tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post4174206600479816900..comments2024-01-04T04:11:55.717+02:00Comments on Dienekes’ Anthropology Blog: Europeans = Neolithic farmers, Mesolithic hunter-gatherers and "Ancient North Eurasians" (etc.)Dienekeshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02082684850093948970noreply@blogger.comBlogger195125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-10387301856840467412016-05-20T13:06:37.857+03:002016-05-20T13:06:37.857+03:00So Sardinians or EEF are short and swarthy, ancien...So Sardinians or EEF are short and swarthy, ancient WHG are dark skinned and blue eyed, ANE is light skinned and ? eyed? I'm not sure. I always that Sardinia had a strong component of I HG which is mostly associated in Northern Europe where people tend to be much taller than Southern Europeans. I'm not understanding how the Sardinians went from being short and swarthy to tall and light skinned Vikings with flowing blonde hair and piercing blue eyes - (yes, Vikings as claimed by so many). YeomanDroidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01611121652703582669noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-82073914443955398492015-01-07T00:09:53.868+02:002015-01-07T00:09:53.868+02:00Incredible Bali is a residential development by In...Incredible Bali is a residential development by Incredible Lands and Farms. It has a thoughtful design and is well equipped with all the modern day amenities as well as basic facilities. The project offers various odd dimensional plots and villas. <br /><br /><a href="http://www.incrediblelands.com/bali-farms.html" title="Farm Land for Sale" rel="nofollow">Farm Land for Sale</a><br /><br /><a href="http://www.incrediblelands.com/100-percent-life-and-fun.html" title="Lands in Hyderabad" rel="nofollow">Lands in Hyderabad</a><br /><br /><a href="http://www.incrediblelands.com/bali-farms.html" title="Farm Land in Hyderabad" rel="nofollow">Farm Land in Hyderabad</a><br />Surelia Devhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00213607497253152006noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-14825572759699859342014-11-06T07:41:19.857+02:002014-11-06T07:41:19.857+02:00"So all the entire modern human population ar..."So all the entire modern human population are once, Negroid? Dark-skinned? It sounds like afrocentric to me". <br /><br />No, no. The quote says ' it is another nail in the coffin' of that theory. terrythttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17327062321100035888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-89037383585804189312014-11-03T03:17:34.428+02:002014-11-03T03:17:34.428+02:00@terryt "Not surprising, but it is another na...@terryt "Not surprising, but it is another nail in the coffin of the idea that modern humans emerged in a punctuated fashion and exploded from a singular tribe in eastern or southern Africa"<br /><br />So all the entire modern human population are once, Negroid? Dark-skinned? It sounds like afrocentric to me.Dobbyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11330841767766793540noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-79714121233815354642014-06-26T09:14:35.316+03:002014-06-26T09:14:35.316+03:00And this: Shows that the change from pre-modern to...And this: Shows that the change from pre-modern to modern human was no straightforward process: <br /><br />http://www.unz.com/gnxp/whole-genomes-as-a-window-into-the-past/<br /><br />Quote: <br /><br />"The most interesting, though not entirely surprising, result is the complexity of the “Out of Africa” event which resulted in the worldwide domination of modern humans. There are fewer independent checks on these inferences than the ones more recent, so all must be taken with a grain of salt. But using their method the authors find that the separation between non-Africans and Africans seems rather gradual up until ~50,000 years ago. This suggests that there was a lot of population structure and gene flow within Africa before the expansion of Eurasians. Not surprising, but it is another nail in the coffin of the idea that modern humans emerged in a punctuated fashion and exploded from a singular tribe in eastern or southern Africa".terrythttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17327062321100035888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-66977340698940874422014-06-23T09:05:25.641+03:002014-06-23T09:05:25.641+03:00Dobba, you might like to wrap your brain around th...Dobba, you might like to wrap your brain around this: <br /><br />http://dienekes.blogspot.co.nz/2014/06/sima-de-los-huesos-hominins-430.html<br /><br />You can see that the most likely situation is that Neanderthals developed from the complex genetic interplay between a variety of 'species' in northwest Eurasia. Quote: <br /><br />"This suggests that facial modification was the first step in the evolution of the Neandertal lineage, pointing to a mosaic pattern of evolution, with different anatomical and functional modules evolving at different rates". <br /><br />Maju has a more detailed post at his blog: <br /><br />http://forwhattheywereweare.blogspot.co.nz/2014/06/atapuerca-skulls-show-intermediate.html<br /><br />"<br /><br /><br />Months ago, it was found that Atapuerca's H. heidelbergensis and the Denisova hominins formed a single mitochondrial DNA clade to the exclusion of Neanderthals and us. However Arsuaga et al. find that facial traits in the hominins of Sima de los Huesos seem to be already much closer to those of Neanderthals than to the local precursors. Instead other cranial traits such as brain size do not seem to change yet". <br /><br />And here a more detailed analysis still: <br /><br />http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/06/140619142204.htm<br /><br />So what do you think was the pure Neanderthal population?terrythttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17327062321100035888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-88311059561206875612014-06-20T09:36:07.741+03:002014-06-20T09:36:07.741+03:00"If Homo indeed originated from several speci..."If Homo indeed originated from several species of australopithecines mixing together, then one of that species must be 100% pure". <br /><br />Well no. How would you decide which of the species was '100% pure'? Each individual Australopithecus 'species' was quite possibly a result of previous admixture within a series of pre-Australopithecus species. <br /><br />"I mean maybe Homo aren't descended from the Australopithecines". <br /><br />Difficult to see any other options. <br /><br />"But if you read the Wiki article about Homo erectus, it didn't directly said that Homo come from australopithecines". <br /><br />The article certainly didn't offer any alternative. Perhaps the writer assumed everyone already knew about the Australopithecus ancestry. But check this out: <br /><br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australopithecus<br /><br />Quote: <br /><br />"Archaeologists and palaeontologists widely hold that the australopiths played a significant part in human evolution, being the first of the hominins to show presence of a gene that causes increased length and ability of neurons in the brain, the duplicated SRGAP2 gene.[1] One of the australopith species eventually evolved into the Homo genus in Africa around two million years ago, which contained within it species like Homo habilis, H. ergaster, and eventually the modern human species, H. sapiens sapiens". terrythttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17327062321100035888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-25167098996616940152014-06-18T08:55:28.042+03:002014-06-18T08:55:28.042+03:00@terryt "You have just made two contradictory...@terryt "You have just made two contradictory statements: <br /><br />1) " Homo don't originated from the Australopithecus". <br /><br />2) "Homo come from different species from Australopithecus". <br /><br />With number two you still have homo originating from Australopithecus. My comment on admixture during the change means Homo originated from the mixing of at least two different Australopithecus 'species', if indeed we can refer to the variations within the grouping as being separate species."<br /><br />Sorry for the errors, I mean maybe Homo aren't descended from the Australopithecines. This is just my assumption.<br /><br />If Homo indeed originated from several species of australopithecines mixing together, then one of that species must be 100% pure.<br /><br />"Where does it say Homo erectus evolved from anything other than Australopithecus?"<br /><br />But if you read the Wiki article about Homo erectus, it didn't directly said that Homo come from australopithecines.<br />Dobbyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11330841767766793540noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-32593148952316614762014-06-15T08:16:05.494+03:002014-06-15T08:16:05.494+03:00@ Dobba:
You have just made two contradictory st...@ Dobba: <br /><br />You have just made two contradictory statements: <br /><br />1) " Homo don't originated from the Australopithecus". <br /><br />2) "Homo come from different species from Australopithecus". <br /><br />With number two you still have homo originating from Australopithecus. My comment on admixture during the change means Homo originated from the mixing of at least two different Australopithecus 'species', if indeed we can refer to the variations within the grouping as being separate species. <br /><br />"maybe from another species of Homo". <br /><br />'Another species of Homo' must have sprung from something. And there is no other option but Australopithecus. <br /><br />"Take a look at Wikipedia article on Homo erectus". <br /><br />Where does it say Homo erectus evolved from anything other than Australopithecus?terrythttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17327062321100035888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-64296531313585596642014-06-13T18:28:00.637+03:002014-06-13T18:28:00.637+03:00@terryt "And almost certainly duribg the chan...@terryt "And almost certainly duribg the change from Australopithecus to Homo"<br /><br />If I am not mistaken actually Homo don't originated from the Australopithecus as what the majority think. But rather Homo come from different species from Australopithecus maybe from another species of Homo. Take a look at Wikipedia article on Homo erectus.Dobbyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11330841767766793540noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-88654981653359550712014-06-12T04:40:05.072+03:002014-06-12T04:40:05.072+03:00"Are the earliest Homo sapiens also result of..."Are the earliest Homo sapiens also result of considerable admixture?" <br /><br />Almost certainly so. To me the evidence is fairly convincing that even in H. erectus times our evolution was driven to a considerable extent through admixture between local genetic variants. And almost certainly during the change from Australopithecus to Homo. terrythttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17327062321100035888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-28361599393419444022014-06-11T05:29:34.164+03:002014-06-11T05:29:34.164+03:00@terryt "That link should go some way to expl...@terryt "That link should go some way to explaining why. Basically humans have been moving around the earth so much that populations have not remained isolated sufficiently to become genetically separated. Most other species have formed geographically, and so genetically, isolated populations and so have formed subspecies. Technology has allowed humans to overcome geographic barriers to a large extent although steep genetic clines exist along the Himalayas, along Wallace's Line and, to a lesser extent, along the Altai region. It is therefore possible to regard the 'East Asian race' as distinct from, in turn, the 'Indian race', the 'Papuan race' and the 'European race'. But all these 'races' are the result of considerable admixture."<br /><br />How about the Negroid, Khoisan and Pygmies? How about the earliest Homo sapiens? Are the earliest Homo sapiens also result of considerable admixture?Dobbyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11330841767766793540noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-15233479985493321542014-06-09T06:07:22.523+03:002014-06-09T06:07:22.523+03:00"But there are Ainu people that look a lot li..."But there are Ainu people that look a lot like modern English people". <br /><br />Exactly my point. We actuall appear to have an ancient cline that spreads through northern Eurasia and down into Australia. The recent Dienekes post concerning Y-DNA K shows an example of a major haplogroup expansion from SE Asia. In case you haven't seen it here's the link: <br /><br />http://dienekes.blogspot.co.nz/2014/06/refined-structure-in-haplogroup-k-m526.html<br /><br />"why it is impossible for 100% pure races to exist?" <br /><br />That link should go some way to explaining why. Basically humans have been moving around the earth so much that populations have not remained isolated sufficiently to become genetically separated. Most other species have formed geographically, and so genetically, isolated populations and so have formed subspecies. Technology has allowed humans to overcome geographic barriers to a large extent although steep genetic clines exist along the Himalayas, along Wallace's Line and, to a lesser extent, along the Altai region. It is therefore possible to regard the 'East Asian race' as distinct from, in turn, the 'Indian race', the 'Papuan race' and the 'European race'. But all these 'races' are the result of considerable admixture. terrythttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17327062321100035888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-81942797417716736862014-06-06T14:03:59.285+03:002014-06-06T14:03:59.285+03:00One more question, why it is impossible for 100% p...One more question, why it is impossible for 100% pure races to exist?Dobbyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11330841767766793540noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-49870178497208357972014-06-06T14:00:05.565+03:002014-06-06T14:00:05.565+03:00@terryt "Many see a similarity between Ainu a...@terryt "Many see a similarity between Ainu and Australian Aborigines."<br /><br />But there are Ainu people that look a lot like modern English people. You can see it at the Google Images. Such as http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/5275f2f53fe2.jpg<br /><br />Dobbyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11330841767766793540noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-48449896484251485642014-05-30T11:58:56.856+03:002014-05-30T11:58:56.856+03:00"But I think the earliest Caucasians look a l..."But I think the earliest Caucasians look a lot like Ainu people or American natives, or even look like the Tuaregs". <br /><br />Many see a similarity between Ainu and Australian Aborigines. <br /><br />"What are exactly the differences between East Africans and West Africans?" <br /><br />Forest West Africans tend to have rounder faces that Sahelian or East Africans in my experience. That West African phenotype has expanded with the Bantu of course and so is more widespread today than it was several thousand years ago. <br /><br />"I think there are already varieties of physical types such as Caucasian, Mongoloid, etc." <br /><br />Possibly. But that idea is out of fashion these days. It reeks too much of the old 'regional continuity' theory. Personally I accept some level of regional continuity although the situation appears to be far more complicated than the old version of the theory. terrythttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17327062321100035888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-10269058987644014072014-05-29T06:21:02.018+03:002014-05-29T06:21:02.018+03:00@terryt "Maybe. But to me the earliest Eurasi...@terryt "Maybe. But to me the earliest Eurasian modern humans probably looked somewhat like Australian Aborigines."<br /><br />Maybe. But I think the earliest Caucasians look a lot like Ainu people or American natives, or even look like the Tuaregs. <br /><br />"The Khoi-San of southern Africa also don't look Negroid. That phenotype appears to be product of later movement originating in West Africa"<br /><br />That's why I think Caucasian or Mongoloid like features are already exist since the appearance of the earliest Homo sapiens. Khoisan people look like Mongoloid than Negroid.<br /><br />"Many East Africans are reasonably easily distinguished from West Africans"<br /><br />What are exactly the differences between East Africans and West Africans?<br /><br />"I agree that Africa made a genetic contribution to most populations around the Mediterranean, as did European populations"<br /><br />But we know that not all Africans look Negroid, I think there are already varieties of physical types such as Caucasian, Mongoloid, etc. <br /><br />What are your thoughts about the Homo sapiens idaltu? The other day I see an image showing a restoration of Homo sapiens idaltu in Google Images and it have Negroid physical appearance. How about the Omo remains physical appearance? Dobbyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11330841767766793540noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-88074601419287015102014-05-24T07:02:29.852+03:002014-05-24T07:02:29.852+03:00" do those earliest Homo sapiens look like Af..." do those earliest Homo sapiens look like Africans or Negroids?" <br /><br />Maybe. But to me the earliest Eurasian modern humans probably looked somewhat like Australian Aborigines. <br /><br />" I know not all Africans look Negroid (esp. North Africans)" <br /><br />The Khoi-San of southern Africa also don't look 'Negroid'. That phenotype appears to be the product of later movement originating in West Africa. <br /><br />" but are those earliest Homo sapiens in the East Africa look Negroid?" <br /><br />Many East Africans are reasonably easily distinguished from West Africans. What seems to have happened is that the change to 'modernity' did not happen overnight, and certainly not simultaneously throughout the world. At no point in time do we see a single phenotype that had become spread throughout the world. What we tend to see is local variation right from the beginning. <br /><br />"Giuseppe Sergi's much-debated book The Mediterranean Race (1901) argued that the Mediterranean race had in fact originated in Africa" <br /><br />That's a fairly old book. I doubt anyone today would agree that the 'Mediterranean race' is 'pure in its elements'. I agree that Africa made a genetic contribution to most populations around the Mediterranean, as did European populations. But the greatest genetic exchange has probably occurred since the Neolithic, with the development of efficient boating. terrythttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17327062321100035888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-35794337186373938182014-05-23T14:58:55.287+03:002014-05-23T14:58:55.287+03:00"Y-DNA E for example is definitely African ye..."Y-DNA E for example is definitely African yet found in many regions around the northern Mediterranean. European mt-DNAs are quite common in North Africa."<br /><br />@terryt Okay I want to ask a questions, do those earliest Homo sapiens look like Africans or Negroids? I know not all Africans look Negroid (esp. North Africans) but are those earliest Homo sapiens in the East Africa look Negroid? <br /><br />"Where did you get the information that Mediterranean people 100% Caucasian?"<br /><br />Giuseppe Sergi's much-debated book The Mediterranean Race (1901) argued that the Mediterranean race had in fact originated in Africa, probably in the Sahara region, and that it also included a number of dark-skinned peoples from the African continent (North Africa and the Horn of Africa), such as Ethiopians and Somalis. Sergi added that the Mediterranean race "in its external characters is a brown human variety, neither white nor negroid, but pure in its elements, that is to say not a product of the mixture of Whites with Negroes or negroid peoples. Please corrected me if I do mistakes.Dobbyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11330841767766793540noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-5879313828297656212014-05-19T05:07:19.983+03:002014-05-19T05:07:19.983+03:00"IIRC somewhere on the web the Mediterranean ..."IIRC somewhere on the web the Mediterranean people which can be said as Caucasians, are 100% and don't have African admixture. And Mediterranean people originated from North Africa. Please corrected me if there are any mistakes". <br /><br />Mediterranean people are a mix of European and North African haplogroups. Y-DNA E for example is definitely African yet found in many regions around the northern Mediterranean. European mt-DNAs are quite common in North Africa. Where did you get the information that Mediterranean people are 100% Caucasian? terrythttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17327062321100035888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-38316581343662056242014-05-17T02:11:56.003+03:002014-05-17T02:11:56.003+03:00"What do the earliest prehistoric Homo sapien..."What do the earliest prehistoric Homo sapiens look like?" <br /><br />It depends on where you like to draw the line between 'archaic' and 'modern'. Of course there is no sharp defining line and so the argument continues. terrythttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17327062321100035888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-71167833363821090272014-05-15T06:50:12.485+03:002014-05-15T06:50:12.485+03:00" That is basically 1/32 Neanderthal. You wou..." That is basically 1/32 Neanderthal. You would get that level within just four generations of a back cross with modern humans from a first cross between humans and Neanderthals". <br /><br />Just an expansion on the comment. That is equivalent to one Neanderthal great, great great-grandparent. <br /><br />"Probably there are no 100% pure human populations in the prehistoric times but still..." <br /><br />That would be my guess. Even the change from archaic to modern is extremely unlikely to have been instant. As I usually say, it is extremely unlikely that a small group of archaic humans woke up one morning and found they were modern humans. terrythttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17327062321100035888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-8290445986247343662014-05-13T06:03:33.209+03:002014-05-13T06:03:33.209+03:00"But if I am not mistaken, the Neanderthal ge..."But if I am not mistaken, the Neanderthal genes in modern human population are quite small". <br /><br />Yes, 2-4%. That is basically 1/32 Neanderthal. You would get that level within just four generations of a back cross with modern humans from a first cross between humans and Neanderthals. I admit that in animal breeds three generations of back breeding is usually enough to consider the final offspring purebred (1/16), but even that level of back crossing is not allowed in some studbooks. <br /><br />"Aren't there are actually 100% pure unmixed human population in the past?" <br /><br />Probably not. Even the 'first' modern humans were quite possibly the result of a hybrid population. For example if we consider just the basal Y- and mt-DNA we see what looks like two different regions of origin. The Y-DNA looks West/Central African in origin and the mt-DNA looks to be more East African. Then we have apparent mixing outside Africa with Neanderthal with lesser admixture with Denisovans in some regions. The haplogroup distribution also indicates significant population movement over a considerable time. For example it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that the most widespread Eurasian Y-DNA haplogroups (P and NO) have a deep origin somewhere in SE Asia. The same is probably true of mt-DNA R. Even amoung breeds of animals the term 'purebred' is simply a matter of when the studbook was closed. Most breeds were in effect just regional varieties, themselves the product of a long period of back and forth genetic movement. For example it is universally accepted that all West European cattle breeds have shorthorn in their ancestry even though the many individual breeds are each considered these days to be 'pure'. So what you might like to call 'purebred' is really just a matter of definition. terrythttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17327062321100035888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-35727575480480092592014-05-12T10:37:43.623+03:002014-05-12T10:37:43.623+03:00@terryt alright why 100% pure races are impossible...@terryt alright why 100% pure races are impossible? Aren't there are actually 100% pure unmixed human population in the past? IIRC, I read somewhere on this blog that 100% pure human races are possible but nowadays they're rare. Please correct me if I'm wrong.Dobbyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11330841767766793540noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-89554714236004151502014-05-12T02:18:08.984+03:002014-05-12T02:18:08.984+03:00I agree with terryt. Objectively, the purest race ...I agree with terryt. Objectively, the purest race for any people living today would be the Basal Sapiens population with the least amount of archaic mixture. <br /><br />That rules out Neanderthalized northern populations that everyone (wrongly) assumes are "pure types."<br /><br />That said, the "pure Sapiens" concept might be evolutionarily important if it involved a set of co-functional/synergistic (ie optimized to work best as a package) genes that coded for behavioral modernity. Archaic mixture would give benefits (metabolic, immunological, maybe even behavioral) but would disrupt the optimal "basal Sapiens" set of molecular pathways in various ways. Would result in sub-optimal integration with the main evolutionary trajectory of our species (up to now).<br /><br />So the closest to "basal Sapiens" (if it survived and wasn't harmed by others) would theoretically be like the main carriers of what makes us "most truly human" in Darwinian sense. This means above all language use, cooperation, care for elders and young, flexible and inventive tool use, reduction of interpersonal violence, and general "eusocial" traits in EO Wilson's Sociobiological sense. <br /><br />Whether it has anything to do with physical appearance (except as arbitrary species recognition function), who knows.<br />About Timehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09236048173229545609noreply@blogger.com