quote:

---

Human population dispersal “Out of Africa” estimated from linkage disequilibrium and allele frequencies of SNPs

1. Brian P. McEvoy et al. 2011

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Calabooz':
[QUOTE]Human population dispersal “Out of Africa” estimated from linkage disequilibrium and allele frequencies of SNPs

---

Our results,
which look at divergence times inWest and East Eurasian populations
simultaneously, point to a more complex ‘‘Out of Africa’’ scenario.
Firstly, they suggest a substantial gap between African/Eurasian and
West/East Eurasian divergence (;20 KYA from TF estimates), indicating
an appreciable pause between leaving Africa and departure for
East Eurasia. Secondly, they support further early gene flow to the
remaining proto-West Eurasian population fromAfrica after Eurasian
divergence, perhaps as a second smaller dispersal (Mellars 2006a).
Caution is warranted in trying to condense human population
history into clean population splits and migration events. Our estimates
of population effective size and divergence times from LD
and allele frequency differences incorporate information from the
entire autosomal genome and contribute to novel inference on the
complex emergence of modern H. sapiens out of the African evolutionary
cradle and their subsequent colonization of the globe.
 

---

Posted by Sundjata (Member # 13096) on :
 
^Good find! Recap:



Uploaded with ImageShack.us

"Europeans appear as a 2/3 Asian, 1/3 African mix". - Cavali Sforza

quote:

---

Nuclear DNA studies also contribute to the deconstruction of received racial entities. Ann Bowcock and her colleague's interpretation (Bowcock et al. 1991; Bowcock et al. 1994) of analyses of restriction-site polymorphisms and microsatellite polymorphisms (STRPs) suggests that Europeans, the defining Caucasians, are descendants of a population that arose as a consequence of admixture between already differentiated populations ancestral to (some) Africans and Asians. Therefore, Caucasians would be a secondary type or race due to its hybrid origin and not a primary race". This compromises the racial schema and also invalidates the metaphysical underpinnings of the persisting race construct, which implies deep and fundamental differences between its units.

---

quote:

---

Our results,
which look at divergence times inWest and East Eurasian populations
simultaneously, point to a more complex ‘‘Out of Africa’’ scenario.
Firstly, they suggest a substantial gap between African/Eurasian and
West/East Eurasian divergence (;20 KYA from TF estimates), indicating
an appreciable pause between leaving Africa and departure for
East Eurasia.

---

This statement reads awkward. Are they saying that there was a 20 thousand year gap between African-Eurasian divergence and East Asian-European divergence? Or that Europeans diverged from Africans 20 thousand years later than did East Asians? 20 kya would imply that they are referring to an event that took place 20 thousand years ago since that's what kya stands for, but this would make no sense.
 

---

Posted by Ancient Egyptians were Caucasoid (Member # 18548) on :
 
It is also possible that Sub-Saharan Africans received substantial West Eurasian admixture during the upper paleolithic, considering there is the possibility that haplogroup E originated in West Asia!
 

---

Posted by Sundjata (Member # 13096) on :
 
^Nonsense.
 

---

Posted by Ancient Egyptians were Caucasoid (Member # 18548) on :
 
The E patriarch's remains might be somewhere in Iraq and not Ethiopia!
 

---

Posted by Sundjata (Member # 13096) on :
 
^You reek of desperation. What's next, the Australian origin of J1? E predates any population divergences anyhow.
 

---

Posted by Ancient Egyptians were Caucasoid (Member # 18548) on :
 
When E originated anatomically modern humans already reached Australia, no population divergences my ass.
 

---

Posted by Sundjata (Member # 13096) on :
 

quote:

---

Hammer’s group integrated more than 300 new markers into the tree, which allowed the resolution of many features that were not yet discernable, as well as the revision of previous arrangements. “The major lineages within the most common African haplogroup, E, are now all sorted out, with the topology providing new interpretations on the geographical origin of ancient sub-clades,” describes Hammer. “When one polymorphism formerly described as unique, but recently shown to have reversed was replaced by recently reported markers, a sub-haplogroup of haplogroup O, the most common in China, was considerably rearranged,” explains Fernando Mendez, a co-author of the study.

In addition to improving the resolution of branches, the latest reconstruction of the tree allows estimates of time to the most recent common ancestor of several haplogroups. “The age of [haplogroup] DE is about 65,000 years, just a bit younger than the other major lineage to leave Africa, which is assumed to be about 70,000 years old,” says Hammer, describing an example of the fine resolution of age that is now possible. “Haplogroup E is older than previously estimated, originating approximately 50,000 years ago.”

---

Genome Research Article (2008) New Binary
Polymorphisms Reshape and Increase Resolution
of the Human Y Chromosomal Haplogroup Tree


^Like I said, no population divergences. I'm done with you.
 

---

Posted by Ancient Egyptians were Caucasoid (Member # 18548) on :
 
Mr E was probably shagging some Neanderthal booty in Iraq, he wasn't chasing no damn zebra's in the Serengeti.
 

---

Posted by AGÜEYBANÁ(Mind718) (Member # 15400) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Calabooz':
Thus, the pattern of TF and TLD among
human populations appears at odds with the standard single-wave ‘‘Out of Africa’’ model.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ancient Egyptians were Caucasoid:
It is also possible that Sub-Saharan Africans received substantial West Eurasian admixture during the upper paleolithic, considering there is the possibility that haplogroup E originated in West Asia!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by AGÜEYBANÁ(Mind718):
And considering any back-migrations during these times would have only brought the same people back into Africa

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ancient Egyptians were Caucasoid:

quote:

---

Originally posted by AGÜEYBANÁ(Mind718):
And considering any back-migrations during these times would have only brought the same people back into Africa

---

No it would not. It would bring back people who diverged from Africans for over 10,000 years and from Paleoafricans for well over 30,000 years.

---

quote:

---

This statement reads awkward. Are they saying that there was a 20 thousand year gap between African-Eurasian divergence and East Asian-European divergence? Or that Europeans diverged from Africans 20 thousand years later than did East Asians? 20 kya would imply that they are referring to an event that took place 20 thousand years ago since that's what kya stands for, but this would make no sense.

---

Basically...

African and Eurasians diverge, followed by a pause before departure for East Eurasia (which the 20kya seems to refer to), then ancient gene flow into the proto-West Eurasian population after their divergence from East Eurasians.

Africans Eurasians diverge->gap->departure for East Eurasia->West Eurasians diverge from East Eurasians->Followed by substantial gene flow into the proto-west Eurasian population from Africa


That's what I get from it at least.
 

---

Posted by Calabooz' (Member # 18238) on :
 
Divergence times:



Samples used:



 

---

Posted by AGÜEYBANÁ(Mind718) (Member # 15400) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sundjata:

quote:

---

Our results,
which look at divergence times inWest and East Eurasian populations
simultaneously, point to a more complex ‘‘Out of Africa’’ scenario.
Firstly, they suggest a substantial gap between African/Eurasian and
West/East Eurasian divergence (;20 KYA from TF estimates), indicating
an appreciable pause between leaving Africa and departure for
East Eurasia.

---

This statement reads awkward. Are they saying that there was a 20 thousand year gap between African-Eurasian divergence and East Asian-European divergence? Or that Europeans diverged from Africans 20 thousand years later than did East Asians? 20 kya would imply that they are referring to an event that took place 20 thousand years ago since that's what kya stands for, but this would make no sense.

---

quote:

---

The oldest Out of Africa expansion occurred 65,000 +- 23000 years ago and is witnessed by mitochondrial (Mtdna) descendants preserved in Papua New Guinea; the Papuan node is derived from a Eurasian founder, we tentatively propose the following scenario to account for the obvious phenotypic differences between Papuans and [Northern] Eurasians despite their sharing a common mtDNA ancestry: They derive from a single African migration, but split at an early stage before reaching Europe. Meanwhile, proto-Eurasians spent 20 or more millennia genetically drifting to their present distinct phenotypes. --- Peter Forster, Antonio Torroni, Colin Renfrew and Arne Röhl

---

 

---

Posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova (Member # 15718) on :
 
Originally posted by calabooz:
Y-chromosome and mtDNA lineages are generally highly differentiated
between continents, making them powerful genetic
markers of intercontinental migration. Most of the lineages that are
characteristic of sub-Saharan Africa are absent in Europe (and vice
versa) (Cavalli-Sforza and Feldman 2003; Underhill and Kivisild
2007). However, the coalescent time and geographic distribution
of the Y-chromosome E3b (E-M215) haplogroup points to a late
Pleistocene migration fromEastern Africa toWestern Eurasia via the Nile Valley and Sinai Peninsula ;20–25 KYA (Cruciani et al. 2004,
2007; Luis et al. 2004). However, these Y chromosomes are concentrated
in southern Europe (Cruciani et al. 2004), whereas the
smaller average divergence times between Europe and Africa relative
to East Asia and Africa are still **readily apparent across each individual
northern European sample population** (Supplemental Table
2). This suggests that the discrepancy has, at least partially, an
even earlier andmore pervasive origin, being established prior to the
appearance, and consequent migration tagging ability, of the current
range of mtDNA and Y-chromosome haplogroups.

^What then are the implications for back migration, if any?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Caution is warranted in trying to condense human population
history into clean population splits and migration events. Our estimates
of population effective size and divergence times from LD
and allele frequency differences incorporate information from the
entire autosomal genome and contribute to novel inference on the
complex emergence of modern H. sapiens out of the African evolutionary
cradle and their subsequent colonization of the globe.

^^Exce;lent point they make, undermining simplistic
racial divergence theories.




^^Another good reminder, exposing the hypocrisy of
those who insist on some sort of "pure African" or
"true negro" while hypocritically ignoring the fact
that Europeans are themselves "hybrids" according
to Cavalli-Sforza, and dodging and ducking away from
the likewise labeling European populations "mixed." If we are going to label certain African
populations "mixed" then let's do likewise with
Europeans who themselves, according to conservative
geneticists are also "mixed."


==================================================================================

Originally posted by Sundjata:
“The age of [haplogroup] DE is about 65,000 years, just a bit younger than the other major lineage to leave Africa, which is assumed to be about 70,000 years old,” says Hammer, describing an example of the fine resolution of age that is now possible. “Haplogroup E is older than previously estimated, originating approximately 50,000 years ago.”

^^Glad you point this out, exposing as usual the hypocrisy
of the racialists. What other major lineage are
they referring to above?


====================================================================

Posted by AGÜEYBANÁ(Mind718):

Considering that humans were originally coming from Africa to begin with, and the date of the E haplogroup.

It makes a hundred times more sense that E arose in Africa.

And considering any back-migrations during these times would have only brought the same people back into Africa..

^^Good point. We are always hearing about "Eurasians"
but what we have are the same types of people moving
back and forth across a broad area.

- QUOTE:
"The historical linguistic data reported
earlier would apply in the case of
maternal lineages as well.. it is not likely
that the "northern" genetic profile is
simply due to "Eurasians" having
colonized supra-Saharan regions from
external African sources. It might be
likely that the greater percentage of
haplotypes called "Eurasian" are
predominantly, although not solely, of
indigenous African origin. As a term
"Eurasian" is likely misleading, since it
suggests a single locale of geographical
origins. This is because it can be
postulated that differentiation of the L3*
haplogroup began before the emigration
out of Africa, and that there would be
indigenous supra-Saharan/Saharan or
Horn-supra-Saharan haplotypes. More
work and careful analysis of mtDNA and
the archeological data and likely
probabilities is needed. Early hunting
and gathering paleolithic populations can
be modeled as having roamed between
northern Africa and Eurasia, leaving an
asymmetrical distribution of various
derivative variants over a wide region,
giving the appearance of Eurasian
incursion."
--Keita, A, Boyce, A. (2005) Genetics,
Egypt, and History... History in Africa,
32, 221-246
 

---

Posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova (Member # 15718) on :
 
Calabooz:
Africans Eurasians diverge->gap->departure for East Eurasia->West Eurasians diverge from East Eurasians->Followed by substantial gene flow into the proto-west Eurasian population from Africa..

^So basically even after the "split" there was
ADDITIONAL gene flow from Africa?

===================================================================

AGÜEYBANÁ(Mind718)
The oldest Out of Africa expansion occurred 65,000 +- 23000 years ago and is witnessed by mitochondrial (Mtdna) descendants preserved in Papua New Guinea; the Papuan node is derived from a Eurasian founder, we tentatively propose the following scenario to account for the obvious phenotypic differences between Papuans and [Northern] Eurasians despite their sharing a common mtDNA ancestry: They derive from a single African migration, but split at an early stage before reaching Europe. Meanwhile, proto-Eurasians spent 20 or more millennia genetically drifting to their present distinct phenotypes. --- Peter Forster, Antonio Torroni, Colin Renfrew and Arne Röhl

^What mtDNA lineage are they referring to?
 

---

Posted by Calabooz' (Member # 18238) on :
 

quote:

---

^So basically even after the "split" there was
ADDITIONAL gene flow from Africa?

---

quote:

---

^What then are the implications for back migration, if any?

---

quote:

---

^What mtDNA lineage are they referring to?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Calabooz':
Yes. After West Eurasians diverged from East Eurasians, they experienced substantial gene flow from Africans. In the case of Europeans, a population of western Eurasia, and East Asians, a population of East Eurasia, there is smaller divergence times from Africa for Europeans due to this gene flow.

---

Or Sub-Saharan Africans received non-trivial West Eurasian admixture during the paleolithic. This admixture is not present in the most aboriginal Africans (i.e. Khoisan and Mbuti). They should have calculated divergence times including the Paleo-Africans.


 

---

Posted by Calabooz' (Member # 18238) on :
 
^What is the evidence of that?


You're just threatened because west Eurasians experienced such gene flow from Africans but there is no evidence to suggest the opposite is also true
 

---

Posted by astenb (Member # 14524) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sundjata:

quote:

---

Our results,
which look at divergence times inWest and East Eurasian populations
simultaneously, point to a more complex ‘‘Out of Africa’’ scenario.
Firstly, they suggest a substantial gap between African/Eurasian and
West/East Eurasian divergence (;20 KYA from TF estimates), indicating
an appreciable pause between leaving Africa and departure for
East Eurasia.

---

This statement reads awkward. Are they saying that there was a 20 thousand year gap between African-Eurasian divergence and East Asian-European divergence? Or that Europeans diverged from Africans 20 thousand years later than did East Asians? 20 kya would imply that they are referring to an event that took place 20 thousand years ago since that's what kya stands for, but this would make no sense.

---

It makes a lot of sense because Europeans are the latest on the scene. After that 20 thousand years R1 carrying Africans settled Europe. This makes sense because R1 has an African origin.
 

---

Posted by Perahu (Member # 18548) on :
 
The latest complete genomic sequence data tell a completely different story:



---- Reich et al. 2010

East Asians are closer to Negroids than are Caucasoids.
 

---

Posted by Sundjata (Member # 13096) on :
 
^Keep dreaming. This is not representative, look at figure S6.5 which contradicts you.

Anyways, this new study further shatters the idea of European uniqueness and thus, ethnocentric pride in some innate "Europeanness".

Further recap:

quote:

---

There is no evidence that a monomorphic population left Africa, differentiated outside, and then returned en masse in the late Pleistocene or early Holocene to populate empty regions of Africa, especially supra-Saharan or Saharan Africa, as is implied by most racial schemes. Genetic variants whose origins are dated to before 90,000 B.P. (the estimated time of modern humans outside of Africa [Valladas et al. 19881) are actually biohistorically African (in origin) whether they are currently found in high frequencies within Africa or not. This is because the next major intraspecific fission seems to occur well after 90,000 B.P. based on nuclear DNA polymorphisms (Bowcock et al. 1991; Cavalli-Sforza and Cavalli-Sforza 1995) and separates select Pacific peoples from a cluster of Far East Asians and Europeans, or just from Asians if Europeans are interpreted as later hybrids. These extra-African events may be said to mark the beginning of incipient non-African biohistorical variation, if the recent-African-origin hypothesis is accepted in a form that minimizes gene flow between moderns and archaic~. This examination also reveals that the range of indigenous biological African variation cannot be restricted to the genomes of those having the morphology of the preconceived stereotyped African. Either way, uniquely African biohistory commences after the ap- ? pearance of modern Homo sapiens outside of Africa. The dates alone indicate that the genetic variation that is the antecedent baseline (or part of it) from which the Eurasian fissioning occurs would also be shared by some Africans. Obviously, in time unique variants appear in Asia (and Oceania) and Europe, although private alleles are rare. Only in a racial model would invasion, settler colonization, or gene flow into Africa be necessary to explain the genetic overlap of various African groups with non-Africans. The evolutionary perspective described here is more parsimonious. Of course there is documented historical migration into Africa, and it is postulated that a small amount of gene flow per generation into a regional population can radically alter gene frequencies in a few thousand years (Cavalli-Sforza e t al. 1994). But such biocultural assimlation of outsiders by indigenous Africans is not the same as wholesale population replacement as occurred in some places (for example, Tasmania) in the era of European expansion. In the case of supra-Saharan Africa, it is obvious that statistically removing the known historical movements and presumed genetic influences would not produce apicture of genetic identity between the various regions of Africa, because diversification began there early. In other words, there was substructure in early African genetic variation. This synthesis of time, genetics, and geography more parsimoniously explains another case where typological thinking has been the mode of explanation.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova:
Calabooz:
Africans Eurasians diverge->gap->departure for East Eurasia->West Eurasians diverge from East Eurasians->Followed by substantial gene flow into the proto-west Eurasian population from Africa..

^So basically even after the "split" there was
ADDITIONAL gene flow from Africa?

===================================================================

AGÜEYBANÁ(Mind718)
The oldest Out of Africa expansion occurred 65,000 +- 23000 years ago and is witnessed by mitochondrial (Mtdna) descendants preserved in Papua New Guinea; the Papuan node is derived from a Eurasian founder, we tentatively propose the following scenario to account for the obvious phenotypic differences between Papuans and [Northern] Eurasians despite their sharing a common mtDNA ancestry: They derive from a single African migration, but split at an early stage before reaching Europe. Meanwhile, proto-Eurasians spent 20 or more millennia genetically drifting to their present distinct phenotypes. --- Peter Forster, Antonio Torroni, Colin Renfrew and Arne Röhl

^What mtDNA lineage are they referring to?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by astenb:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sundjata:

quote:

---

Our results,
which look at divergence times inWest and East Eurasian populations
simultaneously, point to a more complex ‘‘Out of Africa’’ scenario.
Firstly, they suggest a substantial gap between African/Eurasian and
West/East Eurasian divergence (;20 KYA from TF estimates), indicating
an appreciable pause between leaving Africa and departure for
East Eurasia.

---

This statement reads awkward. Are they saying that there was a 20 thousand year gap between African-Eurasian divergence and East Asian-European divergence? Or that Europeans diverged from Africans 20 thousand years later than did East Asians? 20 kya would imply that they are referring to an event that took place 20 thousand years ago since that's what kya stands for, but this would make no sense.

---

It makes a lot of sense because Europeans are the latest on the scene. After that 20 thousand years R1 carrying Africans settled Europe. This makes sense because R1 has an African origin.

---

Much more plausible than ancient European-like Asians migrating back into Africa 50,000 years ago carrying haplogroup E.
 

---

Posted by Perahu (Member # 18548) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sundjata:
^Keep dreaming. This is not representative, look at figure S6.5 which contradicts you.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by AGÜEYBANÁ(Mind718):

quote:

---

Originally posted by Perahu:

quote:

---

Originally posted by AGÜEYBANÁ(Mind718):
And considering any back-migrations during these times would have only brought the same people back into Africa

---

No it would not. It would bring back people who diverged from Africans for over 10,000 years and from Paleoafricans for well over 30,000 years.

---

...diverged from Africans 10ky and Paleo-Africans 30ky?

Where does this come from? [/QB]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Perahu:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sundjata:
^Keep dreaming. This is not representative, look at figure S6.5 which contradicts you.

---

S6.5 contains incomplete genomic data, it is less stable than the S6.2 figure.

As far as I am concerned S6.2 is the most stable figure, utilizing complete genomic data. The most advanced complete human genetic sequences show that Europeans and East Asians are roughly equidistant distant from Sub-Saharan Negroids.

---

quote:

---

Much of this apparent divergence [in fig S6.2] is caused by sequencing error. Suppose that the probability of a sequencing error for hominin i is e(Qi ). Then, the probability of an error contributing to the observed divergence R(Qi ,Qj ) with a second sample j is approximately e(Qi )+e(Qj ), assuming independence and small error rates per nucleotide. We thus seek correction factors C(Qi ) giving divergences: D(Qi ,Qj ) = R(Qi ,Qj )-C(Qi )-C(Qj )

---

S6.5 provides the "second" sample comparison and is therefore more robust by their own standards. It is based on the same data. You are simply a biased troll who can't swallow that he is "nothing more" than a mixed African/Asian hybrid.


"in time unique variants appear in Asia (and Oceania) and Europe, although private alleles are rare" --Keita and Kittles

"Europeans appear as a 2/3 Asian, 1/3 African mix". - Cavalli Sforza
 

---

Posted by Calabooz' (Member # 18238) on :
 
^This is like the 5th time Perahu has been exposed for not reading the studies he references.
 

---

Posted by KING (Member # 9422) on :
 
Calabooz'

Sadly Calabooz we are going to have to continue exposing them because we know Racists suffer from memory loss and will post the same studies and claim they make their biased points.

Look at Perahu unable to tell Mind718 where he gets his "PaleoAfrican" nonsense he slinks away like most racists and then comes back when he thinks he is in the clear, instead of being a man and admiting when he is wrong. Sad really.

Peace
 

---

Posted by Calabooz' (Member # 18238) on :
 
^It is sad. Especially looking at his comment here:

http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=15;t=004611

I knew he was racist, but that surprised even me.


Question Perahu: How can E be Asian in origin given the sheer frequency of it in Africa? It certainly cannot be the result of genetic drift... so how would you explain it?
 

---

Posted by Sundjata (Member # 13096) on :
 
^I forgot about that comment. I think it's best to ignore him from here on out.
 

---

Posted by Calabooz' (Member # 18238) on :
 
Another reminder:

quote:

---

The belief that human genetic diversity on a global scale can be reduced to simple statistical partitions has limited our understanding of diversity and thwarted training in biological anthropology. For example, a current textbook (Boyd and Silk 2000) states, “Geneticists computed the amount of variation in
these characters within each local group, among groups within each race, and among the races. They found that there is much more genetic variation within local groups than there is among local groups or among races themselves. Differences within local groups account for about 85% of all the variation in the human
species. To put this another way, suppose a malevolent extraterrestrial wiped out the entire human species except for one local group, which it preserved in an extraterrestrial zoo. The alien could pick any local group at random—the Efe, the Inuit, the citizens of Ames, Iowa, or the people of Patagonia—and then wipe out the rest of the humans on the planet. This group would still contain on average 85% of the genetic variation that exists in the entire human species.” However, our analysis indicates that it would make a great difference which group is
chosen. For example, no gene diversity would be lost if the Sokoto were chosen while nearly one-third would be lost by choosing the subpopulation from Papua New Guinea. It is important to point out here that the rich genetic diversity within Africans is a robust finding that is not peculiar to the loci or specific samples analyzed here. Recently, Yu et al. (2002) assayed nucleotide substitutions in 50
randomly chosen noncoding DNA segments (~500 base pairs) in 30 individuals: 10 Africans, 10 Europeans, and 10 Asians. The subjects within each continent were chosen widely from dispersed geographic locations. Interestingly, nucleotide
diversity was greater within the Africans than within either Asians or Europeans. More importantly, the nucleotide diversity was greater within Africans than between Europeans and Asians.

---

quote:

---

Now, with more genetic data and more populations sampled, we are able to revisit the race problem with greater accuracy. Recently, my colleagues and I have tested the usefulness of race as a way to describe genetic differences among populations by contrasting the results of racial classification with those from generalized
hierarchical models (Long et al. 2009). Race fails! Figure 3 diagrams the contrast for a data set consisting of complete DNA sequences for 64 autosomal loci (38,000 bp total). Four resequenced individuals represent each population. A summary of the major problems with using race are as follows. First, imposing
the classically defined race structure on populations causes us to estimate less diversity for the species as a whole than does allowing all populations to link back to a common base population in an unrestricted hierarchy. Second, using the race pattern causes us to estimate excess diversity within non-sub- Saharan African populations, but it estimates a deficit of diversity within sub-Saharan African populations. Third, the supposition of races forces all continental populations to diverge equally from a single ancestral node, whereas an unrestricted hierarchy places the basal split within Africa. Fourth, in the classical race framework European and Asian populations diverge from African populations independently, but the unrestricted hierarchy shows that European and East Asian populations link together before either links to sub-Saharan Africans

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ancient Egyptians were Caucasoid:
It is also possible that Sub-Saharan Africans received substantial West Eurasian admixture during the upper paleolithic, considering there is the possibility that haplogroup E originated in West Asia!

---

Not a chance retard, your Europeans did and the evidence speaks for itself:


Early Modern Humans
Erik Trinkaus. Annual Review of Anthropology. Palo Alto: 2005. Vol. 34 pg. 207, 24 pgs

"The European early modern humans at least 28,000 years old exhibit parietal expansion, clear parietal bosses, absence of nuchal tori with variable development of an external occipital protuberance, large and laterally bulbous mastoid processes, superiorly positioned and horizontal temporal zygomatic processes, reduced nasal breadths, some facial shortening, angled zygomatic bones with clear canine fossae, a projecting tuber symphyseos, reduced upper limb muscularity, and formation of a femoral pilaster (Szombathy 1925; Rainer & Simionescu 1942; Vallois 1958; Nicolaescu-Plopsor 1968; Frayer 1986; Garralda et al. 1992; Trinkaus et al. 2003a,b, 2005a,b; E. Trinkaus, personal observations). Although most of these crania (N = 6) lack a supraorbital torus, one is present on Cioclovina 1. In addition, the preserved nasal apertures appear tropical in their lack of a clear angulation of the inferior sill (Franciscus 2003, Trinkaus et al. 2003a), and biomechanical scaling of the Mladec limb remains indicates linear bodies (Trinkaus et al. 2005b); both features support substantial and relatively recent tropical (probably African) ancestry.

Yet, these specimens exhibit a variably present suite of archaic human features, including low temporal squamous profiles, prominent juxtamastoid eminences, broad interorbital breadths, large dental arcades, exceptionally large third molars, broad mandibular rami, mandibular corpus robusticity, and variable maxillary incisor shoveling. These morphological attributes are generally present among late archaic humans, but they are largely absent from the sample that best characterizes the modern human ancestors of the European early modern humans: the Qafzeh and Skhul remains. Only one feature appears to be distinctly Neandertal, the unilateral bridging of the mandibular foramen on Oase 1, although it is possible to find most of these other archaic aspects among the Neandertals. The broad mandibular ramus of Oase 1 is found among contemporaneous north African remains, especially Nazlet Khater 2, and not among the Neandertals.

The subsequent post-28,000-B.P. Gravettian human sample of Europe includes numerous associated skeletons (Table 2) (Zilhão & Trinkaus 2002). Most of these specimens are fully modern in their morphology, and there is a persistence in them of both linear (equatorial) limb proportions and more "African" nasal morphology (Trinkaus 1981, Holliday 1997, Franciscus 2003). However, one Iberian specimen (Lagar Velho 1) exhibits Neandertal limb segment proportions and a series of relatively archaic cranial and postcranial features (Trinkaus & Zilhão 2002). In addition, central incisor shoveling, ubiquitous among the Neandertals, absent in the Qafzeh-Skhul sample, and variably present in the earlier European sample, persists at modest frequencies. And scapular axillary border dorsal sulci, an apparently Neandertal feature also absent in the Qafzeh-Skhul sample, is present (Trinkaus 2005)."


I love smacking retards like you down with facts, old school ES style, this is how to do it.


Anyways, its amazing how this data fits nicely with the data in the OP.
 

---

Posted by .Charlie Bass. (Member # 10328) on :
 
Here's more evidence that Upper Paleolithic Europeans being closer to Perahu-tards "True Negroids"





 

---

Posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova (Member # 15718) on :
 
^^Good job Bass..
========================================


Early Modern Humans
Erik Trinkaus. Annual Review of
Anthropology. Palo Alto: 2005. Vol. 34
pg. 207, 24 pgs

"The European early modern humans at
least 28,000 years old exhibit parietal
expansion, clear parietal bosses, absence
of nuchal tori with variable development
of an external occipital protuberance,
large and laterally bulbous mastoid
processes, superiorly positioned and
horizontal temporal zygomatic
processes, reduced nasal breadths, some
facial shortening, angled zygomatic
bones with clear canine fossae, a
projecting tuber symphyseos, reduced
upper limb muscularity, and formation
of a femoral pilaster (Szombathy 1925;
Rainer & Simionescu 1942; Vallois
1958; Nicolaescu-Plopsor 1968; Frayer
1986; Garralda et al. 1992; Trinkaus et
al. 2003a,b, 2005a,b; E. Trinkaus,
personal observations). Although most
of these crania (N = 6) lack a
supraorbital torus, one is present on
Cioclovina 1. In addition, the preserved
nasal apertures appear tropical in their
lack of a clear angulation of the inferior
sill (Franciscus 2003, Trinkaus et al.
2003a), and biomechanical scaling of the
Mladec limb remains indicates linear
bodies (Trinkaus et al. 2005b); both
features support substantial and
relatively recent tropical (probably
African) ancestry.

Yet, these specimens exhibit a variably
present suite of archaic human features,
including low temporal squamous
profiles, prominent juxtamastoid
eminences, broad interorbital breadths,
large dental arcades, exceptionally large
third molars, broad mandibular rami,
mandibular corpus robusticity, and
variable maxillary incisor shoveling.
These morphological attributes are
generally present among late archaic
humans, but they are largely absent from
the sample that best characterizes the
modern human ancestors of the
European early modern humans: the
Qafzeh and Skhul remains. Only one
feature appears to be distinctly
Neandertal, the unilateral bridging of the
mandibular foramen on Oase 1, although
it is possible to find most of these other
archaic aspects among the Neandertals.
The broad mandibular ramus of Oase 1
is found among contemporaneous north
African remains, especially Nazlet
Khater 2, and not among the
Neandertals.

The subsequent post-28,000-B.P.
Gravettian human sample of Europe
includes numerous associated skeletons
(Table 2) (Zilhão & Trinkaus 2002).
Most of these specimens are fully
modern in their morphology, and there is
a persistence in them of both linear
(equatorial) limb proportions and more
"African" nasal morphology (Trinkaus
1981, Holliday 1997, Franciscus 2003).
However, one Iberian specimen (Lagar
Velho 1) exhibits Neandertal limb
segment proportions and a series of
relatively archaic cranial and postcranial
features (Trinkaus & Zilhão 2002). In
addition, central incisor shoveling,
ubiquitous among the Neandertals,
absent in the Qafzeh-Skhul sample, and
variably present in the earlier European
sample, persists at modest frequencies.
And scapular axillary border dorsal sulci,
an apparently Neandertal feature also
absent in the Qafzeh-Skhul sample, is
present (Trinkaus 2005)."
 

---

Posted by Calabooz' (Member # 18238) on :
 
^
 

---

Posted by anguishofbeing (Member # 16736) on :
 
Nice try. Sneaking in Sforza every chance you get eh?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sundjata:

"Europeans appear as a 2/3 Asian (i.e. Bay Area Chinese/stereotypical Mongoloid race), 1/3 African (Pygmy/stereotypical Negroid race) mix". - Cavali Sforza

quote:

---

Nuclear DNA studies also contribute to the deconstruction of received racial entities. Ann Bowcock and her colleague's interpretation (Bowcock et al. 1991; Bowcock et al. 1994) of analyses of restriction-site polymorphisms and microsatellite polymorphisms (STRPs) suggests that Europeans, the defining Caucasians, are descendants of a population that arose as a consequence of admixture between **already differentiated** populations ancestral to (some) Africans (i.e. their Forest Negro) and Asians (i.e. their Bay Area Chinese). Therefore, Caucasians would be a secondary **type or race** due to its hybrid origin and not a primary race". This compromises the racial schema and also invalidates the metaphysical underpinnings of the persisting race construct, which implies deep and fundamental differences between its units.

---

----- S.O.Y. Keita & Rick Kittles

---

Nice try. Always sneaking in Keita to make it seem as if he agrees with Bowcock (1991) eh? Keita et al. is not saying that Europeans are a "secondary race or type", he is saying thats their interpretation, under the racial scheme which still persists, using methods he says are Coonian.

"the proto-European population after its divergence with proto-East Asians"

What did Keita say about the logic of seeking "proto-populations" again rasolowitz? Something about it being fundamentally unsound? lol

As for the two populations (fundamental units according to rasolowitz) that gave rise to the European hybrid, according to Mindless one is incoming (to Europe) African mixing with settled Eskimo or Eskimo-types, and another occasion black, or morphologically white, or, when using Bowcock et al., Bay Area Chinese.

"if Europeans are interpreted as later hybrids" -Keita

Then the question is: who mated with who to produce the European hybrid???
 

---

Posted by The Old Doctore (Member # 18546) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sundjata:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Perahu:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sundjata:
^Keep dreaming. This is not representative, look at figure S6.5 which contradicts you.

---

S6.5 contains incomplete genomic data, it is less stable than the S6.2 figure.

As far as I am concerned S6.2 is the most stable figure, utilizing complete genomic data. The most advanced complete human genetic sequences show that Europeans and East Asians are roughly equidistant distant from Sub-Saharan Negroids.

---

^It is in no way "stable" and this is directly stated within their own subsequent wording:

quote:

---

Much of this apparent divergence [in fig S6.2] is caused by sequencing error. Suppose that the probability of a sequencing error for hominin i is e(Qi ). Then, the probability of an error contributing to the observed divergence R(Qi ,Qj ) with a second sample j is approximately e(Qi )+e(Qj ), assuming independence and small error rates per nucleotide. We thus seek correction factors C(Qi ) giving divergences: D(Qi ,Qj ) = R(Qi ,Qj )-C(Qi )-C(Qj )

---

S6.5 provides the "second" sample comparison and is therefore more robust by their own standards. It is based on the same data. You are simply a biased troll who can't swallow that he is "nothing more" than a mixed African/Asian hybrid.


"in time unique variants appear in Asia (and Oceania) and Europe, although private alleles are rare" --Keita and Kittles

"Europeans appear as a 2/3 Asian, 1/3 African mix". - Cavalli Sforza

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sundjata:

quote:

---

Much of this apparent divergence [in fig S6.2] is caused by sequencing error. Suppose that the probability of a sequencing error for hominin i is e(Qi ). Then, the probability of an error contributing to the observed divergence R(Qi ,Qj ) with a second sample j is approximately e(Qi )+e(Qj ), assuming independence and small error rates per nucleotide. We thus seek correction factors C(Qi ) giving divergences: D(Qi ,Qj ) = R(Qi ,Qj )-C(Qi )-C(Qj )

---

S6.5 provides the "second" sample comparison and is therefore more robust by their own standards. It is based on the same data. You are simply a biased troll who can't swallow that he is "nothing more" than a mixed African/Asian hybrid.
[/qb]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness:
see if you can answer the question in your own words, when did they become adapted cold climates to the extent that they were considered "non-African" I'll wait"

---

lol at this dumb white boy, black woman imposter.


When people explain it with their own words the clown says, where is peer reviewed evidence.


When you quote peer reviewed sources the clown says, explain it in your own words.lol


Hilarious at best!

Here let me recap it for you.

quote:

---

Pronunciation: /ˈplīstəˌsēn/
adjective
Geology
of, relating to, or denoting the first epoch of the Quaternary period, between the Pliocene and Holocene epochs.
(as noun the Pleistocene) the Pleistocene epoch or the system of deposits laid down during it.

The Pleistocene epoch lasted from 1,640,000 to about 10,000 years ago.

It was marked by great fluctuations in temperature that caused the ice ages, with glacial periods followed by warmer interglacial periods. Several extinct forms of human, forerunners of modern humans, appeared during this epoch

Origin:
mid 19th century: from Greek pleistos 'most' + kainos 'new'

http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/Pleistocene?region=us


The failure of early modern humans to survive in the Levant during the early last glacial implies they were not yet physiologically and/or behaviorally well-adapted to cold climates and Palearctic environments, or at least not as well-adapted as neanderthals.


The Multiple Dispersals model (Figure 3) proposes that a population bottleneck occurred during oxygen isotope stage 6, when cold, dry climates caused isolation and differentiation of populations within Africa.


If bottlenecks were caused by the cold, arid climate of isotope stage 4 then their duration was approximately 10 ka and release could have been as late as 60 ka.


Global climate change could have reduced populations during the early last ice age, oxygen isotope stage 4

... As noted above, the replacement of modern humans by neander- thals in the Levant, suggests African modern humans were rather poorly-adapted to cold climates.


reduction
 
Pronunciation: /rɪˈdʌkʃ(ə)n/
noun
[mass noun]
1 the action or fact of making something smaller or less in amount, degree, or size:
talks on arms reduction

Origin:
late Middle English (denoting the action of bringing back): from Old French, or from Latin reductio(n-), from reducere 'bring back, restore' (see reduce). The sense development was broadly similar to that of reduce; sense 1 dates from the late 17th century

http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/reduction

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness:
see if you can answer the question in your own words, when did they become adapted cold climates to the extent that they were considered "non-African" I'll wait"

---

lol


Says James Owen for National Geographic News
December 20, 2005

Europeans inherit their looks from Stone Age hunters, new research suggests.

Scientists studied ancient skeletons from Scandinavia to North Africa and Greece, comparing ancient and modern facial features.

Their analysis suggests modern Europeans are closely related and descended from prehistoric indigenous peoples.

Later Neolithic settlers—notably immigrants who introduced farming from the Near East some 7,500 years ago—contributed little to how Europeans look today, the researchers add.

The scientists described their findings in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences Online Early Edition.

The study suggests that the arrival of farming did not signal a broad wave of colonization as some scientists had thought. Rather, native hunter-gatherers absorbed the farming way of life and those who brought it.

The findings are based on 24 face measurements of modern-day Europeans compared with those of their prehistoric predecessors.

The team focused on facial dimensions which are "neutral" and don't change as human populations adapt over time to different environments and lifestyles.

Because these features are passed down generation to generation, they are good markers of human ancestry, according to lead study author Loring Brace.

The University of Michigan anthropologist says the craniofacial remains of late Stone Age Europeans reflect those of earlier inhabitants who lived 35,000 to 10,000 years ago.

"They're really fairly close," he said.

Ancient peoples had heavier brow ridges than modern Europeans. "The faces were also broader and the jaws were heavier," Brace added.

Skeletal remains from Greece and elsewhere are thought to represent Neolithic settlers who introduced farming from modern-day Syria, Jordan, and Israel. Brace said these remains have facial measurements that don't match those of most present-day Europeans.

The anthropologist added that despite some similarities with modern Mediterranean populations, "the farther north and west you get, the less they resemble the people living there now."


"Modern Europeans don't look like the incoming Neolithic [farmers]," he said.

"It's pretty clear that there's a much larger component of the indigenous foraging peoples across Europe, and they existed in far greater numbers than the archaeological record had led us to believe."

The study suggests that Neolithic remains, which have been taken as evidence of large-scale colonization, are misleading.

Brace says pots associated with Neolithic farmers tended to disintegrate into countless shards, creating the impression of a larger presence than was actually the case.

Early farmers also buried their dead together, unlike the native inhabitants, leaving groups of bodies for archaeologists to later uncover along with other artifacts.

Hunter-gatherers

The researchers say the fact that incoming settlers didn't pass on telltale facial characteristics to later Europeans suggests that they were absorbed by the indigenous hunter-gatherers.

"They absorbed them genetically—and their way of life," Brace said. "Molecular biology is telling us the same story."

Recent DNA analysis of the skeletons of prehistoric farmers found buried in Germany, Austria, and Hungary appears to show that they contributed little to the European gene pool.

A quarter of those analyzed remains share a DNA signature that is now extremely rare worldwide and which has left virtually no trace on living Europeans.

Those findings, described last month in the journal Science, suggest that "the contribution of early farmers could be close to zero," according to Peter Forster, archaeology research fellow at Cambridge University, England.

Other experts now broadly agree that the spread of farming across Europe represents more of a cultural legacy than a genetic one.

"Personally, I think it's a question that can be answered only on a regional basis," said Marek Zvelebil, professor of archaeology at the University of Sheffield, England.

"In some areas, particularly parts of the East Mediterranean and central Europe, you do have small groups of people migrating from the Near East," he said.

"But in most other parts of Europe, particularly western and northern Europe, you have local hunter-gathering people adopting farming."

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/12/1220_051220_stoneage_faces_2.html

The END.


Phrasal Verbs


buzz off
[often in imperative] informal go away.

http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/buzz?region=us
 

---

Posted by Troll Patrol (Member # 18264) on :
 
Stanley H. Ambrose
Department of Anthropology, University of Illinois,


Journal of Human Evolution (1998) 34, 623–651


Late Pleistocene human population bottlenecks, volcanic winter, and differentiation of modern humans


The cause, timing and location of bottleneck releases


If population release was due to the natural increase (logistic population growth) of disease-resistant populations following epidemics, then growth could have been relatively rapid, a function of the intrinsic rate of increase of disease-resistant popula-tions, and the duration of the bottleneck relatively brief. Its date could have been at any time, but would presumably have been relatively soon after the bottleneck. Release could have occurred wherever disease-resistant individuals survived.

If release was due to natural increase in founder population size after dispersing across land bridges or narrow straits (Lahr, 1996; Lahr & Foley, 1994) then release dates would vary from 70–50 ka for the early Australasian dispersal, to 45 ka for the second Levantine dispersal. In the epidemic and dispersal scenarios the dura-tion of the bottleneck would have been brief.

If bottlenecks were caused by the cold, arid climate of isotope stage 4 then their duration was approximately 10 ka and release could have been as late as 60 ka.


The failure of early modern humans to survive in the Levant during the early last glacial implies they were not yet physiologically and/or behaviorally well-adapted to cold climates and Palearctic environments, or at least not as well-adapted as neanderthals.


The Multiple Dispersals model (Figure 3) proposes that a population bottleneck occurred during oxygen isotope stage 6, when cold, dry climates caused isolation and differentiation of populations within Africa.


If bottlenecks were caused by the cold, arid climate of isotope stage 4 then their duration was approximately 10 ka and release could have been as late as 60 ka.


Global climate change could have reduced populations during the early last ice age, oxygen isotope stage 4

... As noted above, the replacement of modern humans by neander- thals in the Levant, suggests African modern humans were rather poorly-adapted to cold climates.

quote:

---

Northern Egypt near the Mediterranean shows the same pattern- limb length data puts its peoples closer to tropically adapted Africans that cold climate Europeans

"...sample populations available from northern Egypt from before the 1st Dynasty (Merimda, Maadi and Wadi Digla) turn out to be significantly different from sample populations from early Palestine and Byblos, suggesting a lack of common ancestors over a long time. If there was a south-north cline variation along the Nile valley it did not, from this limited evidence, continue smoothly on into southern Palestine.

The limb-length proportions of males from the Egyptian sites group them with Africans rather than with Europeans."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness:
^^^ this really funny. One is supposed to give a basic answer to a question and then post proof after, you apparently are too dumb to.
zarahan has better comprhension than you, He posts his basic comments in bold print and after shows supporting evidence

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-:

Body proportions covary with climate, apparently as the result of climatic selection. Ontogenetic research and migrant studies have demonstrated that body proportions are largely genetically controlled and are under low selective rates; thus studies of body form can provide evidence for evolutionarily short-term dispersals and/or gene flow. Following these observations, competing models of modern human origins yield different predictions concerning body proportion shifts in Late Pleistocene Europe. Replacement predicts that the earliest modern Europeans will possess “tropical” body proportions (assuming Africa is the center of origin), while Regional Continuity permits only minor shifts in body shape, due to climatic change and/or improved cultural buffering. This study tests these predictions via analyses of osteometric data reflective of trunk height and breadth, limb proportions and relative body mass for samples of Early Upper Paleolithic (EUP), Late Upper Paleolithic (LUP) and Mesolithic (MES) humans and 13 recent African and European populations.Results reveal a clear tendency for the EUP sample to cluster with recent Africans, while LUP and MES samples cluster with recent Europeans. These results refute the hypothesis of local continuity in Europe, and are consistent with an interpretation of elevated gene flow (and population dispersal?) from Africa, followed by subsequent climatic adaptation to colder conditions. These data do not, however, preclude the possibility of some (albeit small) contribution of genes from Neandertals to succeeding populations, as is postulated in Bräuer’s “Afro-European Sapiens” model.

---