quote:The oldest fossils of modern humans outside Africa have been discovered in Israel, a new study finds.
The newly revealed jaw and teeth are estimated to be up to 194,000 years old. This makes these fossils at least 50,000 years older than modern human fossils previously unearthed outside Africa, and closer in age to when recent genetic results suggested modern humans may have first left Africa.
These new findings suggest that modern humans may have had more time to interact and interbreed with archaic human lineages outside of Africa than previously thought. The discovery also sheds light on the routes modern humans might have taken while dispersing from Africa.
So would this have any impact on time estimates for the migration of living non-Africans' ancestors outside the Mother Continent? Or do you think this could be a "dead-end" lineage that did not have anything to do with extant non-African populations?
Posted by Tyrannohotep (Member # 3735) on :
Another recent study on modern human evolution, this one on braincase changes...
quote:Big brains outpaced well-rounded brains in human evolution.
Around the time of the origins of our species 300,000 years ago, the brains of Homo sapiens had about the same relatively large size as they do today, new research suggests. But rounder noggins rising well above the forehead — considered a hallmark of human anatomy — didn’t appear until between about 100,000 and 35,000 years ago, say physical anthropologist Simon Neubauer and his colleagues.
So the modern human braincases that all people today have would not have come about by the time of the new Israeli fossil from 194 kya. Therefore, I'm inclined to think that older population was a "dead end" for the most part.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
Lulz. Cabrera et al have already become dated. I predicted this would happen. The authors were just asking for it. If you follow archaeology you know that the humans outside of Africa 130ky ago are nothing special in terms of leaving Africa prior to mtDNA M and N.
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
Ha! HA! Ha! Isreal is 50ft from "Africa". SMH
"The oldest fossils of modern humans outside Africa have been discovered in Israel, a new study finds."
WTF is wrong with you people. You would think they found the specimen is China or something. Jeezus fugking christ!
Posted by Linda Fahr (Member # 21979) on :
Indians & Chinese geneticists must be scratching their heads....What can do they do now? Posted by Linda Fahr (Member # 21979) on :
Indians & Chinese geneticists must be scratching their heads...What they may do next? Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Lulz. Cabrera et al have already become dated. I predicted this would happen. The authors were just asking for it. If you follow archaeology you know that the humans outside of Africa 130ky ago are nothing special in terms of leaving Africa prior to mtDNA M and N.
There is a good possibility that 130ky old Skhul and Qafzeh folk are to some degree survivors of this ~200ky old OOA presence. The Skhul Qafzeh folk supposedly made tools that are indistinguishable from Neanderthal tools. This would be weird if they were MIS 5 arrivals from Africa, but it would not be so weird if part of their ancestry derives from that ~200ky old OOA presence. In that scenario I could see them ending up with more Neanderthal-like tools after mixing with archaics culturally and genetically over time.
Another possibility is that the Middle Palaeolithic Mousterian itself is an OOA culture, since it's fully analogous to developments that started much earlier in Africa (i.e. the MSA). So, (so far) we could have one OOA associated with the Mousterian (found among the Skhul-Qafzeh people), one OOA associated with the Amudian (found >200ky ago) and one OOA associated with the last interglacial, when we see African fauna in the Levant.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
Israel Hershkovitz1,2,*,†, Gerhard W. Weber3,†, Rolf Quam4,5,6,†, Mathieu Duval7,8, Rainer Grün7,9, Leslie Kinsley9, Avner Ayalon10, Miryam Bar-Matthews10, Helene Valladas11, Norbert Mercier12, Juan Luis Arsuaga5,13, María Martinón-Torres8,14, José María Bermúdez de Castro8,14, Cinzia Fornai3,15, Laura Martín-Francés8,16, Rachel Sarig2,17, Hila May1,2, Viktoria A. Krenn3,15, Viviane Slon1, Laura Rodríguez5,18,19, Rebeca García5,18, Carlos Lorenzo20,21, Jose Miguel Carretero5,18, Amos Frumkin22, Ruth Shahack-Gross23, Daniella E. Bar-Yosef Mayer24,25, Yaming Cui26, Xinzhi Wu26, Natan Peled27, Iris Groman-Yaroslavski28, Lior Weissbrod28, Reuven Yeshurun28, Alexander Tsatskin28, Yossi Zaidner28,29, Mina Weinstein-Evron28
Science 26 Jan 2018: Vol. 359, Issue 6374, pp. 456-459 DOI: 10.1126/science.aap8369
Earliest modern humans out of Africa
Recent paleoanthropological studies have suggested that modern humans migrated from Africa as early as the beginning of the Late Pleistocene, 120,000 years ago. Hershkovitz et al. now suggest that early modern humans were already present outside of Africa more than 55,000 years earlier (see the Perspective by Stringer and Galway-Witham). During excavations of sediments at Mount Carmel, Israel, they found a fossil of a mouth part, a left hemimaxilla, with almost complete dentition.
The sediments contain a series of well-defined hearths and a rich stone-based industry, as well as abundant animal remains. Analysis of the human remains, and dating of the site and the fossil itself, indicate a likely age of at least 177,000 years for the fossil—making it the oldest member of the Homo sapiens clade found outside Africa.
Science, this issue p. 456; see also p. 389
Abstract
To date, the earliest modern human fossils found outside of Africa are dated to around 90,000 to 120,000 years ago at the Levantine sites of Skhul and Qafzeh. A maxilla and associated dentition recently discovered at Misliya Cave, Israel, was dated to 177,000 to 194,000 years ago, suggesting that members of the Homo sapiens clade left Africa earlier than previously thought. This finding changes our view on modern human dispersal and is consistent with recent genetic studies, which have posited the possibility of an earlier dispersal of Homo sapiens around 220,000 years ago. The Misliya maxilla is associated with full-fledged Levallois technology in the Levant, suggesting that the emergence of this technology is linked to the appearance of Homo sapiens in the region, as has been documented in Africa.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:The Misliya maxilla is associated with full-fledged Levallois technology in the Levant, suggesting that the emergence of this technology is linked to the appearance of Homo sapiens in the region, as has been documented in Africa.
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Another possibility is that the Middle Palaeolithic Mousterian itself is an OOA culture, since it's fully analogous to developments that started much earlier in Africa (i.e. the MSA).
Good to see academics starting to consider this. Will read the full paper later.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
For those who don't understand the relevance yet, Cabrera et al's 130ky Skhul-Qafzeh population seemingly left Africa much earlier than 130ky ago. Or at least, an older Levantine human population they mixed with, did (although the fact that Skhul-Qafzeh are culturally related to older humans in the Levant suggests continuity between them is more likely than large scale admixture events with new OOA migrants in between both Levantine samples). Either way, whether Skhul-Qafzeh are related to the older Levantine humans through continuity, or with some new OOA admixture in between that >70ky gap, population replacement between the two populations seems unlikely, for reasons I just mentioned. I will confirm by reading the paper later, but I expect very close morphological affinities.
This collapses Cabrera et al's entire premise since the root of mtDNA phylogeny of living humans would have been closer to southern Africa, not in northern Africa or in Ethiopia as the recent papers are trying to say. People closely related to living humans arrived in North Africa no earlier than MIS 5 (unless branches died off that we can't detect genetically and archaeologically), but certainly not >200ky ago. This is why the oldest Y-DNAs (A00, A0 and A-M31) are found in between West/Central Africa and northern Africa, and not among Khoisan. This is likely also why the recent medieval Moroccan aDNA has no clear affinities to living humans, and are genetically closest to southern African populations. Southern Africans are genetically closer to the root of our tree, and therefore are also expected to have a vague pleisiomorphic type affinity to the older human branches that arrived in West/Central, North Africa and the Levant before any humans on our side of the human tree did (i.e. before mtDNA L0'6 and Y-DNA A2-T people did).
I already spoke on this in 2015 (my last blogpost), so these academics have no excuse. If I can put the pieces of the puzzles together, they should be able to do the same. Even though it's their profession, in 2018 Cabrera et al and most academics still have no clue about any of this, which shows how far academics can lag behind. At this point, some of them are just spreaders of misinformation in white lab coats. Very sad. This backmigration non sense that is being pushed right now (seemingly in concert) is going to take years to get rid of in the mainstream. Expect a lot of trolls and sore losers from multiregionalism latch on to this for a long time.
Posted by Elite Diasporan (Member # 22000) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: For those who don't understand the relevance yet, Cabrera et al's 130ky Skhul-Qafzeh population seemingly left Africa much earlier than 130ky ago. Or at least, an older Levantine human population they mixed with, did (although the fact that Skhul-Qafzeh are culturally related to older humans in the Levant suggests continuity between them is more likely than large scale admixture events with new OOA migrants in between both Levantine samples). Either way, whether Skhul-Qafzeh are related to the older Levantine humans through continuity, or with some new OOA admixture in between that >70ky gap, population replacement between the two populations seems unlikely, for reasons I just mentioned. I will confirm by reading the paper later, but I expect very close morphological affinities.
This collapses Cabrera et al's entire premise since the root of mtDNA phylogeny of living humans would have been closer to southern Africa, not in northern Africa or in Ethiopia as the recent papers are trying to say. People closely related to living humans arrived in North Africa no earlier than MIS 5 (unless branches died off that we can't detect genetically and archaeologically), but certainly not >200ky ago. This is why the oldest Y-DNAs (A00, A0 and A-M31) are found in between West/Central Africa and northern Africa, and not among Khoisan. This is likely also why the recent medieval Moroccan aDNA has no clear affinities to living humans, and are genetically closest to southern African populations. Southern Africans are genetically closer to the root of our tree, and therefore are also expected to have a vague pleisiomorphic type affinity to the older human branches that arrived in West/Central, North Africa and the Levant before any humans on our side of the human tree did (i.e. before mtDNA L0'6 and Y-DNA A2-T people did).
I already spoke on this in 2015 (my last blogpost), so these academics have no excuse. If I can put the pieces of the puzzles together, they should be able to do the same. Even though it's their profession, in 2018 Cabrera et al and most academics still have no clue about any of this, which shows how far academics can lag behind. At this point, some of them are just spreaders of misinformation in white lab coats. Very sad. This backmigration non sense that is being pushed right now (seemingly in concert) is going to take years to get rid of in the mainstream. Expect a lot of trolls and sore losers from multiregionalism latch on to this for a long time.
I found the bolded to be eye catching. What study was that from?
But yea it does seem like the mainstream ignores Southern and West-Central Africa when it comes to talking about the oldest human lineages.
Correct me but it seems Cabrera et al didn't pay much attention to Schlebusch et al.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
Genomes in Medieval North Africa (Gunther et al, 2016)
--
Hmmm. Another "unpublished" study. This paper would have clarified so many things. SMH.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: Genomes in Medieval North Africa (Gunther et al, 2016)
--
Hmmm. Another "unpublished" study. This paper would have clarified so many things. SMH.
Agree. I want to see it tested how much African ancestry various Eurasians have when tested against these populations. I think a lot of so-called 'pure' components are going to turn out to be mixed. Basal Eurasian all over again. Except this time they won't be able to say "Basal Eurasian were essentially Eurasian".
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
Indeed the aDNA of pre-historic Africans will clarify so many things. We are already seeing this taking shape with Malawi-Hora-8100BP. The geographic location of Malawi-Hora indicates that by Mid-Holocene(6000BC) may be 80% of Sub-Sahara Africa already had “European”/Eurasian AIM. So Pagani’s claim about back-migration to East Africa 3000years ago is almost irrelevant.
I would like to see Malawi-Hora-8100 line up against La Brana, Loschbour and some Early Neolithic Europeans like Otzi with unsupervised cluster charts.
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
It is obvious the release of results are being controlled. But one of these guys(researchers) is going to break ranks eventually. Or an “independent” corporation will just to do it. DNATribes is dead and it seems DNAConsultants has folded under pressure.
I saw that the cost these of high tech DNA processing equipment is dropping fast . Maybe less than $200,000. Of course the personnel and lab are additional cost. I assume DNAConsultants and the like have over 100 of these constantly running testing the public samples. All is needed is one and a small staff. They charge $100 a pop! So it not too expensive for ONE analysis.
In fact I was thinking of downloading the Abusir BAM files, process it and upload to anonymously as a *.gz or VCF. What you think ElMaestro, AstenB or Capra or anyone? Will this work to get some answers?
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
Some of you may remember what DNAConsultants did with the Amarnas STR. Almost all STR from the Amarnas were indigenously Africans. While some of you were tormenting DNATribes we forgot DNAConsultants also identified the Amarnas as Africans.
There has to be a way to process the Abusir's to clearly identify their locale
Posted by capra (Member # 22737) on :
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: The geographic location of Malawi-Hora indicates that by Mid-Holocene(6000BC) may be 80% of Sub-Sahara Africa already had “European”/Eurasian AIM. So Pagani’s claim about back-migration to East Africa 3000years ago is almost irrelevant.
What on earth are you talking about? Malawi_Hora isn't Eurasian at all, falls on a cline between Mota and ancestral South Africans.
Posted by Elmaestro (Member # 22566) on :
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: It is obvious the release of results are being controlled. But one of these guys(researchers) is going to break ranks eventually. Or an “independent” corporation will just to do it. DNATribes is dead and it seems DNAConsultants has folded under pressure.
I saw that the cost these of high tech DNA processing equipment is dropping fast . Maybe less than $200,000. Of course the personnel and lab are additional cost. I assume DNAConsultants and the like have over 100 of these constantly running testing the public samples. All is needed is one and a small staff. They charge $100 a pop! So it not too expensive for ONE analysis.
In fact I was thinking of downloading the Abusir BAM files, process it and upload to anonymously as a *.gz or VCF. What you think ElMaestro, AstenB or Capra or anyone? Will this work to get some answers?
Don't waste your time. anything that could've possibly be beneficial to your theory was extracted already and uploaded through various sources.
...btw. why would you upload a gunzipped file, matterfact, how would you even create one from a BAM file? lol
Posted by Elite Diasporan (Member # 22000) on :
Appreciate it.
Posted by Dinkum (Member # 22875) on :
DNATRIBES NEVER took any DNA from any Egyptian mummies. You wont find their results ON ANY GENUINE SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH SITES. It was nothing but a publicity stunt.
Posted by Dinkum (Member # 22875) on :
As for Homo-Sapiens found outside of Africa, a 200 000 year old Neanderthal found in Germany carried human DNA:
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: Indeed the aDNA of pre-historic Africans will clarify so many things. We are already seeing this taking shape with Malawi-Hora-8100BP. The geographic location of Malawi-Hora indicates that by Mid-Holocene(6000BC) may be 80% of Sub-Sahara Africa already had “European”/Eurasian AIM. So Pagani’s claim about back-migration to East Africa 3000years ago is almost irrelevant.
I would like to see Malawi-Hora-8100 line up against La Brana, Loschbour and some Early Neolithic Europeans like Otzi with unsupervised cluster charts.
For this to work (i.e. finding undiscovered ghost populations in Eurasia that derive from older human branches like Y-DNA A00), we'd have to have African samples with some sort of pre-Toba OOA ancestry. Mota has some of it, judging by his affities to South Indians and Asians in general. But I don't think all SSA aDNA will have it. The Moroccan aDNA is promising because the lack of clear modern affinities hints at those older human branches that spread around the world before people more closely related to us did (see my previous post). Plus, the Moroccan sample is found near Eurasia.
Affinity to Asians may be the best test of this ghost population we have so far.
If the Hora, Chencherere and Fingira samples have a lot of this ancestry, it should show with this test, or a similar test.
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
I was looking into different software that can do conversions from one format to others. Many online companies will take uploads and send you information on locale and other reports.
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro:
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: It is obvious the release of results are being controlled. But one of these guys(researchers) is going to break ranks eventually. Or an “independent” corporation will just to do it. DNATribes is dead and it seems DNAConsultants has folded under pressure.
I saw that the cost these of high tech DNA processing equipment is dropping fast . Maybe less than $200,000. Of course the personnel and lab are additional cost. I assume DNAConsultants and the like have over 100 of these constantly running testing the public samples. All is needed is one and a small staff. They charge $100 a pop! So it not too expensive for ONE analysis.
In fact I was thinking of downloading the Abusir BAM files, process it and upload to anonymously as a *.gz or VCF. What you think ElMaestro, AstenB or Capra or anyone? Will this work to get some answers?
Don't waste your time. anything that could've possibly be beneficial to your theory was extracted already and uploaded through various sources.
...btw. why would you upload a gunzipped file, matterfact, how would you even create one from a BAM file? lol
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
GPS software uses *.gz file amongst others. They are my best bet I got my results within 15mins after uploading from a another DNASite!!!! I am not sure how accurate it was but it put my ancestral home (aside from my small 1800's British connection maybe tied to the Louisiana purchase I was told) to Senegal and Madagascar. I had no idea I had Madagascar connection. But I think the GPS software is the way to go. It may accurately place the Abusir. If DNATribes or DNAConsultants had not cowered we will know by now.
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
I think this "ghost" population(pre-A00/Pre-Toba) has been identified by Skoglund(he mentioned an African substrate that existed BEFORE the Nilo-Saharan migration. And this is one if the few things I agree with Dinkum, yes, North Africa or Southern Africa could quite possible be the home our Species and not East Africa. The "second" migration OOA probably occurred in/from East Africa.
BTW - Skoglund describe this ghost population occurring AFTER the split of AMH and Neanderthals but BEFORE the split of Khoi-San
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:O.
I would like to see Malawi-Hora-8100 line up against La Brana, Loschbour and some Early Neolithic Europeans like Otzi with unsupervised cluster charts.
For this to work (i.e. finding undiscovered ghost populations in Eurasia that derive from older human branches like Y-DNA A00), we'd have to have African samples with some sort of pre-Toba OOA ancestry. Mota has some of it, judging by his affities to South Indians and Asians in general. But I don't think all SSA aDNA will have it. The Moroccan aDNA is promising because the lack of clear modern affinities hints at those older human branches that spread around the world before people more closely related to us did (see my previous post). Plus, the Moroccan sample is found near Eurasia.
Affinity to Asians may be the best test of this ghost population we have so far.
If the Hora, Chencherere and Fingira samples have a lot of this ancestry, it should show with this test, or a similar test. [/Q]
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
SMH. Who said Malawi-hora was "EurAsian"? I said MIXED with Eurasian. Meaning "Eurasian" ancestry was deep in Southern Africa BEFORE the Early Neolithic. That is why Skoglund speculated that the ancestral home of the Neolithics was NOT the Near East but somewhere in Africa
quote:Originally posted by capra:
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: The geographic location of Malawi-Hora indicates that by Mid-Holocene(6000BC) may be 80% of Sub-Sahara Africa already had “European”/Eurasian AIM. So Pagani’s claim about back-migration to East Africa 3000years ago is almost irrelevant.
What on earth are you talking about? Malawi_Hora isn't Eurasian at all, falls on a cline between Mota and ancestral South Africans.
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
Hominin evolution and gene flow in the Pleistocene Africa - Ovchinnikov, Igor V.
DOI: 10.1127/0003-5548/2013/0313
Abstract Africa demonstrates a complex process of the hominin evolution with a series of adaptive radiations during several millions of years that led to diverse morphological forms. Recently, Hammer et al. (2011) and Harvati et al. (2011) provided integrated morphological and genetic evidence of interbreeding between modern humans and unknown archaic hominins in Africa as recently as 35,000 years ago. However, a genetic evidence of hybridization between hominin lineages during the Lower and Middle Pleistocene epochs is unknown and the direct retrieval of DNA from extinct lineages of African hominins remains elusive. The availability of both nuclear and mitochondrial genome sequences from modern humans, Neanderthals, and Denisovans allows collecting nuclear DNA sequences of mitochondrial origin (numts) inserted into the nuclear genome of the ancestral hominin lineages and drawing conclusions about the hominin evolution in the remote past. The mtDNA and numt analysis uncovered a deep division of mtDNA lineages that existed in African hominins in the Middle Pleistocene. The*** first cluster*** included the human and Neanderthal-like mtDNA sequences while the second consisted of DNA sequences that are known today as mtAncestor-1, a nuclear fossil of the mtDNA, and the Denisova mtDNA isolated from a bone and a tooth found in southern Siberia. The two groups initially diverged 610,000-1,110,000 years ago. Approximately 220,000 years after the primary split, the Denisova - mtAncestor-1 mtDNA lineages mixed with the mtDNA pool of an ***ancestral population of ***(both)Neanderthals and modern humans. This admixture after the profound division is demonstrated by the transposition of the Denisova-like mtDNA sequence into the nuclear genome of an ancestor of Neanderthals and modern humans. This finding suggests the matrilineal genetic structure among the Middle Pleistocene hominins as well as the existence of gene flow between African hominin lineages. Through paleogenomic analyses, it is impossible to exclude the theory that population structure and gene flow in African hominins influenced the admixture pattern observed in the nuclear genomes of non-Africans.
----- In other words. Neanderthal, Humans and Denisovan did not have an orgy. Lol! It looks like Denisovan split first from humans/Neanderthals. Then Neanderthals followed by AMH
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: In other words. Neanderthal, Humans and Denisovan did not have an orgy. Lol! It looks like Denisovan split first from humans/Neanderthals. Then Neanderthals followed by AMH
Thanks for the paper (they make some interesting observations), but it's dated. The Neanderthal-human clade they're talking about is 100% AMH. In other words, it just represents another OOA migration of AMH ~410ky ago. The mtDNAs of this OOA migration got preserved in the Neanderthal mtDNA pool, making it look like they split off from us more recently than Denisovans. They didn't. They just inherited very old branches of the human tree, which didn't survive in living humans (see my comments above about early humans roaming the world before people more closely related to us, did).
It's possible that the Amudian OOA migration I mentioned above represents this 410ky OOA migration. There are not enough dates to say for sure yet. (But the Amudian OOA migration for sure predates the Skhul-Qafzeh OOA migration).
The 410ky date derived from this human-Neanderthal clade certainly seems to be an important date, since it also marks the beginning of new OOA cultures in the archaeological record:
quote:Furthermore, its geographical position in the Levant, as a connection between the African and European continents, defines Qesem Cave as a crucial site for understanding dynamic evolutions of hominins.Qesem Cave is located 12 km east of Tel Aviv, at an elevation of 90 m.a.s.l. and it is dated to 420-200ka, with the U/Th method, from speleothems present in the cave.Lithic industries is assigned to the Acheulo-Yabrudian Cultural Complex, present only in the center and south of the Levant between 400 and 200ka.
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: SMH. Who said Malawi-hora was "EurAsian"? I said MIXED with Eurasian. Meaning "Eurasian" ancestry was deep in Southern Africa BEFORE the Early Neolithic. That is why Skoglund speculated that the ancestral home of the Neolithics was NOT the Near East but somewhere in Africa
What you see at K=2 or K=3 is *not* Eurasian admixture, and nobody but you thinks it is. The recent West Eurasian ancestry in Africa can be seen more-or-less at K=6 as the yellow component, and at K=7 as the yellow and part of the red. Once Mota gets his own component there is no more yellow component in Malawi either, so zero evidence of actual Eurasian ancestry.
Mota has *no* Eurasian (unless some really ancient unrecognizable kind) according to formal stats. On the other hand, Luxmanda and South_Africa_1200BP *do* have West Eurasian in qpAdm as well as in this ADMIXTURE run at K=6-7.
My guess is that Skoglund et al mentioned the PPNB-like ancestry could come from Africa because North Africa is an obvious logical possibility. They sure as hell aren't talking about low K ADMIXTURE components.
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
@Swenet and others
-I never really questioned the existence of Neanderthals. I took it as a given because it has been said many times but after reading this piece and from little I know about the genome of Neanderthals I am having doubts now. I never really followed deeply Neanderthal DNA stories. But there are lies in here again. Man! These Europeans. I am wondering if there was ever a Neanderthal “species”? From what they are saying some Neanderthal carry AMH DNA but not others. Wouldn’t that not make Neanderthal a “single” species. Is there BS and lies in here?
-------------- Quote from Deeply divergent archaic mitochondrial genome provides lower time boundary for African gene flow into Neanderthals-Cosimo Posth1
Discussion The African introgression hypothesis suggests that Late Pleistocene Neanderthal mtDNAs originated through gene flow from an African source8, which we constrain taking place more than B270 ka (Table 1). Our analytical calculations (Supplementary Table 8 and Supplementary Note 5) show that this event is plausible even if the introgressing lineage represented a minimal proportion of the initial gene pool. This scenario reconciles the discrepancy in the nDNA and mtDNA phylogenies of archaic hominins and the inconsistency of the modern human– Neanderthal population split time estimated from nDNA and mtDNA (Fig. 1d). Under this demographical model, the Denisovan mtDNA type was common among early Neanderthals in Eurasia (for example, Sima de los Huesos) and was then largely replaced by an introgressing African mtDNA that evolved into the Late Pleistocene Neanderthal mtDNA type. While the upper bound for the time of this putative gene flow event would be the divergence time between Neanderthal and modern human mtDNAs, here dated to 413 ka (95% HPD 468–360 ka), the lower temporal limit was represented so far by the B160 ka TMRCA of all published Neanderthal mtDNAs (Table 1). However, the finding of the deeply diverged HST lineage splitting from the Altai branch, B270 ka, sets an older lower boundary for the time of this admixture event. An **alternative** but less parsimonious scenario is that both HST and Altai mtDNA lineages reached Eurasia independently after diverging inside Africa. In that case the suggested introgression event might have occurred later but most likely before 160 ka, our estimated date for the start of the Altai branch diversification (Fig. 1c and Table 1). The presence of modern human admixture into archaic humans*** has already been detected in the high coverage Neanderthal genome*** from the Altai region but ****NOT***** in sequences of chromosome 21 of two Neanderthals from Spain and Croatia14. The authors therefore suggested that a genomic contribution estimated between 0.1 and 2.1% occurred after the divergence of Altai from other late Neanderthals. However, there is a high level of uncertainty around the time of the inferred gene flow event since only one high coverage Neanderthal nuclear genome has been analysed so far. Moreover, the divergence time of the introgressing African population was estimated to date before or right after the TMRCA of modern-day humans (B200 ka)14, ---------------
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
Yeah talk yourself into Mota has no "Eurasian DNA when it is s foregone conclusion.
More European sleight of hands.
To the Newbies - K2 = African and non-African K3= African, European(sardinian) and East Asian(Japanese is used as a proxy) K4= etc 4 populations etc....
As I said Malawi-Hora_8100Bp is the bigger problem not Luzummanda.
quote:Originally posted by capra:
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: SMH. Who said Malawi-hora was "EurAsian"? I said MIXED with Eurasian. Meaning "Eurasian" ancestry was deep in Southern Africa BEFORE the Early Neolithic. That is why Skoglund speculated that the ancestral home of the Neolithics was NOT the Near East but somewhere in Africa
What you see at K=2 or K=3 is *not* Eurasian admixture, and nobody but you thinks it is. The recent West Eurasian ancestry in Africa can be seen more-or-less at K=6 as the yellow component, and at K=7 as the yellow and part of the red. Once Mota gets his own component there is no more yellow component in Malawi either, so zero evidence of actual Eurasian ancestry.
Mota has *no* Eurasian (unless some really ancient unrecognizable kind) according to formal stats. On the other hand, Luxmanda and South_Africa_1200BP *do* have West Eurasian in qpAdm as well as in this ADMIXTURE run at K=6-7.
My guess is that Skoglund et al mentioned the PPNB-like ancestry could come from Africa because North Africa is an obvious logical possibility. They sure as hell aren't talking about low K ADMIXTURE components.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: [QB] @Swenet and others
-I never really questioned the existence of Neanderthals. I took it as a given because it has been said many times but after reading this piece and from little I know about the genome of Neanderthals I am having doubts now. I never really followed deeply Neanderthal DNA stories. But there are lies in here again. Man! These Europeans. I am wondering if there was ever a Neanderthal “species”? From what they are saying some Neanderthal carry AMH DNA but not others. Wouldn’t that not make Neanderthal a “single” species. Is there BS and lies in here?
Lol. It's not that deep, gramps. In the paper they say that Neanderthals have far less autosomal African ancestry than they have African mtDNAs:
quote: We demonstrate that a complete Neanderthal mtDNA replacement is feasible over this time interval even with minimal hominin introgression.
Neanderthals still exist, but we now know that we cannot take it for granted that all Neanderthal features are necessarily purely Neanderthal. They didn't evolve in isolation from old human branches that left Africa.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
The sensational discovery of modern humans in the Levant 177-194 thousand years ago should cause a rethink of the currently held Out-of-Africa orthodoxy.
By Out-of-Africa, I mean here the origin of anatomically modern humans, as opposed to the earlier origin of the genus Homo or the later origin of behaviorally fully modern humans.
Two main pieces of evidence supported the conventional OOA theory:
1. The observation that modern Eurasians possess a subset of the genetic variation of modern Africans. 2. The greater antiquity of AMH humans in the African rather than the Eurasian palaeoanthropological record.
Both these observations are in crisis.
1a. The oldest African fossil AMH is in North Africa (Morocco, Jebel Irhoud); modern genetic variation does not single out this region as a potential source of modern humans. In short, modern genetic variation has nothing to say about where AMH originated. 1b. Eurasians can no longer be seen as a subset of Africans, given that they possess genetic variation from Denisovans, a layer of ancestry earlier than all extant AMH. While it is still true that most Eurasian genetic material is a subset of that of modern Africans, it is also true that the deepest known lineage of humans is the Denisovan-Sima de los huesos, with no evidence for any deeper African lineage. Within humans as a whole, Africans possess a subset of Eurasian genetic variation. 2a. African priority received a boost by 0.1My by the redating of Jebel Irhoud last year. And, non-African AMH received a boost of 0.05My by the Hershkovitz et al. paper yesterday. A very short time ago, Ethiopia boasted the oldest AMH by 0.07My and now it's tied with the Levant and beaten by Morocco. It's a bit silly to argue for temporal priority based on the spotty and ever-shifting palaeoanthropological record. 2b. It is virtually untenable to consider the ~120,000 year old Shkul/Qafzeh hominins as a failed Out-of-Africa, since it now seems that they may have been descendants from the Mislya Cave population of >50,000 or even >100,000 years earlier.
I had previously supported a "two deserts" theory of human origins in which AMH originated in North Africa (Sahara) and then left Africa >100kya as evidenced by the Shkul/Qafzeh hominins and/or the Nubian technocomplex in Arabia. While I am still convinced that AMH originated somewhere in North Africa or the Near East, I am less certain as to where.
Science 26 Jan 2018: Vol. 359, Issue 6374, pp. 456-459 DOI: 10.1126/science.aap8369
The earliest modern humans outside Africa
Posted by capra (Member # 22737) on :
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: Yeah talk yourself into Mota has no "Eurasian DNA when it is s foregone conclusion.
More European sleight of hands.
To the Newbies - K2 = African and non-African K3= African, European(sardinian) and East Asian(Japanese is used as a proxy) K4= etc 4 populations etc....
supposing there actually are any lurking newbies, xyyman is wrong as usual. just because you *can* tell the computer to model the populations as a neat mix of 2 or 3 ancestral populations using this algorithm doesn't mean the program can actually come up with accurate results to be taken literally. it can't. i could tell the computer to model you as a mix of mushrooms and dandelions, you'd probably come out as mostly mushroom with a bit of dandelion. for human history at low K it will give contradictory answers depending on how many and how closely related individuals you put in from which populations. which you can easily see if you bother to actually read any papers.
Mota is exactly equidistant between Han and Sardinian with D stats, obviously K=3 yellow component is not actually European
using qpAdm (table S5 in Skoglund et al) Malawi_Hora is modelled as 53% ancestral South African, 47% Mota. To be precise the East African side should be slightly less related to Dinka than Mota is.
not that xyyman will pay the slightest attention to any of this of course since this is only very tenuously connected to the topic i won't do any further sidetracking.
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
Capra said: "blah blah! blah! High frequency qpAdm ! Frequency! blah! blah! spin! spin! deflection! blah!"
Skoglund said: "Quote: “We found that the _3,100 BP individual (Tanzania_Luxmanda_3100BP), associated with a Savanna Pastoral Neolithic archeological tradition, could be modeled as having 38% ± 1% of her ancestry related to the nearly 10,000- year-old pre-pottery farmers of the Levant (Lazaridis et al., 2016), and we can **exclude **source populations related to early farmer populations in Iran and Anatolia. These results could be explained by migration into Africa from descendants of pre-pottery Levantine farmers or alternatively by a scenario in which BOTH pre-pottery Levantine farmers and Tanzania_Luxmanda_ 3100BP descend from a common ancestral population that lived thousands of years earlier ********in********* Africa or the Near East. We fit the remaining approximately two-thirds of Tanzania_Luxmanda_ 3100BP as most closely related to the Ethiopia_4500BP (p = 0.029) or, allowing for three-way mixture, also from a source closely related to the Dinka (p = 0.18; the Levantine-related ancestry in this case was 39% ± 1%) (Table S4).”
But we know Skoglund is lying and spinnng! Why? Malawi_Hora_8100BP carried "modern European" ancestry! For those who are slow....LaBrana did NOT carry "European" ancestry.
In other words The sub-saharan South African from Malawi Hora carried European ancestry BEFORE the ancient European La Brana!!!!!!
So what the F is Capra babbling about?...qpAdm D Sat etc??!! This is simpler than we are making out to be.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: [QB] But we know Skoglund is lying and spinnng! Why? Malawi_Hora_8100BP carried "modern European" ancestry! For those who are slow....LaBrana did NOT carry "European" ancestry.
-keep in mind xyyman believes there is no such thing as a European or non-African haplogroup
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: But we know Skoglund is lying and spinnng! Why? Malawi_Hora_8100BP carried "modern European" ancestry! For those who are slow....LaBrana did NOT carry "European" ancestry.
-keep in mind xyyman believes there is no such thing as a European or non-African haplogroup
Well, it still needs to be explained why Africans have different proportions of that yellow. It clearly is something and the yellow component occurs in a pattern (samples closer to the Indian Ocean and more to the north seemingly have more of it). Xyyman eccentric views elsewhere about European ancestry don't take away from that.
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
Aha! Yet again. Mbutis are ****Nilo****-Saharan speakers. Look at their "European" AIM. Same proportion in ALL samples of Mbuti. Indicative of? No a National Geographic camera man did not "sleep" with a pygmy woman. lol!
Consistent ANCIENT ancestry.
Yeah...believe the hype. SMH
As I said the least of their problem is Tanzanian Luxumanda 3100bp. Luxmanda is a smoke screen. The BIGGER problem is Malawi_Hora-8100BP carrying "sardinian" ancestry. Those of you will know....Sardinian is representative of the relic Neolithic to enter Europe.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
^ Blah, Blah Blah, Neolithic
-------------------- Without data there's nothing to spin and misunderstand - xyyman
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
yes...sista
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: ^ Blah, Blah Blah, Neolithic
-------------------- Without data there's nothing to spin and misunderstand - xyyman
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
If you can't describe what you are doing as a process, you don't know what you're doing - Deming
Posted by capra (Member # 22737) on :
the yellow is under no obligation to be the *same* something at each K.
i'm not saying that there *couldn't* be Out-of-Africa Prequel Spinoff or Basal Basal Eurasian or something floating around, but odd bits of yellow component in this ADMIXTURE run can at best inspire a hypothesis.
lol xyyman clearly any method beyond ADMIXTURE is a lie and deception. selected xyyman appproved runs only. in the end Lemuria must triumph.
Posted by Mansamusa (Member # 22474) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: If you can't describe what you are doing as a process, you don't know what you're doing - Deming
How does paraphrasing and directly quoting Skoglund (2017) to demonstrate "Eurasian" admixture in ancient Africans represent "not knowing what you're doing?"
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mansamusa:
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: If you can't describe what you are doing as a process, you don't know what you're doing - Deming
How does paraphrasing and directly quoting Skoglund (2017) to demonstrate "Eurasian" admixture in ancient Africans represent "not knowing what you're doing?"
pay attention,
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: we know Skoglund is lying and spinnng!
-------------------- W. Edwards Deming quote
Posted by Elmaestro (Member # 22566) on :
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: Aha! Yet again. Mbutis are ****Nilo****-Saharan speakers. Look at their "European" AIM. Same proportion in ALL samples of Mbuti. Indicative of? No a National Geographic camera man did not "sleep" with a pygmy woman. lol!
Consistent ANCIENT ancestry.
Yeah...believe the hype. SMH
As I said the least of their problem is Tanzanian Luxumanda 3100bp. Luxmanda is a smoke screen. The BIGGER problem is Malawi_Hora-8100BP carrying "sardinian" ancestry. Those of you will know....Sardinian is representative of the relic Neolithic to enter Europe.
You lost me here.
..anywho, Why not expand your theory, repeating the same thing over and over wont win over he skeptics. You should graduate to explaining the population history of African HGs. Complete the story using the plethora of evidence and clues available on ES. some of which you've posted before.
You familiar with the following quotes?
quote:"The f3 statistics show the general presence of ancient Eurasian and/or Khoesan ancestry across much of sub-Saharan Africa. We tentatively interpret these results as being consistent with recent research suggesting very old (>10 kya) migrations back into Africa from Eurasia (Hodgson et al., 2014a), with the ubiquitous hunter-gatherer ancestry across the continent possibly related to the inhabitant populations present across Africa prior to these more recent movements. Future research involving ancient DNA from multiple African populations will help to further characterise these observations" 10.7554/eLife.15266 19 of 44
[...]
"In this work, we find that the genetic composition of non-African ancestry in the HOA is distinct from the genetic composition of current populations in North Africa and the Middle East. With these data, we demonstrate that most non-African ancestry in the HOA cannot be the result of admixture within the last few thousand years, and that the majority of admixture probably occurred prior to the advent of agriculture. These results contribute to a growing body of work showing that prehistoric hunter-gatherer populations were much more dynamic than usually assumed." https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pgen.1004393
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by capra: the yellow is under no obligation to be the *same* something at each K.
Assuming this is in response to my post to lioness, the samples range from 0% to >50% affinity with the Sardinian sample at K=3. Are you really trying to argue that the yellow is not obligated to stable across unmixed Africans populations, or absent, if there is not really something going on there?
So, in your view, this yellow gradient at k=3 could happen, even if there is nothing going on here (i.e. no real asymmetric closeness to Eurasians)?
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
No fool. All Cluster charts when unsupervised shows the same pattern. Does **not** matter which researchers runs the analysis. I have read MANY papers by different researchers. They now play the supervised cluster charts game.
I remember I asked Davidski one time to run TreeMix analysis to prove my point. He said he will did came back a few days later to backed out the agreement. Instead he deleted the post(s).
"***Basal Basal Eurasian or something floating around***" - lol! man you white liberals!
quote:Originally posted by capra: the yellow is under no obligation to be the *same* something at each K.
i'm not saying that there *couldn't* be Out-of-Africa Prequel Spinoff or Basal Basal Eurasian or something floating around, but odd bits of yellow component in this ADMIXTURE run can at best inspire a hypothesis.
lol xyyman clearly any method beyond ADMIXTURE is a lie and deception. selected xyyman appproved runs only. in the end Lemuria must triumph.
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
Keep in mind Europeans are part of “Eurasians” but the yellow represent Sardinians/Europeans @K=3 NOT Eurasians. So the astonishing thing is large amount of the “European AIM found in Luxmunda(60%) and Malawi_Hora-8100BP(~10%). Also the timeline. LaBrana at that time did carried virtually no “European” ancestry. So “European” ancestry was in deep southern sub-saharan Africa BEFORE it reached Europe. Looking at the geographic distance. That is almost across the entire African continent to Iberia. Those of you who follow this stuff, knows I called it. Dead/Cass was asked about Malawi_Hora skeleton. I said when the aDNA was publish it will be ground breaking. I speculated that this Late Stone Age African may carry Eurasian ancestry. I did not know it would be really “European” Ancestry. Lol!
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:Originally posted by capra: the yellow is under no obligation to be the *same* something at each K.
Assuming this is in response to my post to lioness, the samples range from 0% to >50% affinity with the Sardinian sample at K=3. Are you really trying to argue that the yellow is not obligated to stable across unmixed Africans populations, or absent, if there is not really something going on there?
So, in your view, this yellow gradient at k=3 could happen, even if there is nothing going on here (i.e. no real asymmetric closeness to Eurasians)?
Posted by capra (Member # 22737) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: So, in your view, this yellow gradient at k=3 could happen, even if there is nothing going on here (i.e. no real asymmetric closeness to Eurasians)?
I expect it *could* at low K, but that's not what I am saying. There is a gradient in relatedness to Eurasians of course. The point is that it doesn't have to be some discrete Afro-eurasian ancestral component which is serially replaced by more specific components. If that's what you're suggesting?
i.e. the yellow component can reflect a variety of kinds of ancestry that could have quite independent histories. Obvs there is the specific West Eurasian-related ancestry in e.g. Somalis, but also could have (for example) some western ancestry with L2a1 and B1/3, some eastern ancestry with L4b2 and B2b, some Sahelo-Sudanian ancestry with L3 and E, all related to Eurasians in different degrees and at way too deep in time for ADMIXTURE to actually pick out.
Posted by capra (Member # 22737) on :
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: Also the timeline. LaBrana at that time did NOT carried virtually no “European” ancestry. So “European” ancestry was in deep southern sub-saharan Africa BEFORE it reached Europe.
note how fucking La Brana is almost 100% European (West Eurasian really) all the way up? - and how Europeans have trace to zero African component at any K?
then once Africans actually get noticed at K=5 most of their West Eurasian disappears, except among admixed East Africans. then at K=8 the West Eurasian splits into ultramarine WHG component which Loschbour and La Brana have ~100% and Bedouin/farmer light blue component. North Europeans still have large majority of that WHG component, Africans now get the Bedouin component instead.
even by your own retarded standards La Brana is already European, and way more European than any African lol. now try finding us an admixture graph with WHG, Europeans, and Africans where Europeans are African and not WHG.
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
Of course it is too deep in time to separate out because it originated in Africa! Don’t’ you get that?
Mark my word. EVERY aDNA of Africans from now on will carry “Eurasian” ancestry even going back 40,000years before AMH entered “Europe”.
Quote: “i.e. the yellow component can reflect a variety of kinds of ancestry that could have quite independent histories. Obvs there is the specific West Eurasian-related ancestry in e.g. Somalis, but also could have (for example) some western ancestry with L2a1 and B1/3, some eastern ancestry with L4b2 and B2b, some Sahelo-Sudanian ancestry with L3 and E, all related to Eurasians in different degrees and at way too deep in time for ADMIXTURE to actually pick out.”
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by capra: i.e. the yellow component can reflect a variety of kinds of ancestry that could have quite independent histories. Obvs there is the specific West Eurasian-related ancestry in e.g. Somalis, but also could have (for example) some western ancestry with L2a1 and B1/3, some eastern ancestry with L4b2 and B2b, some Sahelo-Sudanian ancestry with L3 and E, all related to Eurasians in different degrees and at way too deep in time for ADMIXTURE to actually pick out.
I agree that it could be a number of things, or a combination.
quote:Originally posted by Xyyman: Keep in mind Europeans are part of “Eurasians” but the yellow represent Sardinians/Europeans @K=3 NOT Eurasians.
Not necessarily. I look at several analyses and try to reconstruct a picture from multiple lines of evidence. In some analyses the ancestry that has affinity to Eurasians, is closer to Asians than to Europeans or it's a mixture of both. See the Hadza here at K=3. Now look at the Hadza sample in that paper with the yellow component, and it will say the opposite at k=3.
Also, in terms of their total genetic affinity (not looking at just one component) some Africans like Dinka and Mota are closer to Asians than to Europeans. This is way more complex than just any one ADMIXTURE analysis.
Posted by capra (Member # 22737) on :
some people get improved fits for Mota (and other East Africans) by including a dash of Onge.
the biggest outlier stats (with Mbuti outgroup) for Skoglund et al's qpAdm models of Khoisan were with either Mixe or Denisovans... whatever the hell that means, if anything.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by capra: [QB] some people get improved fits for Mota (and other East Africans) by including a dash of Onge.
And you know what's funny about that? When you go back to f4 statistics and try to test for excess closeness of Africans to Onge (compared to, say, East Asians), there will be no hint of shared ancestry between Onge and Africans.
Genomic analysis of Andamanese provides insights into ancient human migration into Asia and adaptation https://www.nature.com/articles/ng.3621 Posted by Elmaestro (Member # 22566) on :
quote:Originally posted by capra: some people get improved fits for Mota (and other East Africans) by including a dash of Onge.
the biggest outlier stats (with Mbuti outgroup) for Skoglund et al's qpAdm models of Khoisan were with either Mixe or Denisovans... whatever the hell that means, if anything.
Thats ode to an early split time for SanHG in general. All AMH populations can be seen as a subset of khoisan... with the exception of NC/Bantu & Mbuti. Mota is a downstream paraEurasian. which is why he retains East African, Eurasian Neolithic, and Eastern Eurasian HG signals... anything that can't be attributed to any of the latter is allocated to SanHG-like or rainforest HG signals. But even still, Mota is better fitted with SanHG than RHG due to RHG, like Mbuti having ancestry that Mota simply doesn't have.
Logically the story writes itself.
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
I will get back to you...
quote:Originally posted by capra:
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: Also the timeline. LaBrana at that time did NOT carried virtually no “European” ancestry. So “European” ancestry was in deep southern sub-saharan Africa BEFORE it reached Europe.
note how fucking La Brana is almost 100% European (West Eurasian really) all the way up? - and how Europeans have trace to zero African component at any K?
then once Africans actually get noticed at K=5 most of their West Eurasian disappears, except among admixed East Africans. then at K=8 the West Eurasian splits into ultramarine WHG component which Loschbour and La Brana have ~100% and Bedouin/farmer light blue component. North Europeans still have large majority of that WHG component, Africans now get the Bedouin component instead.
even by your own retarded standards La Brana is already European, and way more European than any African lol. now try finding us an admixture graph with WHG, Europeans, and Africans where Europeans are African and not WHG.
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
Here is another prediction and to clarify. The further back in time will show an INCREASE of East Asian ancestry in ancient Africans. While an increase in "European component" will occur about the Holocene(10-8,000 years ago). Why? Because the "European" component either emerged or became dominant about 15,000years ago in the South of the Great Lakes. Prior to that the East Asian component was the dominant "Eurasian" component in Africa. That is why San carried much more "Native American" component than other Africans. I will like to see how Mbo/A00 vs Khoi-San line up against Native Americans.
This is becoming easy.
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: Of course it is too deep in time to separate out because it originated in Africa! Don’t’ you get that?
Mark my word. EVERY aDNA of Africans from now on will carry “Eurasian” ancestry even going back 40,000years before AMH entered “Europe”.
Quote: “i.e. the yellow component can reflect a variety of kinds of ancestry that could have quite independent histories. Obvs there is the specific West Eurasian-related ancestry in e.g. Somalis, but also could have (for example) some western ancestry with L2a1 and B1/3, some eastern ancestry with L4b2 and B2b, some Sahelo-Sudanian ancestry with L3 and E, all related to Eurasians in different degrees and at way too deep in time for ADMIXTURE to actually pick out.”
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
Ok. SMH. Again! Siiigh! Several lies by Capra. First, this is not unsupervised. It is supervised. In other words it is manipulated to show the relatedness of La Brana to modern Europeans. In other words they "chose" the SNP to draw the relationship. More deception by Capra typical of modern Europeans.
Aside from what is cited below you can tell what is going on at K=3. They are using Khoisan to represent "Africans' not Mbuti or YRI. That is why some Khoi_San groups show no "Eurasian/European" admixture @K=2. That is a dead giveaway that we are looking at a supervised cluster chart. Also notice Somalis are at 60%European/Eurasian @K3. . Yoruba, Hadza etc also carry a high frequency of "Eurasian" AIM. We are looking at the wrong set of AIM. This is NOT unsupervised.
And if you don't believe me.... here....from **YOUR*** source.
Oh! And I cited Near East Bedouins being Africans for the newbies. A freebie. My treat!
--------------------------------- QUOTE: "Human Origins dataset curation The Human Origins array consists of 14 panels of SNPs for which the ascertainment is well known8,61. All population genetics analysis were carried out on a set of 594,924 autosomal SNPs, ****after restricting to sites that had >90% completeness ****across 7 different batches of sequencing, and that had >97.5% concordance with at least one of two subsets of samples for which whole genome sequencing data was also *****available****. The total dataset consists of 2,722 individuals, which we filtered to 2,345 individuals (203 populations) after removing outlier individuals or relatives based on visual inspection of PCA plots14,62 or model-based clustering analysis13. Whole genome amplified (WGA) individuals were not used in analysis, except for a Saami individual who we included because of the special interest of this population for Northeastern European population history (Extended Data Fig. 7).
Admixture proportions for Stuttgart in the absence of a Near Eastern ancient genome We used Loschbour and BedouinB as surrogates for “Unknown hunter-gatherer” and Near Eastern (NE) farmer populations that contributed to Stuttgart (SI13). Ancient Near Eastern ancestry in Stuttgart is estimated by the f4-ratio8,15 f4(Outgroup, X; Loschbour, Stuttgart)/f4(Outgroup, X; Loschbour, NE). A complication is that*** BedouinB is a mixture of NE and African ancestry***. We therefore **SUBSTRACTED** 17 the effects of African ancestry using estimates of the BedouinB African admixture proportion from ADMIXTURE (SI9) or ALDER68." ----------------------------------------------
Modern Europeans(like Iberians/La Brana homeland) are virtually purely EEF. That is why carried virtually no modern European DNA. LA Brana carried no EEF. Stop BSing Capra. SMH
quote: Originally posted by xyyman: Also the timeline. LaBrana at that time did NOT carried virtually no “European” ancestry. So “European” ancestry was in deep southern sub-saharan Africa BEFORE it reached Europe.
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
You white people think you have the right to BS the rest of the world with your games. Sorry this brotha is on to your trickery.
I just notice this. That is why it is sometimes good to re-hash these old papers. Sicilians carry *****ZERO***** La Brana AIM. Yes, you heard right! Sicilians are virtual pure Neolithic Africans with traces of ancient Asian ancestry. I can't make this stuff up. Lol! Just in case you cannot do the math. Sicilians and Iberians Will carry the least amount of La Brana ancestry, see "black" in the pie-chart which means La Brana has no relation to Sicilians which means La Brana is NOT a modern European.
Dinkum if you are reading this...that is why you cannot "eye-ball" anthropology!!! Look under the skin...check out the DNA. There something called convergent evolution. Not all Negros are from Africa. Just saying.
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
Notice WHG is virtually non-existent in Sicily also corroborating Lazaridis. The data is consistent. Notice As we head East and North the black increases(pie chart). What they have done is combined all Eurasian Hunter gatherers . That is why as I said Makrani, Onge and Melanesians are the best representation of ancient Europeans.
La Brana carries virtually no modern European ancestry because modern European are recent Africans ... Skoglund et al 2017 Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
Five Eurasian/European population carry no WHG. Sicilian, Greeks, Southern Iberians, Maltese and "Ashkenazi" Jews. But we know that they have tend to group (Neolithic)Bedouins with Ashkenazis . I know their game! Bedoiuns represent the purest form of the African Neolithics that went East to Arabia. Bifurcation taking place near the Nile at the Sahara. Notice ANE has higher frequency in the East of the Sahara through Eurasia. McEvoy, Arnaiz-Villens, Sergi, Coon, xyyman all had it correct.
Posted by capra (Member # 22737) on :
lol nice try xyyman, if only you had the slightest idea what the methods you are desperately cutting and pasting actually meant.
we all know you pick and show your 'evidence' based strictly on whether you think it can fit into your retarded fantasies. waste of fucking time, man, and kind of repellent, like spending your day stroking it in public.
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: First, this is not unsupervised. It is supervised. In other words it is manipulated to show the relatedness of La Brana to modern Europeans. In other words they "chose" the SNP to draw the relationship. More deception by Capra typical of modern Europeans.
that's not what "supervised" means, you cretin. in a supervised run the ADMIXTURE program creates its components based on preselected populations rather than the algorithm creating them during the run. you have to set the program to do it, it's not just any change that could affect how the run comes out.
quote:Aside from what is cited below you can tell what is going on at K=3. They are using Khoisan to represent "Africans' not Mbuti or YRI. That is why some Khoi_San groups show no "Eurasian/European" admixture @K=2. That is a dead giveaway that we are looking at a supervised cluster chart.
no dumbass that is what ADMIXTURE does unsupervised. the program is doing that because there are a lot of Khoisan in this particular run. ADMIXTURE runs aren't consistent, as would be fucking obvious if you ever actually thought about what you were seeing instead of skimming for something you can crop and paste
quote:"Human Origins dataset curation The Human Origins array consists of 14 panels of SNPs for which the ascertainment is well known. All population genetics analysis were carried out on a set of 594,924 autosomal SNPs, after restricting to sites that had 90% completeness across 7 different batches of sequencing, and that had 97.5% concordance with at least one of two subsets of samples for which whole genome sequencing data was also available. The total dataset consists of 2,722 individuals, which we filtered to 2,345 individuals (203 populations) after removing outlier individuals or relatives based on visual inspection of PCA plots or model-based clustering analysis."
you idiot, of course they selected for SNPs which they have good data for and got rid of relatives. they filtered the data in Skoglund et al too, yet you claim *their* ADMIXTURE run is valid. the data is always filtered and who goes in the run is always chosen by someone.
quote:Admixture proportions for Stuttgart in the absence of a Near Eastern ancient genome We used Loschbour and BedouinB as surrogates for “Unknown hunter-gatherer” and Near Eastern (NE) farmer populations that contributed to Stuttgart (SI13). Ancient Near Eastern ancestry in Stuttgart is estimated by the f4-ratio(Outgroup, X; Loschbour, Stuttgart)/f4(Outgroup, X; Loschbour, NE). A complication is that BedouinB is a mixture of NE and African ancestry. We therefore subtracted the effects of African ancestry using estimates of the BedouinB African admixture proportion from ADMIXTURE (SI9) or ALDER68."
moron, that's talking about the f4 admixture ratio, not the ADMIXTURE graph.
ok that's enough xyyman for a while, i may cause myself actual brain-damage
Posted by Elmaestro (Member # 22566) on :
quote:Originally posted by capra:
quote:Aside from what is cited below you can tell what is going on at K=3. They are using Khoisan to represent "Africans' not Mbuti or YRI. That is why some Khoi_San groups show no "Eurasian/European" admixture @K=2. That is a dead giveaway that we are looking at a supervised cluster chart.
no dumbass that is what ADMIXTURE does unsupervised. the program is doing that because there are a lot of Khoisan in this particular run. ADMIXTURE runs aren't consistent, as would be fucking obvious if you ever actually thought about what you were seeing instead of skimming for something you can crop and paste
^This, Skoglunds Admixture run basically reveal a gradient from Ju_Hoan to Sardinia (Neolithic Europe). Being that in the absene of YRI, the combination of heterogeneity and shared frequency within the Ju-Hoan gives the strongest likely hood for a singular population. Xyyman can show us another plot where the San HGs shows Eurasian signals at Low K... He used to spam that.
However I was gonna let him rock for the fact that the argument can be made about Early African-San HG-like populations representing a later expansion into Europe. I've been messing with the Idea for a while that there might be recent shared undetectable ancestry in SSA and west Eurasians. One of the few ways I find that achievable is if this mysterious population was relatively undifferentiated (from ancient founder) and possibly ancestral to both West Eurasians and SSAs. http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=009649;p=2#000053
This is possibly seen in the ancient Moroccan DNA. who I speculate to have introgressed Ibermaurasian HG DNA. They lack SSA admixture related to any modern African population which would be detectable via Dstats or even genetic distance however behaves like an intermediate population to SSAs and Neolithic Europeans. The Idea that an Ancient population is made closer to SSA populations by mixing with Eurasians is fun to play with when looking at the Neolithic Moroccans. See the transition between IAM -> KEB.
Posted by Dinkum (Member # 22875) on :
Nowadays some scientists are claiming Haplogroup E is EURASIAN and never originated in Ethiopia. The true reality is, the oldest modern humans are NORTH AFRICANS and are at least 100 000 years older than any Ethiopian ancient human remains.
Both MTDNA L3 and Haplogroup E are likely to be Eurasian in origin and back migrated into Africa:
Capra said: "that's not what "supervised" means, you cretin. in a supervised run the ADMIXTURE program creates its components based on "PRESELECTED" populations rather than the algorithm creating them during the run. you have to set the program to do it, it's not just any change that could affect how the run comes out."
Lazaridis said: "Human Origins dataset curation The Human Origins array consists of 14 panels of SNPs for which the ascertainment is well known. All population genetics analysis were carried out on a set of 594,924 autosomal SNPs, after restricting to sites that had 90% completeness across 7 different batches of sequencing, and that had 97.5% concordance with at least one of two subsets of samples for which whole genome sequencing data was also available. The total dataset consists of 2,722 individuals, which we filtered to 2,345 individuals (203 populations) after removing outlier individuals or relatives based on visual inspection of PCA plots or model-based clustering analysis."
Capra said: "you idiot, of course they selected for SNPs which they have good data for and got rid of relatives. they filtered the data in Skoglund et al too, yet you claim *their* ADMIXTURE run is valid. the data is always filtered and who goes in the run is always chosen by someone. "
Xyyman said: I rest my case. preselected=supervised, As I pointed out Sicilian carry's **zero** WHG. Iberians very little. Don’t believe me? Ask Lazardis. What does it all mean? As I said. Simple logic. It is impossible for La Brana to be related or carry modern Euros DNA like Iberians and Sicilians because these modern populations are almost entirely from a Neolithic population. Logic 101. Carry on with you BS Capra. Siigh Europeans and their circular logic. SMH
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
McEvoy et al
Quote: same data, ***consistently*** demonstrate a significantly more recent relationship between Europe and Africa than between East Asia and Africa. Using simulated populations, we show that under the single-wave ‘‘Out of Africa’’ model,
While the exact bias is difficult to estimate (Sved et al. 2008), it appears that post-divergence migration rates from Africa to Europe would need to be approximately CONSTANT because we observe consistent ratios of TF and TLD at different genetic distances. Thus, the observations are suggestive that GREATER MIGRATION TO EUROPE FROM SUB-SAHARAN AFRICAN HAS BEEN A LONG-TERM PHENOMENON. Y-chromosome and mtDNA lineages are
quote:Aside from what is cited below you can tell what is going on at K=3. They are using Khoisan to represent "Africans' not Mbuti or YRI. That is why some Khoi_San groups show no "Eurasian/European" admixture @K=2. That is a dead giveaway that we are looking at a supervised cluster chart.
no dumbass that is what ADMIXTURE does unsupervised. the program is doing that because there are a lot of Khoisan in this particular run. ADMIXTURE runs aren't consistent, as would be fucking obvious if you ever actually thought about what you were seeing instead of skimming for something you can crop and paste
^This, Skoglunds Admixture run basically reveal a gradient from Ju_Hoan to Sardinia (Neolithic Europe). Being that in the absene of YRI, the combination of heterogeneity and shared frequency within the Ju-Hoan gives the strongest likely hood for a singular population. Xyyman can show us another plot where the San HGs shows Eurasian signals at Low K... He used to spam that.
However I was gonna let him rock for the fact that the argument can be made about Early African-San HG-like populations representing a later expansion into Europe. I've been messing with the Idea for a while that there might be recent shared undetectable ancestry in SSA and west Eurasians. One of the few ways I find that achievable is if this mysterious population was relatively undifferentiated (from ancient founder) and possibly ancestral to both West Eurasians and SSAs. http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=009649;p=2#000053
This is possibly seen in the ancient Moroccan DNA. who I speculate to have introgressed Ibermaurasian HG DNA. They lack SSA admixture related to any modern African population which would be detectable via Dstats or even genetic distance however behaves like an intermediate population to SSAs and Neolithic Europeans. The Idea that an Ancient population is made closer to SSA populations by mixing with Eurasians is fun to play with when looking at the Neolithic Moroccans. See the transition between IAM -> KEB. [/QB]
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
Hey bro. Have you have analyzed any research papers yourself instead of citing bloggers? This is the wrong section and topic for you. You are in the wrong section. Have you ever looked at the yDNA E geographical phyloTree? Have you ever analyzed the paper you are citing? Do you know the premise or hypothesis for their claim of E back-migrating or mtDNA-L3.
First off the this paper is using an "experimental" dating method based upon mutation rate NOT ancestral clades. What does that mean? Exactly what it is...experimental to test a hypothesis.
Is OOA true? Absolutely! Why? On both YDNA and mtDNA haplotree the ancestral clades are found in AFRICA.
All ancestral clades of YDNA E are found in Africa and the subclades are found outside Africa and diminishes as we move further away FROM Africa. The same goes for mtDNA R0a and N. mtDNA M is debatable but it has been proven that M1 is African in origin and this is on the first branch of the mtDNA M Tree. So the logical conclusion is mtDNA M like R0a/N is ALSO of AFRICAN origin.
As I said if you can't follow you are in the wrong section. So follow but ssshhhh...listen.
Here! Check this out.
quote:Originally posted by Dinkum: Nowadays some scientists are claiming Haplogroup E is EURASIAN and never originated in Ethiopia. The true reality is, the oldest modern humans are NORTH AFRICANS and are at least 100 000 years older than any Ethiopian ancient human remains.
Both MTDNA L3 and Haplogroup E are likely to be Eurasian in origin and back migrated into Africa:
Again I am right…. ----- Nice find Brada. You would of thought I wrote the piece. Lol!
The only thing I take exception to is they suggest a "middle Eastern" origin of this black man Englishman. That is a lie. Again they are trying to distance themselves from Africa. It is geographically improbable for him to be from the "Middle East". He is African/North African. They affirm, as I, for some reason Europeans remained black until the Neolithics arrived. Within the last 5000years.
Quote: "The discovery shows that the genes for lighter skin became widespread in European populations far later than originally thought – and that skin colour was not always a proxy for geographic origin in the way it is often seen to be today." "The results pointed to a Middle Eastern origin for Cheddar Man, suggesting that his ancestors would have left Africa,"
As I said. Someone is going to break rank. It is coming.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: I remember I asked Davidski one time to run TreeMix analysis to prove my point. He said he will did came back a few days later to backed out the agreement. Instead he deleted the post(s).
I know. That's really how they are. Can speak from experience.
Posted by Dinkum (Member # 22875) on :
Negroids originated from Caucasians Like Cheddar Man and LaBrana Man:
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
^^^ You created that diagram?
La Brana is dated 5960-5750 BC and Cheddar Man is 7083 BC
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
