|
Post by djoser-xyyman on Jan 3, 2018 13:43:40 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by djoser-xyyman on Jan 3, 2018 13:25:34 GMT -5
Very simply. It was proposed in 2015(based upon Mota DNA) that he and most Africans(from West Africa to East Africa) carried “Eurasian” DNA. Only one San group(Ju-Asun-North?) did NOT carry Eurasian DNA. In 2016, The same author then disclosed that a ‘mistake” was made and Mota did NOT carry “Eurasian” DNA. There was a software issue. Then in 2017 this very same author has included Mota as one of many ancient Africans SHOWING Mota has NOT Asian but primarily “European” DNA.
They can’t make up their minds and get their story straight. Lol! But the real stunner is not Mota but Malawi_Hora-8100BP who also had European DNA implying “European” DNA always existed in Africa …before Europeans ever existed. In fact the very same author who denied Mota had “European” DNA implies that it originated IN Africa based upon the timeline and absence of relation to Iranian Neolithics.
--- Here is another interesting paper I just came across
Genetic structure and sex-biased gene flow in the history of southern African populations – Dec2017 B. Vladimir & Stoneking
Eurasian-related haplogroups. In eight populations we found 20 individuals (Table S1) with NRY haplogroups that are **traditionally**-(they are unsure now lol!) considered to be of Eurasian origin (Underhill and Kivisild, 2007). Haplogroups G2a2b2a (n=3), I1 (n=3), and R1a1 (n=1) are found exclusively in the Nama; I2a2a (n=4) and O (n=1) are found exclusively in the Damara; while G2a2b2b (n=1) is found in the Taa East. Other haplogroups are more widespread, e.g. R1b1 is found in five individuals from different populations (one in each of Himba, Kalanga, Tshwa, Nama, and Naro), while T1a2 is found in two individuals (one Nama and one Herero).
Abstract Well-resolved molecular gene trees illustrate the concept of descent with modification and exhibit the opposing processes of drift and migration, both of which influence population structure. Phylogenies of the maternally inherited mtDNA genome and the paternally inherited portion of the nonrecombining Y chromosome retain sequential records of the accumulation of genetic diversity. Although knowledge regarding the diversity of the entire human genome will be needed to completely characterize human genetic evolution, these uniparentally inherited loci are unique indicators of gender in modulating the extant population structure. We compare and contrast these loci for patterns of continuity and discreteness and discuss how their phylogenetic diversity and progression provide means to disentangle ancient colonization events by pioneering migrants from subsequent overlying migrations. We introduce new results concerning Y chromosome founder haplogroups C, DE, and F that resolve their previous trifurcation and improve the harmony with the mtDNA recapitulation of the out-of-Africa migration.
Abstract As part of a larger project examining the introduction of herding into northern Tanzania, surveys and excavations were conducted at the southern edge of the Mbulu Plateau, documenting the presence of Narosura ceramics dating to the early third millennium BP, as well as a Later Stone Age occupation dated via ostrich eggshell to the tenth millennium BP. This marks the southernmost extent of the Pastoral Neolithic in eastern Africa. The paucity of sites attributable to early herding in this area may be due to a lack of survey in landscapes likely to have been preferred by livestock owners and to extensive contemporary cultivation in those same areas. Links can be drawn between the study area and previously documented sites with Narosura materials near Lake Eyasi, and between the study area and obsidian sources in the Lake Naivasha area of the Rift Valley, making the plateau and its surroundings a potentially promising area for further research.
Abstract Objectives: We investigated the genetic history of southern African populations with a special focus on their paternal history. We reexamined previous claims that the Y-chromosome haplogroup E1b1b was brought to southern Africa by pastoralists from eastern Africa, and investigated patterns of sex-biased gene flow in southern Africa. Material and Methods: We analyzed previously published complete mtDNA genome sequences and ~900 kb of NRY sequences from 23 populations from Namibia, Botswana and Zambia, as well as haplogroup frequencies from a large sample of southern African populations and 23 newly genotyped Y-linked STR loci for samples assigned to haplogroup E1b1b. Results: Our results support an eastern African origin for Y-chromosome haplogroup E1b1b; however, its current distribution in southern Africa is not strongly associated with pastoralism, suggesting a more complex origin for pastoralism in this region. We confirm that the Bantu expansion had a notable genetic impact in southern Africa, and that in this region it was probably a rapid, male-dominated expansion. Furthermore, we find a significant increase in the intensity of sex-biased gene flow from north to south, which may reflect changes in the social dynamics between Khoisan and Bantu groups over time. Conclusions: Our study shows that the population history of southern Africa has been very complex, with different immigrating groups mixing to different degrees with the autochthonous populations. The Bantu expansion led to heavily sex-biased admixture as a result of interactions between Khoisan females and Bantu males, with a geographic gradient which may reflect changes in the social dynamics between Khoisan and Bantu groups over time.
|
|
|
Post by djoser-xyyman on Jan 2, 2018 16:27:34 GMT -5
Keyans - Kenya_400BP 496-322 BP carried Natufian haplogroup. There goes the no SSA DNA in Natufians. lol!
Genetics[edit] According to ancient DNA analyses conducted by Lazaridis et al. (2016) on Natufian skeletal remains from present-day northern Israel, the Natufians carried the Y-DNA (paternal) haplogroups E1b1b1b2(xE1b1b1b2a,E1b1b1b2b) (2/5; 40%), CT (2/5; 40%), and E1b1(xE1b1a1,E1b1b1b1) (1/5; 20%).[19]Genetics[edit] According to ancient DNA analyses conducted by Lazaridis et al. (2016) on Natufian skeletal remains from present-day northern Israel, the Natufians carried the Y-DNA (paternal) haplogroups E1b1b1b2(xE1b1b1b2a,E1b1b1b2b) (2/5; 40%), CT (2/5; 40%), and E1b1(xE1b1a1,E1b1b1b1) (1/5; 20%).[19]
|
|
|
Post by djoser-xyyman on Jan 2, 2018 14:46:48 GMT -5
Europeans at war within themselves – Mota is European IN 2015 First ancient African genome reveals vast Eurasian migration DNA from Ethiopian man pre-dates the movement of Eurasian farmers 'back to Africa'. • Ewen Callaway 08 October 2015 www.nature.com/news/first-ancient-african-genome-reveals-vast-eurasian-migration-1.18531IN 2016 www.nature.com/news/error-found-in-study-of-first-ancient-african-genome-1.19258Error found in study of first ancient African genome - Finding that much of Africa has Eurasian ancestry was mistaken. • Ewen Callaway 29 January 2016 IN 2017 They are back to Mota has as much as 30% European(not Eurasian) ancestry. Reconstructing Prehistoric African Population Structure – Authors Pontus Skoglund Figure S3. Admixture Clustering Analysis of K = 2–K = 7 Clusters, Related to Figure 1 As can be seen they had it right the first time around. Mota carries as much as 30% “European” ancestry and virtually no Asian ancestry
|
|
|
Post by djoser-xyyman on Jan 2, 2018 11:15:58 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by djoser-xyyman on Jan 2, 2018 8:40:11 GMT -5
I tend to stay away from certain discussion primarily because it is a waste of my time if I get involved. I avoid getting caught up in hypotheticals arguments. We will go in circles forever. Not worth it. I tend to stick to the FACTS as much as possible….as published by research scientists . And of course the study must be relevant and CURRENT. We have to understand that many of these researchers are racialist and INFER the data from the study based upon their bias and prejudice. Some do it deliberately (Paabo, Reich , Tishkoff) and others do it to make a name for themselves. Few do it reluctantly in the name of science, progress and unraveling population history(eg Henn, Malmstrom).
Most if not all of the DNA data published is consistent with Isolation by Distance(IBD) with an equiCenter in Africa. There is no origin of “Eurasian DNA” in Eurasia. It cannot be. Because “Eurasian” DNA exist throughout Africa and originated IN Africa. Some scientist also makes it clear that “Eurasian” is only a label and probably originated IN Africa. Lazaridis made it clear than “Basal Eurasian” MOST probably originated in Africa. We as laymen get caught up in the labels and assign racial meaning towards it. But the label is deliberate..with the intent to feed our racial prejudice. Now Eurasian=Caucasian. Many of these researchers know better . They know that there is no Eurasian DNA originating in Eurasia. Their job is to feed the beast we call racism.
A clear example is Mota. He was first assigned having “Eurasian” DNA then they later “corrected” that saying he did NOT have Eurasian DNA. Now we have all these pre-historic ancient Africans from the same general area as Mota ..in fact older than Mota and originating further south in sub-saharan Africa Tanzania and Malawi who not only carried Eurasian DNA but more specifically European DNA. Some as much as 60% European DNA!!!!!!!!!!! And virtually no Asian(East Asian) DNA..consistent with 2 OOA event.
SKunglund was forced to admit that Eurasian DNA “possibly” could have originated in Africa.
|
|
|
Post by djoser-xyyman on Jan 2, 2018 8:39:27 GMT -5
I tend to stay away from certain discussion primarily because it is a waste of my time if I get involved. I avoid getting caught up in hypotheticals arguments. We will go in circles forever. Not worth it. I tend to stick to the FACTS as much as possible….as published by research scientists . And of course the study must be relevant and CURRENT. We have to understand that many of these researchers are racialist and INFER the data from the study based upon their bias and prejudice. Some do it deliberately (Paabo, Reich , Tishkoff) and others do it to make a name for themselves. Few do it reluctantly in the name of science, progress and unraveling population history(eg Henn, Malmstrom).
Most if not all of the DNA data published is consistent with Isolation by Distance(IBD) with an equiCenter in Africa. There is no origin of “Eurasian DNA” in Eurasia. It cannot be. Because “Eurasian” DNA exist throughout Africa and originated IN Africa. Some scientist also makes it clear that “Eurasian” is only a label and probably originated IN Africa. Lazaridis made it clear than “Basal Eurasian” MOST probably originated in Africa. We as laymen get caught up in the labels and assign racial meaning towards it. But the label is deliberate..with the intent to feed our racial prejudice. Now Eurasian=Caucasian. Many of these researchers know better . They know that there is no Eurasian DNA originating in Eurasia. Their job is to feed the beast we call racism.
A clear example is Mota. He was first assigned having “Eurasian” DNA then they later “corrected” that saying he did NOT have Eurasian DNA. Now we have all these pre-historic ancient Africans from the same general area as Mota ..in fact older than Mota and originating further south in sub-saharan Africa Tanzania and Malawi who not only carried Eurasian DNA but more specifically European DNA. Some as much as 60% European DNA!!!!!!!!!!! And virtually no Asian(East Asian) DNA..consistent with 2 OOA event.
SKunglund was forced to admit that Eurasian DNA “possibly” could have originated in Africa.
|
|
|
Post by djoser-xyyman on Jan 1, 2018 19:27:44 GMT -5
So if we dismiss the "one drop rule", biologically the AEians were a biologically admixed group not pure Africans?
In fact based upon the DNA of ancient Tanzanian_3100BP was MORE Eurasian(55%) than African which means AEians could be more Eurasian than African? Right?
Which means the AEians were really Eurasians.
|
|
|
Post by djoser-xyyman on Jan 1, 2018 8:28:29 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by djoser-xyyman on Jan 1, 2018 8:10:04 GMT -5
EUROPEANS in Malawi(8100BP) BEFORE Creation of Ancient Egypt!!! Some Tanzanians (3100BP) carry as much as 55% EUROPEAN Ancestry!!!! Europeans created Ancient Egypt
|
|
|
Post by djoser-xyyman on Dec 31, 2017 23:16:49 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by djoser-xyyman on Dec 31, 2017 23:09:46 GMT -5
To those who are slow. Even the brothas who repeat the Euro dogma using the phrase "Eurasian". What IS "Eurasian"?
Malawi_Hora_8100BC had "Eurasian" Ancestry that means Eurasians created the AEian civilization ....right? After all 8100 ago AEian civilization was not formed as yet. Which means Eurasians were IN tropical Africa BEFORE AE was created by them. So they had a had in creating AE!!!! Right! If you accept the label "Eurasian" then you need to accept the fact that AEians were Eurasians??!! Right!? Now you see how convoluted and irrational some of you are? How can Eurasian ancestry be in at the mouth of the Nile and NOT be part of the creation of AE? EuroAsians created ancient Eygpyt(Sic)
That is why we have to think before we open our mouths and don't be caughtup with labels.
Ancient Egypt was created by Eurasians because Eurasians were in the Nile and Southern Africa BEFORE the creation of Ancient Egypt.
|
|
|
Post by djoser-xyyman on Dec 31, 2017 7:25:14 GMT -5
I said Europeans not Eurasians. Let's break it down step by step.
More to come.
|
|
|
Post by djoser-xyyman on Dec 30, 2017 22:29:54 GMT -5
Absolutely NOT!!!!
|
|
|
Post by djoser-xyyman on Dec 28, 2017 10:31:55 GMT -5
Modern European who carry BOTH derived SLC45A2 and SLC24A5along with other derived genes Oh! And autosomally modern Europeans are closest related to modern Africans vs Melanesians and Native Americans in “unsupervised” Cluster Charts
|
|