tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post5119719708383385853..comments2024-01-04T04:11:55.717+02:00Comments on Dienekes’ Anthropology Blog: Oldest modern human genome from Siberia ~45 thousand years agoDienekeshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02082684850093948970noreply@blogger.comBlogger164125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-74286973850368183552014-06-02T14:25:44.768+03:002014-06-02T14:25:44.768+03:00@German:
Of course you would. And they got to Asia...@German:<br /><i>Of course you would. And they got to Asia from Mars, right?</i><br /><br />No, from Africa (duh!)<br /><br /><i>but East Asians and Oceanians were both observed as being closer to MA-1 than to the <br />Sardinian</i><br /><br />C'mon German! We're talking about MA-1 not being closer to East Asians than to Papuans, nothing to do with being closer to both of them than Sardinians. MA-1 has no discernable East Asian affinity over Papuan, something at odds with your theory of him receiving Amerindian admixture.<br /><br /><i>It is, though, as any admixture is incompatible with prior clustering by definition. if you start with a cluster and add admixture, you just keep generating artificially admixed populations. It's self-fulfilling prophecy.</i><br /><br />"By definition"? Really? Which definitions are you using then? Can you define the difference between 70% "ancestry" and 70% "admixture"? <br /><br />Clustering first maps the primary genetic associations ("ancestry"), adding "admixture" then allows inclusion of secondary genetic associations. The algorithms and methods in TreeMix have been rigorously tested and repeatedly confirmed as accurate in both human and non-human contexts, if you genuinely think you've found a flaw I suggest you write it up and get it published.<br /><br /><i>It's not called "discrepancy." It's meaningful difference</i><br /><br />I see. My bad. f3 stats (and f4 to some degree) ignore non-related gene flow, and yet still show "meaningful differences" in Amerindian affinities to various other populations - something we wouldn't expect from genuine outgroup.Tobushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05529220083970625733noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-55748314101379664762014-05-30T22:17:50.935+03:002014-05-30T22:17:50.935+03:00@Tobus
"Weird, I woulda thought it being att...@Tobus<br /><br />"Weird, I woulda thought it being attested in *Asia* would prove they were in *Asia*."<br /><br />Of course you would. And they got to Asia from Mars, right?<br /><br />"Raghavan SI14.6 (pg 92) : Dfreq(Papuan, Han; Sardinian, MA-1) = -0.002±0.005 (Z = -0.36)"<br /><br />Raghavan, p. 93: "Under a model where MA-1 is from the same lineage as the Sardinians, <br />the ratio of these two statistics for unrelated populations is expected to be 1.0, but <br />East Asians and Oceanians were both observed as being closer to MA-1 than to the <br />Sardinian (Figure SI 27)."<br /><br />"No, it's not - this "flawed assumption" is a reality directly dictated by the data. TreeMix first uses the data to build the maximum likelihood tree, then finds the admixture that best fits the data to that tree, the tree is not preconceived or assumed. "<br /><br />It is, though, as any admixture is incompatible with prior clustering by definition. if you start with a cluster and add admixture, you just keep generating artificially admixed populations. It's self-fulfilling prophecy. <br /><br />"Why? Amerindians have 70% East Eurasian and 30% West Eurasian ancestry... if they *weren't* closer to Chinese that would be weird."<br /><br />In Schiffels, Amerindians and Chinese share a node. According to Raghavan, admixture with West Eurasians happened after the split from East Asians. Nothing of this sort is depicted in Schiffels. Schiffels shows that West Eurasians, East Asians and Amerindians all share a deeper node, which would make them all equidistant from each other in Raghavan. But they are not. In Raghavan, West Eurasians are closer to Amerindians than to East Asians. In Schiffels, West Eurasians should share more drift with East Asians than with Amerindians as Amerindians are shown to have an additional bottleneck, while East Asians don't. The two studies are completely inconsistent with each other. Very typical for geneticists!<br /><br />"German Dziebel on another thread, in response to "East Asians, C/S Asians, Europeans, LB etc. all get different MA-1 scores (EDF 5d) to their Amerindian scores (EDF 5a). The two are clearly not the same.": "Sure, MA-1 is West Eurasian-admixed." - there's a major discrepancy and you know it."<br /><br />It's not called "discrepancy." It's meaningful difference. Of course, you wouldn't know it.German Dziebelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10703679732205862495noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-5672881773365416152014-05-29T13:12:06.431+03:002014-05-29T13:12:06.431+03:00@German:
But the fact that it's attested in As...@German:<br /><i>But the fact that it's attested in Asia at 24,000 proves that Amerindians were in the New World for at least that long.</i><br /><br />Weird, I woulda thought it being attested in *Asia* would prove they were in *Asia*.<br /><br /><i>Sardinians have less east Asian affinity than MA-1, at least according to Raghavan.</i><br /><br />Raghavan SI14.6 (pg 92) : Dfreq(Papuan, Han; Sardinian, MA-1) = -0.002±0.005 (Z = -0.36)<br /><br /><i>Raghavan's TreeMix is base don a flawed assumption of Amerindians falling into the East Asian cluster. </i><br /><br />No, it's not - this "flawed assumption" is a reality directly dictated by the data. TreeMix first uses the data to build the maximum likelihood tree, then finds the admixture that best fits the data to that tree, the tree is not preconceived or assumed. <br /><br /><i>The very fact that Schiffels makes Amerindians as the closest to the Chinese puts its results in conflict with all the Amerindian admixture in West Eurasian literature we've been discussing. </i><br /><br />Why? Amerindians have 70% East Eurasian and 30% West Eurasian ancestry... if they *weren't* closer to Chinese that would be weird.<br /><br /><i>All the recent genomic and ancient DNA data supports it</i><br /><br />Show me some published papers?<br /><br /><i>I explained to you how to read those charts. There's no discrepancy.</i><br /><br />German Dziebel on another thread, in response to "East Asians, C/S Asians, Europeans, LB etc. all get different MA-1 scores (EDF 5d) to their Amerindian scores (EDF 5a). The two are clearly not the same.": "<i>Sure, MA-1 is West Eurasian-admixed.</i>" - there's a major discrepancy and you know it.<br /><br /><i>East Asians diverged from Amerindians. West Eurasians diverged from Amerindians. They were isolated from each other since the split. They are different from each other but equally descended from Amerindians. </i><br /><br />Except that they *aren't* equally "descended" from Amerindians at all - East Asians are much closer, meaning West Eurasians had already diverged long before Amerindians and East Asians did... and hence the problem with Amerindian admixture into MA-1, it should have given MA-1 higher East Asian affinity as well.Tobushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05529220083970625733noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-77100504031533202322014-05-29T03:46:49.968+03:002014-05-29T03:46:49.968+03:00"All the recent genomic and ancient DNA data ..."All the recent genomic and ancient DNA data supports it". <br /><br />Such as? Please supply at least one example of a scientist who supports your belief. Haplogroup phylogenies alone certainly make your creationist belief untenable. <br /><br />"But the fact that it's attested in Asia at 24,000 [what you like to call 'Amerindian DNA'] proves that Amerindians were in the New World for at least that long". <br /><br />Would you mind explaining just how it proves that to be so. <br /><br />"The fact that West Eurasians have Amerindian affinity but not East Asian affinity proves that Amerindians are not of East Asian extraction". <br /><br />Again would you mind explaining exactly how you come to that conclusion. It doesn't make sense. <br /><br />"The very fact that Schiffels makes Amerindians as the closest to the Chinese puts its results in conflict with all the Amerindian admixture in West Eurasian literature we've been discussing". <br /><br />Once more you demonstrate a lack of logic. Surely Schiffels' findings completely match the idea that the Amerindian admixture in West Eurasian is not from Amerindian to West Eurasia but in the opposite direction. <br /><br />"You take every academic paper as divine revelation instead of critically interpreting its results". <br /><br />That is a far less biased approach than the one you adopt. It is blindingly obvious that you take every academic paper as divine revelation if it can possibly be twisted enough to remotely fit your belief and absolutely ignore the multitude of papers that make your belief untenable. Any valid hypothesis has to fit ALL the evidence, not just a selected sampling of that data. <br /><br />"West Eurasians diverged from Amerindians. They were isolated from each other since the split. They are different from each other but equally descended from Amerindians. This is basic evolution, my creationist friend". <br /><br />No, it's basic bulldust. It's got nothing at all to do with evolution, and everything to do with creationism. If West Eurasians and East Eurasians diverged from Amerindians they would show significant similarity to each other. If their present significant difference from each other was the product of separate drift and evolution since that separation their connection with Amerindians would have become completely obscured. But because you lack any understanding of genetics or evolutionary biology you will be unable to see that. terrythttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17327062321100035888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-91560537578486894222014-05-28T00:21:39.229+03:002014-05-28T00:21:39.229+03:00@Tobus
"So ANE is not "fictional"?...@Tobus<br /><br />"So ANE is not "fictional"?"<br /><br />As a pure population, it's a fiction. As a mix of Amerindians and West Eurasians it's pretty real.<br /><br />"we have "Amerindians" in Asia at 24kya but not in America until 15kya.."<br /><br />We haven't found Amerindian DNA in America at 25,000 years. Just like we haven't found myriads of other things. But the fact that it's attested in Asia at 24,000 proves that Amerindians were in the New World for at least that long.<br /><br />"MA-1 has the same East Asian affinity that Sardinians have."<br /><br />Sardinians have less east Asian affinity than MA-1, at least according to Raghavan.<br /><br />"MA-1 and Loschbour (and all West Eurasians) have some degree of Amerindian affinity, but as as Raghavans's tree mix runs prove, this is due to Amerindians having West Eurasian adxmiture, not the other way round. The f4 stats confirm this by showing a lack of corresponding East Asian affinity in those populations with higher Amerindian affinity."<br /><br />Raghavan's TreeMix is base don a flawed assumption of Amerindians falling into the East Asian cluster. The fact that West Eurasians have Amerindian affinity but not East Asian affinity proves that Amerindians are not of East Asian extraction.<br /><br />"In neither case is there support for the Amerindian lineage predating all the others. You are making up excuses to ignore the data - you should be embracing it and finding a solution that works with it."<br /><br />You take every academic paper as divine revelation instead of critically interpreting its results. The very fact that Schiffels makes Amerindians as the closest to the Chinese puts its results in conflict with all the Amerindian admixture in West Eurasian literature we've been discussing. BTW, look at Fig. 3 at Schiffels and the Amerindian dotted line separating from the rest at 100,000+ years ago.<br /><br />"No, your theory is old and has been made obsolete by recent data."<br /><br />All the recent genomic and ancient DNA data supports it. But you're welcome to believe that Father d'Acosta is still fresh and illuminating. That's what makes you a cryptocreationist.<br /><br />"The discrepancy between how the X populations plot on the MA-1 axis compared to the Karitiana axis... ."<br /><br />I explained to you how to read those charts. There's no discrepancy. <br /><br />" If MA-1 received DNA from Amerindians we'd expect to see a corresponding increased affinity to the very "Amerindian-like" East Asians."<br /><br />Nonsense. Its the other way around. East Asians diverged from Amerindians. West Eurasians diverged from Amerindians. They were isolated from each other since the split. They are different from each other but equally descended from Amerindians. This is basic evolution, my creationist friend. <br /><br />German Dziebelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10703679732205862495noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-32172751260462229222014-05-24T04:03:08.704+03:002014-05-24T04:03:08.704+03:00@German:
Mal'ta is a fossil.
So ANE is not &q...@German:<br /><i>Mal'ta is a fossil.</i><br /><br />So ANE is not "fictional"?<br /><br /><i>So, Amerindians were in East Asia 24,000 years ago. But, wait, may be we can think about it differently? Every time you run into a Pakistani person in the U.K, you must be thinking that Pakistanis in Pakistan came from the U.K.</i><br /><br />I might if there was nobody at all in Pakistan - we have "Amerindians" in Asia at 24kya but not in America until 15kya... You claim that ANE is "fictional" yet have no problem positing an entirely fictitious population (and sometimes multiple ones!) that there is even less evidence for... hypocrite much?<br /><br /><i>They don't measure different things. That's your fantasy.</i><br /><br />They certainly don't contradict each other - MA-1 has the same East Asian affinity that Sardinians have, and yet has significantly more Amerindian affinity than Sardinians have, something we would not expect to see if MA-1's received Amerindian gene-flow.<br /><br /><br /><i>What they overlooked is that both MA-1 and Loschbour are known to have Amerindian admixture</i><br /><br />They didn't "overlook" that because it's not a fact - it's your fantasy. MA-1 and Loschbour (and all West Eurasians) have some degree of Amerindian affinity, but as as Raghavans's tree mix runs prove, this is due to Amerindians having West Eurasian adxmiture, not the other way round. The f4 stats confirm this by showing a lack of corresponding East Asian affinity in those populations with higher Amerindian affinity.<br /><br /><i>And Schiffels used admixed MXL for both Amerindians and West Eurasians</i><br /><br />And plotted both with and without European alleles masked. In neither case is there support for the Amerindian lineage predating all the others. You are making up excuses to ignore the data - you should be embracing it and finding a solution that works with it.<br /><br /><i>Your mistake is that you misclassify my theory as "baseless" instead of "new."</i><br /><br />No, your theory is old and has been made obsolete by recent data. <br /><br /><i>What discrepancy?</i><br /><br />The discrepancy between how the X populations plot on the MA-1 axis compared to the Karitiana axis... do try to keep up.<br /><br /><br /><i>Where is the data that says that Amerindians are East Asian like vs. East Asians are Amerindian like?</i><br /><br />Six of one, half a dozen of the other. If MA-1 received DNA from Amerindians we'd expect to see a corresponding increased affinity to the very "Amerindian-like" East Asians.Tobushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05529220083970625733noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-28203520618918193232014-05-23T03:54:34.397+03:002014-05-23T03:54:34.397+03:00"Your mistake is that you misclassify my theo..."Your mistake is that you misclassify my theory as 'baseless' instead of 'new.' New and baseless theories sometimes do look similar but you need to be able to differentiate between them". <br /><br />Agreed. Your theory is both 'new' and 'baseless'. Actually it's not particularly new. I remember it was seriously considered some years ago, but abandoned when it became obvious it could not be correct. terrythttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17327062321100035888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-37917074175782950122014-05-23T01:17:57.082+03:002014-05-23T01:17:57.082+03:00@Tobus
"Nice try, but it's you who's...@Tobus<br /><br />"Nice try, but it's you who's demanding an "ANE" fossil - still think it's a creationist position?"<br /><br />Wake up, Tobus, Mal'ta is a fossil. And it's transitional between Amerindians and West Eurasians. From one of early Amerindian populations to the ancestor of West Eurasians, that is. <br /><br />"And were in East Asia, not America."<br /><br />So, Amerindians were in East Asia 24,000 years ago. But, wait, may be we can think about it differently? Every time you run into a Pakistani person in the U.K, you must be thinking that Pakistanis in Pakistan came from the U.K.<br /><br />"The Rhagavan D-stat that shows MA-1 equidistant to Han as Papuan is D(Sardinian, MA-1; Han, Papuan)... the Lazaridis stat showing MA-1 is closer to Han is D(Yoruba, MA-1, Han, Papuan). You claimed the two were contradictory, but they are measuring different things>"<br /><br />They don't measure different things. That's your fantasy. First of all, it was Raghavan that put forth minor East Asian contribution to MA-1 on the basis of Han being closer to MA-1 than to Sardinians. It was in fact Lazaridis who used a different set of populations (Loschbour instead of Sardinians) and observed that MA-1 and Loschbour were equidistant. They decided to explain the Sardinian shift as influenced by another fictitious population, namely Basal Eurasian, which happened after Loschbour times. Lazaridis admitted that both Loschbour and MA-1 may have experienced East Asian gene flow. What they overlooked is that both MA-1 and Loschbour are known to have Amerindian admixture and Han is "very much like Amerindians."<br /><br />"Funny, the latest Schiffels paper disagrees with you, as do. Raghavan and Lazaridis... I guess they're creationists too right?"<br /><br />They haven't considered my alternative. (And Schiffels used admixed MXL for both Amerindians and West Eurasians.) But you have been exposed to it for the past months on a day-to-day basis. And you still refuse to adopt science. You must be a creationist. Not sure about Schiffels, Raghavan and Lazaridis.<br /><br />"Yes German, *I'm* the one positing a theory that has no support and every expert in the world agrees with *you*!!"<br /><br />Your mistake is that you misclassify my theory as "baseless" instead of "new." New and baseless theories sometimes do look similar but you need to be able to differentiate between them.<br /><br />"Of course - that's what the data says."<br /><br />Where is the data that says that Amerindians are East Asian like vs. East Asians are Amerindian like?<br /><br />"Except that f3 stats (and f4 to some degree) ignore non-related gene flow, and yet still show the discrepancy. You're running out of excuses."<br /><br />What discrepancy?German Dziebelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10703679732205862495noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-53263870367593149252014-05-22T14:32:59.138+03:002014-05-22T14:32:59.138+03:00@German:
19th century creationists, too, demanded ...@German:<br /><i>19th century creationists, too, demanded from Darwin fossils to illustrate his theory. </i><br /><br />Nice try, but it's you who's demanding an "ANE" fossil - still think it's a creationist position?<br /><br /><i>MA-1 proves that Amerindians are at least 24,000 years old.</i><br /><br />And were in East Asia, not America.<br /><br /><i>Wrong. MA-1 is slightly more East Asian than Sardinians.</i><br /><br />The Rhagavan D-stat that shows MA-1 equidistant to Han as Papuan is D(Sardinian, MA-1; Han, Papuan)... the Lazaridis stat showing MA-1 is closer to Han is D(Yoruba, MA-1, Han, Papuan). You claimed the two were contradictory, but they are measuring different things. Rhagavan's assertion of no East Asian affinity in MA-1 (and hence, no gene flow from Amerindians) remains valid.<br /><br /><i>Well, you need to have some proof from a New World sample that the admixture occurred</i><br /><br />All Native Amerindians have West Eurasian affinity... the only way they could have got it, as Raghavan clearly demonstrates in a number of different measurements, is via admixture from an MA-1-like population.<br /> <br /><i>All this hassle just to please one 21st centiry cryptocreationist </i><br /><br />Yes German, *I'm* the one positing a theory that has no support and every expert in the world agrees with *you*!!<br /><br /><i>Amerindians is that basal lineage and it behaves as such in the stats</i><br /><br />Funny, the latest Schiffels paper disagrees with you, as do. Raghavan and Lazaridis... I guess they're creationists too right?<br /><br /><i>Because you believe Amerindians are "very East Asian-like."</i><br /><br />Of course - that's what the data says.<br /><br /><i>What makes Amerindians share variable affinity with different populations is the varying degree of gene flow post separation</i><br /><br />Except that f3 stats (and f4 to some degree) ignore non-related gene flow, and yet still show the discrepancy. You're running out of excuses.Tobushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05529220083970625733noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-71372365919095694882014-05-22T03:42:56.612+03:002014-05-22T03:42:56.612+03:00"I hope TerryT is reading it. He's a big ..."I hope TerryT is reading it. He's a big fan of haplogroups. What do you think of blood groups instead" <br /><br />Yes, I am 'a big fan of haplogroups'. They tell us a great deal about the often separate male and female migration patterns. However I agree that 'Haplogroups are notoriously bad at representing ancestry'. They are only part of the story and are reasonably easily replaced by later arriving ones. Blood groups, like haplogroups, also show human migration patterns. But are also 'notoriously bad at representing ancestry'. But your PhD in Dancing-with-Indians doesn't let you understand genetics. <br /><br />"Amerindians is that basal lineage and it behaves as such in the stats. No need to misinterpret it to fit your beliefs". <br /><br />German, there is absolutely no doubt as to who here is fitting misinterpretations to their pre-existing beliefs. A particularly great example: <br /><br />"MA-1 proves that Amerindians are at least 24,000 years old". <br /><br />It does no such thing. All it proves is that a population that forms part of the Amerindian gene pool existed in Siberia 24,000 years ago. Your statement is a perfect example of fitting misinterpretations to pre-existing beliefs. <br /><br />"East Asians are more Amerindian than West Eurasians (at some sites) and West Eurasians are more Amerindian than East Asians (at other sites). That's a sure sign of their divergence from a common Amerindian ancestor". <br /><br />Rubbish. In fact it makes their divergence from a common Amerindian ancestor completely impossible. If they had each derived from a common Amerindian ancestor they would be far more similar to each other than they actually are. terrythttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17327062321100035888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-40262866078814261182014-05-21T17:53:38.517+03:002014-05-21T17:53:38.517+03:00@Tobus (contd.)
"Haplogroups are notoriously...@Tobus (contd.)<br /><br />"Haplogroups are notoriously bad at representing ancestry - before the Lazaridis paper, theories based on haplogroup distribution posited a nearly complete replacement of HG Europeans by Neolithic farmers, when in fact HGs represent roughly 50% of modern European DNA. If you expect haplogroups to follow ancestry, you're going to be disappointed, misled or confused fairly often."<br /><br />I hope TerryT is reading it. He's a big fan of haplogroups. What do you think of blood groups instead, Tobus? Amerindians don't have a blood group commonly found in Asia, namely bg B. One Amerindian tribe, Blackfoot, has world highest frequencies of bg A, which is otherwise most common in Europe. But the rest of Amerindians are nearly fixed at bg O. You gotta learn how to think across datasets and furnish some support for your ideas. Well, maybe archaeology can help you? But, alas, the earliest New World technologies are similar to West Eurasian ones, not East Asian.<br /><br />"Amerindians received more MA-1 specific drift at 24kya than earlier branches off the basal lineage, so their high f3 stats, while somewhat unexpected due to them only sharing 1/3 of his DNA, is not completely improbable... particularly if we consider their isolated demographic history relative to Europeans."<br /><br />No. MA-1 received Amerindian drift prior to 24,000 years ago. Amerindians is that basal lineage and it behaves as such in the stats. No need to misinterpret it to fit your beliefs. <br /><br />"We'd only expect shared drift with populations that have shared ancestry or admixture with MA-1, and I'm not sure why you think East Asians would have this."<br /><br />Because you believe Amerindians are "very East Asian-like." <br /><br />"It's not at all what I'd expect to see - I'd expect Amerindians to be an outgroup to all non-American populations, or, if some populations are "late divergences", that the other non-American populations would have identical affinity to Amerindians and these late-comers. The varied level of affinity between Amerindians and non-Amerindians (and within non-Amerindians) makes it very hard to reconcile America as the origin of all modern humans."<br /><br />You need to get to a true outgroup by peeling off the onion on thousands of years of continent-specific history. What makes modern Africans an "outgroup" to modern populations is archaic admixture in Africa some 40,000 years. What makes Amerindians share variable affinity with different populations is the varying degree of gene flow post separation between a) Papuans and Denisovans (some 40,000 years); c) northern Amerindians and East Asians (12-10,000 years); b) northern Amerindians and southern Amerindians.German Dziebelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10703679732205862495noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-45504890701488318082014-05-21T17:53:12.934+03:002014-05-21T17:53:12.934+03:00@Tobus
"No one doesn't, one just needs o...@Tobus<br /><br />"No one doesn't, one just needs one of each and a modern population that is clearly a mixture of them."<br /><br />And this population exists. It's Uygurs! Not Amerindians.<br /><br />" and yet there's no evidence for *ANY* population in America pre 15,000kya but that's never stopped you positing the existence of such."<br /><br />19th century creationists, too, demanded from Darwin fossils to illustrate his theory. Since then the fossils keep coming and creationists continue to debate them 150 years later. The archaeological signs of Amerindian antiquity are growing (slower than on other continents but nevertheless) but cryptocreationists such as Tobus are denying their existence as well as the existence of millions of years ahead of us to keep finding them. But we shouldn't switch to archaeology when we're talking about genetics. MA-1 proves that Amerindians are at least 24,000 years old.<br /><br />"Raghavan is relative to Sardinians."<br /><br />Wrong. MA-1 is slightly more East Asian than Sardinians.<br /><br />"(consistent with Papuans diverging from the Eurasian populations first)"<br /><br />What Eurasians? Consistent with Papuans diverging from Amerindians first.<br /><br />"Since Amerindians are very East-Asian-like."<br /><br />Wrong. It's East Asians who are Amerindian-like. East Asians are more Amerindian than West Eurasians (at some sites) and West Eurasians are more Amerindian than East Asians (at other sites). That's a sure sign of their divergence from a common Amerindian ancestor.<br /><br />"Why? If there was no admixture with Amerindians it would be 100% West Eurasian, the Amerindian component only comes into play because some 30% of Amerindian DNA is inherited from this 24kya West Eurasian sample."<br /><br />Oh, so there was an admixture with Amerindians? I thought your whole idea was that MA-1 is not Amerindian-admixed.<br /><br />"At 12,000 years we are at least half way from the divergence point. It makes perfect sense that the modern populations that best represent Anzick are his modern Amerindian descendants. He's only 12kya away from them, but at least 36kya from any other modern population (12kya back up the branch to MA-1/East Asians plus 24kya down the branch of any other modern lineage)."<br /><br />Well, you need to have some proof from a New World sample that the admixture occurred. Since you don't believe there were any Amerindians in the New World prior to 15,000 years ago and by 12,000 years ago they are already Amerindian, you've maxed out on supplying conditions of falsifiability for your beliefs.<br /><br />"It seems you might be thinking that the components in the ancient PCAs actually existed at the time of the ancient sample - they didn't."<br /><br />ANE is a population that went extinct. Ancestors of modern populations didn't exist at the time of ANE. Back to the UFO idea? <br /><br />"At the time of the admixture 24kya they probably were, the variation we see today is more a reflection of migrations, demographics and admixture since that time. It would be overly simplistic to expect a sum of modern heterozygosity levels to reflect an admixture event that long ago on a different continent."<br /><br />Pseudoscience! Amerindians went through a bottleneck when they diverged from East Asians, so their heterozygosity went down. Then they admixed with West Eurasians, their heterozygosity went up. Then they went through a new bottleneck that resulted in their heterozygosity again going down. All this hassle just to please one 21st centiry cryptocreationist by the name of Tobus.<br /><br />German Dziebelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10703679732205862495noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-70469847566901242172014-05-20T14:37:12.616+03:002014-05-20T14:37:12.616+03:00@German (cont):
We shouldn't have seen the Ame...@German (cont):<br /><i>We shouldn't have seen the Amerindian component differentiated at 24,000 years in the first place.</i><br /><br />The components in that PCA are all modern - they are differentiated *now* - and retrofitted back to the 24kya sample. Considering that the relationship that most modern Eurasians have with MA-1 is via a basal lineage, not direct ancestry, is it really a surprise that a population *with* direct ancestry would best represent a portion of the ancestral lineage?<br /><br /><i>A 24,000 year old Siberian sample should be 1/2 West Eurasian, 1/2 East Asian</i><br /><br />Why? If there was no admixture with Amerindians it would be 100% West Eurasian, the Amerindian component only comes into play because some 30% of Amerindian DNA is inherited from this 24kya West Eurasian sample.<br /><br /><i> A 12,000 year old Amerindian sample should be 1/4 East Asian, 1/4 West Eurasian, 1/2 Amerindian. </i><br /><br />At 12,000 years we are at least half way from the divergence point. It makes perfect sense that the modern populations that best represent Anzick are his modern Amerindian descendants. He's only 12kya away from them, but at least 36kya from any other modern population (12kya back up the branch to MA-1/East Asians plus 24kya down the branch of any other modern lineage). <br /><br />It seems you might be thinking that the components in the ancient PCAs actually existed at the time of the ancient sample - they didn't. They exist now and are being projected back in time to the ancient sample on a "best fit" basis.<br /><br /><i>Amerindian heterozygosity levels should've been higher than East Asian.</i><br /><br />At the time of the admixture 24kya they probably were, the variation we see today is more a reflection of migrations, demographics and admixture since that time. It would be overly simplistic to expect a sum of modern heterozygosity levels to reflect an admixture event that long ago on a different continent.<br /><br /><i>Y-DNA hgs N, O and R should've been found in America.</i><br /><br />Haplogroups are notoriously bad at representing ancestry - before the Lazaridis paper, theories based on haplogroup distribution posited a nearly complete replacement of HG Europeans by Neolithic farmers, when in fact HGs represent roughly 50% of modern European DNA. If you expect haplogroups to follow ancestry, you're going to be disappointed, misled or confused fairly often.<br /><br /><i>f3 should've showed greater drift sharing between MA-1 and modern East Asians (especially Siberians) followed by Europeans and only then Amerindians</i><br /><br />Amerindians received more MA-1 specific drift at 24kya than earlier branches off the basal lineage, so their high f3 stats, while somewhat unexpected due to them only sharing 1/3 of his DNA, is not completely improbable... particularly if we consider their isolated demographic history relative to Europeans. We'd only expect shared drift with populations that have shared ancestry or admixture with MA-1, and I'm not sure why you think East Asians would have this.<br /><br /><i>This is precisely what we would expect to see if out-of-America was true.</i><br /><br />It's not at all what I'd expect to see - I'd expect Amerindians to be an outgroup to all non-American populations, or, if some populations are "late divergences", that the other non-American populations would have identical affinity to Amerindians and these late-comers. The varied level of affinity between Amerindians and non-Amerindians (and within non-Amerindians) makes it very hard to reconcile America as the origin of all modern humans.Tobushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05529220083970625733noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-17194883524943857522014-05-20T14:34:50.182+03:002014-05-20T14:34:50.182+03:00@German:
One needs to have an ancient Siberian pop...@German:<br /><i>One needs to have an ancient Siberian population with affinities to modern East Asians and modern West Eurasians to postulate Amerindians as an admixed population</i><br /><br />No one doesn't, one just needs one of each and a modern population that is clearly a mixture of them. Do we have need an ancient sample that's a mix of WHG and EEF to deduce that modern Europeans are a mixture of the two?<br /><br />You're like a Creationist insisting of physical proof for every step of the evolutionary tree and claiming there's a "missing link" if there's a logically inferable piece missing from the display case...<br /><br /><i>But sadly there's no evidence for that admixed West Eurasian-east Asian population in Asia</i><br /><br />... and yet there's no evidence for *ANY* population in America pre 15,000kya but that's never stopped you positing the existence of such.<br /><br /><i>Ancient West Eurasians are closer to East Asians than to Papuans (per latest Lazaridis), so this falsifies Raghavan's claim that MA-1 is as removed from East Asians as from Papuans.</i><br /><br />Lazaridis is measuring relative to Yoruba (consistent with Papuans diverging from the Eurasian populations first), while Raghavan is relative to Sardinians. MA-1 is no more East Asian than Sardinians, but much more Amerindian than Sardinians. Since Amerindians are very East-Asian-like, this lack of East Asian affinity is inconsistent with a theory of Amerindian gene flow into MA-1.<br /><br /><i>This is inconsistent with your other belief in the admixed, West Eurasian-East Asian origin of Amerindians. If Amerindians are part of an Amer-Asian population, they already precede the divergence of modern East Asians from this Amerindian-Tianyuan-like population</i><br /><br />It's a moot point if Amerindians diverged from the East Asians line or whether East Asians diverged from the Amerindian line - the point is they were once the same population and they split from each other. The West Eurasian admixture occurred after this split.<br /><br /><i>Using your terminology, we could say that Amerindians derive from an Amer-European population. </i><br /><br />No we couldn't, because the European lineage diverged before the "AmerAsian" one, so it would need to be "AmerAsianEuro" - if you're going back to before the West/East Eurasian split then just use "Eurasians" or "non-Africans".<br />Tobushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05529220083970625733noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-66327478161078734992014-05-20T06:19:09.716+03:002014-05-20T06:19:09.716+03:00"Another option is of course your preferred o..."Another option is of course your preferred one, namely that MA-1 is a UFO-derived population". <br /><br />From considering all the evidence you have mustered so far it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that Amerindians are a UFO-derived population. You have offered no alternative that I can see. What's more that Amerindian UFO-derived population has then mixed with several different populations in Eurasia that also appear to be UFO-derived. Are you able to explain to us exactly where you believe these different populations originated. And, considering you believe an Amerindian population mixed with non-Amerindian populations in Eurasia why you can still maintain modern humans descend from Amerindians. Nothing you say makes evolutionary sense. I suppose that comes from your having a PhD in 'dressing up as an Indian'. <br /><br />"A 24,000 year old Siberian sample should be 1/2 West Eurasian, 1/2 East Asian". <br /><br />Why? That need only be so if you believe Amerindians are as ancient as 24,000 years. The fact that MA-1 shows Amerindian affinity, but not completely, indicates Amerindians had not formed by 24,000 years ago. Or, if they had formed, the relationship was not directly with MA-1 but with an MA-1-like population. <br /><br />"Y-DNA hgs N, O and R should've been found in America". <br /><br />The fact they are not is alone enough to destroy your out of America belief. <br /><br />"Your conclusion obviously precedes the evidence" <br /><br />WHAT? Your circular arguments demonstrate clearly that you have already formed your conclusion and then have consistently proceeded to ignore any evidence that demolishes that conclusion, concentrating instead on evidence that could be considered ambiguous. <br /><br />"So out-of-America is more consistent with facts". <br /><br />Out of America is completely inconsistent with almost all the facts. Even the 'facts' it could be considered consistent with can best be described as 'ambiguous'. They just as easily fit an out of Eurasia origin for Amerindians. <br /><br />" but if East Asians and West Eurasians split from Amerindians they would be close to Amerindians (which is a fact) and distant from each other". <br /><br />No they wouldn't. They would be virtually indistinguishable. Once more you demonstrate your complete ignorance of evolutionary biology in spite of your claim to having a degree in dressing up as an Indian. terrythttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17327062321100035888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-46597371779118990072014-05-19T20:05:32.113+03:002014-05-19T20:05:32.113+03:00@Tobus (contd.)
"What then *would* you expec...@Tobus (contd.)<br /><br />"What then *would* you expect to see if Amerindians are in fact the descendants an East Asian population that received West Eurasian admixture?"<br /><br />I described the expectations multiple times. We shouldn't have seen the Amerindian component differentiated at 24,000 years in the first place. A 24,000 year old Siberian sample should be 1/2 West Eurasian, 1/2 East Asian. ADMIXTURE plots should've shown BLUE (West Eurasian) and ORANGE (East Asian) mixed in individual American populations at k=3, K=4 levels. A 12,000 year old Amerindian sample should be 1/4 East Asian, 1/4 West Eurasian, 1/2 Amerindian. All of West Eurasians and all of East Asians shouldn't have been pulled closer to Amerindians, but just a subset of both in the areas closest to America. So, basically we would expect only Siberians (some of whom, such as Mansi and Khanty, known to be West Eurasian-East Asian admixed) to show an Amerindian pull. Amerindian heterozygosity levels should've been higher than East Asian. <br /><br />Y-DNA hgs N, O and R should've been found in America. f3 should've showed greater drift sharing between MA-1 and modern East Asians (especially Siberians) followed by Europeans and only then Amerindians. There wouldn't have been an "Amerindian shift" across Eurasia, with Amerindians occupying the rightmost corner of the plots. Rather, they would've been in the middle of a plot, with West Eurasians being rightmost in MA-1 anchored plots.<br /><br />"The demonstrated East/West affinity of Amerindians but lack of East/West affinity in Eurasia is precisely what we'd expect."<br /><br />There's an Amerindian affinity of Amerindians. Then there's an East Asian pull in North America and West Eurasian pull in South America (roughly). And then there's Amerindian affinity in East Asia and Amerindian affinity in West Eurasia but no East Asian-West Eurasian affinity without Amerindians. This is precisely what we would expect to see if out-of-America was true.<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />German Dziebelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10703679732205862495noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-51266800427851840442014-05-19T17:32:42.820+03:002014-05-19T17:32:42.820+03:00@Tobus
"What matters in this discussion is w...@Tobus<br /><br />"What matters in this discussion is whether MA-1 is "Amerindian" in the same way that Sardinians are "European" (since you are trying to use that proposition to backup your point). It doesn't matter what way you slice it - they're not the same, not even close."<br /><br />It's the same principle applied to modern populations vs. a cluster that involves a 24,000 year old population. In the same way as Sardinians diverged from Europeans (or absorbed a SSAfrican-like admixture), MA-1 diverged from Amerindians into the West Eurasian territory. But ancestrally both clusters are directly comparable. Another option is of course your preferred one, namely that MA-1 is a UFO-derived population.<br /><br />"I genuinely don't understand your logic German, I suspect you are missing something - why would MA-1 have to be half-East Asian if he represents the non-East Asian part of Amerindians? "<br /><br />Your conclusion obviously precedes the evidence, hence you write "he represents the non-East Asian part of Amerindians" as if it was the idea we need to find evidence for. Your logic is pre-scientific. <br /><br />One needs to have an ancient Siberian population with affinities to modern East Asians and modern West Eurasians to postulate Amerindians as an admixed population. Note that the understanding is that the admixture event that supposedly "produced" modern Amerindians happened in Asia. But sadly there's no evidence for that admixed West Eurasian-east Asian population in Asia. MA-1 has an Amerindian component but not an East Asian component. So out-of-America is more consistent with facts.<br /><br />"To repost "MA-1 doesn't have Amerindian admixture - that's the whole point... if he did he'd be closer to East Asians."<br /><br />Only if Amerindians had derived from from East Asians, but if East Asians and West Eurasians split from Amerindians they would be close to Amerindians (which is a fact) and distant from each other. That's what divergence without subsequent admixture is by definition. Ancient West Eurasians are closer to East Asians than to Papuans (per latest Lazaridis), so this falsifies Raghavan's claim that MA-1 is as removed from East Asians as from Papuans. <br /><br />"Technically, both East Asians and Amerindians diverged from a combined proto-"AmerAsian" (Tianyuan-like?) population, and yes this almost certainly happened in geographic East Asia."<br /><br />This is inconsistent with your other belief in the admixed, West Eurasian-East Asian origin of Amerindians. If Amerindians are part of an Amer-Asian population, they already precede the divergence of modern East Asians from this Amerindian-Tianyuan-like population. Using your terminology, we could say that Amerindians derive from an Amer-European population. And then it's the "admixture" between Amer-Asian and Amer-European population that supposedly generated modern Amerindians. Or, using normal logic, East Asians and West Eurasians split off from a single ancestral population for which modern Amerindians is the best surviving proxy.German Dziebelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10703679732205862495noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-28103683345003487342014-05-17T10:44:56.955+03:002014-05-17T10:44:56.955+03:00@German:
What matters, using your own words, is th...@German:<br /><i>What matters, using your own words, is that "Amerindians as a distinct group might represent the largest apportioned slice of MA-1 DNA."</i><br /><br />What matters in this discussion is whether MA-1 is "Amerindian" in the same way that Sardinians are "European" (since you are trying to use that proposition to backup your point). It doesn't matter what way you slice it - they're not the same, not even close.<br /><br /><i>So, East Asians diverged from Amerindians in East Asia and that's how they became East Asians? </i><br /><br />Technically, both East Asians and Amerindians diverged from a combined proto-"AmerAsian" (Tianyuan-like?) population, and yes this almost certainly happened in geographic East Asia.<br /> <br /><i>The idea that Amerindians are West Eurasians + East Asians would've worked if MA-1 was half West Eurasian, half East Asian and then Anzick was half-Amerindian, 1/4 East Asian, 1/4 West Eurasian.</i><br /><br />I genuinely don't understand your logic German, I suspect you are missing something - why would MA-1 have to be half-East Asian if he represents the non-East Asian part of Amerindians? <br /><br /><i> To repost... "MA-1 which has Amerindian admixture"</i><br /><br />To repost "MA-1 doesn't have Amerindian admixture - that's the whole point... if he did he'd be closer to East Asians."<br /><br /><i>Lazaridis gives 50% p. 134</i><br /><br />That's the "the MA1 admixture into Karitiana" figure, not the amount of "Amerindian" in MA-1's DNA.<br /><br /><i>If East Asians derived from Amerindians, then MA-1 shouldn't be expected to be close to East Asians.</i><br /><br />Yes he would, unless you are now saying that East Asians diverged from Amerindians long before MA-1.<br /><br /><i>EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE!</i><br /><br />What then *would* you expect to see if Amerindians are in fact the descendants an East Asian population that received West Eurasian admixture? The demonstrated East/West affinity of Amerindians but lack of East/West affinity in Eurasia is precisely what we'd expect.<br />Tobushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05529220083970625733noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-51854974588774517602014-05-17T10:00:41.229+03:002014-05-17T10:00:41.229+03:00"So, East Asians diverged from Amerindians in..."So, East Asians diverged from Amerindians in East Asia and that's how they became East Asians?" <br /><br />That is not what Tobus is saying, and I'm sure you know it. Unless your creationist belief is clouding your judgement completely. East Asians did not diverge from Amerindians anywhere. The evidence is overwhelming that Amerindians diverged from East Asians through admixture with an MA-1 like population. <br /><br />"East Asians diverged from Amerindians, hence MA-1 which has Amerindian ancestry, is not particularly close to East Asians". <br /><br />As Tobus has attempted to explain multiple times if the picture you proclaim is be correct MA-1 should have a substantial genetic connection to East Asians. MA-1 shows no such connection therefore your belief is incorrect. <br /><br />"That's exactly what out-of-America postulates" <br /><br />Out of America actually postulates a whole mish-mash of improbable scenarios. As demonstrated by: <br /><br />"If East Asians derived from Amerindians, then MA-1 shouldn't be expected to be close to East Asians". <br /><br />You are conveniently ignoring the fact that if MA-1 too is derived from Amerindians he should have a significant East Asian genetic component. <br /><br />"you're trying to squirm out of the fact that MA-1 has an Amerindian component". <br /><br />Absolutely everyone agrees that MA-1 and Amerindians share a genetic component. Tobus is not 'trying to squirm out of' anything. It is you who is doing the squirming. Trying to make the data fit your creationist belief. <br /><br />"The idea that Amerindians are West Eurasians + East Asians would've worked if MA-1 was half West Eurasian, half East Asian and then Anzick was half-Amerindian, 1/4 East Asian, 1/4 West Eurasian. This is demonstrably not the case". <br /><br />Largely correct except for the but 'MA-1 was half West Eurasian, half East Asian'. Why do you believe that is necessary? Why does MA-1 need any East Asian genetic connection if Amerindians are 1/2 MA-1 and 1/2 East Asian? (as you say, 'The percentages don't matter' but actual percentages are more like 1/3 MA-1 and 2/3 East Asian). The mistake you are continually making is that you refuse to consider, even for a moment, that your belief might be wrong. This prevents you from looking at the evidence objectively and enables you to continue with your creationist belief. To maintain that belief you are forced to use completely conflicting methods of analysing similar data. As demonstrated by the way you use MA-1's genetic connections. And this completely stupid comment: <br /><br />"EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE! West and East Eurasians are both related to Amerindians". <br /><br />But West and East Eurasians are not related to each other, which is absolutely impossible if both descent from Amerindians. And you call yourself 'intelligent'? terrythttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17327062321100035888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-11593372448608859102014-05-17T01:08:13.897+03:002014-05-17T01:08:13.897+03:00"Amerindians are related to both West and Eas..."Amerindians are related to both West and East Eurasians, but these two are not (particularly) related to each other - this perfectly describes a situation where Amerindians have a mix of West and East Eurasian ancestors". <br /><br />Amen. terrythttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17327062321100035888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-51703014819393345502014-05-16T22:19:20.689+03:002014-05-16T22:19:20.689+03:00@Tobus
"I'm not sure what you are readin...@Tobus<br /><br />"I'm not sure what you are reading.."<br /><br />Look at Fig. 1C in Raghavan. All of your percentages are post-Amerindian, as Amerindians don't have any of the Eurasian components found in MA-1. What matters, using your own words, is that "Amerindians as a distinct group might represent the largest apportioned slice of MA-1 DNA."<br /><br />"This proves that we can't rely two f3 scores to infer the distance between the X populations used."<br /><br />As good as it gets.<br /><br />"Ummm... if East Asians had already diverged the it *wouldn't* have been common Amerindian/East Asian DNA - East Asians and Amerindian would have been different populations already!"<br /><br />So, East Asians diverged from Amerindians in East Asia and that's how they became East Asians? I think you intuitively gravitated to the right solution: East Asians diverged from Amerindians, hence MA-1 which has Amerindian ancestry, is not particularly close to East Asians. That's exactly what out-of-America postulates but only that East Asians are a group of Amerindians that diverged on their way to East Asia. The key is that MA-1 has an "Amerindian" component, not an "East Asian" component. The idea that Amerindians are West Eurasians + East Asians would've worked if MA-1 was half West Eurasian, half East Asian and then Anzick was half-Amerindian, 1/4 East Asian, 1/4 West Eurasian. This is demonstrably not the case. <br /><br />"More like 14 to 30%, but hey, fudge the data in your favour."<br /><br />The percentages don't matter (Lazaridis gives 50% p. 134) but you're trying to squirm out of the fact that MA-1 has an Amerindian component. Just to re-post: "But MA-1 is 30-50% Amerindian (as you yourself admit above saying "MA-1 is something like 30% Amerindian.") if Amerindians diverged from East Asians prior to absorbing West Eurasian gene flow, MA-1 which has Amerindian admixture would've been closer to East Asians than it is."<br /><br />"MA-1 doesn't have Amerindian admixture - that's the whole point... if he did he'd be closer to East Asians."<br /><br />No, only under the idea that Amerindians derived from East Asians. If East Asians derived from Amerindians, then MA-1 shouldn't be expected to be close to East Asians.<br /><br />"EXACTLY! Amerindians are related to both West and East Eurasians, but these two are not (particularly) related to each other - this perfectly describes a situation where Amerindians have a mix of West and East Eurasian ancestors."<br /><br />EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE! West and East Eurasians are both related to Amerindians. All of West Eurasians and all of East Asians. They are intermediately related to each other because they share a more recent common Amerindian ancestor than, say, Papuans. Going back to Lazaridis: "Ancient Eurasians (Europeans and MA1) are genetically closer to Karitiana than to North <br />Asians, intermediately related to Onge and East Asians, and least related to Papuans." German Dziebelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10703679732205862495noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-38771949349461248122014-05-16T18:38:19.637+03:002014-05-16T18:38:19.637+03:00@German:
Raghavan is clear that MA-1's closest...@German:<br /><i>Raghavan is clear that MA-1's closest relatives are Amerindians.</i><br /><br />Rhagavan explicitly states that "MA-1 is composed of five genetic components of which the two major ones make up ca. 70% of the total. The most prominent component is shown in green and is otherwise prevalent in South Asia but does also appear in the Caucasus, Near East or even Europe. The other major genetic component (dark blue) in MA-1 is the one dominant in contemporary European populations, especially among northern and northeastern Europeans." I'm not sure what you are reading, but this clearly puts MA-1 as ~70% Eurasian.<br /><br /><i>Sure, those are the West Eurasian alleles that Amerindians don't have. This is consistent withe everything else</i><br /><br />Most importantly it's actual calculations involving real populations where f3 is counting different alleles and reaching the same score. This proves that we can't rely two f3 scores to infer the distance between the X populations used.<br /><br /><i>In this case, MA-1 would've been as close to East Asians as to Amerindians (precisely for your own reason that "it would have been common Amerindian/East Asian DNA that MA-1 would have received, not just Amerindian")</i><br /><br />Ummm... if East Asians had already diverged the it *wouldn't* have been common Amerindian/East Asian DNA - East Asians and Amerindian would have been different populations already! Your logic seems to be back to front - "diverged" means different populations, "not diverged" means still combined as a single population.<br /> <br /><i>and a distinct East Asian component would have been visible in MA-1. </i><br /><br />No, because a) East Asians and Amerindians were already separate populations, and more importantly, b) MA-1 didn't receive *any* DNA - he gave it to an north-east Asian tribe/branch/population that went on to become Amerindians (and don't get confused again, it only shows up as "Amerindian" in ADMIXTURE because they're the best modern representation of it, not because it necessarily came from them).<br /><br /><i>But MA-1 is 30-50% Amerindian (as you yourself admit above saying "MA-1 is something like 30% Amerindian.")</i><br /><br />More like 14 to 30%, but hey, fudge the data in your favour.<br /><br /><i>If Amerindians diverged from East Asians prior to absorbing West Eurasian gene flow, MA-1 which has Amerindian admixture would've been closer to East Asians than it is</i><br /><br />MA-1 doesn't have Amerindian admixture - that's the whole point... if he did he'd be closer to East Asians.<br /><br /><i>Amerindians are related to East Asians independently of West Eurasians.</i><br /><br />EXACTLY! Amerindians are related to both West and East Eurasians, but these two are not (particularly) related to each other - this perfectly describes a situation where Amerindians have a mix of West and East Eurasian ancestors.<br /><br />Tobushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05529220083970625733noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-90342911239074927492014-05-16T02:16:51.102+03:002014-05-16T02:16:51.102+03:00" those are the West Eurasian alleles that Am..." those are the West Eurasian alleles that Amerindians don't have". <br /><br />You mean 'the non-existent West Eurasian alleles that Amerindians don't have'. How on earth do you propose that there were any West Eurasians at all before Amerindians entered the region? Which part of Genesis are you quoting? <br /><br />"In this case, MA-1 would've been as close to East Asians as to Amerindians" <br /><br />Are you able to provide one good reason why that would be so? Or are you relying on your creationist 'logic' here? <br /><br />"Ancient Eurasians (Europeans and MA1) are genetically closer to Karitiana than to North <br />Asians, intermediately related to Onge and East Asians, and least related to Papuans." <br /><br />Which absolutely rules out an Amerindian origin for those later groups if you're going to claim MA-1 as 'Amerindian'. <br /><br />"This suggests that all three (four including Papuans) share an Amerindian substrate from which they diverged in their own respective directions and didn't intermix much ever since". <br /><br />This 'diversification you're proposing, how did it happen? Separate creations in each region? Your lack of understanding of biological evolution is still preventing you from seeing that most mutations are neutral of actually harmful and useful mutations need inbreeding and selection to become established in a population. <br /><br />"East Asians were still a small population at 24,000 years, consequently didn't stretch into such a wide territory as they presently occupy". <br /><br />At last. I hope you can now avoid making the stupid claims regarding MA-1 and East Asians you have consistently made in the past. Of course that 'small population' didn't prevent them contributing genes to Amerindians. terrythttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17327062321100035888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-36625823647468527862014-05-15T19:35:09.265+03:002014-05-15T19:35:09.265+03:00@Tobus
"MA-1 is something like 30% Amerindia...@Tobus<br /><br />"MA-1 is something like 30% Amerindian, 25% South Asian, 25% Central Asians and 20% European... that makes him more Eurasian than Amerindian."<br /><br />Raghavan is clear that MA-1's closest relatives are Amerindians. Latest Lazaridis writes: "Ancient Eurasians (Europeans and MA1) are genetically closer to Karitiana than to North Asians, intermediately related to Onge and East Asians, and least related to Papuans."<br /><br />But you can keep denying science. Which part of Genesis did you read in the morning? <br /><br />"We *do* have actual calculations involving real populations! 5a tells us that MA-1 shares more alleles with Amerindians than LB does."<br /><br />Yes, that's correct.<br /><br />"LB and Amerindians share the same number of alleles with MA-1."<br /><br />No, there're some Amerindian populations that may fit this, but not all. Karitiana and especially Anzick clearly don't.<br /><br />"if he has some extra ones that Amerindians don't have."<br /><br />Sure, those are the West Eurasian alleles that Amerindians don't have. This is consistent withe everything else and shows that Amerindians did not experience West Eurasian gene flow.<br /><br />"There is no doubt that East Asians and Amerindians diverged sometime before the Amerindian/MA-1 admixture event."<br /><br />In this case, MA-1 would've been as close to East Asians as to Amerindians (precisely for your own reason that "it would have been common Amerindian/East Asian DNA that MA-1 would have received, not just Amerindian") and a distinct East Asian component would have been visible in MA-1. This is clearly not the case. Lazaridis, latest, p. 97, puts it nicely: " Ancient Eurasians (Europeans and MA1) are genetically closer to Karitiana than to North <br />Asians, intermediately related to Onge and East Asians, and least related to Papuans." (This is exactly what Olalde 5d shows us.) West Eurasians are still related to East Asians but not as strongly as West Eurasians are related to Amerindians and East Asians related to Amerindians. This suggests that all three (four including Papuans) share an Amerindian substrate from which they diverged in their own respective directions and didn't intermix much ever since.<br /><br />"If the gene flow went the other way, then MA-1 wouldn't have received any Han at all."<br /><br />But MA-1 is 30-50% Amerindian (as you yourself admit above saying "MA-1 is something like 30% Amerindian.") if Amerindians diverged from East Asians prior to absorbing West Eurasian gene flow, MA-1 which has Amerindian admixture would've been closer to East Asians than it is. East Asians may have diverged from Amerindians prior to 24,000 years but in any case it was a Amerindian>East Asian process, not East Asian>Amerindian process. This would mean that East Asians were still a small population at 24,000 years, consequently didn't stretch into such a wide territory as they presently occupy. So, the separation of East Asians into a distinct population from a wider Amerindian base may have happened not too long prior to 24,000 years. And this whole scenario is possible not for the reason you identified (if East Asians are not part of MA-1, hence they must have diverged earlier) but because Amerindians are related to East Asians independently of West Eurasians.<br />German Dziebelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10703679732205862495noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-61410949765951936602014-05-14T15:05:11.833+03:002014-05-14T15:05:11.833+03:00@German:
MA-1 is closer to Amerindians than to Eur...@German:<br /><i>MA-1 is closer to Amerindians than to Eurasian populations</i><br /><br />MA-1 is something like 30% Amerindian, 25% South Asian, 25% Central Asians and 20% European... that makes him more Eurasian than Amerindian. <br /><br />If you want to divide up the continental sub-populations then he's something like 20% South Amerindian and 15% North Amerindian - so closer to individual Eurasian populations than to individual American populations. <br /><br /><i>You may have outlined a possibility but in the absence of actual calculations involving real populations, it's no proof of anything.</i><br /><br />We *do* have actual calculations involving real populations! 5a tells us that MA-1 shares more alleles with Amerindians than LB does. 5d says that LB and Amerindians share the same number of alleles with MA-1. Since LB has less Amerindian alleles than MA-1 does (5a), the only way he can have the same number of alleles in common with MA-1 as Amerindians do (5d) is if he has some extra ones that Amerindians don't have.<br /><br /><i>East Asians diverged from Amerindians since then and haven't mixed with West Eurasians. How can they be equally related to MA-1 as Amerindians? </i><br /><br />Because if they hadn't yet diverged at the time of the MA-1 admixture then they were still a single population, and so your "Amerindian" admixture was just as much "East Asian" at the time - it would have been common Amerindian/East Asian DNA that MA-1 would have received, not just Amerindian. This scenario is something we can detect with the null result D-stat... if Amerindians and East Asians are a clade relative to MA-1, then D(Chimp, MA-1, Han, Karitiana) should return 0, not significantly non-zero. There is no doubt that East Asians and Amerindians diverged sometime before the Amerindian/MA-1 admixture event.<br /><br /><i>If Amerindians were 50% Han, MA-1 would've been part Han, too</i><br /><br />Only if the gene flow came from Amerindians into MA-1. If the gene flow went the other way, then MA-1 wouldn't have received any Han at all. The fact the MA-1 and East Asians don't show the affinity with each other that either shows with Amerindians is clear evidence that East Asians were a already a distinct lineage at the time of the admixture.<br />Tobushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05529220083970625733noreply@blogger.com