...
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 Swenet: [qb] [QUOTE]Originally posted by Doug M: Swenet stop telling me what I think. Humans have been in North Africa for upwards of 300,000 years. Eurasians have only existed for maybe 60-80 thousand. [b]You aren't going to sit here and tell me that you want to understand the DNA history of North Africa and START with Eurasians[/b]. Nobody on earth with a brain can tell me how that makes any sense. Now if [b]all you care about is what happened in Africa AFTER Eurasians came on the scene then fine.[/b] But there is [b]more to human DNA history than Eurasians[/b]. And this is the problem. Maybe you cannot fathom understanding African DNA history going back 300,000 years without including Eurasians in it. [/QUOTE]Prove this is not another one of your trademark sermons. Who here is beginning NA history with Eurasians? Name names and give examples. Not that this is not another attempt at running away from your original claim that that the Sahel must be turned upside down to find the legendary "real North Africans". Genetics is not an RPG mission quest in search of mythical things. You have no reason for assuming these mythical North Africans exist today in the Sahel. So why are you issuing demands to geneticists that they must find them "or else". You're basically starting your hypothesis with wishful thinking, not with any evidence that these people exist today. [/qb][/QUOTE]Swenet, I am talking about the folks writing the papers. I said they are Eurasians studying Eurasian DNA with the benefit of better preserved ancient DNA from Eurasia. As a result, most African DNA papers are written relative to Eurasian DNA. EEF is not about understanding African DNA history. However, it does provide some possible glimpses to some aspects of African DNA history but that is about it. So what am I backing away from? You aren't going to find any ancient African population in any part of Africa by looking at Eurasian DNA. Yet this is where most of these papers are starting from. In fact EEF is a "mythical" population but you didn't see them using African DNA to find it. They filtered out most African DNA and focused exclusively on Europe. Trying to find out what African populations were doing in the Sahara over the last 80 thousand years is not looking for mythology. It is about understanding DNA just like EEF is. You aren't going to find the facts about that history by focusing on or starting with Eurasian DNA. Like I said, Eurasia is not the basis of North African DNA history going back to OOA and prior to OOA, yet folks keep starting with Europe as if humans started there. Eurasian mixture is only limited to a relatively small window of time in North Africa and isn't helpful going back more than 10 to 15 thousand years. But when it comes to Africa you won't see Eurasian DNA filtered out to focus on purely African movements. This is about methodology and results following from that methodology. Other than being someone who is into DNA, it really isn't about you in the slightest. My only disagreement with you is that you have in the past defended such models even with their flaws. Or tried to make Eurasian centered models relevant when studying ancient African DNA. It is like that paper that came out talking about African DNA history and conveniently completely left out North Africa. This is a result of exclusively modeling African DNA based a model of recent Eurasian admixture. Almost every paper on African DNA is talking about some sort of Eurasian mixture which means most of these papers are talking about a relatively small part of overall African DNA history. Again this picture below represents the model most of these papers and most European scientists are working under. It is a model of Africa starting with Eurasians LONG AFTER OOA. It is not a model of what was happening before or during OOA. A model of Africa starting before and during OOA (and even after) would have that yellow arrow at the top going the other way. As it stands that yellow arrow is your "mythical" ancient North African population. [IMG]http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2011/11/04/article-2057546-0EAB5A3D00000578-147_634x419.jpg[/IMG] Again, finding out what population was ancestral to the Iberomausans and Natufians is not chasing mythology. Using MODERN West Africans and West Africans as proxies for populations across the Sahara 20kya is A FLAWED MODEL. The fact that populations existed in and around the Sahara at that time is not a myth or chasing mythology. The problem is most of the models of North African history as being separate from African history at large is the mythology and folks defending that are role players when it comes to true ancient African genetic and population history. [QUOTE] North Africa is a key region for understanding human history, but the genetic history of its people is largely unknown. We present genomic data from seven 15,000-year-old modern humans from Morocco, attributed to the Iberomaurusian culture. We find a genetic affinity with early Holocene Near Easterners, best represented by Levantine Natufians, suggesting a pre-agricultural connection between Africa and the Near East. We do not find evidence for gene flow from Paleolithic Europeans into Late Pleistocene North Africans. The Taforalt individuals derive one third of their ancestry from sub-Saharan Africans, best approximated by a mixture of genetic components preserved in present-day West and East Africans. Thus, we provide direct evidence for genetic interactions between modern humans across Africa and Eurasia in the Pleistocene.[/QUOTE]As this paper shows such a population is not mythology, the question is whether that population came from Eurasia or whether it came from within Africa. The only way to answer that question is to get ancient DNA from around the Sahara and Sahel along with ancient DNA from coastal North Africa and the Levant. And this paper also shows that you cant calculate and model the past with any degree of accuracy in a vacuum. You can't. It is not going to be accurate. You need data from the regions and populations involved. Without the ancient DNA from Tarofalt, you wouldn't have this paper. And that DNA contradicts the Eurasian first model of North African history. Point blank this paper disproves the model of ancient North Africa as separate from the rest of Africa as implied by a "North African" vs "Sub Saharan" false dichotomy. [/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