tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post115414014499233197..comments2024-01-04T04:11:55.717+02:00Comments on Dienekes’ Anthropology Blog: Demographic history from distribution of shared IBS lengthsDienekeshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02082684850093948970noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-13958681864371438032013-06-12T01:17:52.698+03:002013-06-12T01:17:52.698+03:00" There's also evidence from archaeology ..." There's also evidence from archaeology and physical anthropology of sub-Saharan influence in Mesolithic Near Easterners."<br /><br />This.<br /><br />Also, the 55 kya divergence date is remarkably coincident with the development of a blade-producing culture in Taramsa, Egypt 70-60 kya. This industry is thought to have been ancestral to the proto-UP cultures appearing shortly afterwards in the Near East, which in turn are thought to be ancestral to the UP of Europe.<br /><br />Both the 55 kya and 13 kya dates are strongly supported by archaeology, and the latter also by ancient DNA (mtdna L2 found at in the early Neolithic of Syria).Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10640050537781786329noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-67076901244633232272013-06-09T22:08:19.652+03:002013-06-09T22:08:19.652+03:00@halvorsonian,
Curly hair is found in many 'O...@halvorsonian,<br /><br />Curly hair is found in many 'Out of Africa' populations that have no African admixture such as certain Indians and Pacific Islanders. So, it is very possible that the curly hair in West Eurasians may be of an independent type. The reason why Mongoloids lack curly hair is because they have a post-OOA mutation affecting their hair type that reached near fixation in them. Hence, they can't be representative of the hair type diversity of the early Out-of-Africans population.Umihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08677388491896846251noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-73542710119968582882013-06-08T20:21:05.557+03:002013-06-08T20:21:05.557+03:00As is well known, Africans have really, really cur...As is well known, Africans have really, really curly hair. So curly in fact, that even Europeans of only 1/8th African ancestry such as Pushkin are still noticeably much curlier than their countrymen. I've always wondered if you could explain Caucasoid variation in hair straightness solely as a function of African ancestry: maybe West Eurasians, even Arabians, were originally straight haired and acquired their curls more recently. I didn't really think this plausible before, because recent African gene flow from the Proto-Semites or the slave trade couldn't possibly explain why say, many Irish have curls, but if the admixture is as ancient as the paper implies it very well could.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-22984399119151789992013-06-08T12:35:19.440+03:002013-06-08T12:35:19.440+03:00I still think a factor of about ~2 (instead of 1.7...I still think a factor of about ~2 (instead of 1.75) makes all the data fit <i>much</i> better.<br /><br />Also, I always cringe when authors suggest major gene flow (or even a minor one) from far away into Europe during LGM (~26,500 ya onward!). That's just crazy talk. Again, a factor of ~2 fits much better, here.<br /><br />Of course, gene flow from Africa could have continued (and probably did continue) into e.g. the Levant and other parts of SW Asia, which then got pushed into Europe during the Neolithic and Metal Ages. <br /><br />However, this would be a much, much smaller percentage, and also carry a different signature.eurologisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03440019181278830033noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-4164673182057687392013-06-08T00:11:33.077+03:002013-06-08T00:11:33.077+03:00That looks like Neanderghosts they are talaking ab...That looks like Neanderghosts they are talaking aboutJimhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07187836541591828806noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-5633004378331460702013-06-07T23:58:58.120+03:002013-06-07T23:58:58.120+03:00"Ghost population" would be Neanderthal,..."Ghost population" would be Neanderthal, Denisovan, etc., correct?Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01195350659745193148noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-68577354445253590592013-06-07T20:21:37.464+03:002013-06-07T20:21:37.464+03:00"I suppose that things might be complicated b..."I suppose that things might be complicated by the occurrence of Amerindian-like admixture in some West Eurasians [. . .] The lack of non-M,N mitochondria in non-Africans makes the post-OoA gene flow from Africa->Eurasia difficult to stomach, while the opposing migration of Y-haplogroup E bearers into Africa (as I have suggested) seems too instantaneous to account for the authors' evidence for protracted gene flow."<br /><br />Obviously there was "post-OoA gene flow" from Africa to the Middle East. Eurasians brought Y haplogroup E (or its ancestor) to Africa, and Africans brought E back to the Middle East in pre-Neolithic times. There's also evidence from archaeology and physical anthropology of sub-Saharan influence in Mesolithic Near Easterners. <br /><br />This is something that needs to be taken into account in any serious attempt at understanding what you refer to as "Amerindian-like admixture in some West Eurasians". <br /><br />As for later gene flow from Eurasia to Africa, there's also evidence in the form R1b.<br />n/ahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02378473351485233448noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-60877467222125691302013-06-07T19:48:22.879+03:002013-06-07T19:48:22.879+03:00"About 5.8% of European genetic material is d..."About 5.8% of European genetic material is derived from a ghost population that diverged 420 kya from the ancestors of modern humans."<br />Ghosts? What the heck? They have genes too?Jackhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01148345006852811881noreply@blogger.com