quackery to save his life; another day has gone by and he's fled the scene again . Can't post pairwise distance data either as they're not susceptible to the same censorship he applies to the larger, overall, dataset from the academics he loves to distort, cut and paste into his elaborate fairy tales. As a matter of fact, the quack is omitting a lot of things that he can't manipulate as data that appears supportive of his case. For instance, there is a very good reason why the incompetent quack actively censors fig S18 when he cites from Tishkoff et al 2009-- the position of the blue OOA affiliated branch as a side-branch to the Cushitic cluster refutes the dogsh!t out of the tired faith-based crap he's known for polluting forums with:
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
Moreover, maybe the chronic liar wants to explain to the forum why why he posts figure S7 and S14 from Tishkoff 2009, but never the four remaining dendrograms/ trees (Figure 1, S8, S18, S21). Of the latter trees that include non-African populations, all show non- Africans as an outgrowth of populations whose ancestors have inhabited the exit points of Africa along the Indian Ocean since the MSA, in accordance with tried and tested OOA theory that the Amun-Ra quack hates so much.
Posted by Dead (Member # 21978) on :
He holds a cluster view on genetics, opposed to the clinal reality. But the strange thing is why are these studies making 'trees' in the first place? This would require divergence/cladogenesis via speciation, or a high level of reproductive isolation. Above diagram states "clades". Very odd. There are no clades in the putative human species. A clade is a monophyletic group.
Posted by Dead (Member # 21978) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: [QB] I agree with some of the things you're saying. But simple logic dictates that the feasible hypotheses among assimilation are, effectively, just variants of OOAT, not MRT. Any self-respecting origin theory that falls under assimilation has to take in account the empirical evidence that human genes predominantly come from a single source, or it will fall under orthodox MRT (which predicts that human genes will structure according to region, with interregional exchanges) and become falsified by default.
Check my reply here where this was already raised. I think this is a misunderstanding of MRE, which from the beginning allowed for accumulated genes of any population to be dominated by the largest population via gene flow or population movement:
"Based on these findings and the hypothesis of a larger long-term African population, I suggest that the multiregional model predicts that biological distances based on many traits will show that recent modern fossil samples are more similar to earlier samples from Africa than they are to samples from the same geographic region. I also suggest that regional continuity will be found in a small number of traits, but not all traits." (Relethford, 2001)
"My findings may seem contradictory to the prediction of regional continuity under a multiregional model, which is that the greatest similarity over time will be within regions. However, this prediction would be contradictory only if we expect all traits to show a pattern of regional continuity. However, proponents of the multiregional model do not suggest that all traits will show continuity. In reality, regional continuity is expected only for some traits as the result of genetic drift and selection acting to maintain high frequencies of a trait within a region. (Relethford, 1998)
Also it should be remembered MRE predated most of modern genetics. It was formulated 30 years ago (Wolpoff et al., 1984). This was before the 1987 Cann study on MtDNA. MRE as a model is still primarily based on morphological regional continuity because this is easier to show with fossils. Trying to demonstrate regional continuity with genetics is harder because there are more assumptions involved and then you would have to identify the alleles or whatever for specific craniometric regional traits.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
I will look into Relethford's work, following your suggestion, but isn't he a revisionist? Last time I checked, early MRT said that there was no special role for Africa in at least some of these regions. Wolpoff said at no point was there an intrusion of African AMHs in the East Asian record. We now know that's unequivocally false (re: the genepool of all modern humans has a single source). From my perspective it looks like certain MRT proponants switched to a more defensible position following mounting evidence that original MRT is at odds with genetic evidence; it's definitely not a concidence that your citations of Relethford date to when population genetics took off.
And what I find disingenuous about this is that they never announced their concessions (i.e. the ones that kept giving African AMHs an increasingly bigger role in the origin of holocene humans); when Tishkoff and others falsified the predictions of early MRT in the 90s, they were told they had misunderstood MRT, but didn't specify that this 'misunderstanding' (if you can call it that) was because THEY silently shifted the points of contention around by allowing for more contributions from African AMHs relative to regional archaics. They then called the new thing MRT, even though it wasn't the same as the MRT that was juxtaposed with OOA early on--the MRT everyone thought they were arguing against.
But again, don't you end up with a variant of OOA when you acknowledge that global holocene humans ended up with an overwhelmingly African origin for their ~22k genes?
Posted by Dead (Member # 21978) on :
Read this debate about clarification from 1996 between Wolpoff and Tishkoff.
quote:The multiregional model originally postulated that most genes in Asian populations derived from H. erectus populations living in the area for more than a million years. Recently, however, the model has become more vague and less quantitative, and allows for considerable contributions of genes recently flowing out of Africa. This current version of the multiregional model is merely a restatement of the assimilation models proposed by Smith et al. (1) and Bräuer (2). The crux of the problem is the amount of gene flow. As pointed out by Stoneking (3), complete replacement out of Africa and completely independent origins from previously separated populations are the extremes of a continuum of hypotheses, with the modern African contribution varying from 100% to 0%.
- Tishkoff
The problem with this statement is that MRE never originally predicted "most genes in Asian [European, Javan] populations derived from H. erectus populations" in their own regions:
quote:Multiregional evolution began with the hypothesis that, as the world outside of Africa was first colonized, a pattern of genetic diversity developed that contrasted greater amounts of genetic variability at the center of the human range with greater, though differing, homogeneities at the sparsely inhabited edges (4, 5). We anticipated (4, 5) that Africa, the original center, was a much more densely occupied region. Therefore, while recognizing that gene flow is always multidirectional, the multiregional model proposed that, for most of human evolution, its expected direction was often asymmetrical, largely outward from the center (6). A corollary of this is the expectation that genetic variation in Africa was always greater than elsewhere because of the larger populations, reduced selection at the species' center, and the ecological variation created by Africa's geographic spread from north to south (7). Variation in the more peripheral human populations reflected small, oscillating, population sizes.
- Wolpoff
Its true to say that MRE from the start (Wolpoff et al., 1984 and Thorne's earlier papers) argued for more gene flow from Africa (as part of "centre and edge" evolution). But at the same it is true they were not committed to putting an estimate/percentage on it. They wrote in 1984 that: "It makes no sense, in our view, to argue about whether gene flow or selection or drift predominated" since MRE involves all of these regardless of quantity. So MRE theoretically is compatible with 99%> genes from Africa, and <1% in situ drift/selection at the peripheral edge populations accounting for regional continuity in certain cranial features. I agree though that no MRE proponent considered it this low, but they were never specific about the % of any regional continuity - just as long as it existed.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dead: The problem with this statement is that MRE never originally predicted "most genes in Asian [European, Javan] populations derived from H. erectus populations" in their own regions:
What do you make of this, then?
Quote: "Our examinations of the Chinese specimens found no anatomic evidence that typically African features ever replaced those of the ancient Chinese in these regions. Instead there is a smooth transformation of the ancient population into the living peoples of east Asia." --Wolpoff 1992
Tishkoff's data did, in fact, falsify many of Wolpoff's ideas, including that one. Slightly off-topic: I just read the letters you posted, and she is also right that it would be strange for contemporary late pleistocene human populations all over the old world to remain one big semi-panmictic population for millions of years. This doesn't happen in nature, in any species. We modern humans of today are barely starting to do it, but we have technologies and practices that nullify extremely large distances and promote globalization.
Did Wolpoff reply in detail to the last letter elsewhere in his work or did I just witness Wolpoff's objections get nuked by Tishkoff et al? Talk about overkill! Posted by Dead (Member # 21978) on :
Stringer (2014) also quotes this:
"The evolutionary patterns of three different regions show that the earliest ‘modern’ humans are not Africans and do not have the complex of features that characterize the Africans of that time or any other [...] There is no evidence of specific admixture with Africans at any time, let alone replacement by them." - Wolpoff et al., 1994
While understanding gene flow is multidirectional, MRE always acknowledged more African migrations than any other region, but it never estimated a percentage in terms of accumulated genes (via a migration matrix model). This was obviously a mistake, which is why Stringer and Tishkoff have been misled and possibly see a contradiction.
Relethford (1998) correctly points out that there is an incorrect assumption of MRE that it proposes "most of the genes in Europe would derive from Europe, most genes in Asia would derive from Asia, and so on". He simply shows with a migration matrix model:
"[This] problem arises from equating per-generation endogamy with accumulated ancestry over many generations."
Looking at the fossil data, MRE was though certainly revised. In the 80s/90s it proposed far too many regional traits. We're now looking at very few (4-5 in each region) as tested by Habgood, which is why MRE has shifted towards Assimilation or is a "weak" Multiregionalism.
Posted by Dead (Member # 21978) on :
I will accept it would have been the 'autochthonous' inhabitants of each region that were assimilation into the African gene-pool, not vice-versa. But there was never total replacement: "regional continuity is expected only for some traits as the result of genetic drift and selection acting to maintain high frequencies of a trait within a region" -- Relethford.
The 4 European regional traits in question are horizontal-oval (H-O) shaped mandibular foramen, mastoid tubercle, suprainiac fossae and nasion projection (BNL/NOL). But I also see nasal narrowing as a 5th regional European trait (this was also recognised by Frayer et al. 1993).
Frayer, D. W. (1992). Evolution at the European edge: Neandertal and upper Paleolithic relationships. Préhistoire Européene/European Prehistory 2, 9–69.
In regards to the H-O mandibular foramen:
"The trait appears to be a European marker since it is very rare outside Europe, where it is found in only one fossil mandible from Africa, Asia, or Australia. Yet, the H-O mandibular foramen is common in European Neanderthals (53%) and in early Upper Palaeolithic [European] people (18%)" (Frayer, 1997)
Stringer concedes:
"Nevertheless, as mentioned above, we are ready to consider all documented evidence for regional continuity, and we assume that some trait might finally turn out the be reliable evidence for continuity. Among them could be the horizontal-oval (h-o) mandibular foramen" (Brauer & Stringer, 1997)
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
Not to dwell on this too long (I'm only posting on this site to counter Amun Ra's endless cycle of deliberate efforts to lie and deceive, running off when held accountable and repetition of same campaign of lies and manipulations elsewhere), but that's the whole problem with MRT. As Tishkoff has noted, there is no quantitativeness to MRT. When you remind MRT proponents of the fact that MRT originally meant anagenesis of regional archaics into living Old World populations and collective contributions to collective modernity, they realize the inherent vulnerability, and claim they stood for a preponderance of African ancestry and Africa- mediated physical and behavioural modernity all along. MRT proponents hover between these two claims depending on convenience.
But note that the idea of substantial African migrations over a period of 1.9 millions of years, as you're suggesting, doesn't necessarily jive with assimilation. African AMHs were only around for ~10% of this duration and migrated out of Africa during only ~5% of this duration; therefore, the vast majority of these hypothetical exchanges between Africa and other regions necessarily involved unrelated African archaics. Moreover, these exchanges with Africa, whether involving African archaics or AMHs, were never envisioned to substantially interfere with the evolution of regional archaics to the extent necessitated by assimilation and OOAT:
Today distinctive populations maintain their physical differences despite interbreeding and population movements; this situation has existed ever since humans first colonized Europe and Asia --Thorne and Wolpoff 2003
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
Despite posting elsewhere on the forum, the lying, deceptive quack who calls himself Amun-Ra hasn't reared his head here for three days, lol. He keeps calling me and others dishonest racists, but, yet, when push comes to shove and he's asked to put money where his mouth is, this liar repeatedly escapes ongoing discussions (which he'll later manipulate as "victories" on his part) and starts over elsewhere with the same debunked propaganda.
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
. Can't post pairwise distance data either as
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
