|
Post by djoser-xyyman on Jun 18, 2014 20:37:02 GMT -5
And now the pictures for those who learn through them.
|
|
|
Post by djoser-xyyman on Jun 19, 2014 20:05:13 GMT -5
Here is more…it is all coming together now. Loving it!!! --------- From the Sarah Tishkoff and Brenna Henn Paper:
Quote: The presence of Khoisan linguistic groups in Tanzania was earlier considered to support A ***PALEOBIOLOGICAL-BASED MODEL***, indicating that Khoisan populations inhabited all southern Africa and much of eastern Africa (as far north as Egypt; Tobias 1964; Bra¨uer 1978).
Click languages, spoken only in Africa with the exception of the extinct Damin ritual language of Australia (Hale 1992), are among the richest of all human languages in terms of the number of distinct phonemes (Gu¨ldemann and Vossen 2000). Greenberg included all languageswithclickconsonants in theKhoisan(or ‘‘Khoe-San’’) language family. Although they share the element of click consonants, African click languages are highly divergent
|
|
|
Post by djoser-xyyman on Jun 19, 2014 20:05:59 GMT -5
Here is more ------ Quote: Y-chromosome studies (Knight et al. 2003) in the Hadza and Ju|’hoansi San indicated a deep separation between the 2 groups (.40 kya; Knight et al. 2003).
The Hadza language is now considered by some linguists to be a linguistic isolate, genealogically unrelated to other click languages (Ruhlen 1991; Sands 1998), although others have suggested that Hadza may have similarities with Afro-Asiatic languages (Elderkin 1982). Overall, proposed linguistic relationships among the click languages (fig. 1) predict deep genetic divergence between these 3 groups (Cavalli-Sforza et al. 1988).
----
The AIM published by Lazaridis et al also confirms this. “Non-African- and Basal Eurasian” are NOT found in the Ju Hoansi!!
|
|
|
Post by djoser-xyyman on Jun 19, 2014 20:06:42 GMT -5
(Wood ET2003), Contrasting patterns of Y chromosome and mtDNA variation in Africa: evidence for sex-biased demographic processes
Quote: In the context of comparable published data for other African populations, analyses of each of these independently inherited DNA segments indicate that click-speaking Hadzabe and Ju|’hoansi are separated by genetic distance as great OR GREATER than that between ANY OTHER PAIR of African populations. Phyloge-netic tree topology indicates a basal separation of the speak ancient ancestors of these click-speaking peoples. That genetic divergence does not appear to be the result of recent gene flow from neighboring groups
|
|
|
Post by djoser-xyyman on Jul 2, 2014 14:22:39 GMT -5
The Cluster chart on page 41 has all your answers. K4 and K5 is really interesting. K4 shows the Native American genetic element present in specific SSA groups including the Biaka pygmies. But absent in some Click-Speaking groups. At K5(the Biaka Pygmy material shows up) what is fascinating is, of the European groups, the Peninsular European carry traces of this Pygmy genetic material. Northern Europeans do not. Of course all North Africans groups are abondant with this Pygmy genetic material as expected. This is indicative of a 2nd wave of Africans NOT necessarily Biaka pygmies but African migrants carry this Pygmy cluster. This also fits with the Pygmy motif found in Otzi Alps Icemen.
Man, it is all coming together now.
So irregardless the Lazaridis Report corraborates/aligns with the DNATrbies dataset of July 2014. The labels and naming of the clusters can be argued but the genetic material don’t lie.
|
|