quote:

---

Genetic diversity across human populations has been shaped by demographic history, making it possible to infer past demographic events from extant genomes. However, demographic inference in the ancient past is difficult, particularly around the out-of-Africa event in the Late Middle Paleolithic, a period of profound importance to our species' history. Here we present SMCSMC, a Bayesian method for inference of time-varying population sizes and directional migration rates under the coalescent-with-recombination model, to study ancient demographic events. We find evidence for substantial migration from the ancestors of present-day Eurasians into African groups between 40 and 70 thousand years ago, predating the divergence of Eastern and Western Eurasian lineages. This event accounts for previously unexplained genetic diversity in African populations, and supports the existence of novel population substructure in the Late Middle Paleolithic. Our results indicate that our species' demographic history around the out-of-Africa event is more complex than previously appreciated.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Elijah The Tishbite:
More intra-African population substructure, no more no less if this is true. Did they even test any remains, or is this one of their statistical model studies where they infer?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by One Third African:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Elijah The Tishbite:
More intra-African population substructure, no more no less if this is true. Did they even test any remains, or is this one of their statistical model studies where they infer?

---

As far as I can tell, it's the latter.

---

whole genome sequencing data from
the Simons Genome Diversity Panel (SGDP) [35] and
the Human Genome Diversity Panel (HGDP) [48]
to investigate population structure around the OoA event.

35.
Mallick, S. et al.
The Simons Genome Diversity Project: 300 genomes from 142 diverse populations.
Nature 538, 201–206 (2016)

48.
Bergstr ̈om, A. et al.
Insights into human genetic variation and population history from 929 diverse genomes.
bioRxiv, 674986 (2019).


So no aDNA just stats-on-moderns type inferencing.

Could the article allude to mislabeled Sardine and Anatoli genomes
ubiquitous throughout and very early in Africa?

Just a subset of the same set of African that made the OoA
and truly back migrated (unbeknownst to them)?

Presupposes no part of the OoA genomed population remained in Africa?

Man a'mighty that title is a paradox, lemme xlate:
Ancient admixture into Africa from Africans
 

---

Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.06.01.127555v1.full.pdf+html




Ancient admixture into Africa from the ancestors of non-Africans

Our analysis suggests that a population ancestral to present-day Eurasians contributed as much as
a third of the genetic material in many modern African populations. We find no difference in inferred
admixture proportions when using French Europeans or Han Chinese as extant representatives of the donor
population, indicating that the admixing population must have split from the out-of-Africa population before
the East/West Eurasian divergence, implying a lower bound on the timing of the admixture of approximately
40kya [20]. It appears that our results suggest that the migrating population was more similar to present-day
French and Chinese populations than to Papuans. However, up to 5% of the genomes of some present-day
Papuans have been suggested to derive from archaic introgressions [37], and these contributions will have
reduced the inferred levels of admixture into Africans when using Papuans as a representative of the Eurasian
ancestors. The alternative explanation, of an earlier divergence of Papuans and Eurasian ancestors, is possible
but contested; in light of documented Eurasian admixture into Oceania, the effects of this early isolation are
likely to be small relative to the large confounding effects of Denisovan admixture
 

---

Posted by Elmaestro (Member # 22566) on :
 
We find evidence for substantial migration from the ancestors of present-day Eurasians into African groups between 40 and 70 thousand years ago, predating the divergence of Eastern and Western Eurasian lineages.

This is very very poor wording.

Anywho, ....so who's still looking forward to physical Basal Eurasians? Anybody?
 

---

Posted by Mansamusa (Member # 22474) on :
 
Ancient DNA meets science fiction. Eurasians from 70,000 to 40,000 years ago with no Neanderthal admixture.
 

---

Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
 
For this to even make sense there would have to be some genes that arose specifically outside of Africa after the Africans left. And those genes would have had to dominate the entire sub-group of Africans, or as they call them Eurasians, in order to make them a separate genetic lineage from the Africans who stayed behind. Something like that is going to depend primarily on theories of Neanderthal mixture because there is no scenario of populations leaving Africa and suddenly having non African genes to go back and deposit back into the genes that they carried out of Africa.
 

---

Posted by Ish Geber (Member # 18264) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Elmaestro:
We find evidence for substantial migration from the ancestors of present-day Eurasians into African groups between 40 and 70 thousand years ago, predating the divergence of Eastern and Western Eurasian lineages.

This is very very poor wording.

Anywho, ....so who's still looking forward to physical Basal Eurasians? Anybody?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:
For this to even make sense there would have to be some genes that arose specifically outside of Africa after the Africans left. And those genes would have had to dominate the entire sub-group of Africans, or as they call them Eurasians, in order to make them a separate genetic lineage from the Africans who stayed behind. Something like that is going to depend primarily on theories of Neanderthal mixture because there is no scenario of populations leaving Africa and suddenly having non African genes to go back and deposit back into the genes that they carried out of Africa.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:
Why on earth are they so worried about humans migrating back to Africa 70,000 years ago? All the genes those people carried at that time were African anyway. What is the genetic marker or mutation they are using to claim that these genes were "Eurasian"? None of what they are saying is making absolutely any sense and is hypocritical. Eurasian genes stay Eurasian even 50,000 years later, but African genes magically become non African only after a few thousand years....... These clowns are ridiculous.

---

quote:

---

Population sizes and migration rates are modeled as piece-wise constant across 32 exponentially spaced epochs from 133 to 133016 generations in the past, corresponding to 3.8 thousand to 3.8 million years ago (3.8kya–3.8Mya) using a generation time g = 29 years [5].

[…]

This data set comprises individuals from four African (Yoruban, San, Mbuti, and Biaka) and nine non-African populations (Druze, Han, Karitiana, two Papuan populations, Pathan, Pima, Sardinian, and Yakut).

[…]

Migration Pre-dates East-West Eurasian Divergence

To assess whether the inferred back-migration shows variation across the descendants of the OoA event, we repeated the analyses using three representative non-African groups in the SGDP: Han Chinese, French European, and Papuans. Since simulations show that SMCSMC has little power to detect migration predating 70kya, and to exclude Holocene migration, the epoch we use to calculate real-data IMFs comprise the period of peak inferred migration up to the period of diminishing power (30–70kya); we use this epoch for all subsequent analyses. Inferred IMFs are not significantly di↵erent between Han Chinese and European populations in non-Afroasiatic populations (p=0.14, two-tailed paired t-test; Figs. 1h and S6, Table S1), consistent with migration occurring before the European-East Asian split approximately 40kya [20].

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Elmaestro:
Anywho, ....so who's still looking forward to physical Basal Eurasians? Anybody?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by xyyman:
Ha! Ha! These are not even worth reading anymore. More spin to explain Europeans being 90% African. Not worth the paper it is printed on. African and independent scientist really needed get their hands on this technology to get at the truth.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mansamusa:
Ancient DNA meets science fiction. Eurasians from 70,000 to 40,000 years ago with no Neanderthal admixture.

---

quote:

---

Our analysis suggests that a population ancestral to present-day
Eurasians contributed as much as a third of the genetic material
in many modern African populations.

---

quote:

---

This list doesn't exhaust all the possible ways of defining "modern behavior", but it gives you some
idea of what archeologists look for. But when do we see these different behaviors first crop up in
the archeological record? There are two basic camps in the debate. The first is what I call the
"late, abrupt hypothesis", which means that the capacity for modern human behavior didn't evolve
until very late, about 50,000 to 40,000 years ago.

The second camp, called the "early, gradual hypothesis", claims that the capacity for modern behavior
developed beginning a couple hundred thousand years ago, and that we see archeological evidence of
modern behavior over many tens of thousands of years. Advocates of the late, abrupt idea consider the
arrival of modern humans in Europe and the explosion of cave art, jewelry, carvings, complex tools, and
other inventions on that continent between 40,000 and 30,000 years ago to mark the big event - the
dawn of modern human cultural behavior.

But advocates of the early, gradual interpretation point to evidence in Africa of pigment grindstones,
complex tools, and specialized types of foraging, such as fishing, which are all earlier than 50,000
years old. According to this idea, then, it wasn't one single genetic change that spurred the
development of modern human behavior. Instead, the capacity was built up slowly, and modern
behavior became more and more advanced over time.

It turns out that one member of our research group, Alison Brooks, is a strong supporter of
this second hypothesis. She's done a lot of research to show that there's evidence of beads
and other symbolic behavior, like cave art, in Africa between 90,000 and 70,000 years old.
Part of her interest in working with our team at Olorgesailie is to see whether there's more
evidence one way or the other about the evolution of modern behavior

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mansamusa:
Ancient DNA meets science fiction. Eurasians from 70,000 to 40,000 years ago with no Neanderthal admixture.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ish Geber:

quote:

---

Originally posted by xyyman:
Ha! Ha! These are not even worth reading anymore. More spin to explain Europeans being 90% African. Not worth the paper it is printed on. African and independent scientist really needed get their hands on this technology to get at the truth.

---

Have you worked with the software program SMCSMC?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by One Third African:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Elmaestro:
Anywho, ....so who's still looking forward to physical Basal Eurasians? Anybody?

---

There is the Hofmeyr skull from South Africa circa 36 kya. Its features are apparently closer to those of Upper Paleolithic Europeans than to extant southern Africans, so it might represent a population related to BE which drifted far to the south.

Back in North Africa where we presume BE emerged, another skeletal specimen of interest is the Nazlet Khater man from the Upper Paleolithic of Egypt. However, I've read mixed claims about its affinities. Some sources say it is closer to typical "sub-Saharan" Africans, but others say it might be related to Upper Paleolithic Europeans. Make of that what you will.

---

quote:

---

If these regions are simply reflecting shared ancestry between any African and any Eurasian population, rather than the presence of a Natufian-like genetic leaking across the Green Sahara, then they should be equally present in all African populations and the resulting population split estimates should not be affected by the masking procedure.
--Lucas Pagini

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by xyyman:
I haven't. Link?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ish Geber:

quote:

---

Originally posted by xyyman:
Ha! Ha! These are not even worth reading anymore. More spin to explain Europeans being 90% African. Not worth the paper it is printed on. African and independent scientist really needed get their hands on this technology to get at the truth.

---

Have you worked with the software program SMCSMC?

---

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mansamusa:
Ancient DNA meets science fiction. Eurasians from 70,000 to 40,000 years ago with no Neanderthal admixture.

---

Correct based on archae0ology the only Eurasians at this time were Neanderthals

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:
come on Clyde stop joking around

---

quote:

---

But a large volcano that erupted in Italy around the time of Neanderthal demise may have hurt both populations. On top of that, a cooling climate event around 40,000 years ago in Europe may have "delivered the coup de grâce to a Neanderthal population that was already low in numbers and genetic diversity, and trying to cope with economic competition from incoming groups of Homo sapiens," says Chris Stringer of the Natural History Museum in London.

[...]

Stringer praised the new research: "The overall pattern seems clear—the Neanderthals had largely, and perhaps entirely, vanished from their known range by 39,000 years ago."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tukuler:
But they're in Africa, eh?, these fossils those genomists didn't sample them?

African = African.
African ≠ Eurasian, basal nor nare notherwise.


Intentional mislabeling Africans in Africa as
something other than they are which is African.


But if they are black how can they be white? -G Sergei -
But if they are African how can they be Eurasian? -Y Tu-


A hundred years later, a related discipline. Jusss
A runnin the same game with anotha name, thass all.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by xyyman:
@Ish. Most of those links are dead

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:
Why on earth are they so worried about humans migrating back to Africa 70,000 years ago? All the genes those people carried at that time were African anyway. What is the genetic marker or mutation they are using to claim that these genes were "Eurasian"? None of what they are saying is making absolutely any sense and is hypocritical. Eurasian genes stay Eurasian even 50,000 years later, but African genes magically become non African only after a few thousand years....... These clowns are ridiculous.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tehutimes:
I concur this is a roundabout way to deny the humanity of Africaness .Are any studies done to determine how Asian the Orientals are & how white the Euros/Eurasians have been genetically altered by back migration into those lands.
Does the variety of eye shapes, hair colors/textures,& nasal forms still confound"certain academics"?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tehutimes:
Are any studies done to determine how Asian the Orientals are & how white the Euros/Eurasians have been genetically altered by back migration into those lands.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Elmaestro:

quote:

---

Originally posted by One Third African:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Elmaestro:
Anywho, ....so who's still looking forward to physical Basal Eurasians? Anybody?

---

There is the Hofmeyr skull from South Africa circa 36 kya. Its features are apparently closer to those of Upper Paleolithic Europeans than to extant southern Africans, so it might represent a population related to BE which drifted far to the south.

Back in North Africa where we presume BE emerged, another skeletal specimen of interest is the Nazlet Khater man from the Upper Paleolithic of Egypt. However, I've read mixed claims about its affinities. Some sources say it is closer to typical "sub-Saharan" Africans, but others say it might be related to Upper Paleolithic Europeans. Make of that what you will.

---

If I was looking for Basal Eurasian one of the last specimen I'd attribute it to is one that shows morphological affinities to Africans and UP Europeans (those analyzed). Basal Eurasian was specifically characterized as differentiated from both those groups of people.

I'll just say it again. You won't find Basal Eurasians. They don't exist.


Remember this quote pointed out by Oshun??

quote:

---

If these regions are simply reflecting shared ancestry between any African and any Eurasian population, rather than the presence of a Natufian-like genetic leaking across the Green Sahara, then they should be equally present in all African populations and the resulting population split estimates should not be affected by the masking procedure.
--Lucas Pagini

---

It's just Africans, and there probably wasn't some grandiose migration as the OP article suggests, just gradual mixture on the continent, Isolation then regrouping etc, etc. This article literally provided evidence for all Africans having "Basal Eurasian" like Admixture. And somehow we can still treat this component as somehow differentiate from Africans, by even labeling it as such "basal Eurasians" or "Eurasian ancestors".

I find it very hard to be objective about the framing of all of this. It's borderline satirical.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ish Geber:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mansamusa:
Ancient DNA meets science fiction. Eurasians from 70,000 to 40,000 years ago with no Neanderthal admixture.

---

Correct based on archae0ology the only Eurasians at this time were Neanderthals

---

Yes, you are right. I completely overlooked that one.

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:
come on Clyde stop joking around

---

Clyde is right. They've been telling that the Cro Magnon started to inhabit Europe about 40Ky and replaced the Neanderthal.

quote:

---

But a large volcano that erupted in Italy around the time of Neanderthal demise may have hurt both populations. On top of that, a cooling climate event around 40,000 years ago in Europe may have "delivered the coup de grâce to a Neanderthal population that was already low in numbers and genetic diversity, and trying to cope with economic competition from incoming groups of Homo sapiens," says Chris Stringer of the Natural History Museum in London.

[...]

Stringer praised the new research: "The overall pattern seems clear—the Neanderthals had largely, and perhaps entirely, vanished from their known range by 39,000 years ago."

---

Nationalgeographic

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by One Third African:As far as I can glean, the main line of evidence for this ancestry having anything to do with non-Africans is its descent from a bottleneck. If we find out this bottleneck happened somewhere in northern Africa (possibly, say, as a result of a Saharan dry spell), then so much for that signifying a Eurasian back-migration.

If people really insist on differentiating African from non-African ancestry, I would think Neanderthal admixture would be a better metric. Though even that hinges on the assumption that Neanderthals never migrated into North Africa.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:

quote:

---

Originally posted by xyyman:
@Ish. Most of those links are dead

---

. It is interesting that when you discuss certain articles that prove Eurocentric dogma is wrong--the links disappear or are changed

.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by xyyman:
@Ish. Most of those links are dead

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:

quote:

---

Originally posted by xyyman:
@Ish. Most of those links are dead

---

. It is interesting that when you discuss certain articles that prove Eurocentric dogma is wrong--the links disappear or are changed

.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:
No, Eurasia does not mean just Europe and the Neanderthals did not get immediately replaced as soon as humans colonized their territory

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Elmaestro:
Well, we have a good deal of aDNA from Eurasia. We can easily define what is putative non-African. scientists are so good at it, that they can statistically model multiple lines of ancestry in Eurasia without the physical remains to go with it. What scientist seem to not be good at, is doing the same with Africans. partially because because of the absence of aDNA but what I feel plays a bigger factor is the attempts at branding African ancestry as a Eurasian.

enter: "Basal Eurasian" "para-Eurasian" & "deep ancenstry" --> ancestry that is not putative non-African... but treated as if it is.

These statistical phenomena were never appropriately tested in Africans but calculated with the assumption that it isn't found in or is differentiated from "SSA." (in most cases)

The issue lies with perception and framing. these lineages could have predated the expansion out of Africa but they're still looked at as inherently non African. When in reality what we consider African today, is a mixture of many groups people who historically roamed the continent (and abroad.)

So essentially Africa is publicly defined as whatever that is not found in Eurasians. That's flawed because we don't truly know the extent of the overlap between ancient Africans and modern Eurasians. That definition automatically cleaves about a third of modern African diversity.

In all actuality, since Africans maintained a larger gene pool throughout ancient history. What's considered Eurasian should be defined by what's for sure not African, considering have the aDNA to determine that.

Not to mention, these researchers are smart enough to know the difference between saying "Eurasians are descended from a group that underwent an extreme bottleneck" and "bottlenecked individuals are Eurasians." There's not nearly enough evidence to suggest the latter, but it's the model we use to identify and define these genetic signatures...

...It's pretty unscientific if you think about it.

---

quote:

---

the lioness,
Member # 17353 - posted 03 June, 2020 05:11 PM


Ancient admixture into Africa from the ancestors of non-Africans

We find evidence for substantial migration from the ancestors of present-day Eurasians into African groups between 40 and 70 thousand years ago, predating the divergence of Eastern and Western Eurasian lineages.

Our analysis suggests that a population ancestral to present-day Eurasians contributed as much as a third of the genetic material in many modern African populations.
______________________________

Does this statement have political implications? If so what are they?

---

Well, we have known for almost 2 decades or more that Europeans have
roughly one-third African lineages. Later studies don't necessarily duplicate
this % but still show substantial European mixture with non-Europeans.
So why don't many Europeans go around referring to themselves as "mixed"?
What political implications do you think this has?


 

---

Posted by zarahan aka Enrique Cardova (Member # 15718) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ish Geber:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tukuler:
But they're in Africa, eh?, these fossils those genomists didn't sample them?

African = African.
African ≠ Eurasian, basal nor nare notherwise.


Intentional mislabeling Africans in Africa as
something other than they are which is African.


But if they are black how can they be white? -G Sergei -
But if they are African how can they be Eurasian? -Y Tu-


A hundred years later, a related discipline. Jusss
A runnin the same game with anotha name, thass all.

---

Doesn't that make modern people of African descent in the Western world Eurasians?

THE INHABITANTS OF ICE AGE EUROPE

Early European Origins

https://www.penn.museum/sites/expedition/the-inhabitants-of-ice-age-europe/

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by zarahan aka Enrique

Well, we have known for almost 2 decades or more that Europeans have
roughly one-third African lineages. Later studies don't necessarily duplicate
this % but still show substantial European mixture with non-Europeans.
So why don't many Europeans go around referring to themselves as "mixed"?
What political implications do you think this has?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by zarahan aka Enrique Cardova:
What do you think would be the political implications if true?

---

quote:

---

Ancient admixture into Africa from the ancestors of non-Africans

We find evidence for substantial migration from the ancestors of present-day Eurasians into African groups between 40 and 70 thousand years ago, predating the divergence of Eastern and Western Eurasian lineages.

Our analysis suggests that a population ancestral to present-day Eurasians contributed as much as a third of the genetic material in many modern African populations.

---

 

---

Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
 
That Europeans are 1/3 ancestral Rainforester + 2/3 ancestral Sanfrancisco Chinese
as proposed by Bowcock/Cavilli-Sforza > 25 yrs ago is utterly absurd. Tell me what
other geneticists either co-sign or repeat that outdated nonsense? None ttbomk.

Euros are surely admixed but only one genomist,
Brucato (2017), was bold enough to publish an
ADMIXTURE showing a theshhold significant 3% African admixture into NW Europeans.

See some this and that.

ISGR on CEU Utah sample

code:

---

CEU details

          Population:    CEPH
                Code:    CEU
         Description:    Utah residents (CEPH) with Northern 
                         and Western European ancestry
     Superpopulation:    European Ancestry
Superpopulation code:    EUR

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:

quote:

---

Originally posted by zarahan aka Enrique

Well, we have known for almost 2 decades or more that Europeans have
roughly one-third African lineages. Later studies don't necessarily duplicate
this ...

... why don't many Europeans go around referring to themselves as "mixed"?
What political implications do you think this has?

---

... some Europeans think they are superior to Africans and Asians
[so] would have a harder time claiming it if they would
describe themselves as a mix of Africans and Asians.

-unless they thought the mixing itself makes them superior.

You can away come up with anything to justify why your tribe is better than the next tribe.

But is it true? Are Europeans actually a "hybrid" offspring of Africans and Asians have children together?

Let's say it's true.
Europeans are mixed

[. . . .]

---

 

---

Posted by zarahan aka Enrique Cardova (Member # 15718) on :
 
Yep, and as I said above, later studies do not show Cavalli-Sforza's
mix percent, but they do show Europeans are admixed.



Euros are surely admixed but only one genomist,
Brucato (2017), was bold enough to publish an
ADMIXTURE showing a theshhold significant 3% African admixture into NW Europeans.


^^Yep, the African admixture you show concerns NW Europeans. It is to
be expected that they show less mixture, compared to other Euros
of the Mediterranean region closer to Africa, as in Iberia, Italy, Greece, etc.
 

---

Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
 
Depends on how you define admixture.

Admixture in the past is not going to match contemporary admixture.

So if you are talking from 40-70,000 years ago, almost all of these populations were African, with some small amount of mixture due to "new" DNA lineages that may have arose outside of Africa. The problem is that you need actual DNA evidence from those ancient populations to see what DNA lineages came from where to establish what lineages arose outside Africa.

At various other points since then various populations in Europe and Asia would have had more or less mixture based on migration events. Case in point the Neolithic expansion and so-called 'EEF'.

More recent historic events would explain other forms of mixture including Mediterranean exchanges between North Africa and Greece, the Carthagenian expansion into Europe and the Islamic expansion into Spain. Not to mention since colonization a lot of European settler populations have mixture from natives and Africans in various areas of settlement.
 

---

Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
 
Still dead Ish

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ish Geber:

quote:

---

Originally posted by xyyman:
@Ish. Most of those links are dead

---

I've fixed them.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:

quote:

---

Originally posted by xyyman:
@Ish. Most of those links are dead

---

. It is interesting that when you discuss certain articles that prove Eurocentric dogma is wrong--the links disappear or are changed

.

---

I made a mistake in the linking sequence.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by xyyman:
Still dead Ish

---

No, that can't be. I've just tested them. All the links work.

http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=010272;p=1#000023
 

---

Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
 
Naw ain't talkin any old mixture, talking African black mixture/ancestry.

The point I'm making is genomicist ADMIXTURE graphs
do not expose the Inner African component in Europe,
any part of Europe.

That's what makes Brucato a breakthrough. I guess publishing it in a Comoros article was stealth genius.
And he chose the creme de la creme European geo-population in the northwest. Hafta cred Hodgson 2014
for an 'honest' CEU ADMIXTURE though only Yoruba was noted as an ancestor.


Mallick 2017 displays no African parentage for Euros @ K=12 and data from 142 populations



Schuenemann 2017 shows no African black in Europeans



Baker 2017 couldn't find African black mommies and daddies in Europe's family tree



We see the Wiki genetic hist of Eur ADMIXTURE

reveals but 2/25 Euro subpops (2/9 south Euro subpops) have any Inner African ancestral components (K=7).


Moral of the story
Basically the same data
yields differing mapping
when it comes to Europeans
having African black parentage.


Genomic data sez what scientists want it to say, no?

quote:

---

Originally posted by zarahan aka Enrique Cardova:
... they do show Europeans are admixed.
... NW Europeans. It is to
be expected that they show less mixture, compared to other Euros
of the Mediterranean region closer to Africa, as in Iberia, Italy, Greece, etc.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ish Geber:

quote:

---

Originally posted by xyyman:
Still dead Ish

---

No, that can't be. I've just tested them. All the links work.

http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=010272;p=1#000023

---

 

---

Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
 
I believe these folks know better but just are pushing the nonsense because they can. About the only people really challenging them are Afro-Americans apparently.....


https://archive.org/details/bookofhistoryhis08bryciala/page/n5/mode/2up




Funny enough with the recent George Floyd protests one Egyptologist came out and said they need to do better.....

quote:

---

Sarah Parcak
@indyfromspace
As much as I love archaeology and Egyptology, we have to acknowledge-esp now- their deeply racist, colonialist, and nationalist roots- and ongoing practices. It is a field that has caused and continues to cause enormous harm (see DNA research) We all can do so much better.

---