...
Post A Reply
my profile
|
directory
login
|
register
|
search
|
faq
|
forum home
»
EgyptSearch Forums
»
Egyptology
»
what do you think of these Amarna pop affiliator results by Keita et al. ?
» Post A Reply
Post A Reply
Login Name:
Password:
Message Icon:
Message:
HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Djehuti: [QB] [QUOTE]Originally posted by Elmaestro: [qb] [QUOTE]Originally posted by Antalas: [qb] [QUOTE]Originally posted by Elmaestro: The reality that you're subtextually proposing is that there was predominant occupations of Eurasians in Africa for at least 20k years. I don't think there's much complexity in that Idea especially if you think it's important to point out that a clearly African (based on distribution) component is likely Eurasian. That's a gross oversimplification, especially given the fact that Eurasian occupation that old would very likely have a wider distribution among Africans and not just be represented in Horners and east Africans. For instance do you think that these biologically and [URL=https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-39802-1]Morphometrical Africans of Takorkori[/URL] represents pure Eurasians during the Early Neolithic? The complex reality could be that what you point out just an example of relatedness to Early Eurasian populace which served as a dead end outside of Afica until further expansions of North Africans ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°). If that's the case there's no reason to pointing out 30K year old Eurasians. [/qb][/QUOTE]No I'm telling you that population movements between Africa and Asia have been bi-directional since at least the Upper Paleolithic period and we do have evidence of this. Meanwhile what you're proposing (eurasian admixture only after the mid Holocene) is far-fetched and not in lines with the Data. Additionally, this does not negate the idea of another local component that is still not detected properly by those tools. And [URL=https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2020.01.012]eurasian ancestry has been detected for non east african SSAs [/URL] No I do not believe the Takorkori specimen would be "pure eurasians" your point ? Btw the paper also proposes a eurasian introgression during the timeframe we're talking about. As for your last sentence I stay open to that possibility it just doesn't seem to be in phase with the Data (you should reread Lazaridis et al. 2018). [/qb][/QUOTE]You're moving the goalpost a bit buddy. You insinuated that the dark green component should be attributed to more ancient Eurasian Admixture in Africa. I'm arguing against that. One of my major talking points which you quoted above is the fact that Eurasian ancestry that old would not be localized. You provided further evidence for that by presenting the studies that highlight neanderthal components in Africa all of which included west Africans who [URL=https://media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/esm/art%3A10.1038%2Fs41586-023-05754-w/MediaObjects/41586_2023_5754_Fig4_ESM.jpg]do not carry the dark green component.[/URL] So the initial question remains. Why are you mentioning 30+kyo Eurasian admixture in the context of the graph if you don't even believe that the N* carrying saharans with some Mechtoid Morphological affinities were pure Eurasians? [/QB][/QUOTE]Indeed, nobody argued anything about "purity" so that is another strawdoll. The argument is that there is [b]continuity[/b] between Sub-Sahara and and North Africa. [IMG]https://s22.postimg.cc/yef6p1069/Fregel2018_PCA_redux_ES.png[/IMG] That is why North Africans are genetically closer to West Africans than the latter is to South Africans. And the reason why West Eurasians (Europeans and Southwest Asians) cluster close to North Africans is not only due to admixture of the former to the latter because of back-migrations but admixture going the other way around which is why West Eurasians carry [i]specific[/i] African markers. This was known since the late 90s with [URL=http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=010361;p=2]Cavalli-Sforza's study[/URL] [IMG]https://i.postimg.cc/50KsnKqy/C-S1997-7719.png[/IMG] [IMG]https://i.postimg.cc/Y0Jbw4Pw/C-S1997-7720.png[/IMG] [IMG]https://i.postimg.cc/y8K2J5fC/C-S1997-7720-a.png[/IMG] [IMG]https://i.postimg.cc/ZqG8nkcr/C-S1997-7720-b.png[/IMG] [IMG]https://i.postimg.cc/bNZWgSQM/C-S1997-7720-c.png[/IMG] [b] L. LUCA CAVALLI-SFORZA[/b][i] Genes, peoples, and languages[/i] Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA Vol. 94, pp. 7719 –7724, July 1997 Also the point about Tishkoff is that due to the fact that Eurasians originated from Northeast Africa it would be easy to mistake ancient alleles indigenous to the area for those that back-migrated from Eurasia proper. This is why even armchair experts like Razib Khan are starting to admit that the autosomal marker 'Basal Eurasian' is actually African in origin. Of course Swenet was ahead of them all with his assessments in his blog [URL=http://egyptsearchdetoxed.blogspot.com/2016/07/why-basal-eurasian-is-still-african-as.html]Why Basal Eurasian is Still African as of Lazaridis et al 2016[/URL] And of course the argument you vehemently deny but is true is that North Africans were indeed black. As shown by the Egyptians in their [i]own[/i] portraiture not to mention melanin tests done on their mummies as well as genetic tests. And so were the Natufians again according to genetic tests. So you fail on all counts. And please don't give me any ridiculous argument on definitions of 'black' since you won't give one for 'white' but sure do post a lot examples of it from modern coastal Amazigh who don't reflect the populations we discuss! [/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