PDA

View Full Version : Questions about Amazigh



bitterfruit609
05-21-2021, 11:36 PM
Did the Amazigh/Berbers migrate out of Africa at one time and then migrate back in? I heard that was a theory or even supported by genetics. Is this true? It would make sense why they are so Mediterranean looking because if they never left Africa wouldn’t they be darker skinned, or is the North African climate hospitable for lighter skinned and narrow nosed people?

Cynic
06-17-2021, 02:37 AM
Yes, they represent the backmigration of ancient West Eurasians into Africa. This is also true for the West Eurasian segment of Horners.

Itrane2000
06-22-2021, 04:14 PM
are you sure that Ibero-maurusian came from out Africa ?

Cynic
06-22-2021, 06:47 PM
are you sure that Ibero-maurusian came from out Africa ?

The majority of its ancestry is represented by a back to Africa wave and the rest is indigenous SSA like.

mokordo
06-23-2021, 08:33 AM
And when did that "back to Africa" take place, according to what you say?

This component could not be due to the genetic exchange between both shores of the Mediterranean or to the evolution of an original population of the continent that diverged from the rest of Africans?

Luso
06-23-2021, 02:55 PM
Yes, they represent the backmigration of ancient West Eurasians into Africa. This is also true for the West Eurasian segment of Horners.

Thats interesting. So where would they have stayed, coasts of Spain and Portugal? Or is it a migration from west Eurasia back to North Africa? And why would they go back in such numbers?

Cynic
06-23-2021, 05:55 PM
And when did that "back to Africa" take place, according to what you say?

This component could not be due to the genetic exchange between both shores of the Mediterranean or to the evolution of an original population of the continent that diverged from the rest of Africans?
The Iberomaurusians were very ancient much older than the Neolithic. About 63% of its ancestry is Natufian(aka West Eurasian)like and the rest was SSA like. Analogues can be drawn to the Horners of NE Africa.

Thats interesting. So where would they have stayed, coasts of Spain and Portugal? Or is it a migration from west Eurasia back to North Africa? And why would they go back in such numbers?

The migration came from the east from the Levant. As to why they moved, it’s hard to say but we know that there were periodic green Sahara periods where the desert became savannah and hence inhabitable. That triggered at least some migrations-and there were multiple by the way. The Iberomaurusian/Taforalt culture is only the most ancient layer of ancestry in North Africans. Further migration happened after the advent of farming as there is Neolithic Levantine and Anatolian ancestry present among the Berbers of the region.

leorcooper19
06-23-2021, 06:53 PM
The Iberomaurusians were very ancient much older than the Neolithic. About 63% of its ancestry is Natufian(aka West Eurasian)like and the rest was SSA like. Analogues can be drawn to the Horners of NE Africa.

To my knowledge, Natufian = West Eurasia is the opposite of what's true. Natufians were just the most northernly-spread of the so-called "Ancient North Africans", whose ancestry would have also peaked in, say, Old Kingdom Egypt, as well as presumably throughout North and East Africa. The correlation between ANA, Afro-Asiatic, and E-M35 is almost too good to pass up!

Though, I'm not as well-read on this as I'd like to be. Feel free to school me if I'm missing some critical information.

Ignis90
06-23-2021, 07:58 PM
Iberomaurusians formed in situ but they were indeed partially Eurasian (if not primarily), not just some kind of African population that was closer to the Out-of-Africa population. Their U6 mtdna is a very derived Eurasian mtdna, there is no controversy about it.
Since the samples we have are very homogenous, it's likely their population formed much earlier, probably aligning with the archeological evidence and age estimates of the Iberomaurusian culture (~20000 years BCE). And I don't think the Eurasian is simply Natufian-like, or Dzudzuana-like (still waiting for Lazaridis to publish the damned paper) there might be some connections with some Paleolithic European populations. Natufians might have had much more in common with contemporary Egyptian populations, maybe even on a cline with them, not with Taforalt in particular.
The African part of Iberomaurusians - ANA - is even less known, as Paleolithic Africa is a complete desert in paleogenomics. To me, it looks like it behaves very similarly to modern "SSA", maybe with less deep ancestry. But I could be wrong.

Anyway, yes, Berbers are predominantly of back-to-Africa stock, from the partial Iberomaurusian continuity (there is no such direct Paleolithic continuity in most of Europe for comparison), to the various Holocene migrations and the Neolithic revolution, all the way down to as recently as Bronze Age European/Steppes-rich migrations to North Africa.
Modern Berbers probably formed during the Bronze Age or at the onset of the Iron Age, as the final bottleneck and reexpansion (the last major of probably multiple ones, mostly related to climate and the drying of the Sahara) reshaped the autosomal, uniparental (chiefly the domination of E-M183) and linguistic landscape (Berber languages/dialects are not very diverse compared to the closest group of similar age that Semitic is) of North Africa to the West of the Nile valley.

Itrane2000
06-23-2021, 10:01 PM
this is strange, because the closest population to Iberomaurusian (if we exclude other north africans) are Kenyan Pastoral and tanzanian.

Distance to: MAR_Taforalt
0.26547860 KEN_Early_Pastoral_N:I12534
0.28698369 KEN_Early_Pastoral_N:I12533
0.28824884 KEN_HyraxHill_2300BP:HYR002
0.28900013 TZA_PN_o:I13978
0.29079738 TZA_PN:I13977
0.29109100 KEN_Pastoral_N:I8809
0.29335352 TZA_PN:I13981
0.29433481 TZA_PN:I13762
0.29503603 KEN_Pastoral_N_o:I8759
0.29562118 KEN_Pastoral_N_Elmenteitan:I8923
0.29638085 KEN_Pastoral_N:I8804
0.29758464 TZA_PN:I13980
0.29991987 KEN_Pastoral_N:I8874
0.30117075 KEN_Pastoral_N_Elmenteitan:I12398
0.30219286 KEN_LuKENHill_3500BP:LUK001
0.30285161 TZA_PN:I13979
0.30443054 KEN_Pastoral_N_Elmenteitan:I8922
0.30461901 KEN_Pastoral_N_Elmenteitan:I8805
0.30522598 KEN_Pastoral_N:I8830
0.30538444 KEN_Pastoral_N_Elmenteitan:I12394
0.30554677 KEN_Pastoral_N:I8918
0.30563365 KEN_Pastoral_N_Elmenteitan:I10719
0.30679808 KEN_Pastoral_N:I8814
0.30700609 KEN_Pastoral_N:I8919
0.30754229 TZA_Luxmanda_3100BP:I3726

vasil
06-23-2021, 11:50 PM
To my knowledge, Natufian = West Eurasia is the opposite of what's true. Natufians were just the most northernly-spread of the so-called "Ancient North Africans", whose ancestry would have also peaked in, say, Old Kingdom Egypt, as well as presumably throughout North and East Africa. The correlation between ANA, Afro-Asiatic, and E-M35 is almost too good to pass up!

Though, I'm not as well-read on this as I'd like to be. Feel free to school me if I'm missing some critical information.

Natufians are 50/50 West Eurasian and Ancient North African and Iberomaurusians already have Natufian like ancestry ie including West Eurasian also there were movements from the Middle East after the time of Iberomaurusians that added more West Eurasian or to say it more simply the Maghreb much like South Asia is a genetic sink not a source now whether the Ancient North African/DE lineage originated in Northeast Africa or the Levant is another conversation.

Aben Aboo
06-24-2021, 01:51 AM
deleted

Cynic
06-24-2021, 02:40 AM
Natufians are 50/50 West Eurasian and Ancient North African and Iberomaurusians already have Natufian like ancestry ie including West Eurasian also there were movements from the Middle East after the time of Iberomaurusians that added more West Eurasian or to say it more simply the Maghreb much like South Asia is a genetic sink not a source now whether the Ancient North African/DE lineage originated in Northeast Africa or the Levant is another conversation.

Yeah Im not entirely convinced. Can you show a G25 model where they come out 50% Ancient north African?

Cynic
06-24-2021, 03:02 AM
To my knowledge, Natufian = West Eurasia is the opposite of what's true. Natufians were just the most northernly-spread of the so-called "Ancient North Africans", whose ancestry would have also peaked in, say, Old Kingdom Egypt, as well as presumably throughout North and East Africa. The correlation between ANA, Afro-Asiatic, and E-M35 is almost too good to pass up!

Though, I'm not as well-read on this as I'd like to be. Feel free to school me if I'm missing some critical information.

Can you explain how this can be true when Somalis and Ethiopian Afars can be modeled as 54% Dinka and 46% Natufian and 42% Dinka and 58% Natufian respectively, which is very close to the proportion of SSA vs. West Eurasian ancestry they've been assigned in formal studies?

No one has properly defined ANA for me. My belief was that it was the original SSA related ancestry found in North Africa and especially among the Iberomaurusians as Ignis reiterated but then you have a guy above me saying that Natufians were 50% ANA and 50% West Eurasian, which sounds crazy.

leorcooper19
06-24-2021, 04:51 AM
Can you explain how this can be true when Somalis and Ethiopian Afars can be modeled as 54% Dinka and 46% Natufian and 42% Dinka and 58% Natufian respectively, which is very close to the proportion of SSA vs. West Eurasian ancestry they've been assigned in formal studies?

No one has properly defined ANA for me. My belief was that it was the original SSA related ancestry found in North Africa and especially among the Iberomaurusians as Ignis reiterated but then you have a guy above me saying that Natufians were 50% ANA and 50% West Eurasian, which sounds crazy.

Lazaridis et al. 2018:


Our co-modeling of Epipaleolithic Natufians and Ibero-Maurusians from Taforalt confirms 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." "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.

https://www.biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/early/2018/09/20/423079.full.pdf

drobbah
06-24-2021, 02:23 PM
this is strange, because the closest population to Iberomaurusian (if we exclude other north africans) are Kenyan Pastoral and tanzanian.


Distance to: MAR_Taforalt
0.26547860 KEN_Early_Pastoral_N:I12534
0.28698369 KEN_Early_Pastoral_N:I12533
0.28824884 KEN_HyraxHill_2300BP:HYR002
0.28900013 TZA_PN_o:I13978
0.29079738 TZA_PN:I13977
0.29109100 KEN_Pastoral_N:I8809
0.29335352 TZA_PN:I13981
0.29433481 TZA_PN:I13762
0.29503603 KEN_Pastoral_N_o:I8759
0.29562118 KEN_Pastoral_N_Elmenteitan:I8923
0.29638085 KEN_Pastoral_N:I8804
0.29758464 TZA_PN:I13980
0.29991987 KEN_Pastoral_N:I8874
0.30117075 KEN_Pastoral_N_Elmenteitan:I12398
0.30219286 KEN_LuKENHill_3500BP:LUK001
0.30285161 TZA_PN:I13979
0.30443054 KEN_Pastoral_N_Elmenteitan:I8922
0.30461901 KEN_Pastoral_N_Elmenteitan:I8805
0.30522598 KEN_Pastoral_N:I8830
0.30538444 KEN_Pastoral_N_Elmenteitan:I12394
0.30554677 KEN_Pastoral_N:I8918
0.30563365 KEN_Pastoral_N_Elmenteitan:I10719
0.30679808 KEN_Pastoral_N:I8814
0.30700609 KEN_Pastoral_N:I8919
0.30754229 TZA_Luxmanda_3100BP:I3726

Moderns


Distance to: MAR_Taforalt
0.21089401 Berber_MAR_TIZ
0.21901969 Saharawi
0.21998867 Moroccan_South
0.23124774 Berber_MAR_ERR
0.24874846 Moroccan
0.25131059 Mozabite
0.26632464 Algerian
0.26657608 Berber_Tunisia_Chen
0.26798398 Tunisian_Berber_Matmata
0.27099991 Tunisian_Berber_Tamezret
0.27567117 Ethiopian_Tigray
0.27601265 Ethiopian_Afar
0.27652080 Eritrean
0.27669899 Tunisian_Berber_Zraoua
0.27673733 Moroccan_North
0.27741189 Tunisian
0.27789382 Ethiopian_Amhara
0.27821903 Ethiopian_Agaw
0.27866496 Tunisian_Douz
0.28075202 Berber_Algeria
0.28075666 Berber_Tunisia_Sen
0.28121716 Ethiopian_Jew
0.29029092 Libyan
0.29512156 Ethiopian_Oromo
0.29910060 Somali

vasil
06-24-2021, 03:30 PM
Yeah Im not entirely convinced. Can you show a G25 model where they come out 50% Ancient north African?

I mean according to the Lazaridis paper they are 50/50 West Eurasian and Basal Eurasian but since Ancient North Africans are supposed to be closer to Eurasians than others it would be hard to differentiate them from an actual Basal Eurasian lineage also the precursor to the Natufians the Kebaran replaces the Levantine Aurignacian kind of suddenly and could have come from Africa.

SilkRoad
06-24-2021, 03:57 PM
ANA can't be the same as SSA since IBM get huge distance at 33% distance from my memory when modeling them as Ust_Ishim (or WHG) + Dinka/Yoruba or Anatolian Pinarbarsi + Dinka/Yoruba.

It doesn't make sense, you don't get anywhere this huge distance when you model any modern SSA/Eurasian admixed groups or individuals. Dinka for example is a perfect proxy for anyone with real SSA ancestry. I challenge modeling anyone from an Ethiopian, to a Puerto Rican to a Brazilian to a random mixed parentage SSA/European individual you will get reasonable distance below 5% , but not Iberomaurusians.

ANA is not the same as modern SSA. It's either something African but closest to Eurasians (basically part of the Eurasian phylum itself) either Basal Eurasian itself.

The world might not be just SSA vs Eurasian. If anything the modern world is wayy lesss diverse than it was back in the earlier Paleolithic as simple as this due to the expansions of Western Eurasians, East Asians over large areas and the homogeneization occurring as a result.
And nobody in the field has yet be able to explain what Basal Eurasian is but something that is clear is that its already clearly closer to what is in Iberomaurusians than what is in Crown Eurasian and ANE. Might be a secondary OOA component at 80kya as proposed by a recent study.

I've seen also PCA plot where Iran Neolithic samples show a clear shift towards Iberomaurusians (meaning that their Basal Eurasian shift vis a vis WHG/Vestonice and East Eurasian is expressing this way)

drobbah
06-24-2021, 04:25 PM
No one has properly defined ANA for me. My belief was that it was the original SSA related ancestry found in North Africa and especially among the Iberomaurusians as Ignis reiterated but then you have a guy above me saying that Natufians were 50% ANA and 50% West Eurasian, which sounds crazy.
Natufians definitely have significant African admixture (including ANA) but not 50% like the IBM samples.The Sudanese in the results below also probably has a decent chunk of ANA in themselves.

Target: Levant_Natufian
Distance: 19.3537% / 0.19353724
84.0 TUR_Pinarbasi_HG
9.2 Sudanese
5.8 ANA_(simulated)
1.0 ZAF_2000BP

Target: Levant_Natufian
Distance: 19.5863% / 0.19586337
85.4 TUR_Pinarbasi_HG
7.6 ANA_(simulated)
4.2 CMR_Shum_Laka_8000BP
2.8 ZAF_2000BP

Cynic
06-24-2021, 06:19 PM
ANA can't be the same as SSA since IBM get huge distance at 33% distance from my memory when modeling them as Ust_Ishim (or WHG) + Dinka/Yoruba or Anatolian Pinarbarsi + Dinka/Yoruba.

It doesn't make sense, you don't get anywhere this huge distance when you model any modern SSA/Eurasian admixed groups or individuals. Dinka for example is a perfect proxy for anyone with real SSA ancestry. I challenge modeling anyone from an Ethiopian, to a Puerto Rican to a Brazilian to a random mixed parentage SSA/European individual you will get reasonable distance below 5% , but not Iberomaurusians.

ANA is not the same as modern SSA. It's either something African but closest to Eurasians (basically part of the Eurasian phylum itself) either Basal Eurasian itself.

The world might not be just SSA vs Eurasian. If anything the modern world is wayy lesss diverse than it was back in the earlier Paleolithic as simple as this due to the expansions of Western Eurasians, East Asians over large areas and the homogeneization occurring as a result.
And nobody in the field has yet be able to explain what Basal Eurasian is but something that is clear is that its already clearly closer to what is in Iberomaurusians than what is in WHG and ANE. Might be a secondary OOA component at 80kya as proposed by a recent study.

I've seen also PCA plot where Iran Neolithic samples show a clear shift towards Iberomaurusians (meaning that their Basal Eurasian shift vis a vis WHG/Vestonice and East Eurasian is expressing this way)

My guess is IBM is a mix of a very diverged form of SSA+very diverged form of west Eurasian. Could also be some sort of very basal lineage too. Both explanations are reasonable but I’m leaning towards the first as when we look at the distances, their closest ancients are Neolithic Horners.

Cabaon
06-25-2021, 03:33 PM
I don't know if it might help but since we don't have genetic datas yet and if aterians were indeed these ANAs why not looking at what forensic anthropology tells us ? Based on it we see that they shared many physical similarities with IBM which lead anthropologists to believe these aterians might have participated in the ethnogenesis of IBM but they still show archaic traits and are more robust than IBM. According to their results they are in an intermediary position between the djebel irhoud people and mechta el arbi (so clearly not similar to modern SSAs). Their material culture was found as far as the lake Chad and the Red Sea.

drobbah
06-25-2021, 03:58 PM
I don't know if it might help but since we don't have genetic datas yet and if aterians were indeed these ANAs why not looking at what forensic anthropology tells us ? Based on it we see that they shared many physical similarities with IBM which lead anthropologists to believe these aterians might have participated in the ethnogenesis of IBM but they still show archaic traits and are more robust than IBM. According to their results they are in an intermediary position between the djebel irhoud people and mechta el arbi (so clearly not similar to modern SSAs). Their material culture was found as far as the lake Chad and the Red Sea.
Majority of Sub-Saharans today all carry ANA ancestry due to having direct connections to the Sahel.Modern populations like the Dinka & Yoruba are a mixture of many divergent ancient African ancestries including ANA.It's amazing to see how both the Dinka & Yoruba would carry more ANA then me but it's not surprising since majority of the ANA ancestry of Cushitic populations probably came from our Sahelian Sudanese-like ancestors with very little coming from NE Africans who were probably similar to the Natufians with perhaps some extra ANA.

https://i.imgur.com/uWFN1y1.jpg

davit
06-29-2021, 05:42 PM
ANA can't be the same as SSA since IBM get huge distance at 33% distance from my memory when modeling them as Ust_Ishim (or WHG) + Dinka/Yoruba or Anatolian Pinarbarsi + Dinka/Yoruba.

It doesn't make sense, you don't get anywhere this huge distance when you model any modern SSA/Eurasian admixed groups or individuals. Dinka for example is a perfect proxy for anyone with real SSA ancestry. I challenge modeling anyone from an Ethiopian, to a Puerto Rican to a Brazilian to a random mixed parentage SSA/European individual you will get reasonable distance below 5% , but not Iberomaurusians.

ANA is not the same as modern SSA. It's either something African but closest to Eurasians (basically part of the Eurasian phylum itself) either Basal Eurasian itself.

The world might not be just SSA vs Eurasian. If anything the modern world is wayy lesss diverse than it was back in the earlier Paleolithic as simple as this due to the expansions of Western Eurasians, East Asians over large areas and the homogeneization occurring as a result.
And nobody in the field has yet be able to explain what Basal Eurasian is but something that is clear is that its already clearly closer to what is in Iberomaurusians than what is in Crown Eurasian and ANE. Might be a secondary OOA component at 80kya as proposed by a recent study.

I've seen also PCA plot where Iran Neolithic samples show a clear shift towards Iberomaurusians (meaning that their Basal Eurasian shift vis a vis WHG/Vestonice and East Eurasian is expressing this way)


Which paper proposed that it was a secondary (well primary if it occurred 80kya) OOA component?

But you are right , nobody truly knows what Basal Eurasian is or even if it is real. Doesn't stop claims of ownership over it due to some people's racial agendas.

Max_H
06-29-2021, 09:47 PM
ANA can't be the same as SSA since IBM get huge distance at 33% distance from my memory when modeling them as Ust_Ishim (or WHG) + Dinka/Yoruba or Anatolian Pinarbarsi + Dinka/Yoruba.

It doesn't make sense, you don't get anywhere this huge distance when you model any modern SSA/Eurasian admixed groups or individuals. Dinka for example is a perfect proxy for anyone with real SSA ancestry. I challenge modeling anyone from an Ethiopian, to a Puerto Rican to a Brazilian to a random mixed parentage SSA/European individual you will get reasonable distance below 5% , but not Iberomaurusians.

ANA is not the same as modern SSA. It's either something African but closest to Eurasians (basically part of the Eurasian phylum itself) either Basal Eurasian itself.

The world might not be just SSA vs Eurasian. If anything the modern world is wayy lesss diverse than it was back in the earlier Paleolithic as simple as this due to the expansions of Western Eurasians, East Asians over large areas and the homogeneization occurring as a result.
And nobody in the field has yet be able to explain what Basal Eurasian is but something that is clear is that its already clearly closer to what is in Iberomaurusians than what is in Crown Eurasian and ANE. Might be a secondary OOA component at 80kya as proposed by a recent study.

I've seen also PCA plot where Iran Neolithic samples show a clear shift towards Iberomaurusians (meaning that their Basal Eurasian shift vis a vis WHG/Vestonice and East Eurasian is expressing this way)

Ustishim shows a shift towards Iberomaurisians too I think, which is quite odd given his inferred ancestry.

Of course, ANA is different than "SSA" but it could (imo) theoretically be a composite of "SSA" and Eurasian-related ancestry, maybe what Harvard lab calls "basal Eurasian"

Mnemonics
06-30-2021, 06:13 AM
The idea that the Iberomaurusian's African ancestry lack's SSA or is closer to Eurasians is honestly indefensible when using f4 ratios
.
A simple f4 ratio test using African populations with deep African ancestry and ancient Eurasians shows that they obviously have some very deep African ancestry.




result: ZlatyKun Biaka Iberomaurusian Chimp : ZlatyKun Biaka UstIshim Chimp 0.715233 0.013780 51.904 1044819
result: ZlatyKun Mbuti Iberomaurusian Chimp : ZlatyKun Mbuti
UstIshim Chimp 0.742605 0.013000 57.122 1052208
result: ZlatyKun Khomani_San Iberomaurusian Chimp : ZlatyKun Khomani_San UstIshim Chimp 0.772046 0.012293 62.802 1047862





Populations for comparison

result: ZlatyKun Mbuti Iran_N Chimp : ZlatyKun Mbuti UstIshim Chimp 0.983624 0.015327 64.174 999672
result: ZlatyKun Mbuti Natufian Chimp : ZlatyKun Mbuti UstIshim Chimp 0.933430 0.016891 55.263 698609
result: ZlatyKun Mbuti Anatolia_N Chimp : ZlatyKun Mbuti UstIshim Chimp 0.975052 0.014353 67.933 1071781
result: ZlatyKun Mbuti Mota Chimp : ZlatyKun Mbuti UstIshim Chimp 0.325284 0.010170 31.985 1084674




The F4 ratios using Africans with less deep ancestry.





result: ZlatyKun Yoruba Iran_N Chimp : ZlatyKun Yoruba UstIshim Chimp 0.962453 0.020068 47.960 992911
result: ZlatyKun Yoruba Natufian Chimp : ZlatyKun Yoruba UstIshim Chimp 0.892012 0.021288 41.902 674315
result: ZlatyKun Yoruba Anatolia_N Chimp : ZlatyKun Yoruba UstIshim Chimp 0.949469 0.018514 51.284 1069799
result: ZlatyKun Yoruba Iberomaurusian Chimp : ZlatyKun Yoruba UstIshim Chimp 0.599547 0.015672 38.256 1049267
result: ZlatyKun Yoruba Mota Chimp : ZlatyKun Yoruba UstIshim Chimp 0.186157 0.013451 13.840 1083049

result: ZlatyKun Dinka Iran_N Chimp : ZlatyKun Dinka UstIshim Chimp 0.941289 0.023943 39.314 1037863
result: ZlatyKun Dinka Natufian Chimp : ZlatyKun Dinka UstIshim Chimp 0.858056 0.026701 32.135 841699
result: ZlatyKun Dinka Anatolia_N Chimp : ZlatyKun Dinka UstIshim Chimp 0.929612 0.022218 41.840 1084651
result: ZlatyKun Dinka Iberomaurusian Chimp : ZlatyKun Dinka UstIshim Chimp 0.564292 0.019144 29.475 1072139
result: ZlatyKun Dinka Mota Chimp : ZlatyKun Dinka UstIshim Chimp 0.061354 0.017596 3.487 1095329


result: ZlatyKun Mota Iran_N Chimp : ZlatyKun Mota UstIshim Chimp 0.968860 0.024690 39.241 1060985
result: ZlatyKun Mota Natufian Chimp : ZlatyKun Mota UstIshim Chimp 0.898261 0.026027 34.513 924385
result: ZlatyKun Mota Anatolia_N Chimp : ZlatyKun Mota UstIshim Chimp 0.955764 0.022820 41.883 1093150
result: ZlatyKun Mota Iberomaurusian Chimp : ZlatyKun Mota UstIshim Chimp 0.619930 0.019288 32.140 1085097

SilkRoad
06-30-2021, 06:42 AM
These F4 ratios aren't showing anything more than Iberomaurusians having deeper ancestry than ancient crown Eurasians (Zlaty_Kun, Ust_Ishim) which is something we already know.
It doesn't show anything else.

Mnemonics
06-30-2021, 07:26 AM
Those F4 ratios aren't showing anything more than Iberomaurusians having deeper ancestry than ancient Eurasians (Zlaty Kun, Ust_Ishim) which is something we already know. It doesn't show anything else.

Having 25% of an ancestry closer to Mbuti than Zlaty_kun is pretty damning for the idea that they lack Deep African ancestry

SilkRoad
07-03-2021, 05:19 AM
Having 25% of an ancestry closer to Mbuti than Zlaty_kun is pretty damning for the idea that they lack Deep African ancestry

These are very subjective interpretations of F4 ratios. They aren't saying IBM have as deep ancestry as Mbuti (besides the fact, Mbuti have alot of modern West African ancestry and East African ancestry and are nowhere near a full deep ancestral population).

You still can explain why IBM get huge distance as high as 36 and 40% when modeling them as Mbuti+ Eurasian, Ethiopian_Mota + Eurasian or ancient Africa +Eurasian. You can't because you are clueless about it just like we all are without Ancien DNA.

Moderator
07-03-2021, 07:00 AM
All members are reminded to remain on topic and refrain from personalizing comments about other members. This thread is being monitored.