...
Post A Reply
my profile
|
directory
login
|
register
|
search
|
faq
|
forum home
»
EgyptSearch Forums
»
Deshret
»
Neandertal Admixture discovered in some Indigenous Africans
» Post A Reply
Post A Reply
Login Name:
Password:
Message Icon:
Message:
HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by The Explorer: [QB] [QUOTE]Originally posted by Bonkers: So basically there was already sub structure(both genetically and phenotypically) in east africa before OOA and neither of those populations did resemble any modern phenotype [/QUOTE]Sub-structure of what, how many and specify them? [QUOTE] and then the afrasians migrated out and in isolation developed into the phenotypes we see in euroasia today and (haplogroups E and R and so on originated) while the paleo-africans stayed and settled south and west of africa as well and evolved into the negroid types we have in sub-saharan africa today possible due to the mixing with those archaic african groups.[/QUOTE]Your little theory is upset by the fact that your "negroids" of west Africa, who are presumably the product of "paleo-Africans", predominantly belong to the same hg E that you claim to be of "Eurasian" origin. How does that register with your unidentified "sub-structure"? [QUOTE] E carriers return from euroasia into africa[/QUOTE]Why is E rarer outside of Africa, if this is true. Why are upstream clades or paraphyletic YAP+ so far only identified in western Africa and the far east where hg D occurs? Why have more paraphyletic YAP+ clades been found in Africa than anywhere? Why is hg E more diversified in Africa than anywhere? Why is hg E more diverse than hg D, which shares common recent ancestry at the YAP+ node? [QUOTE] and settle into the horn and live next to the paleo africans and some mixing occur, then a subset of the E carriers of the horn move further and colonize north africa. those that stayed in the horn eventually started mixing with the paleo african women and became the dominant y group.[/QUOTE]How do you know this mixing took place, presumably between "paleo Africans" and "E carriers"? Why haven't the phenotypes of these "E carriers" changed, or did they? [QUOTE] meanwhile in euroasia the euroasians probably started mixing with neanderthals.[/QUOTE]Why don't they resemble neanderthals, or do they? What Neanderthal uniparental markers point to this mixing; if none, what happened? [QUOTE] A subset of these now mixed horners however move further south and meet the pure paleo-africans(although with archaic admixture) then they also mix and thats the reason why E-carriers became dominant here too and the bantu migration later in history added to this. though there is still some A and B. the archaic lineages had probably been completely assimilated prior to this.[/QUOTE]Why don't the E-carriers in west Africa and south resemble the "mixed E-carrier horners", as you call them, according to your own theory...since they mixed with the same "paleo" and "archaic" elements in the African Horn? [QUOTE] this makes sense because that would make west and south africans (who are seen as pure negroids) autosomally almost completely african because they would not meet any new caucasoid groups in africa even though majority of them still carry an caucasoid euroasian y marker.[/QUOTE]How can they carry "caucasoid eurasian y marker" and be "almost completely African"? Did their "caucasoid eurasian y marker" fathers not carry any biparental markers? [QUOTE] and east africans stay intermediate autosomally and in skull cluster analysis due to having a consistant population of both caucasoids and negroids. and north africans are practically completely caucasoid due to no paleo-africans living there.[/QUOTE]Again, why haven't the caucasoid fathers in west and south Africa produce the same "intermediate autosomally and in skull cluster" in west and south Africa as they presumably did in the African Horn? [QUOTE] this explains why sub-saharans are the most diversive.[/QUOTE]So, according to you, sub-Saharan Africans would not have been diverse, were it not for this "admixture" from E-carriers and other caucasoids from Eurasia? In other words, "admixture" is the reason for Africa's uniqueness in the greatest human diversity, as opposed to the underlying fact that it is home to origin of humanity. [QUOTE] what im trying to say as well is that just because an dna marker originated from a certain area does NOT mean that that areas current population represent the original phenotype.[/QUOTE]Well that goes without saying. Europeans serve as superb examples of change in original phenotype of carriers of markers into Europe. [QUOTE] this is improtant to that argument: "The population that left East Africa to colonize the world -- including other parts of Africa -- carried only CT and L3. We know this because if A, B and L0-L2 had already been present in that population, then those haplogroups would have colonized the world too. But they didn't. Therefore, modern Ethiopians(and other horners) have ancestry that the original East Africans (i.e. OOA migrants) didn't have, so they're not representative" [/QUOTE]The same can be said of modern western and southern Africans, which takes us right back to questions asked right above. [/QB][/QUOTE]
Instant Graemlins
Instant UBB Code™
What is UBB Code™?
Options
Disable Graemlins in this post.
*** Click here to review this topic. ***
Contact Us
|
EgyptSearch!
(c) 2015 EgyptSearch.com
Powered by UBB.classic™ 6.7.3