...
Post A Reply
my profile
|
directory
login
|
register
|
search
|
faq
|
forum home
»
EgyptSearch Forums
»
Egyptology
»
Ancient Tanzanian Pastoralist results... VERY interesting stuff!
» Post A Reply
Post A Reply
Login Name:
Password:
Message Icon:
Message:
HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Swenet: [QB] [QUOTE]Originally posted by Elmaestro: [qb] [QUOTE]don't understand what you mean here. But if you maintain that Basal Eurasian is Iranian or Arabian, then you can't say that the African ancestry in Luxmanda, IAM and KEB is underestimated. The biggest common denominator in the non-SSA ancestry of all these populations is Basal Eurasian.[b] If you maintain that Basal Eurasian is not African, then you're essentially saying the same thing as Polako (i.e. that only the SSA-like ancestry in these populations is African).[/b][/QUOTE]Not if I believe Lazaridis' basal Eurasian can't be a [i]single[/i]population. If you recall I was open to the idea of a "pseudo basal Eurasian" expansion from North Africa but as far as the laz 2016 distribution goes, I don't see all those non african populations sharing the same African ancestry. How do you go about explaining shared ancestry between CHG (@ ~30%) and Ancient African for example? And yeah they weren't particularly transparent on what they meant by Anatolian ancestry but I have a hard time believing they'd consider luxmanda as a possible source for such ancestry in PPNB... Why they didn't include natufians in qpAdm is another story/possible complaint. [/qb][/QUOTE]What about CHG? CHG forms a clade with EEF to the exclusion of non-Basal Eurasian carriers (Jones et al 2015). That's unequivocal evidence as far as Basal Eurasian being a single ancestral population. If I'm understanding you right, you say it's a contradiction for CHG to have additional types of African ancestry (i.e. other than Basal Eurasian). What is the contradiction, in your view? The fact that additional types of African ancestry consistently accompany Basal Eurasian carriers is not exactly damning evidence against an African origin. Lol. Placing Basal Eurasian in or outside of Africa would not solve your position that Basal Eurasian is not a single population. Meaning, if you think Basal Eurasian is not a single population in Africa, it'd be similarly odd for them to be a single population in Iran or Arabia. The question of what they are is a separate discussion from where they lived, except that their 'geographical extent' is constrained since they were tropically adapted. (I.e. they must have lived near the tropics). That is an example of a connection I see between their genetic make up and their homeland, that justifies placing them somewhere, over other places. But if your argument is that they weren't a single population, relegating them to Iran or Arabia merely displaces (not solve) the problem you see with an African origin. [/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