tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post5996127738467935703..comments2024-01-04T04:11:55.717+02:00Comments on Dienekes’ Anthropology Blog: SLC24A5 light skin pigmentation allele originDienekeshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02082684850093948970noreply@blogger.comBlogger99125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-63059480133438601812015-06-12T23:01:00.683+03:002015-06-12T23:01:00.683+03:00I'm having trouble with this finding and I was...I'm having trouble with this finding and I was hoping someone could help.<br />If I understand this correctly, the two ancestral versions are found everywhere but Africa, but one is dominant in America and the other is dominant in East Asia and the Pacific.<br />The new allele, which may have made it's sweep anywhere from 24 thousand to 12 thousand years ago, seems to come from a mutation following a recombination of the two ancestral versions.<br /><br />Well...this implies an absence of C11 in Northern East Asia and Northern Japan.<br />Especially since y Haplogroup D, mtDNA N9, and the Jomon themselves seem to have come to Japan and remained well isolated even after the yayoi invasion....and the Ainu as well as Northern han Chineseare light skinned....how can the A111T mutation be the only determiner of light skin? Do Ainu and light skinned populations of East Asia have C11? Do they have the A111T allele?Joe Lyonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07853388386082915414noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-10153182252010590422014-03-03T13:04:22.628+02:002014-03-03T13:04:22.628+02:00A wealth of tocopherols which helps with the prese...A wealth of tocopherols which helps with the preservation of the oil during storage and throughout the culinary processes, and insures a good dietary contribution of antioxidants.If you want get more essential information about argan oil you have to visit <a href="http://www.puradoroil.com/" rel="nofollow">Buy Argan Oil Online</a>.Helen Evanshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06732540681774111328noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-62177721202595363492014-02-20T05:02:53.445+02:002014-02-20T05:02:53.445+02:00"I don't have beliefs"
Your suppo..."I don't have beliefs" <br /><br />Your support of an out of America scenario can only be described as a 'belief', supported only by 'faith'. <br /><br />"I have theories and hypotheses and I've never denied any piece of evidence". <br /><br />You seem to be confusing 'theories and hypotheses' with 'beliefs'. As for 'never denied any piece of evidence' you have spent most of your time at Dienekes' blog denying evidence. You certainly cocnsistentl;y deny the validity of constructed haplgroup phylogenies with providing the slightest piece of evidence supporting any alternative. <br /><br />"And time proves that my logic is correct" <br /><br />On the contrary. Mal'ta, for one, proves your theory was incorrect although you refuse to see it, not to mention the currently accepted haplogroup phylogenies. And how does the existence of Denisovans support your out of America beleif? To me the existence of Denisovans was noy unexpected. terrythttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17327062321100035888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-30401504366519093712014-02-19T19:20:06.566+02:002014-02-19T19:20:06.566+02:00@TerryT
"And just like all creationists, you...@TerryT<br /><br />"And just like all creationists, you're denying the evidence that does not fit your belief."<br /><br />I don't have beliefs, I have theories and hypotheses and I've never denied any piece of evidence. I only question the models.<br /><br />"You argue consistently to the effect that absence of evidence does not mean evidence of absence..."<br /><br />This is logic, not faith. And time proves that my logic is correct: e.g., 10 years ago we had no idea Denisovans even existed and what we have from them now is only a pinkie and a tooth. But their impact is huge.German Dziebelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10703679732205862495noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-9210944363883103852014-02-18T03:35:41.641+02:002014-02-18T03:35:41.641+02:00"Just like all creationists, you're denyi..."Just like all creationists, you're denying the evidence that favors evolution". <br /><br />And just like all creationists, you're denying the evidence that does not fit your belief. <br /><br />"Jus like all creationists, you can see only 'faith' around you" <br /><br />Just like all creationists your whole theory relies totally on faith. You argue consistently to the effect that absence of evidence does not mean evidence of absence, exactly as do those who like to believe Solomon was a real king with a huge kingdom. terrythttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17327062321100035888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-24099363988017992292014-02-17T06:17:45.469+02:002014-02-17T06:17:45.469+02:00@terryT
"Either region has as much evidence ...@terryT<br /><br />"Either region has as much evidence going for it as does your out of America theory. "<br /><br />Just like all creationists, you're denying the evidence that favors evolution.<br /><br />"And you are not such a person? 'Faith' is the only 'evidence' you have ever provided."<br /><br />Jus like all creationists, you can see only 'faith' around you and you believe that all the epistemological differences are differences in religious beliefs.German Dziebelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10703679732205862495noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-47080941470174851172014-02-14T23:08:15.395+02:002014-02-14T23:08:15.395+02:00"Feel free to build a case for Antarctica and..."Feel free to build a case for Antarctica and Australia". <br /><br />Either region has as much evidence going for it as does your out of America theory. <br /><br />"So far ancient DNA and genomics holds a new promise for out-of-America and a bleak future for out-of-Africa". <br /><br />So far ancient DNA and genomics have completely failed to produce a single piece of evidence for your theory. <br /><br />"Terry, you treat phylogenies as if they were the Bible". <br /><br />That is better than grossly distorting them to make them fit a particular theory, in the manner you do. <br /><br />"You are religious believer who found a new sacred text to worship". <br /><br />And you are not such a person? 'Faith' is the only 'evidence' you have ever provided. terrythttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17327062321100035888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-25285658413811724712014-02-14T04:22:30.588+02:002014-02-14T04:22:30.588+02:00@TerryT
"On what grounds are you dismissing ...@TerryT<br /><br />"On what grounds are you dismissing Australia as the point of origin then? "<br /><br />Feel free to build a case for Antarctica and Australia.<br /><br />"The problem for that argument is that we don't have evidence for any humans in America anything like 60-50,000 years ago. "<br /><br />Why would this be a problem? We have thousands of years ahead of us to find everything we need. You can't use archaeology as a source for hypotheses of human evolution. The archaeological record changes all the time and we have older and older signs of human activity in the Americas every 5-10 years. What archaeology is telling us is that there's no archaeological culture in the Old World that can be considered a source for the earliest New World cultures. <br /><br />"But it still makes 'out of America' extremely unlikely."<br /><br />I don't care how "unlikely" it seems to you. The very notion of likelihood is inapplicable here. out-of-America is a testable hypothesis built on unmistakable interdisciplinary patterns and as the new data comes in, we'll test it against it. So far ancient DNA and genomics holds a new promise for out-of-America and a bleak future for out-of-Africa.<br /><br />"No. It is what the accepted phylogenies say."<br /><br />Terry, you treat phylogenies as if they were the Bible. You are religious believer who found a new sacred text to worship.German Dziebelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10703679732205862495noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-26230390920434787632014-02-13T23:53:19.231+02:002014-02-13T23:53:19.231+02:00"But we're talking about modern humans, a..."But we're talking about modern humans, a new species. A new species requires isolation. America provided this isolation precisely because there were no hominins there". <br /><br />On what grounds are you dismissing Australia as the point of origin then? For a start we can be reasonably confident humans reached there something approaching 60,000 years ago. And it was empty of humans before then. And is is isolated. And, most convincingly, Australia has very basal Y- and mt-DNA haplogroups under the usually-accepted phylogenies, unlike America. <br /><br />"Once speciated in America, modern humans migrated back to the Old World some 60-50,000 years ago" <br /><br />Again we have apparently basal members of the widespread Y-DNA MNOPS and mt-DNA R prestn very near Australia. In fact possible originating near that continent. Australia fits your theory far more closely than does America. <br /><br />"Under out-of-Africa modern Africans are closer to archaic African hominins than modern Eurasians. This is the age-old racist myth of primitive Africans who are ultimately closer to chimps than non-Africans". <br /><br />No. It is what the accepted phylogenies say. And any admixture has certainly removed any apparent closer connections to chimps. We are very sure that pre-human species were present in Africa and that something close to Homo erectus first evolved there. What we don't ywet know is where 'modern' humans evolved, or even if they were that much different from 'archaic' humans. terrythttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17327062321100035888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-78847361186167738052014-02-13T00:49:39.907+02:002014-02-13T00:49:39.907+02:00"We have hominin fossils in Eastern Eurasia a..."We have hominin fossils in Eastern Eurasia and we don't have them in America. But we're talking about modern humans, a new species. A new species requires isolation. America provided this isolation precisely because there were no hominins there. Once speciated in America, modern humans migrated back to the Old World some 60-50,000 years ago". <br /><br />The problem for that argument is that we don't have evidence for any humans in America anything like 60-50,000 years ago. However I'm sure you will like this link: <br /><br />http://www.pasthorizonspr.com/index.php/archives/02/2014/near-east-crossroad-of-the-palaeolithic-now-questioned<br /><br />Quote: <br /><br />"If this new research is correct, the story may need to be rewritten about the early movement of our ancestors and exactly how they left Africa. Instead of colonising the Levant then moving into Europe, they may have first settled in the central Asian steppes before turning west". <br /><br />But it still makes 'out of America' extremely unlikely.terrythttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17327062321100035888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-82863756590172404542014-02-11T05:53:15.645+02:002014-02-11T05:53:15.645+02:00@TerryT
"We have the evidence of the tree it...@TerryT<br /><br />"We have the evidence of the tree itself, as well as ample evidence for ancient human ancestors in Africa. Something we do not have at all for America."<br /><br />We have hominin fossils in Eastern Eurasia and we don't have them in America. But we're talking about modern humans, a new species. A new species requires isolation. America provided this isolation precisely because there were no hominins there. Once speciated in America, modern humans migrated back to the Old World some 60-50,000 years ago. There they admixed with Old World hominins, most extensively in Africa.<br /><br />"In fact Dienekes has recently posted a paper on the subject of admixture in Africa."<br /><br />Here you go.<br /><br />"They are closer to early modern humans than are Eurasians."<br /><br />You're not going to wiggle yourself out of a mouse trap, Terry. Under out-of-Africa modern Africans are closer to archaic African hominins than modern Eurasians. This is the age-old racist myth of primitive Africans who are ultimately closer to chimps than non-Africans. Alternatively, under out-of-America, many Africans carry "archaic" genes but this is immaterial and not "race-forming," as this is not ancient descent but recent admixture by a population that speciated in a continent devoid of in-situ "archaic" hominins.German Dziebelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10703679732205862495noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-15957900103195112112014-02-09T02:08:32.595+02:002014-02-09T02:08:32.595+02:00"I think you are just not looking at the new ..."I think you are just not looking at the new tree". <br /><br />I wasn't able to access it until recently and so I was basing my comments on youronservations along with those of others. <br /><br />"In the new version, M and all of L3 are sister lineages within the broader M'L3'N'U'R. In the old version, M and N are a subset of L3, R is a subset of N, U is a subset of R. So all those supposedly downstream lineages representing the 'colonization of Eurasia' from Africa got pulled up in the new version". <br /><br />Yes. I see that M and L3 are 'sister' lineages rather than M being a single clade within L3. And that could indicate L3 entered Africa from Eurasia. In other words N'U'R and L3'M may have formed outside Africa from some sort of L2 that had left the continent. But M and L3 are not 'sister lineages within the broader M'L3'N'U'R'. We have N'U'R and L3'M forming separate clades perhaps, as you claim, outside Africa. Then L3 and M form separate clades with, perhaps, L3 moving back into Africa. The 'new' tree still has 'R is a subset of N, U is a subset of R'. In other words N, R and U form sequentially, not forming single lineages within M'L3'N'U'R, in fact not even within N. We still have basically just two lineages outside Africa: M and N. As a result we can't expact M'L3'N'U'R to have moved very far from that continent before L3 moved back in. Perhaps as far as what we now know as 'The Fertile Crescent'. <br /><br />"In the 'classic' version of the mtDNA tree. L0 is African-speciifc and basal to the rest of the human tree, L1'2'4'5 are next to split and they are African specific, too. L3 is also African specific" <br /><br />And that is still so in the 'new' version of the tree. No change there. <br /><br />"only two of L3 lineages, namely M and N - - which are also most recently derived - are Eurasian". <br /><br />That is also still the case in the new tree. The only difference is we now have N and M on separate branches within the tree. <br /><br />"effectively the Eurasian lineages are several steps removed from the root of the human tree and all of Africans are closer to it. And the root of the human tree is most immediately derived from an African archaic tree". <br /><br />True. <br /><br />"for which we have no direct evidence but which must have existed if we believe in Darwinian evolution". <br /><br />We have the evidence of the tree itself, as well as ample evidence for ancient human ancestors in Africa. Something we do not have at all for America. Unless you do not accept Darwinian evolution? <br /><br />"So in this model all modern Africans are closer to archaic Africans than Eurasians". <br /><br />They are closer to early modern humans than are Eurasians although you seem to be ignoring the considerable gene flow and mixing that has always been occurring during our evolution. Haplogroups are not always precise indicators of diploid genes. In fact Dienekes has recently posted a paper on the subject of admixture in Africa. I presume you've seen it. terrythttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17327062321100035888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-53617418530526041942014-02-08T05:05:01.796+02:002014-02-08T05:05:01.796+02:00@terryT
"M is just one branch of the six L3 ...@terryT<br /><br />"M is just one branch of the six L3 clades. L3 is not 'one clade' within M."<br /><br />In the new version, M and all of L3 are sister lineages within the broader M'L3'N'U'R. In the old version, M and N are a subset of L3, R is a subset of N, U is a subset of R. So all those supposedly downstream lineages representing the "colonization of Eurasia" from Africa got pulled up in the new version.<br /><br />I think you are just not looking at the new tree.<br /><br />"No they don't. How do you come to that conclusion? "<br /><br />It's funny how scientists have managed to fool people like you for such a long time. In the "classic" version of the mtDNA tree. L0 is African-speciifc and basal to the rest of the human tree, L1'2'4'5 are next to split and they are African specific, too. L3 is also African specific only two of L3 lineages, namely M and N - - which are also most recently derived - are Eurasian. So effectively the Eurasian lineages are several steps removed from the root of the human tree and all of Africans are closer to it. And the root of the human tree is most immediately derived from an African archaic tree, for which we have no direct evidence but which must have existed if we believe in Darwinian evolution. So in this model all modern Africans are closer to archaic Africans than Eurasians.German Dziebelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10703679732205862495noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-49811045727378815212014-02-07T06:47:52.447+02:002014-02-07T06:47:52.447+02:00Sorry. I missed German's earlier comment:
&...Sorry. I missed German's earlier comment: <br /><br />"That's a big change [M is a sister clade to all the L3s, not to L3 as a whole]". <br /><br />Please explain. In what way is it 'a big change'? M is just one branch of the six L3 clades. L3 is not 'one clade' within M. Nothing has changed. That is how the haplogroup has long been seen. <br /><br />"The fact is mtDNA L3 is a subset of non-African haplogroups should help you on this difficult mental journey". <br /><br />OK. Please explain how it is that you see L3 as 'a subset of non-African haplogroups'. It doesn't make sense. <br /><br />"Out-of-Africa theorists put all Africans in a pre-Eurasian stage of genetic evolution" <br /><br />No they don't. How do you come to that conclusion? They see Africans as being 'in a pre-Eurasian stage of technological evolution'. But many non-Africans also remained in that state until quite recently. You are conflating technological evolution with genetic evolution. <br /><br />"I just have different hominin populations mixing with each other" <br /><br />And so does every other geneticist. That is hardly 'proof' that humans came from America. <br /><br />"My model is much more progressive than out-of-Africa" <br /><br />And doesn't make sense. How did humans reach America in the first place? Via Antarctica, I suppose. terrythttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17327062321100035888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-61292295769689748682014-02-07T06:14:42.258+02:002014-02-07T06:14:42.258+02:00"E is a subset of CT which includes D, F and ..."E is a subset of CT which includes D, F and C - all Eurasian". <br /><br />Absolute rubbish. E is a subset firstly of DE and only then with CT. And CT is a subset of BT, in turn a subset of A1b. Of the whole collection just CF and D are found beyond Africa, and exclusively so. I agree it is 'possible' that E originated outside Africa but the distribution of its own subgroups suggests otherwise. <br /><br />"You got it! It's pan-African". <br /><br />But check out the distribution of its various clades. None are 'Eurasian' except for very derived ones. It first formed E1 and E2. E2 is especially present in West Africa and E1 could also have originally been West African. E1a is definitely West African leaving just E1a clades in East Africa, but even here we have many basal West African clades. <br /><br />"But both of them are part of a clade that includes U, N and R, all of which are Eurasian". <br /><br />Again absolute rubbish. U, N and R remain a single haplogroup within the new phylogeny you are so enthusiastic about. This enthusiasm in spite of your continued denial of any relevance in constructed phylogenies. Once more we see your incredible inconsistency, using data willy-nilly depending on what you wish to 'prove'. <br /><br />"So this makes L3 a subset of a Eurasian clade just like African and West Asian hg M1 is a subset of hg M, which otherwise has Eurasian distribution". <br /><br />Completely fawlty logic once more. M1 is in fact a subset of M, yes. And M has an otherwise Eurasian distribution. Therefore M1 almost certainly moved from Eurasia to Africa. But you completely miss the boat with its relationship with L3. What you should have said is, 'M is a subset of L3, which otherwise has an African distribution'. terrythttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17327062321100035888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-45023756264540837392014-02-06T19:48:47.101+02:002014-02-06T19:48:47.101+02:00@TerryT
"Has no-one told you that Antarctica...@TerryT<br /><br />"Has no-one told you that Antarctica is now a frozen continent? You should read more. And I though you claimed a high linguistic diversity for New Guinea as well. Doesn't a migartion from Antarctica fit exactly with your claims? "<br /><br />I like your thinking here. Could you develop it a bit more and start a blog about it? This would channel your energy into a productive pursuit. <br /><br />"E is no 'subset' of a Eurasian clade but a 'brother' to a Eurasian clade."<br /><br />E is a subset of CT which includes D, F and C - all Eurasian.<br /><br />"L3 is primarily an African clade with just M being non-African according to the paper you are quoting."<br /><br />But both of them are part of a clade that includes U, N and R, all of which are Eurasian. So this makes L3 a subset of a Eurasian clade just like African and West Asian hg M1 is a subset of hg M, which otherwise has Eurasian distribution.<br /><br />"Since when have Hadza been South African though. And we have numerous examples of farmers turning to foraging whne conditions change. "<br /><br />Not Hadza's case.<br /><br />""Hg E is abundant across South and East Africa" <br /><br />And West Africa."<br /><br />You got it! It's pan-African.German Dziebelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10703679732205862495noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-10041590376945068762014-02-06T05:50:00.564+02:002014-02-06T05:50:00.564+02:00"Are you now claiming that Antarctica has the..."Are you now claiming that Antarctica has the greatest linguistic diversity in the world? Just like I indeed do for America". <br /><br />Has no-one told you that Antarctica is now a frozen continent? You should read more. And I though you claimed a high linguistic diversity for New Guinea as well. Doesn't a migartion from Antarctica fit exactly with your claims? <br /><br />"Just like pan-African Y-DNA hg E is a subset of the Eurasian clade, pan-African mtDNA hg L3 is a subset of the Eurasian clade". <br /><br />That is complete rubbish. E is no 'subset' of a Eurasian clade but a 'brother' to a Eurasian clade. That tells us nothing about where their ancestral haplogroup originated. And 'pan-African mtDNA hg L3' is even less 'a subset of the Eurasian clade'. L3 is primarily an African clade with just M being non-African according to the paper you are quoting. As a result 'your comprehension of humans' is non-existent. <br /><br />"L3 is found in Hadza who are foragers (Tishkoff 2007)". <br /><br />Since when have Hadza been South African though. And we have numerous examples of farmers turning to foraging whne conditions change. <br /><br />"Hg E is abundant across South and East Africa" <br /><br />And West Africa. terrythttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17327062321100035888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-31250650871304979882014-02-06T05:06:51.100+02:002014-02-06T05:06:51.100+02:00@TerryT
"We've 'always' known M ...@TerryT<br /><br />"We've 'always' known M is a sister clade to all the L3s, not to L3 as a whole."<br /><br />That's a big change. But you are obviously in denial.<br /><br />"I am actually yet to be convinced that E is anything other than African in origin."<br /><br />The fact is mtDNA L3 is a subset of non-African haplogroups should help you on this difficult mental journey.<br /><br />"But you place every African that lacks Eurasian element into the archaic category. "<br /><br />Stop your hysteria. Out-of-Africa theorists put all Africans in a pre-Eurasian stage of genetic evolution, again making them closer to the African "archaics." My model is much more progressive than out-of-Africa: I just have different hominin populations mixing with each other, with some of them surviving (modern humans), others (African archaics, Denisovans, Neandertals, etc.) going extinct post mixing.<br /><br />"Certainly of no value at all."<br /><br />For an individual with an archaic worldview.German Dziebelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10703679732205862495noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-31080278454282840732014-02-05T05:18:25.259+02:002014-02-05T05:18:25.259+02:00@terryT
"But I can't understand how you ...@terryT<br /><br />"But I can't understand how you would disagree with me as I used exactly your arguments to support my claim."<br /><br />Are you now claiming that Antarctica has the greatest linguistic diversity in the world? Just like I indeed do for America.<br /><br />"You are proposing that L3MNUR emerged from Africa..."<br /><br />No. Why? Your decades of breeding animals has affected your comprehension of humans. L3MNUR emerged from Eurasia. Populations that carried L3 and M1 migrated into Africa.<br /><br />"On what grounds do you assume that?"<br /><br />Again, the comprehension of human speech is difficult for you, Terry. Just like pan-African Y-DNA hg E is a subset of the Eurasian clade, pan-African mtDNA hg L3 is a subset of the Eurasian clade.<br /><br />"But much of that 'pan-African distribution', especially in South Africa, is a product of more recent expansion, with farming."<br /><br />Do you have a reference? L3 is found in Hadza who are foragers (Tishkoff 2007). But I agree that the pan-African provenance of Y-DNA hg E is more salient than that of mtDNA L3. Hg E is abundant across South and East Africa, foragers and farmers alike. However, this is normal as sex-biased gene flow has been reported from several regions. E.g., Munda's genetic connection to other Austroasiatic speakers in SE Asia is noticeable in its Y-DNA makeup but not in its mtDNA makeup. Munda are Indian in their mtDNA but SE Asian in their Y-DNA. Y-DNA proves to be more reflective of their origin.German Dziebelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10703679732205862495noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-33006558163175659662014-02-05T02:26:38.463+02:002014-02-05T02:26:38.463+02:00"And now we know that hg M and hg L3 are sist..."And now we know that hg M and hg L3 are sister clades. So, L3 logically entered Africa just like M1 did". <br /><br />We've 'always' known M is a sister clade to all the L3s, not to L3 as a whole. M is just one of the several L3 clades, equal to L3a (Ethiopia), L3b'f (Across Sahel to Birkina Faso), L3c'd'j (across Sahel and into Kenya), L3e'i'k'x (across Sahel and into SW Asia) and L3h (across sahel and into Tanzania). From that we see that M is the odd one out and so it is extremely unlikely that its presence outside Africa indicates the 'origin' of the whole set. It is especially unlikely when we consider that just the downstream mutation M1 entered Africa. And then only a very small proportion of that haplogroup. <br /><br />"Just like several authors argued that Y-DNA hg E migrated to Africa because it's nested within the Eurasian CT (CDEF) clade. And you in fact supported it in a number of forum discussions". <br /><br />I am actually yet to be convinced that E is anything other than African in origin. What we may be seeing is that DE became spread through the African Sahel and out into the grassland steppe of Eurasia. D and E represent mutations from the opposite ends of the geographic range. At some subsequent time the haplogroup suffered extinction through the regions intermediate between Africa and Eastern Eurasia. <br /><br />"The only way to do this, without falling into circular arguments, is to find genes from African archaic hominins outside of Africa. They would've been carried out by the expanding modern human populations who had previously admixed with them within Africa". <br /><br />How can you expect any African group who emerged into Eurasia to carry a fully representative sample of African genes? This is especially surprising considering your previous comment: <br /><br />"African 'archaics' is an accepted term for pre-modern human hominin populations". <br /><br />But you place every African that lacks Eurasian element into the archaic category. <br /><br />"I have plenty of logic and enough command of the English language to say something meaningful". <br /><br />But what you say is still rubbish. Certainly of no value at all. terrythttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17327062321100035888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-50652948528536097732014-02-04T05:06:36.578+02:002014-02-04T05:06:36.578+02:00@terryT
"How on earth do you get L3 migratin...@terryT<br /><br />"How on earth do you get L3 migrating to Africa from Eurasia from the new phylogeny? "<br /><br />Just like several authors argued that Y-DNA hg E migrated to Africa because it's nested within the Eurasian CT (CDEF) clade. And you in fact supported it in a number of forum discussions.<br /><br />"Yes. We know that Y-DNA R and mt-DNA M entered Africa from Eurasia."<br /><br />And now we know that hg M and hg L3 are sister clades. So, L3 logically entered Africa just like M1 did.<br /><br />"You seem to have a very racist concept of Africans?"<br /><br />African "archaics" is an accepted term for pre-modern human hominin populations. Just like Neandertals and Denisovans are spoken about as populations behind "archaic introgressions" in Eurasia. <br /><br />But you are missing a bigger point: out-of-Africa theorists forgot that they need to furnish some evidence for the "Africanness" of Eurasian populations. The only way to do this, without falling into circular arguments, is to find genes from African archaic hominins outside of Africa. They would've been carried out by the expanding modern human populations who had previously admixed with them within Africa. Since African archaics are African-specific species, just like Neandertals and Denisovans are Eurasia-specific species, one would have been justified in considering an out-of-Africa migration "proven." But in reality it's a migration into Africa that's now a proven fact, not a migration out of Africa.<br /><br />So, as you can see, I have plenty of logic and enough command of the English language to say something meaningful. You, admittedly, can chirp in English but you have nothing of value to say.German Dziebelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10703679732205862495noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-50390779850945263322014-02-04T03:51:08.990+02:002014-02-04T03:51:08.990+02:00Further to my previous comment. German wrote:
&...Further to my previous comment. German wrote: <br /><br />"L3 has a pan-African distribution. It's found among Khoe-San and in West Africa. The 'simplest' explanation therefore is that Eurasians entered Africa through East Africa and spread across the whole continent from there". <br /><br />But the 'Eurasian' entry did not require L3 to have come from outside Africa, merely to be a vector for expansion within Africa. Check out Dienekes' latest post: <br /><br />http://dienekes.blogspot.co.nz/2014/02/west-eurasian-ancestry-in-eastern-and.html<br /><br />A couple of quotes from the abstract: <br /><br />"Here we use genome-wide genetic data to show that there are at least two admixture events in the history of Khoisan populations (southern African hunter–gatherers and pastoralists who speak non-Bantu languages with click consonants). One involved populations related to Niger–Congo-speaking African populations, and the other introduced ancestry most closely related to west Eurasian (European or Middle Eastern) populations. We date this latter admixture event to ∼900–1,800 y ago and show that it had the largest demographic impact in Khoisan populations that speak Khoe–Kwadi languages". <br /><br />'900–1,800 y ago' is far more recent than even German would claim for L3's original expansion. <br /><br />"we also find evidence for two admixture events in the history of Kenyan, Tanzanian, and Ethiopian populations, the earlier of which involved populations related to west Eurasians and which we date to ∼2,700–3,300 y ago". <br /><br />Perhaps we're getting closer with that date?terrythttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17327062321100035888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-18872199526841266652014-02-04T03:25:39.903+02:002014-02-04T03:25:39.903+02:00"you are now an 'out-of-Antarctica' g..."you are now an 'out-of-Antarctica' guy. It's official!" <br /><br />OK. But I can't understand how you would disagree with me as I used exactly your arguments to support my claim. In fact often quoted you directly. <br /><br />"This doesn't change the fact that L3 is now a subset of what otherwise is a non-African clade". <br /><br />How on earth do you come to that conclusion? L3MNUR apparently simply split in two. You are proposing that L3MNUR emerged from Africa, then a single branch of it (NUR) was left behind in uninhabited-by-anything-like-it Eurasia, but failed to expand for quite some time. Meanwhile the other branch (L3M) re-entered an already-occupied Africa and instantly diversified considerably. My decades spent breeding animals tells me that makes no ecological sense at all. <br /><br />"And I argued multiple times that mtDNA phylogeny must be out of whack as the mtDNA and Y-DNA trees should mirror each other better than they did during the 'classical' haploid research times". <br /><br />On what grounds do you assume that? We know from more recent times that the two haploid lines can be remarkably different. <br /><br />"L3 has a pan-African distribution. It's found among Khoe-San and in West Africa". <br /><br />But much of that 'pan-African distribution', especially in South Africa, is a product of more recent expansion, with farming. L3 looks to have been originally primarily a Sahelian haplogroup, spread from Ethiopia to Birkina Faso. Presumably it was the presence of a similar habitat outside Africa that allowed haplogroups related to L3 to expand from Africa. terrythttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17327062321100035888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-79992809063498271122014-02-03T04:29:51.106+02:002014-02-03T04:29:51.106+02:00@Eurologist
"That is an incorrect representa...@Eurologist<br /><br />"That is an incorrect representation of the results of the paper. There is now an L3MNUR group, which is upstream of L3M and NUR."<br /><br />Yes, after re-examining that mammoth tree graph, I agree, this is more accurate. Thanks. This doesn't change the fact that L3 is now a subset of what otherwise is a non-African clade. This is precisely what we see in the Y-DNA phylogeny. And I argued multiple times that mtDNA phylogeny must be out of whack as the mtDNA and Y-DNA trees should mirror each other better than they did during the "classical" haploid research times.<br /><br />"L3 then simply is the surviving NE African portion of L3MNUR."<br /><br />L3 has a pan-African distribution. It's found among Khoe-San and in West Africa. The "simplest" explanation therefore is that Eurasians entered Africa through East Africa and spread across the whole continent from there. This is consistent with East Africa having the highest linguistic diversity in Africa, with all the major continental stocks (Khoisan, Niger-Congo, Nilo-Saharan, Afroasiatic) represented there. This is a perfect footprint of modern humans. All the other "L" lineages were absorbed from an archaic substrate(s) in Africa. Same for Y-DNA hgs A and B.<br /><br />Ignore the dates. They are a moving target.German Dziebelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10703679732205862495noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-26967632945805789352014-02-03T04:00:39.109+02:002014-02-03T04:00:39.109+02:00@TerryT
"Perhaps English is your second lang...@TerryT<br /><br />"Perhaps English is your second language and you do not understand it very well. You certainly seem unable to read it properly."<br /><br />Nice try, New Zealand. Perhaps, having spent decades breeding animals, thinking has never become one of your faculties, as you clearly incapable of comprehending the various discursive means that human beings use to fight pseudoscientific biases and ad hominem attacks. Regardless of what you were trying to communicate with your Antarctic analogy, you are now an "out-of-Antarctica" guy. It's official! This is the idea your imagination would have of necessity taken you to if you hadn't stumbled on its next-of-kin - out-of-Africa.German Dziebelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10703679732205862495noreply@blogger.com