...
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]Originally posted by Swenet: 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). [b]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.[/b][/QUOTE]Iight, you got me there, I respect that... Not trying to go too deep into Eurasian DNA, but I didn't know it's appropriate to equate EEF - CHG relatedness to shared admixture as opposed to shared ancestry. As it relates to the latter, how far back can you possibly push BE geneflow (as a singular population) to Eurasia and how [i]relevant[/i] would they be if you do you so? I'm saying that relevant North African dispersal post-dates the split in EEF and CHG, & I don't think relatively recently shared African Ancestry is responsible for bringing EEF and CHG together. My theory was that the closest thing that'd resemble Lazaridis' BE is a post Bottleneck/Homogenized Iranian/Arabian With limited admixture from other ancient Eurasian groups and no Archaic introgression... the kicker though is that though this populations Autosomal profile fits the description it isn't responsible for the "BasalEurasian" ancestry we find in all modern west Eurasian populations, however it's the [b]default[/b] proximity towards Africans that would create these false positives. So in actually, that is why I suggest caution in putting [i]Lazaridis'[/i] "Basal Eurasian" Eurasian in Africa, despite converting my beliefs on indigenous North Africa. It's a safety net for shit like this, which is even stated in the OP as we speak. [QUOTE][i]Simple tree models suggest that non-African variation represented by Sardinian, English, Han Chinese and Japanese falls within the variation of African populations. To test whether non-Africans are indeed consistent with being descended from a homogeneous population that separated earlier from the ancestors of a subset of African populations – beyond the known effects of archaic admix- ture in non-Africans –we used African populations with little or no known West Eurasian mixture (South_Africa_2000BP, Mbuti, Biaka, Mende, Ethiopia_4500BP, Dinka) and tested whether they are consistent with being an unrooted clade with respect to a diverse set of non-Africans (Orcadian, Onge, Mixe, Motala_Mesolithic, Japanese, Anatolia_Neolithic) using qpWave (Patterson et al., 2012; Reich et al., 2012).Wefound that this model was consistent with the data (p = 0.53) (transition SNPs excluded to a final set of 110,507 trans- version SNPs). Even when we add New Guinean highlanders to the set of non-Africans, the single-source model for the out-of-Africa founders is not rejected (p = 0.11). -See [b]Support for a single out-of-Africa founding population[/b][/i][/QUOTE]..It'll better explain how Basal Eurasian is undetected as a secondary wave of migration, than a mass expansion of Africans >20kya, and it's consistent with the timing of Iranian Haplogroup dispersal in Europe, etc. This is why I had put so much emphasis of the differences among SSAfrican signals in Eurasians. [/qb][/QUOTE]When you leave Basal Eurasian (BE) out of the picture, and look at the non-BE ancestry in EEF and CHG, EEF will be related to WHG and what remains of CHG will be related to [URL=http://s24.postimg.org/gxu6b629h/Untitled.jpg]Russian HGs[/URL]). As soon as you allow Basal Eurasian back into the picture, EEF and CHG start to form a clade. This is incongruent, because they are most closely related to WHG and Russian HGs, respectively. The only explanation of this is that BE is drawing these otherwise distant populations together. My money is on Basal Eurasian being mostly a result of postglacial movements out of northeast Africa and spreading in all directions (including the Maghreb, the Sinai, the Aegean and other coast[i][b]s[/b][/i] to the west). There might have been older, pre-existing pockets of groups with Basal Eurasian in the Middle East, but most Middle Eastern ancestry will fit somewhere on [URL=http://s24.postimg.org/gxu6b629h/Untitled.jpg]this ancient DNA landscape, which so far has been a complete Basal Eurasian desert before 14kya[/URL]. I see that Sub-Saharan ancestry which you take as an argument against Basal Eurasian, as ancestry that Basal Eurasians mixed with right before migrating to the Middle East: [QUOTE]From the African BSP (Figure 3B), [b]all the African random samples also showed a 5-fold growth at ~15−11 kya,[/b] corresponding to [b]expansion haplogroups L0a1a, L1b1a, L1b1a3, L2a1a, L3b1a, L3e1, L3e2a and L3e2b[/b], and subsequently a 2-fold growth ~5−4kya, which might be driven by the Neolithic Revolution.[/QUOTE] https://www.nature.com/articles/srep00745 ^Hence, the ~5% West/Central African ancestry in the recently sampled Natufians. I also expect the maximum percent of SSA ancestry, as well as the maximum amount of Basal Eurasian, to increase as samples of these new arrivals get closer to the 14ky date and as more endogamous members among these new arrivals are sampled. For instance, the Natufians found in the Shuqbah cave are good examples of more endogamous arrivals in the Levant, in my view. I expect the same for all other Neolithic regions with notable Basal Eurasian. Those are some of my predictions for future aDNA. Feel free to hold me to every single point. [/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