Could A00 have entered modern human Y chromosomes from archaic mem hooking up with modern women making the very first Mbo babies?
Do Baka unusual and ancient full genome regions show they came from trysts between Homo sapiens and various other Homo species?
Face and skeleton changes show in hybrid offspring of animal species. So any continuity from say Iwo Eleru would be better shown by genetics than by bones.
Craniology/craniometry may be useful for something but "The Ancient One" proved it useless for "ethnic" ancestry.
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
quote:Originally posted by Trollkillah # Ish Gebor:
Anthropological models, group portrait
quote: Caption: Anthropological models based on fossils from the human evolutionary tree. From left to right, are: a female Homo habilis, Homo ergaster, Homo georgicus (female with throwing stone in front of a male), two male Neanderthals (Homo neanderthalensis, carrying dead animals) with a female and a child, a Cro-Magnon hunter (throwing spear), a group of three heads (left to right: Australopithecus africanus, Paranthropus boisei, Sahelanthropus tchadensis), and Lucy and Lucien (Australopithecus afarensis) walking in the Laetoli fossil footprints. Reconstructions by Elisabeth Daynes, Daynes Studio, Paris, France.
Hey cousin! We are in you thanks to great grand daddy and gramme.
Posted by BlessedbyHorus (Member # 22000) on :
I personally doubt it. Otherwise archaic DNA would have been found in non-Northeast African. I prefer to believe that Hap AOO was Basel African/Sapien.
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
Research: Model-based analyses of whole-genome data reveal a complex evolutionary history involving archaic introgression in Central African Pygmies
PingHsun Hsieh, August E. Woerner, Jeffrey D. Wall, Joseph Lachance, Sarah A. Tishkoff, Ryan N. Gutenkunst, and Michael F. Hammer
Genome Res. March 2016 26: 291-300; Published in Advance February 17, 2016, doi:10.1101/gr.196634.115
Within Africa, fossil evidence suggests that anatomically modern humans (AMH) and various archaic forms coexisted for much of the last 200,000 yr; however, the absence of ancient DNA in Africa has limited our ability to make a direct comparison between archaic and modern human genomes. Here, we use statistical inference based on high coverage whole-genome data (greater than 60×) from contemporary African Pygmy hunter-gatherers as an alternative means to study the evolutionary history of the genus Homo. Using whole-genome simulations that consider demographic histories that include both isolation and gene flow with neighboring farming populations, our inference method rejects the hypothesis that the ancestors of AMH were genetically isolated in Africa, thus providing model-based whole genome-level evidence of African archaic admixture. Our inferences also suggest a complex human evolutionary history in Africa, which involves at least a single admixture event from an unknown archaic population into the ancestors of AMH, likely within the last 30,000 yr. Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
Fernando L. Mendez, Thomas Krahn, Bonnie Schrack, Astrid-Maria Krahn, Krishna R. Veeramah, August E. Woerner, Forka Leypey Mathew Fomine, Neil Bradman, Mark G. Thomas, Tatiana M. Karafet, Michael F. Hammer
An African American Paternal Lineage Adds an Extremely Ancient Root to the Human Y Chromosome Phylogenetic Tree
The American Journal of Human Genetics, Volume 92, Issue 3, 7 March 2013, Pages 454-459
A00. We then estimated the time to the most recent common ancestor (TMRCA) for the Y tree as 338 thousand years ago (kya) (95% confidence interval = 237–581 kya). Remarkably, this exceeds current estimates of the mtDNA TMRCA, as well as those of the age of the oldest anatomically modern human fossils. The extremely ancient age combined with the rarity of the A00 lineage, which we also find at very low frequency in central Africa, point to the importance of considering more complex models for the origin of Y chromosome diversity. These models include ancient population structure and the possibility of archaic introgression of Y chromosomes into anatomically modern humans. Posted by BlessedbyHorus (Member # 22000) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler: Research: Model-based analyses of whole-genome data reveal a complex evolutionary history involving archaic introgression in Central African Pygmies
PingHsun Hsieh, August E. Woerner, Jeffrey D. Wall, Joseph Lachance, Sarah A. Tishkoff, Ryan N. Gutenkunst, and Michael F. Hammer
Genome Res. March 2016 26: 291-300; Published in Advance February 17, 2016, doi:10.1101/gr.196634.115
Within Africa, fossil evidence suggests that anatomically modern humans (AMH) and various archaic forms coexisted for much of the last 200,000 yr; however, the absence of ancient DNA in Africa has limited our ability to make a direct comparison between archaic and modern human genomes. Here, we use statistical inference based on high coverage whole-genome data (greater than 60×) from contemporary African Pygmy hunter-gatherers as an alternative means to study the evolutionary history of the genus Homo. Using whole-genome simulations that consider demographic histories that include both isolation and gene flow with neighboring farming populations, our inference method rejects the hypothesis that the ancestors of AMH were genetically isolated in Africa, thus providing model-based whole genome-level evidence of African archaic admixture. Our inferences also suggest a complex human evolutionary history in Africa, which involves at least a single admixture event from an unknown archaic population into the ancestors of AMH, likely within the last 30,000 yr.
I stand corrected but are we certain that Haplogroup A00 origins are in archaic humans?
But either way I am certain that Homo-Sapiens arose in the Western part of Africa.
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
Though cumbersome as hell, this trellis posted by Havoc is a better model than any linear tree afaic. And that ape walking himself into a European, it's so stupid they made fun of in the Howard the Duck movie. Shucky ducky quack quack.
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
This is what I mean when I say a mod's personal honor is more important than thread integrety.
Mod feels insulted and immediate action.
Lioness snipes my KM.t thread but won't reply to my request she back up her lie that KM.t never has human determinative by pointing out KM.t glyphs in the passages I posted.
She's hiding she's a fugking clown when it comes to AEL and hieroglyphics.
Members & Lurkers are left with the impression that since a mod said KM.t never had any human determinative she must be right because mods don't make irresponsible statements or else would retract once apprised of error.
The Blue Wall principle. SMH
Posted by BlessedbyHorus (Member # 22000) on :
^^No I just don't want your good thread going off topic. I admitted I was incorrect and left with that.
I apologize if I contributed to the off-topic but in future posts in this thread I want it to stay on topic.
Anyways this seems interesting. Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
I ain't trying to hear that horseshit Not while that liars post is still up in my KM thread and she remains unaccountable for gross error.
You didn't threaten Xyy with with suspension because of going off topic you did it because he called you an effing clown.
I ain't worried about no damn one line post from MensaMind. What I am. concerned about and alerted you to you've blithely ignore right up to this second.
Action zpeak louder than wordz. Whatchu gon do bout my thread titled KM (k-m) ... again ?
Posted by BlessedbyHorus (Member # 22000) on :
^What are you talking about?
Anyways this is your thread so do as you please...
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
Posth et al 2017
Few points: 1. they are using RSRS more now. Getting away from rCRS 2. They are speculating gene flow FROM Africans to Neanderthals PRIOR to OOA(page 5). They are still wrong, The similarity is due to COMMON ANCESTOR of Neanderthal and humans. All hominins share a common ancestors therefore there was no "rubbing" going on. 3. pg 6. "archeological similarity between Africa and Western Europe'. I am starting to considered we have to rethink. Western Europe may have been tropical at one time. They probably got that whole Ice Age thing wrong. Why? I recently found out that a lot of "tropical animals" including black elongated humans lived in Europe during the early Holocene.
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
Neanderthal is a human.
Any primate species with a common ancestor within 1.5 million years can fuck and produce fertile kiddies.
A skull in the Levant shows Hss and archaic traits.
A mandible in China does too.
And what about a certain Moroccan skull?
So the evidence is both genetic and skeletal.
Chimps are too far removed in time. That's why Russian and Chinese efforts To breed humanzees failed. the Chinese were so sick they used women for their Humanzee experiments
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
"So the evidence is both genetic and skeletal.'???? Really! What genetic proof?
" fuck and produce fertile kiddies" Really????
"truth is prism refracted fact -- i'm just another point of view"
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
Michael F. Hammer, August E. Woerner, Fernando L. Mendez, Joseph C. Watkins, and Jeffrey D. Walld
Genetic evidence for archaic admixture in Africa
A long-debated question concerns the fate of archaic forms of the genus Homo: did they go extinct without interbreeding with anatomically modern humans, or are their genes present in contemporary populations? This question is typically focused on the genetic contribution of archaic forms outside of Africa.
Here we use DNA sequence data gathered from 61 noncoding autosomal regions in a sample of three sub-Saharan African populations ( • Mandenka, • Biaka, and • San ) to test models of African archaic admixture.
We use two complementary approximate-likelihood approaches and a model of human evolution that involves recent population structure, with and without gene flow from an archaic population. Extensive simulation results reject the null model of no admixture and allow us to infer that contemporary African populations contain a small proportion of genetic material (≈2%) that introgressed ≈35 kya from an archaic population that split from the ancestors of anatomically modern humans ≈700 kya.
Three candidate regions showing deep haplotype divergence, unusual patterns of linkage disequilibrium, and small basal clade size are identified and the distributions of introgressive haplotypes surveyed in a sample of populations from across sub-Saharan Africa.
One candidate locus with an unusual segment of DNA that extends for >31 kb on chromosome 4 seems to have introgressed into modern Africans from a now-extinct taxon that may have lived in central Africa.
Taken together our results suggest that polymorphisms present in extant populations introgressed via relatively recent interbreeding with hominin forms that diverged from the ancestors of modern humans in the Lower- Middle Pleistocene.
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
The problem with some of you is you cannot detach or disentangle modern stereotypes when reading or doing analysis of these papers. You are still thinking of typical “negroes’ and typical “Caucasians” . YOU are still caught in the indoctrination dilemma.
It is clear that all humans along the tropical belt “look” the same or very similar. Blacks and “Negroes” occupy the tropical belt regardless if they are A00 or yDNa H or L in Asia. My point? PLASTICITY!!!!!!!! It always come back to that!! There was no “rubbing” of modern humans and Neanderthals and therefore no “mixed kiddies”. And that is NOT an opinion. We know A00 most likely originated in Africa but we have no idea what the first A00 “looked” liked. Are you now stating that the light skinned wire hair “mongoloid” San is no longer the first off-shoot of modern humans. Did the first A00 look like San or what they look like today? Are they remnants of an early population that “settled” in West Africa …….R-V88 comes to mind.
Come on man use that brain of yours.
Here is something to “oddle your noodles”. There is a difference of 100,000years between the age of mtDNA and Y-DNA using the molecular clock. So the question is- did female become “human” before the male? Which is more human, male or female. My point? The clock is WRONG!!!! We are looking at this all wrong!
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
Understand there was no fugking of Neanderthals and humans A00 Mbo or Asian?
A00 Mbo or Asian?
A00 Mbo or Asian? SMH STOP EYE BALLING!!!! LOOK AT THE DATA!!!!
Quote: ‘Evidence of Archaic Introgression A striking finding in our data set is that compelling evidence exists that extant hunter-gatherer genomes contain introgressed archaic sequence, consistent with previous studies (Hammer et al., 2011; Plagnol and Wall, 2006; Reich et al., 2010; Shimada et al., 2007; Wall et al., 2009).
Therefore, the simplest interpretation of these data is that introgressed regions in extant human populations represent neutrally evolving vestiges of archaic sequences. In short, we find that low levels of introgression from an unknown archaic population or populations occurred in the three African hunter-gatherer samples examined, consistent with findings of archaic admixture in non-Africans (Reich et al., 2010).’
In all three African huntergatherer samples, we found evidence of introgression from at least one archaic population. Strikingly, the median TMRCA for putatively introgressed haplotypes in the hunter-gatherer samples is similar to the median TMRCA for introgressed haplotypes in Europeans.
suggesting that the archaic African population diverged from anatomically modern humans in the same time frame as Neanderthals (simulations suggest that relative time of split with archaic populations can be recovered via TMRCA; Figure 3C).
This is not about somebody's problem It's not about the problem with you or the problem with me every time you disagree with something . Grow up.
SMH. The things your mind refuses to entertain.
Looks schmooks. Nice try at distraction, hahaha.
"The Ancient One" taught us looks don't count for everything. He looks like an Ainu. Fact is, he's a bona fide Native American.
As for A00, it's Niger-Congo speaking Mbo. Turn your brain on and shake the San out of it .
BTW... RESPECT. Talk to me like I'm standing in front of you cause you know I'd smack the shit out of you if you insulted me in person.
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
Clean that prism……..!!!!
To the newbies. To summarize. What the author is saying is that Paabo and Greene were WRONG. There was no Neanderthal admixture with AMH. It is only a romantic(delusion) within the minds of Europeans that quickly gained popularity when it was published. Paabo and Greene LIED!!!
Quotes : --- In view of this I decided to conduct a series of tests aimed at distinguishing between Neanderthal introgression and mutation slowdown.
Crucially, the mutation slowdown model makes a range of predictions that can be used to help distinguish it FROM introgression.
Perhaps unexpectedly, in every test I applied the mutation slowdown model offers a better, often unambiguously better, fit to the data than the Neanderthal introgression model. My results therefore appear to be at odds with previous studies, a conflict that can be resolved in three main ways.
First, my analyses are constrained both by the populations covered by the 1000 genomes project, which do not include representatives from Oceania, and refer mainly to broad patterns linked to Neanderthals. As such, they have no particular implications either for the Denisovan ***story*** 26, nor for *****anecdotal***** observations of specific individuals or genes. Indeed, evidence for occasional interbreeding events seems rather strong and, if the resulting offspring survived and bred
QUOTE: Conclusions. The idea of widespread interbreeding between modern humans and other hominids has been broadly and rapidly accepted, I am sure in part because the idea of carrying their legacy is undeniably romantic. Another key element is that, so far, a plausible alternative hypothesis has not been available. Mounting evidence in favour of HI offers an alternative explanation for many or most of the observations used to infer introgression, from differential patterns of base sharing to changes in apparent block size. The HI-mediated mutation slowdown hypothesis fits better with a range of direct tests of fit in which opposing predictions of the two hypotheses are compared. Consequently, there is now a clear need to explain why mutation slowdown is so strongly favoured before the idea of a widespread Neanderthal legacy can be considered proven.
See above. I entertained you with DATA....there was not fugking between humans and .....apes...Neanderthals to have kiddies.
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
"BTW... RESPECT. Talk to me like I'm standing in front of you":. my bad Sage.
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
Forgiven
You're eccentric as hell but that doesn't take away from the fact that you've made major breakthroughs the status quo box .
Every new science issue has at least two viable sides.
You're a genius but I just can't believe you downloaded and analyzed that Hammer report supplement already.
Fertile species hybridization is a fact of nature. We're animals. It applies to us too. I too once rejected it for us. But now I'm like 85% convinced.
YUCK: at this moment some man is fucking a sheep or cow Some woman is fucking a dog or horse. An Archaic may have been ugly or exotic to a Homo sapien but no matter when the "hornies" took over the teenage hormones.
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: The problem with some of you is you cannot detach or disentangle modern stereotypes when reading or doing analysis of these papers. You are still thinking of typical “negroes’ and typical “Caucasians” . YOU are still caught in the indoctrination dilemma.
It is clear that all humans along the tropical belt “look” the same or very similar. Blacks and “Negroes” occupy the tropical belt regardless if they are A00 or yDNa H or L in Asia. My point? PLASTICITY!!!!!!!! It always come back to that!! There was no “rubbing” of modern humans and Neanderthals and therefore no “mixed kiddies”. And that is NOT an opinion. We know A00 most likely originated in Africa but we have no idea what the first A00 “looked” liked. Are you now stating that the light skinned wire hair “mongoloid” San is no longer the first off-shoot of modern humans. Did the first A00 look like San or what they look like today? Are they remnants of an early population that “settled” in West Africa …….R-V88 comes to mind.
Come on man use that brain of yours.
Here is something to “oddle your noodles”. There is a difference of 100,000years between the age of mtDNA and Y-DNA using the molecular clock. So the question is- did female become “human” before the male? Which is more human, male or female. My point? The clock is WRONG!!!! We are looking at this all wrong!
LOL. Of course the clock is wrong. They are making guessetimates of genomes based on statistics not actual aDNA.
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
I see nothing odd about a hundred thousand year age difference between the earliest surviving nrY DNA and the earliest surviving mtDNA. It's the reason I used great granddaddy and just grandma in an earlier post to reflect that fact.
I'm talking science not the Garden of Eden.
Archaics are human species. All genus homo are human. A good super simplified primer on human evolution .
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: To the newbies. To summarize. What the author is saying is that Paabo and Greene were WRONG. There was no Neanderthal admixture with AMH.... Paabo and Greene LIED!!!
A liar sees lies everywhere.
"Indeed, evidence for occasional interbreeding events seems rather strong....", so no, he is *not* claiming there was no modern-archaic human interbreeding. E.g. Oase-1 appears to have recent Neanderthal ancestry which couldn't be explained by this model.
The author is suggesting that Africans have a slightly faster average mutation rate than non-Africans, as a direct result of their higher genetic diversity (a mechanism called heterozygote instability, which this guy has done a lot of work on). As a result Africans have mutated slightly further from the human common ancestor than non-Africans have, leading to non-Africans being genetically closer to archaic humans than Africans are.
Note that this wouldn't explain the signal of Denisovan admixture in Oceanians, as the artifact should be basically the same for Neanderthals and Denisovans.
We'll have to see how well this actually holds up, and whether it can really explain the larger linkage disequilibrium distances between Neanderthal alleles in older aDNA samples.
BTW the African reference samples are Yoruba, Mende, Luhya, Esan, Gambians, Afro-Caribbeans, and African-Americans. All True Negros lol.
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
I gotta give you props! You are more "slick" than Lioness. You Remind me of DJ. So there is an impasse. Some scientist say there is and others say there wasn't.
Bottom line is. Neanderthal/Denisovan and other humanoids SHARE the same ancestry with modern humans THAT is why there is genetic commonality. No other reason! Africans like Basal Eurasians and Natufians do NOT "show" Neanderthal ancestry at first glance as you rightly stated because they continued to mutate AFTER the initial OOA like Melenesians. Europeans are a mixture of BOTH first OOA and the 2nd;African Basal Eurasians. Europeans do NOT carry Natufians DNA because THEIR Basal Eurasian ancestry was NOT via the Levant but through Sicily/Malta/Greek/Italy/Tunisia/Morocco/Iberia etc
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
^^For the newbies …this guy and his “sleight of hands”. Understand the context. The author is going along with the fantasy then making a point. Populations of Oceania are one of the most distant to modern Africans unlike Europeans who are closer to Africans. Oceanians are part of the first OOA and therefore closer genetically to Africans of 50,000years ago. That sub-set that left Africa, 50,000ya and thus are genetically closer the Neanderthals and Denisovan. Modern Europeans are a mixture of OLD Africans(first OOA like Oceanians) and new Africans – Neolithic’s. That is why the data has consistently shown La Brana, Loschbour and the like are closer genetically to Onge/Oceanian etc than modern Europeans. Modern Africans do carry supposed Neanderthal ancestry but it “appears” at low frequency due to the extensive diversity ie mutation within Africa. That is why they INITIALLY did not find any Neanderthal ancestry in Africans. It is not “Neanderthal” it is genetic remnants of the ancestors from BOTH modern humans and Neanderthals. Paabo, Tishkoff knows this and they are lying. They are liars and cheats like most Europeans.
Quote: “First, my analyses are constrained both by the populations covered by the 1000 genomes project, which do not include representatives from Oceania, and refer mainly to broad patterns linked to Neanderthals. As such, they have no particular implications either for the Denisovan story 25, nor for anecdotal observations of specific individuals or genes. Indeed, evidence for occasional interbreeding events seems rather strong and, if the resulting offspring survived and bred, this may well have led to the selective retention of particular alleles that proved beneficial in a modern background.”
--- The quantity of Neanderthal DNA in modern humans: a reanalysis relaxing the assumption of constant mutation rate. William Amos
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
Here is another one. I need to be paid for this shyte. Here the author is assuming SHARED IBD between Africans and Neanderthals/Denisovan is due to interbreeding but it is not. It is shared ancestry WITHIN Africa Before modern humans left Africa. Pay me a dollar…..?
--- IBD Sharing between Africans, Neandertals, and Denisovans. - Povysil G
Abstract Interbreeding between ancestors of humans and other hominins outside of Africa has been studied intensively, while their common history within Africa still lacks proper attention. However, shedding light on human evolution in this time period about which little is known, is essential for understanding subsequent events outside of Africa. We investigate the genetic relationships of humans, Neandertals, and Denisovans by identifying very short DNA segments in the 1000 Genomes Phase 3 data that these hominins share identical by descent (IBD). By focusing on low frequency and rare variants, we identify very short IBD segments with high confidence. These segments reveal events from a very distant past because shorter IBD segments are presumably older than longer ones. We extracted two types of very old IBD segments that are not only shared among humans, but also with Neandertals and/or Denisovans. The first type contains longer segments that are found primarily in Asians and Europeans where more segments are found in South Asians than in East Asians for both Neandertal and Denisovan. These longer segments indicate complex admixture events outside of Africa. The second type consists of shorter segments that are shared mainly by Africans and therefore may indicate events involving ancestors of humans and other ancient hominins within Africa. Our results from the autosomes are further supported by an analysis of chromosome X, on which segments that are shared by Africans and match the Neandertal and/or Denisovan genome were even more prominent. Our results indicate that interbreeding with other hominins was a common feature of human evolution starting already long before ancestors of modern humans left Africa. Posted by capra (Member # 22737) on :
ah xyyman - it's not that you're totally ignorant and prejudiced, it's that everyone else is lying for inexplicable yet nefarious reasons
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
BTW. I am not prejudiced. As I told Lioness many times. There are some good white people. eg. The authors the above paper who clearly is trying to understand if there was really "poking" of Neanderthals and modern humans.
Posted by capra (Member # 22737) on :
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: They are liars and cheats like most Europeans.
I am not prejudiced
roflmao
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
"like MOST Europeans"
"There are SOME good white people"
prejudice=cast a wide net
Posted by DD'eDeN (Member # 21966) on :
Xyyman: "The author is going along with the fantasy then making a point. Populations of Oceania are one of the most distant to modern Africans unlike Europeans who are closer to Africans. Oceanians are part of the first OOA and therefore closer genetically to Africans of 50,000years ago. That sub-set that left Africa, 50,000ya and thus are genetically closer the Neanderthals and Denisovan."
Ok, interesting.
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
That is why at first blush it appears that, like Africans, Natufians and Basal Eurasians carry ***no*** Neanderthal ancestry.
Because Basal Eurasians and Natufians left Africa relatively RECENTLY. ie less than 10-8,000years ago. When they start analyzing ancient DNA in SSA. They will find that these ancient SSA are genetically closer to both Oceanians and Neanderthal wiat....we already have the huntergathereres of Africa carry MORE Neanderthal ancestry than the Neolithics/Agriculturalist.
Please...the visuals don't tell the entire story!
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
The Basal Eurasian timeframe is at least 3x older than your guess.
Natufians never left Africa. They arose in the Levant.
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
?? huh? "Natufians never left Africa. They arose in the Levant."
I will nice........sigh!
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
Do not want to derail the thread but…
So Early European farmers are not non-Africans. A double negative. lol! What else is there beside Africans and non-African/Eurasians? Capra. You understand my point. Europeans are so stupid liars. What the F is a “OUTSIDE” non-African?
Come on Sage, how many times do I have to explain this to you people on ES?
=== quote: The researchers were also able to fit the genomic data of modern and ancient humans into a simplified genetic model to reconstruct the deep population history of modern humans outside Africa in the last 50,000 years. While the model suggests that present-day Europeans received contributions from at least three ancestral populations, it also suggests that Early Near Eastern farmers carried genetic material that FALLS OUTSIDE the typical non-African variation. “The finding of an ancient lineage that is present in Europeans and Near Easterners but not elsewhere in Eurasia was a major surprise of our study. It will be exciting to carry out further ancient DNA work to understand the archaeological cultures associated with the arrival of this ancestry,” says David Reich. “We are only starting to understand the complex genetic relationship of our ancestors,” adds Johannes Krause. “Only more genetic data from ancient human remains will allow us to disentagle our pre-historic past”. ==== Quote Finally, we infer an admixture edge from the Middle East (a population related to the Mozabite, a Berber population from northern Africa) ******to***** southern European populations (w~22%). This migration edge is the one edge that is not consistent across independent runs of TreeMix on these data (Figure S8). In particular, an alternative graph (albeit with lower likelihood) places the Mozabite as an admixture between southern Europe and Africa *****(RATHER ******than the Middle East and Africa), and does NOT include an edge from the middle East to southern Europe.
========== Quote:
"Our finding that at least Natufians had Y-chromosomes of ****African origin ****(Supplementary Information, section 6) suggested to us ***initially *****that gene flow from Africa (which did not experience Neanderthal admixture) may have contributed Basal Eurasian ancestry into the ancient Near East,
There are no Natufian sites in Continental Africa.
The Levant sits on the African tectonic plate.
Natufians arose in the Levant from two elements • people already living there • people who arrived there from the continent
Continental African arrivals did not find an uninhabited land.
This is basic knowledge easily available to anybody willing to take the time to look it up.
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
"There are no Natufian sites in Continental Africa" - who the fukg cares what they found or did not find in Africa or the Levant The genetic profile shows the Natufians are Africans!!!
yDNA E is as African as the come!! Even the author made that clear. WT....!
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
Your geography statement is emotionally irrational. I'm talking fact you're talking ideology. Get lost .
This mix is neither negotiable nor arguable. Tying yourself into a knot won't wish it away. You did not do any digs. You haven't published any papers. And I'm not going back and forth with you. You can believe whatever you want to on your world. On this planet we follow established fact and precisions.
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
Whatever you say ....Sage. SMH. I did not make the statement. Really, I didn't.
""Our finding that at least Natufians had Y-chromosomes of ****African origin ****(Supplementary Information, section 6) suggested to us ***initially *****that gene flow from Africa (which did not experience Neanderthal admixture) may have CONTRIBUTED Basal Eurasian ancestry into the ancient Near East, "
===
no digging necessary ....
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
Without digging they never would have found their bones to extract DNA from, Get Smart, and yes The Mashubian obviously Supplied the African elements of the Natufian. Western European hunter gatherer autosomes didn't come from Mashubian Africans. You and your myopic Y haplogroup only approach are funny Just like your refusal of multidisciplinary evidence.
Now please open your own thread on Natufian Origins. Had enough of it here in my Cameroon & Archaics thread .
Thank you
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
YOU derailed the thread not me. my Statement was on Natufians did not really carry archaic humanoid/Neanderthal DNA, like Basal Eurasians(non non-Africans. He! hE! HE!) and modern Africans.
You got in and brought up and focused on Natufians...not Neanderthals.
And, yes!!!, I do rely on multidisciplinary approaches, cut DNA take precedent over all other disciplines. It is more clear but and less subjected to mis-interpretation and lies by ...yes, Europeans.
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
Anyways. Anyone want to make a guess on WHY Europeans carry TWO peaks? Capra and ElMaestro, Sage, Ish, Lioness …anyone? Tic! Toc!
IBD Sharing between Africans, Neandertals, and Denisovans - Gundula Povysil et al Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
See you the kind of Tigga why other Tiggas keep Roscoe in the house.
Africa
My focus is Africa
You Figaros just can't let Europe and Euros get out your lil minds.
Man is mind.
Cameroon and Africa's Archaics Nobody interested? Let the thread die. Get on topic or take your ass on.
Posted by Elmaestro (Member # 22566) on :
Given the results of Schlebusch and even gurdasani 2015 I feel it might be appropriate to revisit elder Anthropological studies, though I'm not fond of physical Anthropology, I stumbled over something while reading a very old genetics paper... Iwo Eleru.
^remnants of THE Archaic human? possible source of Neanderthal(like) Admixture in west Africans? A00??
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
Fo_l I am on topic. I am saying ...no!!!!! to interbreeding in Cameroon. Neither in Eurasia nor the Levant. Don't you get that? That is why I am citing these other sources. There was never any "mating". NEVER!!!!!!!!
Humans and Neanderthal have the same ancestors. Thus they have some genetic similarity. IT IS THAT SIMPLE!!!! That is where the similarity starts and end.
Even the author says it is a fantasy.
Posted by Fourty2Tribes (Member # 21799) on :
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: Anyways. Anyone want to make a guess on WHY Europeans carry TWO peaks? Capra and ElMaestro, Sage, Ish, Lioness …anyone? Tic! Toc!
The Neolithic OoA group.
But then shouldn't they have two Neanderthal peaks?
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
Smart man! That is the first thing to come to my mind. But notice the smaller curve is under/intersect the African curve. Notice also the Africa curve also has a barely visible 2nd curve.
Yes the implication is a 2nd migratory evident. I am thinking a north West Africa migration IN ADDITION to East Africa. Same stock TWO different migration path. Remember LA Brana was YDNA C ie South East Asians. Looks like the migration path(s) have been consistent since pre-Neanderthal.
Thoughts anyone. Critique?
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
Glad somebody picked up on what I put down in my OP.
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro: Given the results of Schlebusch and even gurdasani 2015 I feel it might be appropriate to revisit elder Anthropological studies, though I'm not fond of physical Anthropology, I stumbled over something while reading a very old genetics paper... Iwo Eleru.
^remnants of THE Archaic human? possible source of Neanderthal(like) Admixture in west Africans? A00??
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
Here are a few interesting ones I pulled. Reich and Paabo are a fervent racist so know what to expect from him. West Africans are MORE archaic…….But my take away is Khoe_San inhabited regions further north…in the Zanzibar archipelago!!! That is an Island off the coast of East Africa. Did they sail to the Island? Lol! These confused white people.
---
Intergrating ancient and modern DNA Reconstructing prehistoric African population structure and adaptation
Pontus Skoglund*, Svante Pääbo, David Reich
Abstract: The population genomic landscape of Africa prior to its transformation by expansions of farmers and pastoralists is poorly understood, partly due to poor ancient DNA preservation and partly due to the deep time scale of human population history on the continent. We assembled genome-wide data from ten sub-Saharan Africans who lived in the last 4,500 years, and show that one of the most deeply divergent present-day human lineages that is today found almost exclusively in people living in southern Africa, was in the past 2,000 years also present in populations much farther north in Malawi and the Zanzibar archipelago. These results highlight the existence of an ancient genetic cline stretched over thousands of kilometers along a south-north axis. By leveraging data from ancient African genomes without ancestry from more recent into-Africa migrations, we show that western Africans today may harbor ancestry from a lineage that separated from other modern human lineages earlier than any other, including the Khoe-San of southern Africa. Finally, we use the availability of time-stratified southern African genomes to document evidence of both selective sweeps and polygenic selection that might have conferred adaptations to desert environments.
Detecting introgressed loci using machine learning - Daniel Schrider*, Andrew Kern
Abstract: Speciation with gene flow appears to be common, and knowledge of which loci have and have not experienced such gene flow can elucidate the genetic basis of hybrid incompatibility. Moreover adaptive introgression, in which beneficial alleles cross species boundaries, appears to be commonplace in nature. Thus it is crucial to develop the statistical machinery required to uncover which genomic regions have recently acquired haplotypes via introgression from a sister species. We developed a novel machine learning framework, called FILET (Finding Introgressed Loci via Extra-Trees). It has been suggested that some sub-Saharan African populations contain DNA whose ancestry traces back to an unknown archaic hominin [5]. Our analyses reveals numerous loci that show strong signatures of recent introgression (within 100 kya) from a population that diverged from modern humans >500 kya. This result implies that the extent to which modern humans SHARE ancestry with archaic hominin relatives is even greater than has been suggested by comparisons with ancient DNA samples.
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
You can't seem to comment without your racial hatred interfering. If you can't contribute without interjecting your opinions of white people and n homosexuals Do me a favor stfu and go away. Please.
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
bye! BTW there is no race. But yes, I do have a problem with ****!
Admin: edited, and suspended.
[ 08. July 2017, 08:37 AM: Message edited by: Punos_Rey ]
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
C'mon fam.
Don't be like that.
We want you to go to the Bains Douches with us.
But you got to behave and get along You gotta treat and speak of and to people The way you want them to treat and speak to you
It ain't that hard (says an ill-tempered he-trout like me)
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
Recovering signals of ghost archaic admixture in the genomes of present-day Africans Arun Durvasula, Sriram Sankararaman doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/285734
This article is a preprint and has not been peer-reviewed.
Abstract
Analyses of Neanderthal and Denisovan genomes have characterized multiple interbreeding events between archaic and modern human populations. While several studies have suggested the presence of deeply diverged lineages in present-day African populations, we lack methods to precisely characterize these introgression events without access to reference archaic genomes.
We find several loci that harbor archaic ancestry at elevated frequencies and that the archaic ancestry in the Yoruba is reduced near selectively constrained regions of the genome suggesting that archaic admixture has had a systematic impact on the fitness of modern human populations both within and outside of Africa.
Using our inferred segments of archaic ancestry in the Yoruba, we find that there are regions of the genome that are under higher selective constraint have reduced archaic ancestry on average indicating that the archaic alleles were deleterious in the hybrid population. More data is needed for a complete picture of these ghost populations. For example, it is unclear whether the archaic signatures found here are from the same as those found in other African populations[13, 14, 15, 33].
YYT: this preprint is mostly about tools and methodology to detect Archaic ancestry; ArchIE, S*-statistic.
