June 15, 2014

Genetic structure of Mexico

This article is free to read with registration.

Science 13 June 2014:
Vol. 344 no. 6189 pp. 1280-1285

The genetics of Mexico recapitulates Native American substructure and affects biomedical traits

Andrés Moreno-Estrada

Mexico harbors great cultural and ethnic diversity, yet fine-scale patterns of human genome-wide variation from this region remain largely uncharacterized. We studied genomic variation within Mexico from over 1000 individuals representing 20 indigenous and 11 mestizo populations. We found striking genetic stratification among indigenous populations within Mexico at varying degrees of geographic isolation. Some groups were as differentiated as Europeans are from East Asians. Pre-Columbian genetic substructure is recapitulated in the indigenous ancestry of admixed mestizo individuals across the country. Furthermore, two independently phenotyped cohorts of Mexicans and Mexican Americans showed a significant association between subcontinental ancestry and lung function. Thus, accounting for fine-scale ancestry patterns is critical for medical and population genetic studies within Mexico, in Mexican-descent populations, and likely in many other populations worldwide.

Link

57 comments:

German Dziebel said...

" We found striking genetic stratification among indigenous populations within Mexico at varying degrees of geographic isolation. Some groups were as differentiated as Europeans are from East Asians."

I told'ya, Tobus!

Slumbery said...

" Some groups were as differentiated as Europeans are from East Asians."

I wonder about the raw data that support this claim.

Otherwise German will have an orgasm.:p (Sorry, could not resist...)

German Dziebel said...

@Slumbery

"I wonder about the raw data that support this claim."

The "raw data" for this has been available for decades now. It's routinely and easily produced by applying Fst statistic and it has consistently showed that Amerindians have the highest intergroup diversity values in the world across most if not all genetic systems. I had an orgasm 9 months before you were born. :)

Dienekes said...

Two groups may be highly genetically differentiated even if they both have low genetic diversity.

If two populations have undergone substantial genetic drift since their separation, then they will be highly differentiated (as measured by Fst), but may harbor low genetic diversity.

Native Americans have very low genetic diversity as measured by heterozygosity, but are highly differentiated as measured by Fst because strong genetic drift acted due to their small effective population size after the initial colonization of the Americas from Asia ~15kya.

German Dziebel said...

@Dienekes

"Native Americans have very low genetic diversity as measured by heterozygosity, but are highly differentiated as measured by Fst because strong genetic drift acted due to their small effective population size after the initial colonization of the Americas from Asia ~15kya."

Everything before that is correct, but why ~15kya? Neandertals and Denisovans are similar in their population structure to Amerindians and they are much much older. So we have an Fst/homozygosity gradient from Neandertals/Denisovans > Amerindians > Papuans/Australians > East Asians > West Eurasians > Africans, which is what modern human evolution was roughly in reality. Out of Africa has it backwards.

Intragroup genetic diversity comes from population growth and admixture, not from greater age.

Just watch Paabo's talk with Ust-Ishim data once again and you'll see that Amerindians follow Ust-Ishim in the degree of the preservation of Neandertal ancestry chunks. Ust-Ishim is 45,000 years old. Amerindians have been isolated for at least that long.

terryt said...

"Native Americans have very low genetic diversity as measured by heterozygosity, but are highly differentiated as measured by Fst because strong genetic drift acted due to their small effective population size after the initial colonization of the Americas from Asia ~15kya."

You're deliberately provoking German. What might save you is that he won't be able to understand what you're getting at.

Steve Sailer said...

There's a selection mechanism that doesn't invalidate this result but suggests why it's somewhat inevitable.

Native populations within Mexico are pretty much by definition the people who stayed home and didn't out-marry. The working definition of an Indian in Mexico has been somebody who wears the distinctive clothes of his or her Indian group. If somebody leaves home and makes a new life in a different area, they typically wear the clothes of the mestizo majority and are assumed to be mestizo, because even if they still 100% Indian, their descendants will likely be mestizo.

terryt said...

Sorry German. Maju has posted the same story:

http://forwhattheywereweare.blogspot.co.nz/2014/06/mexicos-native-american-diversity.html

Here is what he has to say:

"First of all it has to be highlighted that the sentence 'some groups were as differentiated as Europeans are from East Asians' is a bit misleading. It refers to the raw FST parameter (Fixation Index) which in these cases is caused by extreme drift, product of isolation and small number endogamy. Otherwise the Seris (Comcaac), who are the only population affected by the claim, are clearly derived not only from the same root as the rest of Native Americans but more specifically from the ancestor population of the Tarahumaras (Rarámuri), as fig.1-D reflects (right). The Seris are a small population of coastal Sonora who add up to less than one thousand people and have remained proudly distinct, not only from the colonial population but also from other fellow Native Americans. In spite of this long extreme isolation that makes the appear 'as differentiated as Europeans are from East Asians', it is apparent that they must derive from the Uto-Aztecan populations of NW Mexico (and maybe also across the border)".

So no, we don't have evidence for a highly diverse population that gave rise to two main strands of Eurasians. What we have is a bottlenecked population that formed genetically isolated groups as soon as it had entered America.

German Dziebel said...

@TerryT

"Here is what he has to say."

You make me laugh. It's obviously irrelevant what another amateur pseudoscientist has to say to justify his beliefs. You should make peace with him. It was fun to watch you two bicker about each other's nonsense.

Basil S said...

'So no, we don't have evidence for a highly diverse population that gave rise to two main strands of Eurasians. What we have is a bottlenecked population that formed genetically isolated groups as soon as it had entered America.'

Adding to that and what Steve Sailer said,the geography of Mexico really does keep communities isolated. Living here, I still am amazed at the number of hidden valleys, still living much as they would have done for millennia. Still farming exactly the same crops, still buying and selling food in the same markets, wearing pretty much the same clothes. I feel a sense of 'conservatism' in these small valley communities that one could easily imagine comes from long, long periods of isolation. Doing things have they always have done in the village.

In terms of diversity, I'm by no means an expert in phenotypes etc, so feel free to comment on this, but at the same time, I have lived in Mexico a while now, and traveling is something I love to do here, getting out into the unexplored places. And I have noticed that there really doesn't seem to be high diversity in terms of overall physical type, facial features across the country. There is an obvious similarity to East Asians(especially Tibetans-indepandant altitude adaptions? Or something else?)to the point where 'Chinita/Chinito' is a common nickname for people with majority indigenous phenotype. This is also a nickname for someone with curly hair, but I have met many 'Chinitos' with perfectly straight hair, and its pretty obvious why they are called that!

Does that come from a bottlenecked population?(all subsequent generations features coming from a very very limited stock) Or something else?

I have my own views about Out of America, but I enjoy following the debate and listening to both sides

Strandloper said...

does anybody have an explanation for how/why people stayed so isolated from one another in Mexico but not other places in the world? It seems strange that people would be so isolated from each other in Mexico considering the history of the empires that have flourished there.

andrew said...

I'm not surprised that there is significant population genetic substructure within indigenous America populations in contemporary Mexico. But, I am surprised that it would be so great, when indigenous American populations have had roughly a third as much time to differentiate from each other and have faced less extreme geographic barriers to admixture over distances that would encompass Mexico today (e.g. it is say to expect that indigenous Mexican populations lack Na-Dene or Inuit genetic contributions).

Given the overall low levels of genetic diversity of Native Americans, particularly in Central American and South America, by other measures (e.g. Y-DNA and mtDNA haplogroup diversity and blood type variation), it is surprising to see it here. I wonder if the measure used isn't simply measuring how clearly defined different subpopulations are from each other, rather than the "magnitude" of those differences.

Certainly, this study seems to show that inter-group admixture in Mexican prehistry may have been much lower than we would naively expect.

Tobus said...

@German: Neandertals and Denisovans are similar in their population structure to Amerindians

This is not true, and you know it, which makes it a lie.

AS we investigated on another thread, Amerindian heterozygosity (the measurement you are using to infer "population structure") is some 300% higher than the Neandertal/Denisovan level and much, much closer to other modern Eurasians than to the archaic (Prufer 2014). Without the recent bottleneck (as confirmed in the latest Schiffels paper) Amerindian heterozygosity would likely be higher than many other moderns. It's also worth noting that Loschbour (and presumably other European WHGs) have a lower heterozygosity than Amerindians and a number of African populations also get very low scores, so your "gradient" is in fact pretty bumpy.

Niineta said...

“Native Americans have very low genetic diversity as measured by heterozygosity, but are highly differentiated as measured by Fst because strong genetic drift acted due to their small effective population size after the initial colonization of the Americas from Asia ~15kya.”

Exactly the same process that would have occurred when West Eurasians split from East Eurasians. No one seems to have a problem that populations differentiate over time and isolation. . . only in America.

terryt said... “So no, we don't have evidence for a highly diverse population that gave rise to two main strands of Eurasians. What we have is a bottlenecked population that formed genetically isolated groups as soon as it had entered America.”

There were no isolated groups in the Americas until colonization forced them into isolation. Mexico was the most densely populated region of the Americas having more than 60 distinct languages (the same number found in all of Canada).

The populations in the Americas were not isolated. The populations were in constant contact through kinship ties, cultural activities and trade. My tribe in the upper Great Lakes was still trading with Mexico in the late 1800s, which was recorded in the local colonist newspaper. Populations within the regions would have had even more contact than populations from distant regions.

In spite of governmental policies which isolated indigenous populations into reservations for more than 150 years; the populations across the Americas are still very mobile and are in constant contact through cultural activities and kinship ties.

In fact, all countries in the Americas from South America to Alaska have problems with keeping their indigenous people in and other countries indigenous people out. In fact, the US issues tribal cards so they can identify their indigenous people from those of Canada and Mexico. The populations of the Americas were not isolated anymore than they are today.

Yet there are wide genetic differences across the Americas. They are not one/the same people nor have they ever been. That’s just plain nonsense. It always amuses me, when people argue about how R1a and R1b are differentiated groups of people and yet the same people argue that A, B C etc of the Americas or that of Asia are not differentiated groups of people.

Furthermore, Maju knows nothing about the Americas he’d be well advised to stick to something he actually knows about.

I. Eaton Beavor said...

Europeans and Asians do not even share the same maternal or paternal Hg, so saying that a Northern Mexican with high pct Native ancestry is more distant from a Yucutan Mexican with high pct of native ancestry, is simply intended to provoke a response or be controversial.. its clearly not accurate or true.

Both the northern indigenous and the yucatan indigenous share the same paternal and maternal Hg... which europeans and asians do not.

what i have noticed personally that surprised me- and that most people would not expect- is that every mexicans' autosomal reports I have ever seen have (often major) subsaharan african ancestry, and a strong majority of mexicans' y-dna lines (outside of the yucatan) are european in origin.

this article is fluff talking about only 'olmecs, maya and aztecs' while not actually reporting or disclosing the actual real genomic facts about mexican majority ancestry that dont support the Aztec/LaRaza popular myths.. Instead the article specifically focuses only on trying to confirm the La Raza native warrior mythos, and ignores the real data that is not convenient to proving such a claim.

Of all Mexican autosomal reports I have seen, not a single one of them failed to possess fairly significant amounts of African DNA.. which probably came from the slaves the spaniards imported. This was surprising to me, and tends to indicate the degree of African slavery the Spanish engaged in, but goes totally unmentioned in this article. I have seen typical mexicans without a obvious african phenotype who show 1/3 of their SNP from African ancestry.

Its funny these facts dont make the cut for this new 'study'.. curious actually.

Anna Moore said...

Mexico's mountainous geography, like that of the Caucasus and New Guinea, is conducive to genetic and cultural fragmentation, thanks to the large number of niches in the form of isolated valleys and coastal plains. The same observation applies to California to the north. One cultural feature of Native Americans seems to be that for the most part, Native American societies preferred to keep to themselves and showed little or no interest in influencing or dominating their neighbors, unlike Europe or the Middle East.

Dienekes - Don't forget the additional 10,000 years of genetic (and linguistic) separation from Asian populations postulated by the Beringian Standstill Hypothesis.

BTW - The publication "New Scientist" posted the following blurb (obviously part of a campaign to drum up subscribers): "Who were the first Americans? We thought we knew the full story of our last great migration, but new evidence means the issue is wide open again. Go back to the time when the New World really was new at ..."

Anyone have any idea what this "new evidence" might be? I have not seen any mentions of new aDNA evidence that contradict current models of the populating of the Americas.

terryt said...

"There were no isolated groups in the Americas until colonization forced them into isolation. Mexico was the most densely populated region of the Americas having more than 60 distinct languages (the same number found in all of Canada)".

Two contradictory statements there. The languages would not have remained distinct without a long period of group isolation. As Anna Moore explained, 'Mexico's mountainous geography, like that of the Caucasus and New Guinea, is conducive to genetic and cultural fragmentation, thanks to the large number of niches in the form of isolated valleys and coastal plains'. Basil S, evidently a local, made a similar comment.

"It always amuses me, when people argue about how R1a and R1b are differentiated groups of people and yet the same people argue that A, B C etc of the Americas or that of Asia are not differentiated groups of people".

I agree the mt-DNA diversity does hint at several separate movements, however the Y-DNA tends to argue against it. Perhaps we are dealing with haplogroup replacement.

German Dziebel said...

@Tobus

"This is not true, and you know it, which makes it a lie."

I explained to 500 times how to interpret the data. You can call any inconvenient truth a "lie," thus providing further evidence for your pseudoscientific attitude.

"AS we investigated on another thread, Amerindian heterozygosity (the measurement you are using to infer "population structure") is some 300% higher than the Neandertal/Denisovan level and much, much closer to other modern Eurasians than to the archaic (Prufer 2014). Without the recent bottleneck (as confirmed in the latest Schiffels paper) Amerindian heterozygosity would likely be higher than many other moderns. It's also worth noting that Loschbour (and presumably other European WHGs) have a lower heterozygosity than Amerindians and a number of African populations also get very low scores, so your "gradient" is in fact pretty bumpy."

Yes, we did investigate it in a different tread. And you continue to practice pseudoscience in a new thread. The gradient archaic Eurasians > modern Amerindians > modern Papuans > modern East Asians > modern West Eurasians > modern Africans is supported by all systems of evidence. Amerindians are closer to archaic Eurasians than they are to modern Africans. It's immaterial how close Amerindians are to East Asians and West Eurasians. It's the gradient from archaic Eurasians through Amerindians to modern Old World populations that matters. Papuans, East Asians and West Eurasians are closer to Amerindians than they are to Neandertals and Denisovans supporting the idea that they expanded from America. Some ancient samples outside of Africa (Loschbour) show modern Amerindian levels of homozygosity proving that ancient Old World populations were more like Amerindians than like Africans. African hunter-gatherers, especially Hadza, are more shifted toward the Amerindian pole, too. Heterozygosity as a sign of a population age is a myth dispelled by Neandertal and Denisovan data.

Is the Schiffels paper is your new Bible?

Alashire said...

yes well they haven't revealed Janaab Pakal's Y or mtdna and or Red queens MTdna yet either....


why did someone get by with doing a documentary and not reveal especially Pakals and Red queens dna ?

wanna bet that is why they found U5 in Siberia.. of Course the dna is is 25000 years old and but they can't tell us what the dna of the 2000 years old Mayans is.. to think it's ancestor of native americans.. yah right.

really is anyone that gullible ! obviously some people are..

I suspect that it is because they found a surprise they don't want anyone to know until they they get their science right!

Tobus said...

@German:
I explained to 500 times how to interpret the data.

But what you explained turned out to be untrue: Amerindians aren't "just as homozygous" as Denisovans, their heterozygosity is not "at a Denisovan level", and likewise your latest incarnation "Neandertals and Denisovans are similar in their population structure to Amerindians" is also completely false. It's one thing to make an honest misinterpretation of the data, it's another to continually repeat your mistake despite knowing it is incorrect.

And you continue to practice pseudoscience in a new thread.

No need to be rude German, try providing some facts and logic to make your point.

Papuans, East Asians and West Eurasians are closer to Amerindians than they are to Neandertals and Denisovans supporting the idea that they expanded from America

You've made a jump from similar heterozygosity levels to genetic ancestry - do you have some factual data that shows a global correlation between heterozygosity levels and genetic affinity? Given than there are many examples that contradict this model (Hadza/Papuan/Amerindian all being very close in heterozygosity but not correspondingly close genetically) it seems that heterozygosity is an indicator of recent population events, not an indicator of common ancestry.

Heterozygosity as a sign of a population age is a myth dispelled by Neandertal and Denisovan data.

I don't think you quite understand German... *low* heterozygosity can be caused by a multitude of reasons - bottlenecks, inbreeding, low population sizes, war, famine, pestilence etc, etc. On the other hand *high* heterozygosity can only be created by a long-term and stable accumulation of mutations. Old populations can have low heterozygosity (especially in the final stages of dying out as in our Neanderthal and Denisovan samples), but populations with high heterozygosity cannot be young - there simply no way to accumulate a high number of heterozygous alleles in a short amount of time.

You will no doubt bring up admixture as a source of high heterozygosity but remember that only *half* of an individual's heterozygosity can be passed to their children (and half from the other parent) - heterozygosity does not get added when two populations admix, it gets averaged. If a population with 5 mlRho and a population with 10 mlRho combine, we don't get a population with 15 mlRho, we get a population with 7.5 mlRho. You can see this in the French who are an admixture of the WWG and EEF and yet have a heterozygosity level that is intermediate between the two, not the sum of the two.

Is the Schiffels paper is your new Bible?

That's a little insulting German, scientific papers like those by Schiffels, Lazaridis, Raghavan, Paabo, Tischkoff, Reich etc. etc. detail their methodologies, data and interpretations, are independently reproducible and are open to criticism and review by peers. If they are wrong there is opportunity for them to be corrected as more data or alternate findings become available. I don't see any parallel between this kind of modern science and the Bible. You may disagree with what these papers say but you should present your case with facts and reason, not insults and aspersions.

Niineta said...

terryt said...Two contradictory statements there. The languages would not have remained distinct without a long period of group isolation.
NO it’s not contradictory. Depending on how wide spread a population is; any language can have a number of dialects.

Using the Ojibwe language as an example; since this language is well documented in Wikipedia.

“The Ojibwe language is spoken in a series of dialects occupying adjacent territories, forming a language complex in which mutual intelligibility between adjacent dialects may be comparatively high but declines between some non-adjacent dialects. Ojibwe is usually considered to be a single language with a number of dialects. However, the relatively low degrees of mutual intelligibility between some nonadjacent dialects led to the suggestion that Ojibwe "...could be said to consist of several languages.”

The Ojibwe occupied a large geographical area and were in contact with not only Ojibwe tribes but other tribes throughout the area. Although I am from a southern Ontario tribe; my gr-gr-grandfather came from a Minnesota Ojibwe tribe (pre 1800s). My maternal gr-grandmother came from a Potawatomi tribe in Michigan and my paternal gr-grandmother was Lenape from Pennsylvania/Maine. My husband’s tribe is from a mid-North Ontario Island where many of the people lived farther west but returned to this island for the birth of their children.
-------

Here are edited excerpts regarding Northern Mexico/southern Texas tribes, indicating Language diversity without being isolated.

In the 16th century, hundreds of small, highly mobile groups of hunting and gathering peoples ranged across southern Texas and northeastern Mexico. These groups varied in size, often seasonally, as small family bands came together with other bands that spoke the same dialect and, collectively saw themselves as one people.

Collectively, all these groups have come to be known as Coahuiltecans, but they spoke diverse dialects and languages. Some groups got along with one another and shared partially overlapping territories. Other groups had such widely separated territories and language differences that they rarely came in contact.

Cabeza de Vaca and his companions, lived several years with native groups . . . described traveling inland in late spring and early summer to gather tunas. Cabeza de Vaca described the harvesting of these odd fruits, noting that such seasonal occasions were also an important time for social interactions and trading with other groups:

Seasonal activities were when diverse groups often came together. It was common for bands or tribes to form alliances among other groups to pursue common goals such as protection, war, hunting etc. So no, distinct languages are not necessarily dependant on long isolation from other groups.

German Dziebel said...

@Anna Mouse

"Anyone have any idea what this "new evidence" might be? I have not seen any mentions of new aDNA evidence that contradict current models of the populating of the Americas."

DNA from the Mal'ta boy totally exploded "current models of the populating of the Americas." The magnitude of the explosion dwarfs Hiroshima and Chernobyl. When this happens, people always tend to hide facts and minimize the impact often to the point of denying that the explosion even happened.

Gary Moore said...

Alashire - It may be that the combination of heat and humidity degraded the Mayan's DNA beyond recovery. The 13kyr girl reported on recently was at the bottom of a cenote where temperatures are more moderate. Acidity may also have been an issue.

ron quiroriano said...

Alashire
The reason Pakal and the red queens DNA has not been sequenced is because the hot humid environment of central America degrades DNA.

terryt said...

@ Niineta:

"Depending on how wide spread a population is; any language can have a number of dialects".

Most widespread languages exhibit what is called a 'dialect chain'. This develops through contact between groups sharing a language, exactly the situation you document for North American language groups. Isolation gives rise to distinct languages, the situation we have in mountainous New Guinea.

@ German:

"DNA from the Mal'ta boy totally exploded 'current models of the populating of the Americas.'"

German, it did no such thing. What it did was enable us to form a better idea of the process.

"When this happens, people always tend to hide facts and minimize the impact"

That is exactly what you are doing. Hiding from the facts, mainly by distorting them, and avoiding the obvious conclusion that your whole theory is completely wrong. As shown by Tobus:

" do you have some factual data that shows a global correlation between heterozygosity levels and genetic affinity?"

Of course not, because heterozygosity has nothing at all to do with ancestry. It is completely 'an indicator of recent population events'.

Gary Moore said...

Actually, their DNA has been sequenced, but the results have not been published because the purpose of the testing was to establish relationships among the royal family.

@German - Mal'ta was last year's news. New Scientist in the blurb they posted on Facebook seemed to imply they had prepublication information to something new and radical.

German Dziebel said...

@Tobus

"But what you explained turned out to be untrue: Amerindians aren't "just as homozygous" as Denisovans, their heterozygosity is not "at a Denisovan level", and likewise your latest incarnation "Neandertals and Denisovans are similar in their population structure to Amerindians" is also completely false. It's one thing to make an honest misinterpretation of the data, it's another to continually repeat your mistake despite knowing it is incorrect."

It is correct. There's no other known population that Neandertals and Denisovans are closer to than Amerindians.

"try providing some facts and logic to make your point."

That's the only thing I've been providing so far: facts and logic about human origins and facts and logic about your intellectual roots.

"I don't think you quite understand German... *low* heterozygosity can be caused by a multitude of reasons - bottlenecks, inbreeding, low population sizes, war, famine, pestilence etc, etc."

Sure, heterozygosity is caused by everything opposite from homozygosity. But it's only in the out-of-Africa Gospel that heterozygosity is taken to be a "scientific" sign of a population age. Baloney! As Neandertal and Denisovan data show.

"That's a little insulting German, scientific papers like those by Schiffels, Lazaridis, Raghavan, Paabo, Tischkoff, Reich etc. etc. detail their methodologies, data and interpretations, are independently reproducible and are open to criticism and review by peers."

Nothing insulting. They all contradict each other. One needs an anthropologist to actually sort through their unreflexive "stream of data" and figure out what this all means. That's what I'm doing. You're treating them as a bible.

"You may disagree with what these papers say but you should present your case with facts and reason, not insults and aspersions. "

Just to re-iterate: I only present facts and reason. Sometimes it's about human origins, sometimes it's about people who think about human origins. Both problems fall within the purview of anthropology. What you misinterpret as insults are just statements of facts about people's biases. Get rid of them and you won't be suffering from my "insults" - we could just focus on facts about human origins.

Dospaises said...

@I. Eaton Beavor


The paternal Hg of Europeans and Asians have absolutely nothing to do with the article or with a Northern Mexican with high pct Native ancestry being more distant from a Yucutan Mexican with high pct of native ancestry. The Fst distance can't be argued and is proven in the article.

Yes, both the northern indigenous and the Yucatan indigenous share the same paternal and maternal Hg... which Europeans and Asians do not. That does not disprove anything in the article and it does not prove anything different from what's in the article. You are comparing apples with oranges.

The article does show the African ancestry in the Mexicans. Look at Figure 2. The green component is the African component in the cosmopolotan samples. For a majority of the cosmopolitan Mexicans it is found at less than 5%. The red and maroon portion is the European component. Yes, a strong majority of Mexicans' Y-DNA lines (outside of the Yucatan) are European in origin.

The article never mentions Olmecs or Aztecs or a native warrior mythos.

I as have already explained the African component is shown in the study. I have seen the autosomal results of about 50 Mexicans and none of them have 1/3 of their SNP from African ancestry. That person's results you have seen either wasn't Mexican or had a recent mixture with a non-Mexican that had a lot of African ancestry. You are really twisting facts a lot.

You obviously did not read the report and you have fabricated so much information in your post that it seems it was meant to mislead or something much worse is going on.

fmgarzam said...

THIS IS DEEP MEXICO (PROFUNDO), ALWAYS HAS BEEN AND ALWAYS BE. EVERY MAN IS NOT AN ISLAND, BUT EVERY TRIBE IS AN ISLAND.

The tribal spectrum goes from stone-age present day Tarahumara or Tzotzil-Tsetzal, some 30 million non Spanish speakers; to first rate global business players (some even 4th generation M.I.T. or simmilar engineers).

It is very weel described here:

"This is a book about country people who did not want to move (change) and therefore got into a revolution. They did not figure on so odd a fate. Come hell, high water, agitators from the outside, or report of greener pastures elsewhere, they insisted in staying in the villages and little towns where they had grown up, and where before them their ancestors for hundreds of years had lived and died--in the small state of Morelos, in south central Mexico."

Preface's first paragraph of Zapata and the Mexican Revolution by John Womack Jr.

That was just 100 years ago. Zapata was the hero of the peasant revolt, a Nahuatl.

The state of Morelos, in the outskirts of Mexico City (Cuernavaca is there) is a well known Shangri-La, a region with an eternal spring weather. But place of old sugar plantations and some other agricultural explotation past.

Alashire said...

Gary Moore said...
Alashire - It may be that the combination of heat and humidity degraded the Mayan's DNA beyond recovery. The 13kyr girl reported on recently was at the bottom of a cenote where temperatures are more moderate. Acidity may also have been an issue.

Tuesday, June 24, 2014 8:10:00 am
ron quiroriano said...
Alashire
The reason Pakal and the red queens DNA has not been sequenced is because the hot humid environment of central America degrades DNA.


There is a documentary called RED Queen and they sure did get both of their dna and compared red queen and Pakal and said they were not of the same line. so they sure do have their dna. if it is also Y? or MTdna ? I don't know !
but they have something and Yohl ik Nal Pakal Grandma was from North America. chances of her being a U5 is 90 to 100% because she was red paint clan.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pf8LtqxDnEw

Tobus said...

@German:
There's no other known population that Neandertals and Denisovans are closer to than Amerindians.

Firstly you are wrong - Loschbour is the closest known population to Neanderthals/Denisovans (in terms of heterozygosity).

Secondly, that's semantics - you said "are similar to", which is indisputably false. No modern population is similar to the archaics in terms of heterozygosity. London may be "closer to" the equator than Cardiff is, but that doesn't make London "similar to" the equator.

But you know this, we've been through it before... and that makes your statement an outright lie - you know it's not true but you said it anyway.

That's the only thing I've been providing so far: facts and logic

As I pointed out above, no fact, just a lie. And no logic yet either - can you explain why "similar" heterozygosity has to mean similar ancestry in the first place?

Just to re-iterate: I only present facts and reason

Facts? "Neandertals and Denisovans are similar in their population structure to Amerindians" is not a fact, it's a misinterpretation of the data which you already know is false.

Reason? You have yet to provide any logical reasoning behind your causal association of heterozygosity and common ancestry, no doubt because no such correlation actually exists.

No facts, no reason.

fmgarzam said...

Coahuitlecans? No much left, no much left genetic traces. One can not help what our ancestors did, the natives were not willing to be assimilated, kept their wild costumes and just like in the movies we watched as kids: they were erased from this lands.
Isidro Vizcaya reported the last battle taking place in the 1880's not far from Monterrey--the railroad had already arrived here.
Few have noticed how the famous 5 de Mayo (1862) battle was prepared and won, it was not a coincidence. Local (region's) armies highly organized and trained in battling the "barbarian", as well as American filibusters, well armed with civil war's rifles, and our Generals Zaragoza, Escobedo, Garza Ayala, Treviño... made and led the Mexican army to victory.

I have been studying slave trading and contraband (I accept guilty ancestry here too), black African is in the blood of most people here,
even in the most European looking people of Monterrey that descends from original families. I think in average about 8 to 10% autosomal would not be hard to be believed (strong as Moorish mark in Iberia is about the same). Native American would be the same or a little stronger. Mostly on the female side. Our ancestors seem to accept their out of wedlock mestizo and mulatto kids. (Who knows where does our not unusual slanted eyes comes from?)

Something interesting about contraband in Mexico is that I found a strong evidence of Asian Slaves being introduced on the Pacific coast.
So some strange genetic evidence there might confuse with Native American. That contraband might explain the very Asian looks of many people in the Acapulco coast, usually a place for black presence too, as well as many other migrations. Like a Peruvian and a Chilenenan Presence (there is a Chilenenan style of music there).

Dospaises:
Good calls, I still would like to know who the Aztecs were, where did they come from, as is the case for the Olmecs, the Chichimeca and even the Coahuitleca. There is a lot to be done.

About the native warrior myth, was brought up or should have been regarding a one fits all, Diego Rivera's mural like, all-encompassing version of pre-Columbus' Mexico. Many Mexicos then and now.

German Dziebel said...

@Tobus

"Firstly you are wrong - Loschbour is the closest known population to Neanderthals/Denisovans (in terms of heterozygosity).

Secondly, that's semantics - you said "are similar to", which is indisputably false. No modern population is similar to the archaics in terms of heterozygosity. London may be "closer to" the equator than Cardiff is, but that doesn't make London "similar to" the equator.

But you know this, we've been through it before... and that makes your statement an outright lie - you know it's not true but you said it anyway."

Yes, we've gone through this already. I'm reporting facts correctly, while you continue to lie and insinuate to salvage your pre-scientific cosmology. There's a gradient connecting Denisovans/Neandertals to Amerindians then Papuans then East Asians then Europeans then Africans. Loschbour is an ancient sample and we don't have any corresponding data from ancient samples in America. But even without it Loschbour is closer to modern Amerindians than to modern Europeans, which is perfectly in line with ancient Europeans showing "Amerindian admixture" or rather ancient descent from Amerindians.

"why "similar" heterozygosity has to mean similar ancestry in the first place?"

Similar heterozygosity is not the same as common ancestry. Common ancestry is established through a multitude of other data points showing the greater genetic proximity of Amerindians to Neandertals and/or Denisovans compared to East Asians and especially West Eurasians and Africans. This corresponds well to the presence of Amerindian admixture in West Eurasia and the absence of West Eurasian admixture in America. So one line of evidence is consistent with another line of evidence to the effect that the fundamental premise of out-of-Africa is falsified, while the fundamental premise of out-of-America is supported.

""Neandertals and Denisovans are similar in their population structure to Amerindians" is not a fact, it's a misinterpretation of the data which you already know is false."

In fact it is very accurate. One could go into details but as a general statement it is correct: they are similar to modern Amerindians and very dissimilar from modern Africans. All other modern human populations fall in-between.

Annie Mouse said...

For the record Anna Moore and Annie Mouse are not monickers for the same person. Coincidental similarity I assume.

Tobus said...

@German:
I'm reporting facts correctly, while you continue to lie

No, because Neanderthal/Denisovan heterozygosity is not "similar" to Amerindian heterozygosity. It is way, way lower.

There's a gradient connecting Denisovans/Neandertals to Amerindians then Papuans then East Asians

As you know very well that there is actually a HUGE GAP between Denisovan/Neanderthal and Amerindian heterozygosity, they are not "connected" at all. OTOH there *is* a gradient connecting all modern Africans, Eurasians and Amerindians (and recent ones like Loschbour and Stuttgart).

Loschbour is closer to modern Amerindians than to modern Europeans, which is perfectly in line with ancient Europeans showing "Amerindian admixture"

Why are you still associating heterozygosity levels with ancestry? Loschbour shows the same genetic affinity to Amerindians as modern Europeans do, so your nonsense that "closer to" in terms of heterozygosity implies "closer to" in terms of admixture is complete psuedoscience.

Similar heterozygosity is not the same as common ancestry.

So please stop trying to using it as if it is (as you just did above with Loschbour!)

German Dziebel said...

@Tobus

"No, because Neanderthal/Denisovan heterozygosity is not "similar" to Amerindian heterozygosity. It is way, way lower."

Similar, close and lower are all relative terms (if you ever studied linguistics and logic, which you didn't). Modern Amerindians are close to Neandertals/Denisovans, while modern Africans are far. Modern Amerindians are the closest to Neandertals/Denisovans than any other population. Modern Amerindians are similar to Neandertals/Denisovans, while modern Africans are very dissimilar from them.

"As you know very well that there is actually a HUGE GAP between Denisovan/Neanderthal and Amerindian heterozygosity, they are not "connected" at all."

You have a HUGE GAP in your abilities to interpret genetic evidence.

"Why are you still associating heterozygosity levels with ancestry? "

Both are independent lines of evidence supporting the main point.

"Loschbour shows the same genetic affinity to Amerindians as modern Europeans do."

Where do you see that? We know that all Europeans, ancient and modern are more similar to Amerindians than to other eastern non-Africans, they all have "Amerindian admixture," so in any case it's irrelevant whether modern Europeans are as much Amerindian as Loschbour or just as much.

""closer to" in terms of heterozygosity implies "closer to" in terms of admixture is complete psuedoscience."

By your standards, out-of-Africa (greater heterozygosity means greater ancestry depth) is pseudoscience, and I'm beginning to agree with you on that. What I'm saying is that high levels of homozygosity attested in Neandertals/Denisovans and Amerindians are an ancestral condition and Loschbour further supports this. Africans show a derived condition. The presence of Amerindian admixture and the absence of African admixture in Europe supports this conclusion.

Tobus said...

@German:
Similar, close and lower are all relative terms

No, "close" is an absolute term - "closer" is the relative form.

Modern Amerindians are the closest to Neandertals/Denisovans than any other population. Modern Amerindians are similar to Neandertals/Denisovans,

There's no logic to this statement - "closest" doesn't necessarily mean "similar". London might be "closest" to the equator, but it's nonsense to say it must therefore be "similar" to the equator. Your argument is pure semantics - Amerindian heterozygosity is nowhere near as low as the archaics'... calling it "similar" is intentionally misleading.

By your standards, out-of-Africa (greater heterozygosity means greater ancestry depth) is pseudoscience

Quite the opposite, but hey, don't bother taking the time to understand the other point of view before dismissing it.

What I'm saying is that high levels of homozygosity attested in Neandertals/Denisovans and Amerindians are an ancestral condition

I know, and that's why it's clear to me that you have no idea what you are talking about. High heterozygosity can only be attained by a long-term and consistent accumulation of novel alleles, whereas high homozygosity can be attained in a single generation if there is a catastrophic population decline. Relatively low heterozygosity reflects recent population history, not time since divergence.

German Dziebel said...

@Tobus

"No, "close" is an absolute term - "closer" is the relative form."

Like I said, you haven't studied logic or linguistics. "Close" and "far" are relative terms. "Closer" is a comparative term. I'm going to send you a bill for remote education.

"There's no logic to this statement - "closest" doesn't necessarily mean "similar". London might be "closest" to the equator, but it's nonsense to say it must therefore be "similar" to the equator. Your argument is pure semantics - Amerindian heterozygosity is nowhere near as low as the archaics'... calling it "similar" is intentionally misleading."

Similar is a relative term, too. There's nothing misleading about it. London is more similar to the equator than it is to the Moon.

"I know, and that's why it's clear to me that you have no idea what you are talking about. High heterozygosity can only be attained by a long-term and consistent accumulation of novel alleles, whereas high homozygosity can be attained in a single generation if there is a catastrophic population decline. Relatively low heterozygosity reflects recent population history, not time since divergence."

Regardless of your baloney, homozygous Denisovans are hundreds of thousands of years older than any time scale that can be inferred from heterozygous modern Africans. African farmers are more heterozygous than African foragers but it's an established fact that forager population preceded farmer populations. Loschbour is more homozygous than Sardinians but it's thousands of years older than the latter.

You are doomed to eternal ignorance and pseudoscience.

terryt said...

"You are doomed to eternal ignorance and pseudoscience".

Yes German. If you don't know that 'High heterozygosity can only be attained by a long-term and consistent accumulation of novel alleles, whereas high homozygosity can be attained in a single generation if there is a catastrophic population decline' eternal ignorance and pseudoscience is exactly what you are doomed to.

" African farmers are more heterozygous than African foragers"

Yes, because farmers live at higher population densities than do foragers. There are more of them per hectare, therefore more heterozygosity (generally speaking).

"it's an established fact that forager population preceded farmer populations".

And that indicates exactly ... what? That it is not at all surprising they have lower heterozygosity?

"Loschbour is more homozygous than Sardinians but it's thousands of years older than the latter".

Presumably because the Loschbour population was much smaller than is the Sardinian population. Simple. But you can't see that because of your total ignorance when it comes to evolutionary biology or population genetics.

Tobus said...

@German:
Close" and "far" are relative terms. "Closer" is a comparative term.

Semantics about semantics! "Close to" does not mean the same as "closer to" whatever terminology you want to use.

London is more similar to the equator than it is to the Moon.

You described Neanderthal/Denisovan heterozygosity as being "similar to" Amerindians', but Neanderthals/Denisovans are in fact the *least* similar to Amerindians of all known populations. I provided a Cardiff/London/Equator analogy, but if you want to switch to a London/Equator/Moon analogy then that's fine. Your original statement is equivalent to saying "the Moon is similar to the Equator". When challenged you respond with "there's no other known terrestrial location that the Moon is closer to than the Equator." The first statement is undoubtedly false. The second may be technically true, but is extremely misleading.

Denisovans are hundreds of thousands of years older... Loschbour is more homozygous than Sardinians but it's thousands of years older than the latter.

The Denisovan sample is in fact 40ky *younger* than modern Africans - time goes forwards remember. African farmers are the exact same age as African foragers. Stuttgart is roughly the same age as Loschbour (who is *younger* not older than Sardinians) and yet is much more heterozygous than Sardinians....
all this just underscores that variations in heterozygosity better reflect recent population events than genetic ancestry.

German Dziebel said...

@Tobus

"Semantics about semantics! "Close to" does not mean the same as "closer to" whatever terminology you want to use. "

Neandertals and Denisovans are both close to Amerindians considering that they are ancient hominin populations and Amerindians is a modern human population and closer to Amerindians compared to all other modern human populations.

"You described Neanderthal/Denisovan heterozygosity as being "similar to" Amerindians', but Neanderthals/Denisovans are in fact the *least* similar to Amerindians of all known populations. "

I don't know what you're talking about. Amerindians are similar to N and D in terms of their heterozygosity levels.

"The Denisovan sample is in fact 40ky *younger* than modern Africans - time goes forwards remember."

I love what you're smoking but you've lapsed from pseudoscience into insanity. Now you are outside of the purview of anthropology.

terryt said...

German, you still haven't explained how homozygosity/heterozygosity = relationship.

German Dziebel said...

@TerryT

"German, you still haven't explained how homozygosity/heterozygosity = relationship."

I kinda did but don't remember in which string. Tobus should pull all of our exchanges together and publish them as a book.

Basically, out-of-Africa proponents declared that there's a necessary relationship between heterozygosity and population age. Africans are the oldest because they are most heterozygous among modern human populations. A heterozygosity cline stretching from Africa to America supposedly reflects a serial bottleneck effect as humans colonized the globe. But the model is patently wrong as many examples indicate. 1) In Sub-Saharan Africa, farmer populations are more heterozygous than forager populations suggesting that heterozygosity reflects population size rather than population age. 2) Since 1492 Amerindians have suffered the worst bottleneck known among modern human populations but it came not as a result of their migration from elsewhere but of European and African migration into the New World; 3) At the same time the overall heterozygosity of New World populations has dramatically increased since 1492 because of the influx of migrants from various continents and their intermarriage; 4) the ancient DNA samples from Eurasian hominins (Neandertals and Denisovans) show the extent of homozygosity most similar to Amerindians and Papuans and not the kind of high heterozygosity seen in modern Africans. It's only because we now have two separate and independent lines of evidence (homozygosity and actual sharing of common ancestry chunks) connecting Neandertals/Denisovans and Amerindians and Papuans that we can recover human evolutionary history, which involves the long-term maintenance of depressed demographies in the East (with Amerindians and Papuans/Australians being the best surviving examples of mid-Pleistocene demographic realities) and the multiple levels of admixture in the West (Africa and Europe).

Tobus said...

@German:
I don't know what you're talking about. Amerindians are similar to N and D in terms of their heterozygosity levels.

No, they're about 300% (3 times!) higher. Look at the data again - of all the samples we have Neanderthals and Denisovans are in fact the *least* similar to Amerindians.

In any cluster/outgroup situation there will be one sample, by virtue of being at the extreme of the cluster's range, that will be technically "closest" to the outgroup. You have taken this comparative fact (Amerindians are the "most similar" to N/D) out of context (no modern human is similar to N/D) to arrive at a conclusion (Amerindians *are* similar to N/D) that is in direct contradiction to the data (N/D are the most distant sample to Amerindians).

...you've lapsed from pseudoscience into insanity.

The Denisovan and Sapiens lineages diverged from a common ancestor so they both started with the same heterozygosity. The Denisovan sample is from 40,000 years ago so it's had 40,000 years *less* time to accumulate heterozygosity since then.... in terms of heterozygosity it's a *younger* sample than modern humans - we'd expect it to show lower heterozygosity even if the population history to that point was identical.

German Dziebel said...

@Tobus

"No, they're about 300% (3 times!) higher."

Different measurements give different results. But even 3 times difference between Amerindians and Neandertals/Denisovans is "close" compared to the difference between N/D and Africans.

" The Denisovan sample is from 40,000 years ago so it's had 40,000 years *less* time to accumulate heterozygosity since then"

So here's an explanation for why Amerindians are 3 times more heterozygous than N/D. The same amount of time resulted in Africans having accrued 2 times more heterozygosity than even Amerindians. An archaic substrate could play a role as well as population size growth and admixture within human groups as they crossed Eurasia into Africa.

Going back to our earlier theme, out-of-Africa makes Africans "archaic" by postulating that they are "older" than non-Africans because more heterozygous. Now we have a real archaic population to show that Africans diverged the most from an archaic source. And they are the most geographically removed from it. So it all fits nicely.

Tobus said...

@German:
out-of-Africa proponents declared that there's a necessary relationship between heterozygosity and population age.

An increase in heterozygosity is caused by a de novo mutation that occurs randomly at the point of conception. This makes heterozygosity a function of time and population size. Biological fact: Higher heterozygosity = bigger population for a longer time.

Heterozygosity operates independently of ancestry. Saying two populations are "connected" because they have the same heterozygosity (which in this particular case isn't even true in the first place!) is like saying two people must be related because they have the same length hair (the result of another ongoing gradual biological process that gets punctuated by sudden decreases).

But even 3 times difference between Amerindians and Neanderthals/Denisovans is "close" compared to the difference between N/D and Africans.

On the contrary, the 3 times difference is *greater* than difference between Amerindians and Africans - greater in fact than the variation of all modern humans. In a Neanderthal/Denisovan --> Amerindian --> African spectrum, it's Amerindians and Africans who are the closest... would you say that African heterozygosity is "similar" to Amerindians?

German Dziebel said...

@Tobus

"An increase in heterozygosity is caused by a de novo mutation that occurs randomly at the point of conception."

So? Two populations merge and all the "new" mutations of the in-situ one become part of the colonizer's gene pool. The latter become more heterozygous.

"This makes heterozygosity a function of time and population size."

Population size. The time dimension is the wishful thinking of out-of-Africa thinkers who didn't operate with an admixture mindset at that time.

"Heterozygosity operates independently of ancestry. Saying two populations are "connected" because they have the same heterozygosity (which in this particular case isn't even true in the first place!) is like saying two people must be related because they have the same length hair (the result of another ongoing gradual biological process that gets punctuated by sudden decreases)."

You just said that heterozygosity is the function of time. Ancestry and time are inseparable. You just refuted yourself. Congratulations! Plus we have no evidence for shared ancestry between modern Africans and archaic Africans and modern Africans and African AMH (out-of-Africa simply treats modern Africans as the only surviving "archaic" humans compared to non-Africans). In the case of non-Africans (and especially Amerindians, but also Papuans/Australians) and archaic Eurasians, we actually have evidence for shared ancestry. Similar levels of heterozygosity between the same populations fit the picture perfectly.

"On the contrary, the 3 times difference is *greater* than difference between Amerindians and Africans - greater in fact than the variation of all modern humans. In a Neanderthal/Denisovan --> Amerindian --> African spectrum, it's Amerindians and Africans who are the closest... would you say that African heterozygosity is "similar" to Amerindians?"

So what? Of course all modern humans would be closer to each other than they to archaic hominins. But the cline indicative of the ancestry pathway is very visible: Amerindians are the closest to archaic hominins, they are followed by Papuans and Australians. East Asians are the closest to Papuans and Australians, West Eurasians are the closest to East Asians, Africans are the closest to West Eurasians and the furthest removed from archaic Eurasians and from Amerindians (among modern humans).

Take a look at Fig. 3 in Prufer's The complete genome sequence of a
Neanderthal from the Altai Mountains. It's another reference point. You just get caught in some kind of weird semantics and logical puzzles.



Tobus said...

@German:
Two populations merge and all the "new" mutations of the in-situ one become part of the colonizer's gene pool. The latter become more heterozygous.

Heterozygosity is a measure of the frequency of each SNP through the population, not just a count of the overall number of SNPs. As already explained, each individual can only contribute half their heterozygosity to the merge (since each parent can only contribute one allele from each site, half of the heterozygous sites will pass the derived version, half the ancestral) - resulting in a heterozygosity equal to the proportional average of the merging populations, not the sum. Case in point is EEF + WHG = modern Europeans. Admixture will result in a heterozygosity higher than the less heterozygous contributor, but *lower* than the more heterozygous one (irrespective of which is "in-situ" or "colonizer") - most important to note is that admixture will not result in a heterozygosity level higher than the most heterozygous contributor.

Population size. The time dimension is the wishful thinking of out-of-Africa thinkers who didn't operate with an admixture mindset at that time.

Time is undoubtedly a factor - you do know how babies are made right? It takes some 25-30 years on average for each successive generation to be born, and hence for the next chance of a random mutation to arise in the lineage. The mutation rate is measured as "X per site per generation" - it takes time to increase heterozygosity because it takes time for a baby to mature and have it's own babies.

As explained above admixture doesn't raise overall heterozygosity - modern Europeans have a heterozyogity intermediate between their highly heterozygous EEF ancestors and their much less heterozygous WHG ancestors... for modern African heterozygosity to be primarily caused by admixture you'd need an archaic population with an absolutely huge heterozygosity - even at a ridiculously high rate of 50% archaic admixture you need at least twice the heterozygosity of modern Africans, and thus over 10 times higher than the Neanderthal/Denisovan level! This would undermine your idea that low heterozygosity is an archaic condition in the first place.

You just said that heterozygosity is the function of time. Ancestry and time are inseparable. You just refuted yourself.

Word Association Football. The important point is that two samples can have the same heterozygosity and yet be completely unrelated in terms of ancestry. Your idea that Neanderthal heterozygosity is part of a "cline indicative of the ancestry pathway" is pure bunkum.

So what?

So Amerindans and Neanderthals/Denisovans are not similar in terms of heterzygosity, that's what.

German Dziebel said...

@Tobus

More pseudoscience, as always.

"Admixture will result in a heterozygosity higher than the less heterozygous contributor..."

This proves my point: a less heterozygous Eurasian population met a more heterozygous archaic African population. The former became more heterozygous as a result (and more heterozygous than its parent Eurasian population), while the latter went extinct. (We do know from archaeology that at least from the Lower Pleistocene on Africa and Europe were much more populous than East Asia.)

"it takes time to increase heterozygosity because it takes time for a baby to mature and have it's own babies."

Naive organicism typical of a creationist! You yourself just showed that heterozygosity can increase as a result of admixture. Why does it need to be always interpreted as a function of time then? Some levels of heterozygosity may be a function of time, other levels are product of relatively quick admixture. Modern Amerindians are more heterozygous than archaic Neandertals and Denisovans. So here you have your time factor working nicely. Modern Africans colonized a continent full of archaic populations, here you have my admixture factor.

"The important point is that two samples can have the same heterozygosity and yet be completely unrelated in terms of ancestry."

Yes of course. You need to explain it to out-of-African proponents. It's out-of-Africa that's making an assumption that modern Africans are older (more archaic) than non-Africans because they are more heterozygous. Heterozygosity is used as a proxy for ancestry. And this is done in the absence of true archaic African samples. Out-of-America is based on a better logic and a better evidential basis. There are actual archaic hominin samples in Eurasia. Their heterozygosity is most similar to Amerindians among modern human populations, with worldwide increase in heterozygosity forming a cline proportionate to the increasing geographic distance. Greater geographic distance means greater chance of admixture.

"This would undermine your idea that low heterozygosity is an archaic condition in the first place."

Too bad, you are talking without any evidence at hand. Get some ancient DNA samples from African AMH or archaics, then we'll talk.

"Your idea that Neanderthal heterozygosity is part of a "cline indicative of the ancestry pathway" is pure bunkum."

It is a cline whether you want it or not. And it's supported by the presence of Neandertal and Densiovan alleles in America. And it fits nicely with the well-described patterns of heterozygosity among modern humans, with heterozygosity increasing with distance from America.

"So Amerindans and Neanderthals/Denisovans are not similar in terms of heterzygosity, that's what."

They are. AMONG MODERN HUMAN POPULATIONS, AMERINDIAN LEVELS OF HETEROZYGOSITY ARE MOST SIMILAR TO THAT OF NEANDERTALS AND DENISOVANS. Now repeat after me.

Tobus said...

@German:
AMONG MODERN HUMAN POPULATIONS, AMERINDIAN LEVELS OF HETEROZYGOSITY ARE MOST SIMILAR TO THAT OF NEANDERTALS AND DENISOVANS.

BUT "MOST SIMILAR" DOES NOT MEAN "SIMILAR". Do you still not get it?

German Dziebel said...

@Tobus

"BUT "MOST SIMILAR" DOES NOT MEAN "SIMILAR"."

And "the closest" doesn't mean "close." And the "best" doesn't been "good." Among all the people I've spoken lately you sound the stupidest and this means you sound stupid.

terryt said...

"Among all the people I've spoken lately you sound the stupidest and this means you sound stupid".

German, the situation is that he is the only one who can be bothered arguing with you and your closed mind.

Tobus said...

@German: And "the closest" doesn't mean "close." And the "best" doesn't been "good."

Exactly! So when I question your statement that Amerindian heterozygosity is "similar" to that of Neanderthals and Denisovans, can you please refrain from using "most similar" as your reasoning.

German Dziebel said...

@Tobus

"Exactly! So when I question your statement that Amerindian heterozygosity is "similar" to that of Neanderthals and Denisovans, can you please refrain from using "most similar" as your reasoning."

I'm not going to refrain exercising from logic and reason even if two cryptocreationists would like me to. The Middle Ages are over!

Tobus said...

@German: I'm not going to refrain exercising from logic and reason

It is spurious to say that A is similar to B simply because it is more similar to B than C is, and there are literally thousands of examples where this line of reasoning is demonstrably false.

If you are still insisting that Amerindian heterozygosity is similar to that of Neanderthals and Denisovans then feel free to show some actual logic and reasoning to support it, but stop with the "more similar" nonsense please.

German Dziebel said...

@Tobus

"If you are still insisting that Amerindian heterozygosity is similar to that of Neanderthals and Denisovans then feel free to show some actual logic and reasoning to support it, but stop with the "more similar" nonsense please."

"Similar to X" and "more similar to X than anything else in a set" are logically equivalent. I was trying to be nice to you and not call you "stupid" directly, but this privilege has just expired.

Tobus said...

@German:"Similar to X" and "more similar to X than anything else in a set" are logically equivalent.

I see... so:

- London is "similar to the Equator" in latitude because it is "more similar to the Equator than anything else in a set" of UK capital cities?
- Neptune is "similar to Alpha Proxima" in distance from the sun because it's "more similar to Alpha Proxima than anything else in a set" of nearby heavenly bodies?
- The star striker on my son's under 10 soccer team is "similar to Lionel Messi" because he's "more similar to Lionel Messi than anything else in a set" of players on the team?

You sure do speak nonsense sometimes German.