tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post2361247156135499836..comments2024-01-04T04:11:55.717+02:00Comments on Dienekes’ Anthropology Blog: Svante Paabo talk at NIHDienekeshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02082684850093948970noreply@blogger.comBlogger108125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-21997393367217863792014-06-02T14:34:58.722+03:002014-06-02T14:34:58.722+03:00@German:
No, Loschbour ultimately derives from an ...@German:<br /><i>No, Loschbour ultimately derives from an Amerindian population</i><br /><br />But he has *lower* heterozygosity than Amerindians!!! He's exactly the same as Denisovans!!!!! He *MUST* be the origin of all mankind!!!!!<br /><br /><i>They are wrong</i><br /><br />I see. Umm... you want to maybe get your own research on the topic published in a highly respected peer-reviewed journal before you make such a grandiose statement? ... I assume you have a whole bunch of robust empirical evidence to back it up?<br />Tobushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05529220083970625733noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-46193734739872931582014-05-30T21:57:21.355+03:002014-05-30T21:57:21.355+03:00@Tobus
"So, by your spurious logic, Amerindi...@Tobus<br /><br />"So, by your spurious logic, Amerindians must be derived from Loschbour!"<br /><br />No, Loschbour ultimately derives from an Amerindian population. It has "Amerindian-admixture" and "Amerindian-like" population stricture. Amerindians don't have anything from Loschbour.<br /><br />"From the abstract"<br /><br />They are wrong. Scientists can be wrong, especially if they are not anthropologists but trying to tackle an anthropological problem. Get used to this!German Dziebelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10703679732205862495noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-71374320592631412202014-05-29T13:32:29.009+03:002014-05-29T13:32:29.009+03:00@German:
Loschbour proves that ancient Europeans w...@German:<br /><i>Loschbour proves that ancient Europeans were more like Amerindians</i><br /><br />So, by your spurious logic, Amerindians must be derived from Loschbour! <br /><br /><br /><i>There's no such proof there. Amerindians share the same "bottleneck situation" with Denisovans and Neandertals and the rest of modern human</i><br /><br />From the abstract: "..and give information about human population history as recently as 2,000 years ago, <b>including the bottleneck in the peopling of the Americas</b>, and separations within Africa, East Asia and Europe."<br /><br />... and P4: "For the Mexican ancestors we see an extended period of low population size following the out of Africa bottleneck, with the lowest value around 15kya, which is particularly pronounced <br />when filtering out genomic regions of recent European ancestry due to admixture (dashed line in Figure 3, see Online Methods). <b>This extended bottleneck is consistent with estimates of <br />the time that the Native American ancestors crossed the Bering Strait and moved into <br />America</b>"<br /> Tobushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05529220083970625733noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-81539117666307682432014-05-27T23:57:31.129+03:002014-05-27T23:57:31.129+03:00@Tobus
"Loshbour proves these populations we...@Tobus<br /><br />"Loshbour proves these populations were *not* particularly heterozygous at all - you are projecting (and overstating!) modern traits onto ancient populations."<br /><br />We're comparing apples to apples. Modern Amerindians to modern East Asians + Europeans. Loschbour proves that ancient Europeans were more like Amerindians, rather than the other way around. You're trying to hijack a piece of evidence that blatantly contradicts out-of-Africa and supports out-of-America. Good try but no cigar!<br /><br />"On top of this Schiffels proves (yet again!) that Amerindians underwent a bottleneck that the other lineages didn't, thus reducing their heterozygosity relative to the others - you are ignoring solid and repeatedly confirmed data."<br /><br />There's no such proof there. Amerindians share the same "bottleneck situation" with Denisovans and Neandertals and the rest of modern humans moved away from ancestral homozygosity best preserved in modern Amerindians.<br /><br />"Did you actually read the paper on how ADMIXTURE works?"<br /><br />Yes.German Dziebelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10703679732205862495noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-59420507135273217052014-05-24T04:16:47.593+03:002014-05-24T04:16:47.593+03:00@German:
Your idea is total nonsense: two highly d...@German:<br /><i>Your idea is total nonsense: two highly divergent and heterozygous branches coming together in one population would make it very genetically diverse</i><br /><br />Loshbour proves these populations were *not* particularly heterozygous at all - you are projecting (and overstating!) modern traits onto ancient populations.<br /><br />On top of this Schiffels proves (yet again!) that Amerindians underwent a bottleneck that the other lineages didn't, thus reducing their heterozygosity relative to the others - you are ignoring solid and repeatedly confirmed data.<br /><br /><i>You are trying to correct my "arbitrariness" with science fiction.</i><br /><br />Did you actually read the paper on how ADMIXTURE works? Please do, I'm sure you will find it enlightening and it should clear up the obvious misconceptions you have about how to interpret it's results.Tobushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05529220083970625733noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-10977369364485129232014-05-23T03:19:14.220+03:002014-05-23T03:19:14.220+03:00" two highly divergent and heterozygous branc..." two highly divergent and heterozygous branches coming together in one population would make it very genetically diverse". <br /><br />Not if it subsequently underwent a population bottleneck. But, of course, you don't understand genetics or evolutionary biology and so we have come to expect nonsense from you. <br /><br />"we see Amerindians forming a single highly homozygous cluster of high divergence from the European and East Asian clusters". <br /><br />I presume that with this comment you are joking. I was under the impression you have seriously been proposing that both Europeans and East Asians descend from Amerindians but if Amerindians are a 'single highly homozygous cluster' they cannot possibly be ancestral to any populations highly divergent from them. <br /><br />"You are trying to correct my 'arbitrariness'. <br /><br />Now it all makes sense. Your objective is just to arbitrarily offer conflicting interpretations of various data just as some sort of private joke. terrythttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17327062321100035888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-34170817311060625942014-05-23T00:42:47.248+03:002014-05-23T00:42:47.248+03:00@Tobus
"It means they have more common share...@Tobus<br /><br />"It means they have more common shared drift than Europeans/East Asian despite having the same branch length temporally, and being less genetically diverse. This is consistent with them receiving DNA from two separate post-Yoruba branches, in fact it's hard to reconcile any other way."<br /><br />The "other way" is the one to reconcile it. Your idea is total nonsense: two highly divergent and heterozygous branches coming together in one population would make it very genetically diverse. But instead we see Amerindians forming a single highly homozygous cluster of high divergence from the European and East Asian clusters.<br /><br />""Amerindians don't have any of the MA-1 components but the Amerindian one, which means they postdate the appearance of the Amerindian component in East Asia"... Amerindians not having an MA-1 components means no such thing - the components are modern ones retrofitted, so the Amerindian one could certainly have arisen after the others. You made a arbitrary conclusion and are stating as a proven fact."<br /><br />Back to the UFO idea? You are trying to correct my "arbitrariness" with science fiction.German Dziebelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10703679732205862495noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-44880099258264617262014-05-22T14:46:55.912+03:002014-05-22T14:46:55.912+03:00@German:
And how does it contradict what I said?
...@German:<br /><i>And how does it contradict what I said?</i><br /><br />It doesn't contradict it, it just points out that your conclusion isn't a logical inference from the data - to wit "Amerindians don't have any of the MA-1 components but the Amerindian one, which means they postdate the appearance of the Amerindian component in East Asia"... Amerindians not having an MA-1 components means no such thing - the components are modern ones retrofitted, so the Amerindian one could certainly have arisen after the others. You made a arbitrary conclusion and are stating as a proven fact.<br /><br /><i>But Amerindians get a higher score on their axis than Europeans on theirs. It means they are effectively more divergent than West Eurasians</i><br /><br />It means they have more common shared drift than Europeans/East Asian despite having the same branch length temporally, and being less genetically diverse. This is consistent with them receiving DNA from two separate post-Yoruba branches, in fact it's hard to reconcile any other way.<br /> <br />Tobushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05529220083970625733noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-33371590600480461232014-05-22T04:27:39.164+03:002014-05-22T04:27:39.164+03:00"No it doesn't! What did you say your PhD..."No it doesn't! What did you say your PhD was for again?" <br /><br />'Dances with Indians' wasn't it? <br /><br />"I don't think getting a degree is a wise use of your time". <br /><br />Getting a degree was certainly not a wise use of your time if your objective was to understand genetics or evolutionary biology. But perhaps your objective was to gain a living in the marketing sector. terrythttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17327062321100035888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-13373387520526908352014-05-21T17:10:56.842+03:002014-05-21T17:10:56.842+03:00@Tobus
"All it means is that modern Amerindi...@Tobus<br /><br />"All it means is that modern Amerindians are the "best fit" for about 30% of MA-1s DNA."<br /><br />And how does it contradict what I said? the Amerindian 30% of MA-1 DNA is ancestral, all others post-date the migration from the Americas, hence they are not found in the Americas. Are you still planning to get a degree?<br /><br />"Amerindians get the same score (~0.16) on the Sardinian axis that Europeans get on the Karitiana one - as I explained to you earlier, this a function of how the f3 maths works."<br /><br />Yes. That's exactly how I explained to you the mutual relationship between MA-1 and Amerindians. But Amerindians get a higher score on their axis than Europeans on theirs. It means they are effectively more divergent than West Eurasians. I don't think getting a degree is a wise use of your time. German Dziebelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10703679732205862495noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-35930628207554191572014-05-20T14:44:08.080+03:002014-05-20T14:44:08.080+03:00@German:
Precisely the opposite. Amerindians don&#...@German:<br /><i>Precisely the opposite. Amerindians don't have any of the MA-1 components but the Amerindian one, which means they postdate the appearance of the Amerindian component in East Asia.</i><br /><br />No it doesn't! What did you say your PhD was for again?<br /><br />All it means is that modern Amerindians are the "best fit" for about 30% of MA-1s DNA.<br /><br /><i>Amerindians are more divergent from West Eurasians on their axis than West Eurasians from Amerindians on theirs.</i><br /><br />Are you <i>sure</i> it was a PhD?<br /><br />Amerindians get the same score (~0.16) on the Sardinian axis that Europeans get on the Karitiana one - as I explained to you earlier, this a function of how the f3 maths works. <br />Tobushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05529220083970625733noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-45243240611469541482014-05-18T06:49:46.302+03:002014-05-18T06:49:46.302+03:00@Tobus
"It's clear that Amerindians have...@Tobus<br /><br />"It's clear that Amerindians have West Eurasian admixture."<br /><br />Precisely the opposite. Amerindians don't have any of the MA-1 components but the Amerindian one, which means they postdate the appearance of the Amerindian component in East Asia. Neither do they have the mtDNA or Y-DNA lineages found in MA-1. West Eurasians, ancient and modern, have "Amerindian" affinity. This is what the other Tobus admitted - "all of Eurasians have Amerindian affinity." And Patterson et al. refer to the phenomenon as "Amerindian admixture."<br /><br />"The direction of the "shift" on any particular charts depends on which population is the reference - eg Olalde 5a has Europeans shifted towards Amerindians on the X (Karitiana) axis, but Amerindians shifted towards Europeans on the Y (Sardinian) axis."<br /><br />Amerindians are more divergent from West Eurasians on their axis than West Eurasians from Amerindians on theirs. German Dziebelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10703679732205862495noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-90461774281156357062014-05-16T18:47:50.435+03:002014-05-16T18:47:50.435+03:00@German:
In another thread, Tobus is reluctantly a...@German:<br /><i>In another thread, Tobus is reluctantly admitting that all Eurasians are Amerindian shifted. </i><br /><br />As terry pointed out, an "Amerindian shift" on a particular is not necessarily proof of "Amerindian admixture".<br /><br />It's clear that Amerindians have West Eurasian admixture, not that Europeans have Amerindian admixture. The direction of the "shift" on any particular charts depends on which population is the reference - eg Olalde 5a has Europeans shifted towards Amerindians on the X (Karitiana) axis, but Amerindians shifted towards Europeans on the Y (Sardinian) axis.<br />Tobushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05529220083970625733noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-20188093293814340072014-05-16T03:25:55.561+03:002014-05-16T03:25:55.561+03:00"In another thread, Tobus is reluctantly admi..."In another thread, Tobus is reluctantly admitting that all Eurasians are Amerindian shifted". <br /><br />Everyone accepts 'all Eurasians are Amerindian shifted'. The reason is that Amerindians share ancestry with both East and West Eurasians. They are a mix of the two. It requires extremely convoluted 'reasoning' to make Amerindians ancestral to both East and West Eurasians. A convoluted argument that only you are prepared to indulge in. In other words you are the one here who is arguing the sun goes round the earth.terrythttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17327062321100035888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-23208878037618009662014-05-15T16:07:13.014+03:002014-05-15T16:07:13.014+03:00@Tobus
"Sorry, what signs of Amerindian admi...@Tobus<br /><br />"Sorry, what signs of Amerindian admixture? All evidence points to Amerindians having Eurasian admixture, not the other way round."<br /><br />In another thread, Tobus is reluctantly admitting that all Eurasians are Amerindian shifted. Apparently, there are two Tobuses around here: one who reluctantly admits that the Earth rotates around the Sun and the other who thinks that all evidence points to the Sun rotating around the Earth.<br />German Dziebelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10703679732205862495noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-18018394756738175772014-05-14T15:20:17.429+03:002014-05-14T15:20:17.429+03:00@German:
Well, the 7,000 year old population in Eu...@German:<br /><i>Well, the 7,000 year old population in Europe, with a clear sign of Amerindian admixture</i><br /><br />Sorry, what signs of Amerindian admixture? All evidence points to Amerindians having Eurasian admixture, not the other way round.<br /><br /><br />Tobushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05529220083970625733noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-86564659769638180592014-05-13T17:05:19.186+03:002014-05-13T17:05:19.186+03:00@Tobus
"Except that we have evidence of a 7,...@Tobus<br /><br />"Except that we have evidence of a 7,000 year old population with an even lower level... and we have a number of other modern populations with levels only a few percent higher."<br /><br />Well, the 7,000 year old population in Europe, with a clear sign of Amerindian admixture, supports the notion that ancestral levels of homozygosity were much more frequent in the past in association with New World and New World-derived populations in the Old World.<br /><br />"with levels only a few percent higher."<br /><br />Sure, levels of homozygosity in the Old World follow the logic of genetic affinity with Amerindians.<br /><br />" within the bounds of expectation for a population which recently migrated through some of the most inhospitable environment humans can survive in. "<br /><br />Rather stayed put in most inhospitable environment humans and their hominin antecedents such as Denisovans and Neandertals could survive in for tens of thousands of years.German Dziebelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10703679732205862495noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-25715062603818613322014-05-12T19:05:03.816+03:002014-05-12T19:05:03.816+03:00@German:
10,000 years ago (after presumably 40,000...@German:<br /><i>10,000 years ago (after presumably 40,000 years of diversity accumulation) a highly derived population suddenly drops to the level of an ancestral population</i><br /><br />Except that we have evidence of a 7,000 year old population with an even lower level... and we have a number of other modern populations with levels only a few percent higher. So this level was evidently not so "ancestral" at all, and certainly within the bounds of expectation for a population which recently migrated through some of the most inhospitable environment humans can survive in. <br /><br />Tobushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05529220083970625733noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-52199876000074125582014-05-11T11:02:47.506+03:002014-05-11T11:02:47.506+03:00"This relatively small decline we see in Amer..."This relatively small decline we see in Amerindian heterozygosity is exactly what we'd expect from a genetic disruption like a bottleneck event". <br /><br />Possibly as much to do with the lack of any reasonable level of admixture with other populations after becoming isolated as well. We are becoming aware from genetic studies that there has been considerable movement around Eurasia and Africa. And even into New Guinea. <br /><br />"Did you present some facts?" <br /><br />I can't remember any either. <br /><br />" My statement is just a recap of Zhivotovsky and Cavalli-Sforza's interpretation of Amerindian demographics, which you likely have too short a memory to remember. the Prufer and Lazaridis data fully support it". <br /><br />Really? I don't remember any of them claiming humans came out of America. I grant it is probably possible to intentionally misrepresent their work to make it look as though they meant to say that humans had come from America. <br /><br />"I know evolution is a thing that's hard to believe in". <br /><br />Certainly to you it seems to be so, but others of us understand it readily enough. You seem unable to accept evolution involves changes in genes, not sudden miraculous creations. Genetic changes can come about through mutations in an existing genetic structure but the vast majority of new mutations are neutral, and most of the remainder are deleterious. That leaves very few advantageous one, and these few tried and tested genes are usually spread by population mixing. We now know that modern Europeans, for example, differ from earlier Europeans more through immigration of new populations rather than through genetic mutation and selection within the 'original' European population. <br /><br />"The ex nihilo creation of a highly heterozygous African population" <br /><br />Hang on a minute. I just replied to one of your comments elsewhere where you appear to believe in the ex nihilo creation of not one but two American populations: one with EDAR370A and one without. I have come to accept that consistency is not your strong point of course. You just interpret data the way you want to, with no consideration of the wider picture. terrythttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17327062321100035888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-2804050933840864512014-05-11T01:44:15.131+03:002014-05-11T01:44:15.131+03:00@Tobus
"Then what makes it "Nonsense&qu...@Tobus<br /><br />"Then what makes it "Nonsense" that Amerindian heterozygosity could be reduced to this apparently very normal and widespread level? Seems like it would be quite expected if that was the level of their ancestral populations at the time no?"<br /><br />10,000 years ago (after presumably 40,000 years of diversity accumulation) a highly derived population suddenly drops to the level of an ancestral population. After having admixed with another highly derived population. Pseudoscience.<br /><br />"one of the basic tenets of modern scientific theory."<br /><br />Science evolves - that's the basic tenet. Only religion is based on an initial revelation which makes newly discovered facts irrelevant unless they explicitly reinforce the revelation. <br /><br />"You seem to think some populations are "better" ("holier"?) than others based on their ancestry."<br /><br />No, but the use of biblical metaphors best describes the inner workings of your pseudoscientific mind. Highly heterozygous.German Dziebelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10703679732205862495noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-72425363057183055882014-05-10T16:00:00.325+03:002014-05-10T16:00:00.325+03:00@German:
Mid-Pleistocene populations in Eurasia ma...@German:<br /><i>Mid-Pleistocene populations in Eurasia may have ranged from 1.88 to 5.66 and Amerindians would fall into that bracket</i><br /><br />Then what makes it "Nonsense" that Amerindian heterozygosity could be reduced to this apparently very normal and widespread level? Seems like it would be quite expected if that was the level of their ancestral populations at the time no?<br /><br /><i>I know evolution is a thing that's hard to believe in. </i><br /><br />I don't have any problem believing in it - all the facts point there. Funny that you repeatedly claim that I'm making "creationist" arguments when it's you that has trouble understanding one of the basic tenets of modern scientific theory.<br /><br /><i>...fall from grace...</i><br /><br />?? You seem to think some populations are "better" ("holier"?) than others based on their ancestry - that a recent divergence or lower diversity somehow equates to a "fall from grace" or some other form of inferiority. I think you need to do some "anthropologising" on yourself in this regard - it's probably part of the issue that's holding you back. Amerindian culture and lifestyle is just as valid and interesting whether it's 10,000 years old or 100,000, you can still worship them (or however you want to describe your obsession) even if they're not the ultimate ancestors of all modern humans.Tobushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05529220083970625733noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-90760795900827787612014-05-09T21:26:44.352+03:002014-05-09T21:26:44.352+03:00@Tobus
"There's that lie again! Amerindi...@Tobus<br /><br />"There's that lie again! Amerindian heterozygozity is nowhere near mid-Pleistocene level, and you know it. In case you forgot the mlrho theta for Amerindians is 5.65 on Prufer, about 300% higher than Denisovan-level (1.88) and only 25% less than Han/Dai level (7.31)... I've had to correct you on this issue multiple times now, please stop repeating what you know is incorrect."<br /><br />What lie? You need to recalibrate your meds, Tobus. The numbers logic you quote - which, in general, fully support out-of-America - have no bearing on my statement that Amerindian population structure is of mid-Pleistocene extraction. Mid-Pleistocene populations in Eurasia may have ranged from 1.88 to 5.66 and Amerindians would fall into that bracket. Unlike East Asians who would be close to it but no cigar. My statement is just a recap of Zhivotovsky and Cavalli-Sforza's interpretation of Amerindian demographics, which you likely have too short a memory to remember. the Prufer and Lazaridis data fully support it.<br /><br />"That admixture between two extremely low-heterozygous populations would create a heterozygosity level some 3 times higher than either of them?!?... Sounds extremely far-fetched to me."<br /><br />I know evolution is a thing that's hard to believe in. The ex nihilo creation of a highly heterozygous African population with subsequent fall from grace through bottlenecks is much easier.<br /><br />"Did you present some facts?"<br /><br />Of course I did. Did out-of-Africanists do the same thing? Or they just thought they could ride off the coattails of cultural mythology?<br /><br />German Dziebelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10703679732205862495noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-6494920263432447662014-05-09T09:14:12.674+03:002014-05-09T09:14:12.674+03:00@German:
East Asian heterozygosity multiplied by W...@German:<br /><i>East Asian heterozygosity multiplied by West Eurasian heterozygosity and then reduced to nearly Mid-Pleistocene level.</i><br /><br />There's that lie again! Amerindian heterozygozity is nowhere near mid-Pleistocene level, and you know it. In case you forgot the mlrho theta for Amerindians is 5.65 on Prufer, about 300% higher than Denisovan-level (1.88) and only 25% less than Han/Dai level (7.31)... I've had to correct you on this issue multiple times now, please stop repeating what you know is incorrect.<br /><br />This relatively small decline we see in Amerindian heterozygosity is exactly what we'd expect from a genetic disruption like a bottleneck event. Remember also that we're talking about MA-1's heterozygozity not modern European's - it was likely lower than modern Amerindian heterozygosity to begin with. <br /><br /><i>It's very very believable, even most natural.</i><br /><br />That admixture between two extremely low-heterozygous populations would create a heterozygosity level some 3 times higher than either of them?!?... Sounds extremely far-fetched to me.<br /><br /><i>Facts favor out-of-America, consensus favors out-of-Africa. I think I'll go with facts. </i><br /><br />Did you present some facts? All I saw was intentional misrepresentation of others' work that explicitly rejected your point. But hey, you believe whatever makes you happy :)<br /><br />Tobushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05529220083970625733noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-34500019867300324132014-05-07T21:36:24.941+03:002014-05-07T21:36:24.941+03:00@Tobus
"consider also that it would only tak...@Tobus<br /><br />"consider also that it would only take a small bottleneck event or other genetic disruption to reduce East Asian-like heterozygosity to an Amerindian level."<br /><br />East Asian heterozygosity multiplied by West Eurasian heterozygosity and then reduced to nearly Mid-Pleistocene level. Nonsense!<br /><br />"(it would take nearly three assuming that all their heterozygosity was different and that all of it was retained, in reality it would probably a lot more than three),"<br /><br />It's very very believable, even most natural.<br /><br />"That's certainly not a universal or mainstream interpretation."<br /><br />Facts favor out-of-America, consensus favors out-of-Africa. I think I'll go with facts.German Dziebelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10703679732205862495noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-45585365244713734622014-05-06T09:35:58.667+03:002014-05-06T09:35:58.667+03:00@German:
An admixture event between just two Denis...@German:<br /><i>An admixture event between just two Denisovan-like population would make them reach the Amerindian level.</i><br /><br />Hardly (it would take nearly three assuming that all their heterozygosity was different and that all of it was retained, in reality it would probably a lot more than three), but consider also that it would only take a small bottleneck event or other genetic disruption to reduce East Asian-like heterozygosity to an Amerindian level.<br /><br /><i>The difference between Amerindians and Africans is not similar to the difference between 10,000 to 11,000</i><br /><br />Correct, I was using an extreme example to make my point clear - that it's more accurate to compare the ratio between the heterozygosity scores, not the raw distance. To rephrase what I said to be proportional to this data: A population of 1820 people is going to take longer to reach 4990 (a 2.75x increase) than a population of 4990 people will take to reach 9780 (a 1.95x increase), despite the what raw figures (3170 and 4730) might lead you to think.<br /><br /><i>I've produced the logic and the evidence</i><br /><br />You produced the logic, but the evidence was just misinterpreting words that mean "old" to mean "archaic" in a genetic sense - none of the sources you provided actually supported what you are saying, and it one case flat-out rejected it.<br /><br /><i>By all means, out-of-America treats modern Africans as "more modern" than what's implied by out-of-Africa.</i><br /><br />That's certainly not a universal or mainstream interpretation, but you are welcome to continue believing it if it makes you happy. <br />Tobushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05529220083970625733noreply@blogger.com