April 04, 2015

In search of the source of Denisovan ancestry

bioRxiv http://dx.doi.org/10.1101/017475

Denisovan Ancestry in East Eurasian and Native American Populations.

Pengfei Qin , Mark Stoneking

Although initial studies suggested that Denisovan ancestry was found only in modern human populations from island Southeast Asia and Oceania, more recent studies have suggested that Denisovan ancestry may be more widespread. However, the geographic extent of Denisovan ancestry has not been determined, and moreover the relationship between the Denisovan ancestry in Oceania and that elsewhere has not been studied. Here we analyze genome-wide SNP data from 2493 individuals from 221 worldwide populations, and show that there is a widespread signal of a very low level of Denisovan ancestry across Eastern Eurasian and Native American (EE/NA) populations. We also verify a higher level of Denisovan ancestry in Oceania than that in EE/NA; the Denisovan ancestry in Oceania is correlated with the amount of New Guinea ancestry, but not the amount of Australian ancestry, indicating that recent gene flow from New Guinea likely accounts for signals of Denisovan ancestry across Oceania. However, Denisovan ancestry in EE/NA populations is equally correlated with their New Guinea or their Australian ancestry, suggesting a common source for the Denisovan ancestry in EE/NA and Oceanian populations. Our results suggest that Denisovan ancestry in EE/NA is derived either from common ancestry with, or gene flow from, the common ancestor of New Guineans and Australians, indicating a more complex history involving East Eurasians and Oceanians than previously suspected.

Link

29 comments:

arch said...

"Our results suggest that Denisovan ancestry in EE/NA is derived either from common ancestry with, or gene flow from, the common ancestor of New Guineans and Australians"

What is being termed Denisovan and Neandertal ancestry by panting academics can just as easily, and probably much more likely be
1) AMH introgression into the Denisovan and Neaderthal populations, instead of the other way around

2) as conceded, simply common ancestry from random inheritance through a mutual early common ancestry of populations.

Prior to Hernan Cortez, all Y lines in meso america were Hg Q.
Within 200 years, the majority of Y lines in Meso America were European or old world Hg, except for some extreme isolation areas such as the Yucatan or Amazon interior.

AMH ingress into Denisovan Neandertal lines would follow a path similar to European introgress into native american lines, which led to the technologically inferior culture being almost entirely mixed race and 100% introgressed within only a century or two. The introgessed individuals would really only have a potentially survivable chance among their own 'TRIBES'-

the tech superior population would be extremely unlikely to adopt, raise or accept such introgressed individuals as one of their 'own' or expend its limited resources to see a tribal enemy raised to a adult competitor.

This seems unfair given todays standards, but the opposite is actually a illogical conclusion when looked at within the long context of tribal societies and human history.

Probably the reason you see such limited and reliable degree of CLAIMED introgress across these ancient samples is that few such mixed individuals actually survived to reproduce, or had the means to support their young, and the very few cases that did in fact survive are all from only one or two populations that were introgressed with AMH genetics - NOT the other way around.

NOW.. can we seriously end this mewing, meaningless Neandertal/Denisovan hysteria? We have Lombard era cemeteries DNA typed without any Y dna results,

and get pablum asserting endless hysteria concerning Neadertal and or Denisovan forced ancesty that is entirely speculative under the most charitable of views.

Its time for the genetics inquiry to be meaningful and offer some results in a historically useful time frame and the Neandertal gravy train is long in the tooth at this point and just about useless.

terryt said...

"Our results suggest that Denisovan ancestry in EE/NA is derived either from common ancestry with, or gene flow from, the common ancestor of New Guineans and Australians, indicating a more complex history involving East Eurasians and Oceanians than previously suspected".

No surprises here. Isn't that easily explained by both K2a and K2b2's origin somewhere near Australia/New Guinea?

"the Denisovan ancestry in Oceania is correlated with the amount of New Guinea ancestry, but not the amount of Australian ancestry"

Again no surprise. Oceanian haplogroups show no Australian ancestry but substantial New Guinea/Melanesian ancestry.

terryt said...

A further point. I notice in the map of Denisova spread that in Australia the Denisova element is concentrated around the Gulf of Carpentaria. This would fit an expansion from New Guinea into Australia rather than the Denisova element having been present in the first Australians. I have long though the haplotype evidence indicates Y-DNA K is a later arrival in Australia than is Y-DNA C. The same holds for mt-DNA M and N respectively. The Denisova distribution supports this idea.

Nathan Paul said...

It is the proof of coastal migration theory along with Y O2.
ASI or South Indians need to be included in the study.

German Dziebel said...

Great article. Table S3 and Fig. 1b confirm that Amerindians have more archaic admixture (both Denisovan and Neandertal) than East Asians. Amerindians also share ancestry with West Eurasians to the exclusion of East Asians, Papua New Guineans and Australians, so they are on both sides of the primary non-African split derived from an East Eurasian hominin source (Fig. S6).

Importantly, the authors consider the possibility of a back migration from the Sahul. By saying so, they indirectly confirm the possibility of out-of-America as well.

Unknown said...

I propose that it is possible that the strong link between Denisovan and New Guinean/Australian populations might indicate that the latter derived directly from the prior. I.e., perhaps the modern NG/A population represents the Denisovans who were genetically swamped by later H. sapiens arrivals, to the end that they ended up looking more like those who replaced them than they did their own Denisovan ancestors. I propose this hypothesis partly due to this very thing having happened in Europe, at least to a point in the fossil record. European Neanderthals showed admixture over time, however we do not know whether or not the populations of Neanderthal remnants simply died out, or became so H. sapiens sapiens that now it looks like H. s. sapiens who merely have Neanderthal admixture from way back. Ultimately, it is rather the same thing, just phrased differently.

wokswa said...

arch: "What is being termed Denisovan and Neandertal ancestry by panting academics can just as easily, and probably much more likely be
1) AMH introgression into the Denisovan and Neaderthal populations, instead of the other way around
2) as conceded, simply common ancestry from random inheritance through a mutual early common ancestry of populations."

What some bloviating online commenters might term "unheard-of objections" have actually been evaluated. If you cared to look at all at any of the research in question, you'd see that there are actual tests for alternative scenarios like AMH > archaic introgression and ancestral polymorphism. Go ahead and tell me what the allele frequency spectra should look like.

arch: "AMH ingress into Denisovan Neandertal lines would follow a path similar to European introgress into native american lines, which led to the technologically inferior culture being almost entirely mixed race and 100% introgressed within only a century or two. The introgessed individuals would really only have a potentially survivable chance among their own 'TRIBES'-

the tech superior population would be extremely unlikely to adopt, raise or accept such introgressed individuals as one of their 'own' or expend its limited resources to see a tribal enemy raised to a adult competitor."

Which is why in Mesoamerica today we have two disjunct populations, the technologically superior pure Spaniards, people with Spanish-Native admixture who were never accepted by the invading population and never underwent Spanish acculturation, and zero unadmixed Native Americans. This makes sense, because disparity of material culture is the only factor that affects the outcomes of inter-population interaction when an expanding group encroaches into the territory of people long previously established, even if the old-timers have physiological adaptations to environmental factors that are novel to the invaders. And, of course, a massive disparity in technology is exactly what we would have seen when AMH populations first encountered Neanderthals in the Near East.

arch: "NOW.. can we seriously end this mewing, meaningless Neandertal/Denisovan hysteria? We have Lombard era cemeteries DNA typed without any Y dna results,"

Kind of funny how nastily provincial you are.

The amateur genetic genealogy community likes to brag about how frequently it's ahead of the academic community, and credit should of course go where it is due, but I think about the staggering effort hordes of navelgazing schoolmarmish scrapbookers have poured into infinitely ramifying R1b1b1b1b1b1b1b1b or figuring out the eye color of this specific Medieval European dynast who couldn't ever fully close his jaw -- all when genuinely unsampled peoples whose histories are of world and continental importance are being wiped out and bulldozed under ... it makes me want to puke. Or at least punch someone like you.

terryt said...

"Importantly, the authors consider the possibility of a back migration from the Sahul. By saying so, they indirectly confirm the possibility of out-of-America as well".

How do you come to that conclusion?

"It is the proof of coastal migration theory"

How do you come to that conclusion?

"I propose that it is possible that the strong link between Denisovan and New Guinean/Australian populations might indicate that the latter derived directly from the prior".

You have a point although:

"AMH introgression into the Denisovan and Neaderthal populations, instead of the other way around"

Except that the vast majority of the a-DNA genetic material in the survivors is from 'modern' humans rather than from Denisovans. In other words the Denisovan element is vastly smaller than that of 'modern' humans. Introgression for modern humans would need to be huge in order to call it such.

Tobus said...

@terryt:I notice in the map of Denisova spread that in Australia the Denisova element is concentrated around the Gulf of Carpentaria

I thought the same thing, but then read the disclaimer in the legend: The heat plot values indicated on the map are valid only for regions covered by our samples. All their samples of from Cape York - the purple is what they measured and the gradient across the rest of Australia is extrapolation. Given that every other Australian sample tested has similar "purple" Denisovan levels (the other samples being from "south-west" Australia and the Northern Territory) I think the purple really covers all of the western half of the Australia, with the rest being unsampled but almost certainly purple too. Tasmania is probably the only region that might show a difference.

* They also used 2 samples from ECACC but I can't find anywhere that says where in Australia they come from.

terryt said...

"All their samples of from Cape York - the purple is what they measured and the gradient across the rest of Australia is extrapolation".

Thanks. I noticed that myself when I had another look. I think something that is overlooked, which may be related to the Denisova phenomenon, is that Australian K is apparently entirely K2b1a-P60 which is just one of four branches within K2b1a. That haplogroup doesn't reach Melanesia or beyond. Just M (K2b1d?) and K2b1a_P79 do so.

Rokus said...

'After the Denisovan admixture, but before the divergence o f Australians and New Guineans, there would then have been a back-migration from Oceania to mainland East Asia, which would have contributed both Denisovan and shared Australian/New Guinea ancestry to the ancestors of present day EE/NA populations.
[...] we also are not aware of any evidence that would disprove such a back-migration.'

It seems to me that a single admixture event that resulted in EE/NA Denisovan alleles being exclusively shared with current Australian/New Guinea populations, would require that for the mailand admixture scenario the Australian/New Guinea populations did not loose much of the ancestrally admixed subset of Denisovan alleles. Or, in case of a truly 100% match of the EE/NA subset of Denisovan alleles with alleles being all available in the subset of Australian/New Guinea populations, this should be evidence of a back-migration.
The study of Povysil (2104) "Sharing of Very Short IBD Segments between Humans, Neandertals and Denisovans", shows small Denisovan IBD segments are omnipresent. There are private Denisovan IBD segments for Africans, Europeans and Asians of different lengths that all have a different patterning of density peaks. Hence, with assumption of the scenarios above from the paper, IMO the different density peaks can't have any relation with the dating of such a single admixture event. Instead, longer segments for the Asian populations may be indicative of having been closer to a more homogenous source, while smaller segments for the European populations at 4000 bp may attest an early separation of diluted populations from a source carrying higher concentrations of Denisovan IBD's. The average curve for segments that are private African, whose pattern resembles the overall curve for Denisvan IBD segments, have a density peak for 7000 bp segments, what IMO means the introgression of Denisovan IBD's in Africa is more recent than in Europe and came from a population that was already heavily diluted, though not 'European'.

Tobus said...

@German:so they are on both sides of the primary non-African split derived from an East Eurasian hominin source

Good work German... now read over the 2014 Fu et. al paper and confirm for yourself that this "East Eurasian hominin" was something very similar to the Ust_Ishim sample.

arch said...

wokswa - If you cared to look at all at any of the research in question, you'd see that there are actual tests for alternative scenarios like AMH > archaic introgression and ancestral polymorphism.

Really.. they considered alternative scenarios.. to what - the 'pre-proclaimed as fact' Neanderthal Blue Eye Red headed ancestor of all europeans.. til that 'discovery' got wiped out and disproven completely?

Give me a break with your hysterical claims.

wokswa - Which is why in Mesoamerica today we have two disjunct populations, the technologically superior pure Spaniards, people with Spanish-Native admixture who were never accepted by the invading population and never underwent Spanish acculturation, and zero unadmixed Native Americans.

That is actually Three, not Two, distinct populations by my count, so you failed a simple math test that requires only the use of the fingers on one hand.. So much for the rest of your lectures right there.

In the case you attempted to make before you totally face-palmed,
the problem with your failed case is.. actual living populations of admixed and non-admixed meso americans DO EXIST showing the ancestry of this ancestral native population, whereas for the claimed Denisovan and Neandertal descendants, there are at least two scenarios that are absolute certain or near certain, whereas ingress from these extinct populations into modern humans is only the last option that is the least likely and not substantiated by legacy hybrid or unmixed living populations.

Wokswa - Kind of funny how nastily provincial you are.

Kind of amusing that simple math escapes you. You can toss a stick without hitting yet another neandertal or denisovan related study, yet actual relevant ancestral anatomically human studies are verboten if they offer any insight into legitimate ancient euro Hg structure. Despoiling a Lombard era cemetery for instance, to only test Mt dna, is not only a wasted opportunity its contaminating a ancient sample without maximizing a payoff.

Jim said...

"infinitely ramifying R1b1b1b1b1b1b1b1b or figuring out the eye color of this specific Medieval European dynast who couldn't ever fully close his jaw -- all when genuinely unsampled peoples whose histories are of world and continental importance are being wiped out and bulldozed under ... "

Oh God forbid someone be more interested in his own ancestry than in some kind of intellectual posturing.

For your information, turning human beings into objects to be studied like specimens on a petri dish is not inherently morally superior to researching one's ancestors.

dwaggonerstr said...

Neanderthals were not inferior. AMH and Levantine Neanderthals in the Levant used the same levalloisio-mousterian technology, not that there are enough anatomicql differences between the two to jutify separating them in to two different populations. Neanderthals evolved in to modern humans (Amud) and became todays Eurasians. Also ut has now been proven that Neanderthals had the bow and arrow/atlatl (see Impossible Neanderthals: Making string and throwing projectiles) 90,000 years before they were presumed to have been invented by homo sapiens. Everyone here except Dienekes, Dziebel and myself is a numbskull who's parents probably escaped eugenics.

dwaggonerstr said...

Seems nonsense to me that they are looking to melanesia for a source of Denisovan DNA when it has ben found in the Sima De Los Huesos folk from Spain, and is implied in Levantine Neanderthals via Zuttiyeh. Red Deer Cave people have a mosaic of Neanderthal, Heidelberg and Erectine features and lived as late as 10,000 years ago. Guess they're searching for a modern melanesian source because they're still terrified of the reality of polygenism,

Tobus said...

@dwaggonerstr:
Neanderthals were not inferior

Well, we still exist and they don't, so from a purely "survival of the fittest" perspective....

Neanderthals evolved in to modern humans (Amud) and became todays Eurasians

The Amud Neanderthal and the Ust_Ishim sample are roughly the same age, but the Ust_Ishim sample is orders of magnitude closer to modern Eurasians than any Neanderdal or other contemporaneous sample. We came from Ust_Ishim, not Neanderthals.

Everyone here except Dienekes, Dziebel and myself is a numbskull who's parents probably escaped eugenics.

From the mind that brought you: "The sex of the the Altai Neaneerthal has no bearing whateoever on the [Y-DNA!] haplogroup identified".

dwaggonerstr said...

Amud has not yielded any DNA yet so you are not apt to make that statement. Modern Amerindians are closer to the Altai Neanderthal than to modern humans, and you continue to fail to understand that quote.

terryt said...

"Seems nonsense to me that they are looking to melanesia for a source of Denisovan DNA when it has ben found in the Sima De Los Huesos folk from Spain"

What seems obvious to me is that the 'Densisovans' were very widespread in the distant past. Their mt-DNA splits off the human/Neanderthal line, presumably nearer a million years ago that half a million. The spread od Neanderthals through western Eurasia replaced the Denisovans in that region but they remained in the east, including mainland SE Asia. The spread of modern humans replaced both Neanderthals and Denisovans however the moderns bred with both in some complicated manner that is yet to be completely untangled. But the Denisovan admixture is certainly concentrated just beyond mainland SE Asia although it cannot have originated there. However the admixture almost certainly happened somewhere on mainland SE Asia.

"Guess they're searching for a modern melanesian source because they're still terrified of the reality of polygenism"

I think regional continuity in the old meaning of the term is well and truly dead although some aspects of it still hold.

Tobus said...

@dwaggonerstr:
Amerindians are closer to the Altai Neanderthal than to modern humans

That's simply not true, where on earth did you get it from? (Not German's blog again hopefully!).

Look at the PCA in Figure S1A of this preprint's Supplementary Info - Amerindians are more than an order of magnitude closer to every modern human, including Africans, than to the Altai Neanderthal. All modern humans cluster very tightly in the centre, meaning the vast bulk of our DNA comes from a common ancestor distinct to Neanderthals and Denisovans. Since we have AMH skeletons dating back to ~200kya inside Africa, ~100kya in the Middle East and ~50kya in Eurasia, and since the earliest known Y and mt DNA haplogroup divisions are in Africa, it makes more sense to assume this common ancestor was in Africa than anywhere else. It's possible (though unlikely) that future discoveries may change this, but as the facts stand at present Out Of Africa is the most plausible explanation, by far.

Amud has not yielded any DNA yet so you are not apt to make that statement

Amud has Neanderthal-specific characteristics (such as his occipital torus and mandibular notch) not found in any other hominins and as such is clearly not AMH. At best he was a Neanderthal/AMH hybrid, but Ust_Ishim is undeniably AMH and is genetically ancestral to all East Eurasians as well as EHG and WHG in West Eurasia. You say the lack of Amud DNA makes me "not apt" to make such a statement, but the facts we *do* have about Amud's taxonomy make the opposite statement even less "apt" - it is *extremely* unlikely that the Amud Neanderthal is a better representative of modern humans' ancestor than Ust_Ishim is. Until there is concrete data to support it it's an untenable assumption to make.

German Dziebel said...

@Tobus

"Good work German... now read over the 2014 Fu et. al paper and confirm for yourself that this "East Eurasian hominin" was something very similar to the Ust_Ishim sample."

This sentence doesn't even make sense. Now that Tobus Nameless Liar has lost a major bet, he's trying to pickpocket me for a penny.

Grognard said...

wokswa - first off, calm down. There's no need to get so nasty.

Second off, any time I see data it seems to support multiregional model. I remember quite well Paabo going through data and pushing back OOA to around 100k+ years ago and seeing graphs of mixing that looked to be from continuous mixing. These guys have talked about a single mixing event for a very long time which is a complete joke. I don't take them even slightly seriously as scientists and the results being overturned time and time and time again bears this out.

There was supposed to be no neanderthal genes in humans.

Then there's supposed to be none in africa.

It turns out ancient north africans have more neanderthal genes than any group living today.

Modern humans were supposed to come out of africa 30-40k years ago.

Then it was 50. Then 70. Now 100 or more is only plausible time.

Blue eyes are supposed to be just 5k years old and come from caspian sea.

Now we find them all over the place in ancient western european hunter gatherers.

R1b was supposed to be just 6k years old and come from anatolia with bell beaker.

Now we know neolithic is much older in iberia than anatolia, and have found r1b much older than that all over europe.

Neanderthals were supposed to be brown eyed, but some sequenced have light gene alleles. They also have a red hair gene. Yet this is not supposed to be the source! What a crock. They just assume they are right and work back from there and completely ignore all proof.

The pattern is clear, there is a huge push to pretend europeans don't come from europe. Most of the funding comes from very 'ploiticially correct' places like sweden and very little from spain where we might get the results that actually prove something. The only reason they sequenced neanderthals in the first place was to try to prove out of africa by showing there is no neanderthal DNA in people today. That failed so they made up some more BS.

The list goes on and on. I don't trust either their competence ( a bunch of english and anthropology majors on most of these genetic papers lol) or their objectivity.

Everyone is wrong sometimes, but in science today the people whose theories are proved wrong time and again get supported anyway while the people who have the correct views are shut out and ridiculed. Like Finlay whose 'wacky' ideas have mainly been proven correct.

Tobus said...

@German: This sentence doesn't even make sense

Yes it does, tell me which part you are failing to comprehend and I'll try to explain it to you.

Annie Mouse said...

"Now we know neolithic is much older in iberia than anatolia, and have found r1b much older than that all over europe."

???

Did I miss something?

dwaggonerstr said...

" Since we have AMH skeletons dating back to ~200kya inside Africa, "

Wrong. You have two fragmentary skullcaps from NE Africa with a mosiac of modern and archaic traits.

"100kya in the Middle East"

You are referring to Skhul-Qafzeh, they are Neanderthaloids not AMH, had identical material culture to Neanderthals, and some of whom have been reclassified as purely Neanderthal, anatomically speaking.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1580351

" and ~50kya in Eurasia,"

With a mosaic of modern and Neanderthal traits, and living across glaciers from isolated Neanderthals such as Saint Cesaire, who lacked diagnostic Neanderthal features, such as the retromolar space, a double-arched brow ridge, and had a chin, and a mental foramen positioned under his second premolar.

"Amud has Neanderthal-specific characteristics (such as his occipital torus and mandibular notch) not found in any other hominins and as such is clearly not AMH. "

Those characteristics are not found exclusively in Neanderthals, and are present in all the fossil hominids you previously mentioned, and in living people.

"
Until there is concrete data to support it it's an untenable assumption to make."

The fossil record clearly shows that Neanderthals were ancestral to today's Eurasians and Amerindians, so that is proof that the genetic evidence currently available is inconsistent with what really happened. Your position is untenable, and you are clearly deeply troubled by the prospects oc it, which is why people like you and TerryT and Eurologist show up at every Neanderthal discussion to obsessively deny our Neanderthal origins.

Epona said...

Hi. I am a total amateur in all this, but I have found this fascinating since I got my DNA results from Geno 2.0. I am particularly interested in Denisovan since mine came back with 3.3% Denisovan and 3.1% Neanderthal and a very strange 2% SE Asian. My family history being that I am 1/2 French Canadian and 1/4 Polish and 1/4 German. So I am particularly interested to see if Denisovan came just from the mysterious 2% SE Asian or if it is part of my European ancestry. Most of the details here are beyond my current knowledge as I am new to this. My father also ran his DNA and he has 2% SE Asian, but less Denisovan than I. So currently, should I be contributing the Denisovan to the SE Asian bit and then try to figure out where SE Asian came into my heritage?

Tobus said...

@dwagonnerstr:
Wrong. You have two fragmentary skullcaps from NE Africa...

Incorrect, there's also a partial skeleton with arm, leg and pelvis bones. (source w/ photo)

.. with a mosiac of modern and archaic traits.

Of course, they're 200kya old! Surely you don't expect modern humans to be identical to their 200kyo ancestors would you? Evolution just stopped for 200,000 years did it?

You are referring to Skhul-Qafzeh, they are Neanderthaloids not AMH...

Where do you get this? Every reputable source I've looked at says the opposite - they may have some Neanderthal-like traits/admixture, but are decidedly on the AMH side of the fence.

...had identical material culture to Neanderthals...

There were "significant behavioral differences between
Neanderthals and the Skhul/Qafzeh hominids" (source) - they had a different culture.

...and some of whom have been reclassified as purely Neanderthal, anatomically speaking.

By whom? The Smithsonian, Encyclopedia Brittanica and every other source I've looked at still calls them Sapiens. Perhaps this "reclassification" was a fringe theory that never got wide acceptance?

With a mosaic of modern and Neanderthal traits (reply to "~50kya in Eurasia")

Neither Ust_Ishim nor Kostenki show Neanderthal traits.

Those characteristics are not found exclusively in Neanderthals, and are present in all the fossil hominids you previously mentioned

No, one or two might be present is one or two of the samples, but never consistently all together in the same AMH fossil - that's why they're classified as AMH, not Neanderthal (duh!).

The fossil record clearly shows that Neanderthals were ancestral to today's Eurasians and Amerindians...

No it doesn't, not even nearly. There is a traceable fossil record from 200kya in Africa to modern humans all over the globe quite distinct from any "clearly" Neanderthal specimen.

...so that is proof that the genetic evidence currently available is inconsistent with what really happened

Did you consider that perhaps the genetic evidence is proof that *your* alternative is the one that inconsisent with reality? We have 3 samples from 40,000 years ago, one shows 1-2% genetic affinity with Eurasians, one shows 0-1% affinity with Eurasians and 4-6% with Melanesians, the other shows 94-100% affinity with Eurasians. Which one is most likely the ancestor of Eurasians?

Your position is untenable...

On the contrary, it's the position that is held by the vast majority of experts in the field.

...and you are clearly deeply troubled by the prospects oc it, which is why people like you and TerryT and Eurologist show up at every Neanderthal discussion to obsessively deny our Neanderthal origins.

I have no emotional attachment to any theory of evolution and change my mind as often as new evidence requires it. Hundreds of thousands of rational people have looked at this same evidence and the vast majority of them agree with me. Have you considered that perhaps *you* are the one "deeply troubled" by the prospects of OOA and that's why *you* show up at every Neanderthal discussion to obsessively *insist* on our Neanderthal origins?

terryt said...

"which is why people like you and TerryT and Eurologist show up at every Neanderthal discussion to obsessively deny our Neanderthal origins".

The three of us all agree we have some level of Neanderthal origin. Where we disagree with you is in the level of that origin. 2-4% is hardly indicative of massive Neanderthal genetic input.

"you are clearly deeply troubled by the prospects oc it"

I seem to remember you were 'deeply troubled' by the prospect of Papuan ancestry as demonstrated by Y-DNA P's origin. And I have seen no evidence of anyone being deeply troubled through having a demonstrated level of Neanderthal ancestry.

" I am particularly interested in Denisovan since mine came back with 3.3% Denisovan and 3.1% Neanderthal and a very strange 2% SE Asian".

The Denisovan/SE Asian element is probably a product of the source population for Y-DNA R. It has recently been shown reasonably convincingly to have originated in SE Asia.

terryt said...

"Of course, they're 200kya old! Surely you don't expect modern humans to be identical to their 200kyo ancestors would you? Evolution just stopped for 200,000 years did it?"

But to me it does indicate that the change from 'ancient' to 'modern' was gradual and probably a product of migration and interbreeding. I think there was more back and forth movement than is usually considered to be the case. As shown by this comment:

"they may have some Neanderthal-like traits/admixture, but are decidedly on the AMH side of the fence'.

The process was by no means straightforward.

"There is a traceable fossil record from 200kya in Africa to modern humans all over the globe quite distinct from any "clearly" Neanderthal specimen".

And that is the main point.