tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post5716165352022889364..comments2024-01-04T04:11:55.717+02:00Comments on Dienekes’ Anthropology Blog: Amerindian-like admixture in northern Europe is realDienekeshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02082684850093948970noreply@blogger.comBlogger125125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-17557375268818271512014-03-21T19:44:58.119+02:002014-03-21T19:44:58.119+02:00I know who that guy is. Last time I communicated w...I know who that guy is. Last time I communicated with him, he revealed to me that he was going to learn Chinese, because he was very fond of Chinese girls. Apparently, <i>something</i> went wrong... (Considering that he regards the claim of Mongoloid-like admixture in Nordics as a slur.)Simon_Whttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04454497745874406294noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-15972431287722391772013-07-26T15:57:49.020+03:002013-07-26T15:57:49.020+03:00Hamar,
As I pointed out, I currently have no time...Hamar,<br /><br />As I pointed out, I currently have no time to redeal with your usual arguments. I agree that this discussion has gone on too long and in addition think that it has got into a vicious circle. Onur Dincerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05041378853428912894noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-21018055073172016552013-07-24T19:06:00.556+03:002013-07-24T19:06:00.556+03:00Hamar, currently I do not have the extra time to d...<i>Hamar, currently I do not have the extra time to deal with the same old arguments that I already dealt with.</i><br /><br />With respect, I'm not sure you fully understand the nuances of each new argument I present. It's possible you speed read my comments, identify some key words, and then dismiss it as the same point reiterated. <br /><br />So, if you'll bear with me and not speed read this, then I'll explain how you haven't addressed the point I presented.<br /><br />If I remember correctly, you stated previously that you assess the physical nature of the ANE population at the time of introgression into the WE population by the dominant features of the modern population in which the signal of admixture is strongest.<br /><br />However, even though that in itself is a fallacy (explained above), you committed an additional fallacy by adducing the Han as representative of the ANE population on the basis that, using that population, a signal of admixture can be found in most W. Eurasians relative to Sardinians. <br /><br />Why is it an additional fallacy? Because the signal is not particularly strong in the Han. Indeed, from Dienekes' calculations, the signal of this admixture <i>doubles</i> when an Amerindian population is used instead of an East Asian population. Therefore, the features of the Han or Dai are (doubly) irrelevant, as irrelevant as are the features of any other East Eurasian population (which, in the context of the admixture's age, we should define as simply 'OoA that is not AWE'), since a signal for WEs relative to Sardinians is reproducible also if using them.<br /><br />I do not recall you ever addressing this. Also, I understand that the argument you used may have had some relevance in relation to genetiker's specific claims. However, you used it as a self-contained argument and later used it in a context outside of anything related to genetiker's argument.<br /><br />The second point I broached in the comment you dismissed was this: If you believe the earlier proportions relative to Sardinians are correct, that Sardinians themselves are about 25% ANE, and that ANE is Mongoloid, then do you maintain that North Russians are ~50% Mongoloid?<br /><br />All this said, the discussion has gone on a little too long for me, so I don't mind if you don't answer my remarks at this point.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-494738592633493892013-07-24T17:33:59.532+03:002013-07-24T17:33:59.532+03:00What a child you are. Anyway, the evidence is avai...<i>What a child you are. Anyway, the evidence is available for each reader to assess for him or herself. Fin.</i><br /><br />Hamar, currently I do not have the extra time to deal with the same old arguments that I already dealt with.<br /><br />@terry,<br /><br />Ditto for you.Onur Dincerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05041378853428912894noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-55834204431234909202013-07-23T07:55:49.006+03:002013-07-23T07:55:49.006+03:00"Lastly, hybrid ratios in ducks, cattle, dogs..."Lastly, hybrid ratios in ducks, cattle, dogs and sheep have nothing to do with hybrid ratios in Southeast Asians". <br /><br />In the case of ducks I am not considering 'breeds' but 'species'. The indigenous grey duck and the introduced mallard are fully interfertile and so should probably be considered regioanl variations of a single species. That is exactly comparable to the different human geographical variations except that the clines are steeper in the mallard duck species than in humans. That is presumably because technology and culture have allowed humans to cross the geographic boundaries to a large extent. <br /><br />"With the current ancient DNA data we cannot be sure of anything". <br /><br />I think Q's phylogeny is fairly well-established now. Under the current nomencalture Q1a1a1 and Q1a2a are the only two haplogroups found east of the Altai/Hindu Kush mountains. That is a problem for those proposing an eastern origin for the haplogroup. <br /><br />"It is clear from that analysis that Caucasoids in general, and Northern Europeans in particular, possess a Mongoloid element. From analyses involving Amerindians we know that it is primarily Amerindian-like rather than East Asian-like". <br /><br />How do you account for the Amerindian-like element being different from an East Asian element if Amerindians are completely Mongoloid? The argumant that East Asians have lost a basal genetic signature whereas others have kept it doesn't hold up to any scrutiny. A genetic signature could not be lost across multiple populations across a wide region. It could only be lost in a genetically isolated population. The fact that the lack is widespread supports a recent expansion of the East Asian phenotype, surely. <br /><br />"It is you who sees an association between the information in that Wikipedia article and the EDAR mutation" <br /><br />The link between the presence of the EDAR mutation and the presence of a Mongoloid phenotype is surely to complete to ignore, except by those who don't wish to see. terrythttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17327062321100035888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-14893803268192201612013-07-22T21:36:02.386+03:002013-07-22T21:36:02.386+03:00There is nothing new in Hamar's latest post. H...<i>There is nothing new in Hamar's latest post. He is basically repeating the same old arguments that I dealt with and/or refuted in my earlier posts (at this and other threads).</i><br /><br />What a child you are. Anyway, the evidence is available for each reader to assess for him or herself. Fin.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-56815387671171082922013-07-22T19:44:46.711+03:002013-07-22T19:44:46.711+03:00There is nothing new in Hamar's latest post. H...There is nothing new in Hamar's latest post. He is basically repeating the same old arguments that I dealt with and/or refuted in my earlier posts (at this and other threads).Onur Dincerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05041378853428912894noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-85546599750425498602013-07-21T19:48:37.728+03:002013-07-21T19:48:37.728+03:00Hamar,
I already dealt with the arguments in your...<i>Hamar,<br /><br />I already dealt with the arguments in your latest posts, so I think there is no need to write a new reply. Our correspondences have bacome rather repetitive lately.</i><br /><br />You didn't 'deal with' my arguments if by that you mean that you refuted them. You did offer weak responses to them, and when I demolished your weak responses, you ignored my arguments and continued to peddle the same fallacies I'd refuted many times previously. I'm sure someone explaining that two and two equals four is repetitive. However, so is the person he's responding to who insists that the answer is 17.<br /><br />Keep in mind that I don't make posts only for you, but also for any readers who may be mislead by the many inaccuracies contained in your posts. Only I was able to predict the findings of Lipson et al., and the reason for this is that my reasoning was superior to yours. You have <i>no</i> justification for condescending to me when I'm the only person (I'm aware of) who has made accurate predicitions in this matter. <br /><br />And if you continue to commit errors in pursuit of some agenda, then it is my duty to counterbalance these errors for the sake knowledge. Of course, if you admit that you've been totally wrong on the whole issue and my prediction of Lipson's paper was pure, unadulterated genius of which you're in awe, then there will be no need for future repetition :P<br /><br />Meanwhile, I'll explore in more detail how your quoted argument was an egregious fallacy and bury it deep along with the rest of your points. Note that if you use this argument again, it will be direct proof of intellectual dishonesty on your part:<br /><br />Take East Africans. They can be shown to be a mixture of Yoruba and any OoA population. So here are some specious arguments and their conclusions:<br /><br />East African population X is a mixture of a YRI-related component and a Japanese-related component (when only these two populations are considered). Therefore East African population X is a mixture of Negroid and Mongoloid.<br /><br />East African population X is a mixture of a YRI-related component and a Pauan-related component (when only these two populations are considered). therefore East African population X is a mixture of Negroid and Australoid.<br /><br />Repeat with any other OoA population.<br /><br />Now you'll no doubt dishonestly retort that, despite referring to Han and Dai in isolation (in your first comment to this thread and would have left that error untouched if not called out on it), and hence validating my above analogy, it can be shown that the signal is strongest in Amerindians by comparing the strength of all signals.<br /><br />Again, it remains a fallacy, and here is why: Taking East Africans again as an example, suppose Western Eurasians no longer existed. The default closest modern match would therefore be whichever other population had the strongest signal of W. Eurasian ancestry; say the Uygur. Needless to say, erroneous conclusions would be drawn by such as yourself as to the physical make-up of the constributing population to East African population X.<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-29068396650626482912013-07-21T17:17:24.013+03:002013-07-21T17:17:24.013+03:00Hamar,
I already dealt with the arguments in you...Hamar, <br /><br />I already dealt with the arguments in your latest posts, so I think there is no need to write a new reply. Our correspondences have bacome rather repetitive lately.Onur Dincerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05041378853428912894noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-88568422156068834602013-07-18T21:25:57.646+03:002013-07-18T21:25:57.646+03:00A bit of clarification: I meant that Lipson et al ...A bit of clarification: I meant that Lipson et al paper found (suspectly, IMHO) that the ANE component merged with the AWE shortly after the split of all modern E. Eurasian populations from their common ancestor, meaning, if we take the conclusion at face value, that the ANE we're dealing with had properties similar to those of a common ancestor to all groups, creating the effect of a general E. Eurasian affinity with a few peaks in affinity in the populations to which the ancient population was directly ancestral.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-29309390379170006692013-07-18T20:53:25.785+03:002013-07-18T20:53:25.785+03:00It is clear from that analysis that Caucasoids in ...<i>It is clear from that analysis that Caucasoids in general, and Northern Europeans in particular, possess a Mongoloid element.</i><br /><br />The analysis didn't conclude that the nature of the admixture was 'Mongoloid' or anything else. In the terms of the Reich/Patterson/Lipson team, expressed over the course of both relevant papers, modern West Eurasians at base level are a mixture of a population closer to the roots of the original OoA population and a second population relatively closer to the ancestors of modern East Eurasians, in particular Amerindians.<br /><br />Which point brings me to a fallacy you presented in the first comment to this section:<br /><br /><i>Note that the population used as the East Asian representative in the above 4-population test is the Han Chinese, which is one of the purest Mongoloid populations in the world. So it seems that northern Europeans – even excluding northeastern Europeans – are more Mongoloid-admixed than southern Europeans</i><br /><br />The fallacy consists in not taking into account that the ANE component is more related in a general sense to all modern East Eurasians than is the AWE component. It's also the case, then, that the same test would show (and does show) the closer affinity to Australasians, ASI etc. of some non-recently admixed W. Eurasian populations than of others. But this doesn't mean that the admixture is Australoid any more than an affinity to a modern Mongoloid population means that this ancient admixture was Mongoloid. It was a component (partially?) ancestral to a plurality of modern phenotypes.<br /><br />Also, Basques are a much better proxy for AWEs than are Sardinians, who are much too drifted/otherwise unique to yield realistic values for other populations (like Russians being ~50% ANE, based on their proportion relative to Sardinians plus the 25% baseline already present in Sardinians), as Lipson et al. demonstrated (and as was easily inferrable anyway from the close clustering of all Europeans in PCA analyses). <br /> Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-2468001604308852482013-07-18T14:44:06.765+03:002013-07-18T14:44:06.765+03:00Observation and knowledge of hybrid ratios in dabb...<i>Observation and knowledge of hybrid ratios in dabbling ducks, cattle, dogs and sheep. To believe that humans somehow a obey a diiferent set of biological rules from every other species is not justified in any way at all.</i><br /><br />It is practically impossible to make such precise admixture estimations just based on observation. In any case, that shows how weakly-grounded your admixture estimations are. Lastly, hybrid ratios in ducks, cattle, dogs and sheep have nothing to do with hybrid ratios in Southeast Asians.<br /><br /><i>We can be fairly sure they originated west of the Altai/Hindu Kush mountains and there is no evidence of any 'eastern' element in the population at any reasonable time postulated for Q's expansion. </i><br /><br />With the current ancient DNA data we cannot be sure of anything.<br /><br /><i>Around 7% according to this: <br /><br />http://dienekes.blogspot.co.nz/2012/10/admixture-tracks-amerindian-like.html</i><br /><br />That 7% is the estimated level of Amerindian-like admixture in NW Europeans according ot that analysis, not any non-Mongoloid admixture in Amerindians.<br /><br /><i>And the Amerindian element is distinct from any 'East Asian' element. Although I note in the comments there that you maintain it is a Mongoloid element that is showing up.</i> <br /><br />The Amerindian element is distinct from the East Asian element, but not as distinct as you seem to assume:<br /><br />http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2012/08/4-population-test-and-east-eurasian.html<br /><br />It is clear from that analysis that Caucasoids in general, and Northern Europeans in particular, possess a Mongoloid element. From analyses involving Amerindians we know that it is primarily Amerindian-like rather than East Asian-like.<br /><br /><i>The EDAR information is not from Wiki.</i><br /><br />By "poor quality Wikipedia article", I was referring to the Wikipedia article titled "Ordos culture" that contained information about fossil remains from Ordos that supposedly possess strong Mongoloid features, not anything to do with the EDAR mutation. It is you who sees an association between the information in that Wikipedia article and the EDAR mutation. <br /><br /><i>Try this in relation to Amerindian admixture in Europeans, once again: <br /><br />http://eurogenes.blogspot.co.nz/2013/02/ancient-amerindian-like-admixture-in.html</i><br /><br />I already offered my opinion on that issue.<br /><br /><i>Erroneous? What makes you so sure? I am certain furture research will confirm a Northern China/Mongolia region of origin.</i><br /><br />Because it has no solid basis.Onur Dincerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05041378853428912894noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-78646151800249585012013-07-15T04:52:14.541+03:002013-07-15T04:52:14.541+03:00"What is the basis of these quantifications?&..."What is the basis of these quantifications?" <br /><br />Observation and knowledge of hybrid ratios in dabbling ducks, cattle, dogs and sheep. To believe that humans somehow a obey a diiferent set of biological rules from every other species is not justified in any way at all. <br /><br />"We cannot be sure at the moment whether the original Y-DNA hg Q carriers were non-Mongoloid". <br /><br />We can be fairly sure they originated west of the Altai/Hindu Kush mountains and there is no evidence of any 'eastern' element in the population at any reasonable time postulated for Q's expansion. <br /><br />"In any case, if they were really non-Mongoloid, they must have had very little, if any, impact on the autosomal genetics and phenotype of Amerindians". <br /><br />Around 7% according to this: <br /><br />http://dienekes.blogspot.co.nz/2012/10/admixture-tracks-amerindian-like.html<br /><br />And the Amerindian element is distinct from any 'East Asian' element. Although I note in the comments there that you maintain it is a Mongoloid element that is showing up. <br /><br />"So what? EDAR is just a single mutation. In any case, I already declared my opinion on the poor quality of that specific Wikipedia article". <br /><br />The EDAR information is not from Wiki. Try this in relation to Amerindian admixture in Europeans, once again: <br /><br />http://eurogenes.blogspot.co.nz/2013/02/ancient-amerindian-like-admixture-in.html<br /><br />Quote: <br /><br />"Then again, maybe Europeans don't carry this mutation because by and large we don't have East Asian admixture? In other words, perhaps the mysterious eastern component shared by Europeans, Amerindians and East Asians came from a now extinct population in Siberia? If so, this component might have been picked up by the (EDAR370A carrying) ancestors of Amerindians as they moved into the Americas. In fact, perhaps whoever carried this component blocked the entry of any (EDAR370A carrying) East Eurasians proper into Europe at a critical time when population densities in West Eurasia were very low? So the other thing I'm getting at is that Amerindians and East Asians might be ancient hybrid groups, just like Europeans and South Asians". <br /><br />"Your scenario is based on your erroneous Northern China/Mongolia-centric view of the Mongoloid race". <br /><br />Erroneous? What makes you so sure? I am certain furture research will confirm a Northern China/Mongolia region of origin. terrythttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17327062321100035888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-7151250830173461972013-07-13T00:26:39.033+03:002013-07-13T00:26:39.033+03:00How do you define them? Surely physically distinct...<i>How do you define them? Surely physically distinct characteristics are what we use for all other species.</i><br /><br />We discussed that issue before (more than once in fact) and I already put forward my definition of race. So I won't reiterate.<br /><br /><i>Exactly the same rules apply, whether to domestic or wild animals.</i><br /><br />Mathematical definitions of race are impractical in wild animals (including humans).<br /><br /><i>In keeping with the genetic scale I would place southern China at 7/8 to 3/4 Mongoloid, the remainder Australoid; Malaysia, the Philippines and most of Indonesia at 3/4 to 5/8 Mongoloid; Polynesians at 1/2 of each; Timorese at 1/2 to 3/8 Mongoloid; Australia, New Guinea and Melanesia at virtually nil Mongoloid. The cline is very steep.</i><br /><br />What is the basis of these quantifications?<br /><br /><i>Yes. We don't know phenotype of Q and I'll come back to that, but we can be fairly sure it was not Mongoloid. The Mongoloid element in Amerindians comes from their morthers' side: virtually all East Aasian haplogroups.</i><br /><br />We cannot be sure at the moment whether the original Y-DNA hg Q carriers were non-Mongoloid. In any case, if they were really non-Mongoloid, they must have had very little, if any, impact on the autosomal genetics and phenotype of Amerindians.<br /><br /><i>The haplogroups. To mount an at all convincing case that Q is 'eastern' in origin it is first necessary to explain its almost complete absence in China. The small proportion of Q that is present is confined to the north and is entirely the derived Q1a1a1-M120. However we know the Upper Paleolithic first entered East Asia from the north. A further factor to take into account is the currently accepted phylogeny. Q splits into two groups, Q1a and Q1b. Q1b is certainly 'western', although it is possible it is a straggler there from the east. Q1a itself splits into two: Q1a1 and, the big expander, Q1a2. Q1a1 is again largely 'western' although in this case it could easily be an eastern straggler. Q1a2 has become spread from America (Q1a2a) to the Yemenite Jews (Q1a2b). Any information as to where Q1a2b is found? Ket/Selkup? <br /><br />And of course although Q is descended from SE Asian MNOPS its closest relation is R. R2 is basically South Asian although also present in Central Asia. R1a and R1b (but especially the former) seem to be early Eurasian steppe haplogroups as, probably, is Q. The Mongoloid presence west of the Hindu Kush/Altai mountains is far too recent for R and Q to have been originally Mongoloid.</i> <br /><br />Your scenario is based on your erroneous Northern China/Mongolia-centric view of the Mongoloid race.<br /><br /><i>Interestingly the EDAR mutation was claimed as entering the modern human population at 35,000 years ago and undergoing a rapid selective sweep.</i><br /><br />So what? EDAR is just a single mutation. In any case, I already declared my opinion on the poor quality of that specific Wikipedia article. It is not a good source to use as evidence of anything.Onur Dincerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05041378853428912894noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-90181749582154236762013-07-12T22:02:25.739+03:002013-07-12T22:02:25.739+03:00The ASI admixture of the Adygei is harder to quant...<i>The ASI admixture of the Adygei is harder to quantify due to the fact that ASI is closer to the Caucasoid race than the Mongoloid race is and that as a result an exclusively ASI component never emerges in ADMIXTURE analyses yielding instead "South Asian" components that are partially Caucasoid.</i><br /><br />As far as I know, the reason is rather that there's no pure ASI population on which to base that component. 'South Asian' in Dodecad analyses can range from 50/50 West/East Eurasian to predominantly West Eurasian. I cross-referenced the relationship of the 'South Asian' component in each Dodecad calculator with the Reich estimates of ASI is modern South Asians and Dienekes' estimates that I linked to in the last post, and found that the K=4 'Asian' component is the closest match.<br /><br /><i>So I won't put forward a number for the average ASI admixture of Adygei and will only say that their average ASI admixture is clearly lower than their average recent Mongoloid admixture. The average recent Mongoloid + ASI admixture of Adygei may well be lower than your estimate. You may be correct in your estimate of Vologda Russians, but I am not sure, as ADMIXTURE is not a too reliable tool for such delicate recent admixture estimations.</i><br /><br />The main reason for ADMIXTURE's fluctuations in admixture estimates (assuming the same number and diversity of samples are employed each time) is the number of components involved. Admixture estimates are always going to be lower at K=12 than at K=3 (unless the admixture is *really* recent), because some of the admixture visible at K=3 has disappeared into other components by the time we reach K=12. So I tend to base my estimates of admixture on the lowest reasonable K levels. Estimates of admixture in Russians and Finns tend to be fairly consistent if one keeps this fact in mind, though the Adygei's admixture estimates tend to be more unstable.<br /><br />But if the Adygei's admixture really is lower than my estimate, this would suggest a higher West Asian ANE base-level (which isn't a position I hold, btw).<br /><br /><i>Populations are not components. You should notice that Northern Europeans have noticeably higher "Atlantic_Baltic" + "West_Asian" component ratio than Southern Europeans and West Asians, who have more "Southern" component ratio instead.</i><br /><br />True, but there are other calculators where West Asians are interpreted as mixtures of 'Caucasus' and 'West Asian' components, both of which are as East Eurasian-shifted as the 'North European' component. In addition, in the same calculators, Europeans can have more of the not-Asian-shifted 'Atlantic-Med' component than West Asians have of the not-Asian-shifted 'SW Asian' component:<br /><br />https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0ArJDEoCgzRKedEY4Y3lTUVBaaFp0bC1zZlBDcTZEYlE#gid=1<br /><br />I don't necessarily think too much stock should be put into such inconsistent results for individual populations, but what should be kept in mind is that there are strong commonalities between the primary components in both Europe and West Asia, which suggests a common history of non-recent admixture between both regions. The components are consistent even if their application to individual populations are not.<br /><br />The real question posed by ADMIXTURE is why the 'Southern' and 'Mediterranean' components are more distant from East Eurasians, even though Patterson detected a roughly proportionate signal even in the Mozabite sample, who consist almost entirely of not-Asian-shifted (relatively speaking) West Eurasians and SSAs. Likewise with Sardinians and Basques: their ANE is equal, even though, according to ADMIXTURE, Sardinians are more Southern/Mediterranean:<br /><br />https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0ArAJcY18g2GadC1kRjhxcHNfSGhPYlUxbEI0VVZPR0E#gid=0<br /><br />Note also in the above that the balance of Iranians in terms of Asian-shifted and non-Asian-shifted components is almost identical to the balance found in NW Europeans.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-80273473304793159072013-07-12T04:42:17.550+03:002013-07-12T04:42:17.550+03:00"Races are not defined the way you define the..."Races are not defined the way you define them". <br /><br />How do you define them? Surely physically distinct characteristics are what we use for all other species. <br /><br />"The real world is far more chaotic than the artificial world of animal breeding". <br /><br />Exactly the same rules apply, whether to domestic or wild animals. <br /><br />"You are exaggerating the non-Mongoloid admixture in SE Asia. The vast majority of populations of SE Asia are racially Mongoloid, as whatever non-Mongoloid admixture they have is quite limited". <br /><br />In keeping with the genetic scale I would place southern China at 7/8 to 3/4 Mongoloid, the remainder Australoid; Malaysia, the Philippines and most of Indonesia at 3/4 to 5/8 Mongoloid; Polynesians at 1/2 of each; Timorese at 1/2 to 3/8 Mongoloid; Australia, New Guinea and Melanesia at virtually nil Mongoloid. The cline is very steep. <br /><br />"We do not know the original phenotypes of any of those haplogroups. This is especially the case with the Y-DNA hg Q. As for the mtDNA hg X, it constitutes only a very small and geographically pretty restricted part of the mtDNA haplogroup distribution of Amerindians". <br /><br />Yes. We don't know phenotype of Q and I'll come back to that, but we can be fairly sure it was not Mongoloid. The Mongoloid element in Amerindians comes from their morthers' side: virtually all East Aasian haplogroups. <br /><br />"You have no evidence for your hybrid theory". <br /><br />The haplogroups. To mount an at all convincing case that Q is 'eastern' in origin it is first necessary to explain its almost complete absence in China. The small proportion of Q that is present is confined to the north and is entirely the derived Q1a1a1-M120. However we know the Upper Paleolithic first entered East Asia from the north. A further factor to take into account is the currently accepted phylogeny. Q splits into two groups, Q1a and Q1b. Q1b is certainly 'western', although it is possible it is a straggler there from the east. Q1a itself splits into two: Q1a1 and, the big expander, Q1a2. Q1a1 is again largely 'western' although in this case it could easily be an eastern straggler. Q1a2 has become spread from America (Q1a2a) to the Yemenite Jews (Q1a2b). Any information as to where Q1a2b is found? Ket/Selkup? <br /><br />And of course although Q is descended from SE Asian MNOPS its closest relation is R. R2 is basically South Asian although also present in Central Asia. R1a and R1b (but especially the former) seem to be early Eurasian steppe haplogroups as, probably, is Q. The Mongoloid presence west of the Hindu Kush/Altai mountains is far too recent for R and Q to have been originally Mongoloid. <br /><br />"The link they provide for that claim is broken. Plus, that Wikipedia article is poorly edited". <br /><br />Interestingly the EDAR mutation was claimed as entering the modern human population at 35,000 years ago and undergoing a rapid selective sweep. terrythttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17327062321100035888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-44568831553494600912013-07-12T03:26:03.617+03:002013-07-12T03:26:03.617+03:00Hamar,
Now I understand that your estimate is of ...Hamar,<br /><br />Now I understand that your estimate is of recent (=post-AWE/ANE admixture) Mongoloid + ASI admixture rather than just recent Mongoloid admixture. The average recent Mongoloid admixture in the Adygei seems to be about 4% or 5% depending on the ADMIXTURE analysis. The ASI admixture of the Adygei is harder to quantify due to the fact that ASI is closer to the Caucasoid race than the Mongoloid race is and that as a result an exclusively ASI component never emerges in ADMIXTURE analyses yielding instead "South Asian" components that are partially Caucasoid. So I won't put forward a number for the average ASI admixture of Adygei and will only say that their average ASI admixture is clearly lower than their average recent Mongoloid admixture. The average recent Mongoloid + ASI admixture of Adygei may well be lower than your estimate. You may be correct in your estimate of Vologda Russians, but I am not sure, as ADMIXTURE is not a too reliable tool for such delicate recent admixture estimations.<br /><br /><i>The component I had in mind was actually Atlantic-Baltic. Compare West Asian and Atlantic-Baltic distances from East Asians, South Asians, and Siberians here ( I could cite other calculators too, if you want):<br /><br />https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0ArAJcY18g2GadHZ6SHpiLTNTa3lsUmZJY2pQblVRR2c#gid=1</i><br /><br />Populations are not components. You should notice that Northern Europeans have noticeably higher "Atlantic_Baltic" + "West_Asian" component ratio than Southern Europeans and West Asians, who have more "Southern" component ratio instead.Onur Dincerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05041378853428912894noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-80592716194512206992013-07-11T13:30:46.694+03:002013-07-11T13:30:46.694+03:00Thus, the terminology of animal breeding cannot be...<i>Thus, the terminology of animal breeding cannot be applied to the real world.</i><br /><br />and its concepts<br />Onur Dincerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05041378853428912894noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-22711156930564857672013-07-11T11:07:35.077+03:002013-07-11T11:07:35.077+03:00I have discovered that you have a timing problem: ...<i>I have discovered that you have a timing problem: <br /><br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ordos_culture<br /><br />Quote: <br /><br />"The human fossil remains of the Ordos Man from Salawusu site dated between 50,000 and 35,000 BCE show strong Mongoloid features, specifically on the fore-tooth and occipital bone". <br /><br />'Strong Mongoloid features' at more than 35,000 years ago? That is long before humans arrived in America. If Amerindians truly were a representative sample of East Asians from the period they show a remarkably small amount of the Mongoloid phenotype that had developed in the region some long period before they left. Certainly 'Proto-Mongoloids' (of whatever sort you believe in) had become reasonable 'fully Mongoloid' by the time of Amerindian departure.</i><br /><br />The link they provide for that claim is broken. Plus, that Wikipedia article is poorly edited.Onur Dincerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05041378853428912894noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-87878400784311353892013-07-11T11:06:33.880+03:002013-07-11T11:06:33.880+03:00The EDAR mutation is the only gene discovered so f...<i>The EDAR mutation is the only gene discovered so far responsible for any element of the Mongoloid phenotype. We await further discoveries. And the EDAR mutation can hardly be said to be responsible for a very limited proportion of that phenotype. Sinodonty is one of its products, as well a the hair elements.</i><br /><br />That is a very limited proportion of the physical traits that are characteristic of the Mongoloid race.<br /><br /><i>On the other hand Sinodonty IS invasive into regions of Sundadonty in SE Asia and South China. Until Sinodonty had developed in some population no population anywhere could be called 'Proto-Mongoloid'. Once it had developed the population containing it could then be called 'Mongoloid'. Simple? Just like animal breeding.</i><br /><br />Races are not defined the way you define them. Your viewpoint is way too simplistic and does not reflect the real world. The real world is far more chaotic than the artificial world of animal breeding. Thus, the terminology of animal breeding cannot be applied to the real world.<br /><br /><i>That viewpoint is based an an assumption which I suggest is not be justified. The 'less derivedness' is just as likely to be the product of hybrid with some other population.</i><br /><br />You have no evidence for your hybrid theory.<br /><br /><i>The presence of Y-DNA Q and mt-DNA X, both of which are far more likely to have originally been west Eurasian haplogroups than eastern ones (related to Y-DNA R and the western mt-DNA Ns), and the limited reach of the East Asian Y-DNA C3. The work on aDNA has been complicated by the inclusion of SE Asians as 'Mongoloids' which gives an exaggerated view of the diversity of the Mongoloid phenotype.</i> <br /><br />We do not know the original phenotypes of any of those haplogroups. This is especially the case with the Y-DNA hg Q. As for the mtDNA hg X, it constitutes only a very small and geographically pretty restricted part of the mtDNA haplogroup distribution of Amerindians.<br /> <br /><i>It basically is if you extract the obviously hybrid SE Asians and southern Chinese from your overall consideration.<br /><br />His Paleo-Mongoloids are an artificial construction on his part. He says they are 'less Mongoloid and less cold-adapted' and then goes on to list a string of hybrid populations, several of which are recently formed and so cannot be 'Paleo-' anything: 'Burmese, Filipinos, Polynesians, Jōmon and the indigenous peoples of the Americas'. All of these are hybrids, although you disagree as to that position for Amerindians. </i><br /><br />You are exaggerating the non-Mongoloid admixture in SE Asia. The vast majority of populations of SE Asia are racially Mongoloid, as whatever non-Mongoloid admixture they have is quite limited. As for Amerindians, you already know what I think about them. <br /><br />If something is artificial and distorted, it is your view of the Mongoloid race.<br /><br /><i>You wrote, 'the Caucasoid race is only partially-descended from the Mongoloid race (much more from its Amerindian-like varieties than from its East Asian-like varieties)' so appparently you do concede that Amerindians have a genetic component that is not Mongoloid.</i><br /><br />On the contrary, I am saying that Caucasoids have an ancient Mongoloid component that pulls them towards both Amerindians and East Asians, but more towards Amerindians due to the fact that the relevant Mongoloid component is more Amerindian-like than East Asian-like.<br /><br /><i>Caucasoids mostly do not share a genetic component with East Asians but most do share a component with Amerindians. Surely that component cannot come from East Asians but from some other source.</i><br /><br />Wishful thinking on your part.Onur Dincerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05041378853428912894noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-42808398141508333222013-07-11T03:57:12.426+03:002013-07-11T03:57:12.426+03:00"Genetics supports the theory of the less der..."Genetics supports the theory of the less derivedness of the Mongoloidness of Amerindians". <br /><br />I have discovered that you have a timing problem: <br /><br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ordos_culture<br /><br />Quote: <br /><br />"The human fossil remains of the Ordos Man from Salawusu site dated between 50,000 and 35,000 BCE show strong Mongoloid features, specifically on the fore-tooth and occipital bone". <br /><br />'Strong Mongoloid features' at more than 35,000 years ago? That is long before humans arrived in America. If Amerindians truly were a representative sample of East Asians from the period they show a remarkably small amount of the Mongoloid phenotype that had developed in the region some long period before they left. Certainly 'Proto-Mongoloids' (of whatever sort you believe in) had become reasonable 'fully Mongoloid' by the time of Amerindian departure. terrythttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17327062321100035888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-61956940590969559562013-07-11T01:42:54.462+03:002013-07-11T01:42:54.462+03:00"but you provide the distribution map of only..."but you provide the distribution map of only one gene that is related to any physical trait that is characteristic of Mongoloids and that gene has a very limited effect on the totality of the physical traits that are characteristic of the Mongoloid race". <br /><br />The EDAR mutation is the only gene discovered so far responsible for any element of the Mongoloid phenotype. We await further discoveries. And the EDAR mutation can hardly be said to be responsible for a very limited proportion of that phenotype. Sinodonty is one of its products, as well a the hair elements. <br /><br />"Proto-Mongoloids were either Sundadonts or a mixed community of Sundadonts and Sinodonts. There is no indication that Sundadonty is a later intrusion to Mongoloids". <br /><br />On the other hand Sinodonty IS invasive into regions of Sundadonty in SE Asia and South China. Until Sinodonty had developed in some population no population anywhere could be called 'Proto-Mongoloid'. Once it had developed the population containing it could then be called 'Mongoloid'. Simple? Just like animal breeding. <br /><br />"Genetics supports the theory of the less derivedness of the Mongoloidness of Amerindians". <br /><br />That viewpoint is based an an assumption which I suggest is not be justified. The 'less derivedness' is just as likely to be the product of hybrid with some other population. <br /><br />"What is your genetic evidence for such a hybridization event? [hybridization before they ever came near America, although I accept that later movements into America appear to be more 'Mongoloid']The relevant genetic data do not support such a scenario as far as I can see". <br /><br />The presence of Y-DNA Q and mt-DNA X, both of which are far more likely to have originally been west Eurasian haplogroups than eastern ones (related to Y-DNA R and the western mt-DNA Ns), and the limited reach of the East Asian Y-DNA C3. The work on aDNA has been complicated by the inclusion of SE Asians as 'Mongoloids' which gives an exaggerated view of the diversity of the Mongoloid phenotype. <br /><br />"You are still treating Mongoloidness as if it is a single phenotype". <br /><br />It basically is if you extract the obviously hybrid SE Asians and southern Chinese from your overall consideration. <br /><br />"according to him Paleo-Mongoloids are closer to original Mongoloids. Why else would he call them 'Paleo-Mongoloid'?" <br /><br />His Paleo-Mongoloids are an artificial construction on his part. He says they are 'less Mongoloid and less cold-adapted' and then goes on to list a string of hybrid populations, several of which are recently formed and so cannot be 'Paleo-' anything: 'Burmese, Filipinos, Polynesians, Jōmon and the indigenous peoples of the Americas'. All of these are hybrids, although you disagree as to that position for Amerindians. <br /><br />"What do you mean by 'the very characteristics in Amerindians that are not specifically Mongoloid'?" <br /><br />You wrote, 'the Caucasoid race is only partially-descended from the Mongoloid race (much more from its Amerindian-like varieties than from its East Asian-like varieties)' so appparently you do concede that Amerindians have a genetic component that is not Mongoloid. Caucasoids mostly do not share a genetic component with East Asians but most do share a component with Amerindians. Surely that component cannot come from East Asians but from some other source. terrythttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17327062321100035888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-27491817975375013252013-07-08T21:30:13.120+03:002013-07-08T21:30:13.120+03:00"Keane said the following peoples are mixed M...<i>"Keane said the following peoples are mixed Mongolo-Caucasic varieties: Anatolian Turks, Uzbegs, and Tajiks of Turkestan.[16] Keane said the Kazaks are intermediate between the Túrki and Mongolian races.[16] Keane said the Mongolian race is best represented by the Buriats".</i><br /><br />Augustus Henry Keane (1833–1912) was a linguist, not a physical anthropologist, so he is in no way an authority on racial matters. Besides, according to the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augustus_Henry_Keane" rel="nofollow">Wikipedia article on Keane</a>:<br /><br />"Keane was out of step with the anthropology of the time, preferring linguistic data to that of physical anthropology and came to occupy a marginal position in the emerging scientific discipline.[12] On the other hand his efforts at popularising anthropology were praised by Sir Harry Johnston.[11]"<br /><br />So, he seems to have racially classified people based more on language than physical traits. The fact that he counts Anatolian Turks among Mongolo-Caucasic varieties clearly supports that. He seems to be no different in this regard from some of the other writers of his time who classified Hungarians, Anatolian Turks, Finns, etc. as Mongoloids or Caucaso-Mongoloid hybrids purely based on linguistics.<br /><br /><i>"In 1998, Jack D. Forbes, professor of Native American Studies and Anthropology at the University of California, Davis, said that the racial type of the indigenous people of the Americas does not fall into the Mongoloid racial category"</i><br /><br />According to that Wikipedia article:<br /><br />"Forbes said that due to the various physical traits indigenous Americans exhibit, some with "head shapes which seem hardly distinct from many Europeans", indigenous Americans must have either been formed from a mixture of Mongoloid and Caucasoid races or they descend from the ancestral, common type of both Mongoloid and Caucasoid races.[22]"<br /><br />Genetics supports the theory of the less derivedness of the Mongoloidness of Amerindians.<br />Onur Dincerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05041378853428912894noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-57048594881072740442013-07-08T21:08:07.127+03:002013-07-08T21:08:07.127+03:00This comment has been removed by the author.Onur Dincerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05041378853428912894noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-90969358859415922132013-07-08T21:07:14.375+03:002013-07-08T21:07:14.375+03:00"the Sinodont patterns of the Paleo-Amerindia...<i>"the Sinodont patterns of the Paleo-Amerindians identify their ancestral homeland as north-east Asia. Some later studies have questioned this and found Sundadont features in some American peoples. For example, in 1996, Rebecca Haydenblit of the Hominid Evolutionary Biology Research Group at Cambridge University did a study on the dentition of four pre-Columbian Mesoamerican populations and compared their data to 'other Mongoloid populations'.[3] She found that 'Tlatilco', 'Cuicuilco', 'Monte Albán' and 'Cholula' populations followed an overall 'Sundadont' dental pattern 'characteristic of Southeast Asia' rather than a 'Sinodont' dental pattern 'characteristic of Northeast Asia'".[3]</i><br /><br />Proto-Mongoloids were either Sundadonts or a mixed community of Sundadonts and Sinodonts. There is no indication that Sundadonty is a later intrusion to Mongoloids.<br /><br /><i>"Professor of anthropology, Akazawa Takeru (Japanese:赤沢威) of the International Research Center for Japanese Studies in Kyoto Japan, said Mongoloid features are an adaption to the cold of the Mammoth Steppe.[29] He mentions the Lewis waves of warm blood cyclical vasodilation and vasoconstriction of the peripheral capillaries in Mongoloids as an adaption to the cold.[29] He lists the short limbs, short noses, flat faces, epicanthic fold and lower surface to mass ratio as further Mongoloid adaptions to cold"</i><br /><br />What else does he say according to that Wikipedia article:<br /><br />"Professor of anthropology, Akazawa Takeru (Japanese:赤沢威) at the International Research Center for Japanese Studies, Kyoto, said that there are Neo-Mongoloids and Paleo-Mongoloids.[29] Akazawa said Neo-Mongoloids have "extreme Mongoloid, cold-adapted features" and they include the Chinese, Buryats, Eskimo and Chukchi.[29] In contrast, Akazawa said Paleo-Mongoloids are less Mongoloid and less cold-adapted.[29] He said Burmese, Filipinos, Polynesians, Jōmon and the indigenous peoples of the Americas were Paleo-Mongoloid.[29]" <br /><br />So, according to him Paleo-Mongoloids are closer to original Mongoloids. Why else would he call them "Paleo-Mongoloid"?<br /><br />Onur Dincerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05041378853428912894noreply@blogger.com