Another smack in face of nutties like Explorer who want everyone to believe that there was no Middle Paleolithic split between mtDNA L + carriers and mtDNA M, N carriers near the exit points of Middle Palaeolithic Africa, and that U6, even if aboriginal to Berbers today, can be seen as not ultimately Eurasian:
quote:Human mutation rates are directly calculated using securely dated ancient human mtDNAs ► The study provides improved molecular estimates for human evolutionary events. The last major gene flow event between Africans and non-Africans was calculated to 95 kya
--Fu et al 2013
Surprising find:
quote:All but one of the ancient modern human sequences from Europe belonged to mtDNA hg U, thus confirming previous findings that hg U was the dominant type of mtDNA before the spread of agriculture into Europe. The exception was the Cro-Magnon 1 sample, which belonged to the derived hg T2b1, an unexpected hg given its putative age of 30,000 years. Since the radiocarbon date for this specimen was obtained from an associated shell, we dated the sample itself using accelerator mass spectrometry (AMS). Surprisingly, the sample had a much younger age of about 700 years, suggesting a medieval origin. Consequently, this bone fragment has now been removed from the Cro-Magnon collection at the Musee de l’Homme in Paris. ...
It has been argued that hg U5 is the most ancient subhaplogroup of the U lineage, originating among the first early modern humans in Europe. Our results support this hypothesis because we find that the two Dolni Vestonice individuals radiocarbon dated to 31.5 kya carry a type of mtDNA that is as yet uncharacterized, sits close to the root of hg U, and carries two mutations that are specific to hg U5. [/i]
quote:We were able to reconstruct three complete and six nearly complete mitochondrial genomes from ancient human remains that were found in Europe and Eastern Asia and span 40,000 years of human history. All Paleolithic and Mesolithic European samples belong to mtDNA hg U, as was previously suggested for pre-Neolithic Europeans [15]. Two of the three individuals from the Dolni Vestonice triple burial associated with the pre-ice age Gravettian culture, namely, 14 and 15, show identical mtDNAs, suggesting a maternal relationship. Furthermore, both individuals display a mitochondrial sequence that falls basal in a phylo- genetic tree compared to the post-ice age hunter-gatherer samples from Italy and central Europe, as well as the contemporary mtDNA hg U5 (Figure 1). It has been argued that hg U5 is the most ancient subhaplogroup of the U lineage, originating among the first early modern humans in Europe [18]. Our results support this hypothesis because we find that the two Dolni Vestonice individuals radiocarbon dated to 31.5 kya carry a type of mtDNA that is as yet un- characterized, sits close to the root of hg U, and carries two mutations that are specific to hg U5. With our recali- brated molecular clock, we date the age of the U5 branch to approximately 30 kya, thus predating the LGM. Because the majority of late Paleolithic and Mesolithic mtDNAs analyzed to date fall on one of the branches of U5 (see also [15]), our data provide some support for maternal genetic continuity between the pre- and post-ice age Euro- pean hunter-gatherers from the time of first settlement to the onset of the Neolithic. U4, another hg commonly found in Mesolithic hunter-gatherers [15], has so far not been sequenced in a Paleolithic individual, and we find hgs U8 and U2 in pre-LGM individuals but not in later hunter-gath- erers. At present, the genetic data on Upper Paleolithic, and especially pre-ice age, populations are too sparse to comment on whether or not this is representative of a change in the genetic structure of the population, perhaps caused by a bottleneck during the LGM and a subsequent repopulation from glacial refugia.
posted
Of course not. Why do you even try to act like you know so much about population genetics? You vehemently try to argue with others about E-M35, the implications of DNA Tribes' Amarna family MLI scores, whether or not Obenga is supported by genetics. Why, when it's so glaringly obvious that you know next to nothing about the subject?
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
What make you say that? The quote seems to include all gene flow including the MtDNA U haplogroup. Anybody can see that.
quote: Human mutation rates are directly calculated using securely dated ancient human mtDNAs ► The study provides improved molecular estimates for human evolutionary events. The last major gene flow event between Africans and non-Africans was calculated to 95 kya
quote:Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate: What make you say that? The quote seems to include all gene flow including the MtDNA U haplogroup. Anybody can see that.
^What anyone can see is that you don't know anything about the subject. mtDNA U didn't even exist back then. Get off my thread and stick to nitpicking pictures of ancient Egyptian wall paintings.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate: What make you say that? The quote seems to include all gene flow including the MtDNA U haplogroup. Anybody can see that.
^What anyone can see is that you don't know anything about the subject. mtDNA U didn't even exist back then. Get off my thread and stick to nitpicking pictures of ancient Egyptian wall paintings.
Lay off the emotional baggage from the other threads (it doesn't matter if we disagree on some subjects). I'm just curious in what makes you say that. The quote seems to include all gene flow including MtDNA U. If I'm wrong, I will gladly change my position about it. Since MtDNA U, didn't exist back then, it's more to the point. It means there's a 95kya gene flow gap between Africans and non-Africans. That is the last major gene flow between Africans and non-Africans. So Africans, according to the quote, cannot be the originator of the MtDNA U haplogroup. Which is my position.
Or, I'm wrong, and you're saying the quote excludes MtDNA U and there was indeed a major MtDNA U gene flow between Africans and non-Africans less than 95ky ago?
Posts: 2981 | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged |
Quote: "The last major gene flow event between Africans and non-Africans was calculated to 95 kya"
Saharans in Arabia and Persia. [/QB][/QUOTE]
Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
Ten individuals out of 372 samples, all related to Fulbe groups, carried mtDNA variants typical of western Eurasia, particularly Europe.Within these mtDNAs belonging to haplogroup U5 nine Fulanis share one particular HVS-I haplotype. BOTH HAPLOTYPES ARE ONLY ONE MUTATIONAL STEP AWAY FROM A COMMON NODE WIDESPREAD IN EUROPE
Although U5 is one of the most frequent mtDNA variants among western Eurasians (about 460 sequences in our mtDNA HVS-I database) no exact matches to the two Guinean haplotypes were found, as would be expected in the case of recent admixture. On the other hand, the Fulani U5 haplotype appears in a data set of West Africans (Wolof and Serer, Rando et al. 1998) and in Moroccans (unpublished data), pointing to the existence of a common African founder lineage of haplogroup U5..
-------------------- Without data you are just another person with an opinion - Deming Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
As I said read enough of these and you know who is who.
== A Revised Timescale for Human Evolution Based on Ancient Mitochondrial Genomes
Qiaomei
Svante Pääbo1
===
Mr Pääbo is of the belief that there was no migration of Africans across Iberia
Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
xyyman you are definely on the case. Haplogroup U , probably originated in Africa.
Eurocentrist are now trying to change the script. They are now claiming Cro-Magnon man was U5, this is a new one.
Formerly it as assumed that Crog-magnon man carried hg N.
During the Aurignacian period, the Cro magnon skeletons belong to the N haplogroup. The Cro Magnon skeletons carried N1a,N1b,N1c and N*. It is characterized by motifs 00073G,10873C, 10238T and A4CC between nucleotide positions 10397 and 10400. Most of the skeletons carried hg N*.
It appears that the hg N was the most frequent mtDNA carried by Western European populations for over 20,000 years. This gene as discussed earlier is found primarily today outside Western Europe. The Cro Magnon people were mainly hunter-gathers.
Haak et al. found that the twenty-four samples included haplogroups H or V, T, K, J , N1a and U3. The frequency of N1a among ancient samples ranged from 8% to 42%.
Haak et al found that the first Neolithic farmers did not have a strong genetic influence on modern European female lineages. These researchers found that the farmers were predominately HG N1a. This is interesting because Brace et al found that the craniofacial features of these early European farmers and the Natufians plotted with Sub-Saharan groups, just like the Aurignacians. The existence of the hg N in western Europe from 24,000-7500 kya show continuity between the Pleistocene and Neolithic western Eurasians who carried hg N.
Since I published my articles on the possible African origin of hg N, now they want to make it appear that ancient Europeans carried hg U, so they can show continuity between ancient and modern whites, when the archaeology does not support this view .
AA000154 Origin and Spread of Haplogroup N
Clyde Winters
Bioresearch Bulletin (2010) 3: 116-122 Full Text (.PDF)
Abstract Haplogroup N is a common genome in Africa. Here we use Archaeogenetics to discuss and explain the rise and spread of haplogroup N from the Great Lakes Region of East Africa to Nigeria and the Senegambia region. The paper uses craniometric and molecular evidence to explain how haplogroup N was probably taken to western Eurasia across the Straits of Gibratar by the Khoisan people who established the Aurignacian culture in Europe.
The Gibraltar Out of Africa Exit for Anatomically Modern Humans
Abstract
Using archaeological, craniometric, anthropological, and samples of ancient mtDNA we examined the possibility that there was a third exit from Africa, of anatomically modern humans (amh) across the Straits of Gibraltar into Iberia and thence throughout Eurasia. The finding of ancient Sub-Saharan mtDNA and related evidences make it clear that the Aurignacian culture was taken into Eurasia from Africa by Cro-Magnon people crossing the Straits of Gibraltar.
As I mentioned earlier the Bushman created much of the early civilization of Eurasia. They left us numerous figurines showing their type.
Venus Figurines
The Bushman continue to carry this ancient form.
The Aurignacian civilization was founded by the Cro-Magnon people who originated in Africa. They took this culture to Western Europe across the Straits of Gibraltar. The Cro-Magnon people were probably Bushman/Khoi.
There have been numerous "Negroid skeletons" found in Europe. Marcellin Boule and Henri Vallois, in Fossil Man, provide an entire chapter on the Africans/Negroes of Europe Anta Diop also discussed the Negroes of Europe in Civilization or Barbarism, pp.25-68. Also W.E. B. DuBois, discussed these Negroes in the The World and Africa, pp.86-89. DuBois noted that "There was once a an "uninterrupted belt' of Negro culture from Central Europe to South Africa" (p.88).
Boule and Vallois, note that "To sum up, in the most ancient skeletons from the Grotte des Enfants we have a human type which is readily comparable to modern types and especially to the Negritic or Negroid type" (p.289). They continue, "Two Neolithic individuals from Chamblandes in Switzerland are Negroid not only as regards their skulls but also in the proportions of their limbs. Several Ligurian and Lombard tombs of the Metal Ages have also yielded evidences of a Negroid element.
Since the publication of Verneau's memoir, discoveries of other Negroid skeletons in Neolithic levels in Illyria and the Balkans have been announced. The prehistoric statues, dating from the Copper Age, from Sultan Selo in Bulgaria are also thought to protray Negroids.
In 1928 Rene Bailly found in one of the caverns of Moniat, near Dinant in Belgium, a human skeleton of whose age it is difficult to be certain, but seems definitely prehistoric. It is remarkable for its Negroid characters, which give it a reseblance to the skeletons from both Grimaldi and Asselar (p.291).
Boule and Vallois, note that "We know now that the ethnography of South African tribes presents many striking similarities with the ethnography of our populations of the Reindeer Age. Not to speak of their stone implements which, as we shall see later , exhibit great similarities, Peringuey has told us that in certain burials on the South African coast 'associated with the Aurignacian or Solutrean type industry...."(p.318-319). They add, that in relation to Bushman art " This almost uninterrupted series leads us to regard the African continent as a centre of important migrations which at certain times may have played a great part in the stocking of Southern Europe. Finally, we must not forget that the Grimaldi Negroid skeletons sho many points of resemblance with the Bushman skeletons". They bear no less a resemblance to that of the fossil Man discovered at Asslar in mid-Sahara, whose characters led us to class him with the Hottentot-Bushman group.
Cro-Magnon people carried haplogroup N:
quote:
Specific mtDNA sites outside HVRI were also analyzed (by amplification, cloning, and sequencing of the surrounding region) to classify more precisely the ancient sequences within the phylogenetic network of present-time mtDNAs (35, 36). Paglicci-25 has the following motifs: +7,025 AluI, 00073A, 11719G, and 12308A. Therefore, this sequence belongs to either haplogroups HV or pre-HV, two haplogroups rare in general but with a comparatively high frequencies among today's Near-Easterners (35). Paglicci-12 shows the motifs 00073G, 10873C, 10238T, and AACC between nucleotide positions 10397 and 10400, which allows the classification of this sequence into the macrohaplogroupN,containing haplogroups W, X, I, N1a, N1b, N1c, and N*. Following the definition given in ref. 36, the presence of a single mutation in 16,223 within HRVI suggests a classification of Paglicci-12 into the haplogroup N*, which is observed today in several samples from the Near East and, at lower frequencies, in the Caucasus (35). It is difficult to say whether the apparent evolutionary relationship between Paglicci-25 and Paglicci-12 and those populations is more than a coincidence. Indeed, the haplogroups to which the Cro-Magnon type sequences appear to belong are rare among modern samples, and therefore their frequencies are poorly estimated. However, genetic affinities between the first anatomically modern Europeans and current populations of the Near East make sense in the light of the likely routes of Upper Paleolithic human expansions in Europe, as documented in the archaeological record (37).
This suggest that haplogroup N was taken to Western Eurasia by the San people=Cro-Magnon.
The HadzaII carry hg N see Fig.3:
Tishkoff S A , M. K. Gonder, B. M. Henn, H. Mortensen, A. Knight, C. Gignoux, N. Fernandopulle, G. Lema, T. B. Nyambo, U. Ramakrishnan, et al.(2007).History of Click-Speaking Populations of Africa Inferred from mtDNA and Y Chromosome Genetic Variation. Mol. Biol. Evol., 24(10): 2180 - 2195. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/24/10/2180.full.pdf+html
This Khoisan group probably represented the Grimaldi who settled Europe as the Cro-Magnon population.
This makes it clear, to me, that hg N in Africa is not the result of a back mjration.
posted
Africans never stopped entering Europe until modern times.
Last "major" entry approximately 500ya. Moors and Berber, Saracene.
All aDNA sampled thus far confirm the absence of R-M269 and traces of H1. Vast majority of mtDNA is U5 and N.
nry - hg-G and hg-E by a landslide.
Not even the vikings were white ie carry modern European lineage.
Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
I stand behind my reasons for believing that the Khoisan took haplogroup (hg) N to western Eurasia. The reasons are:
1) The fact they are classified as Khoisan by some researchers including Tishkoff;
2) craniofacial features can change due to diet( See: Carlson,D. and Van Gerven,D.P. (1979). Diffussion, biological determinism and bioculdtural adaptation in the Nubian corridor,American Anthropologist, 81, 561-580.)
3) their language is classified as Khoisan. Linguist believe that the Khoisan languages were originally spoken in East Africa and that they were responsible for the Eastern African Microlithic tradition (Heine & Nurse, African Languages, p.290). They believe the Khoisan later migrated to South Africa.
4) Click languages are predominately spoken by Khoisan. There needs to be more research on Hadza to refine our understanding of the Hadza language
5.) As you note in your post the San and Hadza share some very ancient gene mutations,this would be expected given the hypothesized separation of the Hadza from other Khoisan speakers, and introduction of Niger-Congo speakers into East Africa since the Bantu migration.
6) If East Africa was the original home of the Khoisan their mitochondrial lineages are amongst the most genetically divergent because of separation from other Khoisan speakers in the South and interaction with the Niger-Congo people who have recently settled the area.
7) Also as noted above, the Hadza were quite distinct from the surrounding populations. And eventhough the departure was not always in the direction of other KhoiSan, the Hadza according to the researchers you cite share many Khoisan features .
8) Overall, their is little in the citations above that rules out Khoisan ancestry for the Hadza. The researchers note genetic links between these Khoisan populations, just like the languages they speak.
First of all Kalonji thanks for the article. Having read the article I do not believe it can be interpreted to rule out the possibility that the Hadza are Khoisan.
In The Myth of East African Bushman, Morris presents evidence that the Bushmen were not present in East Africa. He based this on osteological and linguistic data and the relationship between the Hadza and Sandawe.
Morris makes it clear that the material he published denying the presence of Khoisan in East Africa is “arguable at best and must be rejected at worst” (Morris,p.87). This means that there is evidence supporting the presence and/or absence of the Khoisan in East Africa. As a result, his paper needs confirmation of his hypothesis since there is an alternative view.
The genetic, linguistic and osteological data does not support his hypothesis. It suggest that the Hadza are Khoisan and that they probably originally lived in East Africa and later migrated to South Africa.
We can reject the osteological evidence in relation to the Hadza, because the only Hadza osteological crania for comparisons was destroyed during the WWII bombing of Berlin. As a result, you can not use this paper to claim that the Hadza are not Khoisan based on osteological evidence.
In the studies cited by Morris the researchers compared contemporary Sandawe and Khoisan crania with ancient East African skeletal remains. This does not prove anything because microevolutionary processes such as genetic drift and natural selection have probably affected skull morphology and may account for variations in ancient and contemporary crania.
Ribat claims that there are two extremes in African craniometrics: the khoisan and the west Africans. Craniofacial features, in relation to the skull can be shaped, in evolutionary terms by lower heritability and high biomechanical load. This is reflected in the morphological heterogeneity within the same population. Carlson and Gerven observed this phenomenon in their study of Nubian craniometrics.
These researchers explained that the differences in Nubian skeletal remains was not the result of populaton changes resulting from invasion. They argued that the skeletal remains represented the same population.
And that instead of the changes in crania reflecting biological diffusion, the changes in facial features resulted from changes in diet that resulted in less masticatory stress associated with changes in subsistence patterns from the Mesolithic to Neolithic. Given this reality, a relationship probably did exist between the ancient East Africans and Khoisan as indicated by typological features, while detail study of the crania might show difference between contemporary and ancient East African Khoisan as a result of changes in diet that led to variation in the size and position of the muscles of mastication which inturn led to reduction in the robustness of the craniofacial complex. This would explain why the use of multivariate techniques show variability between modern and ancient crania and skulls.
In your response you imply that there is not linguistic connections between the Hadza and Khoisan. This is hardly the case, and as noted by Morris “the linguistic [relationship] is compelling” (p.87) and they are not rejected (p.89). As a result we cannot deny that a linguistic relationship exist between the speakers of Khoisan languages.
The South African Khoisan (SAK) have a distinct morphology that link them to the Hadza. Morris ask us to ignore the presence of biological connections between the Hadza and SAK, because Ethiopians share with the SAK mtDNA and y-chromosome. As a result some differences between the SAK ,and the Hadza and Sandaw may be explained by interactions with neighboring East African populations.
But we can not ignore the phylogenetic evidence. And if molecular evidence exist for a relationship we must recognize it for what it is: a family relationship.
In Tishkoff et al results have considerable relevancy in understanding the morophology of the Hadza. Morris mentions the research of Knight et al (2003) which was based on a small sample. The Tishkoff et al sample is much larger and can tell us considerably more about the Hadza.
In your post you discuss the Sandawe. We can not discuss the Hadza based on Sandawe , we must look at them based on their own characteristics. The Hadza surrounded by non-Khoisan speakers has remarkably sustained their genetic and cultural distinctiveness.
Tishkoff et al in The genetic structure and History of Aficans and African Americans (2009) noted that Hadza cluster near the SAK whose mtDNA, y-chromosome and autosomal chromosome indicates the most diverged genetic lineages in phylogenetic trees constructed from RST genetjc distance. These researchers found that the STRUCTURE and PCA indicate that the Hadza cluster near the SAK. They also pointed out that the Hadza and Sandawe show evidence of common ancestry but there is no evidence of recent gene flow; and that Khosian related art work is found in the area where these people reside.
Tishkoff et al in Y-chromosome evidence of a pastoral Migration through Tanzania to South Africa(2008) noted that the Hadza have a high frequentcy of L3 and L2 (haplogroup common to west Africans). It was also made clear that the Hadza , Sandawe and SAK share the Eb1f-M293 haplotype.
Overall, Tishkoff et al in the Genetic History of African Click Speaking Populations (2007) found that the mtDNA of the Hadza cluster closely with the SAK, not other Tanzanians. This along with the high frequency of y-chromosome B2b which is shared with the SAK indicates a common ancestor.
There is some evidence of interactions between other Tanzanians and the Hadza. Tishkoff et al, suggest that the L4 lineages originated among the Hadza, and was introduced to neighboring groups via Hadza females.
Among the Khoisan there is a high frequentcy of LOd, but none has been found among the Hadza. Tishkoff et al (2007) believes that the loss of LOd may be the result of genetic drift.
In conclusion the biological and linguistic evidence suggest that the Hadza are a Khoisan population. The Morris (2003) paper does nothing to disconfirm my findings. This fact is supported by the research of Tishkoff et al that indicate that the SAK originally lived in East Africa and that they later migrated into South Arfrica.
It was also revealed that the muscles of mastication probably led to reduction in the robustness of the craniofacial complex as Khoisan populations changed their diet. This would explain why the use of multivariate techniques show variability between modern and ancient Khoisan crania and skulls, while the typological features are consistent with a Khoisan origin.
The research shows that the effect of history have influenced the relationship between the Hadza and SAK, but the genetic evidence indicates a close relationship between the Hadza and SAK as indicated by y-chromosome Eb1f-M293, and B2b.
The absence of hg N among the Sandawe and SAK is probably the result of genetic drift. The fact that the Hadza mtDNA does not cluster with other Tanzanians is an indication that haplogroup N may be native to the Hadza.
It is interesting to note that LOd is primarily found among Khoisan and West Africans. Shows that at some point in prehistory the Khoisan had migrated into West Africa. As I point out in my paper that it was Khoisan from West Africa who migrated into North Africa and thence Iberia.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Tishkoff et al in The genetic structure and History of Aficans and African Americans (2009) noted that Hadza cluster near the SAK whose mtDNA, y-chromosome and autosomal chromosome indicates the most diverged genetic lineages in phylogenetic trees constructed from RST genetjc distance. These researchers found that the STRUCTURE and PCA indicate that the Hadza cluster near the SAK. They also pointed out that the Hadza and Sandawe show evidence of common ancestry but there is no evidence of recent gene flow; and that Khosian related art work is found in the area where these people reside.
Tishkoff et al in Y-chromosome evidence of a pastoral Migration through Tanzania to South Africa(2008) noted that the Hadza have a high frequentcy of L3 and L2 (haplogroup common to west Africans). It was also made clear that the Hadza , Sandawe and SAK share the Eb1f-M293 haplotype.
Overall, Tishkoff et al in the Genetic History of African Click Speaking Populations (2007) found that the mtDNA of the Hadza cluster closely with the SAK, not other Tanzanians. This along with the high frequency of y-chromosome B2b which is shared with the SAK indicates a common ancestor.
There is some evidence of interactions between other Tanzanians and the Hadza. Tishkoff et al, suggest that the L4 lineages originated among the Hadza, and was introduced to neighboring groups via Hadza females.
Among the Khoisan there is a high frequentcy of LOd, but none has been found among the Hadza. Tishkoff et al (2007) believes that the loss of LOd may be the result of genetic drift.
In conclusion Tishkoff et al, indicate that the SAK originally lived in East Africa and that they later migrated into South Arfrica.
The research shows that the effect of history have influenced the relationship between the Hadza and SAK, but the genetic evidence indicates a close relationship between the Hadza and SAK as indicated by y-chromosome Eb1f-M293, and B2b.
The absence of hg N among the Sandawe and SAK is probably the result of genetic drift. The fact that the Hadza mtDNA does not cluster with other Tanzanians is an indication that haplogroup N may be native to the Hadza.
It is interesting to note that LOd is primarily found among Khoisan and West Africans. This shows that at some point in prehistory the Khoisan had migrated into West Africa. As I point out in my paper that it was Khoisan from West Africa who migrated into North Africa and thence Iberia.
This chart shows that hg N is also found in West Africa where LOd exist. This is further support for the existence of N in Africa before it spread to Europe.
Given these reasons, I believe that the Khoisan took hg N to Eurasia. I do not believe the Khosian replaced any homo sapien sapien population. The Khoisan was the first anatomically modern human population to settle western Eurasia via Iberia as I point out in my paper.
References:
History of Click-Speaking Populations of Africa Inferred from mtDNA and Y Chromosome Genetic Variation Mol. Biol. Evol. 2007 24: 2180-2195.
• Genetic Structure in African Populations: Implications for Human Demographic History Cold Spring Harb Symp Quant Biol (2010) 0(2010): sqb.2009.74.053v1-sqb.2009.74.053 o The Genetic Structure and History of Africans and African Americans Science (2009) 324(5930): 1035-1044 o Y-chromosomal evidence of a pastoralist migration through Tanzania to southern Africa Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA (2008) 105(31): 10693-10698
.
-------------------- C. A. Winters Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
^Might have to abandon my own thread with all these butthurt Afronuts.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
"Unfortunately, there is no reliable and accurate method for estimating constant mutation rates. Caution should be taken when assessing research that involves mutation rates and other assumptions." (Goa et al., 2010)
Posts: 873 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ LMAOH How can YOU debunk anything when all it is YOU who is debunked all the time?! You don't even know anything about population genetics and likes to dismiss it as hocus-pocus because they obliterate your outdated 50's theories on race, you nitwit!
quote:Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate: Djehuti your friend is kicking you in the guts. Do something!! Do you agree with what Swenet just posted?
And exactly how he is "kicking my guts"?? I just read the data and I don't find anything in discord.
quote:Personally I never pretended that the Haplogroup U originated in Africa, or in African "brethren", so it doesn't contradict my positions.
I never said U originated in Africa only that if it did originate in Asia i.e. Southwest Asia it would be among folks who weren't much different from Africans phenotypically.
quote:The last major gene flow event between Africans and non-Africans was calculated to 95 kya - Swenet
This is something I question. If the last major geneflow dates to that time, then why are there Eurasian lineages in Africa that date prior to the Holocene?
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: A Revised Timescale for Human Evolution Based on Ancient Mitochondrial Genomes
Another smack in face of nutties like Explorer who want everyone to believe that there was no Middle Paleolithic split between mtDNA L + carriers and mtDNA M, N carriers ***near the exit points of Middle Palaeolithic Africa**, and that U6, even if aboriginal to Berbers today, can be seen as not ultimately Eurasian..
So according to Swenet this split still occurred IN Africa albeit along exit points to Eurasia i.e. northeast Africa (Egypt?) and the Horn of Africa (Djibouti and Eritrea?).
Posts: 26239 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Got your thread back brother....what do they say about playing in you own faeces..and padded walls..he! he! I usual avoid idiotic threads...my bad
The first thing I look at when I am about to read a paper is to see who is the main author. ie who is the big dog. In this group Paabo IS the big dog.
I have to give props to the young upcoming women. Many are carefully stepping to the face of the old white establishment. It is only a matter of time.
Malstrom, Tishkoff, Perreira(sometimes), Norton etc women making a name for themselves.
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: ^Might have to abandon my own thread with all these butthurt Afronuts.
Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Human mutation rates are directly calculated using securely dated ancient human mtDNAs ► The study provides improved molecular estimates for human evolutionary events. The last major gene flow event between Africans and non-Africans was calculated to 95 kya
While I'm having fun watching Swenet and Djehuti contradicting themselves. Personally, I won't conclude anything about the study before reading the full study. But it is strange they say there was no major gene flow between Africans and non-Africans for 95kya. We know there's a relatively high amount of African E DNA (definitely younger than 95kya) in Europe (Balkans, Italians, all over) and neighboring West Asia so either:
1 - They don't consider it major enough. Which is strange
2- They ignore Y-DNA evidence, which seems to be the case since the study is about MtDNA. But this would imply that while there wasn't any MAJOR **female*** MtDNA geneflow between Africans and non-Africans since 95kya, there was some major gene flow between male Y-DNA Africans and non-Africans. For example, we could imagine African E Y-DNA carriers (without any women with them) invading some region of Europe, killing the males in some conflicts and keeping the females and staying there. Which seems a bit far fetched over such long distance (I would guess, people usually bring female and male too on long migration). In that last case, it would mean the migration of African E Y-DNA was within one migration (by boat for example). Which would explain why some E Y-DNA haplogroup seems to have skipped the Near East to go directly to the Balkans (and Italy, etc). Note:Balkans don't have E-M81 either (Cruciani), contrary to some populations in Iberia, so they are not from "recent" North African Berbers, they have E-78 "directly" from East Africa.
Posts: 2981 | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged |
posted
Here's an article about the study from sciencemag. Nothing is said about why (and how) they claim there was no major gene flow between Africans and non-Africans for the last 95kya as it contradicts the relatively high amount of E Y-DNA haplogroups in Europe and West Asia:
Clocking the Human Exodus Out of Africa
by Ann Gibbons on 21 March 2013
Like bloodhounds on the fading scent of an escaped convict, researchers have tried for decades to trace the ancient footsteps of the first modern humans who left Africa. Even though this exodus was one of the most important events in human evolution, scientists have been unable to pinpoint when and where it began. Now, using ancient DNA for the first time from ancient Europeans such as Ötzi, the famous Iceman, and from earlier fossils, a team of evolutionary geneticists has dated the start of this legendary journey to less than 95,000 years ago and, possibly, as recently as 62,000 years ago.
The findings fit with the evidence from fossils and stone tools, but they contradict a spate of recent genetic studies. Those studies determined the mutation rate for the entire genome from living humans by counting the number of new mutations that arise in the nuclear DNA of a newborn baby compared with its parents. The number of mutations per generation—the mutation rate—can be used to fine-tune a molecular clock that has long been used to date key events in human evolution. This supposedly better molecular clock has pushed back several important dates, such as when the ancestors of humans and chimps split and the exodus of modern humans out of Africa. Indeed, one team revised the date of the migration out of Africa from less than 80,000 years ago to at least 90,000 to 130,000 years ago.
Evolutionary geneticist Johannes Krause of the University of Tübingen in Germany, however, wasn't so sure that a mutation rate calibrated for living humans could be applied so far back in time. He and his colleagues decided to test the idea by sequencing the DNA from the maternally inherited mitochondria (mtDNA), or powerhouses of the cell, from fossils of modern humans who lived in the past 40,000 years and whose age was reliably known from calibrated radiocarbon dating methods. If the age of the fossil was 40,000 years, for example, it would be missing 40,000 years of evolution that took place in the lineage of a living person—and, therefore, missing mutations that would have arisen during the time since the fossil human died.
The team analyzed 10 well-dated fossils, including a medieval man who lived in France 700 years ago; the 4550-year-old Iceman; two 14,000-year-old skeletons from the tombs of Oberkassel in Germany; three related, modern humans from 31,000 years ago in Dolni Vestonice in the Czech Republic; and an early modern human from 40,000 years ago in Tianyuan, China. When the researchers applied this ancient DNA-derived mutation rate to the out-of-Africa migration, they got a range of dates from 62,000 to 95,000 years ago for the start of the migration, which is almost half the age of the migration out of Africa that was calculated using the "de novo" mutation rate, the group reports online today in Current Biology. "The nice thing about this is it was similar to the archaeological evidence," Krause says.
The team's method for checking the mutation rate is clever, says geneticist Aylwyn Scally of the Wellcome Trust Sanger Institute in Hinxton, U.K., co-author of one of the studies that calculated the slower mutation rate in living humans. "It's excellent that they have been able to get a better baseline for calibrating the mtDNA mutation rate by looking at ancient DNA."
However, Scally notes, mtDNA is a single genetic lineage, which is not typical of the genome, partly because the mutation rate of mtDNA could be higher because it has a higher proportion of genes under selection than the entire nuclear genome. Krause and one of his collaborators, paleogeneticist Svante Pääbo of the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Leipzig, Germany, agree that future work will be needed to resolve the differences in mutation rates in the mtDNA and nuclear genomes . "It is possible that there are things we do not understand about mitochondrial inheritance and mutation patterns ," Pääbo says.
Or the problem may be with undercounting nuclear mutations in living humans . When it comes to precisely counting about 50 new mutations out of 3.2 billion bases in a newborn's genome, current sequencing methods are at the limit of their ability to filter out true mutations from mistaken ones and may be discounting a statistically significant number of actual mutations, Krause says. "The way forward is to truly master accurate sequencing of nuclear genomes," Pääbo says.
And that matters, Krause says, because a sense of timing is critical in human evolution. Knowing when modern humans spread out of Africa and into Europe and Asia, for example, allowed Krause and his collaborators to show that the same modern humans were in Europe before and after the glaciers covered that continent—and had the ability to adapt to changing climates. They found that modern humans before and after the last major ice age in Europe share the same mtDNA lineage, making them direct descendants of the same linage. "Out of Africa is one of the major events within human evolution," Krause says. "We need to know when it happened."
posted
I don't have access to the full study but this excerpt was posted on some blog (most of what is already included in the initial post by Swenet on this thread):
quote:
A Revised Timescale for Human Evolution Based on Ancient Mitochondrial Genomes
Qiaomei Fu, Alissa Mittnik, Philip L.F. Johnson, Kirsten Bos, Martina Lari, Ruth Bollongino, Chengkai Sun, Liane Giemsch, Ralf Schmitz, Joachim Burger, Anna Maria Ronchitelli, Fabio Martini, Renata G. Cremonesi, Jir(í Svoboda, Peter Bauer, David Caramelli, Sergi Castellano, David Reich, Svante Pääbo, Johannes Krause
Background
Recent analyses of de novo DNA mutations in modern humans have suggested a nuclear substitution rate that is approximately half that of previous estimates based on fossil calibration. This result has led to suggestions that major events in human evolution occurred far earlier than previously thought. Results
Here, we use mitochondrial genome sequences from ten securely dated ancient modern humans spanning 40,000 years as calibration points for the mitochondrial clock, thus yielding a direct estimate of the mitochondrial substitution rate. Our clock yields mitochondrial divergence times that are in agreement with earlier estimates based on calibration points derived from either fossils or archaeological material. In particular, our results imply a separation of non-Africans from the most closely related sub-Saharan African mitochondrial DNAs (haplogroup L3) that occurred less than 62–95 kya.
Conclusions
Though single loci like mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) can only provide biased estimates of population divergence times, they can provide valid upper bounds. Our results exclude most of the older dates for African and non-African population divergences recently suggested by de novo mutation rate estimates in the nuclear genome. [. . .]
We were able to reconstruct three complete and six nearly complete mitochondrial genomes from ancient human remains that were found in Europe and Eastern Asia and span 40,000 years of human history. All Paleolithic and Mesolithic European samples belong to mtDNA hg U, as was previously suggested for pre-Neolithic Europeans [15]. Two of the three individuals from the Dolni Vestonice triple burial associated with the pre-ice age Gravettian culture, namely, 14 and 15, show identical mtDNAs, suggesting a maternal relationship. Furthermore, both individuals display a mitochondrial sequence that falls basal in a phylogenetic tree compared to the post-ice age hunter-gatherer samples from Italy and central Europe, as well as the contemporary mtDNA hg U5 (Figure 1). It has been argued that hg U5 is the most ancient subhaplogroup of the U lineage, originating among the first early modern humans in Europe [18]. Our results support this hypothesis because we find that the two Dolni Vestonice individuals radiocarbon dated to 31.5 kya carry a type of mtDNA that is as yet uncharacterized, sits close to the root of hg U, and carries two mutations that are specific to hg U5. With our recalibrated molecular clock, we date the age of the U5 branch to approximately 30 kya, thus predating the LGM . Because the majority of late Paleolithic and Mesolithic mtDNAs analyzed to date fall on one of the branches of U5 (see also [15]), our data provide some support for maternal genetic continuity between the pre- and post-ice age European hunter-gatherers from the time of first settlement to the onset of the Neolithic. U4, another hg commonly found in Mesolithic hunter-gatherers [15], has so far not been sequenced in a Paleolithic individual, and we find hgs U8 and U2 in pre-LGM individuals but not in later hunter-gatherers. At present, the genetic data on Upper Paleolithic, and especially pre-ice age, populations are too sparse to comment on whether or not this is representative of a change in the genetic structure of the population, perhaps caused by a bottleneck during the LGM and a subsequent repopulation from glacial refugia.
posted
This blog also posted this from the study: It mentions the carbon dating age of the ancientDNA samples (from Europe and elsewhere) and their haplogroups, among other things like contamination.
thelioness already posted the geographic location of the aDNA samples mentioned on this table above.
Posts: 2981 | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged |
posted
In the above post, I said: In that last case, it would mean the migration of African E Y-DNA was within one migration (by boat for example)
I meant:
In that last case, it would mean the migration of African E Y-DNA was within one generation (by boat for example)Posts: 2981 | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ But that's the one thing I question though-- how could the last major geneflow between Africans and non-Africans be only 95 kya?? I mean even if the study focuses on mtDNA only, what are we to make of all the studies showing 'Eurasian' maternal lineages in Africa predating the Holocene?? What are we to make of U6, H, HV, and R0 in Africa??
Posts: 26239 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ But that's the one thing I question though-- how could the last major geneflow between Africans and non-Africans be only 95 kya?? I mean even if the study focuses on mtDNA only, what are we to make of all the studies showing 'Eurasian' maternal lineages in Africa predating the Holocene?? What are we to make of U6, H, HV, and R0 in Africa??
Those MtDNA are not present in black Africa in high frequency enough to be considered **major** gene flow.
Posts: 2981 | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hello! Upper Paleolithic aDNA!! Ring any bells? Can't expect Late Pleistocene African admixture to be found in European early pleistocene AMHs, now can we?
quote:Human mutation rates are directly calculated using securely dated ancient human mtDNAs ► The study provides improved molecular estimates for human evolutionary events. The last major gene flow event between Africans and non-Africans was calculated to 95 kya
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Hello! Upper Paleolithic aDNA!! Ring any bells? Can't expect Late Pleistocene African admixture to be found in European early pleistocene AMHs, now can we?
Why does this guy (or girl) always feels the need to insult everybody to get his point across? We're all here just to have fun discussing African history as a hobby (although some professional writers such as Winters post here too). The worse is that 99% of the time, he's wrong.
They use ancientDNA but also "54 contemporary modern human mtDNAs" to make their phylogenetic tree (read the caption on the Figure 1 image). For example the yellow squares are modern Europeans, the red squares are modern Africans on the images posted by thelioness reposted below here:
"The last **major** gene flow event between Africans and non-Africans was calculated to 95 kya". Means what it means even if they may be wrong and is only related to MtDNA.
Posts: 2981 | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged |
quote: Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate: They use ancientDNA but also "54 contemporary modern human mtDNAs" to make their phylogenetic tree (read the caption on the Figure 1 image). For example the yellow squares are modern Europeans, the red squares are modern Africans on the images posted by thelioness reposted below here:
Just shut up and leave my thread already. You have nothing to add and all you do is talk bullsh!t. Talking about how the authors ''ignored'' Y chromosomes. Go to your ancient Egypt picture thread where you can make yourself usefull. Repeat for the slow:
Human mutation rates are directly calculated using securely dated ancient human mtDNAs ► The study provides improved molecular estimates for human evolutionary events. The last major gene flow event between Africans and non-Africans was calculated to 95 kyaPosts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate: I don't have access to the full study but this excerpt was posted on some blog (most of what is already included in the initial post by Swenet on this thread):
quote:
A Revised Timescale for Human Evolution Based on Ancient Mitochondrial Genomes
Qiaomei Fu, Alissa Mittnik, Philip L.F. Johnson, Kirsten Bos, Martina Lari, Ruth Bollongino, Chengkai Sun, Liane Giemsch, Ralf Schmitz, Joachim Burger, Anna Maria Ronchitelli, Fabio Martini, Renata G. Cremonesi, Jir(í Svoboda, Peter Bauer, David Caramelli, Sergi Castellano, David Reich, Svante Pääbo, Johannes Krause
Background
Recent analyses of de novo DNA mutations in modern humans have suggested a nuclear substitution rate that is approximately half that of previous estimates based on fossil calibration. This result has led to suggestions that major events in human evolution occurred far earlier than previously thought. Results
Here, we use mitochondrial genome sequences from ten securely dated ancient modern humans spanning 40,000 years as calibration points for the mitochondrial clock, thus yielding a direct estimate of the mitochondrial substitution rate. Our clock yields mitochondrial divergence times that are in agreement with earlier estimates based on calibration points derived from either fossils or archaeological material. In particular, our results imply a separation of non-Africans from the most closely related sub-Saharan African mitochondrial DNAs (haplogroup L3) that occurred less than 62–95 kya.
Conclusions
Though single loci like mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) can only provide biased estimates of population divergence times, they can provide valid upper bounds. Our results exclude most of the older dates for African and non-African population divergences recently suggested by de novo mutation rate estimates in the nuclear genome. [. . .]
We were able to reconstruct three complete and six nearly complete mitochondrial genomes from ancient human remains that were found in Europe and Eastern Asia and span 40,000 years of human history. All Paleolithic and Mesolithic European samples belong to mtDNA hg U, as was previously suggested for pre-Neolithic Europeans [15]. Two of the three individuals from the Dolni Vestonice triple burial associated with the pre-ice age Gravettian culture, namely, 14 and 15, show identical mtDNAs, suggesting a maternal relationship. Furthermore, both individuals display a mitochondrial sequence that falls basal in a phylogenetic tree compared to the post-ice age hunter-gatherer samples from Italy and central Europe, as well as the contemporary mtDNA hg U5 (Figure 1). It has been argued that hg U5 is the most ancient subhaplogroup of the U lineage, originating among the first early modern humans in Europe [18]. Our results support this hypothesis because we find that the two Dolni Vestonice individuals radiocarbon dated to 31.5 kya carry a type of mtDNA that is as yet uncharacterized, sits close to the root of hg U, and carries two mutations that are specific to hg U5. With our recalibrated molecular clock, we date the age of the U5 branch to approximately 30 kya, thus predating the LGM . Because the majority of late Paleolithic and Mesolithic mtDNAs analyzed to date fall on one of the branches of U5 (see also [15]), our data provide some support for maternal genetic continuity between the pre- and post-ice age European hunter-gatherers from the time of first settlement to the onset of the Neolithic. U4, another hg commonly found in Mesolithic hunter-gatherers [15], has so far not been sequenced in a Paleolithic individual, and we find hgs U8 and U2 in pre-LGM individuals but not in later hunter-gatherers. At present, the genetic data on Upper Paleolithic, and especially pre-ice age, populations are too sparse to comment on whether or not this is representative of a change in the genetic structure of the population, perhaps caused by a bottleneck during the LGM and a subsequent repopulation from glacial refugia.
So in other words the authors classify the split between L3 and it's daughter clades i.e. M and N as the split between Africans and Eurasians. Again, such a classification seems to be rather arbitrary and subjective. It still isn't even certain where the split occurred-- whether in the African continent or right next door in Southwest Asia.
What about Y clade E? There are some geneticists who question whether E originated in Africa even though it is the predominant clade there because its sister clade D is predominant in Asia? Or that its ancestor DE is Asian or hg C is Asian. I mean knowing when an SNP arose is different from knowing where it arose.
Posts: 26239 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ Indeed the full paper would probably help clarify, but I still question the whole split between African and Eurasian being L3 and MN and then no significant gene-flow after that.
Posts: 26239 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Are you talking about Early Upper Palaeolithic Europe, and that we should expect to find evidence of major admixture with the ancestors of present day Sub Saharan Africans there? Why? What data would be in support of this? Is there even evidence of L mtDNA types in littoral Northern Africa back then?
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh boy. Here we go with the nonsense. If they cant claim that they are the first humans, they will claim that they are the first 'out of Africa' which isn't even true. LOL!
Posts: 8890 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Can you be more specific as to what it is you're reading into what it is you're responding to?
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
I know you have good intention Sweetness. Fist thump.
But you really are not the quickest... are you...?
>95,000y!!!
I sorry I said I will stay out. bye
-------------------- Without data you are just another person with an opinion - Deming Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Are you talking about Early Upper Palaeolithic Europe, and that we should expect to find evidence of major admixture with the ancestors of present day Sub Saharan Africans there? Why? What data would be in support of this? Is there even evidence of L mtDNA types in littoral Northern Africa back then?
No my query wasn't about first Europeans so much as their ancestors in Southwest Asia. The article seems to identify non-African with MN and its divergence with L3. My point is that we don't even know whether this divergence took place outside of the African continent or within the continent before migrating out.
As for the immediate ancestors of Europeans hg U, it is postulated by many that U originated in Southwest Asia, and it is Southwest Asian populations that North Africa or littoral Africa had intercourse with judging by mtDNA findings of the region. Were the ancestors of modern Sub-Saharans involved in the whole affair? That depends on what what YOU consider ancestral to Sub-Sahara. We know there are very old L3 lineages in Southwest Asia (Arabia) I don't know about North Africa though. Although I acknowledge a continuous movement of populations between Southwest Asia and North Africa (or Supra-Sahara as Keita calls it), I myself do question the flow from 'Sub-Saharan' regions if climate conditions such as large Sahara prevented such. Either way it goes back to definitions on how 'non-African' these Eurasian lineages are to begin with.
Posts: 26239 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
^But is knowing the location of origin of M and N really necessary to distinguish between Eurasians and Africans? In my view, such a distinction is subjective, because ancestry doesn't change depending on where people migrate to. So, in other words, this ancestry would be relatively distant to African L types, whether it did or didn't originate in Africa.
In my view, I think that M and N did originate in Africa (since there are no OOA L types), but like I said, this is irrelevant, because this ancestry isn't found in modern Africans in the absence of Eurasian genetic influences.
quote:We know there are very old L3 lineages in Southwest Asia (Arabia)
Please specify what scientific report you're referring to
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: ^But is knowing the location of origin of M and N really necessary to distinguish between Eurasians and Africans? In my view, such a distinction is subjective, because ancestry doesn't change depending on where people migrate to. So, in other words, this ancestry would be relatively distant to African L types, whether it did or didn't originate in Africa.
In my view, I think that M and N did originate in Africa (since there are no OOA L types), but like I said, this is irrelevant, because this ancestry isn't found in modern Africans in the absence of Eurasian genetic influences.
Precisely my point. Such divergence is definitely subjective and the division between African vs. Eurasian is a matter of semantics. Early Eurasians are nothing more than African colonists.
quote:
quote:We know there are very old L3 lineages in Southwest Asia (Arabia)
Please specify what scientific report you're referring to
3396-4218-15514-15944del and the control region motif 16209–16519 with a TMRCA of 57,100 ± 9,400 YBP. This haplogroup diversifies into sub-haplogroups L3f1, L3f2 and L3f3. The most geographically widespread sub-haplogroup is L3f1, which is distributed across the African continent [3] and also Arabia [32,33] and has a TMRCA of 48,600 ± 11,500 YBP....
This is just one study that I remember cited here before, but I think there are others that talk about other L3 hgs.
Posts: 26239 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: ^But is knowing the location of origin of M and N really necessary to distinguish between Eurasians and Africans? In my view, such a distinction is subjective, because ancestry doesn't change depending on where people migrate to. So, in other words, this ancestry would be relatively distant to African L types, whether it did or didn't originate in Africa.
In my view, I think that M and N did originate in Africa (since there are no OOA L types), but like I said, this is irrelevant, because this ancestry isn't found in modern Africans in the absence of Eurasian genetic influences.
Precisely my point. Such divergence is definitely subjective and the division between African vs. Eurasian is a matter of semantics. Early Eurasians are nothing more than African colonists.
That's not what Swenet is telling you. The origin of M and N haplogroups may be semantics somehow but the division between African and Eurasian is real since this ancestry, M and N, isn't found in modern African populations with no Eurasian genetic influences.
Posts: 2981 | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged |
posted
^Correct, and the report seems to be saying as much when they put an upper bound of major SSA admixture at 94kya, even though they're dating the M,N split from L3 at a much younger date. This definitely reeks of isolation of the AMHs that are ancestral to Eurasians.
Djehuti thinks this isolation was in Africa, I do too. He says this makes them African, geographically, I say that is irrelevant. Geographically they are, but the Y chromosomes (Eurasian specific M168) and mtDNAs their descendants became known for, have no further history in Africa other than simply spawning there and leaving what seems to be the first imprint on the ancestors of modern Africans only 30-20kya in the form of U6 and M1, which is equivalent to Henn et al 2012's Maghrebi component.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: ^Correct, and the report seems to be saying as much when they put an upper bound of major SSA admixture at 94kya, even though they're dating the M,N split from L3 at a much younger date. This definitely reeks of isolation of the AMHs that are ancestral to Eurasians.
Djehuti thinks this isolation was in Africa, I do too. He says this makes them African, geographically, I say that is irrelevant. Geographically they are, but the Y chromosomes (Eurasian specific M168) and mtDNAs their descendants became known for, have no further history in Africa other than simply spawning there and leaving what seems to be the first imprint on the ancestors of modern Africans only 30-20kya in the form of U6 and M1, which is equivalent to Henn et al 2012's Maghrebi component.
I disagree with some aspect of the second part. Henn is a euronut or a eurasian nut who tries to deny any African presence in North Africa in ancient time and even himself only talk about *likely* maghrebi ancestry. Accent on "likely". So he's not even sure of what he's talking about. The Frigi study completely contradicts him in that sense.
For example, Henn doesn't see any African DNA in North Africa Ancient time!! (by using strangely enough only West African DNA). He concludes there's no such thing in North Africa. He only sees recent African DNA in North Africa. He attributes all non recent middle eastern DNA mutations to some "native" DNA from some ancient West Asian back migration (but isolated from the rest of west Asia for many years, which he calls "likely autochthonous Maghrebi ancestry"). He's proven to be wrong by the Frigi study (as well as some archeological data). Henn's "likely" supposition (because that's what it is a supposition) is identified precisely by Frigi as a very Ancient African component in North African people DNA.
The Frigi study shows us that there was indeed Ancient black African presence in North Africa. Which are a small part of the genome of modern coastal North Africans and even explain the small part of the DNA erroneously attributed to some likely autochthonous Maghrebi ancestry DNA by Henn but attributed to ancient African presence in North Africa by Frigi. It is more likely than any back migration from West Asia (including Hg U6, etc) have been met by an ancient black African presence in North Africa and interbred to some degree with them. Remnants of this ancient African presence in North Africa also still live today usually in the south of North African countries and in the Sahara.
Posts: 2981 | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged |
posted
Loss of memory here. The Ancient Egyptians were blacks--as they portrayed themselves and as the Greek historians and writers said. So what's the debate about?
Posts: 5492 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Total illogic in the argument that the MRCA for Africans and non-Africans[does that include Andaman Islanders, New Guineans, Fijians, Solomon Islanders, etc.?] was some 95KYA. Just doesn't make sense if the key migrations out of Africa was some 50KYA.
Posts: 5492 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by lamin: Loss of memory here. The Ancient Egyptians were blacks--as they portrayed themselves and as the Greek historians and writers said. So what's the debate about?
Yes, Ancient Egyptians were black Africans, similar to African you can see from the southern part of North Africa to Southern Africa. Ramses III Y-DNA is E1b1a. And DNA Tribes have the 18th Dynasty and 19 Dynasty mummies cluster with African groups using autosomal STR. This is confirmed by other archeological, historic, linguistic and cultural data.
But this thread as turned into a discussion about the separation between African and non-African haplogroups (especially MtDNA). Which is now dated at 95kya at the latest. Nothing directly related to Ancient Egyptians.
Posts: 2981 | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
[/QB][/QUOTE]
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
How can YOU debunk anything when all it is YOU who is debunked all the time?! You don't even know anything about population genetics and likes to dismiss it as hocus-pocus because they obliterate your outdated 50's theories on race, you nitwit! 
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic