...
Post A Reply
my profile
|
directory
login
|
register
|
search
|
faq
|
forum home
»
EgyptSearch Forums
»
Egyptology
»
Ancient Egyptian DNA from 1300BC to 426 AD
» 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] [IMG]http://s10.postimg.org/w4jqr4ig9/24_5_2014_22_22_45.png[/IMG] Keep running Doug. When you ready to face what you're running from, let me know. [/qb][/QUOTE]I am not running I am stating the same thing I have always been stating which is that some folks are running with the distorted language and terminology of these latest studies and not understanding that it distorts logic and fact. The point is they keep trying to maintain this myth of Africa being isolated and separate from downstream populations of OOA descendants, even in areas right next to Africa. And this whole paper and all the terminology related to it are explicitly built around MASKING OUT African mixture. And they got folks on a wild goose chase looking for "SSA mixture" when the point is where is the AFRICAN mixture in the Levant. It is obvious. [QUOTE] [b]It is striking that the highest estimates of Basal Eurasian ancestry are from the Near East, given the hypothesis that it was there that most admixture between Neanderthals and modern humans occurred19,23. This could be explained if Basal Eurasians thoroughly admixed into the Near East before the time of the samples we analyzed but after the Neanderthal admixture. Alternatively, the ancestors of Basal Eurasians may have always lived in the Near East, but the lineage of which they were a part did not participate in the Neanderthal admixture.[/b] A population without Neanderthal admixture, basal to other Eurasians, may have plausibly lived in Africa. Craniometric analyses have suggested an affinity between the Natufians and populations of north or sub-Saharan Africa24,25, a result that finds some support from Y chromosome analysis which shows that the Natufians and successor Levantine Neolithic populations carried haplogroup E, of likely ultimate African origin, which has not been detected in other ancient males from West Eurasia (Supplementary Information, section 6) 7,8. However, no affinity of Natufians to sub-Saharan Africans is evident in our genome-wide analysis, 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 Eurasia26,27.) 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] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5003663/ And then this: [QUOTE] But the ancient Iranian DNA was dramatically different from that of the western Anatolian farmers. The two groups of farmers, who lived about 2000 kilometers and 2000 years apart, must have descended from completely different groups of hunter-gatherers who separated 46,000 to 77,000 years ago, Burger says. A similar genetic disjunction appears in a study led by Harvard University’s David Reich and posted on bioRxiv. This study analyzed ancient DNA from 44 Middle Easterners who lived 14,000 to 3400 years ago, including Natufian hunter-gatherers in Israel, Zagros farmers, and Bronze Age pastoralists in the Eurasian steppe, and compared it with that of 2864 living and ancient people from around the world. By sequencing 1.2 million nucleotides from across each genome, the team found that early farmers of Israel and Jordan (known as the Levant) were genetically distinct from those in the Zagros Mountains, and that both populations were distinct from the western Anatolians who later spread their genes throughout Europe. The third study, also published on bioRxiv, reported the same stark differences. That study analyzed the complete genome of a 10,000-year-old woman from Ganj Dareh, a site in the Zagros Mountains with the world’s oldest evidence of goat herding. Burger and Reich also each used their data to peer even further back in time, to the ancestors of the Zagros Mountain farmers. They found that the Zagros people descend from a group of basal Eurasians who separated from the ancestors of all other people outside of Africa 50,000 to 60,000 years ago—before other non-Africans interbred with Neandertals. So the Zagros Mountain farmers had less Neandertal DNA than the western Anatolian farmers, whose ancestors must have branched off later.[/QUOTE] http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/07/worlds-first-farmers-were-surprisingly-diverse In fact, the more data they release, the more they contradict themselves. First they claimed that Basal Eurasian descended from a split between Africans and Non Africans as a result of Neanderthal interogression, but now they are saying that these populations have little Neanderthal ancestry indicating that the early OOA populations in these areas didn't mix with Neanderthals. As they said: [QUOTE]Alternatively, the ancestors of Basal Eurasians may have always lived in the Near East, but the lineage of which they were a part did not participate in the Neanderthal admixture.[/QUOTE]Which then means that all of these OOA populations 60,000 years ago were still primarily Africans. But they have a hard time calling them Africans. Because what else would they be at that time frame? These people are just warped in their nonsense. Not only that, they claim there is TREMENDOUS diversity among all these populations which means that EEF is a composite term referring to many different DNA lineages, including some African DNA lineages. Again, a good example of how they aggregate actual DNA data into these aggregate clumps in order to hide the actual relationships between populations and in his case the ancestral relationship of Africa to Europe. Not to mention none of these Early farmers were even Europeans! (HINT: The Levenat and Anatolia aren't considered "Europe"). Yet some folks keep clinging to EEF as some "holy grail" of knowledge. Please. Then this: [IMG]http://www.sciencemag.org/sites/default/files/images/60715ID_fertileCrescentMap_DRUPAL.jpg[/IMG] There is an image showing a direct path from Africa into the "Near East" which could coincide with ancient migration patterns of OOA populations going back 60,000 years or more and also later migrations of "proto farming" populations out of Africa. Yet strangely, their map stops Africa. And of course they keep claiming "no relationship to SSA". But what about relationship to Africa period? Are you seriously claiming no African DNA was around in the Levant 15,000 - 9,000 years ago? Come on man,give it up. These folks are up to their normal antics. No longer do these studies simply list the DNA markers any more, now all the tables are full of Acronyms representing place names and population groups. Which is what I meant by EEF being used to MASK African lineages. So now they are using alternate facts to keep from pointing out the actual lineages involved because at the end of the day they should be able to trace all of these lineages back to the Africans OOA populations they descended from and these populations would rightly be labelled as Africans.... But according to them Eurasian genes are super genes and go everywhere but African genes die as soon as they leave Africa.... duh. [/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