quote:The sample frequency spectrum (SFS), or histogram of allele counts, is an important summary statistic in evolutionary biology, and is often used to infer the history of population size changes, migrations, and other demographic events affecting a set of populations. The expected multipopulation SFS under a given demographic model can be efficiently computed when the populations in the model are related by a tree, scaling to hundreds of populations. Admixture, back-migration, and introgression are common natural processes that violate the assumption of a tree-like population history, however, and until now the expected SFS could be computed for only a handful of populations when the demographic history is not a tree. In this article, we present a new method for efficiently computing the expected SFS and linear functionals of it, for demographies described by general directed acyclic graphs. This method can scale to more populations than previously possible for complex demographic histories including admixture. We apply our method to an 8-population SFS to estimate the timing and strength of a proposed "basal Eurasian" admixture event in human history. We implement and release our method in a new open-source software package momi2.
And from the preprint's text:
quote:Our inferred demography, along with nonparametric bootstrap re-estimates, are shown in Figure 2 and Table 2. Our parametric bootstrap estimates are shown in Figure 3. We inferred a pulse of 0.094 (95% CI of 0.049-0.174) from the ghost Basal Eurasian population to EEF ancestry (LBK), substantially less than the 0.44 inferred by (Lazaridis et al., 2014). This admixture was inferred to occur 33.7 kya (95% CI of 10.8-41.1 kya), shortly after the Loschbour-LBK split at 37.7 kya (95% CI of 32.2-42.3 kya). The split time of the ghost Basal Eurasian lineage from other Eurasians was inferred at 79.8 kya (95% CI of 67.4-101 kya). Other parameters were broadly in line with previous estimates, such as a Mbuti-Eurasian split of 96 kya, a Han-European split of 50 kya, a Neanderthal split of 696 kya, and Eurasians deriving 0.03 of their ancestry from Neanderthal (Terhorst et al., 2017; Green et al., 2010; Meyer et al., 2016).
If memory serves, the big OOA event took place between 70-50 kya. So Basal Eurasian emerging as a distinct component ~80 kya would make it older than OOA itself. The implications of this should be obvious by now. Posted by Elite Diasporan (Member # 22000) on :
Thanks for sharing. This is a good find. I wonder how those on the anti-African side gonna feel about this. lol. This has really been a bad year for them. This would basically make it older than when Africans left the continent.
Edit:
Do you want me to post this on FBD for maximum trolling?
Posted by Mansamusa (Member # 22474) on :
quote:The sample frequency spectrum (SFS), or histogram of allele counts, is an important summary statistic in evolutionary biology, and is often used to infer the history of population size changes, migrations, and other demographic events affecting a set of populations. The expected multipopulation SFS under a given demographic model can be efficiently computed when the populations in the model are related by a tree, scaling to hundreds of populations. Admixture, back-migration, and introgression are common natural processes that violate the assumption of a tree-like population history, however, and until now the expected SFS could be computed for only a handful of populations when the demographic history is not a tree. In this article, we present a new method for efficiently computing the expected SFS and linear functionals of it, for demographies described by general directed acyclic graphs. This method can scale to more populations than previously possible for complex demographic histories including admixture. We apply our method to an 8-population SFS to estimate the timing and strength of a proposed "basal Eurasian" admixture event in human history. We implement and release our method in a new open-source software package momi2.
And from the preprint's text:
quote:Our inferred demography, along with nonparametric bootstrap re-estimates, are shown in Figure 2 and Table 2. Our parametric bootstrap estimates are shown in Figure 3. We inferred a pulse of 0.094 (95% CI of 0.049-0.174) from the ghost Basal Eurasian population to EEF ancestry (LBK), substantially less than the 0.44 inferred by (Lazaridis et al., 2014). This admixture was inferred to occur 33.7 kya (95% CI of 10.8-41.1 kya), shortly after the Loschbour-LBK split at 37.7 kya (95% CI of 32.2-42.3 kya). The split time of the ghost Basal Eurasian lineage from other Eurasians was inferred at 79.8 kya (95% CI of 67.4-101 kya). Other parameters were broadly in line with previous estimates, such as a Mbuti-Eurasian split of 96 kya, a Han-European split of 50 kya, a Neanderthal split of 696 kya, and Eurasians deriving 0.03 of their ancestry from Neanderthal (Terhorst et al., 2017; Green et al., 2010; Meyer et al., 2016).
I f memory serves, the big OOA event took place between 70-50 kya. So Basal Eurasian emerging as a distinct component ~80 kya would make it older than OOA itself. The implications of this should be obvious by now.
I can't wait for the imaginative and creative Eurasian back-migration theories to explain this one.
Posted by Elite Diasporan (Member # 22000) on :
@Mansamusa
They're really fucked.
Posted by Oshun (Member # 19740) on :
Lol so what next? Multi regionalism in Africa?
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
The MJ meme is getting corny
Posted by Elite Diasporan (Member # 22000) on :
quote:Originally posted by Oshun: Lol so what next? Multi regionalism in Africa?
I can definitely see this happening. lol
But if Basel Eurasian emerged in East Africa among stereotypical African looking population then what else can they say? Posted by Oshun (Member # 19740) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: The MJ meme is getting corny
[/butthurt]
Poor thing needs ointment for that diaper rash. You know it's real when that's all they gotta say about something of this magnitude. Can't say shit can you? Sit down and seethe. Hate at my popcorn I give no fucks. You got bigger problems lol. Her ass needs to be figuring out how she gonna explain this. I can't wait.
Posted by Mansamusa (Member # 22474) on :
Anthrogenica has nothing to say about it, even after this report was posted. Their strategy is just straight out delusional. They simply aim to ignore or belittle any kind of evidence showing African genetic contributions in so called Eurasians.
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
There outta be a new term to displace multiregionalism.
Straight step by step lineage of modern Hss whose differences are due strictly to natural selection is not factual.
We did not all become Hss independently like Coon thought.
However, it's a fact regional Archaic Homo are partly responsible for the variety in modern Hss.
Neanderthal is responsible for something N Asians and Europeans have that Africans don't.
Denisova is responsible for something Oceanians and E Asians have that Afrs & Euros don't.
??? is responsible for something Africans have but Oceanians Asians and Europeans lack.
??? is responsible for something W Afrs have that goes missing in other Africans.
Substitute the other Afr regions to complete the last statement.
Posted by Oshun (Member # 19740) on :
Will it be:
a. Scramble to find anything that scales back OOA in ancestors to living humans today.
b. Multiregionalism in Africa.
c. Say nothing and wait for their favorite anthro blogger to invigorate their previous convictions.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
Posted by Evergreen (Member # 12192) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
Yes....Seligman, Lazaridis and "The Whiteness Agenda"
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
quote:Originally posted by Evergreen:
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
Yes....Seligman, Lazaridis and "The Whiteness Agenda"
Will post in your thread as not to detract from TyranoHotep
Posted by Elite Diasporan (Member # 22000) on :
@the lioness, @Evergreen @Oshun
Lets not derail this thread please.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tyrannohotep: If memory serves, the big OOA event took place between 70-50 kya. So Basal Eurasian emerging as a distinct component ~80 kya would make it older than OOA itself. The implications of this should be obvious by now.
It's actually less than 55kya for the mtDNA M and N people according to the latest research. But this doesn't say anything about other OOA migrations (it doesn't include OOA migrations started by people who didn't belong to mtDNA M and N), of course. Modern uniparentals hide other OOA migrations, while autosome-derived split times conflate different OOA migrations. Important to keep in mind because that is partly why these OOA dates are all over the place.
According to Posth et al 2016 (the last big paper dedicated to dating OOA):
quote:Dating the most recent common ancestor of each of the modern non-African mtDNA clades reveals their single, late, and rapid dispersal less than 55,000 years ago.
mtDNA M and N-linked OOA migrations might have taken place entirely in between 50-40ky ago.
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
quote:Originally posted by Elite Diasporan:
quote:Originally posted by Oshun: Lol so what next? Multi regionalism in Africa?
I can definitely see this happening. lol
But if Basel Eurasian emerged in East Africa among stereotypical African looking population then what else can they say?
I think an internal, archaic affected, multi-regionalism in Africa since Omo I ~200k, and even unaided natural selection for 100,000 years, could make Africa pretty diverse not only by region but also within region well before the first successful OoA.
Compare fully B&AMH Omo and 100k later failed OoA's in Israel. What do their skulls faces tell us about looks of housebound and wanderstruck paleo NE Afrs?
Posted by Fourty2Tribes (Member # 21799) on :
quote:Originally posted by Oshun: Lol so what next? Multi regionalism in Africa?
quote:Originally posted by Tyrannohotep: If memory serves, the big OOA event took place between 70-50 kya. So Basal Eurasian emerging as a distinct component ~80 kya would make it older than OOA itself. The implications of this should be obvious by now.
It's actually less than 55kya for the mtDNA M and N people according to the latest research. But this doesn't say anything about other OOA migrations (it doesn't include OOA migrations started by people who didn't belong to mtDNA M and N), of course.
Ok I just want to see if I got this right. So...if Basal Eurasian, which is younger than "Non-Africans" was too old for OOA, but all OOA trace their DNA to M or N, doesn't this support an African origin for M and N? But M and N are dated much later. How is Basal Eurasian older than M and N when according to this graph Basal Eurasian is younger than the the branch connecting all non Africans.
Lioness also found this research here that says M and N came up at around the same time as L3. He doesn't put it at 80k but more like 70k, and argued that L3 is Eurasian. IDK how to reconcile this information. Perhaps Haplogroups M and N are older than researchers think?
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Oshun: Ok I just want to see if I got this right. So...if Basal Eurasian. which is younger than "Non-Africans" was too old for OOA, but all OOA trace their DNA to M or N doesn't this support an African origin for M and N?
@Oshun "Non Africans" in that chart was not meant to be a geographic reality...per the authors.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
so they were non-African Africans?
Posted by Oshun (Member # 19740) on :
I'll ask another way: How could the descendant predate the ancestor? All non Africans derive their haplogroups from M and N, but M and N are being dated at 55k. Yet according to this, Basal Eurasian (which all non-Africans apparently aren't) is 80k years old. This would make Basal Eurasian, the descendant of all "non-African" haplogroups older than the parent M and N. It may also be that M and N are older than 55kya.
Posted by Elmaestro (Member # 22566) on :
The Joke is.... Basal Eurasian in this context. ...are Africans that aren't Mbuti, and Khoisan.
Since contributing to the West eurasian genepool, they (Basal Eurasians) drifted and mixed accordingly. Unless you believe that contemporary Africans are representative of long standing continuity there's no reason why this should be confusing. There's no such group of hidden people who were Isolated and untouched for 40-50 thousand years.
Hint hint, wink wink... They're just Africans (Not even North Africans or hidden North East African).
Posted by Oshun (Member # 19740) on :
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro: The Joke is.... Basal Eurasian in this context. ...are Africans that aren't Mbuti, and Khoisan.
Even as they likely were if this is correct, how is Basal Eurasian older than M and N? Basal Eurasian is not ancestral to all non Africans, but all non Africans come from M and N. Unless "Non African" is L3 and Basal Eurasian is M or N? Posted by Elmaestro (Member # 22566) on :
Basal Eurasian isn't a haplogroup. Phylogenetically it can encompass anything from L2-L6 and maybe even L1.
And even still this is an oversimplification. As actual geneflow outside of Africa from Basal Eurasian conduits can be from other Eurasians. So tracing "Basal Eurasians" with uniparentals will be unfulfilling.
For instance, lets say Africans migrated to the middle east shortly after the initial OOA, then those Middle easterners migrated much later transferring this "Basal Eurasian" elsewhere commensurately. You'd see the transfer of this ancestry but the uniparentals might not be there as a result.
Comparatively you have to be aware of the split times and what happens to this ancestry in West Eurasians proportionately. ie: the decrease in BE in Europe when the population is seen as a single population branching off at 80kya. ~80 thousand years ago is a sweet spot for the branching off of most Africans in general. To Understand Basal Eurasian isn't to try to peice to gether Eurasian history.. But conversely to unveil continental African population history.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Oshun: but M and N are being dated at 55k. Yet according to this, Basal
quote:
Pleistocene Mitochondrial Genomes Suggest a Single Major Dispersal of Non-Africans and a Late Glacial Population Turnover in Europe Posth 2016
Dating the most recent common ancestor of each of the modern non-African mtDNA clades reveals their single, late, and rapid dispersal less than 55,000 years ago.
Genetic studies of human mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) show that all present-day non-Africans belong to two basal mtDNA hap- logroups (hgs), M and N [10]. The time to the most recent common ancestor (TMRCA) of each of these two clades has been estimated independently at around 50,000 years ago (50 ka) (95% confidence interval [CI], 53–46 ka)
Surprisingly, three hunt- er-gatherers from Belgium and France dating to between 35 and 28 ka carried mtDNA hg M, today found predominantly in Asia, Australasia, and the Americas, although it is almost absent in extant populations with European ancestry
Excluding a $40,000-year-old Romanian individual known not to have contributed notably to the modern European gene pool [28], our BEAST analyses give a TMRCA for clades M and N from 44 to 55 ka, respectively. Our estimated dates, together with the oldest accepted archeological evidence for the pres- ence of early modern humans in Australia and Europe (both dated to at least 45 ka [13, 29]), are consistent with a model of a single, late, and therefore rapid dispersal of a source popula- tion containing both M and N hgs, which contributed all the mito- chondrial diversity of present-day non-Africans (cf. [7]). Human individuals whose ancestries trace back to potential earlier ex- pansion(s) outside Africa [30, 31] are thus unlikely to have left any surviving mtDNA descendants.
The reconstructed phylogeny (Figure 2) with both basal N and M lineages in Late Pleistocene Europe possibly mirrors the inferred back migration into Africa, which has been suggested by the existence of hgs U6 and M1 in modern-day North Africans [33]. Therefore, the major modern human dispersal described here after 55 ka might have affected not only non-Africans, but also African populations to some extent.
Hg assignment of the authenticated mtDNAs confirmed that the vast majority of Late Pleistocene and Early Holocene individ- uals belonged to the U lineage, which is a subgroup of the N clade [20] (Figures 2 and S1). We also found a basal U lineage that had no derived position leading to known sub-hgs in a 33,000-year-old Romanian individual. Surprisingly, three hunt- er-gatherers from Belgium and France dating to between 35 and 28 ka carried mtDNA hg M, today found predominantly in Asia, Australasia, and the Americas, although it is almost absent in extant populations with European ancestry
quote:
Informally, the topology and branch lengths of genealogies are affected by a demographic history in two ways:
1. Two lineages may not coalesce into a common ancestor until they reside in the same population, and the time until this occurs is affected by migration patterns and population split times.
2. At any particular point in time, two members within the same population are more likely to have a common parent if the population size is small; so, for example, residents of a small village will typically be more closely related than residents of a large city.
The split time of the ghost Basal Eurasian lineage from other Eurasians was inferred at 79.8 kya (95% CI of 67.4-101 kya). Other parameters were broadly in line with previous estimates, such as a Mbuti-Eurasian split of 96 kya, a Han-European split of 50 kya, a Neanderthal split of 696 kya, and Eurasians deriving 0.03 of their ancestry from Neanderthal (Terhorst et al., 2017; Green et al., 2010; Meyer et al., 2016).
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by Oshun: Ok I just want to see if I got this right. So...if Basal Eurasian, which is younger than "Non-Africans" was too old for OOA, but all OOA trace their DNA to M or N, doesn't this support an African origin for M and N? But M and N are dated much later. How is Basal Eurasian older than M and N when according to this graph Basal Eurasian is younger than the the branch connecting all non Africans.
Lioness also found this research here that says M and N came up at around the same time as L3. He doesn't put it at 80k but more like 70k, and argued that L3 is Eurasian. IDK how to reconcile this information. Perhaps Haplogroups M and N are older than researchers think? [/QB]
They lied. I bet they ran the exact same test cited in the OP (or something similar), ignored it and tried to play confused. Someone had to have ran that damn test in the last four years and nobody reported it. That test is one of the first things you would to to find out where Basal Eurasian originated. That is not something you'd 'forget' to do. Right now I'm assuming researchers are playing confused until proven otherwise. If Lucas Martin can put the pieces of the puzzle together, they should be able to do the same. Yet, for some reason, no one is coming forward, and it has already been 4-5 years.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
what's the end game from the truth perspective?
Posted by Elmaestro (Member # 22566) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: what's the end game from the truth perspective?
"New Study Showing How Africans Actually Descended from Eurasian Populations"
"Out Of North Africa!"
"ParaEurasians Are the Ancestors of Modern Non Khoi-San African Populations"
"Whole Human Genome Sequencng Reveals Wide Scale Back Migration of Pre-Eurasian Ancestry in SubSaharan African"
Option B might not be too bad though lol
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: what's the end game from the truth perspective?
There is no end game. They just want to play confused. They're just lucky that ancient admixture and human evolution is complicated. The nature of aDNA and the inability of many admixture tools to do as advertised favours their agenda right now. So, for now they can immerse themselves in their bogus admixture tests ("Natufians don't have African ancestry") and get away with it.
Posted by Oshun (Member # 19740) on :
Soooo if Natufians are half basal Eurasian and researchers are also saying they're about 20 percent African, does that make them 70 percent African?
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
Well! Well! well! I am back from “vacation”. Good timing ElMaestro. I have been itching to get in on this. I hope you stop this vacation nonsense. That said…..
Posted by Elmaestro (Member # 22566) on :
@Oshun Natufians aren't half basal Eurasian bro... but they might damn well sure be half black though lmao.
Nah jokes aside all that Basal Eurasian, Omotic, East African & North African stuff are somewhat different shades of the same ancestry. they don't stack.
Thank god for physical Anthro and Archaeology ....cuz this genetics thing is getting a lil too impressionist. lol.
But anyways like I said it's not about the Ghost population and all about the proximity. It's all but blatantly obvious now, Laz's Basal Eurasian expanding as a singular hidden population is a farce.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: So, for now they can immerse themselves in their bogus admixture tests ("Natufians don't have African ancestry") and get away with it.
Nobody said that in the primary research article
quote: In all six males, we observe haplogroup E1b1b, more specifically E1b1b1a1 (M-78) in five of six 831 (Table S16). This haplogroup is most frequent in present-day North and Northeast African 832 populations, such as Oromo, Somali and Moroccan Arabs (18). A previous study reported that 833 Natufians and Neolithic Levant individuals had E1b1b haplogroups, although they tended to 834 belong to E1b1b1b (16). 835
- Pleistocene North African genomes link Near Eastern and sub-Saharan African human pop, Krause 2018 Supplementary Materials
quote:
No affinity of Natufians to sub-Saharan Africans is evident in the genome-wide analysis
-- Lazaridis, Iosif; et al. (17 June 2016). "The genetic structure of the world's first farmers"
The affinity is to East and Horn Africans.
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
Well! Well! well! I am back from “vacation”. Good timing ElMaestro. I have been itching to get in on this. I hope you stop this vacation nonsense. That said…..
ElMaestro said “The Joke is.... Basal Eurasian in this context. ...are Africans that aren't Mbuti, and Khoisan.”
Beyoku said “@Oshun "Non Africans" in that chart was not meant to be a geographic reality...per the authors.”
This is the funniest… Lioness Said “so they were non-African Africans?”
Lazaridis(2016) said “they are non non-Africans” …. or something like that.
I said/commented about that statement over two years ago when Lazaridis first mentioned it. WTF is a “non” non-African. Lol! Either you are an African or you are not.
But the bigger problem is pygmies do carry “Eurasian” ancestry also depending on the target SNPs ie supervised. AFAIK on few KhoiSan groups do NOT carry Eurasian ancestry.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: Nobody said that in the primary research article
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: The affinity is to East and Horn Africans.
We've already talked about Lazaridis et al and their selective tests, several times.
We could not test for a link to present-day North Africans, who owe most of their ancestry to back-migration from Eurasia
You may have your own beliefs about who Natufians are related to. But the fact is Lazaridis et al tend get forgetful when it comes to running common sense tests.
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
ElMaestro Said: It's all but blatantly obvious now, Laz's Basal Eurasian expanding as a singular hidden population is a farce.
Quote: “NEW YORK (GenomeWeb) – New genome sequence data from North African individuals living up to 15,000 years ago suggests that Stone Age Moroccans carried ancestry from both sub-Saharan Africa and the Near East. "Our analysis shows that North Africa and the Near East, even at this early time, were part of ONE region without much of a genetic barrier," co-senior author Choongwon Jeong, a researcher in the Department of Archaeogenetics at the Max Planck Institute for the Science of Human History, said in a statement. As they reported online today in Science, Jeong and colleagues from…”
----------------------
About 6 years ago I posted something like this. The Levant is an extension of Africa. That is why modern Levant do NOT cluster with the Neolithic Levant or Natufians. Henn and DNATribes and XYYMAN knew this. Pay me a dollar $ 10?
I hate to say it Coon but was right(somewhat) to some extent and so too was Sergi. Europeans are a subset of Africans. [/Q]
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
Sage said.. “We did not all become Hss independently like Coon thought”
Xyyman said many times. “I hate to say it Coon but was right(somewhat) to some extent and so too was Sergi”
Am I ahead of my time or what?!
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote: No affinity of Natufians to sub-Saharan Africans is evident in the genome-wide analysis
-- Lazaridis, Iosif; et al. (17 June 2016). "The genetic structure of the world's first farmers"
.
,
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: Nobody said that in the primary research article
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: The affinity is to East and Horn Africans.
We've already talked about Lazaridis et al and their selective tests, several times.
We could not test for a link to present-day North Africans, who owe most of their ancestry to back-migration from Eurasia
You may have your own beliefs about who Natufians are related to. But the fact is Lazaridis et al tend get forgetful when it comes to running common sense tests.
It says "we could not" rather than "did not". Is it a lie that they could not or is it possible they could not?
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: Nobody said that in the primary research article
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: The affinity is to East and Horn Africans.
We've already talked about Lazaridis et al and their selective tests, several times.
We could not test for a link to present-day North Africans, who owe most of their ancestry to back-migration from Eurasia
You may have your own beliefs about who Natufians are related to. But the fact is Lazaridis et al tend get forgetful when it comes to running common sense tests.
Hey Laz Initially stated his Basal Eurasian was East African before the peer reviews kicked his ass... He was also the first and only mainstream "geneticist" to openly claim the Ifri m Amr Mousa were Africans. And he also silently pushed Daniel shriners recent study showing SSA in Natufians to the spotlight.
This is why I gave that analogy to him being that classmate who doesn't raises his hand. ...He knows lol.
Posted by Oshun (Member # 19740) on :
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro: @Oshun Natufians aren't half basal Eurasian bro... but they might damn well sure be half black though lmao.
Sorry I guess I got confused by this?
quote:We report genome-wide ancient DNA from 44 ancient Near Easterners ranging in time between ~12,000-1,400 BCE, from Natufian hunter-gatherers to Bronze Age farmers. We show that the earliest populations of the Near East derived around half their ancestry from a 'Basal Eurasian' lineage that had little if any Neanderthal admixture and that separated from other non-African lineages prior to their separation from each other. The first farmers of the southern Levant (Israel and Jordan) and Zagros Mountains (Iran) were strongly genetically differentiated, and each descended from local hunter-gatherers.
They must've meant Basal Eurasian was a distant ancestor.
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
But what would “oddle your noddles “ while you guys focus on “North/East Africa” . The Neolithics are NOT Horners!!! Why? Luxmanda and Hora-8100BP of Tanzania carrying 60%-20% European(NOT Japanese the proxy for Asia) ancestry.!!! The fascinating thing is BOTH Luxmanda and Hora-8100BP carried typical African mtDNA L2a and L0*? . So in reality to ElMaestro point to Oshun…mtDNA haplogroups has nothing to do with autosomal SNP….and Oshun has been here how long asking these retard questions?
I would put Basal Eurasian origins at the Malawi or Zimbabwe region. 30,000year old Hofmyers was describedas …part of the phenotypical and morphological diversity of Sub-Saharan Africans !!!!
OP- This Software MOMI2 should resolve this….where the programmers at ???!!! At best I can do C and C++..python and the like…over my head.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
Suppose they came out with an article saying the Natufians were 99% African. THen what?
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
Agreed. I would not put this on Lazardis. Reading all his papers he tries to come clean. But he is backed into a corner. In all the papers he headed he does acknowledge as possible origin of Basal Eurasians in Africa. Skoglund is another one who straddles the fence.
“Hey Laz Initially stated his Basal Eurasian was East African before the peer reviews kicked his ass... He was also the first and only mainstream "geneticist" to openly claim the Ifri m Amr Mousa were Africans. And he also silently pushed Daniel shriners recent study showing SSA in Natufians to the spotlight.”
Posted by Elmaestro (Member # 22566) on :
quote:Originally posted by Oshun:
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro: @Oshun Natufians aren't half basal Eurasian bro... but they might damn well sure be half black though lmao.
Sorry I guess I got confused by this?
quote:We report genome-wide ancient DNA from 44 ancient Near Easterners ranging in time between ~12,000-1,400 BCE, from Natufian hunter-gatherers to Bronze Age farmers. We show that the earliest populations of the Near East derived around half their ancestry from a 'Basal Eurasian' lineage that had little if any Neanderthal admixture and that separated from other non-African lineages prior to their separation from each other. The first farmers of the southern Levant (Israel and Jordan) and Zagros Mountains (Iran) were strongly genetically differentiated, and each descended from local hunter-gatherers.
Look at the sup for the study you quoted, find the formal stats with the ghost population. Look at which populations score what. (or, You can also check the sup for the Taforalt paper and look at the basal Eurasian estimates there as well.) I'm pretty sure it wasn't the Natufians who score 50% ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°). Also, the OP study, where Basal Eurasian Estimates drops in Euros (granted they're not Natufians but common sense should tell you that we aren't dealing with stable numbers.).
Posted by Tyrannohotep (Member # 3735) on :
Seriously, one of us should write a paper arguing for Basal Eurasian being African and submit it to some kind of journal. I'm sick of these incompetent (if not outright dishonest) academics not realizing what should be right under their noses by now. Someone needs to bring it to their attention in a place where they can see it ASAP.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tyrannohotep: Seriously, one of us should write a paper arguing for Basal Eurasian being African and submit it to some kind of journal. I'm sick of these incompetent (if not outright dishonest) academics not realizing what should be right under their noses by now. Someone needs to bring it to their attention in a place where they can see it ASAP.
I said a few years ago that the term "Basal Eurasian" itself is no good if they were located in Africa
it could be updated to BEA Basal Eurasian African
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
Everyone is a subset of Africans All genes are within Africa so the Natufians are 100% African. The question is what group of modern Africans the Natufians are closest related to. Obviously the fool who stated that "Natufians carry no African DNA but originated in North Africa" do not consider North Africa…Africa. In Fact they do not considered “East” sub-Saharan Africa …Africa. Only the despised Afram/ West Africans are …Africans. Eg the Abusir mummies carry the brown component found through Sub-Saharan East Africa. But they focused on the red component to make such a ridiculous claim. “Selective sampling” of genes for their study .
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: Suppose they came out with an article saying the Natufians were 99% African. THen what?
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: [QB] Everyone is a subset of Africans All genes are within Africa
why are you saying all genes are within Africa ?
Posted by Oshun (Member # 19740) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tyrannohotep: Seriously, one of us should write a paper arguing for Basal Eurasian being African and submit it to some kind of journal. I'm sick of these incompetent (if not outright dishonest) academics not realizing what should be right under their noses by now. Someone needs to bring it to their attention in a place where they can see it ASAP.
Maybe it's time to stop caring about white academia and write your own material and your own periodicals. The data speaks for itself and speaking honestly, Black people lack reason not to listen to what you guys are getting at. They don't seek our approval, why seek theirs?
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro:
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: Nobody said that in the primary research article
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: The affinity is to East and Horn Africans.
We've already talked about Lazaridis et al and their selective tests, several times.
We could not test for a link to present-day North Africans, who owe most of their ancestry to back-migration from Eurasia
You may have your own beliefs about who Natufians are related to. But the fact is Lazaridis et al tend get forgetful when it comes to running common sense tests.
Hey Laz Initially stated his Basal Eurasian was East African before the peer reviews kicked his ass... He was also the first and only mainstream "geneticist" to openly claim the Ifri m Amr Mousa were Africans. And he also silently pushed Daniel shriners recent study showing SSA in Natufians to the spotlight.
This is why I gave that analogy to him being that classmate who doesn't raises his hand. ...He knows lol.
Are you sure about that? From my memory Lazaridis et al always played confused right from the beginning by saying Basal Eurasian is either African, or Nubian Complex Arabian. Nubian Complex was a total reach and made no sense, unless they were looking for a way out because they simply didn't like leaving it at African for the time being. I gave them a pass back then because there was too little information back then to expect the average geneticist to identify Basal Eurasian's origin. Then Lazaridis et al 2016 came out and there was still no improvement. It only got worse. But that is just my view. I'm sure some disagree and think Lazaridis is on the right track. I used to be one of them. But his obvious influence on trolls online and the recent aDNA papers (Kraus, Fregel, Scheunemann) changed my mind about him.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: It says "we could not" rather than "did not". Is it a lie that they could not or is it possible they could not?
Nothing was stopping them. They simply chose to not publish the analyses involving North Africans, presumably because some North African samples were outperforming or rivaling Middle Eastern samples in terms of closeness to Natufians and farmers. Analyses posted online by bloggers certainly showed North Africans score well, despite being at a disadvantage due to the increases of post-Roman SSA ancestry that drives them away from these ancient samples.
So yes, the glaring omission of ALL North Africans from the Fst table (among other analyses) was highly suspicious. Even if they thought North Africans were Eurasian transplants, they still could have posted the North African Fst values just for transparency's sake. They could have let people make up their own minds. They need to explain why modern North Africans were left out. If they don't then I'll just assume that they're lying and that it's deliberate. Because Fregel included North African samples in the Fst analysis and they, or at least some of them, outperformed Middle Eastern populations in closeness to Natufians. So somebody in Lazaridis team did the analysis and simply omitted them and posted some non sense about "we could not use North Africans".
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
this however has it as East African rather than North
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
Who cares about Anthromadness' take? I can't take anyone seriously who quotes Davidski on Natufians.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
that is not the source
Posted by Oshun (Member # 19740) on :
So Natufians and the Near East could be the ones that have a large amount of Northern African DNA as opposed to northern Africans being the passive recipients of the Near East? Because the way I read things it always seems like North Africa has no indigenous DNA of it's own, it's DNA either originated from SSA or the West Asia.
Posted by beyoku (Member # 14524) on :
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro:
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: Nobody said that in the primary research article
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: The affinity is to East and Horn Africans.
We've already talked about Lazaridis et al and their selective tests, several times.
We could not test for a link to present-day North Africans, who owe most of their ancestry to back-migration from Eurasia
You may have your own beliefs about who Natufians are related to. But the fact is Lazaridis et al tend get forgetful when it comes to running common sense tests.
Hey Laz Initially stated his Basal Eurasian was East African before the peer reviews kicked his ass... He was also the first and only mainstream "geneticist" to openly claim the Ifri m Amr Mousa were Africans. And he also silently pushed Daniel shriners recent study showing SSA in Natufians to the spotlight.
This is why I gave that analogy to him being that classmate who doesn't raises his hand. ...He knows lol.
I think he also said CHG with migration from Africa. I would have to find the quote though.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
^Sounds like a Jones et al 2015 paraphrase.
quote:Given their geographic origin, it seems likely that CHG and EF are the descendants of early colonists from Africa who stopped south of the Caucasus, in an area stretching south to the Levant and possibly east towards Central and South Asia. WHG, on the other hand, are likely the descendants of a wave that expanded further into Europe.
quote:Originally posted by Oshun: So Natufians and the Near East could be the ones that have a large amount of Northern African DNA as opposed to northern Africans being the passive recipients of the Near East? Because the way I read things it always seems like North Africa has no indigenous DNA of it's own, it's DNA either originated from SSA or the West Asia.
According to ancient DNA analyses conducted by Lazaridis et al. (2016) on Natufian skeletal remains from present-day northern Israel, the Natufians carried the Y-DNA (paternal) haplogroups
1) E1b1b1b2 (xE1b1b1b2a,E1b1b1b2b) (2/5; 40%) Possible place of origin Northern Africa
2) CT (2/5; 40%) Possible place of origin Asia or East Africa
3) E-p2, specifically E1b1 (xE1b1a1,E1b1b1b1) (1/5; 20%) Possible place of origin East Africa
_____________________________________________
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
Posted by the now defunct Dienekes. Seems like he too is reading my material. He is still not getting the part of the puzzle. It can never be an Arabian origin of AfrAsian. It is most likely Tanzania or some point further south like Malawi or Zimbabwe. Also Native American and East Asian are furtheest from modern Africans NOT Europeans or Arabians. Looking at K2 in an UNSUPERVISED Cluster chart.
Quote ----- March 25, 2018 Statistical Palaeoafricans According to a new preprint by Durvasula and Sankararaman (D+S): Using this method, we find that ~7.97±0.6% of the genetic ancestry from the West African Yoruba population traces its origin to an unidentified, archaic population This ~8% matches well the ~9% of "West Africa A" in Yoruba of the model of Skoglund et al. Figure 3D. If "West Africa A" corresponds to the Archaic Ghost of D+S, then the Mende have the most of it at ~13%.
I have long maintained that the higher genetic diversity of extant Sub-Saharan Africans is the result of admixture between "Afrasians" (a population that spawned Eurasians and much of the ancestry of Sub-Saharans and which had "low" (Eurasian-level) of genetic diversity) and multiple layers of "Palaeoafricans". It would seem that one such layer has now been discovered.
Where did the Afrasians live? Recent developments pushed back the presence of modern humans in both North Africa and the Middle East, making both regions highly competitive as the cradle of the Afrasians. The odds for Sub-Saharan Africa have greatly diminished also by the discovery of late non-sapiens H. naledi in South Africa (which was naively postulated as a cradle based on the presence there today of genetically diverse San Bushmen, but who are not descendants of even Late Pleistocene South Africans), as well as of the archaic component in the genomes of West Africans. These discoveries pile up on top of known archaic skulls of late provenance in both Central and West Africa.
Remember though, that the archaic admixture in West Africans is "less archaic" (more closely related to H. sapiens) than the Neandertal/Denisovan ancestry which contributed to extant Eurasians. All Africans (modern or archaic) are a branch within the phylogeny of Eurasians, with Australoids (and now apparently East Asians too) having the deepest known strain of human ancestry inherited from the elusive Denisovans.
------------------------
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
So we agree on Iwo Eleru and West African admixture We agree on West Africans are primarily Neolithic ie Afrasian
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: Posted by the now defunct Dienekes. Seems like he too is reading my material. He is still not getting the part of the puzzle. It can never be an Arabian origin of AfrAsian. It is most likely Tanzania or some point further south like Malawi or Zimbabwe. Also Native American and East Asian are furtheest from modern Africans NOT Europeans or Arabians. Looking at K2 in an UNSUPERVISED Cluster chart.
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: ^Sounds like a Jones et al 2015 paraphrase.
quote:Given their geographic origin, it seems likely that CHG and EF are the descendants of early colonists from Africa who stopped south of the Caucasus, in an area stretching south to the Levant and possibly east towards Central and South Asia. WHG, on the other hand, are likely the descendants of a wave that expanded further into Europe.
Nice to see some refreshing support.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
Yeah. They probably know more than they're letting on, too. Notice how they mention areas further east in Asia as part of the Basal Eurasian range, way ahead of Narasimhan et al 2018's E1b findings. Probably ran some tests lowkey but were too ahead of the curve to feel comfortable putting it out there.
Archaeologically there are cultural traits linking the regions they mention. Jones et al are a well-informed team multidisciplinary-wise. It's not lost on the that CHG skeletal and cultural features are relevant. I want to say the same thing about Basal Eurasian's distribution as Jones et al, but I'm holding back because I can't confirm it with the skeletal data yet. But after Narasimhan et al's E1bs I might make what Jones et al say in that quote my official position.
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
You got jokes.
BWw let me see how long it will take for me to get banned. I will play nice.
Strange??!! I am in guys! Hmmm. I am sure many post are filtered and not displayed. No way only 37 people will post on such a ground breaking and controversial topic. Not sure why mine was allowed. I did not ask anything spectacular. It was a simple question where the is uniparental link between the Steppes pastoralist and modern Western Europeans. Lazaridis covered that already saying there is no connections.
But I will play nice. ………
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: [Q]
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: Posted by the now defunct Dienekes. Seems like he too is reading my material. He is still not getting the part of the puzzle. It can never be an Arabian origin of AfrAsian. It is most likely Tanzania or some point further south like Malawi or Zimbabwe. Also Native American and East Asian are furtheest from modern Africans NOT Europeans or Arabians. Looking at K2 in an UNSUPERVISED Cluster chart.
[/Q]
Posted by capra (Member # 22737) on :
edit - off topic - since this thread has a real topic
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: You got jokes.
BWw let me see how long it will take for me to get banned. I will play nice.
Strange??!! I am in guys! Hmmm. I am sure many post are filtered and not displayed. No way only 37 people will post on such a ground breaking and controversial topic. Not sure why mine was allowed. I did not ask anything spectacular. It was a simple question where the is uniparental link between the Steppes pastoralist and modern Western Europeans. Lazaridis covered that already saying there is no connections.
But I will play nice. ………
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: [Q]
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: Posted by the now defunct Dienekes. Seems like he too is reading my material. He is still not getting the part of the puzzle. It can never be an Arabian origin of AfrAsian. It is most likely Tanzania or some point further south like Malawi or Zimbabwe. Also Native American and East Asian are furtheest from modern Africans NOT Europeans or Arabians. Looking at K2 in an UNSUPERVISED Cluster chart.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
