Smoke & mirrors- Admitting African origin of Basal Eurasian?

[djoser-xyyman]

Smoke & mirrors- Admitting African origin of Basal Eurasian?-Lazaridis 2018


Is Nick Patterson and Max Planx and Reich Lab coming clean? Sort of!

Paleolithic DNA from the Caucasus reveals core of West Eurasian ancestry -Iosif Lazaridis1,2, 2018

So they are admitting Basal Eurasian is most likely of African origin but they will stick with the story of a Caucasus/ Anatolian origin until aDNA from Africa 26,000 years ago is published!! Tsk! Tsk! Tsk! Although the genetic evidence as presented support an African origin. They are speculating it is Saharan origin of Basal Eurasian. If you understand what they are saying and put it on a geographical map Basal Eurasian is Saharan African. The Villabruna Cluster is consistent with migration through Sardinia Italy!!!! These f---ing Europeans can waffle. God Damn it! But they forgot about Luxmanda(3000BCE) and Malawi-Hora 81000BCE who already had "Sardinian" ancestry. Liars!!! So in other words Basal Eurasian is NOT Saharan but from mouth of the Nile in Southern East Africa(Malawi or Botswana).


Quotes:

Natufians trace part of their ancestry to North Africa, consistent with morphological and archaeological studies that indicate a spread of morphological features and artifacts from North Africa into the Near East

We caution that the inference of Dzudzuana-related ancestry as the core component of ancient and present-day West Eurasia does **NOT** constitute proof for migrations specifically from the Caucasus: given that this is the only ancient DNA data from this time period and broad region, the geographical and temporal extent of this population and its relatives remains unknown. Both in its past (formed by admixture with Basal Eurasians), and in its future (admixing with populations from Africa, Europe, and Siberia in post-glacial, Neolithic, and later periods), Dzudzuana stands in the middle of an ongoing process of admixture of diverse elements from which West Eurasians, in all their diversity, eventually formed.

Of the two individuals, one yielded data at a total of 185,744 68 targeted single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) on chromosomes 1-22 (I2949, Dzu2, Upper Area square H16b), while the other yielded 90,916 SNPs (I2963, Dzu3, Lower Area square 18b). Both individuals had mitochondrial DNA sequences (U6 and N) that are consistent with deriving from lineages that are rare in the Caucasus or Europe today. The two individuals
were genetically similar to each other, consistent with belonging to the same population (Extended Data Fig. 2) and we thus analyze them jointly.

[djoser-xyyman]

As reported previously, present-day West Eurasians are much more homogeneous than ancient ones, reflecting extensive post-Neolithic admixture6. However, they continue to be differentially related to** ancient** local populations in Europe and the Near East (Extended Data Fig. 4).

Thus, our results prove that the European affinity of Neolithic Anatolians does not necessarily reflect any admixture **into** the Near East** from** Europe, as an Anatolian Neolithic-like population already existed in parts of the Near East by ~26kya. Furthermore, Dzudzuana shares more alleles with Villabruna-cluster groups than with other ESHG (Extended Data Fig. 5b), suggesting that this European affinity was specifically related to the Villabruna cluster, and indicating that the Villabruna affinity of PGNE populations from Anatolia and the Levant is not the result of a migration into the Near East from Europe.

All known ancient Near Eastern populations prior to this work were inferred to harbor ‘Basal Eurasian’ ancestry, a branch that **diverged** from all other non-Africans (including ESHG and present-day East Asians and Oceanians) before they split from each other.

The detection of this type of ancestry, twice as early as previously documented and at the northern edge of the Near East, lends weight to the hypothesis that it represents a deep Near Eastern lineage rather than a recent arrival from Africa.. xyyman comment: They are basing this on the TIME depth not on genetic similarity.

that the Taforalt population was mixed, but instead of specifying gene flow **from** the ancestors of Natufians **into** the ancestors of Taforalt as originally reported, we infer gene flow in the **reverse** direction (into Natufians). The Neolithic population from Morocco, closely related to Taforalt is also consistent with being descended from the source of this gene flow, and appears to have no admixture from the Levantine Neolithic (Supplementary Information section 3). If our model is correct, Epipaleolithic Natufians trace part of their ancestry to North Africa, consistent with morphological and archaeological studies that indicate a spread of morphological features and artifacts from North Africa into the Near East. Such a scenario would also explain the presence of Y-chromosome haplogroup E in the Natufians and Levantine farmers, a common link between the Levant and Africa. Moreover, our model predicts that West Africans (represented by Yoruba) had 12.5±1.1% ancestry from a Taforalt- related group rather than Taforalt having ancestry from an unknown Sub-Saharan African source; this may have mediated the limited Neanderthal admixture present in West Africans. An advantage of our model is that it allows for a local North African component in the ancestry of Taforalt, rather than deriving them exclusively from Levantine and Sub-Saharan sources. Xyyman comment: They are ignoring the Hadza component in Tarforalt from Skoglund 2017!!

largely (~58-64% using qpAdm and ~45-62% using qpGraph) from a Dzudzuana-like population, but with ancestry from both ‘Deep’ and ANE sources, thus proving that ANE ancestry had reached Western Eurasia long before the Bronze Age Eurasian steppe migrations that carried further westward into mainland Europe. xyyman comment: which is it. They are admitting the bronze again Steppes is nonsense but admit it could have happened in the same breath. What is wrong with these people?


North African-related ancestry in the Levant and with Siberian hunter-gatherer and eastern non-African-related ancestry in Iran and the Caucasus. Thus, the highly differentiated populations at the dawn of the Neolithic were primarily descended from Villabruna Cluster and Dzudzuana-related ancestors, with varying degrees of additional input related to both North Africa and Ancient North/East Eurasia whose proximate sources may be clarified by future sampling of geographically and temporally intermediate populations.
The ancestry of present-day Europeans has been traced to the proximate sources of Mesolithic hunter-gatherers, Early European/Anatolian farmers, and steppe pastoralists, but the ancestry of Near Eastern and North African populations has not been investigated due to lack of appropriate ancient sources. We present a unified analysis of diverse European, Near Eastern, North African populations in terms of the deepest known sources of ancestry (Fig. 217 3), which suggests that Dzudzuana-related ancestry makes up ~46-88% of the ancestry of all these populations, with Dzudzuana-related ancestry more strongly found in southern populations across West Eurasia (Fig. 3; Extended Data Fig. 6). Dzudzuana-like ancestry must have spread across West Eurasia with Neolithic migrations out of the Near East, but it had not been previously completely absent from Europe as several hunter-gatherer populations in southeastern Europe, eastern Europe, and Scandinavia can only be modeled with some such ancestry (Extended Data Fig. 6; Supplementary Information section 4). Both Europeans and Near Easterners also share in AG3-related ancestry of up to ~30% in eastern Europe down to ~0% in parts of North Africa. Europeans are differentiated by an excess of up to ~20% Villabruna-related ancestry relative to non-European populations AND ALSO BY A RELATIVE **LACK OF **EXTRA ‘DEEP’ ANCESTRY **COMPARED**TO THE NEAR EAST AND NORTH AFRICA , a type of ancestry that may only partially be explained by the Basal Eurasian ancestry of ancient West Eurasian populations and MUST ALSO TRACE TO AFRICA (Extended Data Fig. 7). ‘Deep’ ancestry, including Basal Eurasian ancestry, is associated with **reduced** Neandertal ancestry (Supplementary Information section 5, Extended Data Fig. 8), confirming that Neandertal ancestry in West Eurasia has been diluted by admixture.

What were the mechanisms and proximate sources of the Siberian- and North African-related ancestry that affected West Eurasia? We caution that the inference of Dzudzuana-related ancestry as the core component of ancient and present-day West Eurasia does not constitute proof for migrations specifically from the Caucasus: given that this is the only ancient DNA data from this time period and broad region, the geographical and temporal extent of this population and its relatives remains unknown. Both in its past (formed by admixture with Basal Eurasians), and in its future (admixing with populations from Africa, Europe, and Siberia in post-glacial, Neolithic, and later periods), Dzudzuana stands in the middle of an ongoing process of admixture of diverse elements from which West Eurasians, in all their diversity, eventually formed. Xyyman comment: no! it is not unknown. Hadza or somewhere near Malawi

[djoser-xyyman]

The cliff notes? Nick Patterson, Max Planck, Lazaridis and the Reich crew is waffling. They are saying all the genetic evidence points to Basal Eurasian most likely has an African origin via Villabruna (ie Sardinian/Italy) but since there is no aDNA FROM Africa for that time period(26K ya) they will "stick to their story" of a Caucasus origin of Basal Eurasian until more aDNA comes out of ancient Africa >26Kya. Now how ludicrous is that? There is clearly no connection between Natufian and Taforalt yet HAdza carries BOTH Natufian and Taforalt ancestry. Why don't do a deep dive into Hadza? SMH

[djoser-xyyman]

This what one of the Abusir JK2911 looks like using online analysis. The "European" component is "southern" Iberia and Sardinia/Italy ie EurAfricans. Keep in mind their comparison dataset is not known. Plus CODIS STR will give a totally DIFFERENT picture. What they are saying is that this Abusir was "Southern" Europeans and NOT modern Levantines.

[djoser-xyyman]

To those who are not geographically challenged and is following . We are back to the Villabruna(Sardinia) Cluster. Remember Villabruna cluster did NOT originate from the Near East/Levant according to Lazaridis2018 he is speculating either from Africa or Caucasus caves(lol!). But he confirms that Europeans did not back-migrate to the Levant. So what Are we left with? That is why CODIS STRs are so important. Why? Europeans are 80% African (Rosenberge et al 2002). The only way to differentiate Europeans from Africans is via CODIS STR?

[djoser-xyyman]

[djoser-xyyman]

From Davidski on the subject. Man he is really becoming unhinged and irrational


Ha! HA! HA! So only West Africans are Sub-Saharans. Man talk about delusional and that “crazy” gene…..VMAT1


-----------------------------
“September 21, 2018 at 6:03 PM
Blogger Davidski said...
@gihanga.Rwanda

How would you define a Sub-Saharan clade in this context?

Any clade indigenous to south of the Sahara.

So my question to you is what makes Mota “SSA” and not ANA?

The Mota clade can't be defined as ANA because it's a clearly a different, deeply diverged sister clade. Strictly speaking it's an East or Northeast African clade, so it doesn't have to be called Sub-Saharan, but I think it can since it's indigenous to a region deep in Africa.

But these are just semantics. The point is that ANA isn't a Sub-Saharan clade, irrespective of how anyone defines the Mota clade.

If the OOA bottleneck is what defines “non-Africans”, ANA clearly doesn’t fit the bill.


It doesn't because it's a unique North African clade.


September 24, 2018 at 10:54 PM
Blogger Gihanga.Rwanda said...
Mad Griss and nuadha (are you Colin Welling?) - It’s hard to have a discussion with people who lack reading comprehension skills. All Africans are basal to Basal Eurasian, have you heard of a concept called “Out of Africa”? So ANA forms a clade with Eurasians including Basal Eurasian to the exclusion of other Africans; you widen that some more, you can say pretty much the same thing for Mota, the core ancestry in Yoruba, and so on. Those stats matter speak to ANA’s genetic affinity to Eurasians relative to other Africans. This is simplifying things but in line with the study, but if ANA is ~20% removed from Mota (East African), approximately equidistant from main Yoruba and Basal Eurasian (~35-40%), and ~60% from main Eurasians, what does that say about ANA’s place in the human lineage? ANA is distinct African lineage that contributed to some West Asians, hence why you’re butt hurt. My African vs. non-African definition is pretty simple: lineages that primarily diverged before and after the OOA bottleneck. ANA is “African”, Basal Eurasian is not.

September 25, 2018 at 3:54 AM
Blogger Gihanga.Rwanda said...
We are just scratching the surface with this study; more aDNA from Africa will probably reveal more ancient populations with varying degrees of affinity to OOA populations, some closer like ANA and Mota, while others more basal (e.g. 2000kya SA), and much more basal (e.g. Basal African). Things are about to get a bit complex and I am sorry that we can’t box all Africans into a tight little box of homogeneity.

September 25, 2018 at 4:02 AM
Blogger Colin Welling said...
Chad said LOL! I guess my tree with Iberomaurusians having no SSA but mixing into SSA was correct

This is entirely accurate.

You replied ANA’s closests relatives appear to be Mota and other SSAs.

Wrong, wrong, wrong.

ANA is closer to Eurasians than all sub Saharan Africans. There isnt much else to discuss other than you being triggered by anybody saying ANA is not sub Saharan African.

My African vs. non-African definition is pretty simple: lineages that primarily diverged before and after the OOA bottleneck.

Good for you; non African is a perfectly valid geographic designation and genetic clade. Non sub Saharan African is a perfectly valid geographic designation and genetic clade.

To recap, ANA is North African, not SSA. ANA is more related to Eurasians than any SSA group and vice versa. Unless you disagree here, you have no real reason to argue.

In terms of the way I personally think of ANA, I find non sub Saharan African a useful designation for geographic and historical reasons. To me, the fact that it forms a genetic clade with Eurasians is a lesser point than the fact that it is genetically separate from SSA and mostly resides in the Middle East and North Africa for all history.

September 25, 2018 at 2:48 PM
Blogger Mark Moore (Moderator) said...
KingJohn at Anthropogenica wrote " (Epipaleolithic Natufians and early Neolithic Pre-Pottery Neolithic
PPNB farmers) can also be modeled as a mixture of Dzudzuana and Mbuti, with a little more deep ancestry in Natufians (~11%) than in PPNB (~7%) on top of the deep ancestry of Dzudzuana.

Thus,Villabruna→Dzudzuana/Anatolia_N→PPNB→Natufian→Taforalt represents a
cline of increasing deepancestry (and decreasing Villabruna-related ancestry) in what was previously termed the South/West West Eurasian interaction sphere12"

So if I get that right he is saying they can all be described in terms of "Deep" ancestry without reference to what is called "Basal Eurasian" which is less Basal than Deep. Any comments on that folks? Can "Deep" explain Dzudzuana without input of Basal Eurasian? Also is the Basal Eurasian which shows up < 15K ago anything different from "Deep"?

September 27, 2018 at 4:03 PM
Blogger Arch Hades said...
"Too recap, ANA is North African, not SSA. ANA is more related to Eurasians than any SSA group and vice versa. Unless you disagree here, you have no real reason to argue."

I assume you're going by their phylogenetic tree? So in that case Mota who is Sub-Saharan is more similar to ANA and Eurasian than he is to other Sub-Saharans?

[djoser-xyyman]