|
|
Post by djoser-xyyman on Jun 19, 2016 15:13:38 GMT -5
The genetic structure of the world’s first farmers 2 3 Iosif Lazaridis1,2,†, biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/early/2016/06/16/059311.full.pdfWe report genome-wide ancient DNA from 44 ancient Near Easterners ranging in time 86 between ~12,000-1,400 BCE, from Natufian hunter-gatherers to Bronze Age farmers. 87 We show that the earliest populations of the Near East derived around half their 88 ancestry from a ‘Basal Eurasian’ lineage that had little if any Neanderthal admixture 89 and that separated from other non-African lineages prior to their separation from each 90 other. The first farmers of the southern Levant (Israel and Jordan) and Zagros 91 Mountains (Iran) were strongly genetically differentiated, and each descended from 92 local hunter-gatherers. By the time of the Bronze Age, these two populations and 93 Anatolian-related farmers had mixed with each other and with the hunter-gatherers of 94 Europe to drastically reduce genetic differentiation. The impact of the Near Eastern 95 farmers extended beyond the Near East: farmers related to those of Anatolia spread 96 westward into Europe; farmers related to those of the Levant spread southward into 97 East Africa; farmers related to those from Iran spread northward into the Eurasian 98 steppe; and people related to both the early farmers of Iran and to the pastoralists of 99 the Eurasian steppe spread eastward into South Asia. |
|
|
|
Post by djoser-xyyman on Jun 19, 2016 15:16:36 GMT -5
Quote:
West Eurasians harbour significantly less Neanderthal ancestry than East Asians19,20-23, which
could be explained if West Eurasians (but not East Asians) have partial ancestry from a
source DILUTING their Neandertal inheritance21. Supporting this theory, we observe a negative
correlation between Basal Eurasian ancestry and the rate of shared alleles with Neanderthals19
(Supplementary Information, section 5; Fig. 2). By extrapolation, we infer that the Basal
Eurasian population had lower Neanderthal ancestry than non-Basal Eurasian populations and
possibly none (ninety-five percent confidence interval truncated at zero of 0-60%; Fig. 2;
Methods).
-----
Xyyman comment - Everyone repeat after me...."SUBSTRUCTURE!!!!!!" and Sub-Saharan!!!!!!
This paper is another bombshell. Anyone? Lol!.
Key points.
1. Basal Eurasian did NOT carry Neanderthal Ancestry or very little implying substruture which said from the git go. That explains why East Asians carry MORE Neanderthal ancestry than Europeans. Europeans are primariliy Africans who diluted the "Neandertal" Ancestry of asians (ANE) living in Europe at the time. This is so easy!!!
2. The researchers clearly expected to find MORE Neanderthal ancestry in the Levant farmers but did NOT find it. Keep in mind the Levant was the supposed orgy took place. Lol!
3. They ruled out Anatolia and the Levant as the source of the European EEF. Lol! What a surprise. Where did I hear this before.
Man I hate being right....not!
|
|
|
|
Post by djoser-xyyman on Jun 19, 2016 15:18:04 GMT -5
from Lazaridis earlier work  |
|
|
|
Post by djoser-xyyman on Jun 19, 2016 15:18:44 GMT -5
So Early European farmers are "non" non-Africans. A double negative. lol!
Come one youngsta, I have to hold your hands like a two year old. :rolleyes:
quote:
The researchers were also able to fit the genomic data of modern and ancient humans into a simplified genetic model to reconstruct the deep population history of modern humans outside Africa in the last 50,000 years. While the model suggests that present-day Europeans received contributions from at least three ancestral populations, it also suggests that Early Near Eastern farmers carried genetic material that FALLS OUTSIDE the typical non-African variation. “The finding of an ancient lineage that is present in Europeans and Near Easterners but not elsewhere in Eurasia was a major surprise of our study. It will be exciting to carry out further ancient DNA work to understand the archaeological cultures associated with the arrival of this ancestry,” says David Reich. “We are only starting to understand the complex genetic relationship of our ancestors,” adds Johannes Krause. “Only more genetic data from ancient human remains will allow us to disentagle our pre-historic past”.
|
|
|
|
Post by djoser-xyyman on Jun 19, 2016 15:20:34 GMT -5
This paper confirms what I have been saying. It is nothing new. Except they now revealed the DNA of the Natufians which is essentially PN2....as expected. QUOTE ===== Two inferred edges were unexpected. First, perhaps the most surprising inference is that Cambodians trace about 16% of their ancestry to a population equally related to both Europeans and other East Asians (while the remaining 84% of their ancestry is related to other southeast Asians). This is partially consistent with clustering analyses, which indicate shared ancestry between Cambodians and central Asian populations [7]. To confirm that the Cambodians are admixed, we turned to less parameterized models. The predicted admixture event implies that allele frequencies in Cambodia are more similar to those in African populations than would be expected based on their East Asian ancestry. To test this, we used three-population tests [37]. We tested the trees [African, [Cambodian,Dai]] for evidence of admixture in the Cambodians (Methods). When using any African population, there is strong evidence of admixture (when using Yoruba, Z~{7:0 [p~1|10{12]; when using Mandenka, Z~{7:3 [p~1|10{12]; when using San, Z~{4:8 [p~8|10{7]). We conclude that the Cambodian population is the result of an admixture event involving a southeast Asian population related to the Dai and a Eurasian population only distantly related to those present in these data. Finally, we infer an admixture edge from the Middle East (a population related to the Mozabite, a Berber population from northern Africa) ******to***** southern European populations (w~22%). This migration edge is the one edge that is not consistent across independent runs of TreeMix on these data (Figure S8). In particular, an alternative graph (albeit with lower likelihood) places the Mozabite as an admixture between southern Europe and Africa *****(RATHER ******than the Middle East and Africa), and does NOT include an edge from the middle East to southern Europe. WE THUS HESITATE TO INTERPRET THIS RESULT, except to note that the relationship between northern African, the Middle East, and southern Europe involves complex patterns of gene flow that merit further investigation [43,57].  |
|
|
|
Post by djoser-xyyman on Jun 19, 2016 15:22:17 GMT -5
There you have it!!!! Natufians were of African origin. Which contributed to Basal Eurasian. Europeans are as much as 80% Africans. didn't I tell you that. Europeans are a subset of Africans.
It is all in this one paragraph.
Persian Neolithic is also African origin.
DNATribes was correct. These African neolithics brought the technology up from the Harrapan Valley to Iberia including Greece and Sardinia.
==========
Quote:
"Our finding that at least Natufians had Y-chromosomes of ****African origin ****(Supplementary
Information, section 6) suggested to us ***initially *****that gene flow from Africa (which did not
experience Neanderthal admixture) may have contributed Basal Eurasian ancestry into the
ancient Near East, However, Natufians do
not have less Neanderthal ancestry (Fig. S5.1) or more Basal Eurasian ancestry
(Supplementary Information, section 4) than the Neolithic of Iran, and so do not appear to be
exceptional in either respect within the context of the ancient Near East. The presence of
Basal Eurasian ancestry not only in the Epipaleolithic Natufians from the Levant, but also of
the Upper Paleolithic/Mesolithic of Georgia8 suggest that while this type of ancestry first
appears in Europe with the Early Neolithic7, it was already pervasive in the Near East before
the advent of the Neolithic. Future studies of human remains from the Near East may
determine (i) how much earlier the Basal Eurasians were present there, (ii) whether they
represent a population of African origin or one that lived in Eurasia but did not experience the
Neanderthal admixture of other Eurasians, and (iii) when the dilution of Neanderthal
admixture first took place."
|
|
|
|
Post by djoser-xyyman on Jun 19, 2016 15:44:13 GMT -5
Supplementary Information 8
Population admixture in East Africa from the Levantine Neolithic
East Africans are admixed with West Eurasians1,2, but the origin of the West Eurasian
component in their ancestry has been obscure, as the strongest evidence of admixture among
present-day East Africans is from Sardinians2. It has been proposed that an unsampled
population from the Near East is the bearer of West Eurasian admixture into East Africa2.
(Table S8.2).
Considering the populations with non-negligible West Eurasian admixture, we observe that
the Neolithic of the Levant is a good source for all but two of them, and the Bronze Age of
the Levant for all but four of them (Table S8.2). This provides evidence that the source of the
West Eurasian ancestry in East Africa is derived from the Levant and NOT from Europe or
other parts of the Near East.
|
|
|
|
Post by djoser-xyyman on Jun 19, 2016 15:49:31 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by djoser-xyyman on Jun 19, 2016 15:53:08 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by djoser-xyyman on Jun 19, 2016 15:55:15 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by djoser-xyyman on Aug 30, 2016 13:09:09 GMT -5
This thread is the No.2 hit on Google search for Lazaridis and Natufians. So let me beef it up with a few more comments
----
Points to note:
1. ‘Basal Eurasian’ lineage that had little if any Neanderthal admixture and that separated from other non-African lineages prior to their separation from each other.
2. people related to both the early farmers of Iran and to the pastoralists of the Eurasian steppe spread eastward into South Asia.(xyyman comment: Harrapan Valley per Sergi)
3. West Eurasians harbour significantly less Neanderthal ancestry than East Asians which could be explained if West Eurasians (but not East Asians) have partial ancestry from a source DILUTING their Neanderthal inheritance Supporting this theory, we observe a negative correlation between Basal Eurasian ancestry and the rate of shared alleles with Neanderthals .(xyyman comment: So Basal Eurasian do NOT carry Neanderthal ancestry…like Africans(sic))
4. it also suggests that Early Near Eastern farmers carried genetic material that FALLS OUTSIDE the typical non-African variation. .(xyyman comment: so, what else is there besides non-Africans. Tic tic…Africans! Lol!)
5. By extrapolation, we infer that the Basal Eurasian population had lower Neanderthal ancestry than non-Basal Eurasian populations and possibly none (ninety-five percent confidence interval.(xyyman comment: so zero Neanderthal ancestry in Basal Eurasian. Lol! Notice they don’t want to use the label ..AFRICAN. They prefer “non-non-African”. Lol! )
6. The finding of an ancient lineage that is present in Europeans and Near Easterners but not elsewhere in Eurasia was a major surprise of our study. .(xyyman comment: ancestry present in Europeans and Near easterns but not anywhere else outside of Eurasia leaves?……Africa)
7. "Our finding that at least Natufians had Y-chromosomes of ****African origin ****(Supplementary Information, section 6) suggested to us ***initially *****that gene flow from Africa (which did not experience Neanderthal admixture) may have contributed Basal Eurasian ancestry into the ancient Near East, .(xyyman comment: SURPRISE!!!!! Lol!)
8.
|
|
jethro
Scribe
Site guidelines violation- off-topic spamming across multiple threads w/o even addressing issues.
Posts: 158 
|
Post by jethro on Sept 13, 2016 10:43:56 GMT -5
|
|
jethro
Scribe
Site guidelines violation- off-topic spamming across multiple threads w/o even addressing issues.
Posts: 158
|
Post by jethro on Sept 13, 2016 11:02:10 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by zarahan on Sept 13, 2016 21:37:41 GMT -5
Bogus claim #3: NATUFIANS WERE INDIGENOUS NORTH AFRICAN CAUCASIANS carrying E-Z830 and MTDNA N
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natufian_culture
ALL NORTH AFRICANS carry NEANDERTHAL DNA going back to the first modern man in NORTH AFRICA, the very UPPER PALEOLITHIC EUROPEAN, CRO-MAGNON!
The Basal Eurasians in the MID EAST originated from the FIRST MODERN HUMANS TO LEAVE AFRICA VIA SAUDI ARABIA! Modern INDIGENOUS Arabs carry their ancient DNA! THERE WERE NO NEANDERTHALS IN SAUDI ARABIA! Eventually these peoples left SAUDI ARABIA and went into the MIDDLE EAST and formed an isolated group in the MID EAST NOT ENCOUNTERING ANY NEANDERTHALS!
 lol speaking of garbage, your post is a good example of it. LOL at the Wikipedia "references" recently "doctored" to provide "supporting" information, as if anyone is being fooled. Nor is anyone fooled by the "new" account. XYZ already has the key info posted so only a few comments.. 1) No one claims that =Natufians were all 100% African, all the time. How could they be forever in the diverse crossroads area of the Middle East? And how could they remained unchanged and unvarying for all time, over thousands of years since African migrants went out into the Levant? SO the strawman of the unchanging "100% African" Natufians fails right off the bat. We all know the Natufians were diverse. The key point is their clear African component, linked with movement from Africa. That component may have various implications for the social construct known as "race"- or "one-drop" race hierarchies, but the hard data as to that African component is a fact. 2) Before certain information mysteriously "disappeared" or was watered down and obscured on the Wiki article by assorted moles, documentation in place showed the Natufians had a clear African component. Said moles removing or watering down the data may think they are successful in "whiting out" the info, but that laughable tactic fails miserably as well. The data is not going any place. The strong placement of the data in Google search results, whether from Reloaded or as mirrored on ES and other blogs means all the bogus "stealth edits" and "page guarding" is a gigantic waste of time. They have already failed. 3) The laughable Natufian "wandering Caucasoids" claim fails completely as shown above by the recent DNA study, as well as by skeletal studies by people like Brace et al.  To this is added the new genetic data by Lizardis et al: "Our finding that at least Natufians had Y-chromosomes of African origin (Supplementary Information, section 6) suggested to us initially that gene flow from Africa (which did not experience Neanderthal admixture) may have contributed Basal Eurasian ancestry into the ancient Near East.. The presence of Basal Eurasian ancestry not only in the Epipaleolithic Natufians from the Levant, but also of the Upper Paleolithic/Mesolithic of Georgia8 suggest that while this type of ancestry first appears in Europe with the Early Neolithic7, it was already pervasive in the Near East before the advent of the Neolithic. Future studies of human remains from the Near East may determine (i) how much earlier the Basal Eurasians were present there, (ii) whether they represent a population of African origin or one that lived in Eurasia but did not experience the Neanderthal admixture of other Eurasians.." -- Lizardis et al 2016. The genetic structure of the world’s first farmers. bioRXIV 4) "Basal EUrasians" show a distinctive African strand, as demonstrated by both cranial and DNA data. Attempts to "white out" the African component fail even before they start   5) As regards would be "Caucasian" Cro-Magnons- supposed "originals" of North Africa. that too fails..  Thus the claim: NATUFIANS WERE INDIGENOUS NORTH AFRICAN CAUCASIANS .!^^Still stands debunked..   |
|
|
|
Post by djoser-xyyman on Sept 13, 2016 22:04:51 GMT -5
jethro. Emotional outburst is not what an argument make. If you want to discuss the topic with me. First, you have to read the paper, second, cite sections in the paper that debunk what I posted. Throwing a tantrum does you no good. Data! my man data! Your ignorance makes me ignore your outburst, why? E-35 is African with a Sub-Saharan origin. Natufians were Africans. The author of the paper implies that. So what are you having a hissy fit about? Please don't waste my time if you don't know what you are talking about. Come back when you have a better handle on the topic. On a final note citing outdated papers(2012) and exceprts by a "blogger" is again wasting time. Neanderthals have an African origin and yes, modern Sub-Saharan have Neanderthal ancestry. Please keep up, sides, there no such thing as Neanderthal ancestry as recent papers has shown. KEEP UP AND STOP WASTING MY TIME!!!!
|
|
