Page 7 of 23 FirstFirst ... 5678917 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 70 of 230

Thread: Is Basal Eurasian real or an fstats artifact?

  1. #61
    Registered Users
    Posts
    28
    Sex
    Omitted

    Quote Originally Posted by Max_H View Post
    But, I will say that 2 inferences struck me as very "odd/unfamiliar". One is Tianyuan and East Asians having admixture from a Sahr_I_Sohta-related branch. Imo, that is very surprising given what the literature so far has shown for East Asia thus far (especially since qpGraph shows one wave into Tianyuan and then another one into Mongolia_N-so that's implying this "Central-South Asian" profile is very ancient and I don't think any post-Neolithic population is that ancient)

    West Eurasian admixture into the ancestors of East Asian populations is possible, but it should be mostly through ANE-like groups (excluding post-Neolithic movements that are recent enough to know how large or small gene flow was)
    In the beginning (with my very first optimized topology), I shared the exact same hesitation as yourself; I too thought that the result mentioned above was just plain weird.

    But I've tried hundreds of these, and with varied strategies; that odd result is one of the most consistent solutions!

    For reasons unknown to me, it seems that qpgraph really prefers ENA to be West Eurasian-admixed, and the West Eurasian admix is always from the Iranian/Central Asian/South Asian-type of pops, and it's often SIS.

    What this means, the significance of it... that I don't know. We need more aDNA.

    (I've even tried manually flipping the admix. Upon optimization, goes back into ENA)

    Quote Originally Posted by Max_H View Post
    Another one is Anatolians showing more "African" (Mota) affinity than North Africans (unless I am misreading something). That seems the opposite of again what published papers have shown till now.
    It's been awhile since I've looked at the topology, so I might be wrong: but if I'm not mistaken, the Iberomarusians are mostly "African" (I guess you could call it "North African), while Anatolia_HG is only 11% African ("East African"?).

    I'll look it over again

  2. The Following User Says Thank You to durmang For This Useful Post:

     Max_H (09-14-2021)

  3. #62
    Registered Users
    Posts
    87
    Sex
    Location
    Sweden
    Nationality
    Swedish

    Sweden Skåne Sweden Kalmar Union European Union United Nations
    Took a quick look at your posted qpGraph(https://anthrogenica.com/showthread....648#post782648).

    Despite there being some "weird" stuff(especially with ShahrISokhta and East Eurasians for example) it actually makes the IUP connection between ENA and the earliest Europeans(Oase), without involving BachoKiro which is pretty cool.

    Interesting is also that it has all the pre-WHG Europeans(Goyet, Kostenki/Sunghir, Ostuni(=Gravettian right?)) as just branching from each other without admixture between and then has WHG as a simple "Anatolia"+Gravettian.

    Also interesting it the seeming lack of a single "Basal Eurasian", instead opting for several ones(the Onge one, the West Asian one, the IBM one) as well as Anatolian not needing any basal at all(except the Mota).

    Edit: This about Anatolians not needing Basal admixture was also written about here(also relevant for this thread at large; basal eurasians being real or not): https://populationgenomics.blog/2019...ers-maybe-not/

    In fact here is shown that there is not really any need for basal eurasian at all; only ANA.

    Last edited by theplayer; 09-14-2021 at 11:49 PM.

  4. The Following User Says Thank You to theplayer For This Useful Post:

     durmang (09-14-2021)

  5. #63
    Registered Users
    Posts
    28
    Sex
    Omitted

    Quote Originally Posted by theplayer View Post
    Despite there being some "weird" stuff(especially with ShahrISokhta and East Eurasians for example) it actually makes the IUP connection between ENA and the earliest Europeans(Oase), without involving BachoKiro which is pretty cool.
    I do quite like that graph! Besides the ENA-SIS thing, everything feels perfect.

    And I still do feel that the ENA-SIS thing is weird.

    But it'll start appearing in papers from the big guns, once they switch to automated qpgraph. We'll get used to this sort of result.

    For me, question is what it all means: why would qpgraph prefer ENA to be IUP + SIS?

    Definitely a situation where it'd be nice to have some Upper Paleolithic/Mesolithic aDNA from Central and South Asia.

  6. #64
    Registered Users
    Posts
    23

    Quote Originally Posted by Woozler View Post
    The Out of Africa event likely occurred well before 100 kya, and took the entire undifferentiated CT clade with it. It split into DE and CF in Asia, turning DE's into Basal Eurasians. The article discusses the West-East Eurasian split that concerns the CF group only.
    That is not what the very article you cited said. Have you read the article?

    Yoi are juat been imaginative. And that is OK. But is not science

  7. #65
    Registered Users
    Posts
    502
    Sex
    Location
    Rome
    Ethnicity
    Veneto\Toscano
    Nationality
    Italian
    Y-DNA (P)
    R1b-U152-L2-Z367
    mtDNA (M)
    T1a1

    Republic of Venice Italy Veneto Italy Tuscany Italy 1861-1946 European Union Italy
    Quote Originally Posted by theplayer View Post
    Took a quick look at your posted qpGraph(https://anthrogenica.com/showthread....648#post782648).

    Despite there being some "weird" stuff(especially with ShahrISokhta and East Eurasians for example) it actually makes the IUP connection between ENA and the earliest Europeans(Oase), without involving BachoKiro which is pretty cool.

    Interesting is also that it has all the pre-WHG Europeans(Goyet, Kostenki/Sunghir, Ostuni(=Gravettian right?)) as just branching from each other without admixture between and then has WHG as a simple "Anatolia"+Gravettian.

    Also interesting it the seeming lack of a single "Basal Eurasian", instead opting for several ones(the Onge one, the West Asian one, the IBM one) as well as Anatolian not needing any basal at all(except the Mota).

    Edit: This about Anatolians not needing Basal admixture was also written about here(also relevant for this thread at large; basal eurasians being real or not): https://populationgenomics.blog/2019...ers-maybe-not/

    In fact here is shown that there is not really any need for basal eurasian at all; only ANA.

    What is ANA here exactly? 30% ANA in Natufian?

  8. #66
    Registered Users
    Posts
    502
    Sex
    Location
    Rome
    Ethnicity
    Veneto\Toscano
    Nationality
    Italian
    Y-DNA (P)
    R1b-U152-L2-Z367
    mtDNA (M)
    T1a1

    Republic of Venice Italy Veneto Italy Tuscany Italy 1861-1946 European Union Italy
    Quote Originally Posted by theplayer View Post
    Took a quick look at your posted qpGraph(https://anthrogenica.com/showthread....648#post782648).

    Despite there being some "weird" stuff(especially with ShahrISokhta and East Eurasians for example) it actually makes the IUP connection between ENA and the earliest Europeans(Oase), without involving BachoKiro which is pretty cool.

    Interesting is also that it has all the pre-WHG Europeans(Goyet, Kostenki/Sunghir, Ostuni(=Gravettian right?)) as just branching from each other without admixture between and then has WHG as a simple "Anatolia"+Gravettian.

    Also interesting it the seeming lack of a single "Basal Eurasian", instead opting for several ones(the Onge one, the West Asian one, the IBM one) as well as Anatolian not needing any basal at all(except the Mota).

    Edit: This about Anatolians not needing Basal admixture was also written about here(also relevant for this thread at large; basal eurasians being real or not): https://populationgenomics.blog/2019...ers-maybe-not/

    In fact here is shown that there is not really any need for basal eurasian at all; only ANA.

    Without basal you force ANA in Natufian, that's pretty obvious, but IDK, I feel we are getting into crazy town here anyway

  9. #67
    Registered Users
    Posts
    101
    Sex

    Quote Originally Posted by taharqa View Post
    That is not what the very article you cited said. Have you read the article?

    Yoi are juat been imaginative. And that is OK. But is not science
    Several other articles that came out in the last couple of years said that. Soon enough it will be common knowledge. Be ready.

  10. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Woozler For This Useful Post:

     etrusco (09-15-2021),  Howard23 (09-16-2021)

  11. #68
    Registered Users
    Posts
    109
    Sex

    By now, I would think people on this forum would be more willing to accept what has always been the most parsimonious and even obvious explanation for Basal Eurasian. It is African ancestry or ancestries from Africans migrating into Eurasia after the initial OOA movement. A recent preprint appears to be nudging in that direction:

    The basal Eurasians and the Neanderthal admixed group were genetically close, so they most likely descended from the same African migrant group that had split somewhere earlier. The split might have occurred in southwestern Asia after the OOA migration (through either the northern or the southern route; (Lahr and Foley 1994), or, alternatively, in Africa. In the latter scenario, the subset that gave rise to the basal Eurasian branch probably followed the southern route taking refugium in the exposed basin of the Arabo-Persian Gulf, while the direct ancestors of Europeans and Asians followed the northern route, mixed with Neanderthals, and hence moved forward, further splitting towards Europe and Asia. Current evidence does not allow us to disentangle between the two scenarios, which highlights the urgency of finding and analyzing ancient human specimens in eastern AP/Zagros region

    https://academic.oup.com/gbe/article...vab194/6364187
    Last edited by Mansamusa; 09-15-2021 at 11:15 AM.

  12. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Mansamusa For This Useful Post:

     Riverman (09-15-2021),  RP48 (09-15-2021)

  13. #69
    Registered Users
    Posts
    502
    Sex
    Location
    Rome
    Ethnicity
    Veneto\Toscano
    Nationality
    Italian
    Y-DNA (P)
    R1b-U152-L2-Z367
    mtDNA (M)
    T1a1

    Republic of Venice Italy Veneto Italy Tuscany Italy 1861-1946 European Union Italy
    Quote Originally Posted by Mansamusa View Post
    By now, I would think people on this forum would be more willing to accept what has always been the most parsimonious and even obvious explanation for Basal Eurasian. It is African ancestry or ancestries from Africans migrating into Eurasia after the initial OOA movement. A recent preprint appears to be nudging in that direction:

    The basal Eurasians and the Neanderthal admixed group were genetically close, so they most likely descended from the same African migrant group that had split somewhere earlier. The split might have occurred in southwestern Asia after the OOA migration (through either the northern or the southern route; (Lahr and Foley 1994), or, alternatively, in Africa. In the latter scenario, the subset that gave rise to the basal Eurasian branch probably followed the southern route taking refugium in the exposed basin of the Arabo-Persian Gulf, while the direct ancestors of Europeans and Asians followed the northern route, mixed with Neanderthals, and hence moved forward, further splitting towards Europe and Asia. Current evidence does not allow us to disentangle between the two scenarios, which highlights the urgency of finding and analyzing ancient human specimens in eastern AP/Zagros region

    https://academic.oup.com/gbe/article...vab194/6364187
    What you write does not corellate with the abstract, clearly we are talking about a para OOA group, the fact is that Basal has to be much closer to OOA than to any African, that's the problem, that's the ANA problem. The split has to be something like 70k ago, it's from the Lazaridis paper that we know that, we are treating a para OOA lineage like it's African......................

    Edit: new paper is suggestive, how old are we talking here, 40k years ago, if OOA is 50k years ago, and basal is in Eurasia from 40k years, ago.

    Basal is symmetrically related to OOA compared to Africans

    What are we even talking about folks?
    Last edited by Ariel90; 09-15-2021 at 11:53 AM.

  14. #70
    Registered Users
    Posts
    266

    You all are a beating around the Bush.

    "Basal Eurasian" is likely North East Africa.
    Basal Rich ancient populations from North West Africa into the Levant and over to Iran probably carry ancestry from a COMMON North African ancestor.
    This common ancestor was hypothesized years ago. This common ancestor is reinforced with the Y-DNA of Taforalt and Natufian.
    These Basal Rich populations then underwent admixture in their respective regions.

    North African sub Structure exists, so stop looking for "Sub Saharan" admixture in Populations containing ancestry which was wholly derived and or differentiated in North Africa and carry North African uniparental makers.

    A lot of the mystery will disappear when you understand that "Eurasians" are not Genetically and geographically synonymous:
    Notice in nearly every global PCA, there is a Eurasian and African genetic cline, usually in the shape of a V.
    African hunter gatherers generally form the base of the African cline.
    As you go down this African genetic line.........before pivoting to the Eurasian generic cline....you run into geographically Eurasian populations on the African side of the cline (Populations claimed to have NO African ancestry).

    You can add this to the fact that many of these "Eurasian" genetic components diverged in Africa, prior to OOA. Similarly to how Tianyuan Man has Native American affinities 20 thousand years before the New world was even colonized.
    Many here are working from a model of a genetic "singleton" 6000 kilometers across the most diverse continent in the world were humans have existed 5 to 20 times longer than any region on earth........only for the diversity to explode in a 1000km region after crossing the Sinai. Quit playing. lol

    I know its witty and edgy to argue Haplogroup E and L3 are back migrants, but evidence wise its pretty played out.
    Some of these back migration theories have E and L3 coming back from Areas with extremely strong Neanderthal land Denisovan ancestry. It makes zero sense.
    Last edited by beyoku; 09-15-2021 at 01:31 PM.

  15. The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to beyoku For This Useful Post:

     Brandon S. Pilcher (09-15-2021),  Dehlisandwich (09-18-2021),  egyptian_eediat (09-15-2021),  Lenny Nero (09-15-2021),  Mansamusa (09-15-2021),  taharqa (09-15-2021)

Page 7 of 23 FirstFirst ... 5678917 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. What is Basal Eurasian?
    By Tsakhur in forum Autosomal (auDNA)
    Replies: 204
    Last Post: 07-19-2021, 12:30 AM
  2. Replies: 3
    Last Post: 06-15-2020, 02:32 PM
  3. Is haplogroup M1 Basal Eurasian?
    By NetNomad in forum M
    Replies: 25
    Last Post: 10-12-2018, 06:27 PM
  4. Is there a need for Basal Eurasian now?
    By ren in forum Ancient (aDNA)
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 10-14-2017, 02:58 AM
  5. Basal Eurasian and ASI Split
    By Dr_McNinja in forum Ancient (aDNA)
    Replies: 158
    Last Post: 11-06-2015, 07:18 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
  •