Page 3 of 8 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 71

Thread: Out of America (from Africa) must now be taken seriously

  1. #21
    https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-03335-3

    "Unlike two previously studied individuals of similar ages from Romania and Siberia who did not contribute detectably to later populations, these individuals are more closely related to present-day and ancient populations in East Asia and the Americas than to later west Eurasian populations."

    It does seem like Dziebel is onto something with his Out-of-America. The earliest UP Europeans have Amerindian ancestry but no African ancestry.

  2. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Liudmila Timofeeva For This Useful Post:

     aganmu (04-14-2021),  K33 (04-13-2021),  parasar (04-13-2021)

  3. #22
    Registered Users
    Posts
    83
    Sex
    Location
    USA
    Ethnicity
    Filipino
    Nationality
    US
    Y-DNA (P)
    P
    mtDNA (M)
    M7C1C3

    OUT OF SUNDALAND

  4. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to ataneojr1 For This Useful Post:

     aganmu (04-14-2021),  K33 (04-15-2021),  parasar (04-13-2021)

  5. #23
    Registered Users
    Posts
    1,641
    Sex
    Location
    Calgary
    Ethnicity
    Anglo
    Nationality
    Canadian
    Y-DNA (P)
    I2-S2361 < L801
    mtDNA (M)
    H2a2b(1)
    mtDNA (P)
    H3

    Canada
    never mind
    Last edited by Megalophias; 04-13-2021 at 11:42 PM. Reason: this never goes well and it's probably Dziebel's sock anyway

  6. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Megalophias For This Useful Post:

     drobbah (04-14-2021),  parasar (04-13-2021),  pmokeefe (04-14-2021)

  7. #24
    Registered Users
    Posts
    68
    Sex

    Quote Originally Posted by Liudmila Timofeeva View Post
    https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-03335-3

    "Unlike two previously studied individuals of similar ages from Romania and Siberia who did not contribute detectably to later populations, these individuals are more closely related to present-day and ancient populations in East Asia and the Americas than to later west Eurasian populations."

    It does seem like Dziebel is onto something with his Out-of-America. The earliest UP Europeans have Amerindian ancestry but no African ancestry.
    I am not sure I follow the logic here. Where does it say that this population has less ancestry to African lineages than to Amerindians? Why is it not quite likely that this population contributed to populations later in East Asia and Beringia, ultimately to the Americas?

    There is no evidence that I understand that shows Amerindians as basal to populations on other continents, with the small exception of some Pacific Islanders. If one looks at maps of Y-DNA haplogroups, the trees cannot support an out of America hypothesis. I assume tgd sand is true for mtDNA.

  8. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to RP48 For This Useful Post:

     beyoku (04-14-2021),  homunculus (04-14-2021)

  9. #25
    I'm just posting what the paper says. Upon further reading, how can a 43,000 YBP Bulgarian population have links to Amerindians if Amerindians presumably formed 30,000 years later. And how can this ancient Bulgarian population that presumably came from Africa carry no specifically African genetic traits? Its Y-DNA is C (found in East Asia, Australia, America), not A, B or E that are found in Africa?

  10. #26
    Registered Users
    Posts
    248

    Quote Originally Posted by Liudmila Timofeeva View Post
    I'm just posting what the paper says. Upon further reading, how can a 43,000 YBP Bulgarian population have links to Amerindians if Amerindians presumably formed 30,000 years later. And how can this ancient Bulgarian population that presumably came from Africa carry no specifically African genetic traits? Its Y-DNA is C (found in East Asia, Australia, America), not A, B or E that are found in Africa?
    Bottlenecks.jpg

    Bottlenecks and population founder effects.
    While this may not be the best image and explanation it should be sufficient.
    1 - African Source population has a lot of genetic diversity, including some of which that diverges PRIOR to OOA.
    2 - OOA founder Effect, Blue components stays at home and becomes widespread. Green component bi-directionally migrates between African and the Mediterranean.
    3 - Eurasian Bottle neck into Europe and Asia losses green.
    4 - Yellow and Red bottleneck prior to the settlement of the Americas.
    5 - Red Amerindian becomes dominant while Yellow is lost though drift.

    The explanation is deeper.
    There are more populations.
    Some of the populations dont diverge in African and diverge only in Asia.

  11. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to beyoku For This Useful Post:

     Angoliga (04-14-2021),  diini95 (04-14-2021),  Lenny Nero (04-14-2021),  Megalophias (04-14-2021),  pmokeefe (04-14-2021)

  12. #27
    Registered Users
    Posts
    209
    Sex
    Omitted
    Ethnicity
    Mostly Chinese
    Nationality
    USA

    United States of America China
    Quote Originally Posted by K33 View Post
    Re: psuedohaploid samples, that's over my head, perhaps someone else can weight in.... but it was quite common in older DNA papers for ancient samples to have FST matrices. 2015 Haak's Steppe Migration paper and the 2016 Ice Age Europe paper both employed these, comparing the ancient West Eurasians with each other and even with moderns. FST fell out of favor, I had thought, because those relationships didn't "fit" with what authors were putting together on qpGraph. The return of the FST matrix in one of the most recent Reich papers-- the ancient Caribbean DNA paper-- seems to indicate they employed it because qpGraph had utterly failed (as they themselves admitted). The Antilles_Archaic clade had a puzzling relationship with other Natives that qpGraph couldn't make sense of, and even before this it was impossible to fit ALL extant ancient Amerinds into one qpGraph without inferring pre-Beringian sources (ie, PopY for Brazil_LapoDeSanto or "UPopA" for modern Mixe). Even the piecemeal qpGraphs including only some ancient Amerinds involved relatively high drift paths to "ghost" populations diverged from the actual samples, which shouldn't be necessary for a supposedly homogeneous bottlenecked population.

    Regarding the bottleneck/shift in allele frequency claim, this seems to only be applied to explain away Australasian and Amerindian FST ratios. As the recent East Asian DNA papers demonstrated, Paleolithic populations were much more diverse (by FST and other measures) than modern ones-- the same as ancient vs modern European populations. The FST between (say) WHG and EHG-- or between WHG and Natufians-- is much greater than the FST between French and Russians, or between French and Lebanese. And this is because of Neolithic/BA migrations that "homogenized" the genepool of West Eurasia. The same process occurred in mainland East Asia.

    Are the relatively large FST distances between Highland and Lowland Papuan groups (0.03, IIRC) the result of "small population sizes", or because Papuans really do have as much internal diversity (derived from an early split from Beringia) as modern [non-Siberian] East Asia combined? It is something of a chicken-and-the-egg question, since the only way populations can retain their genetic differentiation from external groups is to avoid admixture with those groups-- most typically by shunning agriculture-- hence "smaller effective population sizes". Hence also, the oft-repeated assertion that ancestors of the Khoisan were once "the most numerous humans in the world"-- this assertion is based on statistical modeling taking their extreme heterozygosity (highest among all modern humans-- and S_Africa_2000BP is even more heterozygous than modern Khoisan) into account, and some massive Paleolithic population is the only way to explain it. But this is at odds with the spatial and temporal limits imposed by the traditional Out of Africa phylogeny, where South Africans must be isolated from other human groups for 250kya, and more or less restricted to a range no further north than the Congo. ALL Paleolithic populations (even the "basal" Neanderthals and Denisovans) have very high combined RoH relative to post-Neolithic humans-- if South Africans were living as isolated hunter-gatherers for 250k+ it's impossible to conceive them harboring such low levels of RoH.

    To return to West Eurasians, WHG are famously homozygous and "inbred". The recently sequenced Irish WHG had, according to the authors, "the highest combined runs of homozygosity of any sample ever sequenced". Does this individual display the same skewed FST ratio with other (almost equally inbred) WHGs, as between Surui and Karitiana? Regarding moderns, the paper "Runs of homozygosity: windows into population history and trait architecture" provided a comprehensive sampling. And the more isolated Amerinds had the highest rates of RoH in the world. In the Out of America theory this would be due not only to modern population declines but also to a very, very long history isolated from non-American geneflow.

    But look also at, say, the Pathan and the Kalash. From a principal components perspective, these populations are pretty similar, like the Surui and Karitiana supposedly are. But Pathan and Kalash both have pretty large combined ROH. Therefore, we would expect them to display an "inflated" FST relationship between them-- perhaps not as inflated as Surui:Karitiana, but inflated nonetheless. Is this the case? I honestly don't know. I've never seen them in an FST matrix...



    It's observed according to FST ratios. See the first FST table in my OP... All 5 Amerind populations (Surui, Karitiana, Pima, Maya, Colombian) have differential FST ratios with both Africans and Eurasians. It's also observed in certain PCAs excluding Africans:



    Can you provide a link? My impression was the opposite, aren't the microlithic tools for example that appear in West Eurasia usually linked to the east?
    The OP study used Yakut and Mongola (North Asians) as their "East Asian" reference lol. Of course they're going to be genetically closer to Europeans and Middle Easterners lol. Both groups are West Eurasian mixed relative to Han, Ami, and Dai.

    I wouldn't be surprised if Selkup and Chukchi are also genetically closer to Europeans, Middle Easterns, and South-Central Asians via shared "Ancestral North Eurasian" ancestry.

  13. #28
    Registered Users
    Posts
    635
    Sex
    Ethnicity
    Celto-Germanic, Near East
    Nationality
    Murcan
    Y-DNA (P)
    R1b-U152
    mtDNA (M)
    T2a1a

    United States of America
    Quote Originally Posted by okarinaofsteiner View Post
    The OP study used Yakut and Mongola (North Asians) as their "East Asian" reference lol. Of course they're going to be genetically closer to Europeans and Middle Easterners lol. Both groups are West Eurasian mixed relative to Han, Ami, and Dai.
    Han, Igorot and Korean are also closer to Euros and Near Easterners than any Amerind or Papuan group, going just by FST. There might be alternate explanations for this affinity (homozygosity etc), but its not about ANE. Mongols don't have a ton of ANE ancestry anyway, hence they only show a very moderate additional attraction to Euros (relative to East/Southeast Asians).



    I wouldn't be surprised if Selkup and Chukchi are also genetically closer to Europeans, Middle Easterns, and South-Central Asians via shared "Ancestral North Eurasian" ancestry.
    Closer compared to what? Compared to mainland East Asians?
    Last edited by K33; 04-14-2021 at 07:37 PM.

  14. The Following User Says Thank You to K33 For This Useful Post:

     okarinaofsteiner (04-15-2021)

  15. #29
    Registered Users
    Posts
    195
    Sex

    Quote Originally Posted by K33 View Post
    Han, Igorot and Korean are also closer to Euros and Near Easterners than any Amerind or Papuan group, going just by FST. There might be alternate explanations for this affinity (homozygosity etc), but its not about ANE. Mongols don't have a ton of ANE ancestry anyway, hence they only show a very moderate additional attraction to Euros (relative to East/Southeast Asians).




    Closer compared to what? Compared to mainland East Asians?
    Selkup and Chukhi would in theory be closer to Europeans than mainland East Asians are to Europeans due to shared ANE.There is quite some ANE in northern East Asia, definitely more than East Asia "proper". Then there is also some sort of relationship between a subset of WHG and Han (as Fu et al 2016) demonstrated, but the direction of this affinity and whether it's due to gene flow or something else I am not sure.

  16. The Following User Says Thank You to Max_H For This Useful Post:

     okarinaofsteiner (04-15-2021)

  17. #30
    Registered Users
    Posts
    967
    Sex
    Omitted
    Location
    Colorado, USA
    mtDNA (M)
    U5a2a1

    Quote Originally Posted by RP48 View Post
    I am not sure I follow the logic here. Where does it say that this population has less ancestry to African lineages than to Amerindians?
    There is no logic here, just nonsense. There is no value in going down this rabbit hole.

  18. The Following User Says Thank You to GailT For This Useful Post:

     beyoku (04-15-2021)

Page 3 of 8 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. North America/ Meso-America Archaeology and History News
    By History-of-Things in forum Northern
    Replies: 40
    Last Post: 05-20-2018, 02:30 PM
  2. Replies: 7
    Last Post: 12-11-2017, 08:13 PM
  3. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 11-11-2016, 05:25 PM
  4. Out-of-America vs. Out-of-Africa familes of hypotheses
    By apophis99942 in forum Human Evolution
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 09-11-2012, 04:57 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •