tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post3449811922172540514..comments2024-01-04T04:11:55.717+02:00Comments on Dienekes’ Anthropology Blog: An older layer of Eurasian admixture in Eastern AfricaDienekeshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02082684850093948970noreply@blogger.comBlogger48125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-19712781283556690102014-08-05T17:14:51.295+03:002014-08-05T17:14:51.295+03:00@Mangrove
"Circularity is very circular.&quo...@Mangrove<br /><br />"Circularity is very circular."<br /><br />Bingo!German Dziebelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10703679732205862495noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-68388748688616988072014-07-26T23:24:46.919+03:002014-07-26T23:24:46.919+03:00terryt posted:
"There obviously was a migrat...terryt posted:<br /><br />"There obviously was a migration out of Africa because all surviving haplogroups derive from African ones."<br /><br />Circularity is very circular.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-32174201704276961562014-07-18T04:18:55.536+03:002014-07-18T04:18:55.536+03:00"In 1492 the size of the migrant population w..."In 1492 the size of the migrant population was larger and the size of the source population was larger. But in the case of 1492 we have a clear evidence for the most divergent and African-specific lineages being carried out by the migrants. In the case of 50,000 years ago we don't. Why?" <br /><br />The evidence overwhelmingly indicates that just one Y-DNA African line and perhaps two African mt-DNA lines emerged on the earlier occasion. <br /><br />"Likely because there was no migration out of Africa in the latter case". <br /><br />Wrong. There obviously was a migration out of Africa because all surviving haplogroups derive from African ones. <br /><br />"A logical conclusion would be that those highly divergent and African-specific lineages were not part of the original modern human gene pool but were absorbed by the carriers of Eurasian lineages upon their entry into Africa". <br /><br />That doesn't make any sense at all. If the 'original modern human gene pool' was unable to breed with those 'highly divergent and African-specific lineages' before they left Africa the 'the carriers of Eurasian lineages upon their entry into Africa' would certainly have been unable to breed with them. terrythttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17327062321100035888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-22980064178035055582014-07-17T07:15:46.989+03:002014-07-17T07:15:46.989+03:00@GailT
"Seriously? You actually believe that...@GailT<br /><br />"Seriously? You actually believe that the population that expanded out of Africa 60,000 years ago was much larger than 11 million people? It is possible that it was no more than a few tens of thousands of people, or less, and they migrated from northeast Africa. It's absolutely crazy to suggest that there was a mass exodus from the entire continent 60,000 years ago that represented the full diversity of Africa at that time."<br /><br />I've always doubted your analytical abilities, but now I begin doubting your reading comprehension abilities, too. Just re-read my paragraph. The point is that in both cases (post 1492 and 50,000 years ago) a subset of a larger population left (or is proposed to have left) Africa. In 1492 the size of the migrant population was larger and the size of the source population was larger. But in the case of 1492 we have a clear evidence for the most divergent and African-specific lineages being carried out by the migrants. In the case of 50,000 years ago we don't. Why? Likely because there was no migration out of Africa in the latter case. On the other hand, we do have evidence for Eurasian-specific human lineages and Eurasian hominin lineages in Sub-Saharan Africa. A logical conclusion would be that those highly divergent and African-specific lineages were not part of the original modern human gene pool but were absorbed by the carriers of Eurasian lineages upon their entry into Africa.<br /><br />German Dziebelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10703679732205862495noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-77983668014963820972014-07-15T06:21:47.710+03:002014-07-15T06:21:47.710+03:00The genetic signature of this migration creates a ...<i>The genetic signature of this migration creates a gold standard of what we should expect to see if we postulate a subset of a much larger African population to have left Africa 50,000-60,000 years ago. </i><br /><br />Seriously? You actually believe that the population that expanded out of Africa 60,000 years ago was much larger than 11 million people? It is possible that it was no more than a few tens of thousands of people, or less, and they migrated from northeast Africa. It's absolutely crazy to suggest that there was a mass exodus from the entire continent 60,000 years ago that represented the full diversity of Africa at that time. GailThttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00971924422676678998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-30274209158566660102014-07-15T01:16:03.537+03:002014-07-15T01:16:03.537+03:00"What matters is that after 1492 a regionally..."What matters is that after 1492 a regionally circumscribed subset of a much larger African population moved to the New World". <br /><br />I get the distinct impression your comments regarding Africans is inspired by your deeply held racist attitude. We know that 'movement' did not come from 'a regionally circumscribed subset'. It came from virtually the whole west coast of Africa and even from parts of the east coast during the later stages of the slave trade. <br /><br />"The genetic signature of this migration creates a gold standard of what we should expect to see if we postulate a subset of a much larger African population to have left Africa 50,000-60,000 years ago". <br /><br />You're being deliberately stupid again, German. Surely the evidence shows that a much smaller population 'left Africa 50,000-60,000 years ago' than the population that left since 1492. And the earlier exit comprised a much smaller subset than did the later exit. <br /><br />"most African Americans trace their roots to West Africa (http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2009/12/10/0909559107.short?rss=1)". <br /><br />Yes, 'most'. From the link. <br /><br />"African ancestry is most similar to non-Bantu Niger-Kordofanian-speaking populations, consistent with historical documents of the African Diaspora and trans-Atlantic slave trade". <br /><br />'Most' of the ancestry of modern African-Americans derives from those people because they were the first there and have therefore provided most of the population. <br /><br />"We need more of folks like you - makes out-of-Africa an easy target for highly trained professionals like myself". <br /><br />So can you provide a list of 'highly trained professionals' who agree with your out of America belief? terrythttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17327062321100035888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-83695860927143926282014-07-13T01:30:25.422+03:002014-07-13T01:30:25.422+03:00"Recent discoveries have made even the dogmat..."Recent discoveries have made even the dogmatic geneticists question the serial bottleneck scenario for modern human population dispersals (http://biorxiv.org/content/early/2014/03/21/003517), so I'm not alone in questioning it". <br /><br />You are alone in questioning the African origin of modern haplogroups. The link questions the 'serial bottleneck scenario', not the 'out of Africascenario'. All that link says is that the spread beyond Africa was not simple. Populations both within Africa and outside it moved backwards and forwards. Quote: <br /><br />"long-‐range migration and concomitant population replacement<br />or admixture has occurred often<br />enough in human history that the<br />present-‐day inhabitants of many<br />places in the world often bear<br />little genetic relationship to<br />the more ancient peoples of the<br />same region". <br /><br />You are, once more, being deliberately stupid. <br /><br />"Lineages that are postulated to be the oldest had more time to spread around" <br /><br />'More time' is totally independent of 'more opportunity'. I'm sure you realise that and so again you're being deliberately stupid. You are certainly demonstrating ' your complete ignorance of the methods of phylogeographic analysis'. <br /><br />"all those African-specific lineages should've been present all over Africa by then. The chances to pick up older, more widely spread lineages are higher than the chances to pick up the newly evolved ones." <br /><br />They quite possibly were spread widely in Africa but subsequent movements of 'newly evolved ones' have eliminated them in many of the more accessible regions. And don't forget that 'newly evolved' Y-DNAs are only noticed because they have spread. Many new Y-DNA mutations arise but fail to lerave descendants. <br /><br />"Considering that African-specific A00, A0, A0a, A0b, A1, A1a, A1b, A1b1 and A1b2 lineages are not found outside of Africa along the putative routes of the founding migration, an African population apparently never left Africa". <br /><br />Another demonstration of 'your complete ignorance of the methods of phylogeographic analysis'. The fact that 'CDEF' is a clade within 'A1b2' surely shows that haplogroup is African in origin. And the fact we do not find a trail of African Y-DNA along any route out of Africa shows just a single branch emerged from that continent. Or any others that did so failed to survive. <br /><br />"East Africa is even more diverse than West Africa" <br /><br />So? <br /><br />"all the more reasons to expect all those African-specific lineages to be dispersed around Eurasia and the Sahul". <br /><br />Much of that East African diversity is a product of Eurasian lineages moving back to Africa. Another source is later arrivals of West African Haplogroups. <br /><br />"Again, it's a special hypothesis that requires special proof which is missing". <br /><br />The 'special proof' is surely required from those who claim 'modern behaviour' is a product of genetics. There is a huge variety of modern behaviour, none of which coincides with genetics. terrythttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17327062321100035888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-53387206073731249142014-07-12T23:15:01.525+03:002014-07-12T23:15:01.525+03:00@GailT
"No, that is your conclusion based on...@GailT<br /><br />"No, that is your conclusion based on your faulty logic and your complete ignorance of the methods of phylogeographic analysis."<br /><br />You are just bluffing. I cited a well known fact.<br /><br />"It is estimated that 11 million Africans survived the post-1492 slave transport to the Americas. They were captured from across sub-Saharan Africa. The fact that you claim this would present the same genetic signature as the migration of small bands of hunter-gatherers from northeast Africa ca 70,000 years ago proves either that your are trolling, or that you are an idiot."<br /><br />It doesn't matter how many African slaves were captured or how many survived. What matters is that after 1492 a regionally circumscribed subset of a much larger African population moved to the New World. The genetic signature of this migration creates a gold standard of what we should expect to see if we postulate a subset of a much larger African population to have left Africa 50,000-60,000 years ago. In the former case, we see the presence of African specific lineages, including most "ancient" ones such as Y-DNA A00 present in the daughter population. We don't see anything of that sort anywhere along the putative route(s) of an out of African migration 50,000 years ago. You are welcome to try and prove, using ancient DNA, your ideas about a bottleneck that left all the most ancient African lineages behind but spread all the most recent ones all over the globe but for now they are baseless. <br /><br />BTW, most African Americans trace their roots to West Africa (http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2009/12/10/0909559107.short?rss=1). So you need to educate yourself about the history of the world in the last 500 years before you venture any further.<br /><br />Gail, you are a troll AND an idiot. And I'm very glad that you represent out-of-Africa. We need more of folks like you - makes out-of-Africa an easy target for highly trained professionals like myself.German Dziebelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10703679732205862495noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-53178875552209328242014-07-11T21:05:49.848+03:002014-07-11T21:05:49.848+03:00@GD
By your "logic," Austronesians came...@GD<br /><br /><i>By your "logic," Austronesians came from New Zealand and colonized Taiwan. The reality is the opposite. Why? Because hg C2 was picked up from an extinct "Papuan" substrate somewhere along the way from taiwan to New Zealand.</i><br /><br />No, that is your conclusion based on your faulty logic and your complete ignorance of the methods of phylogeographic analysis. <br /><br /><br /><i>Since no hgs A00, A or B are found along the putative out-of-Africa route of migration of modern humans (but they are abundantly found among post-1492 African Americans, so we know what genetic signature a true out-of-Africa migration would leave behind)</i><br /><br />It is estimated that 11 million Africans survived the post-1492 slave transport to the Americas. They were captured from across sub-Saharan Africa. The fact that you claim this would present the same genetic signature as the migration of small bands of hunter-gatherers from northeast Africa ca 70,000 years ago proves either that your are trolling, or that you are an idiot.GailThttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00971924422676678998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-51342134463539257442014-07-09T04:13:08.306+03:002014-07-09T04:13:08.306+03:00@terryT
"German, do you really believe that ...@terryT<br /><br />"German, do you really believe that haplogroups A00, A0, A0a, A0b, A1, A1a, A1b, A1b1 and A1b2(in fact BT) were evenly distributed across the whole African continent when any population emerged into Eurasia? If find such a scenario impossible to accept, but obviously you believe every modern population contains exactly the same proportion of haplogroups as every other one. "<br /><br />Recent discoveries have made even the dogmatic geneticists question the serial bottleneck scenario for modern human population dispersals (http://biorxiv.org/content/early/2014/03/21/003517), so I'm not alone in questioning it. I take this kind of critique to the next level by pointing out that a bottleneck is a special case that needs special proof. Lineages that are postulated to be the oldest had more time to spread around and considering that A00 coalesced at some 300,000 YBP and CDEF presumably left Africa 50,000 YBP all those African-specific lineages should've been present all over Africa by then. The chances to pick up older, more widely spread lineages are higher than the chances to pick up the newly evolved ones. Considering that hgs D, C and F are not found in Africa, we don't have any evidence that they evolved there. Considering that African-specific A00, A0, A0a, A0b, A1, A1a, A1b, A1b1 and A1b2 lineages are not found outside of Africa along the putative routes of the founding migration, an African population apparently never left Africa. The necessary conclusion is that Africa was peopled from Eurasia and A00, A0, A0a, A0b, A1, A1a, A1b, A1b1 and A1b2 were absorbed from an extinct substrate.<br /><br />"Or are you now claiming that the 'migration' to America left from exactly the same region as the postulated out of Africa one?"<br /><br />East Africa is even more diverse than West Africa - all the more reasons to expect all those African-specific lineages to be dispersed around Eurasia and the Sahul.<br /><br />"'Modern human behaviour' is an almost totally separate, and later, development from 'Modern human phenotype'."<br /><br />Again, it's a special hypothesis that requires special proof which is missing. There are no attested human populations who are modern phenotypically but not behaviorally, so "AMH" is a myth. Archaeology is not a good science to identify human behavior, hence the only reliable sources are worldwide patterns of modern behavior trait distribution found in linguistics, kinship studies, ethnology, etc.German Dziebelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10703679732205862495noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-20960939978397053992014-07-09T01:19:28.074+03:002014-07-09T01:19:28.074+03:00"hg C2 was picked up from an extinct 'Pap..."hg C2 was picked up from an extinct 'Papuan' substrate somewhere along the way from taiwan to New Zealand". <br /><br />Why do you pretend to be stupid? Or are you not pretending? I have already pointed out that your Papuan substrate is far from 'extinct'. <br /><br />" Since no hgs A00, A or B are found along the putative out-of-Africa route of migration of modern humans (but they are abundantly found among post-1492 African Americans, so we know what genetic signature a true out-of-Africa migration would leave behind)" <br /><br />Again either pretending to be stupid or actually being stupid. The 'putative out-of-Africa route of migration' would have been through the extremely narrow stretch of land between the Mediterranean and Red Seas. The 'post-1492' migration involved the whole west African coast from the Gambia to Angola, and points inland. It is hardly surprising that just a single branch of Africa Y-DNA BT emerged through the first gap while a wider sample made the second exit. Again your comparison is invalid. <br /><br />"Ust-Ishim at 45K is not hg A or B" <br /><br />If you know what it is please tell. terrythttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17327062321100035888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-90014337419930492772014-07-08T07:00:55.658+03:002014-07-08T07:00:55.658+03:00@akb
"Are void of logic. Or perhaps are base...@akb<br /><br />"Are void of logic. Or perhaps are based on your ignorance of African genetics. You are running into the same problem of knowledge as German.<br /><br />First of all you make the mistake of thinking Farming and pastoral populations are defined by E. AFRICANS as a whole are high in E. But the African ethnic groups that have the longest history of pastoralism are actually High in Haplogroups A and B. In fact some of them are A and B exclusive in Southern Sudan."<br /><br />You are just another nameless worshipper of Africa, the womb of peoples. The distribution of hgs A and B in Africa is irrelevant to the point I (and maybe Vincent) am making. Compare: Maoris are 80+% hg C2, which branched off from a node far more upstream than hg O1, which is frequently found in Taiwan. By your "logic," Austronesians came from New Zealand and colonized Taiwan. The reality is the opposite. Why? Because hg C2 was picked up from an extinct "Papuan" substrate somewhere along the way from taiwan to New Zealand. Just like hgs A and B were picked up from extinct hominin species in Africa by the incoming carriers of hg DE, which is a subset of the extra-African and modern human clade CF. Since no hgs A00, A or B are found along the putative out-of-Africa route of migration of modern humans (but they are abundantly found among post-1492 African Americans, so we know what genetic signature a true out-of-Africa migration would leave behind), modern Africans must have picked them up from a substrate. BTW, Ust-Ishim at 45K is not hg A or B, so no African-specific Y-DNA lineages have so far been detected in ancient remains outside of Africa.<br />German Dziebelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10703679732205862495noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-42965779037721496722014-07-08T05:17:57.275+03:002014-07-08T05:17:57.275+03:00"A bottleneck is a special explanation that r..."A bottleneck is a special explanation that requires special proof. I'm not aware of any special proof for an out-of-Africa bottleneck. It's just assumed". <br /><br />German, do you really believe that haplogroups A00, A0, A0a, A0b, A1, A1a, A1b, A1b1 and A1b2(in fact BT) were evenly distributed across the whole African continent when any population emerged into Eurasia? If find such a scenario impossible to accept, but obviously you believe every modern population contains exactly the same proportion of haplogroups as every other one. <br /><br />"We easily find A00, A, B and E in African Americans and they represent a well-documented migration out of Africa since 1492" <br /><br />Or are you now claiming that the 'migration' to America left from exactly the same region as the postulated out of Africa one? You childish clinging to unreality is perhaps to be admired, but it certainly does not involve 'science'. <br /><br />"From a bunch of poorly preserved and half-archaic skull fragments not associated with any modern human behavior?" <br /><br />You are now making the mistake ( and I readily admit you are not the only one) of confusing technological developments with genetic ones. 'Modern human behaviour' is an almost totally separate, and later, development from 'Modern human phenotype'. terrythttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17327062321100035888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-45213748952989355282014-07-08T00:59:07.726+03:002014-07-08T00:59:07.726+03:00Mr akb, thank you for the compliments and good wor...Mr akb, thank you for the compliments and good words spoken to me, I am honoured. Now let's correct something.<br /><br />"First of all you make the mistake of thinking Farming and pastoral populations are defined by E."<br /><br />How is this a mistake? Bantu people occupy the majority of Central and South Africa. Bantu people have expanded considerably due to farming techniques. 1+1 = Bantu people were and are farmers, together with West Africans, from which they split. Is this a mistake? I don't think so. <br />I said "generally high in haplogroup E", not "exclusively", learn how to read. Haplogroup E-P2 is the most correlated both to farming populations and pastoralist populations (see Gebremeskel et al. 2014). Pastoralist populations are higher in haplogroup E than in other haplogroups, except in Sudan. <br /><br />"AFRICANS as a whole are high in E"<br /><br />Yes, especially non-hunter-gatherers (a.k.a. Paleoafricans).<br /><br />"Secondly your other idea about pastoral and Farmer ancestries not having "contact..."<br /><br />Learn how to read, Part Two. Where did I state "pastoral and Farmer ancestries not having contact"? I stated that the ANCESTORS of pastoralist AND farmers (i.e. haplogroup E and its sub-clades) not having contact WITH HUNTER-GATHERERS prior to 35 kya. You didn't get my point, that is: Neo-Africans (haplogroup E) back-migrated from Eurasia and did not have contacts with Paleoafricans (haplogroups A and B) prior to 35 kya, because this date marks the interbreeding between Paleoafricans and an archaic human form. <br /><br />"Lastly the entire idea is bankrupt because you are ignoring the maternal data indicating long term continual migration." <br /><br />And, can you tell me how does this correlate with my "ideas"? I find it difficult to get the meaning out of this sentence of yours, but I answer the way I understood it. Haplogroup E caused the extermination of the male Paleoafrican population, then its carriers took Paleoafrican women. It's like R-V88 in Northern Cameroon: paternal lineage of Eurasian origin, maternal lineages of exclusively Paleoafrican origin.<br /><br />That said, do you have other "evidence" to attack the rest of what I wrote? If yes, first go back to your parents and ask them to educate you better. Education is important when you discuss with other people. The problem of knowledge is more yours than mine.Vincenthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13096774136070274675noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-2911127876092623082014-07-03T17:17:05.625+03:002014-07-03T17:17:05.625+03:00@ Vincent. Looking at these two statements:
&quo...@ Vincent. Looking at these two statements:<br /><br />"The evidence of archaic admixture in sub-Saharan Africans suggests that the ancestors of modern farming and pastoralist populations (generally high in haplogroup E) did not have contacts with the ancestors of modern hunter-gatherers before 35 kya"<br /><br />and <br /><br />"Therefore I suggest that most of the African non-Paleoafrican components cited by you originated after 35 kya (i.e. after interbreeding between E-carrying Eurasians and A- and B-carrying Paleoafricans)"<br /><br />Are void of logic. Or perhaps are based on your ignorance of African genetics. You are running into the same problem of knowledge as German.<br /><br />First of all you make the mistake of thinking Farming and pastoral populations are defined by E. AFRICANS as a whole are high in E. But the African ethnic groups that have the longest history of pastoralism are actually High in Haplogroups A and B. In fact some of them are A and B exclusive in Southern Sudan. These would be speakers of the Nilo-Saharan phylum. Keep in mind the pastoralism precedes agriculture in Africa by arguably 4 or 5 THOUSAND years. The Transmittal of pastoral practices and technology as well as that language family has been associated with Haplogroups A and B.<br /><br />Secondly your other idea about pastoral and Farmer ancestries not having "contact" is also dubious because in the case of Haplogroups A and B. They actually have SHARED ancestors reaching back far before 35kya.<br /><br />-A-M13 - Is the lineage that defines the root haplogroup of East and Central Africans, Nilo-Saharan and Afroasiaitc alike. On the other hand A-M51 defines the main root lineages in Southern African Hunter-gatherers. Both are united by A-M32 in DEEP antiquity...way before 35kya. Their ancestry is in fact shared on this Y-chromosome. Southern Africans also carry A-M6.<br /><br />This observation was highlighted in 2001 in an article hence the Title :<br />Ethiopians and Khoisan Share the Deepest Clades of the Human Y-Chromosome Phylogeny. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC384897/<br /><br />-Moving on the Haplogroup B it shows the exact same pattern. B-M109 and B-G1 define the main B lineages in Nilo-Saharans and Bantu of Eastern and Central Africa. Meanwhile B-M112 is the main Haplogroup lineage associated with Twa (Pygmies) and Hunter-gatherers in East and Central Africa. There is a very deep divergence between the two but they SHARE mutation B-M812 prior to 35kya.<br /><br />Lastly the entire idea is bankrupt because you are ignoring the maternal data indicating long term continual migration.astenbhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11139602696907365942noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-25807385772634044992014-07-03T03:33:45.872+03:002014-07-03T03:33:45.872+03:00"The age estimates for A and B are well withi..."The age estimates for A and B are well within the estimates for the origins of AMH, so there is no basis for GD or anyone else to claim that they represent archaic humans". <br /><br />Exactly, but that still leaves open the status of A00. The fact that the non-African Y-DNA branch, CT, forms a closely related branch to African B is surely evidence that those non-African haplogroups originated in Africa. Therefore A and B did not 'introgress' into the 'modern human genetic pool'. They lie at the base of it. <br /><br /><br />"A00 is dated much more recently than the split between Neandertals and AMH" <br /><br />Yes. Even if A00 represents an 'archaic' line it is far closer to the modern human lines than it is to any other archaic population. terrythttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17327062321100035888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-29344041112647467952014-07-03T00:13:28.410+03:002014-07-03T00:13:28.410+03:00@TerryT
"You always insist that any populati...@TerryT<br /><br />"You always insist that any population that moved out of Africa would automatically contain every single haplogroup that existed in Africa at the time."<br /><br />A bottleneck is a special explanation that requires special proof. I'm not aware of any special proof for an out-of-Africa bottleneck. It's just assumed. We easily find A00, A, B and E in African Americans and they represent a well-documented migration out of Africa since 1492. No magical bottleneck made a tiny subset of the African population which was made slaves leave all of their African genes behind. They are all well and alive in the New World now. Nothing of that sort is seen along the putative route(s) of an out-of-Africa migration 100,000-40,000 years ago. Hence, A00, A and B were likely absorbed from "archaic" hominins.<br /><br />"Did you buy your PhDs in anthropology?"<br /><br />No. I've earned two of those. What's the ROI on your high school diploma, Terry?<br /><br />@GailT<br /><br />"The age estimates for A and B are well within the estimates for the origins of AMH,"<br /><br />Where did we get those estimates? From a bunch of poorly preserved and half-archaic skull fragments not associated with any modern human behavior? This is not a very secure material to create a baseline to interpret everything else.German Dziebelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10703679732205862495noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-11463254890424395592014-07-01T07:49:21.939+03:002014-07-01T07:49:21.939+03:00The data as we have it at present does suggest tha...<i>The data as we have it at present does suggest that A00 split from the remaining surviving Y-DNA lines before 'modern humans' first appeared.</i> <br /><br />The age estimates for A and B are well within the estimates for the origins of AMH, so there is no basis for GD or anyone else to claim that they represent archaic humans. <br /><br />A00 is dated much more recently than the split between Neandertals and AMH, so even if A00 did represent an archaic human line (which is questionable given the uncertainty in the dates for A00 and for the origin of AMH), it was still more modern than Neandertals. <br />GailThttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00971924422676678998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-86770987100892652972014-07-01T05:47:42.577+03:002014-07-01T05:47:42.577+03:00"They are most divergent among haplogroups fo..."They are most divergent among haplogroups found among modern humans and not found outside of Africa along any of the putative out-of-Africa migration routes". <br /><br />German, stop talking rubbish. You always insist that any population that moved out of Africa would automatically contain every single haplogroup that existed in Africa at the time. To me that shows you know very little about genetics or evolutionary biology. You even seem to have a very tenuous grasp of human behaviour. Did you buy your PhDs in anthropology? I agree Y-DNAs A and B are the most divergent from the 'main' stem of surviving human Y-DNAs. Of course it is impossible to be absolutely sure because no ancient Y-DNA has yet been discovered but the mt-DNA evidence supports the idea that<br />Y-DNA A and B are far closer to those Y-DNAs than they are to any Neanderthal of Denisovan Y-DNA lines. <br /><br />"Y-DNA hgs A and B were absorbed into the modern human genetic pool from pre-existing, 'archaic' African hominins". <br /><br />Surely the fact that A and B branch off early from the other surviving Y-DNAs is adequate evidence for a deep African origin for all surviving Y-DNAs. <br /><br />"(or treat Polynesian hg C2 as introgression from an extinct Papuan substrate)" <br /><br />More rubbish. There is nothing 'extinct' about Y-DNA C2 (or C1c as it is now classified). The basal form of the haplogroup is still found in Southern Wallacea, where it almost certainly originated. terrythttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17327062321100035888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-56734545195443753142014-06-28T23:59:49.679+03:002014-06-28T23:59:49.679+03:00"The oldest modern skulls that I know of are ..."The oldest modern skulls that I know of are 160k years old from Africa" <br /><br />German does actually have a point. The data as we have it at present does suggest that A00 split from the remaining surviving Y-DNA lines before 'modern humans' first appeared. The question then arises as to at what point did those remaining lines become modern human? And how can we tell a modern human from its immediate ancestor? <br /><br />It turns out that we can draw the dividing line between archaic and modern humans almost anywhere we wish to. There is certainly no abrupt change: <br /><br />http://www.unz.com/gnxp/whole-genomes-as-a-window-into-the-past/<br /><br />Adding to the problem is the apparent anomaly that the surviving Y- and mt-DNA lines each originate in separate regions within Africa, and at separate times: Y-DNA earlier and further west that mt-DNA. We don't even know if the two lines left Africa together. <br /><br />However we do know that genes survive from at least two branches of modern humans' archaic Eurasian relations. Does this mean that individuals carrying Y-DNA from an 'archaic' human are less 'modern' than are those individuals carrying a-DNA from archaic Neanderthals or Denisovans? terrythttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17327062321100035888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-54957341780392434062014-06-26T07:48:15.847+03:002014-06-26T07:48:15.847+03:00"Are you intending to imply that the Y haplog..."Are you intending to imply that the Y haplogroups A and B not modern humans but are pre-HominiDs haplogroups? Because that is how it reads to me". <br /><br />As I understand his belief that is exactly what he means. But oddly although he claims Amerindians mixed with 'West Eurasians' and 'Papuans' he doesn't see these as 'pre-HominiDs'. German's beliefs are a very strange mix. terrythttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17327062321100035888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-65389379817085257782014-06-26T07:18:43.279+03:002014-06-26T07:18:43.279+03:00@Annie Mouse
"German, what is your intention...@Annie Mouse<br /><br />"German, what is your intention in using the word hominiN (which includes the great apes) in contrast to "modern Eurasians" in the above sentence. Are you intending to imply that the Y haplogroups A and B not modern humans but are pre-HominiDs haplogroups? Because that is how it reads to me."<br /><br />It reads to me in the same way: Y-DNA hgs A and B were absorbed into the modern human genetic pool from pre-existing, "archaic" African hominins. <br /><br />"Genetically it is very clear that A and B are well within the HominiD group, intimately related to the other modern human haplogroups and only distantly related to cousin hominids like Neanderthals. "<br /><br />How come? They are most divergent among haplogroups found among modern humans and not found outside of Africa along any of the putative out-of-Africa migration routes. People have no problem proposing that A00 is an introgressed lineage (or treat Polynesian hg C2 as introgression from an extinct Papuan substrate), so why A and B should be treated differently? <br /><br />"The oldest modern skulls that I know of are 160k years old from Africa (Herto, Ethiopia). This is well withing the timeframe for modern humans (~200kya) I think Y haplogroup ages are underestimated, but even the BT split is currently dated to only about 76kya. These definitively MODERN, AFRICAN humans must have been A or something similar."<br /><br />We don't have any ancient DNA evidence for this, skull evidence is unreliable and since it's unlikely that we would ever obtain any secure evidence from Africa because of DNA perishability there, I would explore other hypotheses. It's a dead-end.German Dziebelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10703679732205862495noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-16746659638656485382014-06-25T09:46:22.885+03:002014-06-25T09:46:22.885+03:00"The best scientific hypothesis is that a mod..."The best scientific hypothesis is that a modern Eurasian population carrying Y-DNA DE lineages entered Sub-Saharan Africa and admixed with local hominin populations carrying hgs A00, A and B."<br /><br />German, what is your intention in using the word hominiN (which includes the great apes) in contrast to "modern Eurasians" in the above sentence. Are you intending to imply that the Y haplogroups A and B not modern humans but are pre-HominiDs haplogroups? Because that is how it reads to me. <br /><br />Genetically it is very clear that A and B are well within the HominiD group, intimately related to the other modern human haplogroups and only distantly related to cousin hominids like Neanderthals. <br /><br />The oldest modern skulls that I know of are 160k years old from Africa (Herto, Ethiopia). This is well withing the timeframe for modern humans (~200kya) I think Y haplogroup ages are underestimated, but even the BT split is currently dated to only about 76kya. These definitively MODERN, AFRICAN humans must have been A or something similar. Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11000684388615334278noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-11693939508419989412014-06-24T00:55:05.965+03:002014-06-24T00:55:05.965+03:00It is quite clear that there is a great migration ...It is quite clear that there is a great migration out of Europe, much earlier than any of the historically important had happened. The Pyramids and the kurgans are just the same **** in a larger package than the dolmen. It started in Europe and spread to Somalia, the Caucasus, israel, india and Korean. If this is not a sign of migration, which then would be enough proof. Of course dolmens are religious symbol, but what? It does not belong here. Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17381741378281990720noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-71198075947632307552014-06-22T16:43:02.510+03:002014-06-22T16:43:02.510+03:00@Earl Snerd
You make a good point. The evidence o...@Earl Snerd<br /><br />You make a good point. The evidence of archaic admixture in sub-Saharan Africans suggests that the ancestors of modern farming and pastoralist populations (generally high in haplogroup E) did not have contacts with the ancestors of modern hunter-gatherers before 35 kya (indicated as the likely date of archaic introgression). The more one goes farther from Central and South Africa, the more tha archaic admixture decreases, with lowest observed admixture in West and East Africa (I exclude North Africa because there is possibly no archaic admixture there other than from Neanderthals). This means that haplogroup E was not African in origin, because if this was the case we would observe similar levels of admixture in all sub-Saharan populations. This does not exclude the possibility of E-carriers migrating into South Africa prior to 35 kya without interbreeding with indigenous groups (Hofmeyr skull, exhibiting strong metric and non-metric similarity to UP Europeans). <br /><br />Therefore I suggest that most of the African non-Paleoafrican components cited by you originated after 35 kya (i.e. after interbreeding between E-carrying Eurasians and A- and B-carrying Paleoafricans), two of the non-African components (Maghrebi, Ethio-Somali) being the result of back-migrating E sub-clades from the Levant.<br /><br />@terryt<br /><br />You are welcome.Vincenthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13096774136070274675noreply@blogger.com