quote:Originally posted by xyyman: Here is another chart I am proposing. Kivilsid have already propose something similar. Stay tuned.
^^^ Here it is, origin of H and R, the primary female and male haplogroups of modern Europeans and less than 12,000 years ago modern European were Africans -12,000 at most they were probably Africans even more recently within 6,000 years ago
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
It never stops. More data on discontinuity. That is the problem ….everyone and his brother have access to DNA machines.!!!!
1.0 HVS-I polymorphism screening of ancient human mitochondrial DNA provides evidence for N9a discontinuity and East Asian haplogroups in the Neolithic Hungary
Analysis of mitochondrial mutations in the HVS-I region is an effective method for ancient human populational studies. Discontinuous haplotype data between the first farmers and contemporary Europeans has been described before. Our contribution is based on a survey initiated on the Neolithic skeletons from Hungarian archaeological sites in the Alföld. This Lowland, the Hungarian Plain, is well excavated as an important region for spread of Neolithic culture from Near East and Balkans toward Central and Western Europe, started circa 8000 years ago. HVS-I sequences from nt15977 to nt16430 of 11 such specimens with sufficient mitochondrial DNA preservation among an extended Neolithic collection were analysed for polymorphisms, identifying 23 different ones. After assigning all single-nucleotide polymorphisms, a novel, N9a, N1a, C5, D1/G1a, M/R24 haplogroups were determined. On mitochondrial control mutations at nt16257 and nt16261, polymorphic PCRs were carried out to assess their distribution in remains. Neolithic data set was compared with contemporary Vác samples and references, resulting in higher frequency of N9a in Alföld as a remarkable genetic discontinuity. Our investigation is the first to study mutations form Neolithic of Hungary, resulting in an outcome of Far Eastern haplogroups in the Carpathian Basin. It is worth further investigation as a non-descendant theory, instead of a continuous population history, supporting genetic gaps between ancient and recent human populations Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
You almost had me. Ha! Ha! I never argued that R0/Pre-HV was not found in aDNA in Europe. Over 12ya, that landmark paper on Neolithic farmers disclosed the Neolithics were pre-dominantly N1*.
So I repeat prove to me that mtDNA hg-H is older in Europe than in Africa. All live ancient genetic data thus far shows a presence hg- H in Africa BEFORE Europe indicating the mutation was spawned IN Africa and migrated to Europe. Kefi et al, past and present.
======--------- From the same study you quoted:
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 MACROHAPLOGROUP N , 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).
====----
So who are the Near Easterns. Ref 35? Source not disclosed. If am I a betting man I would say Negev Bedouins or Qataris. Near East is an ambiguos term which may include anyone from Algeria in Africa to the Iranians. The games these people play! They may the same African “basal Eurasian.” LOL!
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: Here is another chart I am proposing. Kivilsid have already propose something similar. Stay tuned.
^^^ Here it is, origin of H and R, the primary female and male haplogroups of modern Europeans and less than 12,000 years ago modern European were Africans -12,000 at most they were probably Africans even more recently within 6,000 years ago
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
Oh! I came across who the “Near East” population are. Damn! Am I good or what?! From Ref 35. This is rediculous and not really funny. Including African populations and calling them “Near East” and “Middle East”. The games these people play. I believe it is a deliberate attempt to misdirect.. Meaning this has already been resolved by researchers. DTribes disclosure is the first step of many baby steps to acknowledging what I have been saying all along..
----- Edit/Update: Quote from ref 35
The Near Eastern populations analyzed for sequence variation in HVS-I of the mtDNA control region were as follows: 80 Nubians and 67 Egyptians (Krings et al. 1999); 29 Bedouin (Di Rienzo and Wilson 1991); 43 Yemeni Jews, including 5 from the study by Di Rienzo and Wilson (1991); 116 Iraqis, sampled from four regions of Iraq; 12 Iranians, sampled in Iran and Germany; 69 Syrians from Damascus; 146 Jordanians (45 from the Dead Sea region and 101 from the Amman region [V. Cabrera and N. Karadsheh, personal communication]); 117 Israeli Palestinians, including 8 from the study by Di Rienzo and Wilson (1991); 45 Israeli Druze (Macaulay et al. 1999); 218 Turks from Turkey, including 74 from the studies by Comas et al. (1996) and Calafell et al. (1996); 53 Kurds from
PROVE ME WRONG. LOL! Oh! Back in 2000 and 2003 when these papers were written Maghrebians eg Saharawis weren’t sampled for HV/Pre-HV. It is only recently Saharawis and other Amazigh were found to have the highest frequency of HV. BTW – Ethiopians carry the one of the highest frequency of pre-HV/R0 along with Southern Arabians.. Kivilsid et al.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
xyyman, you convinced me
6-12,000 years ago the ancestors of modern Europeans were living in Africa, their original homeland
It's the H connection, R1b same deal, see the live DATA
Modern Euroepans are much more African than people like Austrailians who have been out of Africa over 50,000 years, perhaps 70Kya
In other words modern Europeans can't be distinguished form African genetically. They were Africans a short time ago, proably 6,000 years ago. All their haplogroups are African, they're Africans
Posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate (Member # 20039) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: xyyman, you convinced me
6-12,000 years ago the ancestors of modern Europeans were living in Africa, their original homeland
It's the H connection
So modern Euroepans are much more African than people like Austrailians who have been out of Africa over 50,000 years, perhaps 70Kya
In other words modern Europeans can't be distinguished form African genetically. They were Africans a short time ago, proably 6,000 years ago. All their haplogroups are African, they're Africans
What do you waste your time discussing stupidity with xyyman?
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
Because he knows it's true ....and he is starting to understand genetics a lot more. He is getting my point. And it is getting under his skin. You wouldn't get it.
That said. Ignoring the comment above ....for now.
@ Lioness - just got my hands on the raw data for Ref 25.
And surprise! surprise!
I welcome any counter argument.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
xyyman, you seem to have gotten nervous and removed the arrows indicating the migrations out of Africa
what happened to the Pillars of Hercules and all ?
you seem to be getting sheepish in your latest map
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
Sigh! retention ...AND comprehension.
Do I have to explain everything?!
The chart above, pre-HV, is based upon what you cited ref 35. This is an illustration. the raw data is available at University of Oxford website. Maghrebians were NOT sampled in that paper.
Oh! and the chart with M/N is based upon Kivilsid hypothesis which propose that L3/M/N evolved IN Africa. Don't ask me what I am talking about or we are done here. He! He!
Listen - I need to hang out with more intelligent people...sigh.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate:
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: xyyman, you convinced me
6-12,000 years ago the ancestors of modern Europeans were living in Africa, their original homeland
It's the H connection
So modern Euroepans are much more African than people like Austrailians who have been out of Africa over 50,000 years, perhaps 70Kya
In other words modern Europeans can't be distinguished form African genetically. They were Africans a short time ago, proably 6,000 years ago. All their haplogroups are African, they're Africans
What do you waste your time discussing stupidity with xyyman?
for his benefit
and that he reads more of the recent articles than other people here
He should post on a forum where there are more people who have genetic backgrounds rather than having it easy on ESR or only me to challenge him
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: Sigh retention ...AND comprehension.
Do I have to explain everything?!
If you are going to put up a map that you made and claim it is based on data from an article do a proper job and put up the citation reference and quote along with the map. Otherwise get laughed at. Nobody should be required to retain or have read some earlier post of yours
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
Tracing European Founder Lineages in the Near Eastern mtDNA Pool
Martin Richards,
===
Many cannot challenge me because many don't understand and just blowing smoke. I understand the frustration of ARTU.
I lurk at a few other sites recently - posters there aren't much better than ES. Infact ESR is much better. Lurkers go there to learn and ask questions. That is why ESR is growing.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
Now finsh the job like other people do with the relevant quote.
Then put it under your chart so readsers can make an easy comparision and see if you ae interpreting the article correctly or distorting cherry picked bits out of it
Does anybody want to read the whole article ?
you need to do this because you have a habit of quoting articles of which the authors are demonstrating a point often opposite of what you are claiming:
_You keep talking about live DATA
-where is the live data in this article that supports your maps?
Just copy and paste the data quotes,
I'm the only one who engages you here, the rest ignore your rantings except for the occaional wink to the crazy Uncle
I read the article yesterday
quote:Originally posted by xyyman:
I lurk at a few other sites recently - posters there aren't much better than ES. Infact ESR is much better.
what sites?
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
The only other site that comes close to ESR is Dienekes. And it s well moderated also. Europedia is not bad idea.
The following populations have the highest diversity of pre-HV of the populations in that studied. Now I know why they were included in "Near East". Maghrebians were NOT included back in 2000/2003
Quote: ----- Edit/Update: Quote from ref 35
The Near Eastern populations analyzed for sequence variation in HVS-I of the mtDNA control region were as follows: 80 Nubians and 67 Egyptians (Krings et al. 1999); 29 Bedouin (Di Rienzo and Wilson 1991); 43 Yemeni Jews,
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: The only other site that comes close to ESR is Dienekes. And it s well moderated also. Europedia is not bad idea.
The following populations have the highest diversity of pre-HV of the populations in that studied. Now I know why they were included in "Near East". Maghrebians were NOT included back in 2000/2003
Quote: ----- Edit/Update: Quote from ref 35
The Near Eastern populations analyzed for sequence variation in HVS-I of the mtDNA control region were as follows: 80 Nubians and 67 Egyptians (Krings et al. 1999); 29 Bedouin (Di Rienzo and Wilson 1991); 43 Yemeni Jews,
You are talking about modern populations not anceint remains
Abstract In 1965 and 1967, two United Arab Republic - Czechoslovak expeditions examined 600 Egyptian Nubian men, 542 women and 1,744 children, i.e. almost 6% of inhabitants of Old Nubia who had been transferred from their native country to a former desert plain south of the South-Egyptian town of Kom Ombo. Main results were published in about 40 scientific reports, but a comprehensive monograph is still missing. The present report represents one of its basic parts, together with a report on women by F. H. Hussien, defended as a CSc. thesis in 1971. It deals with the original Lower Nubia, its geography, climate, settlement pattern, anthropological development and history of its population as well as with previous anthropological notions on living Nubians. Also the main features of the New Nubia are mentioned. The histories of negotiations with Egyptian authorities, a preparatory course at the Cairo University, both expeditions and their achievements have been outlined. The aims, programme and methods of research and investigation introduce chapters with results. The anamnestic data acquired from the probands included personal data, family structure with data on the number of wives and children and their mortality, birthplaces of the probands, seasonal periodicity of their birth and their health condition. Methods of popular medical treatment are described and the descent group concept is introduced. Anthropometric data divided into cephalometric, somatometric, body composition and functional features are presented for the three Egyptian Nubian ethnic groups and a small sample of the Ababda, the nomads of the Eastern Desert, gradually settling down in Egyptian Nubia. The same features have been analyzed also in four Kenuz, three Arab and five Fadidja village samples. Statistical significance of mutual differences has been tested and discussed. The ancient Arab custom of prevailing endogamous marriages caused in the Nubians an inbreeding depression, connected with delay in growth and development of young males as well as eruption of their third molars. Various dental morphological and orthodontic anomalies were found. Several changes of metric features were proved to affect the 56 to 78-year-old Nubians. Anthroposcopic parameters reflect the influence of dry and hot climate as well as the geographic position of Egyptian Nubia. Of its three ethnic groups, the Kenuz are physically more similar to the Fadidja than both these groups to Nubian Arabs, who are the later immigrants. Egyptian Nubians retained, from the Neolithic times until now, their prevailing Caucasoid character in spite of their successful adaptation to the climate and an almost permanent Black Sudanese gene inflow. The ancient descent group concept still plays a role as an important social bond but creates no physical differences except for a few remnants between members of descent groups with names of Nubian, Arab and Turkish origins.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
Mitochondrial Haplogroup H1 in North Africa: An Early Holocene Arrival from Iberia
you looked a Ottoni ignoring the title and because he noted modern Libyan Tuareg 61% Hap H and you take that to means they are the origin of H, this time ignoring Taforalt "live data" (whatever that means, it's Morocco 12kya. Yet recently you have said that diversity rather than frequency is key
read this agin you didn't retain it:
As for the Libyan Tuareg, the extremely low values of the diversity indices confirm that the outstanding high frequency of H1 in this population is the result of even more recent founder events.
their goes the diversity argument
(an the explanation for the high frequency)
Second problem wiki and other sources date H to 20,000-25,000 YBP that's up to two times plus the Taforalt remains
Did you think to look for other remains older than 12kya that carried H ? Did you consider the time of origin ??
Now looking back to modern population, source: Ottoni
With the exception of Libyan Tuaregs and their founder effect some of the Spanish have higher frequenices of H
So you can throuw out your eyeballing about what "real" and "fake" berbers look like on Clyde's thread
You don't know wht Basques or Libyan Tuaregs look like anyway
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
I usually save my best work for ESR but I will indulge you this time.
1. Frequency is NOT a primary indicator of origin(it was used in the early stages until better technology, high resolution came on the scene;-of course some geneticist still use it). Why? Frequency is a indication of greater population growth. That is all. In others words, who fugked the most, ate well and had more bables. Only novice beginners like ARTU and Sweetness use frequency or Coalescence age as an indicator. Coalescene age is, although more reliable than frequency is based on assumptions of the mutation rate. No one knows the exact mutation rate that is why dependinging on author coalescence age can span a 50,000y range swing!!!. 2. Genetic diversity is a better indicator. Why? Because it depends on the amount of mutation in that “gene block” being observed. Gene block may be STR, haplotypes, a gene etc. The origin population usual have a greater number of mutation(variation) in that gene block. Eg that is why Shriver concluded AMH humans left Africa with light skin capability. Also that is why La Brana, although black skinned, is NOT considered recent African ie unlike modern Africans. His diverisity in the studied gene block for skin pigmentation is fixed for dark pigmentation unlike YRI. Hard to believe but YRI is NOT fixed for dark pigmentation. All indication are light skin is a recent phenotype or at least, recently started expanding. Why? I still believe light skin is ancestral. Why? Makova/Rees et al. But that is another topic I covered several years ago. 3. Agreed the low diversity of H1 in Taureg combined with high frequency is consistent with , more fugking, lots of babies and good food, ie founders effect. 4. But as I said before. The only paper that compares diversity on both sides of the Mediterranean Sea is “Pillars of Hercules…”. The authors demonstated that diversity of mtDNA hg-H is more diverse in North Africa compared to Europe. And in Europe, lower Europeans are much more diverse than upper Europeans. See the trend? Get it? 5. I can’t wait to get my hands on the new Kefi 2014 paper which may shed more light on diversity within hg-H along both coast. 6. The other paper you cited, “founding lineage in the near east….” does not included Maghrebians. But even with that there is clear indication that African groups, like Egyptians, Nubians, Bedoiuns and Yemenese have the highest diversity. Granted Iraqis are very high also.(there is no break down of the Iraqi population that was sampled- some Iraqi ethnic groups have strong African influence). 7. “Live data” = results from ACTUAL skeletons from a confirmed period. As I said, Coalscence age is based on mathematical models, assumed mutation rate and statiscal manipulation. Ie NOT as accurate as live data. 8. Agreed, I don’t know what Berbers look like. But two can play that pic spam game. IRREGARDLESS, I did research on the independent struggle of the Amazigh, and my pic spam is a better representation of what these people look like. 9. Oh! Another indicator of origin is UNIQUE haplotyes. That paper on “SLC24A5 in South Asians” disclosed that pygmies have unique haplotypes for, SLC24A5, although the frequency for the A111T? mutation was low in that group.
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
I welcome any challenges…that goes for you ARTU. Let’s see what you got? Or shut up and take notes.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: [QB] I usually save my best work for ESR but I will indulge you this time.
1. Frequency is NOT a primary indicator of origin(it was used in the early stages until better technology, high resolution came on the scene;-of course some geneticist still use it). Why? Frequency is a indication of greater population growth. That is all. In others words, who fugked the most, ate well and had more bables. Only novice beginners like ARTU and Sweetness use frequency or Coalescence age as an indicator. Coalescene age is, although more reliable than frequency is based on assumptions of the mutation rate. No one knows the exact mutation rate that is why dependinging on author coalescence age can span a 50,000y range swing!!!.
Frequency was why you had the arrows stemming from Libya so you are the guilty party
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: 4. But as I said before. The only paper that compares diversity on both sides of the Mediterranean Sea is “Pillars of Hercules…”. The authors demonstated that diversity of mtDNA hg-H is more diverse in North Africa compared to Europe. And in Europe, lower Europeans are much more diverse than upper Europeans. See the trend? Get it?
it seems to be saying the reverse of what you claim What page and paragraph are you saying that they say Haplogroup H is more diverse in NA than in Europe?
Joining the Pillars of Hercules: mtDNA Sequences. Show Multidirectional Gene Flow in the Western. Mediterranean. S. Plaza1, 2003
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
Wow! Is this from Pillars of Hercules? I don't remember see this chart. I have to revisit the supplementals.
I expected to see somethng like this in the new Kefi's paper.
Highest diversity is in North Africa cf to Iberia. I am suprise Sicily and Sardinia is that low.
The link is dead.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: Wow! Is this from Pillars of Hercules? I don't remember see this chart. I have to revisit the supplementals.
I expected to see somethng like this in the new Kefi's paper.
Highest diversity is in North Africa cf to Iberia. I am suprise Sicily and Sardinia is that low.
The link is dead.
I have to give it to you ???
Joining the Pillars of Hercules: mtDNA Sequences. Show Multidirectional Gene Flow in the Western. Mediterranean. S. Plaza1, 2003
4. But as I said before. The only paper that compares diversity on both sides of the Mediterranean Sea is “Pillars of Hercules…”. The authors demonstated that diversity of mtDNA hg-H is more diverse in North Africa compared to Europe. And in Europe, lower Europeans are much more diverse than upper Europeans. See the trend? Get it?
"revisit the supplimentals" or whatever to prove your claim with page reference or quote that this article says diversity of H is higher in NA than in Europe
get your shyt together
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
The Magdalenian refers to one of the later cultures of the Upper Paleolithic in western Europe, dating from around 17,000 to 12,000 years ago.[1] It is named after the type site of La Madeleine, a rock shelter located in the Vézère valley, commune of Tursac, in the Dordogne department of France.
Ancient DNA from Hunter-Gatherer and Farmer Groups from Northern Spain Supports a Random Dispersion Model for the Neolithic Expansion into Europe2012
Montserrat Hervella, Neskuts Izagirre, Santos Alonso, Rosa Fregel, Antonio Alonso, Vicente M. Cabrera, Concepción de la Rúa mail
Published: April 25, 2012DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0034417
Results
Authenticity of the results
We have successfully analyzed 49 individuals from nine prehistoric sites and obtained 25 different mitochondrial haplotypes belonging to eight mitochondrial haplogroups (H, U, K, J, HV, I, T and X) (Table 2). Haplogroup H is the major one, showing a frequency of 45% in the ancient samples analysed. This figure is similar to that observed in some present-day European populations including the North of the Iberian Peninsula [13], [32]–[34].
The second most frequent haplogroup was haplogroup U (34.7%) (Table 2), being the Neolithic populations of Navarre (Los Cascajos and Paternanbidea) the ones that showed the highest frequencies for this haplogroup (29.6% and 11.1%, respectively). A special mention should be made of sub-haplogroup U5, as it is one of the oldest found in Europe (~36.9 kya), and has been linked to the colonisation of Europe by anatomically modern Homo sapiens (AMHS) in the Early Upper Paleolithic [13], [35]–[37]. The average frequency of U5 in the present study was 12%, considering hunter-gatherer samples (Erralla and Aizpea), Neolithic samples (Los Cascajos and Marizulo) and the Bronze Age sample (Urtiaga)
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
You got an B+ for effort. A decent grade. But more misdirection and deception from Lioness Production.
Your crew need a pay increase. lol!
1. The other link is also dead. 2. What you posted, CAS PAT is ~5000ya for H, AS I SAID. 3. U is predominant in Older populations. AS I SAID.
Seems you are posting stuff to support my view.
YOu got to get your BS together. I don't blow smoke. I know what I am talking about. I check sources!!!!
I need to revisit "Pillars" to source that diversity chart.
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
Oh! does your crew read this stuff before posting?
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: You got an B+ for effort. A decent grade. But more misdirection and deception from Lioness Production.
Your crew need a pay increase. lol!
1. The other link is also dead. 2. What you posted, CAS PAT is ~5000ya for H, AS I SAID. 3. U is predominant in Older populations. AS I SAID.
Seems you are posting stuff to support my view.
YOu got to get your BS together. I don't blow smoke. I know what I am talking about. I check sources!!!!
I need to revisit "Pillars" to source that diversity chart.
here the HTML link ( did you realize you can simply put these titles in google)
this is why you can't trust xyyman and it's a waste of time even conversing with him.
The 3 sites at the top of the charts are upper paleolithic European sites in Iberia, not Southern Iberia neigboring Africa but Northern Iberia neighboring France. This destroys what he's been saying for the past several months. The Magdalenian samples in Cantabria, Northern Spain are the oldest 100% confirmed H on Planet Earth,
Ancient DNA from Hunter-Gatherer and Farmer Groups from Northern Spain Supports a Random Dispersion Model for the Neolithic Expansion into Europe 2012
The crackpot quacks on ES crack me up. The quacks use the lack of extant Epi-Palaeolithic Y DNA from Iberia as evidence against Epipalaeolithic Iberian gene-flow to coastal Maghreb, but what they "forget" to mention is that the Y chromosomes that define northern African males are all recent arrivals to the Maghreb; none of them stretch back to the 10-30kya period in which most maternal Maghrebi lineages inhabited the region. For some reason it doesn't seem to dawn on these charlatans that if we're going to use their argument (i.e. "the lack of extant Upper Palaeolithic Eurasian lineages is indicative of a lack of Ibero-Maurusian contact with Europe and asia") at face value, the conclusion will have to be that U6, M1, H1, H3, V and U5 females had offspring on their own (through some as of yet to be substantiated virginal conception mechanism) 30-10kya, until E-M81 and J-M267 arrived in the mid-Holocene and introduced the idea of male-female intercourse. That's the type of dogmatic, faith-based crap we're dealing with.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
more on ESR.....
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
Someone needs to also inform the H1 crackpots on ES that, despite all their sleight of mouth and deceptions, they can't escape the inconvenient fact that Maghrebi H1 lineages are partitioned into small little sub-clades within the larger H1 clade, which, barring those minor Maghrebi sub-clades, is overwhelming Eurasian. Iberian H1 clades aren't outgrowths of the few Maghrebi- specific H1 subclades. Fraudulently and deceptively calling H1 "Alboran" (I notice these crackpots are quite devious with their labelling [e.g. authors' use of the label "Maghreb" or "Saharan-Arabian" or "basal Eurasian" magically turns into "African", and predictably, every time the slippery charlatans refuse to provide evidence]) isn't going to change that. Of course, they deliberately neglect to inform the unaware public of these inconvenient facts, as desperate and needy as they are to make whatever ancestry they seek to appropriate, seem compatible with crappy claims.
quote:All Tuareg sequences clustered into three clades that had not been previously reported and thus were termed H1v, H1w and H1x. Five sequences grouped into the sub-clade H1v1 defined by the transition at np 4313. One Tunisian sequence (# 8) did not cluster into H1v1 but was closely related, since it harbored the mutation at 10314 that defines the clade H1v (Figure 1). The sub-clade H1v1 splits into two branches defined by the transitions at np 9148 (clade H1v1a) and 14560 (clade H1v1b). Three Tuareg mtDNAs formed the novel clade H1w that is defined by the transition at np 8966, while the last three Tuareg mtDNAs, apart from the HVS-I transitions at 16037 and 16256, were found to harbor mutations at nps 7765 and 10410 in the coding region (clade H1x).
(smile)I am not sure I follow the argument. Is that brotha proposing that YDNA Haplogroup E is Eurasian? Wake me up from the dream. Someone?
Let me see if I got this right. MtDNA H from Iberia and YDNA E migrants from Arabia? North Africa seems to be a mating ground. you know...a brothel.
Arabs hooking up with white women who left their white men behind in Europe.
Sweetness , did I get that right?
Wake me up someone this is a really bad movie script. Would only come from the imagination of creative writer.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: The crackpot quacks on ES crack me up. The quacks use the lack of extant Epi-Palaeolithic Y DNA from Iberia as evidence against Epipalaeolithic Iberian gene-flow to coastal Maghreb, but what they "forget" to mention is that the Y chromosomes that define northern African males are all recent arrivals to the Maghreb; none of them stretch back to the 10-30kya period in which most maternal Maghrebi lineages inhabited the region. For some reason it doesn't seem to dawn on these charlatans that if we're going to use their argument (i.e. "the lack of extant Upper Palaeolithic Eurasian lineages is indicative of a lack of Ibero-Maurusian contact with Europe and asia") at face value, the conclusion will have to be that U6, M1, H1, H3, V and U5 females had offspring on their own (through some as of yet to be substantiated virginal conception mechanism) 30-10kya, until E-M81 and J-M267 arrived in the mid-Holocene and introduced the idea of male-female intercourse. That's the type of dogmatic, faith-based crap we're dealing with.
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: (smile)I am not sure I follow the argument. Is that brotha proposing that YDNA Haplogroup E is Eurasian? Wake me up from the dream. Someone?
Let me see if I got this right. MtDNA H from Iberia and YDNA E migrants from Arabia? North Africa seems to be a mating ground. you know...a brothel.
Arabs hooking up with white women who left their white men behind in Europe.
Sweetness , did I get that right?
Wake me up someone this is a really bad movie script. Would only come from the imagination of creative writer.
admittedly what he wrote was not that clearly written for the layman but the brotha is still correct
we are dealing with Upper Paleolithic remains for example the Erralia (Gipuzkoa) site in Spain is dated
12,310 BP
The thing is this article did not analyze Y DNA
>> nor did Kefi on the Taforalt, it was mitochondrial only
(and the Y may have been unrecoverable)
so don't assume that they were E carriers
The Taforalt were of the Iberomaurusian culture. They had a robust bone structure similar to Northern Europeans
They were replaced by the Capsians, the last hunter gatherers who had more gracile proportions. They are more recent
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
Deleted post. If anyone H1 crackpot feels like taking a crack (no pun intended) at refuting my post about H1, it's up there. If not, carry on. Very entertaining.
Posted by HERU (Member # 6085) on :
The problem is 'Iberomaurusian' mostly describes a microlithic industry. Similar assemblages existed in central Africa.
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
I analyzed the paper on the Taureg several years ago. I will revist your H1.
@Lioness. Let me get this straight. So you and Sweetness are stating that the both studies did not analyze aYDNA only mtDNA. And you are suggesting that European aYDNA remains to be discovered in North Africa?
So we are back to the European men got killed off or "went back home". LOL! Good God!
This is like Rocky 8....a really really bad movie that has been played out.
--
My bad! I just took a quick browse on the Taureg paper(H1). Goes to show Sweetness do NOT understand what he reads. Just reading the abstract their hypothesis is clear.
The clown does not understand they are back to "coalescene age". They are using Achilli/Torronni paper on back migration from Iberia as their starting point....which is based on coalescene age. From that "jump off" point they then analyzed H1 in the Taureg.
Man..you are proving to be dumber everyday. Why don't you give up on the coalescene age nonsense and do some indepth research. Stop reading the title/headlines and assume it supports your view.
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
You can't have it both ways Sweetness. Based upon H1 frequency migration direction is to Europe(see chart below). Based upon H1 diversity migraton direction is also to Europe.
Goes to shows you don't understand what you read ...crack put??
This is from YOUR study. give it up man. You are no match for me. Argue with ARTU he has a simple mind. Lioness is manipulative, stay away from him!
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
You are citing studies that you think supports your point of view. In the words of Mike...Damn...
Please don't waste my time. It took me all but 10min to break this down and you want do discuss this stuff with me. GTFOH!
Oh! to the Brothas who propose hg-H are from white women slaves during historical time. You do realize that Kefi work on 12000ya skeletons debunks that theory.
Man I can't wait for her(Kefi) new paper comparing ALL mediterranean populations. That will put a nail in the coffin of Achille and Torroni.
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
For those who learn through picture. SEE THE CORRELATION!!!!!
European geographic "contact" points with Africa correlates with high African point for DIVERSITY.
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: [QUOTE]
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
I expect Kefi(2014) paper will reinforce!!
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: I expect Kefi(2014) paper will reinforce!!
We don't deal with expectations and wishful thinking just facts. And expecting a new paper from an an author who recorded and indicated European haplgroups in prehistoric North Africa to reinforce you is counterintuitive
Montserrat Hervella,2012
^^^ see this?
H
ERRALLA, Northern Spain
12,310 BP
^^this destroys the BS you have been spewing for months
further, LA PASIEGA and LA CHORA are older than that
forget it xyyman, this wraps you up
now you can stop saying 5,000 years, misleading people
Cold Adapted people from Europe brought their haplogroups to the Maghreb. They settled on the North coast coast and were isolated from the rest of Africa Later they were repalaced by other hunter gatherers, the Capsians
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
So, which of the Tuareg H1 types spawned all the European H1 types? H1v, H1w or H1x? There are only three basic H1 subclades among the Tuareg, gramps.
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: [qb] You can't have it both ways Sweetness. Based upon H1 frequency migration direction is to Europe(see chart below). Based upon H1 diversity migraton direction is also to Europe.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
Modern Europe was founded by the Tuareg 5000 years ago, lol
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
xyyman the other Pillars of Hercules chart you circled in red is not a chart of hap H It is a chart compiling all of these below hgs Hg H is only one of them
get it right
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
Final nail in xyyman's coffin:
/close thread
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
Right! right!...Tauregs are the ONLY hg-H carring Amazigh in North Africa? sic Guess you still missing the point. Highest diverity is IN Africa!!!
Stick to the dozebs with the lunatic
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: So, which of the Tuareg H1 types spawned all the European H1 types? H1v, H1w or H1x? There are only three basic H1 subclades among the Tuareg, gramps.
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: [qb] You can't have it both ways Sweetness. Based upon H1 frequency migration direction is to Europe(see chart below). Based upon H1 diversity migraton direction is also to Europe.
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
yeah. Close thread. 2012!!!
The lies are over with. LOL. everyone has a DNA machine now. He! He! He! Can't wait for Kefi's (2014) paper.
2010!!!
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
/close thread
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
Look, I am out. This is childs play. when the Kefi paper is posted we can talk then.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: [ yeah. Close thread. 2012!!!
xyyman is desparate now
He is showing this diversity chart of 21 haplogroups including H (and L) and is pretending it it is only H
further, dumbly, he has Moroccan Arabs circled and not Moroccan Berbers.
So why do Moroccan Arabs have greater diversity than Moroccan berbers?
Could it be they're Arabs ? who came from Arabia, lol
This guy is a laugh riot
He says wait for the new Kefi
The same Kefi who stated 90% Eurasiatic component of Taforalt ???
comical
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
Thought so! Don't let the doorknob...
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: Look, I am out. This is childs play. when the Kefi paper is posted we can talk then.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
I told you the H1 fruitbaskets are lying ass charlatans. They lie, deceive, misrepresent and manipulate the data, just to preserve their little fantasies. Disgusting.
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: He is showing this diversity chart of 21 haplogroups including H (and L) and is pretending it it is only H
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
Just when I was about to leave they drag me back in....
This is from ESR Jan 2013!!! Johnny come lately...Yaaaawn!!. I am bored.
=== Mitochondrial Haplogroup H1 in North Africa: An Early Holocene Arrival from Iberia
Antonio Torroni5 , Alessandro Achilli et al
Excerpt
There is an evident frequency peak in the Central Sahara associated with the Libyan Tuareg, who show the highest frequency value (61%) among all the populations considered in the analysis. Since the high frequency of H1 in the Libyan Tuareg is most likely the result of random genetic drift and founder events, we also investigated the H1 distribution removing the Libyan Tuareg sample and thus leaving only previously reported data (Figure 3). As expected, frequency peaks in the European continent were observed in the Iberian Peninsula, whereas in Northern Africa the rather high frequency values in Morocco and [u]Tunisia [/u]became apparent. More southward, among the Tuareg from the Sahel region [37], a frequency peak is also observed. To further evaluate the extent of H1 variation in the Tuareg from Libya relative to that of Moroccans, Tunisians and Sahelian Tuareg samples (****AND IBERIAN!!!!****), HVS-I data from the four groups were employed to calculate the diversity indices reported in Table 2. The sharp homogeneity of H1 in the Libyan Tuareg, who show extremely low values of haplotype diversity (0.165), is straightforward. Moroccans, Tunisians and the Tuareg from Sahel were found to be much more diverse than the Libyan Tuareg, with haplotype diversities of 0.577, 0.633 and 0.595, respectively. Similarly, the values of nucleotide diversity and average number of nucleotide differences observed in Morocco (0.309 and 1.056), Tunisia (0.316 and 1.081) and among the Tuareg from Sahel (0.234 and 0.800) are all much higher than those of the Libyan Tuareg (0.098 and 0.335).
Indeed, Moroccans and TUNISIANS, the populations geographically closest to Europe, harbor the highest diversity values for all considered indices. Thus, the coastal areas of northwestern Africa, after the arrival of the Iberian founder H1 mtDNAs, probably acted as centers for the subsequent diffusion of H1 in the internal regions of North Africa.
NOOOO!!! – conversely !!! Thus, the coastal areas of Europe, after the arrival of the Tunisian founder H1 mtDNAs, probably acted as centers for the subsequent diffusion of H1 in the internal regions of Europe
Someone talk me off the ledge. For those who can follow. See above. I wonder how long they will keep up the lie(delusion) of Iberia being a source of mt-DNA H1. The more I read the more I am convinced it is Central North Africa maybe present day Tunisia.
There are essentially two ways of determining origin of a Haplogroup eg mt-DNA H1.
1. Geographic Frequency
2. Resolution(think magnifying glass) = older HG shows more variation or diversity
Eg Africans have more genetic diversity ie older….The data shows, yet again, just as in other recent studies, the diversity of H1 is higher in Tunisia compared to all other African groups, even larger than Morocco the supposedly entry point of Europeans into North Africa.
Notice also they did NOT include the diversity value for Iberia or Sardinia(2nd Image table). Common sense or simple logic states they should have include Iberia. Why? Their premise. the H1 is older in Iberia and was the jump off point, Iberia should have the highest diversity. There wouldn’t be any doubt if Iberia was included. Iberia however was NOT included in the data set.
That is really suspicious. Now they may put it out there that the intent of the study was to the origin of H1 IN Africa. But even that is wrong, the data shows Tunisia NOT Morocco has the highest H1 diversity in Africa. Which proves their premise FALSE. Someone tell me I am wrong!! Am I the most intelligent here?
So the title of the study is…again…misleading. Their lies are really sophisticated. There is no proof of what they are saying. The data shows essentially there was H1 migration from Tunisia(CAN) to the rest of North Africa and not from Morocco to the rest of North Africa.
Essentially, they started with the premise/fantasy of Iberian women(not men-but give the impression men were included) migrating over to Africa without providing that data however the data prove the migration from Tunisia to the rest of North African….not even Morocco!! To date there is no genetic data showing European males migrating to Africa pre-Iron age.
They will soon rescind that nonsense theory about back-migration of European women into North Africa. Give Torroni a few more years , he is BSing just much as Cruciani. Remember Cruciani et al and back migration of E1b1b from Asia to North Africa. Which was proven wrong. Then R-V88 back-migration to Cameroon area which was also recently proven wrong.
Got to admit these guys got some Kahunas!!. I guess they believe no one can understand this stuff.
Note(2nd image):
MOST mtDNA H Haplotype diversity= Tunisia
MOST nucleotide diversity = Tunisia
MOST Avg number of nucleotide differences= Tunisia
Most Number of Haplotypes = Tunisia is a close second
Highest frequency H1 is Tunisia/Libya are (including Europe) – 1 st image
From previous study, highest frequency of H* is Tunisia and Iberians Peninsula/Levant.
There is a common theme here….Tunisia
The only thing they are relying on for an Iberian origin is COALESCENCE age , which error can vary by +/-10K years….ANYONE?!
Come to think of it was coalescence age also used to explain the back-migration of E1b1b to North Africa? Got to research that.
The only thing they are relying on for an Iberian origin is COALESCENCE age , which error can vary by +/-10K years….ANYONE?!
Also noteworthy, from the same paper. Lioness, the answer to your question how I know that the Ibero- Maurusian Y Chromosomal counterparts to U6', which went (mostly) extinct when E-M81 and other mid-holocene haplogroups arrived from the east, weren't predominantly African haplogroups:
quote: U6 represents, thus, a local background in NW Africa. Its relatively low frequency (∼10% overall, although ranging from absence in Algeria to 28.2% in the Mozabites) is in stark contrast with the high frequency of Y-chromosome haplogroup E3b2∗ (64%; Bosch et al. 2001), which may also have originated (or expanded to such high frequency) locally in NW Africa. This discrepancy may be the result of ancient, random, locus-specific drift, and/or of a male-biased bottleneck or migration. A locus specific effect may be evidenced by the fact that AMOVA between Iberian and NW African populations is much higher for Y chromosome haplogroups than for multiple autosomal Alu insertion polymorphisms or mtDNA. Since men contribute their autosomes as well, the fact that population differentiation [between Europeans and NW Africans] as demonstrated by autosomal loci is much closer to that for mtDNA than to that for the Y chromosome may be taken as evidence for ancient, random, locus-specific drift affecting the Y chromosome.
I've been saying this for ages: the high levels of E-M81 among Berber speakers is not informative of their true amount of African ancestry. That E-M81 peaks in modern day Maghrebi populations is simply the result of founder effect and/or other drift mechanisms.
That's why people here resort to pathetic labelling games where they manipulate an autosomal ancestral component which is thoroughly Eurasian (as adjudged by Fst), and count it as African ancestry, simply because it's labelled "Maghreb". How people can lie, distort and deceive so much is beyond me.
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
WOW!.
Are you saying yDNA hg-E and the subclades are Eurasian? Someone get this man a straight jacket. Lioness, what do you think? Did he forget his meds...Someone needs to admit him to the looney bin..LOL!. Come on man. I am trying to have a conversation with a straight face.
I thought this is what you meant in that previous post. Lioness said you were referring white men returning to Europe.
hg-E is European...riiight!
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Also noteworthy, from the same paper:
quote: U6 represents, thus, a local background in NW Africa. Its relatively low frequency (∼10% overall, although ranging from absence in Algeria to 28.2% in the Mozabites) is in stark contrast with the high frequency of Y-chromosome haplogroup E3b2∗ (64%; Bosch et al. 2001), which may also have originated (or expanded to such high frequency) locally in NW Africa. This discrepancy may be the result of ancient, random, locus-specific drift, and/or of a male-biased bottleneck or migration. A locus specific effect may be evidenced by the fact that AMOVA between Iberian and NW African populations is much higher for Y chromosome haplogroups than for multiple autosomal Alu insertion polymorphisms or mtDNA. Since men contribute their autosomes as well, the fact that population differentiation [between Europeans and NW Africans] as demonstrated by autosomal loci is much closer to that for mtDNA than to that for the Y chromosome may be taken as evidence for ancient, random, locus-specific drift affecting the Y chromosome.
I've been saying this for ages: the high levels of E-M81 among Berber speakers is not informative of their true amount of African ancestry. That E-M81 peaks in modern day Maghrebi populations is simply the result of founder effect and/or other drift mechanisms.
That's why people here resort to pathetic labelling games where they manipulate an autosomal ancestral component which is thoroughly Eurasian (as adjudged by Fst), and count it as African ancestry, simply because it's labelled "Maghreb". How people can one lie and deceive so much is beyond me.
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
the study includes several sites
he mentioned
CAS that's Los Cascajos 6,185-5,185
instead of quoting it properly he said 5,000
he mentioned
PAT Paternanbidea (6,090 -5,960)
that's clearly about 6,000 but you say 5,000
>>and he left out
ERR Eralla 12,310
. . . .
The Magdalenian samples in Cantabria, Northern Spain are the oldest 100% confirmed H on Planet Earth,
Ancient DNA from Hunter-Gatherer and Farmer Groups from Northern Spain Supports a Random Dispersion Model for the Neolithic Expansion into Europe 2012
. Actually the ERR hg is U5 but PS has H rCRS clocked to the Cantabria Upper Paleolithic without further precision. Other Cantabria UP H, varying from the rCRS, is CH with H6. The only other H subclade in Table 2 is H3, dated ~6.1k from PAT. All Hervella's other non-rCRS H is Neolithic and it is all macro-H.
The references for La Pasiega and La Chora are too old and obscure for me to track down. Anyway, I guess if any further date precision were in them Hervella would've put it in Table 1.
The given duration of the Magdalenian does allow for a much greater age than Taforalt.
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
For the geographically challenged. As a side topic. I highlighted Qatari. Remember Qataris were Henn's proxy "Middle East group" in her infamous backmigration paper.
Notice the high frequency of Upper Africans and lower African male HG-E.
hg-E is Eurasian per Sweetness. I doubt even Cruciani holds that view currently. That was his view in 1999, this is Sweetness view 2014!! Some of us never learn and develop.\\
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: To further evaluate the extent of H1 variation in the Tuareg from Libya relative to that of Moroccans, Tunisians and Sahelian Tuareg samples (****AND IBERIAN!!!!****), HVS-I data from the four groups were employed to calculate the diversity indices reported in Table 2.
Liar, point out the Iberian sample in table 2 (don't worry, I'll wait):
Table 2 Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
.
Let's compare xyymans version of an article and the actual ariticle
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: Just when I was about to leave they drag me back in....
This is from ESR Jan 2013!!! Johnny come lately...Yaaaawn!!. I am bored.
=== Mitochondrial Haplogroup H1 in North Africa: An Early Holocene Arrival from Iberia
Antonio Torroni5 , Alessandro Achilli et al
Excerpt
There is an evident frequency peak in the Central Sahara associated with the Libyan Tuareg, who show the highest frequency value (61%) among all the populations considered in the analysis[. Since the high frequency of H1 in the Libyan Tuareg is most likely the result of random genetic drift and founder events, we also investigated the H1 distribution removing the Libyan Tuareg sample and thus leaving only previously reported data (Figure 3). As expected, frequency peaks in the European continent were observed in the Iberian Peninsula, whereas in Northern Africa the rather high frequency values in Morocco and [u]Tunisia [/u]became apparent. More southward, among the Tuareg from the Sahel region [37], a frequency peak is also observed. To further evaluate the extent of H1 variation in the Tuareg from Libya relative to that of Moroccans, Tunisians and Sahelian Tuareg samples (****AND IBERIAN!!!!****), HVS-I data from the four groups were employed to calculate the diversity indices[b ]reported in Table 2.[/b] The sharp homogeneity of H1 in the Libyan Tuareg, who show extremely low values of haplotype diversity (0.165), is straightforward. Moroccans, Tunisians and the Tuareg from Sahel were found to be much more diverse than the Libyan Tuareg, with haplotype diversities of 0.577, 0.633 and 0.595, respectively. Similarly, the values of nucleotide diversity and average number of nucleotide differences observed in Morocco (0.309 and 1.056),Tunisia (0.316 and 1.081) and among the Tuareg from Sahel (0.234 and 0.800) are all much higher than those of the Libyan Tuareg (0.098 and 0.335).
Here's what the article actually says
To further evaluate the extent of H1 variation in the Tuareg from Libya relative to that of Moroccans, Tunisians and Sahelian Tuareg samples, HVS-I data from the four groups were employed to calculate the diversity indices reported in Table 2. The sharp homogeneity of H1 in the Libyan Tuareg, who show extremely low values of haplotype diversity (0.165), is straightforward. Moroccans, Tunisians and the Tuareg from Sahel were found to be much more diverse than the Libyan Tuareg, with haplotype diversities of 0.577, 0.633 and 0.595, respectively.
^^^ notice the difference xyyman, in his version, previously added the statement (****AND IBERIAN!!!!****)
It's a LIE
in fact the analysis doesn't include Iberian samples which are more diverse. It clearly says "HVS-I data from the four groups" The the chart xyyman reproduced hoping people wouldn't notice what the four groups are
^^^ The four groups of the study as shown
Libyan Tuareg
Tuareg (West Sahel)
Morocco
Tunisia
__________________________
^^no Iberians
^^^^ xyyman purposely made the chart small an added "AND IBERIAN" to trick people
Libyan Tuaregs have the highest frequencies of H Yet compared to the other three North African groups in the study groups, the other three are more diverse, that's what the quote says " Moroccans, Tunisians and the Tuareg from Sahel were found to be much more diverse"
this is what he attepts to use to say that these groups have the highets diversity of H in the world. It's false
.
And these North African groups have less diversity of H than Iberians
xyyman stop adding false statements into article quotes
leave the quote alone
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Also noteworthy, from the same paper. Lioness, the answer to your question how I know that the Ibero- Maurusian Y Chromosomal counterparts to U6', which went (mostly) extinct when E-M81 and other mid-holocene haplogroups arrived from the east, weren't predominantly African haplogroups:
quote: U6 represents, thus, a local background in NW Africa. Its relatively low frequency (∼10% overall, although ranging from absence in Algeria to 28.2% in the Mozabites) is in stark contrast with the high frequency of Y-chromosome haplogroup E3b2∗ (64%; Bosch et al. 2001), which may also have originated (or expanded to such high frequency) locally in NW Africa. This discrepancy may be the result of ancient, random, locus-specific drift, and/or of a male-biased bottleneck or migration. A locus specific effect may be evidenced by the fact that AMOVA between Iberian and NW African populations is much higher for Y chromosome haplogroups than for multiple autosomal Alu insertion polymorphisms or mtDNA. Since men contribute their autosomes as well, the fact that population differentiation [between Europeans and NW Africans] as demonstrated by autosomal loci is much closer to that for mtDNA than to that for the Y chromosome may be taken as evidence for ancient, random, locus-specific drift affecting the Y chromosome.
I've been saying this for ages: the high levels of E-M81 among Berber speakers is not informative of their true amount of African ancestry. That E-M81 peaks in modern day Maghrebi populations is simply the result of founder effect and/or other drift mechanisms.
That's why people here resort to pathetic labelling games where they manipulate an autosomal ancestral component which is thoroughly Eurasian (as adjudged by Fst), and count it as African ancestry, simply because it's labelled "Maghreb". How people can lie, distort and deceive so much is beyond me.
Tukular, don't get mad can you just respond to this, how Fst values relate
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
I went over this about 1 year ago. More on ESR.
For those who are into coalescene age. I am Not
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
It may be easier read the ESR threads instead of me rehashing this here. Iberians...and Ialians are North African transplants.
Dec2013!!!
Author information Unitat Antropologia Biològica, Departament de Biologia Animal, Biologia Vegetal i Ecologia, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, 08193, Bellaterra, Barcelona, Spain. Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study is to analyze mitochondrial DNA and Y-chromosome lineages in a range of Atlantic and Mediterranean populations of the Iberian Peninsula in search of genetic differences between both façades and to uncover the most probable geographic origin and coalescence ages of lineages.
METHODS: The control region of mitochondrial DNA and haplogroup diagnostic positions were analyzed in 575 subjects and Y-chromosome markers were typed in 260 unrelated males. Moreover, previously published data were compiled and used in the analyses.
RESULTS: The level of genetic structure deduced from uniparental markers for the Iberian Peninsula was weak, with stronger Atlantic versus Mediterranean than North to South differentiation and larger diversities in the South. In general, mitochondrial DNA haplogroups had mainly Paleolithic and Mesolithic coalescences in Europe, although some of them, ruling out drift effects, seem to have younger implantation in Central Europe and the Atlantic areas than in the Mediterranean (I, J, J2a, T1, and W) while others as N1 and X could have reached the Iberian Peninsula at the Neolithic transition. On the other hand, younger coalescence ages are being proposed for the arriving or spread of the bulk of Y-chromosome lineages in Europe.
I don't have much of a background in regards to H. I remember something about old anthro/archeo proposing forked migration from Levant (E Med) to both shores of the Mediterranean (littoral N Afr and Med Euro).
Iirc at one time population genetics made use of that idea (now outdated?).
Garcia gives me pause to see H expanding across both continents possibly. With my limited back ground I have guessed Alboran as H1's birthplace since its postulated coalescence only differs by ~1000 years from Europe to Africa.
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
Lioness and Sweetness are slow or what. You missed the point. If I wanted to be deceptive why bold the statement. As usual you are way off the mark.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
^^^ notice how he puposely leaves off the title of the article
Mitochondrial DNA and Y-chromosome structure at the mediterranean and atlantic façades of the iberian peninsula Cristina Santos1,†, Rosa Fregel2,†
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
Tukular, don't get mad can you just respond to this, how Fst values relate
No
I am not going, even in an under-the-table manner, to defend why autochthonous African DNA is African instead of EurAsian. I made my tables without regard to controversies, by either ES members or professional population geneticists, over geographic assignments.
Whoever can't see it that way? Fine with me. My job is not to beat dissenters into submission.
Ask the broacher of Fst measurements to clarify and expand if you don't understand it or his use of it.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: Lioness and Sweetness are slow or what. You missed the point. If I wanted to be deceptive why bold the statement. As usual you are way off the mark.
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: [QB] Just when I was about to leave they drag me back in....
This is from ESR Jan 2013!!! Johnny come lately...Yaaaawn!!. I am bored.
=== Mitochondrial Haplogroup H1 in North Africa: An Early Holocene Arrival from Iberia
Antonio Torroni5 , Alessandro Achilli et al
Excerpt
[i]
There is an evident frequency peak in the Central Sahara associated with the Libyan Tuareg, who show the highest frequency value (61%) among all the populations considered in the analysis. Since the high frequency of H1 in the Libyan Tuareg is most likely the result of random genetic drift and founder events, we also investigated the H1 distribution removing the Libyan Tuareg sample and thus leaving only previously reported data (Figure 3). As expected, frequency peaks in the European continent were observed in the Iberian Peninsula, whereas in Northern Africa the rather high frequency values in Morocco and [u]Tunisia [/u]became apparent. More southward, among the Tuareg from the Sahel region [37], a frequency peak is also observed. To further evaluate the extent of H1 variation in the Tuareg from Libya relative to that of Moroccans, Tunisians and Sahelian Tuareg samples (****AND IBERIAN!!!!****), HVS-I data from the four groups were employed to calculate the diversity indices reported in Table 2. The sharp homogeneity of H1 in the Libyan Tuareg, who show extremely low values of haplotype diversity (0.165), is straightforward. Moroccans, Tunisians and the Tuareg from Sahel were found to be much more diverse than the Libyan Tuareg, with haplotype diversities of 0.577, 0.633 and 0.595, respectively. Similarly, the values of nucleotide diversity and average number of nucleotide differences observed in Morocco (0.309 and 1.056), Tunisia (0.316 and 1.081) and among the Tuareg from Sahel (0.234 and 0.800) are all much higher than those of the Libyan Tuareg (0.098 and 0.335).
because everythng else you bolded was part of the article
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
This was posted on ESR back in June 2013. That is why you need a HOLISTIC view. Haplogroups, Haplotypes, AIM/IBD/SNP, diveristy, frequency, "live data", geography etc. even coalescence age....when nothing else is available. Kefi has what 60% hg-H in Africa 12000ya. Wait until they analyze paleolitihic Africans.
As Henns said. It was a one way migration from Africa to Europe. I agree with her on that point. Read the bold
from ESR...
===
But more interestingly is the Levant(Iraq) is NOT the source population. Which is what I have been saying all along. Despite what BS we have been taught for the last 200years. New genetic evidence and pattern dictate mass migration to Europe was THROUGH North Africa unto Southern Europe.
From the supplemental- I cannot get my hands on the study but the supplementals are free…go figure.
From the study-----
=================
fastIBD results showed that Southwestern Europeans had the highest amounts of sharing with North Africa. GERMLINE has higher power and a low false positive discovery rate when detecting segments of a minimum of 4 cM length (2).
On the Levant. It is interesting to note that this ancestry is not represented in European individuals. Jewish ancestry appears to be less than 2% or absent in most populations, with the exception of one Swiss Italian. At k=6, a component corresponding largely to North Africa appears, except for the Tunisians who are ~100% assigned to their own component, likely due to strong endogamy (5). The differentiation of Tunisians reduces the genetic similarity between Near Easterners and North Africans when comparing their ancestry assignments at k=5 and k=6. The Basques have the lowest proportion, only 4% is assigned North African ancestry
This suggests that gene flow between southern Europe and North Africa is older than that in other regions in Europe, where longer (recent) segments are found. While inferred IBD sharing does not indicate directionality, the North African samples that have highest IBD sharing with Iberian populations also tend to have the lowest proportion of the European cluster in ADMIXTURE (Fig. 1), e.g. Saharawi, Tunisian Berbers and South Moroccans. This suggests that gene flow occurred from Africa to Europe rather than the other way around..
THERE GOES ACHILLI AND TORRONI BS THEORY OF IBERIANS BACK-MIGRATION TO AFRICA DURING THE EARLY HOLOCENE WHICH IS WHAT I HAVE BEEN SAYING ALL ALONG !!!!!!! NOW HENN AGREES WITH ME. IT WAS AFRICANS MIGRATING INTO EUROPE. Hg-H IS AFRICAN.. CAN SOMEONE RESREACH THE ETHNICITY OF “HENN”?
Specifically, results of IBD sharing between southwestern Europe and North Africa are two orders of magnitude greater than those found between the same region and Jews, the average WEA for southern Europe and North Africa is 203, while for southwestern Europe and European Jews is 1.3
BTW YOU DO KNOW THE CODE WORD FOR LEVANTINES ARE “JEWS” HERE..RIGHT??????
Figure S8: Comparison of Near Eastern source populations. ADMIXTURE results for k= 4 through 6 from a dataset including populations from Europe, North Africa and the Near East. Our goal was to ask whether the Iraqi (9) or the Qatari were better source populations of the Near Eastern ancestry found in Europe and North Africa. Results show that ****no*** allele sharing is detected between Iraqi and the other populations. However, the ancestral component ASSIGNED to the Qatari populations is present in both North African and European populations, indicating that the Qatari are a better genetic representative of the Near Eastern influence in other regions.!
----------
Of course this does not make geographic and genetic sense. Qataris migrating from South Arabia, into Africa then unto Europe. The more sensible pattern is North Africans fanning out to Europe and Arabia which agrees with that hg-E pic spam I use.
ALSO INTERESTING IS TUNISIANS ARE THE FARTHEST NORTH AFRICANS FROM ARABIANS, IRREGARDLESS ON HOW THEY LOOK. LIONESS!!! THAT IS THE PROBLEM WITH RELYING ON EYE-BALL ANTHROPOLOGY AND NOT SCIENCE.
Figure S8: Comparison of Near Eastern source populations. ADMIXTURE results for k= 4 through 6 from a dataset including populations from Europe, North Africa and the Near East. Our goal was to ask whether the Iraqi (9) or the Qatari were better source populations of the Near Eastern ancestry found in Europe and North Africa. Results show that ****no*** allele sharing is detected between Iraqi and the other populations. However, the ancestral component ASSIGNED to the Qatari populations is present in both North African and European populations, indicating that the Qatari are a better genetic representative of the Near Eastern influence in other regions.!
. Actually the ERR hg is U5 but PS has H rCRS clocked to the Cantabria Upper Paleolithic without further precision. Other Cantabria UP H, varying from the rCRS, is CH with H6. The only other H subclade in Table 2 is H3, dated ~6.1k from PAT. All Hervella's other non-rCRS H is Neolithic and it is all macro-H.
The references for La Pasiega and La Chora are too old and obscure for me to track down. Anyway, I guess if any further date precision were in them Hervella would've put it in Table 1.
The given duration of the Magdalenian does allow for a much greater age than Taforalt.
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
Don't know why my last post was appended.
Without close scrutiny I can make heads nor tails of the above post. It'd be beneficial to clearly delineate what's a quote (and exactly where it's taken from) from what is commentary, critique, or analysis of a reference source -- without marring the original text, figures, tables, etc.
Let me go back and reread it a few times to digest it.
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
From Henn. She is basing this on autosomal SNP.
This suggests that gene flow occurred from Africa to Europe rather than the other way around.
DNATribes supports this view also. Basal Eurasian in Africa...YES!!! I can go on and on and on
Thread close.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: Tukular, don't get mad can you just respond to this, how Fst values relate
Stop pestering the man, will ya? Let him fester in his own make believe world where labels, rather than the molecular specifics of the Maghrebi component, have the last word:
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler: You go on with your bullshit because it angers and dismays you that Berbers are primarily African, local African, scientifically documented by these latest reports of uniparentals and autosomes whose presented geographies are exactly as the authors labeled them.
When you tell him that this leap of faith from the authors' use of "Maghreb", to his manipulation: Maghreb = African, is a circular argument, he'll tell you he left everything as-is, without changing anything. Which is a certified lie, because he deliberately changed "Maghreb" to "African". He'll also talk about sticking to "raw data", not realizing that what he apparently sees as "raw data", doesn't say anything, other than that the "Maghreb" component consistently groups with Eurasian components in lower Ks, across multiple autosomal studies.
This, in and of itself, doesn't refute that this component is African, but its lower Fst to European and Middle Eastern components, as well as the fact that the Neanderthal in this component is just as prominent, if not more prominent, in this component than in other Eurasian components, certainly refutes that this component is independent of backflow, and that it can be counted among Maghrebi African ancestry, like mtDNA L, E-M81, E-M78 and other lineages can.
quote: Interestingly, the analysis of the Tunisian and N-TUN populations shows a higher Neandertal ancestry component than any other North African population and at least the same (or even higher) as other Eurasian populations (100–138%) (Figure 3).
quote: Maghrebi to West Africa = 0.158 Maghrebi to Bulala = 0.15 Maghrebi to Luhya = 0.133 Maghrebi to Masaai = 0.093 Maghrebi to Europe = 0.059 Maghrebi to Qatari = 0.055 Europe to Qatari= 0.05
^Maghrebi to Europe, Europe to Qatati, Qatari to Maghrebi are all approximately equidistant (the distances are all in between 0.05 and 0.06). The Maghrebi component is about as distant, genetically, to the Qatari component as the European component is to the Qatari component. Hence, they split off around the same time, which, considering the recent split of Europeans from Middle Easterners, in the late Upper Palaeolithic, this cannot be explained as that the Maghrebi component split off before OOA, but stayed in Africa.
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
See there Lioness? You got Conard the ConArtist all riled up again chasing his tail getting nowhere fast to tilt last week or whenever's windmills.
Everybody's entitled to their own opinion, no matter how wrong it is or how it has no raw data behind it. Apparently raw data rubbed Swenet raw and rubbed him the wrong way too.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler:
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
And these North African groups have less diversity of H than Iberians
xyyman stop adding false statements into article quotes
I don't have much of a background in regards to H. I remember something about old anthro/archeo proposing forked migration from Levant (E Med) to both shores of the Mediterranean (littoral N Afr and Med Euro).
Iirc at one time population genetics made use of that idea (now outdated?).
Garcia gives me pause to see H expanding across both continents possibly. With my limited back ground I have guessed Alboran as H1's birthplace since its postulated coalescence only differs by ~1000 years from Europe to Africa.
I didn't find much on H in the Near East yet
according to that highest diversity is on the Near East, followed by Europe, followed by North Africa
The statement in blue may reflect an Anatolian input into Europe 7,500 years ago. They were then replaced 4,500 B.C., or 6,500 years ago.
About 7,500 years ago during the early Neolithic period, another wave of humans expanded into Europe, this time from the Middle East. They carried in their genes a variant of the H haplogroup, and in their minds knowledge of how to grow and raise crops
"All we know is that the descendants of the LBK farmers disappeared from Central Europe about 4,500 [B.C.], clearing the way for the rise of populations from elsewhere, with their own unique H signatures." 4,500 B.C., or 6,500-updated, see end or article
___ so if we add the earlier mentioned UP Hg H, it's multiple waves carrying varying clades of H going back to hunter gatherers
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
You know it is amazing how much information is hidden in these papers. WoW!
It just hit me why Iraq was chosen as a Proxy by Henn. Anyone can take a shot on why?
Ahhh! forget it I will just tell you.
They (Iraq), have the highest frequency and haplotype diversity of mtDNA HV next the Nubians, Egyptians and Yemenis and Africanized Bediouns.(Near East)
Henn is good!! She can play politics.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler: See there Lioness? You got Conard the ConArtist all riled up again chasing his tail getting nowhere fast to tilt last week or whenever's windmills.
Everybody's entitled to their own opinion, no matter how wrong it is or how it has no raw data behind it. Apparently raw data rubbed Swenet raw and rubbed him the wrong way too.
These articles classify M1 and U6 as North African
If, for instance haplogroup U originated in the Near East 55,000 BP
and then evolved into the particular local clade U6 30,000 years ago then it is an African haplogroup yet a branch of a Eurasian parent
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
H is one thing and H1,3 another.
It said H1 is older in the Near East. It said Cantabrian Refuge expanded H1 is a chimera.
Makes sense in regard to Maghreb Africa since no ice or permafrost barred passage back and forth across the Strait of Gibraltar. Which to me seems why H1 is of nearly the same TMRCA on both shores thought it seems slightly earlier up north.
I'm sticking with Alboran, until I learn something about it that knocks it out the box.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler: H is one thing and H1,3 another.
It said H1 is older in the Near East. It said Cantabrian Refuge expanded H1 is a chimera.
Makes sense in regard to Maghreb Africa since no ice or permafrost barred passage back and forth across the Strait of Gibraltar. Which to me seems why H1 is of nearly the same TMRCA on both shores thought it seems slightly earlier up north.
I'm sticking with Alboran, until I learn something about it that knocks it out the box.
The age of haplogroup is not soley determined by the oldest remains found, although it is strong evidence
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
These articles classify M1 and U6 as North African
If, for instance haplogroup U originated in the Near East 55,000 BP
and then evolved into the particular local clade U6 30,000 years ago then it is an African haplogroup yet a branch of a Eurasian parent
Yes. just as haplogroup L3 originated in Africa >55k and then L3M and L3N Eurasian local clades evolved yet a branch of an African parent.
What's sauce for goose is sauce for the gander. If M and N are Eurasian regardless of African parentage U6 and M1 are African regardless of Eurasian parentage.
Leave out autochthone birth and all haplogroups revert to African. Autochthone birth of certain mtDNA L and nrY E make them non-African too.
You see it's not a pro-Africa one way street.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
there's an element of semantics involved
a continental surrogate for race
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
^Exactly. It's all semantics. We talk about BACK MIGRATION. Whether the U6 defining mutation (16172C) occurred in Africa doesn't negate that it BACK MIGRATED. Hence you CAN'T put it on par with African lineages like L and E-M81, which, from the look of things, DID NOT back migrate into Africa. LMAO at these ever increasingly desperate crackpot antics.
Is the Maghrebi autosomal component African?
Yes.
Why?
Because it's labelled "Maghreb".
Oh, really? What about it's molecular specifics, like Fst, AMOVA, coalescent age, etc?
(crickets chirping)
Glad I no longer call this festering heap of pseudo- science my forum of choice.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
The possibility of cold adapted Europeans (and not current Euroepean types) entering Africa 12kya or earlier is threatening to some. However if we look at the end of the Iberomaurusian period, it ended 10,000 years ago before any civilization in the area, comprised of so called primitve hunter gatherers. And as you can see the territory is only a small sliver on the coast. It doesn't even extend into Libya, much less Egypt.
So there could have been early Europeans of some sort in Africa at the time
so what ?
My opinion is that the Eurasian lineages in the Maghreb today may be some of the same haplotypes, yet they may be due to later waves of immigration from both Europe and the Near East and have no connection to that early culture
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
Last post before I jet for today:
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: [QB]
What do you notice about the distribution of Capsian (light blue on the map) and the region with the most diversity of H1 in table 2?
As well as the approximate time of the sudden appearance of Chamla's long faced "proto-Mediterranean" skeletal type in the Upper Capsian and the coalescence age of mtDNA H1 in northern Africa?
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
just the possble correspondance, the greater diversity in Tunisia wher the Capsians settled after the Iberomaurusian.
I was looking for DNA on the Capsians. I could be wrong but there seems to be no published articles analyzing Capsian DNA ( if any is recoverable)
Also:
highest E-M81 frequencies
Chenini–Douiret (Tunisia) Berbers, 100%
Tunisia/Jradou Berbers- 100%
Tunisia/Bou Saa- 92.5%
Tunisia/Bou Omrane 87.5
Algeria/Mozabites- 86.6%
_____________________________
but we can only assume there was Capsian continuity into the dry Saharan period that extends to the berbers of today --there is an over 2000 year gap of no settlements after the Capsians
--unless the moved South to Niger, the Gobero site --but then they would probably be at that point affilated with that near sahel region, a site which had different populaltions sepataed by 1000 years as a lake was once there, dried up , then came back again, and once again dried up into the desert it is today
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: From Henn. She is basing this on autosomal SNP.
This suggests that gene flow occurred from Africa to Europe rather than the other way around.
DNATribes supports this view also. Basal Eurasian in Africa...YES!!! I can go on and on and on
Thread close.
It's funny how xyyman uses this ridiculous new DNA Tribes map as argument.
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
Henn Quote: "This suggests that gene flow occurred from Africa to Europe rather than the other way around"
close thread. lol!
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
DNATribes :
Data shows Basal Eurasian origin is in Africa.
close thread.
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
there's an element of semantics involved
a continental surrogate for race
Tell it to the geneticists.
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
The possibility of cold adapted Europeans (and not current Euroepean types) entering Africa 12kya or earlier is threatening to some. However if we look at the end of the Iberomaurusian period, it ended 10,000 years ago before any civilization in the area, comprised of so called primitve hunter gatherers. And as you can see the territory is only a small sliver on the coast. It doesn't even extend into Libya, much less Egypt.
.
You may want to check current anthropologists on locations of Maurusian technology and folk associated with it. I was surprised by what I found.
It's counter intuitive to imagine no Europeans (Iberians & Apennines) or no Africans (Maghrebis) occasionally crossed the strait into the others territory. Whole scale migration is another story.
From what I've studied and read the widespread comingling was post-Pleistocene. The northwest Maghreb and southeast Iberia vs the northeast Maghreb and south Apennine were the two major interchanges or overlaps in late epipaleolithic and early neolithic. In a sense, this connection continued into proto-historic times and up to today.
Before the Holocene the Maghreb was basically cut off from points further south in Africa by hyper arid conditions. The rather short Green Sahara period allowed Maghreb to Sahara and southward connections that became somewhat tenuous when desert conditions returned.
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
quote:Originally posted by xyyman:
Henn Quote: "This suggests that gene flow occurred from Africa to Europe rather than the other way around"
close thread. lol!
.
Is that a Henn quote or a Botigue quote?
It's important to distinguish the team leader of a study from other team members even if co-authors.
The first name listed for a report is the person responsible for it. That person's name must be used to identify the report or when referring the report's text.
Botigue (2013) has one of the two skylines I didn't post elsewhere. Her report doesn't say there was no Europe to Africa flow nor does it concern prehistoric time African ancestry in Europeans. Her focus is recent (undefined) times, I would say historic more than any other Holocene eras.
Where Botigue mentions Africa to Europe not the other way around she's justifying some parameter or other used to guage her theory about recent Africa to Europe flow, i.e., the subject of her report titled Gene flow from North Africa contributes to differential human genetic diversity in southern Europe which was not intended to qualify Europe to Africa flow about which she says.
European ancestry is also detected in North African populations. At k = 6 it ranges between 4% and 16% in the rest of North Africa, with notable intrapopulation variation (35) and is absent in most Maghrebi (western North African) individuals from Tunisia and Western Sahara.
.
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
For the lurkers did not follow and connected the dots. Let me break it down.
This is a good example of you know who(fast talker) not fully understanding the data. You know, the 10000ft view.
Yes- North Africans have more of the so called Neanderthal genetic material than Europeans. I posted on that about a year ago(you copying my stuff on ESR?). The reason European have less is because they are a sub-set of North Africans. This is proven yet again as with mtDNA hg-H. Europeans carry a subset of diversity of hg-H. BTW- The Luhya and Maasia also carry the so called Neanderthal markers. You probably missed that part when you read my post on ESR. All evidence point to Luhya being the source population. R0 and HV is highest where?
But you would not let go of that silly idea that European women migrated to North Africa, and, Arabian men migrated to North Africa they hooked up and created today’s Maghreb population.
Fst values only show relatedness (that is why DNATribes started using the term-“related” is better than “ancestry”) but not true ancestry ie direction of migration. So yes you would expect Maghrebi-Europe, Maghrebi-Qatar and Qatar-Europe to be about the same. Why? They came from the same source population. It seems like you don’t understand the brilliance of DNATribes work. DNATribes recognized the Fst value ie relatedness, but they developed a “filtering-subtracting “ method to deduce the SOURCE population. That is why their chart show and they stated that Basal Eurasain is African origin with separate migrants going to Arabia and North Africa. So yes, some of what you state is true.
I came to that conclusion about 2 years ago and I did not have the high tech computer software and database as DNATribes.
Reading enough and having a brillaint mind was enough for me to get it straight!!
There is a reason why per Henn et al Iraqi show NO relatedness. Why, bacause the major migration was NOT through the Levant/Syria/Iraq area to Europe. The genetic data do Not support the archeological data. Incase you still don’t get it. Many of these papers use archeological data to “plug a hole” or as a “starting point”. That is the games these people play.
Quote by you know who:
(1) Fst values from Henn et al: Maghrebi to West Africa = 0.158 Maghrebi to Bulala = 0.15 Maghrebi to Luhya = 0.133 Maghrebi to Masaai = 0.093 Maghrebi to Europe = 0.059 Maghrebi to Qatari = 0.055 Europe to Qatari= 0.05
(2) This, in and of itself, doesn't refute that this component is African, but its lower Fst to European and Middle Eastern components, as well as the fact that the Neanderthal in this component is just as prominent, if not more prominent, in this component than in other Eurasian components, certainly refutes that this component is independent of backflow, and that it can be counted among Maghrebi African ancestry, like mtDNA L, E-M81, E-M78 and other lineages can
(3) Interestingly, the analysis of the Tunisian and N-TUN populations shows a higher Neandertal ancestry component than any other North African population and at least the same (or even higher) as other Eurasian populations (100–138%)
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
When I cite these papers I will report the Title and date but I move authors around. Why? Yes I understand the purpose of the first Author. But I have my method of “4 W’s”.
One of which is “who”. Who are the authors, I zero in on the “Supervisior” ie big dog. The underlings will follow the politics of their supervisor If someone wish to seriously investigate just plug the title in Google. I very much doubt when Achilli pen his name to a report he is not dictating the wording/politics of the paper. That is why I don’t focus on the wording or summation. Most times they are honest with the raw data because other researchers can (1) verify ther work (2) rely on the data to further progress their own work. Eg Many times when a paper strongly support the Refugia theory Achilli or Torroni will be a co-authior.
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler:
quote:Originally posted by xyyman:
Henn Quote: "This suggests that gene flow occurred from Africa to Europe rather than the other way around"
close thread. lol!
.
Is that a Henn quote or a Botigue quote?
It's important to distinguish the team leader of a study from other team members even if co-authors.
The first name listed for a report is the person responsible for it. That person's name must be used to identify the report or when referring the report's text.
Botigue (2013) has one of the two skylines I didn't post elsewhere. Her report doesn't say there was no Europe to Africa flow nor does it concern prehistoric time African ancestry in Europeans. Her focus is recent (undefined) times, I would say historic more than any other Holocene eras.
Where Botigue mentions Africa to Europe not the other way around she's justifying some parameter or other used to guage her theory about recent Africa to Europe flow, i.e., the subject of her report titled Gene flow from North Africa contributes to differential human genetic diversity in southern Europe which was not intended to qualify Europe to Africa flow about which she says.
European ancestry is also detected in North African populations. At k = 6 it ranges between 4% and 16% in the rest of North Africa, with notable intrapopulation variation (35) and is absent in most Maghrebi (western North African) individuals from Tunisia and Western Sahara.
.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
You still have homework, gramps. Get to it. What makes your lying ass think you got a pass?
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: To further evaluate the extent of H1 variation in the Tuareg from Libya relative to that of Moroccans, Tunisians and Sahelian Tuareg samples (****AND IBERIAN!!!!****), HVS-I data from the four groups were employed to calculate the diversity indices reported in Table 2.
Liar, point out the Iberian sample in table 2 (don't worry, I'll wait):
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: [xyyman] is showing this diversity chart of 21 haplogroups including H (and L) and is pretending it it is only H
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
Sweety – you know you owe me big time All this free education you are getting. I assume you are smarter than Lioness. And understand the context of my bolded Iberia statement. Hope I don’t have to break it down for you also.
Lioness is a sly dude.
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: For the lurkers did not follow and connected the dots. Let me break it down.
This is a good example of you know who(fast talker) not fully understanding the data. You know, the 10000ft view.
Yes- North Africans have more of the so called Neanderthal genetic material than Europeans. I posted on that about a year ago(you copying my stuff on ESR?). The reason European have less is because they are a sub-set of North Africans. This is proven yet again as with mtDNA hg-H. Europeans carry a subset of diversity of hg-H. BTW- The Luhya and Maasia also carry the so called Neanderthal markers. You probably missed that part when you read my post on ESR. All evidence point to Luhya being the source population. R0 and HV is highest where?
But you would not let go of that silly idea that European women migrated to North Africa, and, Arabian men migrated to North Africa they hooked up and created today’s Maghreb population.
Fst values only show relatedness (that is why DNATribes started using the term-“related” is better than “ancestry”) but not true ancestry ie direction of migration. So yes you would expect Maghrebi-Europe, Maghrebi-Qatar and Qatar-Europe to be about the same. Why? They came from the same source population. It seems like you don’t understand the brilliance of DNATribes work. DNATribes recognized the Fst value ie relatedness, but they developed a “filtering-subtracting “ method to deduce the SOURCE population. That is why their chart show and they stated that Basal Eurasain is African origin with separate migrants going to Arabia and North Africa. So yes, some of what you state is true.
I came to that conclusion about 2 years ago and I did not have the high tech computer software and database as DNATribes.
Reading enough and having a brillaint mind was enough for me to get it straight!!
There is a reason why per Henn et al Iraqi show NO relatedness. Why, bacause the major migration was NOT through the Levant/Syria/Iraq area to Europe. The genetic data do Not support the archeological data. Incase you still don’t get it. Many of these papers use archeological data to “plug a hole” or as a “starting point”. That is the games these people play.
Quote by you know who:
(1) Fst values from Henn et al: Maghrebi to West Africa = 0.158 Maghrebi to Bulala = 0.15 Maghrebi to Luhya = 0.133 Maghrebi to Masaai = 0.093 Maghrebi to Europe = 0.059 Maghrebi to Qatari = 0.055 Europe to Qatari= 0.05
(2) This, in and of itself, doesn't refute that this component is African, but its lower Fst to European and Middle Eastern components, as well as the fact that the Neanderthal in this component is just as prominent, if not more prominent, in this component than in other Eurasian components, certainly refutes that this component is independent of backflow, and that it can be counted among Maghrebi African ancestry, like mtDNA L, E-M81, E-M78 and other lineages can
(3) Interestingly, the analysis of the Tunisian and N-TUN populations shows a higher Neandertal ancestry component than any other North African population and at least the same (or even higher) as other Eurasian populations (100–138%)
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
You are posting stuff that supports what I am proposing.. You don’t fully understanding what you are posting. Do you? These Fst value supports DNATribes chart. Lol! Good god man. Give it up!
I believe the Massai and Luyha numbers should be reversed. Anyways. Remember Egyptians are descendants of dual ancestry, ie Masaai and Luyha. But more specifically Masaai. Sources cited. While Maghrebi are descendants of Luyha. Soucres also cited.
Do I have to explain everything to you …son.
Quote: Fst Maghrebi to West Africa = 0.158 Maghrebi to Bulala = 0.15 Maghrebi to Luhya = 0.133 Maghrebi to Masaai = 0.093 Maghrebi to Europe = 0.059 Maghrebi to Qatari = 0.055 Europe to Qatari= 0.05
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
chirp! chirp!
I usually save my best analysis for ESR. You have me spending all this time here giving you childish attention. Spoon feeding you. bra ham bug!
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: You are posting stuff that supports what I am proposing.
Stop lying, gramps. DNATribes describes "basal Eurasian" as an OOA era entity, as does their source. The Maghrebi component is not a direct off- shoot of any OOA era entity, as it splits off the European and Middle Eastern component before the holocene--not in the Middle Palaeolithic. Your manipulation of that Botigue et al citation is just a mess. Botigue et al were saying the HAPLOTYPE SHARING of northern Mediterranean populations with Maghrebi populations originates with the latter. This not an admission on Botigue et al's part that the Maghrebi component itself isn't ultimately from Eurasia.
Quote with the surrounding context you deliberate omit:
quote: Whereas inferred IBD sharing does not indicate directionality, the North African samples that have highest IBD sharing with Iberian populations also tend to have the lowest proportion of the European cluster in ADMIXTURE (Fig. 1), e.g., Saharawi, Tunisian Berbers, and South Moroccans. For example, the Andalucians share many IBD segments with the Tunisians (Fig. 3), who present extremely minimal levels of European ancestry.
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
Man you are thick! Ha! Ha! Ha!
DNATribes is crosschecking the Loschbour report. They are verifying the EEF ie Early European Farmer. ie Neolithic. OOA components is primarily found Out of Africa, yes, but still exist within Africa.
I am done with you. Read more on ESR. You go to the back of the class
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: You are posting stuff that supports what I am proposing.
Stop lying, gramps. DNATribes describes "basal Eurasian" as an OOA era entity, as does their source. The Maghrebi component is not a direct off- shoot of any OOA era entity, as it splits off the European and Middle Eastern component before the holocene--not earlier. Your manipulation of that Botigue et al citation is just a mess. Botigue et al were saying the HAPLOTYPE SHARING, which amounts to a couple of percentages, on the northern side of the Mediterranean, was brought there by North Africans. This not an admission on Botigue et al's part that the Maghrebi component itself isn't ultimately from Eurasia.
Quote with the surrounding context you deliberate omit:
quote: Whereas inferred IBD sharing does not indicate directionality, the North African samples that have highest IBD sharing with Iberian populations also tend to have the lowest proportion of the European cluster in ADMIXTURE (Fig. 1), e.g., Saharawi, Tunisian Berbers, and South Moroccans. For example, the Andalucians share many IBD segments with the Tunisians (Fig. 3), who present extremely minimal levels of European ancestry.
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
You did not do well in Logic and Analytical or Deductive reasoning in school did you?
Math was not one of your best subjects? I can tell. What are you? a Liberal Arts major or Communications. Let me guess. Communications
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: OOA components is primarily found Out of Africa, yes, but still exist within Africa.
What are you talking about, gramps? The "basal Eurasian" component described by DNA Tribes is even older than the OOA migration:
quote:We model the deep relationships of these populations and show that about ~44% of the ancestry of EEF derived from a basal Eurasian lineage that split prior to the separation of other non-Africans.
What the hell does that have to do with a component which:
quote: We identify a gradient of likely autochthonous Maghrebi ancestry that increases from east to west across northern Africa; this ancestry is likely derived from “back-to-Africa” gene flow more than 12,000 years ago (ya), prior to the Holocene.
Take your meds, gramps. You're seeing things.
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
quote:Originally posted by xyyman:
When I cite these papers I will report the Title and date but I move authors around. Why? Yes I understand the purpose of the first Author. But I have my method of “4 W’s”.
One of which is “who”. Who are the authors, I zero in on the “Supervisior” ie big dog. The underlings will follow the politics of their supervisor If someone wish to seriously investigate just plug the title in Google. I very much doubt when Achilli pen his name to a report he is not dictating the wording/politics of the paper. That is why I don’t focus on the wording or summation. Most times they are honest with the raw data because other researchers can (1) verify ther work (2) rely on the data to further progress their own work. Eg Many times when a paper strongly support the Refugia theory Achilli or Torroni will be a co-authior.
.
When you don't identify a report by the first listed author who in fact is the team leader it makes it a task to GOOGLE up the article.
It may also falsely attribute quotes to someone not responsible for authoring them.
I often include the Big Names associated with a study after the team leader's name to be aware of who's co-signing to the text overall or its bottomline conclusions.
The correct standard citation author and date are vital for proper identification and for weighing it's up to date relevance since more up to date reports are often based on samples unavailable years ago or newer tools or methods developed.
BTW the big dog of Botigue (2013) is Bustamante.
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler:
H is one thing and H1,3 another.
It said H1 is older in the Near East. It said Cantabrian Refuge expanded H1 is a chimera.
Makes sense in regard to Maghreb Africa since no ice or permafrost barred passage back and forth across the Strait of Gibraltar. Which to me seems why H1 is of nearly the same TMRCA on both shores thought it seems slightly earlier up north.
I'm sticking with Alboran, until I learn something about it that knocks it out the box.
The age of haplogroup is not soley determined by the oldest remains found, although it is strong evidence
.
Those aDNA specimen dates are based on archaeological datings of the site where they were found.
Haplogroup ages are not determined by physical remains. Haplogroup ages are computed come from molecular genetics of people live on the streets today as an integrated population, not from one individual.
Ennaffa's 2009 diversity figures
* (67 ± 6) North Africa * (75 ± 3) Iberian Peninsula Near * (87 ± 5) Near East
imply H1 originated in the Near East expanded to Iberia from whence North Africa acquired it. The statistical diversity difference between the Near East and North Africa makes spread from the Near East to North Africa less likely.
For those who emphasize origination over latest geography this makes North African H1 Near Eastern not Iberian.
North African introduction of H1 to anywhere outside the continent is not supported by Ennaffa's data which is the most up to date afaik.
It also sinks my Alboran H1 origin although there is no statistical difference between Iberian and North African H1 diversity.
I had guessed H1 arose in Alboran (confluence of littoral northern Maghreb and littoral southeastern Iberia). Then I thought maybe H1 arrived in Alboran from the Near East but the statistical diversity difference seems against that as are maybe epipaleolithic maritime capabilities for navigation from one end of the Mediterranean to the other.
What about H1*? Incident of paragroup along with frequency and high diversity all factor in determining origin.
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
Yeah! Right!
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: OOA components is primarily found Out of Africa, yes, but still exist within Africa.
What are you talking about, gramps? The "basal Eurasian" component described by DNA Tribes is even older than the OOA migration:
quote:We model the deep relationships of these populations and show that about ~44% of the ancestry of EEF derived from a basal Eurasian lineage that split prior to the separation of other non-Africans.
What the hell does that have to do with a component which:
quote: We identify a gradient of likely autochthonous Maghrebi ancestry that increases from east to west across northern Africa; this ancestry is likely derived from “back-to-Africa” gene flow more than 12,000 years ago (ya), prior to the Holocene.
Take your meds, gramps. You're seeing things.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
xyyman, you need to read Tukular's last post
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
Cop out. When you've taken your meds, you know where to find me, gramps.
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: OOA components is primarily found Out of Africa, yes, but still exist within Africa.
What are you talking about, gramps? The "basal Eurasian" component described by DNA Tribes is even older than the OOA migration:
quote:We model the deep relationships of these populations and show that about ~44% of the ancestry of EEF derived from a basal Eurasian lineage that split prior to the separation of other non-Africans.
What the hell does that have to do with a component which:
quote: We identify a gradient of likely autochthonous Maghrebi ancestry that increases from east to west across northern Africa; this ancestry is likely derived from “back-to-Africa” gene flow more than 12,000 years ago (ya), prior to the Holocene.
Take your meds, gramps. You're seeing things.
EDIT: The basal Eurasian excerpt isn't directly from DNA Tribes, but their own source (Lazardis et al).
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
We are going in circles here. One outdated paper does not resolved the issue.
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: xyyman, you need to read Tukular's last post
yeah. Close thread. 2012!!!
The lies are over with. LOL. everyone has a DNA machine now. He! He! He! Can't wait for Kefi's (2014) paper.
2010!!!
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: The lies are over with. LOL. everyone has a DNA machine now. He! He! He! Can't wait for Kefi's (2014) paper.
You got your crackpot claims beat into the ground so hard that you're looking forward to random papers to bail you out. But not just any paper; a paper from the hands of someone who is of the opinion that blacks originate in Africa 200kya, but never set foot in the Maghreb until after 10kya. If your insistence on Kefi 2014 isn't the most pathetic and irrational cop-out to ever grace this pseudo-scientific message board, I don't know what is. Your repeated lies and deceptions are bad enough as they are. You're really taking the cake now. But what you should really take is your meds.
quote:The presence of a sub Saharan component in North Africa is due to migrations after 12,000BP.
--Kefi et al 2005
quote:Our results excluded the hypothesis of the sub-Saharan origin of Iberomaurusians populations and highlighted the genetic flow between Northern and Southern cost of Mediterranean since Epipaleolithic period.
--Kefi et al 2013
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
Strawman… See thread Title.
I am arguing….
Kefi 2014 Tunisia is located at the crossroads of Europe, the Middle East and Sub-Saharan Africa. This position might lead to numerous waves of migrations, contributing to the current genetic landscape of Tunisians. In this study, we analyzed 815 mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) sequences from Tunisia in order to characterize the mitochondrial DNA genetic structure of this region, to construct the processes for its composition and to compare it to other Mediterranean populations. To that end, additional 4206 mtDNA sequences were compiled from previous studies performed in African (1237), Near Eastern (231) and European (2738) populations. Both phylogenetic and statistical analyses were performed. This study confirmed the mosaic genetic structure of the Tunisian population with the predominance of the Eurasian lineages, followed by the Sub-Saharan and North African lineages. Among Tunisians, the highest haplogroup and haplotype diversity were observed in particular in the Capital Tunis. No significant differentiation was observed between both geographical (Northern versus Southern Tunisia) and different ethnic groups in Tunisia. Our results highlight the presence of outliers and most frequent unique sequences in Tunisia (10.2%) compared to 45 Mediterranean populations. Phylogenetic analysis showed that the majority of Tunisian localities were closer to North Africans and Near Eastern populations than to Europeans. The exception was found for Berbers from Jerba which are clustered with Sardinians and Valencians.
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
You have lost this battle already….son
Do you need me to explain the Loschbour report. Several things you should write down in your notebook.
1. Iberians, Italians and Greeks are >80% EEF/Basal Europeans/Bedoiuns/Sudanese/Luhya 2. Egytians are predominantly Sub Saharan/Maasai.
“Nile Valley is a barrier” Sub Saharans own this. Don’t believe me see Amarnas and Rameses III.
3. Irregardles Amazigh, Sub-Saharan, most Egyptians are ALL Africans. But there are Ottoman Turks in the midst
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
^^^^ Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
Human societies show significant variation in post-marital residence practices. About 70% of human societies practice some form of patrilocality, with men remaining in and women migrating from their natal household, clan, lineage, village, or other cultural unit subsumed within a larger group of people sharing a common culture and language, often termed a `tribé in traditional societies [1], [2]. Other societies display matrilocal or bilocal migration patterns, with men and members of both sexes, respectively, leaving their birthplace to live with their mate elsewhere in the tribe [2]. In patrilocal societies, variation within tribes should be higher for the mtDNA than for the NRY, while genetic differentiation between tribes should be higher for the NRY than the mtDNA. Matrilocal societies should show the opposite patterns, while there should be no differences between mtDNA and NRY variation in bilocal tribes. Langergraber 2007
_____________________________
"Congruently, the Nm ratio of males versus females pointed to a significant excess of female migration rate across localities, which could be explained by patrilocality, a common marriage system in rural Tunisia."
Journal of Human Genetics , (11 August 2011) | doi:10.1038/jhg.2011.92
Mitochondrial DNA and Y-chromosome microstructure in Tunisia
Hajer Ennafaa et al.
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
Let me get this straight. During late Paleolithic times(ie hunter gatherers) North African men had an appetie for European women? But, per Sweetness, Arabian men was preferred by migrant European men in North Africa. So we are left with Matrilocality in Europe but Patrilocality in Arabia, no make that Matrilocality in Arabia. LOL!
This is really a bad movie….you two(Lioness and Sweetness) are running out of excuses
I can’t get through to you ? really!? I don’t argue hypothetical! Who knows the mating practices of Paleolithic AMH. The fact is H is more diverse in Africa than Europe.
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: Human societies show significant variation in post-marital residence practices. About 70% of human societies practice some form of patrilocality, with men remaining in and women migrating from their natal household, clan, lineage, village, or other cultural unit subsumed within a larger group of people sharing a common culture and language, often termed a `tribé in traditional societies [1], [2]. Other societies display matrilocal or bilocal migration patterns, with men and members of both sexes, respectively, leaving their birthplace to live with their mate elsewhere in the tribe [2]. In patrilocal societies, variation within tribes should be higher for the mtDNA than for the NRY, while genetic differentiation between tribes should be higher for the NRY than the mtDNA. Matrilocal societies should show the opposite patterns, while there should be no differences between mtDNA and NRY variation in bilocal tribes. Langergraber 2007
_____________________________
"Congruently, the Nm ratio of males versus females pointed to a significant excess of female migration rate across localities, which could be explained by patrilocality, a common marriage system in rural Tunisia."
Journal of Human Genetics , (11 August 2011) | doi:10.1038/jhg.2011.92
Mitochondrial DNA and Y-chromosome microstructure in Tunisia
Hajer Ennafaa et al.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: But, per Sweetness, Arabian men was preferred by migrant European men in North Africa.
Crackpot rulebook, rule #2: if cop outs don't work, just start lying or talking gibberish. From your own source:
quote: Our results excluded the hypothesis of the sub-Saharan origin of Iberomaurusians populations and highlighted the genetic flow between Northern and Southern cost of Mediterranean since Epipaleolithic period.
--Kefi et al 2013
Kefi explicitly says their (close to) CRS Ibero- Maurusian aDNA (xU6) were the product of, quote: "genetic flow (...) since Epipaleolithic period".
Then you start rambling on about DNA Tribes' basal Eurasian, which, the last time you brought it up, led to you copping out:
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: OOA components is primarily found Out of Africa, yes, but still exist within Africa.
What are you talking about, gramps? The "basal Eurasian" component described by DNA Tribes is even older than the OOA migration:
quote:We model the deep relationships of these populations and show that about ~44% of the ancestry of EEF derived from a basal Eurasian lineage that split prior to the separation of other non-Africans.
What the hell does that have to do with a component which:
quote: We identify a gradient of likely autochthonous Maghrebi ancestry that increases from east to west across northern Africa; this ancestry is likely derived from “back-to-Africa” gene flow more than 12,000 years ago (ya), prior to the Holocene.
Take your meds, gramps. You're seeing things.
As for that crap about mtDNA H:
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: The fact is H is more diverse in Africa than Europe.
The last time you brought this lie up, you copped out. When you ready to respond, let me know:
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: To further evaluate the extent of H1 variation in the Tuareg from Libya relative to that of Moroccans, Tunisians and Sahelian Tuareg samples (****AND IBERIAN!!!!****), HVS-I data from the four groups were employed to calculate the diversity indices reported in Table 2.
Liar, point out the Iberian sample in table 2 (don't worry, I'll wait):
I can’t wait for Kefi(2014) paper. You people are out of your league. Stick with picture spamming. LOL!
This is getting old. You are coming to a gun fight with a knife. Ha!
======
Mitochondrial DNA Structure in North Africa Reveals a Genetic Discontinuity in the Nile Valley - Comas /Calafell 2011
The Arabs began to impose their religion and language over the Berber autochthonous population, a process that culminated with the second and more numerous Arab wave in which the Bedouin(AFRICAN) reached the Maghreb (northwest Africa) in the 11th century. The later arrivals to northern Africa in colonial times include Europeans and Ottoman Turks, mainly in Egypt.
Several studies suggest that at the end of the Last Glacial Maximum (LGM), around 13,000 ya, humans expanded from the Franco-Cantabrian refuge toward Europe and North Africa, spreading mtDNA haplogroups H1, H3, and V (Torroni et al., 1998, 2001; Achilli et al., 2004, 2005; Loogvali et al., 2004; Pereira et al., 2005; Cherni et al., 2009; Ennafaa et al., 2009; Rhouda et al., 2009; Ottoni et al., 2010). However, a RECENT analysis of mtDNA diversity on Iberian populations points to the opposite conclusion: it suggests the absence of such an expansion (Garcia et al., 2010). In addition, a large degree of genetic heterogeneity has been shown in North African maternal lineages compared to other geographical regions such as Europe (Plaza et al., 2003; Fadhlaoui-Zid et al., 2004).
====
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: You have lost this battle already….son
Do you need me to explain the Loschbour report. Several things you should write down in your notebook.
1. Iberians, Italians and Greeks are >80% EEF/Basal Europeans/Bedoiuns/Sudanese/Luhya 2. Egytians are predominantly Sub Saharan/Maasai.
“Nile Valley is a barrier” Sub Saharans own this. Don’t believe me see Amarnas and Rameses III.
3. Irregardles Amazigh, Sub-Saharan, most Egyptians are ALL Africans. But there are Ottoman Turks in the midst
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
SSA Owns the Nile. Amazigh owns the Maghreb. ALL African. Stretching from Southern Arabia to Nigeria. LOL! To the Medit Island and shores of lower Europe to the Cape. That was ours at one time.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by xyyman:(...)
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
I hope you get the big picture. Not all geneticist believe that white European women migrated to Africa from The Refugia after the LGM. They are distancing themselves from the Eurocentric fantasy of Achilli and Torroni. YOU got to keep up!
Close thread!!!
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
below what one of these articles actually says
as opposed to snippets xyyman picks out to put a spin on it entirely different from the intent of the article
He left out all the actual remarks about North Africa
Then, because the article criticizes expansion of refigia population he uses the explanation void cause by his sever editing to insert North Africa being the origin of H
- when in fact if you read the article they argue that H expanded in Europe due to Central European populations they believe remained in Europe through the ice age, not having anything to do with Africa.
xyymans ongoing attempts at tricknology keep falling apart Don't take my word for it, just read
quote:Originally posted by xyyman:
Mitochondrial DNA Structure in North Africa Reveals a Genetic Discontinuity in the Nile Valley - Comas /Calafell 2011
The Arabs began to impose their religion and language over the Berber autochthonous population, a process that culminated with the second and more numerous Arab wave in which the Bedouin(AFRICAN) reached the Maghreb (northwest Africa) in the 11th century. The later arrivals to northern Africa in ]colonial times include Europeans and Ottoman Turks, mainly in Egypt.
Several studies suggest that at the end of the Last Glacial Maximum (LGM), around 13,000 ya, humans expanded from the Franco-Cantabrian refuge toward Europe and North Africa, spreading mtDNA haplogroups H1, H3, and V (Torroni et al., 1998, 2001; Achilli et al., 2004, 2005; Loogvali et al., 2004; Pereira et al., 2005; Cherni et al., 2009; Ennafaa et al., 2009; Rhouda et al., 2009; Ottoni et al., 2010). [b]However, a RECENT analysis of mtDNA diversity on Iberian populations points to the opposite conclusion: it suggests the absence of such an expansion (Garcia et al., 2010).
^^^^ GARCIA 2010
MORE >>>
Using mitochondrial DNA to test the hypothesis of a European post-glacial human recolonization from the Franco-Cantabrian refuge
O García,
Abstract It has been proposed that the distribution patterns and coalescence ages found in Europeans for mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) haplogroups V, H1 and H3 are the result of a post-glacial expansion from a Franco-Cantabrian refuge that recolonized central and northern areas. In contrast, in this refined mtDNA study of the Cantabrian Cornice that contributes 413 partial and 9 complete new mtDNA sequences, including a large Basque sample and a sample of Asturians, no experimental evidence was found to support the human refuge-expansion theory. In fact, all measures of gene diversity point to the Cantabrian Cornice in general and the Basques in particular, as less polymorphic for V, H1 and H3 than other southern regions in Iberia or in Central Europe. Genetic distances show the Cantabrian Cornice is a very heterogeneous region with significant local differences. The analysis of several minor subhaplogroups, based on complete sequences, also suggests different focal expansions over a local and peninsular range that did not affect continental Europe. Furthermore, all detected clinal trends show stronger longitudinal than latitudinal profiles. In Northern Iberia, it seems that the highest diversity values for some haplogroups with Mesolithic coalescence ages are centred on the Mediterranean side, including Catalonia and South-eastern France.
From these results, it can be deduced that although modern Iberians share a common mtDNA genetic background with other Europeans, they have evolved, at least in the north, as discrete genetic clusters with limited local expansions and not as a genetic continuum extensible to the rest of Europe.
Nevertheless, we have noticed that the highest diversity values for several mtDNA lineages are centred in a region comprising North-eastern Spain and South-east France instead of the Cantabrian Cornice. Archaeologically, this region also shows continuity of human settlement since Palaeolithic times and has been marked as an area of great Mesolithic, Neolithic and post-Neolithic importance. More studies at genomic level will be necessary to uncover the fine-grained mtDNA phylogeography of Europe.
This fact is attested by the presence of an East-African-specific L3h1a2a lineage (confirmed by transition 15646) and single representatives of the North-African clades M1 and U6 in the Basques (Supplementary Table S1). Although it is difficult to date the arrival of these lineages, the presence of an M1 haplotype in a Basque cemetery from the sixth to the seventh century AD, before the Arab occupation of Iberia (Alzualde et al., 2006), is in support of an old although small North-African influence on Northern Iberia. The rest of the haplotypes sampled are of clear Eurasian origin, and related to both Palaeolithic and Neolithic introductions.
The Palaeolithic para-haplogroup HV* is the ancestor of H and V haplogroups. It is moderately frequent in the Cantabrian Cornice, but absent or rare in the French Basques (Richard et al., 2007). Its HV0 branch has the highest frequency in Northern Africa (Supplementary Table S9). However, there it presents the lowest gene and nucleotide diversities, excluding this area as a possible focus of expansion. In Europe, the highest HV0 frequencies are found in Northern Iberia and France, but its highest diversity is observed in NCE. In relation to the Iberian Peninsula, it shows its lowest diversities precisely in the Cornice area (IPNW), which is at the same level as in Northern Africa (Supplementary Table S9).
Diversity values for V are significantly higher in Southern Iberia than in the Cornice (P<0.05). Excluding Scandinavia, the lowest diversities are found in Northern Africa and the Iberian northeast.
On the basis of their high frequency for the North-African Y-chromosome E-M81 haplogroup and a relative abundance of other Y-chromosome and mtDNA haplogroups, of typical northern European ascription, dual gene-flow influences were assumed to affect this isolate (Maca-Meyer et al., 2003). In this study, again, the high frequency of H4 and the absence of H3 resembles the haplogroup H profile found for Moroccan Berbers (Ennafaa et al., 2009). On the other hand, the high frequency of H1a may be better explained by north-central European influence (Loogvali et al., 2004).
As I see things, diversity reported in Ennaffa 2009 and Ottoni 2010 support an Apennines source for H1 sunk in Maghreb. How so? Africa's overall H1 diversity is lower than Iberia's while Tunisia is the locale of Africa's highest H1 diversity.
I say that without Apennine data because Tunisia is nearly right next to it than it is to farther off Iberia.
Haplotype diversity of all H in general per Ennaffa's 2009 Table 3 is equal at 93 ± 1 % for Iberia and North Africa (the nucleotide diversity is not reported in the table). http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2156/10/8/table/T3 Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
Why is it so hard to give Fadhlaoui-Zid her props then go ahead and list whoever you feel you need to. Why do I have to GOOGLE the title only to find I have the report on harddrive? I save reports by authordate, the same way reports give an in text citation.
Give us all a break and do a standard author citation please. Don't muddy it anymore. OK?
quote:Originally posted by xyyman:
Mitochondrial DNA Structure in North Africa Reveals a Genetic Discontinuity in the Nile Valley - Comas /Calafell 2011
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler: Africa's overall H1 diversity is lower than Iberia's while Tunisia is the locale of Africa's highest H1 diversity.
Also of note
"Libyan Tuareg, who show extremely low values of haplotype diversity"
-- Torroni
Excluding Libyan Tuareg 61% frequency for extremely low diversity beliieved due to founder effect we find Tuareg of the Sahel as next highest frequency 23.3 , followed by Moroccan berbers, 20.2
Comparatively
Spanish Basques 27.8 Portugal 25.5 Andalusia 24.3
etc,
frequencies extended all over Europe, beyond the chart while in SSA virtually zero
H is the most common European haplogroup and uncommon in Africa except among Maghrebians
^^^^ Near East origin ? well, while present, frequencies are lower. I don't know about diversity of H in the Mid East, haven't seen data on it
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
Joining the Pillars of Hercules: mtDNA Sequences Show Multidirectional Gene Flow in the Western Mediterranean 2003
S. Plaza1, F. Calafell1, A. Helal2, N. Bouzerna3, G. Lefranc4, J. Bertranpetit1 and D. Comas1 1Unitat de Biologia Evolutiva, Universitat Pompeu Fabra, Doctor Aiguader 80, 08003 Barcelona
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: This is getting old. ======
Mitochondrial DNA Structure in North Africa Reveals a Genetic Discontinuity in the Nile Valley - Comas /Calafell 2011
Several studies suggest that at the end of the Last Glacial Maximum (LGM), around 13,000 ya, humans expanded from the Franco-Cantabrian refuge toward Europe and North Africa, spreading mtDNA haplogroups H1, H3, and V (Torroni et al., 1998, 2001; Achilli et al., 2004, 2005; Loogvali et al., 2004; Pereira et al., 2005; Cherni et al., 2009; Ennafaa et al., 2009; Rhouda et al., 2009; Ottoni et al., 2010). However, a RECENT analysis of mtDNA diversity on Iberian populations points to the opposite conclusion: it suggests the absence of such an expansion (Garcia et al., 2010). In addition, a large degree of genetic heterogeneity has been shown in North African maternal lineages compared to other geographical regions such as Europe (Plaza et al., 2003; Fadhlaoui-Zid et al., 2004).
====
[/QB][/QUOTE]
1. However, a RECENT analysis of mtDNA diversity on Iberian populations points to the opposite conclusion!!!
2. It suggests the absence of such an expansion (Garcia et al., 2010).!!!
3. a large degree of genetic heterogeneity has been shown in North African maternal lineages compared to other geographical regions such as Europe!!!
The Prosecution rest......
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
I expect Kefi's paper will confirm the same thing. Highest diversity in North Africa cf to Europe. The jig is up.
DNATribes profile has already confirmed that through AIM/SNP using the Loschbour Report data.
The real challenging work will be proving the "Source" population which I believe is the Luhya which some authors have already alluded to. Give it about 2 years. Only the hard core fanatics will believe hg-H or Basal Eurasian orginated in Europe.
I rest my case.
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
Listen up guys, I can go on and on and on and on. But this is getting old. I think we are done with mtDNa hg-H. When reading the post below keep in mind North Africa, Near East and Iberia SHARE!! haplotypes.
The next challenge will be nRy hg-R-M269. Where the white European male originate? Hammer did some work already pointing to Near East, the Afro-Iranians are a good start but I don’t think so. I started to work on this - see ESR.
This is from the Ennafaa et al. She got her props ..Sage? The Gibraltar Straights nor Seas of Sardinia was never a barrier for Paleolithic humans. I read some place that at certain points in Morocco the Iberian highlands can be literally seen.
====== Mitochondrial DNA haplogroup H structure in North Africa - Hajer Ennafaa 2009
The subdivision of the mtDNA haplogroup H in North Africa has confirmed that the genetic differentiation found among Western and Eastern populations is mainly due to geographical rather than cultural barriers.
Whole mtDNA sequencing of identical H haplotypes based on HVSI and RFLP information has unveiled additional mtDNA differences between North African and Iberian Peninsula lineages, POINTING TO AN OLDER MTDNA GENETIC FLOW BETWEEN REGIONS THAN PREVIOUSLY THOUGHT.
A principal component analysis (PCA) points to subhaplogroups H1 and H3 as being primarily responsible for the Iberian-Moroccan-Saharan connection, whereas H4, H5, H7, H8 and H11 testify the Near East influence (data not shown).
Globally, North Africa shares a similar number of haplotypes with the Iberian Peninsula compared with the Near East (Table 3).
However, a detailed analysis of the ratios between haplotypic identities relating each North African population with the Iberian Peninsula or the Near East confirms that the Western populations, comprising Moroccan Arabs, Saharans and Mauritanians, are the most notably influenced by the Iberian Peninsula,
whereas the Tunisian Berbers, Tunisians, and the Moroccan Berbers have received relatively more gene flow from the Near East (Table 3).
At this point, it is noteworthy that all the Arabian Peninsula haplotypes shared with North Africa ARE A SUBSET of those shared by the latter with the Near East, pointing to a minor direct input of the Arabian
Haplogroup (Table 1) and haplotype (Table 3) genetic diversities demonstrate that the Northwestern African populations (Moroccan Arabs and Saharans) are genetically less diverse than the more central Tunisian and Berbers,
Although global haplogroup and haplotypic diversities are not statistically different among regions (Table 1 and 3),
It seems that the 10257 transition defines a new subgroup within H1. THIS FACT POINTS TO A POSSIBLE, ALTHOUGH NOT RECENT, NORTH AFRICAN DEMIC INFLUENCE ON THE IBERIAN GENETIC POOL. Another interesting group of sequences belonging to the H1 subgroup in North Africa is that characterized by the 16172 – 16311 motif, which we [15] and others [19] have found mainly in Saharan samples
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by xyyman:
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: This is getting old. ======
Mitochondrial DNA Structure in North Africa Reveals a Genetic Discontinuity in the Nile Valley - Comas /Calafell 2011
Several studies suggest that at the end of the Last Glacial Maximum (LGM), around 13,000 ya, humans expanded from the Franco-Cantabrian refuge toward Europe and North Africa, spreading mtDNA haplogroups H1, H3, and V (Torroni et al., 1998, 2001; Achilli et al., 2004, 2005; Loogvali et al., 2004; Pereira et al., 2005; Cherni et al., 2009; Ennafaa et al., 2009; Rhouda et al., 2009; Ottoni et al., 2010). However, a RECENT analysis of mtDNA diversity on Iberian populations points to the opposite conclusion: it suggests the absence of such an expansion (Garcia et al., 2010). In addition, a large degree of genetic heterogeneity has been shown in North African maternal lineages compared to other geographical regions such as Europe (Plaza et al., 2003; Fadhlaoui-Zid et al., 2004).
====
1. However, a RECENT analysis of mtDNA diversity on Iberian populations points to the opposite conclusion!!!
2. It suggests the absence of such an expansion (Garcia et al., 2010).!!!
3. a large degree of genetic heterogeneity has been shown in North African maternal lineages compared to other geographical regions such as Europe!!!
The Prosecution rest...... [/QB]
First notice how xyyman left out the principal author's name of this paper.
Mitochondrial DNA Structure in North Africa Reveals a Genetic Discontinuity in the Nile Valley
Even after Tukular pointed this out he credits the artilce in backward sequence only listing Comas/Calafell sneaky
He leaves out Karima Fadhlaoui-Zid on prupose because this Tunisian researcher has another 2013 paper listed below which has a title unfortunate to his attempt at spin doctoring
And he still don't understand this 2011 article or simply has not read it's pay per view contents due to lack of funds
" a recent analysis of mtDNA diversity on Iberian populations points to the opposite conclusion: it suggests the absence of such an expansion (Garcia et al., 2010) >>>>
Garcia 2010:
From these results, it can be deduced that although modern Iberians share a common mtDNA genetic background with other Europeans, they have evolved, at least in the north, as discrete genetic clusters with limited local expansions and not as a genetic continuum extensible to the rest of Europe.
let me explain
Other scientists had said that Europeans left North and Central Europe during the ice age and went into South Europe including Iberia
This Garcia article says some of these people remained in Europe
It does not say that the origin of H North Africa obviously
And the heterogeneity of the whole genetic makeup of the region spoken of has to do with differences in genetic structure on an east/west cline between the Maghreb and Egypt --and includes all the various migrations up to recent times --
xyyman uses intoductory remarks (of which you have to read the rest of the paper to know exactly what they are talking about) to mislead
He finds the ambiguous statements in these articles and often even leaves out the title of the article
When you read the article you find he has spun it to say something it's not saying
Genome-Wide and Paternal Diversity Reveal a Recent Origin of Human Populations in North Africa
Karima Fadhlaoui-Zid equal contributor, Marc Haber equal contributor, Begoña Martínez-Cruz, Pierre Zalloua, Amel Benammar Elgaaied, David Comas mail
2013
Abstract
The geostrategic location of North Africa as a crossroad between three continents and as a stepping-stone outside Africa has evoked anthropological and genetic interest in this region. Numerous studies have described the genetic landscape of the human population in North Africa employing paternal, maternal, and biparental molecular markers. However, information from these markers which have different inheritance patterns has been mostly assessed independently, resulting in an incomplete description of the region. In this study, we analyze uniparental and genome-wide markers examining similarities or contrasts in the results and consequently provide a comprehensive description of the evolutionary history of North Africa populations. Our results show that both males and females in North Africa underwent a similar admixture history with slight differences in the proportions of admixture components. Consequently, genome-wide diversity show similar patterns with admixture tests suggesting North Africans are a mixture of ancestral populations related to current Africans and Eurasians with more affinity towards the out-of-Africa populations than to sub-Saharan Africans. We estimate from the paternal lineages that most North Africans emerged ~15,000 years ago during the last glacial warming and that population splits started after the desiccation of the Sahara. Although most North Africans share a common admixture history, the Tunisian Berbers show long periods of genetic isolation and appear to have diverged from surrounding populations without subsequent mixture. On the other hand, continuous gene flow from the Middle East made Egyptians genetically closer to Eurasians than to other North Africans. We show that genetic diversity of today's North Africans mostly captures patterns from migrations post Last Glacial Maximum and therefore may be insufficient to inform on the initial population of the region during the Middle Paleolithic period.
______________________________________
Genomic Ancestry of North Africans Supports Back-to-Africa Migrations 2012 Brenna M. Henn
Laura R. Botigué equal contributor, Simon Gravel, Wei Wang, Abra Brisbin, Jake K. Byrnes, Karima Fadhlaoui-Zid, Pierre A. Zalloua, Andres Moreno-Estrada,Jaume Bertranpetit, Carlos D. Bustamante ¶ mail, David Comas Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by xyyman:
It seems that the 10257 transition defines a new subgroup within H1.]THIS FACT POINTS TO A POSSIBLE, ALTHOUGH NOT RECENT, NORTH AFRICAN DEMIC INFLUENCE ON THE IBERIAN GENETIC POOL.[/b] Another interesting group of sequences belonging to the H1 subgroup in North Africa is that characterized by the 16172 – 16311 motif, which we [15] and others [19] have found mainly in Saharan samples
keyword: new
Ennafaa supports a prehistoric Near East origin for H -Near East, here excludes Saudi Arabia
populations in the article
Europe Galicia, Castilla-Mancha, Castilla-León, Andalusia, Santander, León, Potes, Pasiegos, Maragatos
North Africa Tunisian Berbers, Tunisia, Libya, Algeria, Algeria Berbers, Moroccan Berbers, Morocco, Sahara, Mauritania,
Near East Jordan, Dead Sea, Palestine, Syria, Iran.
Saudi-Arabia
.
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
Ha! Ha! Ha! "new" does not mean newly evolved new means recently observed. ie better resolution.
It does not matter what Ennafaa infer, it is what the data shows.
Ennafaa is inferring what Sweetness is suggesting, that Iberians AND Near Easterns settled in North Africa. This is what she “infers” by the data. But the ONLY FACT is Tunisians/North Africans have a higher diversity of hg-H than BOTH Iberians AND Near East.
TWO migrant populations settling in North Africa makes absolutely no sense. Notice she uses the word “could” a lot. Ennafaa is trying to explain the observed data. Near East AND Iberian RELATED(not Origin) haplotypes are present in central North Africans.
I , just as DNATribes did, infer the data to show that there was a split/divergent in North Africa of haplotypes of hg-H. Some going West and some going East. That is, to the East there a specific haplotypes while to the West they are slightly different. Just as what DNATribes chart shows. That is why you have to look at it holistically. But the divergence was in North Africa, yes, but not Tunisia.
Understand the statement –
Quote: At this point, it is noteworthy that all the Arabian Peninsula haplotypes shared with North Africa ARE A SUBSET of those shared by the latter with the Near East and
A principal component analysis (PCA) points to subhaplogroups H1 and H3 as being primarily responsible for the Iberian-Moroccan-Saharan connection, whereas H4, H5, H7, H8 and H11 testify the Near East influence (data not shown).
Ok, Mr big spender- post the Kefi 2014 paper. I don’t have the cash LOL! I ran out of favors.
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
I know this reads like I wrote this but I did not…honest. He! He! He! This is just an example of great minds thinking alike.
Lioness – I sold my food stamps to get the money to purchase the Garcia paper. I will to sell more, in the next 2 weeks when the stamps arrive, to get the Kefi 2014 paper.
Author got his props, everyone happy now? BTW, the co-author Ganzalez is renowned for her aDNA work on Iberians discovering %50 SSAfrican L haplogroups in ancient Iberians. I believe she is Basque.
You are digging your own grave Lioness – The Garcia paper is a bomshell also.
Iberia, Italy and Greece Penisulars keeps coming up. DNATribes data also supports that view. Damn I am good!!
The Refugia Theory is a joke like Torroni and Achilli
====
Using mitochondrial DNA to test the hypothesis of a European post-glacial human recolonization from the Franco-Cantabrian refuge – Garcia 2011
In general, our results are congruent with the apparent lack of mtDNA structure found for continental Europe compared with the more differentiated Mediterranean peninsulas (Simoni et al., 2000). These results are also in accordance with the different patterns found for the Y-chromosome haplogroup distribution in continental
Europe compared with the Mediterranean peninsulas, with smooth clines and gradients apparent in continental areas (Rosser et al., 2000; Semino et al., 2000) contrasting to the focal expansions detected in Iberia (Flores et al., 2004), Italy and Greece (Di Giacomo et al., 2003).
Recently, genome-wide studies, conducted to assess the level of European population stratification, have shown a close correspondence between genetic and geographic distances (Novembre et al., 2008). At the population level, the most prominent patterns uncovered were a consistent distinction between Southern Mediterranean and northern continental Europeans (Seldin et al., 2006) ****(XYYMAN-ALSO DISCLOSED BY DNATRIBES)****and a clear separation of northern from southeastern Europeans (Bauchet et al., 2007). This is in line with mtDNA results and consistent with the clines observed using classical markers (Menozzi et al., 1978) and some mtDNA (Richards et al., 1996) and Y-chromosome haplogroups (Rosser et al., 2000; Semino et al., 2000).
Although, there is an H3 frequency peak centred on Iberia, comparative DIVERSITY values are against the suggestion that this area was the expansion centre for the European colonization of this clade.
On the other hand, it seems that H1 as a whole has a higher diversity in the Near East than in Iberia (Ennafaa et al., 2009). In short, we find no well-founded reasons to confirm that the H1 distribution in Europe reflects a human expansion centred on the Franco-Cantabrian area.
On the basis of their high frequency for the North-African Y-chromosome E-M81 haplogroup and a relative abundance of other Y-chromosome and mtDNA haplogroups, of typical northern European ascription, dual gene-flow influences were assumed to affect this isolate (Maca-Meyer et al., 2003). In this study, again, the high frequency of H4 and the absence of H3 resembles the haplogroup H profile found for Moroccan Berbers (Ennafaa et al., 2009).
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
I hope you understand this statement:
Quote – most prominent patterns uncovered were a consistent distinction between Southern Mediterranean and northern continental Europeans (Seldin et al., 2006) ****(XYYMAN-ALSO DISCLOSED BY DNATRIBES)****and a clear separation of northern from southeastern Europeans
They are suggesting like I have been all along. That in Europe there is a seperation between North and South and then East and West. What does that tell you? Read a few of my post above. The pattern is consistent with a central source/distribution point. I believe the Kefi(2014) paper will suggest it is Tunisia. I believe it may be more likely an unknown/undisclosed population West of the Nile. May be in Libya or West Sudan. Why? R0 and HV Richards et al.
I am good.
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler: Africa's overall H1 diversity is lower than Iberia's while Tunisia is the locale of Africa's highest H1 diversity.
Excluding Libyan Tuareg 61% frequency for extremely low diversity beliieved due to founder effect we find Tuareg of the Sahel as next highest frequency 23.3 , followed by Moroccan berbers, 20.2
Comparatively
Spanish Basques 27.8 Portugal 25.5 Andalusia 24.3
etc,
frequencies extended all over Europe, beyond the chart while in SSA virtually zero
H is the most common European haplogroup and uncommon in Africa except among Maghrebians
Didn't you just note the high frequency L Twareg are not the origin of H1? So why think the Near East's low frequency is against a Near East origin for H1 (assuming you meant H1 when you wrote H)?
Frequency alone is a poor origin indicator. Haplotype diversity is one better measure and you noted L Twareg are extremely low in it.
Again, what we're missing is figures for
* nucleotide diversity * paragroup H1* prescence
two better indicators of origin. Compare them between Near East vs elsewhere. I'd think whoever has them most is the likely source.
You may doubt it but you have read Ennaffa's 2009 diversity figures that I posted earlier
* (87 ± 5) for the Near East * (75 ± 3) Iberian Peninsula * (67 ± 6) North Africa
taken from the results section of her report
... the European subgroup H1 appears to be significantly more diverse in the Near East (87 ± 5) than in the Iberian Peninsula (75 ± 3) or North Africa (67 ± 6).
Moreover, the genetic diversity for the Western European subgroup H3, which is absent in the Near East, is also higher in North Africa (74 ± 9) than in the Iberian Peninsula (65 ± 6).
Transformation of molecular genetic diversities in coalescence ages gives 18,345 ± 4,051, 14,201 ± 2,984, and 11,366 ± 2,354 years for H1 in the Near East, Iberian Peninsula and North Africa, respectively.
On the other hand, the coalescence ages for H3 in the Iberian Peninsula (10,342 ± 2,634) and North Africa (10,866 ± 4,107) are similar.
However, only H1 ages in Near East and North Africa are statistically different from each other.
Hajer Ennafaa with Cabrera Abu-Amero AM González Mitochondrial DNA haplogroup H structure in North Africa BMC Genetics 2009, 10:8 doi:10.1186/1471-2156-10-8
Interesting stuff about H3. huh?
.
BTW what's up w/t disappearing images? 24hrs later and poof!
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler:
Didn't you just note the high frequency L Twareg are not the origin of H1? So why think the Near East's low frequency is against a Near East origin for H1 (assuming you meant H1 when you wrote H)?
Frequency alone is a poor origin indicator. Haplotype diversity is one better measure and you noted L Twareg are extremely low in it.
Again, what we're missing is figures for
* nucleotide diversity * paragroup H1* prescence
two better indicators of origin. Compare them between Near East vs elsewhere. I'd think whoever has them most is the likely source.
You may doubt it but you have read Ennaffa's 2009 diversity figures that I posted earlier
* (87 ± 5) for the Near East * (75 ± 3) Iberian Peninsula * (67 ± 6) North Africa
taken from the results section of her report
... the European subgroup H1 appears to be significantly more diverse in the Near East (87 ± 5) than in the Iberian Peninsula (75 ± 3) or North Africa (67 ± 6).
OK, that's good data, so many articles, hard to keep track
xyyman, this is raw data on diversity, not inference why do you ignore it ??
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler:
Moreover, the genetic diversity for the Western European subgroup H3, which is absent in the Near East, is also higher in North Africa (74 ± 9) than in the Iberian Peninsula (65 ± 6).
Transformation of molecular genetic diversities in coalescence ages gives 18,345 ± 4,051, 14,201 ± 2,984, and 11,366 ± 2,354 years for H1 in the Near East, Iberian Peninsula and North Africa, respectively.
On the other hand, the coalescence ages for H3 in the Iberian Peninsula (10,342 ± 2,634) and North Africa (10,866 ± 4,107) are similar.
However, only H1 ages in Near East and North Africa are statistically different from each other. Hajer Ennafaa with Cabrera Abu-Amero AM González Mitochondrial DNA haplogroup H structure in North Africa BMC Genetics 2009, 10:8 doi:10.1186/1471-2156-10-8
Interesting stuff about H3. huh?
.
BTW what's up w/t disappearing images? 24hrs later and poof! [/QB]
yes
hopefully the disappearing images are are temporary hosting problem and will return
more from
Using mitochondrial DNA to test the hypothesis of a European post-glacial human recolonization from the Franco-Cantabrian refuge
O García 2010
North-African clades M1 and U6 in the Basques (Supplementary Table S1). Although it is difficult to date the arrival of these lineages, the presence of an M1 haplotype in a Basque cemetery from the sixth to the seventh century AD, before the Arab occupation of Iberia (Alzualde et al., 2006), is in support of an old although small North-African influence on Northern Iberia.
The Palaeolithic para-haplogroup HV* is the ancestor of H and V haplogroups. It is moderately frequent in the Cantabrian Cornice, but absent or rare in the French Basques (Richard et al., 2007). Its HV0 branch has the highest frequency in Northern Africa (Supplementary Table S9). However, there it presents the lowest gene and nucleotide diversities, excluding this area as a possible focus of expansion. In Europe, the highest HV0 frequencies are found in Northern Iberia and France, but its highest diversity is observed in NCE. In relation to the Iberian Peninsula, it shows its lowest diversities precisely in the Cornice area (IPNW), which is at the same level as in Northern Africa
V frequencies for Catalonia were estimated at around only 3%. Diversity values for V are significantly higher in Southern Iberia than in the Cornice (P<0.05). Excluding Scandinavia, the lowest diversities are found in Northern Africa and the Iberian northeast.
On the basis of their high frequency for the North-African Y-chromosome E-M81 haplogroup and a relative abundance of other Y-chromosome and mtDNA haplogroups, of typical northern European ascription, dual gene-flow influences were assumed to affect this isolate (Maca-Meyer et al., 2003). In this study, again, the high frequency of H4 and the absence of H3 resembles the haplogroup H profile found for Moroccan Berbers (Ennafaa et al., 2009). On the other hand, the high frequency of H1a may be better explained by north-central European influence (Loogvali et al., 2004). As occurs for H1a, the H3 highest diversity is in North-central Europe.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
.
xyyman you say that based on the African origin of haplgroup H, that modern Europeans are basically African, They are North Africans who migrated across the strait of Gibralter about 5,000 years ago, maybe even 6,000 -but more like 4,000
Ok fine but mitochondrial haplogroup H is all over Europe
If was brought to Europe several thousand years ago by the berbers of North Africa why is it that their Y DNA, mainly hg E-M81 is only found in South Europe,
>> yet H is all over Europe, for example H1 is 18% of mtDNA in modern Finland, and in Russia 13.5 %
Were the berber men afraid to venture away from Southern Europe so they sent out bands of women scouts on horseback to explore Central and Northern Europe???
(possibly, what if it was some kind of matriarchal thing going on back then?)
I don't have to tell you some of the Tunisian berbers carry E-M81 at frequencies over 90%, that E clade is all over the Maghreb
They also have frequencies of H at 13-37% (Coudray)
So if haplogroup H is the predominant mtDNA in Finland what happened to the all the E3b ???
Did these berber women migrate to Finland and Russia leaving their men behind in Southern Europe ???
.lioness productions 2014
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
DNATribes also support the same viewpoint as I. Look at the Loschbour Report. You answer is there. Hg-U is found more to the North. That is the old population.
Loschbour Report confirm that through SNP. EEF vs WHG and ENA.
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
Quote by Lioness: So if haplogroup H is the predominant mtDNA in Finland what happened to the all the E3b ???
Did these berber women migrate to Finland and Russia leaving their men behind in Southern Europe ???
Good questions but to answer these questions we have to separate facts from fiction.
The facts are: 1. real “Live data” shows that mtDNA hg-H entered Europe about 5000BC 2. real “Live data” shows R-M269 had NOT entered Europe until about 1000BC 3. real “Live data” shows the dominant male Hg throughout Europe was hg-G and to a minor extent E1b1b subclades and hg-I during late Paleolithic and early Neolithic 4. real “Live data” shows the dominant female hg-during mid to late Paleolithic wase hg-U 5. hg-H highest diversity is in Morroco, Tunisia and Levant/Bedoiuns/Saudi Arabia. In Europe it is Iberia, Sicily/Italy and Greece. The geographical correlation is NOT a coincidence. 6. DNATribes has showed that Basal European SNP/AIM source region is near the Nile/Sudan area. 7. Nubians/Sudanese have a high grequency AND diversity of HV and R0/pre-HV along with Yemen Arabian peninsular. 8. Henn et al (?) showed through SNP/AIM that there was long term migration from North Africa to Europe…and it was one way. 9. All the above are facts. Coalescence age estimation is NOT accurate .
There are several conclusion/inferences one can draw from the above facts.
But it is pretty obvious R-M269 is NOT the male migrant counter part to female hg-H. So the mystery to solve is why is R-M269 so dominant today in Europe and where from and extactly how they became so populous.
The “where from” can be answered by a thorough investigation on the resolution just as with mtDNA hg-H which I attempted to do on ESR. For White Males Only. Hammer et al tried to resolve the same issue.
The Achilli nonsense has been thrown out because the Basque male lineage R-M269 is in fact YOUNGER than populations suurounding them. Sources cited. Hammer suggested the source of R-M269 is Saudi Arabia region. He may be using the Afro-Iranians who carry unstream R-M269 and R1a, in addition to R-V88, as the source
I haven’t gotten a firm grasp as yet but obviously the genetic data do NOT align with the archeological data.
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
Oh! And a few other facts.
1. “live data” shows that ancient Europeans had black skin up to early Neolithic times. 2. La Brana, Loschboour, ancient Russians etc. Stuttgart woman, EEF Neolithic, was the game changer, her people mostly likely introduced the depignmentation gene to Europe. She had the mixture of light and dark skin gene. But apparently light eyes was in Europe BEFORE light skin. They are not correlated. So Shriver et al was correct. 3. BTW – EEF = Basal European=Bedioun=Sudanese/Nilolitics
Posted by Trollkillah # Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by HERU: The problem is 'Iberomaurusian' mostly describes a microlithic industry. Similar assemblages existed in central Africa.
Yes, that's true. And have shown this migration path, by archeological and anthropologic methods.
Thus far the reverse has not been proven.
When Kefi sequenced the data of the Taforalt, she could not recognize the nuclear DNA of L*. Which was later found to be present.
Taken from L you can build a logical phylogenetic tree within Africa, going from L to H. Ironically it correlates with archeological, anthropologic and even climatology.
Posted by Trollkillah # Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: Oh! And a few other facts.
1. “live data” shows that ancient Europeans had black skin up to early Neolithic times. 2. La Brana, Loschboour, ancient Russians etc. Stuttgart woman, EEF Neolithic, was the game changer, her people mostly likely introduced the depignmentation gene to Europe. She had the mixture of light and dark skin gene. But apparently light eyes was in Europe BEFORE light skin. They are not correlated. So Shriver et al was correct. 3. BTW – EEF = Basal European=Bedioun=Sudanese/Nilolitics
When Kefi sequenced the data of the Taforalt, she could not recognize the nuclear DNA of L*. Which was later found to be present.
Also. Thanks for the other links. I will check them out.
And yes. You have provided a lot of information of the occupation of North Africa going back may be 100,000 years. Aterians. There is growing evidence on the extensive age of AMH occupation of North Africa. My guess is these people learned to navigate the waters. Afterall They can literally see Iberian Mountains from Morroco.
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
quote:Originally posted by xyyman:
The facts are:
8. Henn et al (?) showed through SNP/AIM that there was long term migration from North Africa to Europe…and it was one way.
.
Really?
Forgotten from when posted 3 days ago the report does not say there was no Europe to Africa flow. It's intent was not to qualify Europe to Africa flow but nonetheless it says it did happen.
Laura R. Botigué (with Henn Flores Comas Bustamante) Gene flow from North Africa contributes to differential human genetic diversity in southern Europe PNAS | July 16, 2013 | vol. 110 | no. 29 | 11791–11796
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: real “Live data” shows that mtDNA hg-H entered Europe about 5000BC
@ Sage. I am not sure that was the context but, since it is you, I will revisit the section and confirm. I stnnd by the other facts and to further confirm the context of questioned statement
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
Make double sure before saying what's a fact. Now what about your first listed fact? Don't look now but posted 4 days ago
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler:
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
The Magdalenian samples in Cantabria, Northern Spain are the oldest 100% confirmed H on Planet Earth,
Ancient DNA from Hunter-Gatherer and Farmer Groups from Northern Spain Supports a Random Dispersion Model for the Neolithic Expansion into Europe 2012
PS has H rCRS clocked to the Cantabria Upper Paleolithic without further precision. Other Cantabria UP H, varying from the rCRS, is CH with H6.
The references for La Pasiega and La Chora are too old and obscure for me to track down. Anyway, I guess if any further date precision were in them Hervella would've put it in Table 1.
The known duration of the Magdalenian does allow for a much greater age than Taforalt.
Cantabria could pre-date Taforalt but not by much. Depends on comparing calibrated C14 BP date vs just plain old BP date. Current archaeology dating of Taforalt varies from what Kefi had in 2005. Don't think the human bones themselves were dated. Think other remains at the same level in the cave were used.
Don't know if from the cemetery or elsewhere in the cave. Bottomline, really don't know what Kefi's Taforalt dates are based on but Kefi keeps stating older and older dates each time she brings it up (~11k ~12k ~13k).
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: Quote by Lioness: So if haplogroup H is the predominant mtDNA in Finland what happened to the all the E3b ???
Did these berber women migrate to Finland and Russia leaving their men behind in Southern Europe ???
Good questions but to answer these questions we have to separate facts from fiction.
The facts are: 1. real “Live data” shows that mtDNA hg-H entered Europe about 5000BC 2. real “Live data” shows R-M269 had NOT entered Europe until about 1000BC 3. real “Live data” shows the dominant male Hg throughout Europe was hg-G and to a minor extent E1b1b subclades and hg-I during late Paleolithic and early Neolithic 4. real “Live data” shows the dominant female hg-during mid to late Paleolithic wase hg-U 5. hg-H highest diversity is in Morroco, Tunisia and Levant/Bedoiuns/Saudi Arabia. In Europe it is Iberia, Sicily/Italy and Greece. The geographical correlation is NOT a coincidence. 6. DNATribes has showed that Basal European SNP/AIM source region is near the Nile/Sudan area. 7. Nubians/Sudanese have a high grequency AND diversity of HV and R0/pre-HV along with Yemen Arabian peninsular. 8. Henn et al (?) showed through SNP/AIM that there was long term migration from North Africa to Europe…and it was one way. 9. All the above are facts. Coalescence age estimation is NOT accurate .
There are several conclusion/inferences one can draw from the above facts.
But it is pretty obvious R-M269 is NOT the male migrant counter part to female hg-H. So the mystery to solve is why is R-M269 so dominant today in Europe and where from and exactly how they became so populous.
The “where from” can be answered by a thorough investigation on the resolution just as with mtDNA hg-H which I attempted to do on ESR. For White Males Only. Hammer et al tried to resolve the same issue.
The Achilles nonsense has been thrown out because the Basque male lineage R-M269 is in fact YOUNGER than populations surrounding them. Sources cited. Hammer suggested the source of R-M269 is Saudi Arabia region. He may be using the Afro-Iranians who carry unstream R-M269 and R1a, in addition to R-V88, as the source
I haven’t gotten a firm grasp as yet but obviously the genetic data do NOT align with the archeological data.
xyyman, the highest diversity of R-269 is in Anatolia, now Turkey
But the topic had been haplogroup H so let's stay on that topic. Besides you say that H entered Europe through the Strait of Gibraltar but the migrating farmers who were theorized in recent articles to have brought R-269 were coming from an Eastern Eurasian direction not from Africa which is South of Europe.
Stay on topic please, halpogroup H and berbers
You say berbers many who carry high frequencies of haplogroup H But these same berbers who carry haplogroup H are predominantly E
Why is H all over Europe the most common mitrochondrial haplogroup, such as in Finland
while E is in some specific parts of Southern Europe it is not all over Europe and in some places in Europe where it is found it is not always the predominant Y hg
what happened was there a wandering band of female berbers spreading H in Finland but the male berbers were scared to venture North of Spain ???
quote:In addition, a large degree of genetic heterogeneity has been shown in North African maternal lineages compared to other geographical regions such as Europe (Plaza et al., 2003; Fadhlaoui-Zid et al., 2004). ---Mitochondria DNA Structure in North Africa Reveals a Genetic Discontinuity in the Nile Valley - Fadhlaoui-Zid et al., 2011
^^^ here is the heterogeneity that shows the genetic discontinuity in the Nile Valley, most berbers are predominantly E3 clade, in some Tunisians populations E-M81 is 85+ % However the Siwa in Egypt are the Nile Valley exception, they have near to no M81 (although some single digit frequencies of other E clades) -however their predominant Y frequency is R1B1* at nearly 30% And unlike other berbers their highest frequency mtDNA is U5 and M1. This is the heterogeneity Zid and Comas were talking about
But again, Egypt is on the other side of the continent, not near the Straight of Gibraltar
Let's not avoid the issue You said H was brought to Europe exiting Morocco and going into Spain
H is all over Europe why isn't E all over Europe? Why is it only in Southern Europe ? Did a group of women Berbers get on horseback and venture off by themselves?
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler: Don't look now but posted 4 days ago
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler:
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
The Magdalenian samples in Cantabria, Northern Spain are the oldest 100% confirmed H on Planet Earth,
Ancient DNA from Hunter-Gatherer and Farmer Groups from Northern Spain Supports a Random Dispersion Model for the Neolithic Expansion into Europe 2012
PS has H rCRS clocked to the Cantabria Upper Paleolithic without further precision. Other Cantabria UP H, varying from the rCRS, is CH with H6.
The references for La Pasiega and La Chora are too old and obscure for me to track down. Anyway, I guess if any further date precision were in them Hervella would've put it in Table 1.
The known duration of the Magdalenian does allow for a much greater age than Taforalt.
Cantabria could pre-date Taforalt but not by much. Depends on comparing calibrated C14 BP vs just plain old BP. Current archaeology dating of Taforalt varies from what Kefi had in 2005. Don't think the human bones themselves were dated. Think other remains at the same level in the cave were used. Really don't know what the Taforalt dates are based on but Kefi keeps stating older and older dates each time she brings it up.
The above SITE chart is in apparent chronological order. Older 1952 (?) references on La Pasiega refer to the discovery of the site decades ago. The DNA sequencing is recent, Hervella et al, the authors, 2012 (check me on this, didn't have time) ERR, in third position, 12,310 Bp
You said
Cantabria could pre-date Taforalt but not by much.
Why ? Why couldn't it be older? _______________________________________
other H commentary below, one noticable thing is that these Cantabrian sites are in Northern Spain rather than Southern Spain
^^^ DavidskiApril 28, 2013 at 10:58 AM I have some problems accepting that mtDNA H was present in the Iberian Upper Paleolithic based on current data. The Hervella et al. results aren't very convincing, and based on the sequences they might well be U. Indeed, is there any plausible reason why H6 would be found in Pre-Glacial Spain?
The presence of H1 in Epipaleolithic North Africa (and thus probably also Iberia) sounds more reasonable, but again, those Kéfi 2005 samples need to be tested again at higher resolution to make sure.
So at this stage, is H older than the Neolithic in Europe? Yeah, possibly. But is it older than the Ice Age? Possibly not.
MajuApril 28, 2013 at 12:58 PM The methods used by Hervella are widely accepted and have never been questioned. They confirm with all certainty that it's H* and H6. Has it ever been found a single case of R* testing negative for Alu I that is not H? Nope. We are not discussing anymore HVS-I sequences alone but RFLP testing.
Also I fail to see how an HVS-I sequence for H6 (which requires two transitions: T16362C A16482G) can be U of any sort or anything but H6. This is not anymore the sometimes confusing R-CRS but clearly unquestionable H6.
But the key test is RFLP testing, about which I have never ever read a single criticism, even if today has been generally replaced by coding region testing.
"The presence of H1 in Epipaleolithic North Africa"...
It is Upper Paleolithic. Taforalt remains are dated to 12,000 BP, contemporary with European Magdalenian. Furthermore the culture they belong to (Oranian or Iberomaurusian) began c. 20-22,000 BP, contemporary with and related to Solutrean. It has no relation whatsoever with Magdalenian or European Epipaleolithic.
And let's not forget Sunghir's double and quite unmistakable H17'27, which is Gravettian. True that here there's only one transition but there are no other known alternatives, so, unless proven otherwise, it is H17'27.
... "is H older than the Neolithic in Europe? Yeah, possibly".
For sure.
And why "in Europe"? Isn't the paper discussing haplogroup H as a whole. Nowhere I see that they restrict it to any region, which would be in any case the Elbe-Saale one, and not "Europe".
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by xyyman:
5. hg-H highest diversity is in Morroco, Tunisia and Levant/Bedoiuns/Saudi Arabia.
Egypt and Libya are two sizable countries in between Morroco/Tunisia and The Levant/Arabia
Which has a greater diversity of H
a) Morocco/Tunisia (Africa)
or
b) The Levant/Arabia (Asia) ?
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
For both branches of R1. R1a and R1b. Hammer points to an Iranian orgin R1b and now Underhill points to an Iranian origin of R1a. Huh?!
Do you remember which population in Iran has high frequency of BOTH R1a and upstream R1b? tic!toc.!
Don’t get misdirected by modernday geopolitical labels. BTW I still think the origin is NOT in Iran. But that is more my gut feeling based upon other data. But anyways this is what we have.
====== The phylogenetic and geographic structure of Y-chromosome haplogroup R1a
Peter A Underhill et al.
Quote from Underhill(2014):
1. Based on spatial distributions and diversity patterns within the R1a-M420 clade, particularly rare basal branches detected primarily within Iran and eastern Turkey, we conclude that the initial episodes of haplogroup R1a diversification likely occurred in the VICINITY of present-day Iran.
2. The shallow coalescence time within R1a will not surprise many genetic genealogists while its diversification in the vicinity of present-day Iran might. A ~5-7kyBP coalescence would make the expansion of R1a lineages presumably
This suggests the possibility that R1a lineages accompanied demic expansions initiated during the Copper, Bronze, and Iron ages, partially replacing previous Y-chromosome strata, an interpretation CONSISTENT with albeit limited ancient DNA evidence.54
It would of course be great to get some ancient DNA data from Iran and Eastern Turkey:
Owing to the prevalence of basal lineages and the high levels of haplogroup DIVERSITIES in the region, we find a compelling case for the Middle East, possibly near present-day Iran, as the geographic origin of hg R1a --------
May be someone can get their hands on the paper? I am fresh out of food stamps.
Question: What is the “vicinity” of Iran? The games these people play. That is why we need to look at the supplementals to see who the sampled populations are.
See, Lioness/Sweetness. Divesity, diversity, diversity, basal, basal, basal. NOT FREQUENCY!!!
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
@Sage. I need to find the paper on Henn? Too many computers/devices to look through. Will post when I get it. I need to stick to one device but....
Oh! And modern day Europeans are NOT who we think …or THEY think they are. LOL. It is all a delusion..illusion.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: For both branches of R1. R1a and R1b. Hammer points to an Iranian orgin R1b and now Underhill points to an Iranian origin of R1a. Huh?!
Do you remember which population in Iran has high frequency of BOTH R1a and upstream R1b? tic!toc.!
Don’t get misdirected by modernday geopolitical labels. BTW I still think the origin is NOT in Iran. But that is more my gut feeling based upon other data. But anyways this is what we have.
this is more like it right?
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
It depends on who/which paper/age of the paper. That is why you need to keep up to date. Older paper says Levant/Arabia. Newer papers are now pointing towards Tunisia. That is why Kefi’s new paper is so important.
But you need to look at things holistically. Look at ALL the pieces…if you can RETAIN and RECOLLECT all that information. Lol! Even frequency..
The hg-H genetic make up of Arabia and Morocco is different. H17, 18? etc is higher in Arabia. H1, H3 etc is more to Morocco/Iberia. Tunisia seems comprised of BOTH. Which would make it seem Tunisia is the SOURCE population. The upstream Macro group pre-HV/RO is found in Nubia/Sudan/Egypt at high frequency which will indicate Tunisia is NOT the source population. The source may be in Sudan/Nubia area correlating with the ‘basal Euroepan’” SNP/AIM data that DNATribes proposed.
It is important to read several papers to get several different point of views.
Oh! Magedelan. That is probably an anomaly Most modern reports agree now on an Neolithic introduction of hg-H. And a bronze/Iron age introduction of male R1b/R1a
The diversity data is shows a younger age for hg-H and R1b in Europe than outside Europe.
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:Originally posted by xyyman:
5. hg-H highest diversity is in Morroco, Tunisia and Levant/Bedoiuns/Saudi Arabia.
Egypt and Libya are two sizable countries in between Morroco/Tunisia and The Levant/Arabia
Which has a greater diversity of H
a) Morocco/Tunisia (Africa)
or
b) The Levant/Arabia (Asia) ?
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
Yeah! Remember my post on Afro-Iranians?
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: For both branches of R1. R1a and R1b. Hammer points to an Iranian orgin R1b and now Underhill points to an Iranian origin of R1a. Huh?!
Do you remember which population in Iran has high frequency of BOTH R1a and upstream R1b? tic!toc.!
Don’t get misdirected by modernday geopolitical labels. BTW I still think the origin is NOT in Iran. But that is more my gut feeling based upon other data. But anyways this is what we have.
PS has H rCRS clocked to the Cantabria Upper Paleolithic without further precision. Other Cantabria UP H, varying from the rCRS, is CH with H6.
The references for La Pasiega and La Chora are too old and obscure for me to track down. Anyway, I guess if any further date precision were in them Hervella would've put it in Table 1.
The known duration of the Magdalenian does allow for a much greater age than Taforalt.
Cantabria could pre-date Taforalt but not by much. Depends on comparing calibrated C14 BP vs just plain old BP. Current archaeology dating of Taforalt varies from what Kefi had in 2005. Don't think the human bones themselves were dated. Think other remains at the same level in the cave were used. Really don't know what the Taforalt dates are based on but Kefi keeps stating older and older dates each time she brings it up.
Right from the start understand I do not critique blogs. Why? Just another opinion from somebody who is not a geneticist. Or if so, apparently lacking published reports of their own authorship. But I will swipe that map, looks reliable, valid visuals always add value to a text.
Dating La Pasiega and La Chora is one thing, DNA sequencing another. Those two sites don't have BP dates, unlike Erralla, but are linked to a "lithic" era and a local technology.
If PS & CH finds are aged similar to Erralla's then they're likely contemporary with Taforalt.
If the DNA yielding osteo remains came from layers nearer to Upper Paleolithic Magdalenian beginnings then they're likely older than Kefi's 2005 Taforalt samples.
I know no way to ascertain PS & CH BP years and apparently neither does Hervella, since not in text nor table of the report. Listing them before Erralla doesn't mean they are older. Again their precise date is unknown.
About Cantabria being in northern Spain. Where else should a "Franco-Cantabrian Refugium" be?
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
@ Sweetness - Keeping up to date of the E-M81. No one seriously thinks hg-E is anything but African.
--------- FROM: Y-chromosome E haplogroups: their distribution and implication to the origin of Afro-Asiatic languages and pastoralism – Eyoab March2014
The expansion, carrying the diversified E-P2 mutation, may be responsible for the migration of male populations to different parts of the continent and henceforth the rise and spread of the bearers of the macrohaplogroup.50
Given the proposed origin of Maghreb ancestors56–59 in North Africa, our network dating suggested a divergence of North Western African populations from Eastern African as early as 32 000 YBP, which is close to the estimated dates to the origin of E-P2 macrohaplogroup.30,60 It can be further inferred that the high frequency of E-M81 in North Africa and its association to the Berber-speaking populations25,30,32,60,61 may have occurred after the splitting of that early group, leading to local differentiation and flow of some markers as far as Southern Europe.30,60,62
A branching in the network may once again represent an episode of human migration that carried the haplogroup E-M35 and its subhaplogroups farther to the western coast of the Red Sea to Yemen, Oman and Saudi Arabia and concurrently down to Southern Africa as part of a more recent Y chromosome motivated out of Africa migration episode. The arrival of the E-M35 and derived subclades, for(comment-should that be EASTERN?)
example, E-M123/E-M34, TO Arabia appears to be strongly linked to expansion into East Africa, North Africa, EUROPE, Southern Africa, an event that is likely related to pastoralism, hastened by its advent and amenable for analysis and dating using approaches similar to what was proposed for the co-migration of Y chromosome and disease traits.63
The presence of archeological10–13 and agro-pastoral9,14,16 evidences from this side of the Red Sea and the history of migration of animals across the Red Sea,64 however, calls for more molecular dissection of common haplogroups shared by these coastal populations. As suggested by others, this may give clues not only to the ORIGIN of E-M123, **J-M267**, K-M70, but also to the ORIGIN of SEMITIC LANGUAGES.65,66
----
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
An anomaly? Why? The most advance modern testing confirms highest diversity in Africa. The upsteram clades and basal nodes are also Africa. Most aDNA results consistently confirm hg-H arrival about 6-5000ya.
PS has H rCRS clocked to the Cantabria Upper Paleolithic without further precision. Other Cantabria UP H, varying from the rCRS, is CH with H6.
The references for La Pasiega and La Chora are too old and obscure for me to track down. Anyway, I guess if any further date precision were in them Hervella would've put it in Table 1.
The known duration of the Magdalenian does allow for a much greater age than Taforalt.
Cantabria could pre-date Taforalt but not by much. Depends on comparing calibrated C14 BP vs just plain old BP. Current archaeology dating of Taforalt varies from what Kefi had in 2005. Don't think the human bones themselves were dated. Think other remains at the same level in the cave were used. Really don't know what the Taforalt dates are based on but Kefi keeps stating older and older dates each time she brings it up.
Right from the start understand I do not critique blogs. Why? Just another opinion from somebody who is not a geneticist. Or if so, apparently lacking published reports of their own authorship. But I will swipe that map, looks reliable, valid visuals always add value to a text.
Dating La Pasiega and La Chora is one thing, DNA sequencing another. Those two sites don't have BP dates, unlike Erralla, but are linked to a "lithic" era and a local technology.
If PS & CH finds are aged similar to Erralla's then they're likely contemporary with Taforalt.
If the DNA yielding osteo remains came from layers nearer to Upper Paleolithic Magdalenian beginnings then they're likely older than Kefi's 2005 Taforalt samples.
I know no way to ascertain PS & CH BP years and apparently neither does Hervella, since not in text nor table of the report. Listing them before Erralla doesn't mean they are older. Again their precise date is unknown.
About Cantabria being in northern Spain. Where else should a "Franco-Cantabrian Refugium" be?
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
Seems like the author, like me, has doubts on the Anatolian origin of J1, and the Semitic language in Eurasia. The is really getting interesting.
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: @ Sweetness - Keeping up to date of the E-M81. No one seriously thinks hg-E is anything but African.
--------- FROM: Y-chromosome E haplogroups: their distribution and implication to the origin of Afro-Asiatic languages and pastoralism – Eyoab March2014
The expansion, carrying the diversified E-P2 mutation, may be responsible for the migration of male populations to different parts of the continent and henceforth the rise and spread of the bearers of the macrohaplogroup.50
Given the proposed origin of Maghreb ancestors56–59 in North Africa, our network dating suggested a divergence of North Western African populations from Eastern African as early as 32 000 YBP, which is close to the estimated dates to the origin of E-P2 macrohaplogroup.30,60 It can be further inferred that the high frequency of E-M81 in North Africa and its association to the Berber-speaking populations25,30,32,60,61 may have occurred after the splitting of that early group, leading to local differentiation and flow of some markers as far as Southern Europe.30,60,62
A branching in the network may once again represent an episode of human migration that carried the haplogroup E-M35 and its subhaplogroups farther to the western coast of the Red Sea to Yemen, Oman and Saudi Arabia and concurrently down to Southern Africa as part of a more recent Y chromosome motivated out of Africa migration episode. The arrival of the E-M35 and derived subclades, for(comment-should that be EASTERN?)
example, E-M123/E-M34, TO Arabia appears to be strongly linked to expansion into East Africa, North Africa, EUROPE, Southern Africa, an event that is likely related to pastoralism, hastened by its advent and amenable for analysis and dating using approaches similar to what was proposed for the co-migration of Y chromosome and disease traits.63
The presence of archeological10–13 and agro-pastoral9,14,16 evidences from this side of the Red Sea and the history of migration of animals across the Red Sea,64 however, calls for more molecular dissection of common haplogroups shared by these coastal populations. As suggested by others, this may give clues not only to the ORIGIN of E-M123, **J-M267**, K-M70, but also to the ORIGIN of SEMITIC LANGUAGES.65,66
----
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
quote:Originally posted by xyyman:
An anomaly? Why? The most advance modern testing confirms highest diversity in Africa.
.
So far you have supplied no supporting evidence yet you keep repeating it dispite given precise figures to the opposite in the case of H1 which has its lowest diversity in Africa.
That old 2003 diversity chart you posted is for all the haplogroups pooled together as one. In it the Moroccan Arabs displayed the highest figure of indiscriminate haplogroup diversity.
Also note it omits Arabian Peninsula/Levant/Iraq and the Levant is where Enaafaa 2009 found the highest diversity of H1.
At this point I have to ask if your intent is to ferret out highest diversity where ever it may be or to uphold a priori convictions based on an Africa uber alles ideology?
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
Make up your minds. Iberia migrating to Tunisia or Arabians migrating to Tunisia? Which it is? Can't have it both ways.
Then we can move on. Big picture man! big picture!
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
Phylogeny and genetic structure of Tunisians and their position within Mediterranean populations - Rym Kefi Feb2014
Abstract
Tunisia is located at the crossroads of Europe, the Middle East and Sub-Saharan Africa. This position might lead to numerous waves of migrations, contributing to the current genetic landscape of Tunisians. In this study, we analyzed 815 mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) sequences from Tunisia in order to characterize the mitochondrial DNA genetic structure of this region, to construct the processes for its composition and to compare it to other Mediterranean populations. To that end, additional 4206 mtDNA sequences were compiled from previous studies performed in African (1237), Near Eastern (231) and European (2738) populations. Both phylogenetic and statistical analyses were performed. This study confirmed the mosaic genetic structure of the Tunisian population with the predominance of the Eurasian lineages, followed by the Sub-Saharan and North African lineages. Among Tunisians, the highest haplogroup and haplotype diversity were observed in particular in the Capital Tunis. No significant differentiation was observed between both geographical (Northern versus Southern Tunisia) and different ethnic groups in Tunisia. Our results highlight the presence of outliers and MOST frequent unique sequences in Tunisia (10.2%) COMPARED to 45 Mediterranean populations. Phylogenetic analysis showed that the majority of Tunisian localities were closer to North Africans and Near Eastern populations than to Europeans. The exception was found for Berbers from Jerba which are clustered with Sardinians and Valencians.
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
DNATribes New Update...April 2014!!
Quote: "Step 5 (Remove North African percentages): However, removing the North African component does not result in new components expressed. This suggests that European genetic relationships with North Africa are either ****local to the Maghreb ***or else better represented by other components (such as Arabian and/or Mesopotamian percentages).
Quote:Conclusion Sequential analyses of non-local genetic components in Europe using both autosomal STR and SNP data express ancestral components related to Middle Eastern and North Eurasian populations. Subsequent steps in each iterative analysis reveal deeper genetic relationships to populations of the Indian Subcontinent and Horn of Africa, possibly related to Early European Farmer (EEF) populations that first emerged near the Fertile Crescent as a synthesis integrating migratory hunter-gatherer and sedentary cultures from West Eurasia (possibly Anatolia) withi Basal Eurasian populations (possibly the Nile Valle).
-----
close thread. Damn, I should be paid for this shyte.
Oh - I don't think it is near the Nile Valley...think Luhya. Ha! Ha! Give them more time...
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: DNATribes New Update...April 2014!!
Quote: "Step 5 (Remove North African percentages): However, removing the North African component does not result in new components expressed. This suggests that European genetic relationships with North Africa are either ****local to the Maghreb ***or else better represented by other components (such as Arabian and/or Mesopotamian percentages).
-----
close thread. Damn, I should be paid for this shyte.
Oh - I don't think it is near the Nile Valley...think Luhya. Ha! Ha! Give them more time... [/QB]
.
So you feel that the ancestors of Europeans are probably closer to the Luhya people
xyyman, I thought you thought the Strait if Gibralter is how Africans brought haplgroup H to Europe, the Luhya are in Kenya, that's far off
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
So, why aren't researchers universally adopting this much more scientifically accurate method? Why do they KNOWINGLY keep using dubious proxy samples to define what constitutes African ancestry when they can use straight forward cut off points to distinguish between African and non-African ancestry? They know this cannot be viable because they themselves admit there was sub-structure in deep time in n.Africa and e.Africa before and after OOA, which may have never reached the African interior, but which is African nonetheless. [/qb]
.
Russians are 25% black ???
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: This guy thinks modern Russians of 2014 are 25% black
I done with this troll
go visit Mike, he'll eat that up
next.....
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
This is happening faster than I thought. I gave them 2 years. I was wrong. I overestimated. It may be less than 1 year.
To those that don't get it. They are now saying that Basal Europeans now originated IN the Maghreb OR the Middle East. If it is through the Maghreb then we have entry through Morocco and Tunisia.
This is the first time they acknowledge origin through the Maghreb
That's the problem with some of you. You don't understand the intricacies of how the human genome work.
ALL published "SNP" data shows that the Luhya are ancestral to the people of the Maghreb. Masaai are ancesral to the Egytians. Some minor Luhya input.
I have no idea what the Luhya people look like and it does not matter.
As I said many times SSA owned the Nile. There is a sharp divide there.
According to HAPMAP data etc the Luhya carry many Eurasian material.
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
I posted this about 14months ago with the tiff with Beyoku on SNP. Trying to educate him.
I don't have the fancy high tech computer and software like DNATribes. Just eyeballing it is obvious to see.
Luhya, Hema and Alur
Posted by KING (Member # 9422) on :
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: This is happening faster than I thought. I gave them 2 years. I was wrong. I overestimated. It may be less than 1 year.
To those that don't get it. They are now saying that Basal Europeans now originated IN the Maghreb OR the Middle East. If it is through the Maghreb then we have entry through Morocco and Tunisia.
This is the first time they acknowledge origin through the Maghreb
That's the problem with some of you. You don't understand the intricacies of how the human genome work.
ALL published "SNP" data shows that the Luhya are ancestral to the people of the Maghreb. Masaai are ancesral to the Egytians. Some minor Luhya input.
I have no idea what the Luhya people look like and it does not matter.
As I said many times SSA owned the Nile. There is a sharp divide there.
According to HAPMAP data etc the Luhya carry many Eurasian material.
This is EXACTLY the thing I was trying to get through to Lioness thick skull.
You can't tell where a person comes from simply by hair, color etc. Look beyond this exterior and look within.
Yet I read this thread she still hung up on her:
"Russians aren't 25% black, just look at them"
"Luhya aren't ancestral to Europeans, look at them"
You would think that getting it through her head about African hair, would make her think twice about posting bullish about what people look like, But sadly that flies over her head.
Keep trucking xyyman
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
Uber Africa! Uber xyyman!
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: I posted this about 14months ago with the tiff with Beyoku on SNP. Trying to educate him.
I don't have the fancy high tech computer and software like DNATribes. Just eyeballing it is obvious to see.
So, why aren't researchers universally adopting this much more scientifically accurate method? Why do they KNOWINGLY keep using dubious proxy samples to define what constitutes African ancestry when they can use straight forward cut off points to distinguish between African and non-African ancestry? They know this cannot be viable because they themselves admit there was sub-structure in deep time in n.Africa and e.Africa before and after OOA, which may have never reached the African interior, but which is African nonetheless.
.
Russians are 25% black ???
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: This guy thinks modern Russians of 2014 are 25% black
I done with this troll
go visit Mike, he'll eat that up
next.....
How did you bridge the humongous gap in logic from making the observation that the Maghreb component exclusively occurs in the Maghreb, that it can be counted as among that which is "African", other than making gratuitous use of unfortunate labelling (e.g. that the authors called it "Maghreb")?
You never did and you got defensive when you were asked to.
Anyone can see that your tacit insinuation that the component that defines Berber speakers "is African because it resides in/is designated as Maghreb" doesn't prove your assertion that it is African. It's just a reflection of your own unproven view that it is African, masquerading as "evidence", hence, it's a circular argument.
The crackpot quacks on ES crack me up. The quacks use the lack of extant Epi-Palaeolithic Y DNA from Iberia as evidence against Epipalaeolithic Iberian gene-flow to coastal Maghreb, but what they "forget" to mention is that the Y chromosomes that define northern African males are all recent arrivals to the Maghreb; none of them stretch back to the 10-30kya period in which most maternal Maghrebi lineages inhabited the region. For some reason it doesn't seem to dawn on these charlatans that if we're going to use their argument (i.e. "the lack of extant Upper Palaeolithic Eurasian lineages is indicative of a lack of Ibero-Maurusian contact with Europe and asia") at face value, the conclusion will have to be that U6, M1, H1, H3, V and U5 females had offspring on their own (through some as of yet to be substantiated virginal conception mechanism) 30-10kya, until E-M81 and J-M267 arrived in the mid-Holocene and introduced the idea of male-female intercourse. That's the type of dogmatic, faith-based crap we're dealing with.
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
There are a few guys here who pretend to understand this stuff. I said about a month ago the Loschbour/Lazaridis report is the biggest break through and revealing thing about aDNA since Hawass JAMA report on the Amarnas. Goes to show how many frauds are on here and on the web. Not you Sage, you are making an effort, and Lioness. Lioness is playing games but he is getting it.
Here DNATrbies understand the significance of the report. Hell, there were close to over 100 of the best genecist involved in this report. (Achilli and Toronni was NOT).
DNATribes dedicated TWO consecutive monthly digest breaking down the report. The “experts”,sic, here did not bat an eye. Lol! Why? They did not know what they were looking at.
Point is….there is no clear divide between humans, there is no race. Modern Europeans, IRREGARDLESS of what they look like, are an admixture recent Africans(circa 5000bc), and ancient Africans(called Asians). Sforza got the percentages wrong.
Posted by KING (Member # 9422) on :
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: There are a few guys here who pretend to understand this stuff. I said about a month ago the Loschbour/Lazaridis report is the biggest break through and revealing thing about aDNA since Hawass JAMA report on the Amarnas. Goes to show how many frauds are on here and on the web. Not you Sage, you are making an effort, and Lioness. Lioness is playing games but he is getting it.
Here DNATrbies understand the significance of the report. Hell, there were close to over 100 of the best genecist involved in this report. (Achilli and Toronni was NOT).
DNATribes dedicated TWO consecutive monthly digest breaking down the report. The “experts”,sic, here did not bat an eye. Lol! Why? They did not know what they were looking at.
Point is….there is no clear divide between humans, there is no race. Modern Europeans, IRREGARDLESS of what they look like, are an admixture recent Africans(circa 5000bc), and ancient Africans(called Asians). Sforza got the percentages wrong.
So what you are saying is that Sforzas 33% African and 66% Asian should be reversed?? Or that what it states in the new study about Magreb being the "likely" home of EEF is more Valid then anything written about before?
Posted by KING (Member # 9422) on :
So, why aren't researchers universally adopting this much more scientifically accurate method? Why do they KNOWINGLY keep using dubious proxy samples to define what constitutes African ancestry when they can use straight forward cut off points to distinguish between African and non-African ancestry? They know this cannot be viable because they themselves admit there was sub-structure in deep time in n.Africa and e.Africa before and after OOA, which may have never reached the African interior, but which is African nonetheless.
.
Russians are 25% black ???
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: This guy thinks modern Russians of 2014 are 25% black
I done with this troll
go visit Mike, he'll eat that up
next.....
How did you bridge the humongous gap in logic from making the observation that the Maghreb component exclusively occurs in the Maghreb, that it can be counted as among that which is "African", other than making gratuitous use of unfortunate labelling (e.g. that the authors called it "Maghreb")?
You never did and you got defensive when you were asked to.
Anyone can see that your tacit insinuation that the component that defines Berber speakers "is African because it resides in/is designated as Maghreb" doesn't prove your assertion that it is African. It's just a reflection of your own unproven view that it is African, masquerading as "evidence", hence, it's a circular argument.
The crackpot quacks on ES crack me up. The quacks use the lack of extant Epi-Palaeolithic Y DNA from Iberia as evidence against Epipalaeolithic Iberian gene-flow to coastal Maghreb, but what they "forget" to mention is that the Y chromosomes that define northern African males are all recent arrivals to the Maghreb; none of them stretch back to the 10-30kya period in which most maternal Maghrebi lineages inhabited the region. For some reason it doesn't seem to dawn on these charlatans that if we're going to use their argument (i.e. "the lack of extant Upper Palaeolithic Eurasian lineages is indicative of a lack of Ibero-Maurusian contact with Europe and asia") at face value, the conclusion will have to be that U6, M1, H1, H3, V and U5 females had offspring on their own (through some as of yet to be substantiated virginal conception mechanism) 30-10kya, until E-M81 and J-M267 arrived in the mid-Holocene and introduced the idea of male-female intercourse. That's the type of dogmatic, faith-based crap we're dealing with.
The leaving there men behind, and sleeping with Air ruse. Until African men come from the East to leave there women and sleep with these women they found.
The world is complex, simple ideas of wipeouts, killings etc just does not calculate the interactions peoples have had with eachother since time imorale.
These Interactions started with people learning how to Farm and spreading that to other cultures they met along the way. Seeing this , depending on what the majority of people were in each region, these people melted into the societys they lived in.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by xyyman:
Point is….there is no clear divide between humans, there is no race. Modern Europeans, IRREGARDLESS of what they look like, are an admixture recent Africans(circa 5000bc), and ancient Africans(called Asians). Sforza got the percentages wrong.
so what would you say the percentages are that modern Europeans are comprised of?
_ Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
Yes. Sforza got the percentages wrong. The Loschbour report put Lower Europeans(Iberia/Italy/Greece/and jewish groups) at close to 80% EEF. Northerners are more ancient and less EEF, they are about 40% EEF. They are saying that Lower Europeans are either Maghrebian decent or Arabian but NOT both. You know who my money is on. Lol! Both had a single “source” population.
I did not write this…honest!!! This is from DNATribes April2014. They are stealing my thunder on Arbia is an extension of Africa. Where did I post this. “sub-saharans to the south and North Africans to the North(in Arabia). The Levant seemed to be another divide. Not sure why. I get the Nile.
QUOTE Within this agricultural zone range, EEF farmers came in contact with other ancient populations: In Europe and West Asia, EEF populations mixed with North Eurasians (including Siberian relatives of WHG hunter-gatherers). In the Arabian Peninsula, EEF farmers mixed with ancestral Sub-Saharan Africans related to modern Nigerian, Gambian, and Botswanan populations. In Armenia and Georgia, EEF farmers mixed with South Asian (Indian Subcontinent) populations.
quote:Originally posted by KING: [QUOTE]Originally posted by xyyman: [qb] is more Valid then anything written about before?
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by xyyman:
They are saying that Lower Europeans are either Maghrebian decent or Arabian but NOT both. You know who my money is on. Lol! Both had a single “source” population.
I don't know who your money is on, you were recently talking about basal European in Sudan and now you are on to Luhya or are they Tunisans who migrated to Euroep 5000 years ago ? Or were they Libyan Tuaregs you also mentioned ?
you seem to keep changing it, make up your mind
Also therefore so called Southern Europe is an extension of Africa
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
Now some of you know why Henn chose Qatari as a proxy for her backmigration nonsense and NOT Levantines eg Syrians and Iraqi. Even with that she had to go back 40,000years to make the connection. LOL!
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
I know you have retention and comprehension problems. I said many times before. The Luhya (or similar population based upon HAPMAP) is ancestral to the Maghreb. The Maghreb is ancestral to a large percentage of Lower Europeans. As King pointed out, and I, there is a lot a dynamics involved. There is no clear cut black or white only gray.
There may be other African populations involved but the Luhya is usually referenced in in HAPMAP while YRI is used in HGDP. DNATribes said “near” the Nile. I said before it is more to the West of the Nile and further South.
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:Originally posted by xyyman:
They are saying that Lower Europeans are either Maghrebian decent or Arabian but NOT both. You know who my money is on. Lol! Both had a single “source” population.
I don't know who your money is on, you were recently talking about basal European in Sudan and now you are on to Luhya or are they Tunisans who migrated to Euroep 5000 years ago ? Or were they Libyan Tuaregs you also mentioned ?
you seem to keep changing it, make up your mind
Also therefore so called Southern Europe is an extension of Africa
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
**Sigh**. You really do have a raisin-sized brain, don't you?
1) I've never said that I myself believe that people from the Maghreb are 50% African--only that such an outcome could potentially be a result of the type of analysis I suggested. I told you this the first time around:
quote: Originally posted by Swenet: There are sound scientific reasons for why this is happening, which no one seems to be discussing. What I can say is that this seems to be related to Sforza's observation that Europeans are 1/3 African and 2/3s East Asian. Until this is properly teased out, how much of the Maghrebi genome is African on top of the ~10-30% that typically gets assigned to them, remains an open question.
Learn how to read. It's never too late to take reading comprehension classes.
2) If West Asians are, let's say, 30% African, and a West Asian woman mates with an African male who is genetically 100% African, that would result in offspring with ~65% African ancestry. This, however would not mean that the 15% African ancestry that was inherited from the mother's side is not the result of geneflow from outside of Africa. Hence, even if Maghrebi people are ~50% African, a healthy chunk of this would still have to be looked at from the perspective of backflow, given the foreign lineages that Maghrebi people have inherited from West Asians who, apparently, were ~30%(?) African themselves. Again, since you're so hard of hearing, let me repeat myself (not sure if you can be trusted with grasping a concept with just one iteration); 50% African does not equal "50% independent of back-flow from outside of Africa".
Epic fail. Next time when you try to find contra- dictions in my posts, find actual contradictions. Not some half-assed patchwork of keg-in-a-hole type strawman fallacies, which are really reflections of your own horrible reading deficiencies.
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: (...)
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
I hate doing this to you but I have to use you as my test case. Soryy brotha. But this an arsine statement….nothing personal
1. Maghrebians are African, so that 10-30% typically assigned to them is also African. 2. African “on top” of African genome results in ….African
Science and Logic was not you thing in school…was it?
Quote: Until this is properly teased out, how much of the Maghrebi genome is African **on top** of the ~10-30% that typically gets assigned to them, remains an open question. Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
Yeah yeah. We know gramps. "The Maghrebi component is Luhya", fart, fart, "basal Eurasian", mouth fart, "H1 is African", mouth fart. "There are no Eurasian lineages", fart, mouth fart, "H doesn't arrive in Europe until the neolithic", fart, "Kefi 2014 will come to my rescue", mouth fart.
We know gramps, we know.
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
Here is another interesting tid bit.
I said this again about one year ago when we debated the Behar et al paper on Jewish groups. The Behar data shows a definite pattern. Again, no software, database or high tech computer was needed by “your truely”.
The Behar data showed that based upon SNP color code, certain groups migrated as a “unit”. This was seen in far away as Indus Valley/Harrapan, Persians, Egypt and Sardinia and Iberia. I correlated that to E1b1b, E1b1a, J1. The innovators of the modern Era(farmers), are E1b1b, E1b1a and J1. R-M269 appeared in the bronze age. This is really fascinating and coming together now. Again, this is exactly the same conclusion Sergi came to based upon his work with skulls. I hope he(Sergi) get his props now.
Quote: This was repeated until no new components were identified that were related to that group. For instance middle Eastern and Indian sub-continent regions (possible related to EEF or Basal Eurasian.
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
deleted
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
xyyman would rhe average European be more similar to a berber than a Sub Saharan African of any type ?
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
Don't understand your question? What does a SSA look like?
I can answer you question based on genetics. An average Amazigh will occupy an area between a SSA and European. Why? Before the age of internatonal travel ...isolation by distance...ie differentiation by distance.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by xyyman:
An average Amazigh will occupy an area between a SSA and European.
do you mean geographically or genetically ?
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
xyyman, my previous question rephrased
are Europeans more similar genetically to berbers than Sub Saharan Africans are to berbers ?
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
Paabo is at it again. He has a hard-on for SSA. How can he claim SSA has no Neanderthal admixture but publish a report that shows Luhya having Neanderthal admixture. Oh! I forgot. Luhya are their(Europeans) ancestors.. He! He! He!
He has so much hate he is blind to logic. More nonsense from the fag.
===== Neanderthal ancestry drives evolution of lipid catabolism in contemporary Europeans-Paabo 2014
Abstract: Although Neanderthals are extinct, fragments of their genomes persist in contemporary humans. Here we show that while the genome-wide frequency of Neanderthal-like sites is approximately constant across all contemporary out-of-Africa populations, genes involved in lipid catabolism contain more than threefold excess of such sites in contemporary humans of European descent. Evolutionally, these genes show significant association with signatures of recent positive selection in the contemporary European, but not Asian or African populations. Functionally, the excess of Neanderthal-like sites in lipid catabolism genes can be linked with a greater divergence of lipid concentrations and enzyme expression levels within this pathway, seen in contemporary Europeans, but not in the other populations. We conclude that sequence variants that evolved in Neanderthals may have given a selective advantage to anatomically modern humans that settled in the same geographical areas.
Studies comparing the complete nuclear genome sequences of Neanderthals and contemporary modern humans indicate that out-of-Africa human populations, but not sub- Saharan African populations, contain genomic regions with unusually high similarity to the Neanderthal genome9,10
Luhya.. Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
Is he stating that Aframs(ASW) came from the Congo. The fag has lost his mind.
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
Oh! Maghrebians were not inlcuded in this lastest study by Paabo. I wonder why? Could it be Maghrebians have MORE so called Neanderthal DNA. LOL! This fag has no decency or ethics..but what would you expect from a man who loves men.
Notice the Southern Europeans(Iberians) have also a higher frequency of LCP than Northerners. Which would indicate that Maghrebians would have an even higher frequency. Because of their increased “neaderthal “ ancestry.BTW- The study is informative for the sistas(Lioness?-sic) who can’t lose weight.
That explains why the white people can gain and lose wait so easily. While the sistas have a hard time shedding it once it is on.
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
Genetic evidence does not support an Etruscan origin in Anatolia. – Caramelli and Barbujani 2013
Abstract The debate on the origins of Etruscans, documented in central Italy between the eighth century BC and the first century AD, dates back to antiquity. Herodotus described them as a group of immigrants from Lydia, in Western Anatolia, whereas for Dionysius of Halicarnassus they were an indigenous population. Dionysius' view is shared by most modern archeologists, but the observation of similarities between the (modern) mitochondrial DNAs (mtDNAs) of Turks and Tuscans was interpreted as supporting an Anatolian origin of the Etruscans. However, ancient DNA evidence shows that only SOME isolates, and not the bulk of the modern Tuscan population, are genetically related to the Etruscans. In this study, we tested alternative models of Etruscan origins by Approximate Bayesian Computation methods, comparing levels of genetic diversity in the mtDNAs of modern and ancient populations with those obtained by millions of computer simulations. The results show that the observed genetic similarities between modern Tuscans and Anatolians cannot be attributed to an immigration wave from the East leading to the onset of the Etruscan culture in Italy. Genetic links between Tuscany and Anatolia do exist, but date back to a remote stage of prehistory, possibly but not necessarily to the spread of farmers during the Neolithic period.
Geography is so important during pre-history/writing during late Paleolithic/Early Neolithic. I always questioned the view of an Anatolian Orign. Why? Because Etruscia was on the Western Shores of the Italian Peninsular directly opposite Sardinia and North Africa. Why wouldn’t any Eastern population just settle at the closest point to them in Italy. Clearly these people were expanding Neolithic farmers from Africa.. The archeological technology shows the relationship now the aDNA is supporting that view.
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
The games these geneticists play. Doctoring archeological dates…It is indeed a war on the mind. ====== Journal of Human Genetics advance online publication, 7 June 2012; doi:10.1038/jhg.2012.36 - Guido Brandt2 2Institute of Anthropology, Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz,
Quotes: The article claims that some of the individuals examined in the course of this study belong to the mitochondrial haplogroup (hg) N9a, which is common in East Asian and virtually absent in European/West Eurasian populations. The inferred discontinuity between the first farmers in Hungary and the modern population is specifically based on the appearance of this haplogroup, hitherto absent in the European Neolithic dataset
The skeletons involved in the Guba et al1 article come from two graves, Nos. 20 and 22, both indicated as Early Neolithic. In fact grave 22 is Sarmatian with special Roman pottery, (terra sigillata) placed near the skeleton as a grave good.2
Consequently,six out of the eleven graves considered to be Neolithic were clearly misdated. In addition, six individuals of this dataset were attributed to an East Asian hg
However, exactly the three individuals with the N9a hg (Szarvas 23 grave 20, Szakma´r–Kisu¨le´s 8, and Csongra´d–Bokros, grave inside Pit 20) can be considered to the Sarmatian and, in one case, early Hungarian (Magyar) period. Thus, all N9a specimens from the Early Neolithic dataset (the first half of the 6th millennium BC originated from a much younger period than reported: the 1st millennium AD. Additionally the D1/G1a1 individual from Kisko¨re– Ga´twas also misdated. Furthermore, we have detected inaccuracies concerning the hg classification of the mitochondrial sequences. In three graves, the HVS-I sequences are insufficient for a definite classification into the known mitochondrial phylogeny
In the light of all these facts both results now seem questionable.
However, the fact that previously published data were included is not obvious in the article, which is misleading.
All these cases of misdating could have been avoided by applying 14C dating. In the article by Guba et al. there is a general reference to 14C dates,13 but this study is focused on another period
it is all the more important to integrate archaeologists into the research process. This would not only solve the problem of dating a skeleton 6000 years earlier than its real age, but would also share responsibility for the results and establish real interdisciplinarity between archaeology and the natural sciences. End Quotes: ====
That is why it is important to let things play out or read enough from various authors to get a consensus. There is a price to pay when the geneticists fudge data and lie. They will be outted eventually. That is why I give Henn her props. She covered her tracks well in that “back-migration paper”. She left wiggle room just in case she is outted. Her Mid-East population?…Africanized Qatari’s. Brilliant!!!! As DNATribes sampling has shown. Souther Arabia can be classified Africa. Lebels! Labels Labels!
Posted by Trollkillah # Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: I posted this about 14months ago with the tiff with Beyoku on SNP. Trying to educate him.
I don't have the fancy high tech computer and software like DNATribes. Just eyeballing it is obvious to see.
Luhya, Hema and Alur
This might be helpful, to all posters here.
The page includes free software packages, data tools.
Such as:
MixMapper 1.0 software package may now be downloaded from the Software page.
ALDER 1.0 software package may now be downloaded from the Software page.
HAPI-UR software for phasing large datasets now available from the Software page.
ADMIXTOOLS software package may now be downloaded from the Software page.
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: DNATribes New Update...April 2014!!
Quote: "Step 5 (Remove North African percentages): However, removing the North African component does not result in new components expressed. This suggests that European genetic relationships with North Africa are either ****local to the Maghreb ***or else better represented by other components (such as Arabian and/or Mesopotamian percentages).
-----
close thread. Damn, I should be paid for this shyte.
Oh - I don't think it is near the Nile Valley...think Luhya. Ha! Ha! Give them more time...
.
So you feel that the ancestors of Europeans are probably closer to the Luhya people
xyyman, I thought you thought the Strait if Gibralter is how Africans brought haplgroup H to Europe, the Luhya are in Kenya, that's far off [/QB]
It appears that the Luhya is a collective name for relating sub tribes.
quote: Though considered one tribe, the Abaluhya consist of over 18 sub-tribes, each speaking a different dialect of the Luhya language. The Bukusu and Maragoli are the two largest Luhya sub-tribes. Others include the Banyala, Banyore, Batsotso, Gisu, Idakho, Isukha, Kabras, Khayo, Kisa, Marachi, Marama, Masaaba, Samia, Tachoni, Tiriki and Wanga.
History of the Luhyas
The true origin of the Abaluhya is disputable. According to their own oral literature, Luhyas migrated to their present day location from Egypt (north of Kenya). Some historians, however, believe that the Luhya came from Central and West Africa alongside other Bantus in what is known as the Great Bantu Migration.
The Luhya tribe, like many other Kenyan tribes, lost their most fertile land to the colonialists during the British colonial rule of Kenya. The Abaluhya, and especially the Bukusu, strongly resisted colonial rule and fought many unsuccessful battles to regain their land. The Wanga and Kabras sub-tribes, however, collaborated with the colonialists.
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: Khoisan man
Morrocan man people as dark as this Moroccan man probably don't have ancestry going back in the above tropic of cancer part of North Africa. He's probably more recent to the area. Much of North Africa is above the Tropic of Cancer, Most of Alergia, Morocco, Egypt, Libya, Tunisia.
The Khoisans have lived for thousands of years at a similar distance from the equator. As expected they have a lighter skin tone than Africans closer to the equator.
Below another Moroccan. He is lighter like the Khosian man. as far as skin tone goes it would be easier to believe he could have an older ancestry in this above the Tropic of Cancer North African region than the darker skinned man who might be more similar in skin tone to someone from the Sahel.
As per Khoisans, as a topic unto themsleves everybody should go back to my thread "The genetic prehistory of southern Africa : Khoisan"
I posted some more information from a good book on Human Adpatation with a chapter on Khoisans, aka San Bushmen. Also see the link to that book for other chapters on human adaptation in various parts of the word. You will also see aboriginees are mentioned briefly in the Bushmen chapter as well.
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: xyyman check the title of the thread, Nabta Playa, stone craving
maybe you have something to contribute it
if not please post your mad berber rant on the berber thread, thanks,
moderator
Where did I post this. “sub-saharans to the south and North Africans to the North(in Arabia). The Levant seemed to be another divide. Not sure why. I get the Nile.
QUOTE Within this agricultural zone range, EEF farmers came in contact with other ancient populations: In Europe and West Asia, EEF populations mixed with North Eurasians (including Siberian relatives of WHG hunter-gatherers). In the Arabian Peninsula, EEF farmers mixed with ancestral Sub-Saharan Africans related to modern Nigerian, Gambian, and Botswanan populations. In Armenia and Georgia, EEF farmers mixed with South Asian (Indian Subcontinent) populations ***Harrapan***
from Behar data...which agrees with DNATribes and Sergi
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
Africans migrating and admixing with ancient populations bring Neolithic technology and civilizations.
I saw an SNP chat that even included East Asia. I will try to find it
QUOTE Within this agricultural zone range, EEF farmers came in contact with other ancient populations: In Europe and West Asia, EEF populations mixed with North Eurasians (including Siberian relatives of WHG hunter-gatherers). In the Arabian Peninsula, EEF farmers mixed with ancestral Sub-Saharan Africans related to modern Nigerian, Gambian, and Botswanan populations. In Armenia and Georgia, EEF farmers mixed with South Asian (Indian Subcontinent) populations
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
For those who missed a very important point from the statement...."ancestral sub-saharans IN Arabia.!!!!!!"
Arabia is part of tropical Africa.
The agricultural zone. HMMM!!!
Quote: Within this agricultural zone range, EEF/Saharan Africans farmers came in contact with other ancient populations
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
Gene flow from North Africa contributes to differential human genetic diversity in southern Europe - Laura R. Botiguéa,1, Brenna M. Henn
Human genetic diversity in southern Europe is higher than in other regions of the continent. This difference has been attributed to postglacial expansions, the demic diffusion of agriculture from the Near East, and gene flow from Africa. Using SNP data from 2,099 individuals in 43 populations, we show that estimates of recent shared ancestry between Europe and Africa are substantially increased when gene flow from North Africans, rather than Sub-Saharan Africans, is considered. The gradient of North African ancestry accounts for previous observations of low levels of sharing with Sub-Saharan Africa and is independent of recent gene flow from the Near East. The source of genetic diversity in southern Europe has important biomedical implications; we find that most disease risk alleles from genome-wide association studies follow expected patterns of divergence between Europe and North Africa, with the principal exception of multiple sclerosis
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
I finally got around to re-reading the Henn eh Botigue paper.
Here are the high lights. Keep in mind this is based upon SNP and NOT hg-H
Also – Some of the speculation seems to contradict what Henn proposed in her in-famous “back-migration” paper.
Also- this is inline with DNATribes recent report. Suggesting that North Africans and Southern Arabias share genetics but the difference indicate thay had the same “source”/basal population. And migration to Europe was NOT from Near East Arabia BUT from North Africa
Quote:
Quote: We investigate regional patterns of haplotype sharing between North Africa, Sub-Saharan Africa, the Near East, and Europe in detail, and observe a SIGNIFICANT LATITUDINAL GRADIENT of North African ancestry WITHIN Europe characterized by a dramatic difference between the Iberian Peninsula and the neighboring regions.
Quote: North African ancestral cluster (SI Appendix, Fig. S3), whereas this value does NOT exceed 2% in southeastern European populations. Contrary to past observations, Sub- Saharan ancestry is detected at <1% in Europe, with the exception of the Canary Islands. In
Quote: the Near East (SI Appendix, Fig. S7). Whereas inferred IBD sharing does not indicate directionality, the North African samples that have highest IBD sharing with Iberian populations also tend to have the lowest proportion of the European cluster in ADMIXTURE (Fig. 1), e.g., Saharawi, Tunisian Berbers, and South Moroccans. For example, the Andalucians share many IBD segments with the Tunisians (Fig. 3), who present extremely minimal levels of European ancestry. THIS SUGGESTS THAT GENE FLOW OCCURRED FROM AFRICA TO EUROPE RATHER THAN THE OTHER WAY AROUND. These results also RULE OUT A MODEL where observed sharing between Europe and North Africa is the result of recent gene flow from the Near East into both regions.
Quote: The southwest-to-northeast gradient of North African IBD sharing (Fig. 2B) and the distinct peak in sharing between Iberia and the Maghreb (Fig. 3) indicate that sharing in southwestern Europe is independent of gene flow from the Near East. It is possible that this sharp peak of North African IBD sharing in Iberia contributes to the apparent isolation of Iberian populations from other Europeans (4
Quote: Here we show that gene flow from Africa to Europe is not merely reflected on the Y chromosome but corresponds to a much broader effect
--------
Close thread.
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
Open Thread....
Malstrom new paper(april2014) just hit the web. As I said about 2 years ago..she is good.
Guess what, Alps Iceman is as I said....Basal Eurasian. ie North African transplant. Remember he had two particular motif. One found only in African pygmies and the other found in NorthAfricans, east Africans and South Asians.
The study seem to confirm DNATribes and Lazaridis et al. Euroepans are a mixture of Ancent AMH and modern North African migrants.
Malstrom also confirmed that the mesolithic Europeans were black skinned, apparently the migrating Africans brought in the mutation for light skin!!!! about 5000BC.
Damn am I good or what?! Will post more on ESR.
Oh! There is a possibility that Neanderthal was also black skinned. The world is turning on it's head.
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
Sam P..you got this.
co-signed.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
Try reposting in Dienekes where you found thus Clyde fequently posts there Or post on Europedia or anthroscape At least people might debate you there. Do an experiment make a post and copy it on to each of those forums, then see what happens
xyyman nobody is listening to your rants here or on ESR you are just talking to yourself at this point,
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: migrating Africans brought in the mutation for light skin!!!! about 5000BC.
Malstrom new paper(april2014) just hit the web
I might have to test you to see if you have actually sold some of your food stamps to pay to read the paper beyond the Dienekes excerpts and free suppliment
quote:Originally posted by xyyman:
Euroepans are a mixture of Ancent AMH and modern North African migrants.
I was wondering if you realized North African migrants are AMHs ?
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
Yeah. I am reading the supplements right now. SOOL on food stamps. Lol!
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
Most people don't understand this stuff. Notice Dienekess has only a few comments in his threads.. And the few comments are related to if the aDNA matches theirs ....or a cousin of theirs. Ha!. Very simplistic discussion.
People rely on a few bloggers or the pop media to tell them what to think of the results.. lol!
Besides., I heard there is a campaign going on to ban ES/ESR members from these forums.
Posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova (Member # 15718) on :
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: Open Thread....
Malstrom new paper(april2014) just hit the web. As I said about 2 years ago..she is good.
Guess what, Alps Iceman is as I said....Basal Eurasian. ie North African transplant. Remember he had two particular motif. One found only in African pygmies and the other found in NorthAfricans, east Africans and South Asians.
The study seem to confirm DNATribes and Lazaridis et al. Euroepans are a mixture of Ancent AMH and modern North African migrants.
Malstrom also confirmed that the mesolithic Europeans were black skinned, apparently the migrating Africans brought in the mutation for light skin!!!! about 5000BC.
Damn am I good or what?! Will post more on ESR.
Oh! There is a possibility that Neanderthal was also black skinned. The world is turning on it's head.
Good info. What's the exact cite of the Malstrom paper?
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
Genomic Diversity and Admixture Differs for Stone-Age Scandinavian Foragers and Farmers
Pontus Skoglund, Helena Malmström et al.
I am reoding the Supps now. 58pages.
Paywall for main paper as Lioness mentioned. So far it looks like there is further proof that Europeans were black skinned up to 5000ya. And they carried primarily mtDNA U. After 5000bc mtDNA hg-H migrated in introducing lighter skin. Current male Europeans have not appeared on the scene as yet. This is fascinating.!!!
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
This is really ironic. WOOOWWW!! White Africans invaded and displaced Black Europeans. GTFOH! Of course, they weren’t lilly white when they entered Europe. Shriver was on point.
Can’t help but rant…Lioness. Will post more on ESR..even if no one reads it. (smirk).
So Iceman was indeed black skinned. based upon 117 and 24 pigmentation SNP. LOL! Now, so much for the artistic illustration popular on the web. Will they now remove those false images. I think not.! LOL!
It seems lik ethe White invading Africans(smirk) conquered and admixed with the Black skinned light eyes Europeans. This thing is getting twisted in-side-out.
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: Sam P..you got this.
co-signed.
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
Come on!..Where are the supposedly genetic experts? This is ground breaking stuff here!
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: Come on!..Where are the supposedly genetic experts? This is ground breaking stuff here!
You are correct as usual. The supplementary sections gives a good outline of the genetics of the populations (pp.22-35), while they discuss the color of these ancient Europeans on pp.52-53.
Good find.
.
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
It is becoming clear what went down. The close affinity of ancient Europeans and Australians and East Asians(New Guinians). Obviously the migrations route was NOT only across the Horn but points in Northern Africa. These black people existed in Europe close to 35,000yrs!!! before new lighter Africans came in…better fed, better equipped and more populous. It seems like Otzi man and Stuttgart woman was the first of this new wave. Although outwardly black they carried they carried the light skin genotype. And the Blue eyes were prevalent amongst the Black Europeans and NOT the New Europeans,. I can’t make this stuff up.(He!)
The emergence of the modern European male line is still an enigma. Obviously the current female lineage appeared first and it was NOT a companion to R-M269 as we are led to believe. This is a great script!!!
Quote: In other words, early European hunter-gatherers are consistent with forming a clade with East Asian groups and the Australian groups to the exclusion of a population lineage that contributed genes to the early farmers.
I will break it down on ESR. Thank Dienekess for posting the link. I only analyze the data. Some of his cronies are all over the place on this one.
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
Yes. pgs 52 and 53
What I would like to know is how the “selective sweep/purification” of light skin took place. Was it?
a. Mass extermination of the blacks b. Straight up, out breeding by the light skins c. Mating preference of light skin over black skin. d. Or the ancient blacks just would not adapt, like we see with the aboriginals around the world. e. Any other scenarios
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: Come on!..Where are the supposedly genetic experts? This is ground breaking stuff here!
You are correct as usual. The supplementary sections gives a good outline of the genetics of the populations (pp.22-35), while they discuss the color of these ancient Europeans on pp.52-53.
Good find.
.
Posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova (Member # 15718) on :
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: Genomic Diversity and Admixture Differs for Stone-Age Scandinavian Foragers and Farmers
Pontus Skoglund, Helena Malmström et al.
I am reoding the Supps now. 58pages.
Paywall for main paper as Lioness mentioned. So far it looks like there is further proof that Europeans were black skinned up to 5000ya. And they carried primarily mtDNA U. After 5000bc mtDNA hg-H migrated in introducing lighter skin. Current male Europeans have not appeared on the scene as yet. This is fascinating.!!!
This is really ironic. WOOOWWW!! White Africans invaded and displaced Black Europeans. GTFOH! Of course, they weren’t lilly white when they entered Europe. Shriver was on point.
Haven't gotten around the paywall as yet, but gonna check the supplementals later. Long story-short: How are Malmstrom et al determining skin color of the ancient Euros?
Come on!..Where are the supposedly genetic experts? This is ground breaking stuff here!
Everyone is over at the other place as nothing new happens up in heah.. Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
Wow! I just came across yet another study that confirmed my speculation….both Neaderthal and Denisovan had black skin pigmentation…..GTFOH!
Damn. I am good.!
@ rs1426654 both(Neaderthal and Denisovan) are ancestral like La Brana.
The world is coming to an end…..I just can’t keep up.
Predicting homo pigmentation phenotype through genomic data: From neanderthal to James Watson -
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
@Z-man
I will post more at ESR and break it down some more…..but…
The researchers looked at over 100 pigmentation SNP(genes) in one scenario and about 25 in another scenario. There software spit out a most likely skin pigmentation profile. In both models most of the ancients came out dark skin. That includes Otzi and La Brana. etc
Posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova (Member # 15718) on :
OK will wait for that. Here's a news article report on the same, although their sub-title "racial characteristics" if not used carefully can downplay or distort African diversity. Yes all the old hands know it, but due to a continuing barrage of distortion and propaganda out there, it has to be repeated. Africans have a very high diversity of skin colors- they can be light brown, medium, jet black, even yellowish, or "white" (this last oft due to the relatively high incidence of albinism in Africa, or sometimes occurring gene mutations- cue tired pic galleries of 'black' parents and 'white' kid). And they can achieve this diversity without fundamentally needing any "race mix" to explain why. Any talk about "racial characteristics" must begin with and recognize this fundamental African diversity. ----------------------------------------------------
ON: Predicting homo pigmentation phenotype through genomic ...by C Cerqueira
Skin color written in the DNA
Tests discover racial characteristics without the presence of people
This finding, made by the group led by geneticist Maria Cátira Bortolini from the Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul (UFRGS) would have been impossible if we were not on the brink of the personalized gene era, thanks to the fact that it has become financially feasible to sequence a full set of genes of individuals and to make this information available on web databases. Thanks to this availability, the Brazilian team did not have to sequence anybody’s DNA. The team did its research work with genome data found in public databases around the world.
The team from UFRGS used information from 30 individual genomes. Some of the genomes were of well-known people, such as American geneticists Craig Venter and James Watson, which allowed the team to confront the genetic data with the phenotypical characteristics (appearance). Other genomes came from anonymous individuals, whose phenotypes were estimated on the basis of physical characteristics of the ethnic groups to which these individuals belonged. The researchers also analyzed the genomes of a paleo-Eskimo and four archaic hominids: three Neanderthals and one Denisovan hominid – actually, the latter was a woman that lived in Siberia forty thousand years ago, possibly belonging to a previously unknown Homo species.
To collect useful data for the research from this enormous alphabet soup – each genome is comprised of two sets of 23 chromosomes totaling 3 billion pairs of A, T, C and G nitrogenous bases – the researchers resorted to a method developed by geneticist Caio Cesar Silva de Cerqueira, the first author of the study, accepted for publication in the American Journal of Human Biology. “This work is the sequence to my doctorate thesis on skin color genes in human populations,” says Cerqueira, whose advisor is Cátira.
The magnitude of this task cannot be underestimated. “One of the biggest difficulties was finding a way to analyze this huge volume of data at the same time,” says Cerqueira. “As far as we know, there is no statistical apparatus that can do this in a simple manner.”
This is why the team’s first mission was to focus the analyses on stretches of DNA that could provide the estimates with greater reliability. The group basically worked with genetic differences referred to as single nucleotide polymorphisms or SNPs. The SNPs represent genetic differences in which only one letter in the sequence was changed. “We had to filter the data to work with only more tangible and real data,” explains Cerqueira.
Data selection The starting point was to identify 346 SNPs distributed over 67 genes, pieces of inactivated genes (pseudo genes) and intergene regions (not all DNA segments constitute genes; some only take up space in the sequence and their function is not clear yet). All these SNPs were in regions of the genome associated with hair, eyes, and skin pigmentation. The next step was to check which SNPs were described, in terms of their genetic effects, in the available literature. Only 124 of the 346 SNPs were thus described.
There was another problem: the genome is comprised of two copies of each gene, one from the father and one from the mother. It is very complicated to predict the effect that the combination will have on the organism when the versions of the gene differ between themselves. This is why the researchers concentrated on the SNPs whose alleles (alternative forms found simultaneously in the organism) were found in two copies of the same stretch of each genome. “We lost a lot of information when we did this, but we decided to take this more conservative approach,” says Cerqueira.
The methodology that the researchers employed is the appropriate one to establish whether the individual has freckles or not, a pigment accumulation common to blonds and redheads. The success rate in the prediction for the 11 genomes whose phenotype was well known (though the identity of the owner was known) corresponded to an impressive 91%.
The researchers also increased the success level by including 19 genomes of individuals whose ethnic background allowed the probable phenotype to be estimated. The success rate changed somewhat with a base of 30 genomes. The levels dropped slightly for freckles (83%), skin (60%) and hair (42%). They increased for eyes (67%), thus raising the final average to 63%.
The first conclusion from the study is that it is no longer possible to state that predicting physical features based on an analysis of the DNA is impossible. The second conclusion is that there is still a lot of ground to be covered before the level of accuracy is improved to the point of making this test useful.
This technology could cause a revolution in the forensic sciences, for example. Based on a DNA sample found at the site of the crime, the police could create a detailed picture of a suspect. We are still far from this technological stage but Cátira says that the “what if we could?” stage has already come to an end and we are reaching the “ how are we going to do this?” stage.
“The biggest challenge is understanding how the interaction between genes and their alleles and proteins works,” says Cátira. “In other words, we have to understand to what extent the effect of an allele found at a specific point on the route is altered by the existence of another variant in another gene of the pigmentation network. Studies about these connections are just beginning and we have no idea how everything is connected to result in a given phenotype,” says the researcher from the UFRGS.
An additional complication is that the epigenetic effects have to be taken into account – epigenetic effects are the influence of environmental factors on the patterns of expression of certain genes without altering the DNA itself. “The challenges are huge,” says Cátira. “However, scientific knowledge is growing exponentially and so I have hopes that major advances will occur in the upcoming years.”
Portraits of evolution Even though technology has not yet reached a point where it can be useful to police investigations, researchers have already begun to use it to gain a better understanding of the evolution of the Homo genus. Studies such as this one help verify to what extent the differences in pigmentation among human groups is a result of the pressure exerted by natural selection or whether it consists of variations that appear at random and are therefore neutral from the evolutionary point of view.
In a previous study, linked to another characteristic, Cátira’s group showed that a gene associated with the configuration of limbs in human beings remains exactly the same in more than one hundred DNA samples coming from people all around the world. This gene accrued 16 alterations since human beings and chimpanzees separated on the evolutionary tree but remained identical in the Neanderthals – Homo neanderthalensis, a species that is kin to the Homo sapiens, with whom it shared an existence until 30 thousand years ago, prior to disappearing. The conclusion is that this gene is extremely important and this is why it remained the same for such a long time, in spite of the evolutionary pressure exerted on it.
One of the astonishing results of this new research study showed that there might have been differences in skin and hair color among the Neanderthals. The analysis of genetic variants of the Neanderthals – sections of the genome of three females were overlapped to obtain the full genome – suggests that one of the females was a redhead and two had brown hair and darker skin. All three women had brown eyes.
This study is in contrast with a previous study conducted by Carles Lalueza-Fox, of Barcelona’s Pompeu Fabra University. In a study published in 2007 in Science, the Spanish group showed that the genetic material of two Neanderthals – one from Spain and the other from Italy – had genetic alterations similar to the ones that determine light skin and red hair in human beings. “We know only a few genomes or sections of genomes of these hominids and, even so, this variation shows up,” says Cátira.
If the analysis conducted by the team from UFRGS is correct, it indicates that pigmentation among the Neanderthals might have varied in a similar manner to that occuring in human beings. “This would be quite reasonable and would indicate that this characteristic might be typical of the Homo genus and not of the human species,” says Cátira. She warns, however, that one must be careful when interpreting this data. “We cannot disregard methodological problems, such as contamination with human DNA and the exchange of post-mortem bases when genomes of extinct species are sequenced,” she adds.
This comment touches upon an important point: there are limitations in the analysis of the genetic material of fossils. For example, it might never be possible to investigate the DNA of the first human beings who settled in what is now Brazil and who possibly crossed over the Behring Strait from Asia between 20 thousand and 12 thousand years ago. “The problem is that the climate here does not preserve the DNA in the same way as DNA is preserved in the colder climate in Europe,” explains Fabricio Rodrigues dos Santos, a biologist from the Federal University of Minas Gerais. “If the researchers are lucky and find a well-preserved skeleton at some special site in South America that is more than 8 thousand years old, and has the DNA, then it might be possible to predict some phenotypes.”
As for Luzia, the human fossil found in the 1970s by French archaeologist Annette Laming-Emperaire in Lagoa Santa, State of Minas Gerais, this is the oldest human fossil found in the Americas; archaeologists estimate that it is between 11,400 to 16,400 years old. “In the case of Luzia, I would say that analyzing her DNA is impossible; various researchers have already tried; they sent material to the United States and Europe, but were never able to generate any DNA sequencing,” says Santos. Some gaps will inevitably remain, no matter how powerful genetics may be in terms of shedding light on the past of human beings, at least until the next scientific revolution.
Scientific article CERQUEIRA, C.C.S.; et al. Predicting Homo pigmentation phenotype through genomic data: From Neanderthal to James Watson. American Journal of Human Biology.
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
So we are making progress.....As I speculated..basal Eurasian is Sudan through Sardinia and Iberia.
From bloggers. Quote: Hmm from the genetic drift data it looks to me like red "Basal Eurasian" originated in the western mediterranean (Sardinia/France) whereas the medium blue (La Brana) has radiated out from Scandinavia
Quote: The interesting difference is that SSA admixture assumes the role of Basal Eurasian admixture in all the other similar figures in this and other papers.
Quote: Fig. S7 also shows Sub-Saharan Dinka admixture to Sardinians and both Neolithic farmers
The Dinka people are an ethnic group inhabiting the Bahr el Ghazal region of the Nile basin, Jonglei and parts of southern Kordufan and Upper Nile regions. They are mainly agripastoral people, relying on cattle herding at riverside camps in the dry season and growing millet (awuou) and other varieties of grains (rap) in fixed settlements during the rainy season. They number around 4.5 million people according to the 2008 Sudan census, constituting about 18% of the population[1] of the entire country, and the largest ethnic tribe in South Sudan.
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: Genomic Diversity and Admixture Differs for Stone-Age Scandinavian Foragers and Farmers
Pontus Skoglund, Helena Malmström et al.
I am reoding the Supps now. 58pages.
Paywall for main paper as Lioness mentioned. So far it looks like there is further proof that Europeans were black skinned up to 5000ya. And they carried primarily mtDNA U. After 5000bc mtDNA hg-H migrated in introducing lighter skin. Current male Europeans have not appeared on the scene as yet. This is fascinating.!!!
Vendela Kirsebom, Norwegian mother, Turkish father
How Europeans became Europeans is a big question, in large part because Europeans (i.e., “whites”) are still what an ideology in disrepute would term the herrenvolk of the world. But this reality, the truth of which sows discord in any discourse, does not need to negate the fact that the question itself is of interest, and today is eminently answerable. Europe has a long history of archaeology and its climate is mild-to-frigid in a manner which might aid in preservation of subfossils. For decades archaeologists have debated whether the ancestors of modern Europeans were farmers or hunters. It seems quite likely that the real answer is both, and, it’s complicated.
But the Gordian knot of history’s inscrutable veil is now be shredded by Thor’s hammer of Truth. More literally Pontus Skoglund has another paper out in in Science (how many times will I type that?), Genomic Diversity and Admixture Differs for Stone-Age Scandinavian Foragers and Farmers. If you don’t have academic access, the supplements are quite rich.
The panel to the left (above) shows the where and when of the samples. The key is that some of these are farmers and some of these are hunter-gatherers (as inferred by their cultural association). They’ve been examined before with more primitive techniques, but this latest paper ups the ante, even granting genomic coverage as relatively modest by current standards. The authors reiterated that there was a massive genetic difference between the first farmers who arrived in Sweden ~5,000 years ago, and a native hunter-gatherer tradition. The Fst was on the order of 0.05. To get a sense of scale the maximum Fst for modern Europeans is between Finns (a highly drifted group) and southern Italians (a highly admixed group with significant Near Eastern ancestry), at ~0.01. The Fst between modern Europeans and modern East Asians is on the order of ~0.10. In other words, two contemporaneous ancient populations in Sweden which were in near proximity for many generations had a genetic distance on the order of half the distance of Eurasia today. In fact this Fst is familiar to me. A few years ago at ASHG an Indian group had a poster which talked about the fact that coexistent South Asian groups (castes, jatis, etc.) within a region might have an Fst as incredibly high as…0.05! Obviously I’m not saying that ancient Sweden was characterized by caste, but I am asserting that genetic distinctiveness in Europe on the cusp of full agriculture within a local region probably mirrored modern India, where occupation and community identity are as informative as geography.
So why the huge genetic distance? The figure to the left (above) gives a clue as to why. The farmers from Sweden, represented by Gokhem2, have more “hunter-gatherer” admixture than Otzi the Iceman. Ajvide58 has significant “Ancestral North Eurasian,” which is also found in the New World (Anzick1 is a Clovis individual from Montana). What is of note is that both the European farmers have a component with a red shading that has previously been termed “Basal Eurasian,” in that it forms an outgroup in the non-African phylogenetic tree to populations from West Eurasia, East Eurasia, and Australasia. Because it is such an outgroup it no doubt had a large genetic difference from the others, and a high Fst value. Even ~25% contribution, as in the case of Gokhem2, might have been enough to introduce enough diverged drift to generate a great deal of allele frequency difference.
Many of the results in this paper were prefigured earlier. For example, it turns out that modern Swedes are closer to the hunter-gatherers than they are to the farmers. The PC plot to the right has northern Europeans at the top and Middle Eastern populations at the bottom. To the right are Finnic groups, with the Sami off the chart (I reedited it). All the ancient hunter-gatherers are outside of the contemporary distribution. One thing to remember is that the ancient individuals were projected upon the variation of modern populations. Therefore I suspect this plot understates how distinctive the ancient groups were. Second, it seems likely that modern Finnic populations are relatively intrusive latecomers to the Nordic scene, as the ancient hunter-gatherers have no particular affinity for them. Rather, if there is one population which resembles the hunter-gatherers from Gotland it is Lithuanians. This is not surprising. I have always held that the last region of Europe to be touched by the farmers from the Near East was the eastern Baltic. It is somewhat ironic that this area, and the Lithuanians precisely, were the last continental Europeans to be Christianized in the 14th century.*
So we’ve established that modern Swedes, and therefore modern Scandinavians, are descended more from the hunter-gatherers than the farmers who brought agriculture to the north. But it is in the functional genome where there’s a twist on the story: the farmers may have looked physically more like modern Swedes than the hunters. That’s because at two SNPs which are fixed (in SLC24A5) or nearly fixed (in SLC45A5) in modern Europeans yield matches to the farmers and not the hunters. These two SNPs are among the strongest quantitative trait loci for pigmentation in Europeans. Without them it seems unlikely that the hunter-gatherers would have been recognized as what we’d term “white.” An immediate objection to this is that the ancient hunter-gatherers had a different genetic architecture for pigmentation, so that their lightening alleles were different. Perhaps, but observe that we’ve already stated that the preponderance of the ancestry of modern Swedes is from these hunter-gatherers, and from what we know the genetic architecture in this population is not particularly surprising. Substituting the ancestral allelic variant at this loci tends to make these individuals darker (that is, through mixed marriage with non-Europeans). One could construct more complex scenarios of gene-gene interactions, but I think at this point we know where the parsimony lay.
With the large genetic distance, as well as the fact that the hunter-gatherers exhibited minimal gene flow from the farmers, and, likely a very salient physical difference, it seems plausible that we have the ingredients for inter-group conflict or at least an uneasy coexistence. Though it seems unlikely that the story of Grendel is an allegory recollecting this far distant time, it might not be far off from the truth in terms of how the farmers and hunter-gatherers interacted. Eventually the two groups congealed, but it took thousands of years.
Finally, let’s get back to the truly exotic fact lodged within these new papers: that there was a group of Basal Eurasians. The Basal Eurasians were further from the hunter-gatherers of Europe than the hunter-gatherers of Europe were from the ancestors of Australians or East Asians. Like the “Ancient North Eurasians” it seems likely that this is a “ghost population,” with no modern exemplars. No doubt as I write this there are papers which are being written or conjectured as to their relationship to populations outside of Europe, as it seems that the Middle East is one area where a deeper probe of possibilities is necessary. But perhaps it is to this group of Basal Eurasians that we owe the innovation of agriculture? Like shadows in our past their cultural impact is strong, but their identity as a distinct people has been eroded away by thousands of years of admixture and the flux and flow of peoples.
Citation: Genomic Diversity and Admixture Differs for Stone-Age Scandinavian Foragers and Farmer, Pontus Skoglund, Helena Malmström, Ayça Omrak, Maanasa Raghavan, Cristina Valdiosera, Torsten Günther, Per Hall, Kristiina Tambets, Jüri Parik, Karl-Göran Sjögren, Jan Apel, Eske Willerslev, Jan Storå, Anders Götherström, and Mattias Jakobsson, Science, DOI:10.1126/science.1253448
* The Sami were Christianized later, but the Sami were not at all part of the European system, as the Lithuanians actually were. The Sami are analogous to various indigenous groups, or Jews. In Europe, but not of it.
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
Am I dreaming? I did not write this. He! He! Really. White Africans replacing black Europeans. Ironic You owe me big time Lioness. You do know “Basal Eurasian” is a play on words. ie a label. DNATribes have them originating near the Nile, Lazaridis have them originating with Yoruba’s(proxy of Bedouins) and now Malstorm et al have them originating with the Dinkas of Africa. Sergi was right. Next, openingly admitting Neanderthals and Denisovans were black. Got to love it!
QUOTE: . But it is in the functional genome where there’s a twist on the story: the farmers may have looked physically more like modern Swedes than the hunters. That’s because at two SNPs which are fixed (in SLC24A5) or nearly fixed (in SLC45A5) in modern Europeans yield matches to the farmers and not the hunters. These two SNPs are among the strongest quantitative trait loci for pigmentation in Europeans. Without them it seems unlikely that the hunter-gatherers would have been recognized as what we’d term “white.”
Quote: . Substituting the ancestral allelic variant at this loci tends to make these individuals darker (that is, through mixed marriage with non-Europeans).
QUOTE.
Finally, let’s get back to the truly exotic fact lodged within these new papers: that there was a group of Basal Eurasians. The Basal Eurasians were further from the hunter-gatherers of Europe than the hunter-gatherers of Europe were from the ancestors of Australians or East Asians. Like the “
QUOTE But perhaps it is to this group of Basal Eurasians that we owe the innovation of agriculture?
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
As I said. The origins and blackness of AEians have been resolved a long time ago. The really interesting issue right now is the origin of modern Europeans….Get on board. Eurosearch.com
Oh! The author should correct SLC45A5. It is SLC45A2. Neverthelsss. He gets the point.
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
To the lurkers. That does not mean that the Africans left Africa with “lilly” white pigmentation. It means the Africans entered Europe dark, but, with the new gene. As they migrated further North they adapted and became lighter and lighter meeting Black hunter gatheres. Selective sweep probably took a few thousand years to to be complete.
Now what about the contemporary white European male?. That is the enigma.
They need to start analyzing medieval and iron age remains and compare AIM to get an idea for whence the male line came from. R-V88 is a clue. Hammer is on the wrong track.
Looking at the chart in the current Malstrom study I hope Beyoku now undertstands the importance of Sardinia in the decipherment. .That is why I spent some so much time on Sardinia and Nuragic. Analyzing the “People of Lerna “ will be also telling. I created a thread on that also.on ESR. All I had to work Thalesismia
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
The “Middle East” is a deceptive and ambiguous term. DNATribes were the first the break the news that migration was EITHER from the Sahara Africa to the “middle East” to Europe OR the Sahara through North Africa then Europe. And NOT Both. In other words Saharans AND Bedoiuns/South Arabians are siblings. Henns data also corroborated that view. Although she used “bottle necking” to spin her conclusion. Neither are ancestral to each other. That is corraborated by the similar Fst value as Sweetness was harping about. Both are offspring s of a population further south in Africa(Dinka/Luyha etc).
It looks like the first wave of AMH that left Africa were jet black and they fanned out from Africa. That explains the similarity of ancient Europeans/Australians and modern Papauns etc.infact ALL homonins were black skinned including Neanderthal and Denisovan, and H Erectus.
The later waves that left Africa may have been slightly lighter like some tribes in Africa. Keeping in mind YRI/Yoruba carry BOTH ancestral and derived versions of SLC45A2 and SLC24A5. Infact, SSA carry ALL versions (derived/ancestral) of pigmentation genes.
As I pointed out before La Brana pigmentation profile is unlike West Africans but more like Melanisians. Extremely dark and fixed.
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
There is no gene of European origin. Nein! Even the blue eyes is African. Herc2 SNP found in …yeah….Luyha and Maasia and maybe others not yet tested.
DNATribes is light this month, May . I expect they are working on something big for next month , June.
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
Maybe Paabo and his crew did not get the memo or simply ignored it. They are saying no hg-H were ever found in pre-Neolithic Europeans unlike Kefi on North Africa. This is also confusing(sic). Are they saying now that mtDNA hg-U expanded after the LGM and NOT hg-H? Did Achilli or Torronni sign off on this. Lol!. Peer-reviewed my azz.
Seems like everyone is getting onboard the XYYMAN train including the fag. So hg-H is now new to Europe. From where did it come? Tic! Toc! =====
From: Complete Mitochondrial Genomes Reveal Neolithic Expansion into Europe – Paabo
in modern Europeans (Figure 1, Figure S4, Figure S5), while pre-Neolithic huntergatherers appear to be quite distinct (Figure 1). In particular, 83% (19 out of 23) of hunter-gatherers analyzed to date carry mtDNAs belonging to haplogroup U [9,10,14] and none of the hunter-gatherers fall in haplogroup H. In contrast, haplogroup U has been found in only 13 of 105 (around 12%) individuals from early farming cultures of Europe and it occurs in less than 21% of modern Europeans, while haplogroup H c
Thus, H-type and U-type mtDNAs show a distinct population history before 5,000 YBP, possibly reflecting that they were primarily present in different populations with different origins and histories. The high frequency of H-type mtDNAs in European Neolithic populations and its complete absence in pre-Neolithic huntergatherers suggests that H-type mtDNAs arrived with early farmers in Europe. The population size increase observed between 9,000 and 5,000 YBP likely represents the population expansion that accompanied the Neolithic revolution. In contrast, U-type mtDNAs show an increase in population size around 15,000 to 10,000 YBP, ….
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote: Originally posted by xyyman: So hg-H is now new to Europe. From where did it come?
2012? You hussling backwards, gramps. Did you even read Lazaridis et al 2013?
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
He! He! He! Yoh! Lurking are you? YOU are asking ME about Lazaridis? I am the one that broke the story. You are really out of touch. Aren’t you? Johnny-come-late.
FYI. There is a point to my post. Maybe Lioness will get it. I try to dumb it down by “bolding” the relevant sections. Well….if some of us cannot grasp it…shrug…it is out my hands.
I assume you read the report? I was about to ask…ah forget it. I am wasting my time.
A word of advice “kiddo”. Read the ENTIRE post before you reply. Whatever went over your head. Ask.
I am now working on a paper on Neanderthal admixture in pygmies, check it out on ESR when I post it. Oh. Did I miss it? You are on that already.
You really do have a limted attention span. ADHD?
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
quote: Originally posted by xyyman: So hg-H is now new to Europe. From where did it come?
2012? You hussling backwards, gramps. Did you even read Lazaridis et al 2013?
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
Quote: Did "I" even read the Lazaridis report.
Good God!!
Lioness you there. Can you explain it to him? Give him some back ground.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
All jokes aside, do Lazaridis et al 2013 put mtDNA H at 13% in Mesolithic Europe or not?
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
You know what. I am going for it…I will ask it.
What does the Lazaridis report has to do with my statement about hg-H being new to Europe? I have been singing that song for over two years now. Enlighten me. Careful!!..Don’t expose your ignorance any further.
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
quote: Originally posted by xyyman: So hg-H is now new to Europe. From where did it come?
2012? You hussling backwards, gramps. Did you even read Lazaridis et al 2013?
my bad. You did ask it. I will get back to you
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
But even it hg-H was present you are missing the point(premise) of the Lazaridis report my man. It is the same as Paabo’s as I just quoted.
1. hg-H did NOT expand from the Refugia. 2. hg-H is new to Europe and does not have a Paleoltihic presence 3. Malstrom, Lazaridis, DNATribes, Paabo and countless others now agree that hg-H entered Europe as the EEF/Farmers. 4. Male hg-R-M269 still needs to be resolved. 5. hg-H is NOT Hunter-gatherer
But , I will get back to you on 13% hg-H
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: All jokes aside, do Lazaridis et al 2013 put mtDNA H at 13% in Mesolithic Europe or not?
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote: Originally posted by xyyman: But even it hg-H was present you are missing the point(premise) of the Lazaridis report my man. It is the same as Paabo’s as I just quoted.
Stop introducing so many red herrings, gramps. Do Lazaridis et al 2013 put it in pre-Neolithic Europe, or not?
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
Got it! did not take me long. Damn!! I knew was wasting my time. I just wasted a whole 5mins of my life.. lol!
Zero hg-H was found in the ancient populations sampled in the Lazaridis report.!!! Table S4.1 . 8 hgU and 1 hg-T. Don’t waste my time again.
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
OH! Keep an eye out for my upcoming thread on Neanderthal admixture in pygmies - ESR
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
I am curious. WTF are you reading? Where did you get 13%?
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: All jokes aside, do Lazaridis et al 2013 put mtDNA H at 13% in Mesolithic Europe or not?
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
chirp! chirp! Good! I expect more from you bro..all jokes aside. You talk a good game. Back it up!
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
Ever thought of clicking on that image you keep on requoting, gramps? I don't know, it may just may be coincidentally related to the 13% percentage that was mentioned.
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: I am curious. WTF are you reading? Where did you get 13%?
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: All jokes aside, do Lazaridis et al 2013 put mtDNA H at 13% in Mesolithic Europe or not?
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
?? Don't put this on me. Lol! Take ownership of your screwup.
I repeat, no hg-H was discovered in the Lazaridis Report. Of the ancient populations tested in that report 8 were hg-U and 1 was hg-T.
Table S4.1 .
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: I repeat, no hg-H was discovered in the Lazaridis Report. Of the ancient populations tested in that report 8 were hg-U and 1 was hg-T.
Are these mtDNAs from northern Iberia, i.e. where subscribers of the Franco-Cantabrian refuge theory place mtDNA H in pre-Neolithic times? If not, why do they matter for our intends and purposes? I mean, you might as well say that no H is found in Martian DNA; that's just about as relevant as the red herring you're using right now.
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
You aren't a very good liear, are you? You defintely black.
Let me continue before I was interupted...
From: Complete Mitochondrial Genomes Reveal Neolithic Expansion into Europe – Paabo
in modern Europeans (Figure 1, Figure S4, Figure S5), while pre-Neolithic huntergatherers appear to be quite distinct (Figure 1). In particular, 83% (19 out of 23) of hunter-gatherers analyzed to date carry mtDNAs belonging to haplogroup U [9,10,14] and none of the hunter-gatherers fall in haplogroup H. In contrast, haplogroup U has been found in only 13 of 105 (around 12%) individuals from early farming cultures of Europe and it occurs in less than 21% of modern Europeans, while haplogroup H c
Thus, H-type and U-type mtDNAs show a distinct population history before 5,000 YBP, possibly reflecting that they were primarily present in different populations with different origins and histories. The high frequency of H-type mtDNAs in European Neolithic populations and its complete absence in pre-Neolithic huntergatherers suggests that H-type mtDNAs arrived with early farmers in Europe. The population size increase observed between 9,000 and 5,000 YBP likely represents the population expansion that accompanied the Neolithic revolution. In contrast, U-type mtDNAs show an increase in population size around 15,000 to 10,000 YBP, ….
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
Quote by Paabo...
The high frequency of H-type mtDNAs in European Neolithic populations and its complete absence in pre-Neolithic huntergatherers suggests that H-type mtDNAs arrived with early farmers in Europe.
I assume they mean ALL over tested regions in Europe and not only Northern Spain(Refugia). Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: The high frequency of H-type mtDNAs in European Neolithic populations and its complete absence in pre-Neolithic huntergatherers suggests that H-type mtDNAs arrived with early farmers in Europe.
Do Paabo et al take these pre-Neolithic mtDNAs into account? If not, why does it matter what they think?
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
My apologies for kicking your azz yesterday. I was reading and posting from a smart phone, which has limited image capabilities. When I went to a desktop I saw the image that you were frantically talking about..and the 13%. Being the thorough person I am, having seen the pie-chart I went back to cross-check the 13% since I don’t trust white people.
And Surprise!!! Someone correct me. Maybe you Sweetness. Did you check the numbers. It is astonishing the sloppy work that is allowed to be published. Over 100 authors and this error is not caught. Paabo is correct there is no hg-H in pre-Neolithic Europeans.
Check out the chart afte r the one you referenced. Red=pre-Neolithic.
There are no red asterisks!!! In Fig S4.2
===== QUOTE: Figure S4.2: Maximum Parsimony tree of 54 modern and 27 ancient mtDNA genomes. The Mesolithic genomes studied here in red, the Stuttgart sample is in blue, and previously published European pre-Neolithic and Neolithic genomes are marked with red and blue asterisks, RESPECTIVELY. Bootstrap values above 0.9 are given at major nodes.
==
I can’t believe what I am seeing.!!!! So Paabo is correct. The 3 asterisks are blue meaning Neolithic and not pre-Neolithic. Someone correct me.
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
Sage, Clyde, Lioness, Sweetness, anyone who understands? Tell me this is a mirage. Is Paabo correct.
HV is Neolithic and NOT pre-Neolithic!!!
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
Come on Sweetness. I am close to perfect but not 100%. This is your chance to get back at me. Am I wrong about the 13% you referenced?
I checked repeatedly about 10 times.!!! Tell me I am wrong? Anyone! FigS4.2 shows NO HV/H in preNeolithic Europeans yet Fig S4.1 pie chart says there is.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: There are no red asterisks!!! In Fig S4.2
I'm enjoying your shuck and jive strategy and fallacy-filled posts, but at this point I'm trying to be gentle to the senile and slow of mind. Don't you know the difference between a mtDNA haplotype and a mtDNA genome? Evidently, you don't!
quote:Figure S4.2: Maximum Parsimony tree of 54 modern and 27 ancient mtDNA genomes
Just by looking at the dendrogram (Figure S4.2) the readers in the know immediately get the impression that (most of) the genomes in Figure S4.2 are from Fu et al 2013 and that it can't possibly summarize all the ancient mtDNAs in the literature. It says 27 mtDNA genomes, while the pie chart of the pre-Neolithic samples alone includes 53 mtDNAs
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: The high frequency of H-type mtDNAs in European Neolithic populations and its complete absence in pre-Neolithic huntergatherers suggests that H-type mtDNAs arrived with early farmers in Europe.
Do Paabo et al take these pre-Neolithic mtDNAs into account? If not, why does it matter what they think?
Running away, are we?
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
I have to admit. You have me looking closely at S4.1 and the 13%. Brushing aside the “smoke and mirrors” BS that just came out your mouth, Genome vs Haplotype nonsense. LOL!
But I am looking hard at S4.1 .I am not sure where that data came from. From the data they published, obviously S4.2 does not match S4.1. S4.2 shows no HV/V present in Neolithic Europeans which supports Paabo’s statement…and many others.
Stop BSing: Quote by you ==== Just by looking at the dendrogram (Figure S4.2) the readers in the know immediately get the IMPRESSION that (most of) the genomes in Figure S4.2 are from Fu et al 2013 and that it CAN'T POSSIBLY summarize all the ancient mtDNAs in the literature. It says 27 mtDNA genomes, while the pie chart of the pre-Neolithic samples alone includes 53 mtDNAs
===
There is no definitive in your statement. I can smell BS
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
In addition, the authors seem to have the pie charts all screwed up. Top right, Top left, bottom left is all screwy. May be a English translation thing. Makes me wonder if a junior undergraduate scientist put the pie-chart together.
Please. No hyptheticals. Do the top, bottom right thing make sense.? S4.1
Next question, where is the supporting data for S4.1 It is clarly not S4.2
Clyde? Anyone
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
Chart from S4.2(with raw data) shows “no” HV/H in pre-Neolithic Europeans yet S4.1 says there is but no supporting data was provided. You are hypothesizing it came from Fu et al. I will look into that.
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
You are such a BS conman. From Fu et al, cited by the paper.
=== Quote: A Revised Timescale for Human Evolution Based on Ancient Mitochondrial Genomes - Qiaomei Fu
Discussion 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].
===
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: A Revised Timescale for Human Evolution Based on Ancient Mitochondrial Genomes - Qiaomei Fu
Discussion 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].
===
Exactly, nincompoop, so then, why were you trying to discredit Figure S4.1 (the pie charts), by using Figure S4.2 (the dendrogram) which, as you've just admitted, almost exclusively cites pre-Neolithic mtDNA genomes from Fu et al? Fu et al only publish nine mtDNA genomes, while Figure S4.1 (the pie charts) is a synthesis of 53 pre-Neolithic mtDNAs from the literature. Per definition, Figure S4.2 cannot discredit Figure S4.1 (it's not nearly as comprehensive and only includes mtDNA genomes). You don't even know the extent of your stupidity, do you?
quote:BS that just came out your mouth, Genome vs Haplotype nonsense. LOL!
The only reason because you find it "bull sh!t" is because your lie that Figure S4.2 discredits Figure S4.1, relies on the absence of pre-Neolithic mtDNA H lineages in Figure S4.2. Hence, when it is pointed out to you that there is a very reasonable reason why no pre-Neolithic mtDNA H appears in Figure S4.2, it scares the crap out of you.
quote:Sequencing of mtDNA HVR-I, nucleotide positions (nps) 15,998–16,400, and mtDNA HVR-II, nps 16504-429 as per [61], was undertaken in six overlapping fragments, each with a length of approximately 100 bp (base pair). HVR-II sequencing was carried out in samples with no polymorphic positions in HVR-I (Table S6).
--Ancient DNA from Hunter-Gatherer and Farmer Groups from Northern Spain Supports a Random Dispersion Model for the Neolithic Expansion into Europe (2012)
^I bet you're too ignorant to even grasp the significance of this, in regards to why no pre-Neolithic mtDNA H lineages from this 2012 study were included in Figure S4.2.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
I know Xyman is confused and misinterprets what the data of the studies actually say, but why does it take 5 pages to correct him??
Better yet, why is it always lyinass creating entire threads to point out Xyman's fallacies? If I didn't know any better I'd say his misinformed comments on her European heritage must have hit a nerve! LOL Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
xyyman on what continent does haplogroup H originate ?
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
Come on Hindu. Stay out of this. You are a distraction here. Go muddy the water someplace else
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: I know Xyman is confused and misinterprets what the data of the studies actually say, but why does it take 5 pages to correct him??
Better yet, why is it always lyinass creating entire threads to point out Xyman's fallacies? If I didn't know any better I'd say his misinformed comments on her European heritage must have hit a nerve! LOL
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
Sometimes I don’t know if I am coming or going with you. Sometimes I think you understand others time….???.You are good(sic).
Man you are full of it. ROTFLMAO
Quote: . Hence, when it is pointed out to you that there is a very reasonable reason why no pre-Neolithic mtDNA H appears in Figure S4.2, it scares the crap out of you
I will dumb it down
1. Fu et al concludes no hg-H in Pre-Neolithic Europeans. Which you lied about. 2. Paabo concludes no hg-H in Pre-Neolithic Europeans. 3. Bramanti et al concludes no hg-H in Pre-Neolithic Europeans 4. Haak et al concludes no hg-H in Pre-Neolithic Europeans 5. And many others concludes no hg-H in Pre-Neolithic Europeans 6. Lazaridis et al (current paper) provide raw data and shows no hg-H in Pre-Neolithic Europeans. S4.2 7. They include a chart S4.1 showing there is hg-H in Pre-Neolithic European. I am asking about the raw data. Where is it? no sources cited. You/Sweetness propose Fu et al. Fu et al proposed the opposite. Stop BSing “kiddo”.
Stop pretending something you ain’t. Copy and pasting technically sounding stuff does not intimidate me. He! He! He! You are really a clown, aren’t you.?
So I repeat my question to you and Lioness…and anyone else. Where is the data for S4.1? ANYONE???!!!!
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
You created the thread. Read it. Ask Paabo and the others. They are proposing it came from outside Europe.
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: xyyman on what continent does haplogroup H originate ?
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
Hey Sweetness! My advice is to shut up if you don't know anything about the topic.
That goes for you too Mary the Hindu. If you have nothing to add or any counter argument shut up.
Look at my hits on the subject. People want to know.
So I ask again. Wheere did the 13% come from? After so many renowned authors said hg_H is NOT pre-Neolithic. Including the said paper showed as such.
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
A>>N>>Y>>O>>N>>E!!!!
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
good!
BTW – Reading the Fu et al you referenced. I came across an interesting dilemma . It seems like there have been playing games with the dating of ancient Europeans. Notice Cro-magnon is dated at 600AD(medieval age). Now they are questioning the entire archeological dating process. It seems the only reliable method is C 14 dating. But that is another discussion.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: Fu et al concludes no hg-H in Pre-Neolithic Europeans. Which you lied about.
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: Paabo concludes no hg-H in Pre-Neolithic Europeans.
Which one of these sources tested the Franca- Cantabrian region? Citing scientists who've tested everywhere else in Europe isn't going to advance your case, gramps. Fallacies aside, how does the lack of mtDNA H in pre-Neolithic central, eastern, northern, southern Europe discredit the Franco- Cantrabrian refuge theory? And what are onlookers to make of your reluctance to come to grips with the reality that, as soon as pre-Neolithic specimens from this refuge area are tested, mtDNA H shows up?
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: I repeat, no hg-H was discovered in the Lazaridis Report. Of the ancient populations tested in that report 8 were hg-U and 1 was hg-T.
Are these mtDNAs from northern Iberia, i.e. where subscribers of the Franco-Cantabrian refuge theory place mtDNA H in pre-Neolithic times? If not, why do they matter for our intends and purposes? I mean, you might as well say that no H is found in Martian DNA; that's just about as relevant as the red herring you're using right now.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: xyyman on what continent does haplogroup H originate ?
xyyman, this is a very basic question underlying the whole discussion
I can't take what you say seriously because in a coarwrdly fashion you avoid the most fundamental basic question
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
You don’t have to take ME seriously. You wouldn’t be very smart if you did. You have to take the following seriously and then prove me wrong: You have done some reading in your time. Where is the data for S4.2?
Sweetness is stumped. He is at a lost. He is waffling.
Quote 1. Fu et al concludes no hg-H in Pre-Neolithic Europeans. Which you lied about. 2. Paabo concludes no hg-H in Pre-Neolithic Europeans. 3. Bramanti et al concludes no hg-H in Pre-Neolithic Europeans 4. Haak et al concludes no hg-H in Pre-Neolithic Europeans 5. And many others concludes no hg-H in Pre-Neolithic Europeans 6. Lazaridis et al (current paper) provide raw data and shows no hg-H in Pre-Neolithic Europeans. S4.2 7. They included a chart S4.1 showing there is hg-H in Pre-Neolithic European. I am asking about the raw data. Where is it? no sources cited. Sweetness propose Fu et al. Fu et al proposed the opposite. Sweetness lied.
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: xyyman on what continent does haplogroup H originate ?
xyyman, this is a very basic question underlying the whole discussion
I can't take what you say seriously because in a coarwrdly fashion you avoid the most fundamental basic question
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
I wish sometimes when you people quote from a paper you at least read it and understand before you use it to make a point. It is frustrating to be correcting your screw-ups everytime. First you quoted Fu et al. And you were wrong on that. Then you you went to citing Hervella et al to make your point of migration from the Cantrabrian Refuge. I am at my wits end correcting incompetence. But here is what Hervella says:
Quote ===== Ancient DNA from Hunter-Gatherer and Farmer Groups from Northern Spain Supports a Random Dispersion Model for the Neolithic Expansion into Europe - Montserrat Hervella et al.
Authenticity of the results We have successfully analyzed 49 out of 54 individuals recovered from the nine prehistoric sites analyzed in the present study; four sites correspond to hunter-gatherer groups (La Chora, La Pasiega, Erralla and Aizpea), another four to the Neolithic period (Los Cascajos, Paternanbidea, Marizulo and Fuente Hoz) and the last one to the Bronze Age (Urtiaga). Out of these 49 individuals, 30 (61% of the individuals) were analysed in duplicate in our laboratory; in addition, a third sample from each of 22 individuals (44% of the individuals) was replicated at an independent laboratory (some in the University of La Laguna and others in the INTCF of Madrid, Spain).
AND
We would like to highlight the absence of haplogroup V, proposed as a marker of the post-glacial recolonization from Franco-Cantabrian refuge [41]. The 49 prehistoric samples analysed in the present study, have NOT produced a single individual belonging to haplogroup V, which is consistent with previous aDNA studies carried out in the Basque Country [42].
========
I was curious as to why Haak, Paabo, Lazaridis etc and the heavy hitters did NOT reference this paper and was adamant that hg-H was NOT found in pre-Neolithic Europeans. Now I know why. The data has not benn authenticated. They reported 49 samples but only 22 was replicated by an independent source. Therefore the ONE hg-H of PS-1 can not be authenticated so the all the popular researchers ignored it. Guess you missid that. Reading comprehension problems just as Lioness. In addition hg-H referenced is rCRS. You are beating a dead horse Sweetness.
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
In case you missed the salient point. The authors do NOT support the Canabrian Refuge theory. You are definitely a comedian. Ha! Ha!
And if I still haven’t gotten through that thing you call a brain - aDNA needs to be authenticated. Remember Hawass and the famous JAMA staudy on the Amarna’s. To be accepted and authenticated the results must be duplicated and normally at an independent lab. Was PS-1 duplicated AND replicated.? Answer: NO! Ha! Ha! Ha!. So Haak, Paabo ignored it. Dummy!
There is no hg-H is pre-Neolithic Europeans. ALL renowned researchers know that!!
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
I speculated earlier in the thread PS-1 is an anomaly ie fake. Now looking at the Supplementals I know why other famous resreachers ignored it. Also CH-1 hg-H6 was neither duplicated or repicated. Ha! Ha! Come on man give it up.! ROTFLMAO
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
PS-1 and CH-1 could not be duplicated or replicated(ie verified) yet these fuchers still reported it!!! And you, Sweetness have the audacity to confront me with this as proof positive of hg-H presence in pre-Neolithic Europe..
GTFOH!
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: Come on Hindu. Stay out of this. You are a distraction here. Go muddy the water someplace else.
LOL And again, I'm not even Hindu or of Indian descent if that's what you think.
This makes me wonder if your misinterpretation of studies comes from a deeper seated psychosis.
And of course I'm not muddying any waters that's YOUR m.o.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by the Djehuti: This makes me wonder if your misinterpretation of studies comes from a deeper seated psychosis.
I'm definitely beginning to suspect that he's not in his right mind. Wow. How can someone misinterpret paper after paper after paper and then go on to structurally misinterpret corrections from others.
You tell him his interpretation stinks and come with evidence in the form of a paper. He'll then misinterpret something else in the paper to say he's right. You prove him wrong and he'll then systematically misinterpret anything you tell him and repeat the cycle.
I'd ban him right out the gate if I were Charlie. It's one thing to have a difference of opinion, but this guy is systematically spreading lies and fabrications. He makes a mockery of his website and everything Brada et al are building over there. SMH.
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
HE! HE! HE! Yeah ban me! I was wondering where this was heading.
Fear this....
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
Prove me wrong Sweetness. Not even Charlie can prove me wrong. ANYONE?! Charlie is probably clueless also. Lurking and taking notes.
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: PS-1 and CH-1 could not be duplicated or replicated(ie verified) yet these fuchers still reported it!!! And you, Sweetness have the audacity to confront me with this as proof positive of hg-H presence in pre-Neolithic Europe..
GTFOH!
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ LOL There you go with your poor comprehension again. Swenet said he would ban you if he were Charlie, which he is NOT.
Frankly, I prefer to keep you since your Afrolunacy balances that of lyinass's Eurolunacy. Both of you trolls complement each other. Perhaps lyinass realizes this too which is why she gets on you like white on rice with threads like this! LOL Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: Prove me wrong Sweetness. Not even Charlie can prove me wrong. ANYONE?! Charlie is probably clueless also. Lurking and taking notes.
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: PS-1 and CH-1 could not be duplicated or replicated(ie verified) yet these fuchers still reported it!!! And you, Sweetness have the audacity to confront me with this as proof positive of hg-H presence in pre-Neolithic Europe..
GTFOH!
No need to prove you wrong. This is not an issue of you being wrong; it's an issue of you being brainless. Finding the characteristically L0 haplogroup in ancient DNA from what is today Khoisan territory would make this an expected find, whether it was replicated or not. In other words, logical consistency of aDNA is a criterium for authenticity, in and of itself.
There is no reason why inauthentic prehistoric DNA should come out falling in line with the mtDNAs most characteristic of the present day inhabitants. If the haplogroups assigned to CH-1 and PS-1 were, as you're saying, inauthentic, they could have come out sporting any of the many 100s of attested subhaplogoups known to the literature, but they both came out mtDNA H. The burden is on you to explain why supposedly inauthentic DNA falls squarely in line with decades worth of population genetics literature.
Also, your partiality to these results is further demonstrated in that you're just now using this as a crutch to come out of hiding and openly dismiss these results. You were confronted with these results more than 10 times and you were scared to death to even address them! You didn't like them then and you don't like them now, for partisan reasons. Only difference is that you now finally have the cohones to come out of hiding and face these results.
A true sign of intellectual cowardice.
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
Prove me wrong Sweetness. Come on man. I am not buying any bridges today. You come across as a used car salesman.
Do you understand this?
You quoted PS-1 and CH-1 as proof hg-H was presence in pre-Neolithic Europe. I showed it was NEVER verified. Did you read YOUR Supplementals? LOL!
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: PS-1 and CH-1 could not be duplicated or replicated(ie verified) yet these fuchers still reported it!!! And you, Sweetness have the audacity to confront me with this as proof positive of hg-H presence in pre-Neolithic Europe..
GTFOH!
[/QB][/QUOTE]
Quote 1. Fu et al concludes no hg-H in Pre-Neolithic Europeans. Which you lied about. 2. Paabo concludes no hg-H in Pre-Neolithic Europeans. 3. Bramanti et al concludes no hg-H in Pre-Neolithic Europeans 4. Haak et al concludes no hg-H in Pre-Neolithic Europeans 5. And many others concludes no hg-H in Pre-Neolithic Europeans 6. Lazaridis et al (current paper) provide raw data and shows no hg-H in Pre-Neolithic Europeans. S4.2 7. They included a chart S4.1 showing there is hg-H in Pre-Neolithic European. I am asking about the raw data. Where is it? no sources cited. Sweetness propose Fu et al. Fu et al proposed the opposite. Sweetness lied.
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
Typical Hindu...specifics?
Generalities gets you nowhere
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ LOL There you go with your poor comprehension again. Swenet said he would ban you if he were Charlie, which he is NOT.
Frankly, I prefer to keep you since your Afrolunacy balances that of lyinass's Eurolunacy. Both of you trolls complement each other. Perhaps lyinass realizes this too which is why she gets on you like white on rice with threads like this! LOL
Posted by .Charlie Bass. (Member # 10328) on :
How did my name get caught up in this and how am I clueless?
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:Originally posted by the Djehuti: .
I'd ban him right out the gate if I were Charlie. .
Topic: When I lurk here all I see his trolling
quote:Originally posted by .Charlie Bass.: I wish somebody would get rid of the trolls or add some kind of moderation. I'm sick of seeing lioness troll this place and other duds who can't read and comprehend studies.
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
Was it Sweenet, Mary or Lioness who sent you the PM?
It is a toss up between Lioness or Sweetness.
oh! "probably"
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
Where are the genetics expert at? What about you Sweetness, Anyone? Hot off the press posted at Dienekess. He is a confused guy. Reminds me of an ostrich. He cites many parts of the paper but left out the most inportant piece. The Sub-Saharan influence of Otzi Iceman. I spoke on this about 2 years ago. The dead give away was the pygmy motif found in Otzi Iceman. We know he was black skinned. Now here is more. Let’s see if DNATribes will take on this one also. Let us wait and see.
There is lot of spin and BS within the paper but here are the significant points.
Did I mis-interpret this also. LOL!
====== (May 2014)Population Genomic Analysis of Ancient and Modern Genomes Yields New Insights into the Genetic Ancestry of the Tyrolean Iceman and the Genetic Structure of Europe - Martin Sikora1, Brenna Henn, A Zink
Signals of admixture To further investigate the history of the populations in the 1000G/Sardinia dataset, we investigated patterns of admixture. We first turned to the TreeMix analysis of the merged dataset with the Iceman described above, allowing up to five mixture events. The first four inferred edges are highly significant (p,10210 for m=1 to m = 4), the last one however to a much lesser extent (p = 0.009). In addition, both the amount of variance explained and the residuals do not change substantially after m=4, indicating possible issues with overfitting the model at m=5. We therefore report estimates of the tree with four inferred mixture events in the remainder of this section. The first inferred edge corresponds to sub-Saharan African admixture in Southern European populations (edge weight w= 0.027), which is consistent with previous estimates of 1%–3% sub-Saharan African ancestry in those populations via North African gene flow [25,26]. We also infer that the FIN trace around 7% of their ancestry (w= 0.075) to present-day Japanese (JPT), consistent with evidence of circumpolar gene flow [27]. A higher similarity of Finns with Asians than other European populations has also been observed previously, in particular in Eastern Finns [28]. At m = 3 migrations, an edge is added between the ancestral Europeans and the TSI, with a surprisingly high proportion (w= 0.35) (Figure 3B), which is somewhat more difficult to interpret.The last edge added corresponds to a mixture of an Iceman-related population and the Bantu-speaking Luhya (LWK) from Eastern Africa (w= 0.03). The LWK have previously been reported as showing a signal of gene flow of possible Neolithic Middle Eastern or European origin [29], whi
===
any challengers?
To the lurkers(sic). The game they are playing is this. Yes, Iceman is indeed closer to Sardinians (out of the European populations). They deliberately left out North African populations.
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
To the lurkers(sic).
What they are saying is Otzi has 4 admxiture events. Two oout of the possible four are Sub-Saharan African. One is Asian(Australian) and the other they are not sure(wink). Yeah right. Let us look at the raw data.
Note: I am not saying SSA migrated to Europe but the pattern is clear....
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
Excuse the rant. You can tell I am jumping out my seat. I am getting ahead of myself.
Any takers?? ===== Quote: We find evidence for admixture in the LWK using ANY of the non-African population as source populations (max Z =29.7), which remains significant if we replace the non-Africans with either HG or F ancient samples (max Z =23.4). The TSI show the signature of African admixture as described when using CEU, GBR or Sardinia as
====
Ok! I will answer. DNATribes is ahead of the game. They are using the same filtering technique/Algorithm as DNATrbies(March/April2014). The key word here is “ANY”. That means LWK is not admixed but the source population.
This is going to be a great year!!!
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
I agree with some of your statements. Yes, I delayed responding because I initially took a cursory look at the paper. Infact Lioness first made the point along with Sage about PS-1.
I finally had the time to take an in-depth look at the study. My knee jerk reaction was the results did not make sense. ie PS-1 was hg-H. That contradicted the > 50 research papers I had read on pre-Neolithic inhabitants of Europe. I knew it was fake somehow. It took me awhile to get to the bottom of it.
As for the source of the rCRS – Again you did not read ALL the Supplementals! Two of the handlers were rCRS!!!!! Guess you missed that. That is why the results could NOT be verified by 2 secondary labs. The primary reporting lab produced the 49 results. The other labs 30 and 22 respectively. The rCRS of PS-1 could NOT be replicated. The two handlers worked in the primary lab. Instead of doing the ethical thing of either throw out the PS-1 result or at least report it as not replicatable or duplicatable they sliped in the result. The same goes for CH-1. The other hg-H sample. That is why Haak, Paabo etc rejected the result. It was NEVER verified. They all concluded hg-H has NO pre-Neolithic presence.
==== Quote by Sweetness - In other words, logical consistency of aDNA is a criterium for authenticity, in and of itself.
If the haplogroups assigned to CH-1 and PS-1 were, as you're saying, inauthentic, they could have come out sporting any of the many 100s of attested subhaplogoups known to the literature, but they both came out mtDNA H.
Also, your partiality to these results is further demonstrated in that you're just now using this as and openly dismiss these results. You were confronted with these results more than 10 times Only difference is that you now finally have the cohones to come out of hiding and face these results.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
You fail. All of the non-replicated mtDNAs fall squarely into the expected category: U and H. Only one fell into X and one fell into HV--both are logically consistent with decades worth of Iberian and UP European population genetics literature.
Like I said, logical consistency is a vouch for authenticity. Some of the U samples weren't replicated either--doesn't matter for the exact same reason.
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
Why am I wasting my time with you? Siiighhh!! You always confuse the issue, don’t you? I would of given you, all D-‘s at school. LOL! Science and logic is NOT one of your strong points. Is it?
The discourse is about the pre-Neolithics. PS-1 and CH-1 were the only pre-Neolithics reported as hg-H. by the primary lab. All other pre-Neolithics were hg-U. AS EXPECTED.!!!! However PS-1 and CH-1 result could NOT be replicated by TWO outside independent labs. The only lab that obtained these results was the prinmary lab where the two handlers(who matched PS-1 and CH-1) tested the said samples. Get it? That is why it was rejected by other well known scientists. The result could NOT be independently verified. WHOA!!!
Why don’t you read the entire paper and get back to me. I need an aspirin.
[
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: You fail. All of the non-replicated mtDNAs fall squarely into the expected category: U and H. Only one fell into X and one fell into HV--both are logically consistent with decades worth of Iberian and UP European population genetics literature.
Like I said, logical consistency is a vouch for authenticity. Some of the U samples weren't replicated either--doesn't matter for the exact same reason.
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
One more time. I am running out of different ways I can explain this..
The only two sample results that seemed funky (out of place) was PS-1 and CH-1. And the same two samples could not be duplicated or replicated by TWO independent outside labs. It is normal protocol to have results verified independently, especially with aDNA. That is why Hawass results on the Amarna’s are believable. If you read Hawass JAMA report a few results could not be duplicated and that was made clear in the write up. If IIRC Hawass threw out the results if it was not duplicated independently..
In addition – PS-1 and CH-1 carried the same mtDNA marker as two of the handlers that worked in the only lab of the three that obtained these reults.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by Xyyman: In addition – PS-1 and CH-1 carried the same mtDNA marker as two of the handler
CRS is not a marker, dummy. ~40% of the samples were CRS in HVS-I. You're just arguing in circles. I post the below and you still going backwards when the way to go forward is replying to what I said, big ass fruitbasket.
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: You fail. All of the non-replicated mtDNAs fall squarely into the expected category: U and H. Only one fell into X and one fell into HV--both are logically consistent with decades worth of Iberian and UP European population genetics literature.
Like I said, logical consistency is a vouch for authenticity. Some of the U samples weren't replicated either--doesn't matter for the exact same reason.
If there was no pre-Neolithic mtDNA H pulse into Europe, show any Neolithic lineage from the Near East that radiates from western Europe to the Balkan and Baltics like this, and explain why the epicentre is in the Franco-Cantabrian region, precisely where the same H and H6 pre-Neolithic samples are found, which you're trying to write off as "inauthentic" without offering any logically coherent explanation as to why a random collection of 400 fake nucleotides would fall squarely in line with the literature, even though they could have come out aligning to ANY haplogroup or even none.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
Also, if mtDNA H doesn't predate the Neolithic, explain why mtDNA H is much higher in early Neolithic northern Spain (CAS 13/27 = 44% and PAT 5/9 = 55%), than else where in Neolithic Europe (26% on average). Start giving answer, gramps.
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
Pheeew!
Quote: "rCRS is not a Marker." It is a standard indicative of hg-H ie H2*? IIRC God!
Listen I need to post some new stuff on ESR. Get back to me. Unless I am banned there. LOL!
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by Xyyman: Listen I need to post some new stuff on ESR. Get back to me.
What you really mean is: "Dang, got me there. Time to save my hide, fall back and retreat to the drawing board".
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Also, if mtDNA H doesn't predate the Neolithic, explain why mtDNA H is much higher in early Neolithic northern Spain (CAS 13/27 = 44% and PAT 5/9 = 55%), than else where in Neolithic Europe (26% on average). Start giving answer, gramps.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
If mtDNA H doesn't predate the Neolithic, explain how the later Neolithic and post-Neolithic samples (FH, MZ, URT) all almost exclusively consist of mtDNA H and Upper Palaeolithic aboriginal mtDNA U. The preponderance of mtDNA U means that native hunters adopted agriculture from incoming farmers. So, why there such a conspicuous paucity of proper Near Eastern mtDNAs other than mtDNA H? What, did northern Iberians hunter aboriginals in their transition to farming, conspire to nitpick H bearing women to mate with, from incoming farmers? How does that work, gramps? Are all the H lineages inauthentic? You've got some s'planin' to do.
Posted by Truthcentric (Member # 3735) on :
I don't have the patience to slog through xyyman's nonsense, but let me get his major claim straight:
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: Here is another chart I am proposing. Kivilsid have already propose something similar. Stay tuned.
Wait a minute, isn't L the major African mtDNA haplogroup? Recall it was the preponderant haplogroup in those Old/Middle Kingdom Egyptian samples beyoku shared with us. There were a small number of non-L haplogroups, but not nearly enough to convince me that they all came from Africa just west of the Nile.
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
Fear and ignorance...nice!
The white guy is smarter than he is letting on. Appropriate chart cousin.
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
You did slug through it! Where you are off is is the timing. hg-U is >30kyo while hg-H is ~20kyo. Both had nothing to do with AE. They both had "drifted" from the Nile region. So yes, the chart is appropriate.
12kya on the edges of North Africa(Kefi et al). 6kya entering Europe as Neolithics(Lazaridis et al, Haak et al, Paabo et al etc).
Highest diversity on the African side. Diversity gradient from Southern Europe to Northern Europe.
Trust me, I got this!
quote:Originally posted by Truthcentric: I don't have the patience to slog through xyyman's nonsense, but let me get his major claim straight:
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: Here is another chart I am proposing. Kivilsid have already propose something similar. Stay tuned.
Wait a minute, isn't L the major African mtDNA haplogroup? Recall it was the preponderant haplogroup in those Old/Middle Kingdom Egyptian samples beyoku shared with us. There were a small number of non-L haplogroups, but not nearly enough to convince me that they all came from Africa just west of the Nile.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by xyyman
xyyman, this is BS
just one example
You have HV originating in Southern Libya.
HV is believed to be 25-30K
yet you have no live data from Africa even close to that date to support that
It's laughable
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
Agreed. I have to live data for HV in Africa.
No one has!!! until then, we have the next best thing...HAPLOTYPE DIVERSITY!!!
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: Agreed. I have to live data for HV in Africa.
No one has!!! until then, we have the next best thing...HAPLOTYPE DIVERSITY!!!
you have NO source that says hg HV in particular has highest diversity in Africa. That's more BS In fact it has lower diversity there
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
The chart is generalization. No one knows the specifics. The Luyha may not be the actual Eurasian "basal" as many studies have shown. The Luyha is repeatedly referenced because their samples are in the HAPMAP database etc.
When enough African populations are sampled a clearer picture will emerge.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: Agreed. I have to live data for HV in Africa.
No one has!!! until then, we have the next best thing...HAPLOTYPE DIVERSITY!!!
you have NO source that says hg HV in particular has highest diversity in Africa. That's more BS In fact it has lower diversity there
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
Your retention hasn't improved? "Pillars of Hercules"
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: Agreed. I have to live data for HV in Africa.
No one has!!! until then, we have the next best thing...HAPLOTYPE DIVERSITY!!!
you have NO source that says hg HV in particular has highest diversity in Africa. That's more BS In fact it has lower diversity there
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: [QB] Your retention hasn't improved? "Pillars of Hercules"
my retention is excellent
That article does not say HV in particular has highest diversity in Africa
stop bullshitting
If you had a quote to that effect you would have posted it
but you dont
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: The chart is generalization. No one knows the specifics. The Luyha may not be the actual Eurasian "basal" as many studies have shown. The Luyha is repeatedly referenced because their samples are in the HAPMAP database etc.
When enough African populations are sampled a clearer picture will emerge.
This a great observation. Keep up the good work.
The criticism you're given is unjustified. The problem is that most of the posters here can't think for themselves and they can't accept someone like you making inferences based on the research, while they have to have everything spelt out for them.
The problem for most geneticists is that Africa has a rich archaeological history which they fail to use, to accurately measure the expansion of haplogroups across Africa before the OoA.
There are two myths: 1) amh entered Eurasia via the Levant, and 2) L3(N,M/Q) and hg H,J originated in Eurasia. The first amh entered Europe via Iberia. Geneticist refuse to accept this fact because it acknowledges the direct African origin of Western Eurasians.
Once the myth that L3(N,M/Q) originated in Eurasia is destroyed we will have a real picture of the spread of SSA into Europe.
It is this myth that allows people to attack the knowledge you are teaching.
.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
*yawn* This thread is an x-y conversation (between xyman and lyinass) so we should z our way off and let these two idiots bicker it out. This thread is already a waste of band-space so I so no need for other more intelligent posters to get involved. Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: *yawn* This thread is an x-y conversation (between xyman and lyinass) so we should z our way off and let these two idiots bicker it out. This thread is already a waste of band-space so I so no need for other more intelligent posters to get involved.
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
I do not take what Mary the Hindu post seriously. She cannot gives specifics on where I am wrong. She cannot prove me wrong. She probably never saw this before and she doesn’t know what it means. How about it Mary? Can you explain this to me and the lurkers? (wink)
===
This agrees
with this
and DNATribes analysis
From DNATribes(April 2014)- quote:: ==== Ancient Eurasian and African Ancestry in Europe Background: New Genomes from Ancient Europe Recently published ancient genomes from Europe, Siberia, and North America have provided new insights about the early migrations that have shaped the genetic structure of Europe. In particular, a new tree analysis of Eurasian population history models modern Europeans as a mixture of at least three ancient populations: Early European Farmers (EEF), Western European Hunter-Gatherers (WHG), Ancient North Eurasians (ANE), and Eastern Non-Africans (ENA).2 Some of these ancient populations (such as WHG hunter-gatherers) did not leave genomic traces outside of Europe; other ancient populations (such as the EEF “First Farmers”) left traces across a wider range of territories in both Europe and the Middle East (illustrated in Figure 1). Within this agricultural zone range, EEF farmers came in contact with other ancient populations: In Europe and West Asia, EEF populations mixed with North Eurasians (including Siberian relatives of WHG hunter-gatherers). In the Arabian Peninsula, EEF farmers mixed with ancestral Sub-Saharan Africans RELATED to modern Nigerian, Gambian, and Botswanan populations. In Armenia and Georgia, EEF farmers mixed with South Asian (Indian Subcontinent) populations. Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
So you see Mary. You Aryan Hindu’s are not the owners of the Harrrapan Civilization. I thougt it was AfroCentric dogma. I now have to rethink everything. Do you understand what DNATribes and the other authors are suggesting.
Am I wrong?
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
Where are the fraudelant genetic experts at? LOL! I had reservation when some Brothas use to post pictures of ancient Cambodians statues calling them Black/African. Now I think an apology is in order. What about you Mary?
==== Inference of Population Splits and Mixtures from Genome-Wide Allele Frequency Data - Joseph K. Pickrell (Nov2012)
but are consistent with previous clustering analysis of these populations [7,20,21]. These include migration from Africa to the Makrani and Brahui in Central Asia (w~5%) and
The predicted admixture event implies that allele frequencies in Cambodia are more similar to those in African populations than would be expected based
How about it Mary? Do you want to retract that idiotic statement you made. That light skin correlates to cold temperature. Are you a newbie.Also help me out. Download the BAM file for Neanderthal. You can get the analysis kit for free. Show me that Neanderthal had kinky hair. I will locate the SNP and post. You can take it from there. Run it through your computer and show me what you come up with.
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
There are conflicting reports on EDAR. Source? It is evident that light skin is new to Europe via SLC45A2 and SLC24A5.
The question now is, for the other light pigmentation popualtion, East Asians, is it also new? What was the source population? Was it the EEF as suggested by DNATribes AND Pickrell et al. How does the pigmentation of Native Americans fit into all this. Did they entire Americas dark or light skin. The timing is off. Do you see the pickle? Dark skin Europeans up to 5000bc. But light skin Native Americans 15,000BC? get it?
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: xyyman, the gene for light skin in East Asians is called EDAR it is believed to be associated with population proximity to the equatorial UV intensity with additional moderation by diet
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
Ok Mary. I did my part. According to 23andme the most likely SNP for hair texture is rs17646946 TCHH encodes for the protein trichoyalin. At this SNP AA is the straight hair phenotype. GG is coarser hair.
Get back to me on Neanderthal hair texture.
Fear this…
DNA Tribes Digest for April 2, 2014: Ancient Eurasian and African Ancestry in Europe
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
Come on woman. I can’t do all the work. I gave it to you on a plater. Did Neanderthal have curly hair?!
From SNPedia…
rs17646946 is a SNP on chromosome 1 that is apparently part of the trichohyalin-like 1 TCHHL1 gene. Trichohyalin is a protein found in hair follicle roots. In an interesting example of people-powered research, this SNP and one other were reported to be associated with hair curliness. Source: [PMID 19896111 ] hair curl rs17646946 and rs7349332. source genetic future rs17646946 and hair curl with each A conferring a reduction in curliness of about 0.29 points on a scale from 0 to 5.
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
Tic! Toc! I just gave you people a big piece of the puzzle(in a subtle way) And no one jumped on it. (scratching my head). Where are the genetic experts? Was AEians straight haired or curly haired. Was it chemicals in the hair of AEians. Is that nonsense or what. What, am I amongst retards? At least you, Lioness see the value. I gave you the ammunition you need. Go for it. Investigate. You know I know the answer already He! He! He!
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
Isn’t this comical. European admixture when Europeans haven’t appeared on the continent. As I said. Euroepans do not have ownership on light skin.
Quote:
each ancient sample (Figures 3B and 3D). PCAs with only the European populations in 1000 Genomes further resolve the placement of some of these samples after capture (Figure S3). For the Peruvian mummies, we also included 10 Native American individuals from Central and South America in the PCA (Figures 3E and 3F). Interestingly, all of the mummies fell between the Native American populations (KAR, MAY, AYM) and East Asian populations (JPT, CHS, CHB), as would be expected for a NONADMIXED Native American individual (Figures 3E, 3F, and S2). These mummies belonged to the pre-Columbian Chachapoya culture, who, by some accounts, WERE UNUSUALLY FAIR-SKINNED,39 suggesting a potential for pre- Columbian European admixture. However, based on our preliminary results, these individuals appear to have been ancestrally Native American.
AND
We were able to tentatively call mtDNA haplogroups for these samples (Table S1). The two Bulgarian Iron Age individuals (P192-1 and T2G5) fell into haplogroups U3b and HV(16311), respectively. Haplogroup U3 is especially common in the countries surrounding the Black Sea, including Bulgaria, and in the Near East, and HV is also found at low frequencies in Europe and peaks in the Near East.41 The three Peruvian mummies fell into haplogroups B2, M (an ancestor of D), and D1, all derived from founder Native American lineages and previously observed in both pre-Columbian and modern populations from Peru.42
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
Good god! Man. Do you even understand what you just wrote. Illogical idiotic contradictory nonsense. First off. U5 was always black skinned. Don’t you understand the Lazaridis report and La Brana report. EEF brought in hg-H. circa 6000ya.
You are such a conman. But I can dig it. What I can’t tolerate is the sleazy snake tongue Mary and her visibly sly manipulation. She got to be a Hindu.
QUOTE]Originally posted by Swenet: [/QUOTE]What's interesting is that the recent discovery of derived SLC24A5 having come from the Middle East during the Neolithic, comes with new conceptual implications regarding what it means to be "black" in prehistory. It would seem that Ibero-Maurusians, even with European mtDNA H1, H3, V and U5 having become a part of their haplogroup composition at a later stage, would have been dark skinned. How dark, is anyone's guess. BTW, I did not introduce that Kefi 2005 image to this forum. [/QUOTE]
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
I can dig it. You want to kick North Africans off of the continent. I know you and a few others feel that way. (AMRTU) is just one that comes to mind. But we have to face the facts. They are our siblings regardless to what YOUR perseption of what they should look like. Science has the final word. Personal oppinions does not matter. Sorry.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
Dumbass, taking someone's text, repeating what that text is saying, and then thinking you've somehow contradicted it and that the other person is a being deceptive, doesn't bespeak of much sense. You know that, right?
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: [QB] Good god! Man. Do you even understand what you just wrote. Illogical idiotic contradictory nonsense. First off. U5 was always black skinned. Don’t you understand the Lazaridis report and La Brana report. EEF brought in hg-H. circa 6000ya.
You are such a conman. But I can dig it. What I can’t tolerate is the sleazy snake tongue Mary and her visibly sly manipulation. She got to be a Hindu.
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: Where are the fraudelant genetic experts at? LOL! I had reservation when some Brothas use to post pictures of ancient Cambodians statues calling them Black/African. Now I think an apology is in order. What about you Mary?
==== Inference of Population Splits and Mixtures from Genome-Wide Allele Frequency Data - Joseph K. Pickrell (Nov2012)
but are consistent with previous clustering analysis of these populations [7,20,21]. These include migration from Africa to the Makrani and Brahui in Central Asia (w~5%) and
The predicted admixture event implies that allele frequencies in Cambodia are more similar to those in African populations than would be expected based
This data is further support to the linguistic, historical and archaeological evidence that the Mande speaking people had migrated into East Asia. And the relationship that exist between Mande, and the Japanese and Chinese languages.
This would also explain the West African placenames in East India and Melanesia.
. .
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
@ Swenet. You are not not Mary. You know that right? I understand your MO.
But yes. Your statement makes absolutely no sense. Do you understand the nonsense you just posted. I am trying to help you. Also, You know you are not my audience right? (wink).
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
@ Dr. Winters. That is my point. There is a goldmine of info out there now. The so called genetic experts are sitting with their hands in their pockets(with holes) LOL. Nonstop talking in circles. We have to look at what some of the Afrocentrics have been saying more closely. The new TreeMix Algorithm shows a “recent” link between SSA and these distant lands. Unbelieveable!!!
If some of these AfroCentrics can digest this genetic stuff they can annihilate the haters.
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
Much better correction. Phew! I know you are black. Mary I have problem with. She cannot speak for black people. She is a phony. Anyways. As I said much better. But a few inconsistency eg
SLC24A5 coming from the middle east? Are you using that study that Ben/Herodutus cited on ESR? Where the authors having found derived SLC24A5 in Africa switched to the Regionalist Theory and AMH origins in Asia to justify their synopsis?
You do know most researchers concluded that there was NO back-migration during the Neolithic. Even Henn concluded it was closer to 35kya…if it happened at all.
Why “fixation during the metal age”. It is possible, but what else you got?
QUOTE]Originally posted by Swenet: [/QUOTE] What's interesting is that the recent discovery of derived SLC24A5 having come from the Middle East during the Neolithic, comes with new conceptual implications regarding what it means to be "black" in prehistory. It would seem that Ibero-Maurusians, even with European mtDNA H1, H3, V and U5 having become a part of their haplogroup composition at a later stage, would have been dark skinned. But this goes both ways and is equally applicable to Middle Easterns and Europeans. Due to their light skin alleles having become (almost) fixed, people for centuries assumed that Europeans, Jews and (light skinned) Middle Easterners don't have much African ancestry. What we're now beginning to see is that the (near) fixation of light skin alleles (which, in Europe's case, seems to have happened during the metal ages), obscures any visual cues of significant African admixture in these populations, in the eye of the public. The popular lay idea that skin colour is necessarily directly proportionate to how much ancestry one has from a light or dark skinned source has been shown to be a fallacy:
[/QUOTE]
Posted by Trollkillah # Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
I wonder what this could indicate.
quote:
The general analysis (based on historical sources, epigraphy and archaeological evidence) focuses on transitions in town and country and economy from Roman to Vandal and to Byzantine rule and observing patterns and facets of continuity and change.
Background: The most recent Alu insertions reveal different series of characteristics such as stability that make them particularly suitable genetic markers for human biological studies.
Subjects and methods: Forty-seven Berbers from Sejnane and 33 from Takrouna were sampled. Alu insertion polymorphism was analysed using PCR with loci specific primers.
Results: A similar level of gene diversity was detected in Sejnane and Takrouna populations. PC results revealed genetic affinities between these two populations and some Eurasian populations ( Germany, Genova and Syria). In contrast, there is a differentiation between these two Berber communities and North African and Iberian populations.
Conclusion: The results of this study confirm the heterogeneity of Berbers in North Africa, which suggests their diverse origins. In the case of Sejnane and Takrouna populations, these results are in line with an ancient Euro Mediterranean background that has already been studied by archaeologists, particularly for the population of Sejnane.
Assessing human genetic diversity in Tunisian Berber populations by Alu insertion polymorphisms
S. Frigi, H. Ennafaa, M. Ben Amor, L. Cherni and A. Ben Ammar-Elgaaied
quote: The period in question from AD 300 to AD 700, spans more that political transitions: it sees the adoption of Christianity (during the Las Imperial period and the Byzantine times), the Vandal rule and the adoption of Arianism and the Arab/Muslim imposition. It is also a period of archaeological and material transition: towns and economic system change, public structures (but not churches) decay. I have analysed how classical towns changed through centuries, how building were reused and progressively transformed.
Yeah. It may be medieval times. But that is also my "gut" feeling. And it sounds incredulous. But I am wired for hard numbers. So I will sit this one out. I need more proof for a medieval transition ie selective sweep. We know the transition started circa EEF(Stuttgart woman). per most modern Genetic reports.
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
Intersting
Quote:
The inhabitants of the Aegean area in the Bronze Age may have been much like many people in the Mediterranean basin today, short and slight of build with dark hair and eyes and sallow complexions. Skeletons show that the population of the Aegean was already mixed by Neolithic times, and various facial types, some with delicate features and pointed noses, others pug-nosed, almost negroid, are depicted in wall paintings from the 16th century BC..." -- The Home of the Heroes: The Aegean Before the Greeks (1967)
"One can identify Negroid traits of nose and prognathism appearing in Natufian latest hunters (McCown, 1939) and in Anatolian and Macedonian first farmers , probably from Nubia via the predecesors of the Badarians and Tasians" --Larry Angel (1972)
"The female of forty-plus years of age from Grave 2 was examined by J. L. Angel who noted what he interpreted as a number of 'negroid' .. traits in the face." The skull is fairly complete, but not enough so for discriminant function analysis." There is marked maxillary prognathism and the orbits may be described as rectangular, traits frequently used in forensic diagnosis of Negro crania... The female from Grave 2 is among those with thickened parietals. It should be pointed out that maxillary prognathsm, one of the skeleton's "Negroid" features, is characteristic both of thalassemia and sickle-cell anemia. " -- Skeletons of Lerna Hollow. Al B. Wesolowsky. Hesperia, Vol. 42, No. 3. (1973), pp. 340-351.
"The portrayal on the 'minature fresco' from Thera, and on the other, very fragmentary Aegean frescoes, of diverse stylistic elements- flora a nd fauna, 'negroid' human representations, the riverine setting, of the 'minature fresco,' etc- that seem to be north African, 'Libyan' or Egyptian in origin." --The Aegean and the Orient in the second millennium: proceedings of the 50th anniversary symposium, Cincinnati, 18-20 April 1997
Posted by Trollkillah # Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: Yeah. It may be medieval times. But that is also my "gut" feeling. And it sounds incredulous. But I am wired for hard numbers. So I will sit this one out. I need more proof for a medieval transition ie selective sweep. We know the transition started circa EEF(Stuttgart woman). per most modern Genetic reports.
That would be interesting, indeed.
The American Naturalist Coverage: 1867-2014 (Vols. 1-183)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
