tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post1307042239201945369..comments2024-01-04T04:11:55.717+02:00Comments on Dienekes’ Anthropology Blog: More ancient Scandinavians (Skoglund, Malmström et al. 2014)Dienekeshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02082684850093948970noreply@blogger.comBlogger121125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-22276383057695430232014-06-20T09:25:47.047+03:002014-06-20T09:25:47.047+03:00"So what motivates you to reject the TreeMix ..."So what motivates you to reject the TreeMix result - do *you* have a long-held preconceived idea that this result contradicts?" <br /><br />German? With a long-held preconceived idea? Surely not! terrythttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17327062321100035888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-58932216553244368862014-06-17T01:09:13.355+03:002014-06-17T01:09:13.355+03:00@German:
If it was an expansion, then hetreozygosi...@German:<br /><i>If it was an expansion, then hetreozygosity would have gone up. Admixture would have added even more heterozygosity to proto-Amerindians.</i><br /><br />So you agree - separation from East Asians does not mean a bottleneck. Your idea of two bottlenecks is erroneous, the (single) bottleneck was *after* the events you describe, when Amerindian ancestors spent some 10,000 years in extremely adverse condition in Beringia during the LGM before entering America. <br /><br /><i>Amerindians are the most MA-1-like population and the other way around. </i><br /><br />No, not the other way round - East Asians are the most Amerindian-like population. That's the contradiction that your model fails to adequately address.<br /><br /><i>But Amerindians are more divergent on the Karitiana-anchored axis than West Eurasians are on the Sardinian-anchored axis</i><br /><br />Consistent with Amerindians combining shared drift from two separate lineages.<br /><br /><i>Amerindians are linked to both West Eurasians and East Asians. This means they predate the split between them</i><br /><br />I am linked to both my mother and my father - does these mean I predate them? For someone claiming intellectual superiority your logic really does suck.<br /> <br /><i>ADMIXTURE runs have no support for a dula origin of Amerindians, as I have showed you multiple times.</i><br /><br />Neither do they reject it, and as I've had to remind *you* an equal number of times, the flow of time goes forwards not backwards. These runs are consistent with modern Amerindians containing DNA from MA-1, not other way round. <br /><br /><i>That's not how people use the term "West Eurasian." </i><br /><br />I defined my usage of the term very clearly, perhaps you'd prefer "non-East Eurasian"?<br /><br /><i>MA-1 is not geographically in West Eurasia and it's not genetically of West Eurasian stock. It has a secondary layer of West Eurasianness.</i><br /><br />TreeMix has MA-1 being of "West Eurasian stock", ADMIXTURE shows MA-1 as "West Eurasian stock", Lazaridis S12.3 shows MA-1 as "West Eurasian stock" etc. etc.<br /><br /><i>I don't care what the "experts" say. </i><br /><br />You should - they know a lot more about it than you and typically provide a whole raft of empirical data to back up what they are saying. Try listening to what they say, you might learn a thing a two.<br /><br /><i>I challenge them and I'm a better expert as my background testifies </i><br /><br />We've been through your background multiple times - you're an Arts major who's only "scientific" achievement is dressing up like a Native American and traipsing round Russia for a few years - you have no training or experience in genetics and are way out of your depth here. Note also that "expert" is generally a title given to one by others, not something you just give to yourself. Good to see you have a healthy ego though :)<br /><br /><i>MA-1 can't be called "West Eurasian" either then. It's an East Asian population from which West Eurasians evolved.</i><br /><br />From Lazaridis: <br />"K=2 separates African from non-African populations." <br />"K=3 reveals a West Eurasian ancestry component."<br /><br />MA-1 is clearly "West Eurasian" from it's inception... not sure where you're getting the "East Asian" from - are you redefining "East Asian" to mean "non-African" now?<br /><br /><i>It's very easy to show historiographically that the origin of Amerindians from Asia IS a pre-conceived idea. It's this pre-scientific idea that's guiding your "experts." </i><br /><br />No, as I've pointed out repeatedly, the data is what determines the TreeMix results, and it's this result that forms the basis of the rest of the paper. <br /><br />So what motivates you to reject the TreeMix result - do *you* have a long-held preconceived idea that this result contradicts? <br /><br />Tobushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05529220083970625733noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-11548837617947674992014-06-15T08:23:15.379+03:002014-06-15T08:23:15.379+03:00"I don't care what the 'experts' ..."I don't care what the 'experts' say. I challenge them and I'm a better expert as my background testifies (two doctorates, two books in all the relevant fields" <br /><br />The only possible conclusion is that you are an arrogant idiot. Such as demonstrated: <br /><br />"Y-DNA and mtDNA clearly show that Amerindians did not pickup many of East Asian haplogroups." <br /><br />Only Y-DNA C2 along with mt-DNAs A, B, C and D. A further example: <br /><br />"Amerindians are linked to both West Eurasians and East Asians. This means they predate the split between them. It's just the software is designed to show them as a mix between the two". <br /><br />And admixture analyses show West Eurasians and East Asians are hardly linked at all. An impossible situation if both descend from Amerindians. But perfectly logical if Amerindians are a hybrid between West Eurasians and East Asians. terrythttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17327062321100035888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-71065646876106727772014-06-13T19:07:23.122+03:002014-06-13T19:07:23.122+03:00@Tobus (contd.)
"On the contrary, it works r...@Tobus (contd.)<br /><br />"On the contrary, it works remarkably well. So well in fact that's it's accepted as fact by every expert in the field. You don't get it because you insist on putting ancestry back to front - despite what you might think from the way the pretty colours are divided, MA-1's "Amerindian" component proves that Amerindians contain MA-1 DNA, but not necessarily the other way around. You seem to think it means modern DNA is "attested" at 24kya, but what it really means is that some 24kyo DNA is attested today. Time goes forwards remember.<br /><br />I don't care what the "experts" say. I challenge them and I'm a better expert as my background testifies (two doctorates, two books in all the relevant fields - find another one with these credentials). By your logic, MA-1 can't be called "West Eurasian" either then. It's an East Asian population from which West Eurasians evolved. And since modern East Asians are further removed from West Eurasians than Amerindians and MA-1 had to come from somewhere, it most obviously came from America.<br /><br />"Lazaridis didn't "draw a tree" - the tree is programmatically generated to represent the most parsimonious model given the data. Saying they "should've" made changes to it so it fits your preconceived notions completely undermines the point of the tree in the first place. If it doesn't say what you want it to say, it's most likely because what you want it to say is wrong."<br /><br />It's very easy to show historiographically that the origin of Amerindians from Asia IS a pre-conceived idea. It's this pre-scientific idea that's guiding your "experts." I have dispelled this myth to make our ideas more in line with scientific facts and reasoning.German Dziebelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10703679732205862495noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-71872490903703520802014-06-13T19:07:02.884+03:002014-06-13T19:07:02.884+03:00@Tobus
"No, that's expansion/migration.&...@Tobus<br /><br />"No, that's expansion/migration."<br /><br />Pseudoscientist Tobus is back! If it was an expansion, then hetreozygosity would have gone up. Admixture would have added even more heterozygosity to proto-Amerindians. In reality Amerindians are the least heterozygous of all. So you are postulating an empty model. But you are factually wrong, too: Y-DNA and mtDNA clearly show that Amerindians did not pickup many of East Asian haplogroups. Correspondingly, in ADMIXTURE runs Amerindians don't have East Asian YELLOW just like they don't have West Eurasian BLUE. So you have to postulate a bottleneck if you want to derive Amerindians from East Asians.<br /><br />"MA-1 shifted towards Amerindians, Amerindians shifted towards MA-1... same thing, different viewpoint."<br /><br />Amerindians are the most MA-1-like population and the other way around. This means MA-1 is West Eurasian in only its derived alleles.<br /><br />"As they are in the Sardinian and LB axes in Olalde EDF 5a, b, c, d, and e."<br /><br />Wrong. We need to differentiate geographic vs. genetic aspects of the plots. All continental populations occupy their respective corners. But Amerindians are more divergent on the Karitiana-anchored axis than West Eurasians are on the Sardinian-anchored axis. This means that it's West Eurasians who are shifted toward Amerindians genetically, not the other way around.<br /><br />" and Amerindians are likewise shifted towards MA-1 in all F runs."<br /><br />That's the point! You can spell it right but you're still missing its meaning. MA-1 is an Amerindian population with West Eurasian admixture.<br /><br />"Amerindians are most definitely an "Eastern" branch, that's what precludes ANE from being Amerindian-admixed - they lack the corresponding affinity with the rest of the Eastern branch."<br /><br />Flawed logic. Amerindians are their own branch and hence, if they contributed genes to East Asians and West Eurasians, the latter two won't show as particularly closer to each other.<br /><br />"The first option is rejected by the TreeMix runs which show Amerindians diverging after the West/East Eurasian splits,"<br /><br />Nonsense. Amerindians are linked to both West Eurasians and East Asians. This means they predate the split between them. It's just the software is designed to show them as a mix between the two.<br /><br />"so the second option (also supported by ADMIXTURE, PCA and D-stats) is more likely correct."<br /><br />"Amerindians contain DNA from two different post-Tianyuan populations and hence have more non-Tianyuan drift than either of them separately..so the second option (also supported by ADMIXTURE, PCA and D-stats) is more likely correct." <br /><br />It's disproven by Fu data showing Tianuayn as the closest to karitiana." ADMIXTURE runs have no support for a dula origin of Amerindians, as I have showed you multiple times.<br /><br />"No, I used "West Eurasian" to refer to three separate lineages that are genetically distinct from the "East Eurasian" lineages. ANE is only one of these "West Eurasian" lineages."<br /><br />That's not how people use the term "West Eurasian." It's clearly opposed to ANE in all the graphs. MA-1 is not geographically in West Eurasia and it's not genetically of West Eurasian stock. It has a secondary layer of West Eurasianness.<br /><br />German Dziebelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10703679732205862495noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-17538916706692649592014-06-10T13:24:28.719+03:002014-06-10T13:24:28.719+03:00@German:
Separation from East Asians? Well, that&#...@German:<br /><i>Separation from East Asians? Well, that's a bottleneck.</i><br /><br />No, that's expansion/migration. <br /><br /><i>But MA-1 wouldn't have been shifted toward Amerindians if it contributed genes to it.</i><br /><br />MA-1 shifted towards Amerindians, Amerindians shifted towards MA-1... same thing, different viewpoint.<br /><br /><i>Amerindians would have been shifted toward the West Eurasian cluster</i><br /><br />As they are in the Sardinian and LB axes in Olalde EDF 5a, b, c, d, and e.<br /><br /><i>That's exactly right! Amerindians are not part of the East Eurasian lineage </i><br /><br />That's exactly the opposite of what I'm saying.<br /><br /><i>one easy indicator of that is that they are closer to even westernmost West Eurasians than any of East Eurasians</i><br /><br />*Sigh* Olalde EDF 5a, b and e - Amerindians are closer to East Asians than Europeans, and vice versa. See also Raghavan's TreeMix run - Amerindians and East Asians are both from the "East Eurasian" branch.<br /><br /><i>What tree are you looking at</i><br /><br />Raghavan S11.<br /><br /><i>MA-1 is shifted toward Amerindians. That's pretty clear from all F runs.</i><br /><br />... and Amerindians are likewise shifted towards MA-1 in all F runs.<br /><br /><i>Amerindians are not an Eastern branch, I totally agree with that.</i><br /><br />Not sure who you think you're agreeing with, nobody else is saying that. Amerindians are most definitely an "Eastern" branch, that's what precludes ANE from being Amerindian-admixed - they lack the corresponding affinity with the rest of the Eastern branch.<br /><br /><i>Rasmussen EDF 5F and G show Amerindians as Amerindians, while West Eurasians and East Asians as equally Tiyuanyuan like. What this tells me is that Amerindians must have branched off prior to the Tianyuan times. </i><br /><br />That's certainly one possible interpretation, another is that Amerindians contain DNA from two different post-Tianyuan populations and hence have more non-Tianyuan drift than either of them separately. The first option is rejected by the TreeMix runs which show Amerindians diverging after the West/East Eurasian splits, so the second option (also supported by ADMIXTURE, PCA and D-stats) is more likely correct.<br /><br /><i>So, you just renamed ANE into West Eurasian </i><br /><br />No, I used "West Eurasian" to refer to three separate lineages that are genetically distinct from the "East Eurasian" lineages. ANE is only one of these "West Eurasian" lineages.<br /><br /><i>Regardless, it still won't work because MA-1 is not just West Eurasian.</i><br /><br />On the contrary, it works remarkably well. So well in fact that's it's accepted as fact by every expert in the field. You don't get it because you insist on putting ancestry back to front - despite what you might think from the way the pretty colours are divided, MA-1's "Amerindian" component proves that Amerindians contain MA-1 DNA, but not necessarily the other way around. You seem to think it means modern DNA is "attested" at 24kya, but what it really means is that some 24kyo DNA is attested today. Time goes forwards remember.<br /><br /><i>So, lazaridis should've drawn a tree in which Karitiana is its own lineage parallel to "Basal Eurasian." </i><br /><br />Lazaridis didn't "draw a tree" - the tree is programmatically generated to represent the most parsimonious model given the data. Saying they "should've" made changes to it so it fits your preconceived notions completely undermines the point of the tree in the first place. If it doesn't say what you want it to say, it's most likely because what you want it to say is wrong.Tobushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05529220083970625733noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-14920344016747550732014-06-10T09:45:18.826+03:002014-06-10T09:45:18.826+03:00"Amerindians have always been 'bottleneck..."Amerindians have always been 'bottlenecked.'" <br /><br />Do you actually understand what a population 'bottleneck' is? <br /><br />"But MA-1 wouldn't have been shifted toward Amerindians if it contributed genes to it". <br /><br />Please explain how you come to that conclusion. Or is it another example of your complete lack of understanding of genetics and evolutionary biology? Surely if a population has contributed genes to another it would be 'shifted towards' that population. <br /><br />"Amerindians would have been shifted toward the West Eurasian cluster". <br /><br />Which they are compared to East Asians. <br /><br />"They are Amerindians from whom West Eurasians and East Eurasians derived without any subsequent gene flow between these two branches". <br /><br />That is a completely impossible scenario. If both West Eurasians and East Eurasians are derived from Amerindians, even allowing for complete lack of subsequent gene flow between the two, they would be far more similar to each other than they are. And they would be equally distant from Amerindians. terrythttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17327062321100035888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-83622632826394672992014-06-09T20:58:16.709+03:002014-06-09T20:58:16.709+03:00@Tobus (contd.)
"Sorry German, which part of...@Tobus (contd.)<br /><br />"Sorry German, which part of Raghavan are you talking about?" <br /><br />From Ragahavan's main article: "reveal significant evidence (Z > 3) for Middle Eastern, European, central Asian and south Asian populations being closer to Karitiana than to Han Chinese. Similar signals were also observed when we replaced modern-day Han Chinese with data from chromosome 21 from a 40,000-year-old east Asian individual (Tianyuan Cave, China), which has been found to be ancestral to modern-day Asians and Native Americans. Thus, if the gene flow direction was from Native Americans into western Eurasians it would have had to spread subsequently to European, Middle Eastern, south Asian and central Asian populations, including MA-1 before 24,000 years ago."<br /><br />"Rasmussen (2014) EDF 5F and G. Note that I'm only using "Tianyuan-like" as an example, the actual common ancestor may have been in a different place with different genetics to the Tianyuan sample (although probably quite similar given his fairly even affinity to all modern Eurasians)."<br /><br />Rasmussen EDF 5F and G show Amerindians as Amerindians, while West Eurasians and East Asians as equally Tiyuanyuan like. What this tells me is that Amerindians must have branched off prior to the Tianyuan times. In Fu et al. Tianyuan is most similar to Karitiana. <br /><br />"Yes, as I suggested above it seems your issue is purely one of definition. I think I've explained fairly clearly what I mean by "MA-1 is 'purely' West Eurasian in genetic terms" - he's derived solely from a "Western" branch of the original Eurasian population, with no ancestry from the "Eastern" branch."<br /><br />So, you just renamed ANE into West Eurasian because I just caught you with your logical pants down. Regardless, it still won't work because MA-1 is not just West Eurasian. That's why geneticists invented the hypothetical ANE population. It's affinity to Amerindians is clear, but there are no typical West Eurasian markers in Amerindians (hence ADMIXTURE's BLUE, mtDNA U and Y-DNA R are missing in America). Look at the Lazaridis's best tree and you'll see West Eurasian going all the way down to modern Europeans, with ANE contributing along the way to modern Europeans. West Eurasians are not contributing to Amerindians. Instead you could say that ANE and West Eurasians coalesce at a higher "northern Eurasian" node, which is different from the East Eurasian node, so MA-1 is basal to all of West Eurasians and Europeans, and then Karitiana ancestors are basal to all of those higher "northern Eurasians" plus "East Eurasians." So, lazaridis should've drawn a tree in which Karitiana is its own lineage parallel to "Basal Eurasian." A step down from the Karitiana-leading node there is a fork leading to East Eurasians and West Eurasians. I would agree with that. But that's not what you're saying, unfortunately.German Dziebelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10703679732205862495noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-25193566007559454472014-06-09T20:57:36.945+03:002014-06-09T20:57:36.945+03:00@Tobus
"Yes, but also after admixture from t...@Tobus<br /><br />"Yes, but also after admixture from the West Eurasian lineage... one bottleneck, during the migration through Beringia, after (or while?) separating from East Asians and getting admixture from West Eurasians."<br /><br />Separation from East Asians? Well, that's a bottleneck. Then admixture from West Eurasians. Then another bottleneck. Totally ad hoc. Here's a better model. Amerindians have always been "bottlenecked." A bottleneck is postulated for modern humans overall. That's what we see among Mid-Pleistocene hominins in Eurasia. Amerindians have maintained its signal the longest, while West Eurasians and East Asians evolved from that small deme base by population growth, admixture, etc. <br /><br />"It clusters with West Eurasian lineages in TreeMix, in ADMIXTURE and in PCA (inside C/S Asians in PC1/3, only just outside Europeans in PC2). It's shifted toward Amerindians because it contributed DNA to them."<br /><br />Sure, they all share derived West Eurasian affinity. But MA-1 wouldn't have been shifted toward Amerindians if it contributed genes to it. Amerindians would have been shifted toward the West Eurasian cluster.<br /><br />"That would be fair enough if it were a modern population, but assigning ancestry from modern populations to an ancient context is misleading. ANE definitely shares ancestry with both modern West Eurasians and modern Amerindians, but the data shows that instead of ANE being "part-Amerindian" as you put it, Amerindians are actually "part-ANE". Most notably, ANE lacks any significant East Asian affinity, indicating he didn't receive admixture from a member of the East Eurasian lineage."<br /><br />That's exactly right! Amerindians are not part of the East Eurasian lineage (one easy indicator of that is that they are closer to even westernmost West Eurasians than any of East Eurasians). They are Amerindians from whom West Eurasians and East Eurasians derived without any subsequent gene flow between these two branches. It doesn't matter if ANE is an ancient population. It's a matter of attestation. We were lucky to find a fossil, but let's not assume that we found the Ark of Noah.<br /><br />"If you look at the tree again you'll see that the combined "Eurasian" lineage branches off two "Western" lineages before the common Amerindian/East Asian ancestor ("Eastern" branch) diverged. What I am saying is that MA-1 (and ANE) is from a "Western" lineage, with no discernible ancestry from the "Eastern" branch."<br /><br />What tree are you looking at? MA-1 is shifted toward Amerindians. That's pretty clear from all F runs. Amerindians are not an Eastern branch, I totally agree with that.<br /><br />German Dziebelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10703679732205862495noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-88694554976400601232014-06-09T05:35:51.054+03:002014-06-09T05:35:51.054+03:00"Yes, but also after admixture from the West ..."Yes, but also after admixture from the West Eurasian lineage... one bottleneck, during the migration through Beringia, after (or while?) separating from East Asians and getting admixture from West Eurasians". <br /><br />Exactly, but German's limited intellect and understanding of genetics or evolutionary biology will prevent him from grasping that simple concept, I'm afraid. <br /><br />"the data shows that instead of ANE being 'part-Amerindian' as you put it, Amerindians are actually 'part-ANE'". <br /><br />I don't hold out much hope German will understand the difference. We have both tried to explain that to him many times. terrythttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17327062321100035888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-44286432073620942982014-06-06T15:23:30.797+03:002014-06-06T15:23:30.797+03:00@German:
All conventional theories of Amerindian o...@German:<br /><i>All conventional theories of Amerindian origins postulate a bottleneck as Amerindians diverged from east Asians. </i><br /><br />Yes, but also after admixture from the West Eurasian lineage... one bottleneck, during the migration through Beringia, after (or while?) separating from East Asians and getting admixture from West Eurasians.<br /><br /><i>Scroll up the Dienekes post we are commenting on and you'll see on the left hand side Fig. 2 with a tree with attached pie charts in which MA-1 is colored all GREY, Anzick 1/2 GREY, Avj58 1/4 GREY and LB is colored all BLUE. How does it jibe with the conclusion that there are more "ABBB alleles in the MA-1 D-stat than in the Anzick one."</i><br /><br />Because those circles are only indicators of admixture between the various lineages since divergence, not overall genetic affinity. You can see from the tree that both LB and Aj58 have more shared ancestry with MA-1 than they do to Anzick, hence an increased common affinity and a correspondingly higher ABBB count.<br /><br /><i>ANE is shifted toward Amerindians on all admixture charts and it doesn't cluster with any other West Eurasians</i><br /><br />It clusters with West Eurasian lineages in TreeMix, in ADMIXTURE and in PCA (inside C/S Asians in PC1/3, only just outside Europeans in PC2). It's shifted toward Amerindians because it contributed DNA to them.<br /><br /><i>ANE is precisely a one-population taxon that's both Amerindian (part of your East Eurasian) and West Eurasian.</i><br /><br />That would be fair enough if it were a modern population, but assigning ancestry from modern populations to an ancient context is misleading. ANE definitely shares ancestry with both modern West Eurasians and modern Amerindians, but the data shows that instead of ANE being "part-Amerindian" as you put it, Amerindians are actually "part-ANE". Most notably, ANE lacks any significant East Asian affinity, indicating he didn't receive admixture from a member of the East Eurasian lineage.<br /><br /><i>So you can say that MA-1 is Eurasian and its ANE but you can't say that it's both West Eurasian and ANE. It's just counterfactual.</i><br /><br />If you look at the tree again you'll see that the combined "Eurasian" lineage branches off two "Western" lineages before the common Amerindian/East Asian ancestor ("Eastern" branch) diverged. What I am saying is that MA-1 (and ANE) is from a "Western" lineage, with no discernible ancestry from the "Eastern" branch.<br /><br /><i>Also, as Raghavan showed, Tianyuan shows the same pattern of divergence from MA-1 as other East Asians.</i><br /><br />Sorry German, which part of Raghavan are you talking about? I can only see Raghavan using Tianyuan to prove that the increased Amerindian/European affinity is not due to East Asians being pulled away.<br /><br /><i>Under your model, East Asians and West Eurasians should be equidistant from Tianyaun.</i><br /><br />Rasmussen (2014) EDF 5F and G. Note that I'm only using "Tianyuan-like" as an example, the actual common ancestor may have been in a different place with different genetics to the Tianyuan sample (although probably quite similar given his fairly even affinity to all modern Eurasians).<br /><br /><i>Your use of the terms "ANE" and "West Eurasian" as a daughter vs. parent population is not how the two terms are presently used</i><br /><br />Yes, as I suggested above it seems your issue is purely one of definition. I think I've explained fairly clearly what I mean by "MA-1 is 'purely' West Eurasian in genetic terms" - he's derived solely from a "Western" branch of the original Eurasian population, with no ancestry from the "Eastern" branch. You shouldn't need a UFO to understand that.<br />Tobushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05529220083970625733noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-66824249116724453172014-06-06T05:22:32.518+03:002014-06-06T05:22:32.518+03:00@Tobus (contd.)
Your use of the terms "ANE&q...@Tobus (contd.)<br /><br />Your use of the terms "ANE" and "West Eurasian" as a daughter vs. parent population is not how the two terms are presently used. E.g., in lazaridis (http://biorxiv.org/content/early/2013/12/23/001552) ANE and West Eurasian are two daughter lineages derived from an unnamed node.<br /><br />Also here http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2013/12/europeans-neolithic-farmers-mesolithic.htmlGerman Dziebelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10703679732205862495noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-20988410243537294962014-06-06T05:07:23.323+03:002014-06-06T05:07:23.323+03:00@Tobus
"Consider 30-40kya ago, a Tianyuan-li...@Tobus<br /><br />"Consider 30-40kya ago, a Tianyuan-like population splits into two groups, one which (eventually) gives rise to modern Europeans, South Asians and Central Asians (ie a "West Eurasian" branch), the other to modern East Asians and Amerindians..."<br /><br />Also, as Raghavan showed, Tianyuan shows the same pattern of divergence from MA-1 as other East Asians. Under your model, East Asians and West Eurasians should be equidistant from Tianyaun.German Dziebelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10703679732205862495noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-53883126291403840652014-06-06T05:06:19.856+03:002014-06-06T05:06:19.856+03:00"Then come West Eurasians, they admixed with ..."Then come West Eurasians, they admixed with a bottlenecked proto-Amerindian population". <br /><br />I thought you claimed to be intelligent. Surely it is obvious that West Eurasians did not mix with 'a bottlenecked proto-Amerindian population'. If anything they mixed with a proto-Amerindian population before that population had became bottlenecked, in other words before it had entered America. In reality of course the West Eurasians mixed with a population that later formed just part of the Amerindian ancestry but you are so unintelligent you begin to comprehend that scenario. As demonstrated by: <br /><br />"Then this West Eurasian admixed proto-Amerindian population goes through another bottleneck to become modern Amerindian". <br /><br />That statement is only necessary if you have decided in advance that humans emerged from America. Once you let that belief go it will all become obvious even to you. Dienekes' post on Y-DNA K explains it all, although I notice you are still indulging in contortions in order to make the data in that paper conform to your creationist belief. <br /><br />"I can of course imagine anything you want me to". <br /><br />Incorrect. You are incapable of imaging anything other than what your creationist belief demands even when it conflicts with every single fragment of data. <br /><br />"But I prefer to stick with facts". <br /><br />Great. So you are now going to change tack? Imagine. After all this time. terrythttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17327062321100035888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-55141681419834850722014-06-05T19:10:24.495+03:002014-06-05T19:10:24.495+03:00@Tobus
"I have no idea what that means - but...@Tobus<br /><br />"I have no idea what that means - but where did you get the idea of two bottlenecks from? I certainly never said it and as far as I'm aware the data only points to one."<br /><br />All conventional theories of Amerindian origins postulate a bottleneck as Amerindians diverged from east Asians. I assume since you agree with everything that mainstream says, you agree with that. Then come West Eurasians, they admixed with a bottlenecked proto-Amerindian population. Then this West Eurasian admixed proto-Amerindian population goes through another bottleneck to become modern Amerindian. <br /><br />"No, I like to look at *all* the data - you should try it! You'll make fewer stupid blanket statements that way."<br /><br />No, you don't . Only if I force you to, you start looking at the data and reporting what you're finding. Scroll up the Dienekes post we are commenting on and you'll see on the left hand side Fig. 2 with a tree with attached pie charts in which MA-1 is colored all GREY, Anzick 1/2 GREY, Avj58 1/4 GREY and LB is colored all BLUE. How does it jibe with the conclusion that there are more "ABBB alleles in the MA-1 D-stat than in the Anzick one."<br /><br />"Unless you're just using semantic definitions to artificially separate what are essentially the same thing. Consider 30-40kya ago, a Tianyuan-like population splits into two groups, one which (eventually) gives rise to modern Europeans, South Asians and Central Asians (ie a "West Eurasian" branch), the other to modern East Asians and Amerindians (ie an "East Eurasian" branch). ANE is an ancient example of the former branch, thus it's *both* ANE (a specific sub-branch) and "West Eurasian" (the parent lineage). Pretty simple really, I'm guessing you're using a different definition of "West Eurasian" that's throwing you out."<br /><br />I can of course imagine anything you want me to. But I prefer to stick with facts. ANE is shifted toward Amerindians on all admixture charts and it doesn't cluster with any other West Eurasians. Amerindians are the most MA-1/ANE among all modern human populations. ANE is precisely a one-population taxon that's both Amerindian (part of your East Eurasian) and West Eurasian. So you can say that MA-1 is Eurasian and its ANE but you can't say that it's both West Eurasian and ANE. It's just counterfactual.German Dziebelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10703679732205862495noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-68716978053658108492014-06-02T15:15:38.926+03:002014-06-02T15:15:38.926+03:00@German:
One doesn't contradict the other. MA-...@German:<br /><i>One doesn't contradict the other. MA-1 is both Amerindian and non-Amerindian. </i><br /><br />You missed the word "more".<br /><br /><i>OK. It's half the your past nonsense.</i><br /><br />I have no idea what that means - but where did you get the idea of two bottlenecks from? I certainly never said it and as far as I'm aware the data only points to one.<br /><br /><i>Just look at the chart in Skoglund. Forget Lazaridis.</i><br /><br />No, I like to look at *all* the data - you should try it! You'll make fewer stupid blanket statements that way.<br /><br /><i>I'm just checking how well your interpretation of Skoglund numbers works.</i><br /><br />Fig. 2 shows LB has a more recent MCRA with MA-1 than with Anzick, as does the Aj sample, consistent with them both having more ABBB alleles in the MA-1 D-stat than in the Anzick one. Is that the chart you mean?<br /><br /><i>You can't have the cake and eat it, too. It's either ANE which is a genetic, not just geographic term. Or it's West Eurasian. </i><br /><br />Unless you're just using semantic definitions to artificially separate what are essentially the same thing. Consider 30-40kya ago, a Tianyuan-like population splits into two groups, one which (eventually) gives rise to modern Europeans, South Asians and Central Asians (ie a "West Eurasian" branch), the other to modern East Asians and Amerindians (ie an "East Eurasian" branch). ANE is an ancient example of the former branch, thus it's *both* ANE (a specific sub-branch) and "West Eurasian" (the parent lineage). Pretty simple really, I'm guessing you're using a different definition of "West Eurasian" that's throwing you out.Tobushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05529220083970625733noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-2866410957903572732014-06-02T05:34:20.645+03:002014-06-02T05:34:20.645+03:00"MA-1 is both Amerindian and non-Amerindian. ..."MA-1 is both Amerindian and non-Amerindian. That's what an admixed population is". <br /><br />You are still carefully avoiding telling us exactly what MA-1 is admixed with. Why the reluctance? <br /><br />"It's either ANE which is a genetic, not just geographic term". <br /><br />Correct, 'Ancient North Eurasian' is a genetic population and is certainly not 'East Eurasian', although MA-1, a member of that ANE population, lived in geographically 'East Eurasia'. Perhaps you are beginning to see the facts. <br /><br />"Or it's West Eurasian". <br /><br />Logic has deserted you once more. It is not an either/or situation. How do you extract 'West Eurasian' from 'ANE'? <br /><br />"If it's ANE, it must be from UFO". <br /><br />As things stand the population MA-1 admixed with after leaving America must have arrived by UFO. By your own logic your belief has just become 'Science Fiction'. I wish you well in your newly-chosen career.terrythttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17327062321100035888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-82594368212518626682014-05-30T21:51:30.749+03:002014-05-30T21:51:30.749+03:00@Tobus
"Are you saying, despite data to the ...@Tobus<br /><br />"Are you saying, despite data to the contrary, that MA-1 is *more* Amerindian than non-Amerindian?"<br /><br />One doesn't contradict the other. MA-1 is both Amerindian and non-Amerindian. That's what an admixed population is. Fits the data. Anything else doesn't. But you can keep fishing.<br /><br />"Only one bottleneck: Split from East Eurasians, admixture from ANE, then a bottleneck due to migration through Beringia."<br /><br />OK. It's half the your past nonsense.<br /><br />"And you misconstrued it as "LB doesn't show any affinity to MA-1 or Anzick" and asked me how to explain that. I said I don't explain it because it's a misreprentation of the data. LB *does* have affinity to both MA-1 and Anzick, so your question is stupid."<br /><br />Just look at the chart in Skoglund. Forget Lazaridis. I'm just checking how well your interpretation of Skoglund numbers works.<br /><br />"MA-1 is "purely" West Eurasian in genetic terms - something widely attested in Eastern Eurasia throughout prehistory, so no need for your UFO theory. "<br /><br />LOL. You can't have the cake and eat it, too. It's either ANE which is a genetic, not just geographic term. Or it's West Eurasian. If it's ANE, it must be from UFO. If it's West Eurasian then it's counterfactual. If you go for UFO, I'll upgrade your theory to "Science Fiction." If you go for West Eurasian, it'll remain "Pseudoscience." Your choice.German Dziebelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10703679732205862495noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-8547508751316220042014-05-29T14:03:18.702+03:002014-05-29T14:03:18.702+03:00@German:
Raghavan and Olalde both provided compell...@German:<br /><i>Raghavan and Olalde both provided compelling data showing the greater proximity of Amerindians and MA-1 over others. PCAs simply show West Eurasian admixture in MA-1, which is secondary.</i><br /><br />Are you saying, despite data to the contrary, that MA-1 is *more* Amerindian than non-Amerindian?<br /><br /><i>A bottleneck after a split from east Asians, admixture with West Eurasians, then a bottleneck to become Amerindians</i><br /><br />Only one bottleneck: Split from East Eurasians, admixture from ANE, then a bottleneck due to migration through Beringia.<br /><br /><i>I referenced a specific chart in Skoglund in which LB is shown as not having the same MA-1-like/Amerindian component as Aj58.</i><br /><br />And you misconstrued it as "LB doesn't show any affinity to MA-1 or Anzick" and asked me how to explain that. I said I don't explain it because it's a misreprentation of the data. LB *does* have affinity to both MA-1 and Anzick, so your question is stupid.<br /><br /><i>ANE stands for Ancient Northeast Asian. You agree with this construct. And you believe MA-1 a pure population. So I'm right as always.</i><br /><br />You're mixing your definitions as always. MA-1/ANE were West Eurasians located geographically in East Asia (like AG-2 and the Tarim mummies in more recent times). The way you say "pure East Asian" makes it sound like a genetic, not geographic reference. MA-1 is "purely" West Eurasian in genetic terms - something widely attested in Eastern Eurasia throughout prehistory, so no need for your UFO theory. <br /><br />Tobushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05529220083970625733noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-82354389365536315192014-05-29T05:09:03.975+03:002014-05-29T05:09:03.975+03:00"That's more than necessary to solve mode..."That's more than necessary to solve modern human origins. Genetics and evolutionary anthropology are part of anthropology. And human origins is a historical, not life science". <br /><br />If that s the case why is it that you consistently demonstrate a complete ignorance of evolutionary biology and genetics? Even basic logic appears to elude you, as shown by: <br /><br />"A bottleneck after a split from east Asians, admixture with West Eurasians, then a bottleneck to become Amerindians. This is not science. Just your wishful thinking". <br /><br />And that is not what Tobus is suggesting. terrythttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17327062321100035888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-56364104468304607282014-05-27T23:40:11.248+03:002014-05-27T23:40:11.248+03:00@Tobus
"No, only on the f3 "shared drif...@Tobus<br /><br />"No, only on the f3 "shared drift" chart - the admixture runs and PCA show MA-1 is much closer to West Eurasians than to Amerindians."<br /><br />Raghavan and Olalde both provided compelling data showing the greater proximity of Amerindians and MA-1 over others. PCAs simply show West Eurasian admixture in MA-1, which is secondary.<br /><br />"Amerindians underwent a bottleneck and 15kya isolation that has "fine-tuned" their unique genetic identity so it gets isolated by ADMIXTURE easily."<br /><br />Nonsense. A bottleneck after a split from east Asians, admixture with West Eurasians, then a bottleneck to become Amerindians. This is not science. Just your wishful thinking.<br /><br />"I don't because it's not true. LB show increased affinity to MA-1 (we're arguing about it on a different thread - duh!), and has the same affinity to Anzick that modern Europeans have."<br /><br />I referenced a specific chart in Skoglund in which LB is shown as not having the same MA-1-like/Amerindian component as Aj58. If you want to go back to Olalde, I proved that LB has greater affinity to MA-1 and Amerindians than modern Europeans. Stop recycling pseudoscience.<br /><br />" I've never said anything like MA-1 is a "pure East Asian population". <br /><br />ANE stands for Ancient Northeast Asian. You agree with this construct. And you believe MA-1 a pure population. So I'm right as always. It's nearly impossible to misrepresent what you're saying, Tobus, because you do all the misrepresentation in the first place.<br /><br />@terryT<br /><br />""German Dziebel holds a B.A. in History from St. Petersburg State University (Russia), a Ph.D. in Ethnology from the Peter the Great Museum of Anthropology and Ethnology (St. Petersburg, Russia), an M.A. in Sociology from Central European University (Warsaw, Poland), an M.A. in Anthropology and a Ph.D. in Anthropology from Stanford University (Stanford, U.S.A)". <br /><br />That's more than necessary to solve modern human origins. Genetics and evolutionary anthropology are part of anthropology. And human origins is a historical, not life science.German Dziebelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10703679732205862495noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-326468396665842302014-05-24T06:50:35.733+03:002014-05-24T06:50:35.733+03:00"There's no such thing as Ph.D. in dances..."There's no such thing as Ph.D. in dances with Indians". <br /><br />"German Dziebel holds a B.A. in History from St. Petersburg State University (Russia), a Ph.D. in Ethnology from the Peter the Great Museum of Anthropology and Ethnology (St. Petersburg, Russia), an M.A. in Sociology from Central European University (Warsaw, Poland), an M.A. in Anthropology and a Ph.D. in Anthropology from Stanford University (Stanford, U.S.A)". <br /><br />Which of these qualifications has anything at all to do with either genetics or evolutionary biology? From what I can see your PhD might as well be in Dances with Indians. As demonstrated by: <br /><br />"MA-1 is a pure East Asian population" <br /><br />MA-1 is completely different from any modern East Asian population. That should be obvious, even to someone with PhD in Dances with Indians. <br /><br />" Must be a UFO". <br /><br />I've yet to see any hypothesis concerning how modern humans happened to evolve in America. The only explanation that seems possible is that they arrived there by UFO. terrythttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17327062321100035888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-72965939099140728572014-05-24T04:34:58.631+03:002014-05-24T04:34:58.631+03:00@GErman:
On all the admixture charts Amerindians a...@GErman:<br /><i>On all the admixture charts Amerindians and not West Eurasians are the closest to MA-1</i><br /><br />No, only on the f3 "shared drift" chart - the admixture runs and PCA show MA-1 is much closer to West Eurasians than to Amerindians.<br /><br /><i>And Amerindians don't have either the European BLUE component in ADMIXTURE runs or West Eurasian haploid lineages detected in MA-1.</i><br /><br />Amerindians underwent a bottleneck and 15kya isolation that has "fine-tuned" their unique genetic identity so it gets isolated by ADMIXTURE easily. On the other hand West Europeans underwent extensive interbreeding which "muddies" their distinct components somewhat.<br /><br /><i>Hmm, how do you explain then that LB doesn't show any affinity to MA-1 or Anzick</i><br /><br />I don't because it's not true. LB show increased affinity to MA-1 (we're arguing about it on a different thread - duh!), and has the same affinity to Anzick that modern Europeans have.<br /><br />I suspect you're making unfounded interpretations of the data again - trying reading the details of how these data are calculated and you'll gain a better understanding of how we can and can't interpret them.<br /><br /><i>No, this one is Tobus's. MA-1 is a pure East Asian population</i><br /><br />Please don't tell people what I said unless you're going to get it right - I've never said anything like MA-1 is a "pure East Asian population". <br /><br />This shows you are just gain-saying every point I make, and not taking the time to give it serious consideration. If you actually made an effort to understand my position perhaps this series of rambling discussions would actually get somewhere.<br /><br /><br /><br />Tobushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05529220083970625733noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-75335456418040182902014-05-23T05:13:29.863+03:002014-05-23T05:13:29.863+03:00@TerryT
"'Counterfactual'? Your two ...@TerryT<br /><br />"'Counterfactual'? Your two PhDs in Dances with Indians is severely hampering your ability to consider the data objectively."<br /><br />My background is described at http://anthropogenesis.kinshipstudies.org/sample-page/. There's no such thing as Ph.D. in dances with Indians. But the lack of a Ph.D. definitely leads to out-of-Antarctica, UFO as source of Mal'ta, Pygmies are one of the earliest populations to branch off from the human tree, Adam and Eve lived in Africa and all the other myths that you and Tobus have absorbed and propagated.<br /><br />"That was your idea, not Tobus'."<br /><br />No, this one is Tobus's. MA-1 is a pure East Asian population, which didn't absorb genes from any known continental population, from which everybody from West Eurasians to Amerindians originated but then it disappeared because modern East Asians or Siberians didn't really descend from it. Must be a UFO.<br /><br />"One minute you're claiming MA-1 is not completely Amerindian because of admixture with a Eurasian population you otherwise claim doesn't exist ('This suggests that MA-1 is an admixed population'), and now you're denying the extreme likelihood that Amerindians are closer to MA-1 than are West Eurasians for the simple reason that the latter have become admixed with a population we actually do know existed."<br /><br />You quoted me as saying "On all the admixture charts Amerindians and not West Eurasians are the closest to MA-1". You play it back to me as "now you're denying the extreme likelihood that Amerindians are closer to MA-1 than are West Eurasians." You are a rare specimen of intellectual deficiency, Terry, which will make any museum of anthropology worth a trip.<br />German Dziebelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10703679732205862495noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-13448513196962614672014-05-23T01:51:15.221+03:002014-05-23T01:51:15.221+03:00@ German:
"MA-1 as a purely West Eurasian p...@ German: <br /><br />"MA-1 as a purely West Eurasian population that contributed genes to Amerindians is plain counterfactual". <br /><br />'Counterfactual'? Your two PhDs in Dances with Indians is severely hampering your ability to consider the data objectively. <br /><br />"Your other idea, namely that MA-1 is UFO-derived" <br /><br />That was your idea, not Tobus'. And from your comment on the ancient American DNA post I see you still accept the Neanderthal element reached America via UFO. <br /><br />"On all the admixture charts Amerindians and not West Eurasians are the closest to MA-1". <br /><br />Logic has completely deserted you. One minute you're claiming MA-1 is not completely Amerindian because of admixture with a Eurasian population you otherwise claim doesn't exist ('This suggests that MA-1 is an admixed population'), and now you're denying the extreme likelihood that Amerindians are closer to MA-1 than are West Eurasians for the simple reason that the latter have become admixed with a population we actually do know existed. Why did you waste your time doing your PhDs on Dances with Indians? terrythttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17327062321100035888noreply@blogger.com