tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post3860603315353144907..comments2024-01-04T04:11:55.717+02:00Comments on Dienekes’ Anthropology Blog: Is multi-regional evolution dead?Dienekeshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02082684850093948970noreply@blogger.comBlogger16125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-14644384513458899002011-02-16T21:04:52.088+02:002011-02-16T21:04:52.088+02:00Note also that the Fst onur gives are probably der...Note also that the Fst onur gives are probably derived using some sort of microarray (I've given Fst estimates for Sub-Saharans vs. Paleoafricans myself here: http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2010/12/human-genetic-variation-first.html), and most SNPs in these chips are ascertained on Hapmap or other such data collections. Paleoafricans are polymorphic in sites where Eurasians (and African farmers) are monomorphic, so there is an ascertainment bias.<br /><br />I would say that the genetic divergence dates of the Denisova paper are the "state of the art" as they are based on full genome sequences (see also Figure 1 of the Denisova paper showing San as outgroup to other modern humans).Dienekeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02082684850093948970noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-89364173668720893872011-02-16T20:55:42.875+02:002011-02-16T20:55:42.875+02:00I was referring to Table S6.2 of "Genetic his...I was referring to Table S6.2 of "Genetic history of an archaic hominin group from Denisova Cave in Siberia" which shows that the divergence time of Yoruba/Chinese is smaller than that of Yoruba/San<br /><br />http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v468/n7327/full/nature09710.html#/supplementary-informationDienekeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02082684850093948970noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-6472128042054091512011-02-16T20:36:43.390+02:002011-02-16T20:36:43.390+02:00Hi, Dienekes. On Razib Khan's blog, I took a ...Hi, Dienekes. On Razib Khan's blog, I took a point you made in this post 'Is Mult-regional Evolution Dead' and stated it at Razib's site here:<br /><br />http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2011/02/real-three-dimensional-pca/#comments<br /><br />The point I took from you was that "Yorubans are genetically closer to Chinese than they are to San". Onur responded stating that this was not the case and gave these FST figures:<br /><br />Yoruban-San: 0,0976<br />Yoruban-Chinese: 0,1913<br />San-Chinese: 0,2480<br /><br />Dienekes, can you please intervene at the link I gave and clarify what you meant? Is Onur correct or what did you mean?Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01360255679573762586noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-74026513703611243532011-01-25T07:25:19.132+02:002011-01-25T07:25:19.132+02:00If you forget to leaf please observe that voiced l...If you forget to leaf please observe that voiced laugther is a feature specific to the human kind... ;-))<br /><br />Wondering from which corner of biology the sense of experiencing enhanced pleasure and share this 'spiritual' joy in a social context - we have again to look amongst a limited number of primates.<br /><br />AFAIK the only animals to express 'laugther' in a visible and sonic format are chimps and orangutangs - beside goats and dolphins.<br /><br />Perhaps thats were we need to look to find the "missing link" - and a mammal that can mother the seed of an ape succesfully - to transform it into a proto-human. <br /><br />Today that kind of analyzis can even be a matter of research, through the comparision of the engeneering nucleids we call gens. If one a able to keep the spirit of Darwin still alive - and keep an ubiased, purely analytic mind open to the wonders of nature and the mysteries still unexplored...batmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00810638398479713844noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-14491554479839142712011-01-24T11:13:38.492+02:002011-01-24T11:13:38.492+02:00Coon is still going, Erasmus Darwin keeps smiling,...Coon is still going, Erasmus Darwin keeps smiling, Linnè's taxas and Rudbecks spirit is still mirrored in the ponds of field-camps and campuses...<br /> <br />Though, a few of their descendants seem to have forgotten some basic issues - in terms of confusing the probable and the proven. One fundamental element of modern, human genetics is the question from which mammal - or mammals (sic!) - we descend from.'<br /><br />So far we do NOT even know if we - as a specie - have arosen from the dust of time as a result of (genetic) mutation or (fenotypic) cross-breeding. One of the premisses they all seem to go by - in terming the human genome - is a double-guess:<br /><br />1. We're the produce of an 'evouting' mutation - and not Gods finger... <br /><br />To replace the good old 'miracle of God' we have been getting another one - described as some undescribable process that gradually happened within our females mitocondrias, during the "zygosis" (moulding) of the seed from an unknown male and the egg-yolk of a taxonomicly identical female. Gradual pregnancy, that is. A bit pregnant, a bit not pregnant. Than a new specie would occur. "Probably", according to J.R. Wallace.<br /><br />2. The second presumtion is that this male and female would be one monkey - rather than an Ape, as Darwin Jr. described it.<br /><br />Observing this modern-day practice around the human genome one may wonder how far out on the genetic limbs people are willing to climb - before the roots of our genome are adequately defined - scientifically.<br /><br />Thankfully - on this excellent site some of the oommentators have adressed this issue, rising the awareness of some of the basic questions that the genetic maps still don't comprehend.<br /><br />The basic problem as of today is that the Chimps are - most probably - NOT in close family with the first couple of naked, bipedal monkeys that came out of mammal mother - on one peculiar day, very long ago.<br /><br />According to our fenotype we would be much more close to the Orangutangs. And - for all that we know - there could be just another mammal there as well - to produce the execptional, naked ape that got the gift of vocal distiction - and the ability to reproduce.<br /><br />The recent study of the genetic of our fellow primates seem to have revealed that the orangos are much closer to our genotype than is the chimp. Then we may ponder wheter the composition of the new specie was a result of a mystic molding of the zygote or a regular cross-over by two different set of genotypes, produceing the thir one - as in 'us'.<br /> <br />http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21041630<br /><br />Since most of us can't tell one haplogroup from another one can recommend a closer look at the fysiology and fysiognomy - called fenotype - of the chimp vs. the orangos. Thus this upfront study - of the ape-human interaction:<br /><br />http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sSXsu1CheWobatmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00810638398479713844noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-84255807188711787892010-12-29T09:52:31.468+02:002010-12-29T09:52:31.468+02:00"Let's begin by considering what we know ..."Let's begin by considering what we know to be true: interbreeding happened between widely divergent human populations". <br /><br />I have long accepted that the evidence supports that idea, especially when we consider species other than just humans and extrapolate. It's just that now we have even more convincing evidence for the case specifically in humans. <br /><br />"It's possible that H. sapiens himself is the product of such interbreeding". <br /><br />I'm sure it is. In fact I'm sure the development of Homo habilis was (or whatever you wish to call the species around 2 million years ago). <br /><br />"Adaptive changes could flow freely in the lattice of populations: they could originate anywhere and spread across the entire species range in a few thousands of years". <br /><br />A friend has coined the term 'the wave theory of evolution' to explain the situation. Separate genes move through the species in a series of waves. <br /><br />"Hence, the shallow genealogical time depth is true, but it is not that different from our next-of-kin". <br /><br />And possibly goes back to the change from Australopithecus to Homo. That involved considerable change, and so preumably selection. <br /><br />"Back-migration from Eurasia is rarely considered as a possibility, but there are good reasons to suspect it". <br /><br />And I've mentioned the possibility, and the evidence for it, several times. Usually to disagreement from most. <br /><br />"Both Homo erectus soloensis and Homo erectus pekinensis are absent" <br /><br />And found in two of the regions that you determined where regions of genetic extremes in modern humans. The others being Europe (Neanderthals) and Africa (Homo rhodesiensis?).terrythttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17327062321100035888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-21294936615617271672010-12-29T01:12:36.342+02:002010-12-29T01:12:36.342+02:00"the basal position of A and B with respect t..."the basal position of A and B with respect to the rest of the tree is not in doubt, as that status is arrived to by comparison with chimpanzee, and A is the least derived w.r.t. chimpanzee. So, unless some weird evolutionary reversals have taken place, A is the most basal clade in the human Y-chromosome phylogeny."<br /><br />Chimp and human Y chromosomes are very divergent (see http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v463/n7280/full/nature08700.html), and this fact was ascertained after the human Y-DNA tree had been built. So, using chimps as an outgroup is rather risky. A Neanderthal sequence would be better. One of the ways to check if there were any mutational hot spots (e.g., A mutating to G and back to A) is to see if phylogeny makes sense phylogeographically. If haplogroups fan out nicely out of the source area into the derived areas, then the phylogeny must be right. If A and B are indeed basal, but hg E emerged outside of Africa as part of the CDEF clade, then how are A and B attached to CDEF if there are no C and F members in Africa? There must be some intermediary steps. You can't have hg E perform two opposite "jobs": to be the first step in the evolution of non-SubSaharan diversity and a signature of a migration back into Africa.German Dziebelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10703679732205862495noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-19879887743988298422010-12-28T23:48:19.980+02:002010-12-28T23:48:19.980+02:00Alfredo Trombetti, in his theory of the monogenesi...Alfredo Trombetti, in his theory of the monogenesis of the language, hypothesized that human languages arose in Asia. It seemed absurd with the theory of the “out of Africa”. But now we can hypothesize that also the language was brought to Africa from these migrants from Asia and also the ancient languages of San with their clicks probably arose from these first migrants, if they, as Trombetti says, are linked with all the other languages. Otherwise the link of the African languages with all the other is too recent for having more than 60 thousand years.Gioiellohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13578860964923773647noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-7830969582796451392010-12-28T23:36:30.007+02:002010-12-28T23:36:30.007+02:00But that HG. E wasn't original of Africa I hyp...But that HG. E wasn't original of Africa I hypothesized when I was examining the Hg. E of Mr.Gabennesch, who was from Tyrol, with some relatives in Italian Alto Adige/Sud Tyrol, the more conservative region of Italy. Then that Hg.E was African was a dogma. Now not more. If Africa has only the original A and B and mt. L, but not L3, we can say that Africa was peopled again from Asia or Europe. See my hg. R, which certainly wasn't African in origin, and the most ancient R (R1) has migrated to Africa in very ancient times: see samples among the !KungGioiellohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13578860964923773647noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-5006373196930836982010-12-28T23:03:48.192+02:002010-12-28T23:03:48.192+02:00What we need to do is to ask ourselves could the C...<i>What we need to do is to ask ourselves could the CDEF clade contain a source for the AB clade?</i><br /><br />Not sure what you mean exactly, but the basal position of A and B with respect to the rest of the tree is not in doubt, as that status is arrived to by comparison with chimpanzee, and A is the least derived w.r.t. chimpanzee. So, unless some weird evolutionary reversals have taken place, A is the most basal clade in the human Y-chromosome phylogeny.Dienekeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02082684850093948970noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-12827645511820797672010-12-28T19:46:44.533+02:002010-12-28T19:46:44.533+02:00"The deep rooting of the Y-chromosome phyloge..."The deep rooting of the Y-chromosome phylogeny in Africa is not in doubt, but the rooting of the major M168 clade, that accounts for surely over 90% of our species, and perhaps much more is in doubt. The point of the back-migration argument is not that Y-chromosomes did not originate in Africa (they did), but that African genetic diversity could be inflated by M168 back-migrants."<br /><br />I completely agree that African diversity is inflated by later demographic processes such as 1) Africa-internal admixture between originally small divergent populations; 2) extra-African admixture (such as Y-DNA E, mtDNA M1, U6, N1, X). But you can't entertain the possibility of extra-African admixture and at the same time continue to believe in the "African root." A phylogeny is only good if it creates a robust phylogeography, namely there must be a "trail" of budding haplogroups on the way out of Africa. if there's none, then we have a problem. If there's no "out-of" in the out-of-Africa there's no "Africa" either. If you think that Y-DNA hg E back-migrated into Africa, it erases the only possible trail showing how a Sub-Saharan population could colonize Asia. What we need to do is to ask ourselves could the CDEF clade contain a source for the AB clade?German Dziebelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10703679732205862495noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-67461625930590843982010-12-28T18:20:50.754+02:002010-12-28T18:20:50.754+02:00Religion (pro or con) is off-topic.Religion (pro or con) is off-topic.Dienekeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02082684850093948970noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-5233333994668917022010-12-28T18:07:50.976+02:002010-12-28T18:07:50.976+02:00"the taxonomists usual practice of using only..."the taxonomists usual practice of using only morphology and locality to define species"<br /><br />Taxonomists don't care about biological consistency, they only care about what is traditionally accepted as true, which often has contradictions and irregularities.<br /><br />"The Adam and Eve story seems to relate to the invention of agriculture, and the Noah story might be a dim recollection of the filling of the Black Sea."<br /><br />All of them are fairy tales that have no connection to the real world. All religions are man-made constructs. I am an atheist and I don't care about religious issues, I care about science and truth.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-74178153017058888062010-12-28T15:07:28.393+02:002010-12-28T15:07:28.393+02:00Is not part of the problem the tension between the...Is not part of the problem the tension between the Mayer-Dobzhansky biological species definition (able to produce viable off-spring) and the taxonomists usual practice of using only morphology and locality to define species?<br /><br />Considering the recent evidence for so-called introversions, Mayer-Dobzhansky would lump a great many of the recognized hominins into a single species. In that case, much of the origins argument disappears.<br /><br />PS. The Adam and Eve story seems to relate to the invention of agriculture, and the Noah story might be a dim recollection of the filling of the Black Sea.sykes.1https://www.blogger.com/profile/10954672321945289871noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-69838697385380961392010-12-28T12:39:38.601+02:002010-12-28T12:39:38.601+02:00In my opinion, it is virtually impossible that ora...In my opinion, it is virtually impossible that oral tradition/ transmission goes back farther than a few millennia, let alone 50,000 year or 1 million years.<br /><br />So, no - there is no connection to something people put on paper a few thousand years ago.<br /><br />BTW, I am a Christian by upbringing - but that does not mean at all that I take things written in the bible literally. he vast majority of Christians don't- for very good and well-established reasons.eurologisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03440019181278830033noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-5141360964902318482010-12-28T02:59:53.940+02:002010-12-28T02:59:53.940+02:00I know it is a little OT, but as a Christian what ...I know it is a little OT, but as a Christian what is your take on Adam, Eve and Noah's family in light of the four models and the available data?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com