...
Post A Reply
my profile
|
directory
login
|
register
|
search
|
faq
|
forum home
»
EgyptSearch Forums
»
Egyptology
»
Ancient Egyptians DNA is Less Sub Saharan than modern Egyptian DNA.
» Post A Reply
Post A Reply
Login Name:
Password:
Message Icon:
Message:
HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Doug M: [QB] [QUOTE]Originally posted by Ish Gebor: [qb] [QUOTE]Originally posted by the lioness,: [qb] [QUOTE]Originally posted by Tukuler: Lazaridis never said his Basal Eurasian is not African. [/QUOTE]Yes he did. http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v513/n7518/images_article/nature13673-f3.jpg ^ This is is his Lazaridis' chart. It clearly shows that the ancestor of the Basal Eurasian is not African. [IMG]https://i.imgbox.com/8Mzsnp9q.jpg[/IMG] http://biorxiv.org/content/early/2016/06/16/059311 [b]The genetic structure of the world's first farmers[/b] Iosif Lazaridis, 2016 [QUOTE] 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. By the time of the Bronze Age, these two populations and Anatolian-related farmers had mixed with each other and with the hunter-gatherers of Europe to drastically reduce genetic differentiation. The impact of the Near Eastern farmers extended beyond the Near East: farmers related to those of Anatolia spread westward into Europe; farmers related to those of the Levant spread southward into East Africa; farmers related to those from Iran spread northward into the Eurasian steppe; and people related to both the early farmers of Iran and to the pastoralists of the Eurasian steppe spread eastward into South Asia. [b]no affinity of Natufians to sub-Saharan Africans is evident in our genome-wide analysis,[/b] as present-day sub-Saharan Africans do not share more alleles with Natufians than with other ancient Eurasians (Extended Data Table 1). (We could not test for a link to present-day North Africans, who owe most of their ancestry to back-migration from Eurasia The idea of Natufians as a vector for the movement of Basal Eurasian ancestry into the Near East is also not supported by our data, as the Basal Eurasian ancestry in the Natufians (44±8%) is consistent with stemming from the same population as that in the Neolithic and Mesolithic populations of Iran, and is not greater than in those populations (Supplementary Information, section 4). Further insight into the origins and legacy of the Natufians could come from comparison to Natufians from additional sites, and to ancient DNA from north Africa. [/QUOTE][/qb][/QUOTE]Amazing how you skipped this part: [IMG]http://i66.tinypic.com/16gmsmh.jpg[/IMG] —Lazaridis et al. (2016) [QUOTE] Second, we observed that all three Natufian individuals that could be assigned to a specific haplogroup belonged to haplogroup E1b1. This is thought to have an East African origin, and a 4,500-year old individual from the Ethiopian highlands 13 belonged to it. [...] "Previously, the West Eurasian population known to be the best proxy for this ancestry was present-day Sardinians, who resemble Neolithic Europeans genetically. [b]However, our analysis shows that East African ancestry is significantly better modelled by Levantine early farmers than by Anatolian or early European farmers, implying that the spread of this ancestry to East Africa was not from the same group that spread Near Eastern ancestry into Europe[/b] (Extended 283 Data Fig. 4; Supplementary Information, section 8)" [p. 9]. [/QUOTE]--Lazaridis et al., The genetic structure of the world's first farmers, bioRxiv preprint, posted June 16, 2016, doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1101/059311 [/qb][/QUOTE]Dude how does this sentence make any logical sense: [QUOTE]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.[/QUOTE]Think. If there were no other humans other than Africans before migrating to the Near East, then how could there be some "other" population for them to derive their genes from? They then reinforce that there were no other major DNA pools other than African descended DNA pools right in the same sentence. What they are saying is that half of these populations had African DNA lineages with little Neanderthal ancestry. Again, following the logic that Africans and Non Africans can be distinguished by "neanderthal" mixture, then any EARLY populations with no Neanderthal mixture in the Near East must have been African by all logical common sense. This inane hand waving and semantic posturing to justify negating the logical fact that all these DNA lineages were African at that early point in time is ridiculous. [/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