search this blog

Friday, April 14, 2017

Now on Twitter


Things might seem pretty slow just about now, but this really is the quiet before the storm. A lot of ancient samples are about to be published and I'll be doing a lot with them.

I've never been a big fan of Twitter, and it might not be around for long anyway, but I've finally decided to put up a Twitter profile with the expectation that it might prove useful over the next year or so of hectic blogging, analyzing data, getting my points across, and generally being a nuisance. Feel free to add me @eurogenesblog.

91 comments:

Nirjhar007 said...

Yes , nice intentions .

Al Bundy said...

the Romans gave the brainwashed masses bread and circuses and today they get the internet and Twitter...

Nirjhar007 said...

Dave, apart from BBC Behemoth , whats next?.

Davidski said...

Paper on Southwest Europe, then BB Behemoth, then paper on South Asia.

rozenfag said...

There is also aDNA from Poland. It should've come last autumn, IIRC?

Helgenes50 said...

Paper on Southwest Europe, then BB Behemoth, then paper on South Asia.

What countries are included in this paper ? France ?

Al Bundy said...

The Greece and Anatolia papers then I assume are coming after the papers Davidski listed.

Lee Albee said...

@Davidski I am a newbe on Ubuntu and using linux type programs. Do you have a tutorial a linux for dummies on how to run the various programs available from the Reich lab-like the F3 test, admixture, rolloff etc?

ANy help would be most welcome

Anthro Survey said...

@Davidski: Good stuff! Nice avatar pic with the PCA snippet. Do you still have the complete PCA by chance? If so, can you post link please?

Davidski said...

@Lee Albee

Not at the moment. I might do one later this year, and also port an AdmixTools tarball. There is quite a bit of documentation now at GitHub with AdmixTools, but not sure how helpful it is for someone starting out.

@Anthro Survey

Yes it's here. I'll be updating it whenever new samples come out.

http://eurogenes.blogspot.com.au/2016/11/days-of-high-adventure.html

Anthro Survey said...

Dziekuje!

Arza said...

Wielbark flavoured off-topic.

David, aren't you looking in fact at some PWC remnants (eventually mixed with CWC, Unetice, BB)?

Here is overlay of DoHA over the PCA plot from The Genetic History of Northern Europe (Figure 2.):

https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-BntHO_bKXhM/WPOV4AZnjGI/AAAAAAAAAH0/DpW9Km2mGNkQilyXCfPamMqzd8CBJcOhQCLcB/s1600/WielbarkPWC.png

There were some leaks about Motala-like I, right?

And don't buy this "Slavs absorbed considerable Germanics" narration.

PWC/Hungary_BA + CWC/Unetice/BB on the one side and Baltic_BA on the other and voilà - you have the Balto-Slavic not-a-cline, which affected also the Balts and even Finns, so there is no way that this happened in the Middle Ages.

DoHA:

Polish_AVG
Unetice_EBA:RISE109 33
Bell_Beaker_Czech:RISE568" 23.5 ← Baltic_BA ghost
Hungary_BA:I1502 12.1
Hungary_BA:I1504 11.9
Unetice_EBA:I0047 11.15
Unetice_EBA:I0115 3.95
Ukraine_N1:StPet12 2.15 ← Baltic_BA ghost
Unetice_EBA:RISE577 1.55
BelltukN 0.7 ← Baltic_BA ghost

distance%=0.2226 / distance=0.002226

Arza said...

Another thing - Wielbark developed from Oksywie Culture which was placed at the shores of the Bay of Gdańsk. Such place - big, but calm and shallow bay with a big river flowing into it - is a perfect refugium for HG or some HG-Farmer mix. You just need to practice fishing.

Nirjhar007 said...

Well plenty of things happening in the labs . A feast! .

Simon_W said...

In the Bay of Gdansk there was most of all the TRB, the TRB East group to be exact. So it cannot have been a refugium of pure HG. The Narva culture was rather its eastern neighbour with a focus in the Baltic, radiating into northeastern Poland. But since the peculiarity of Hungary_BA:I1502 was its strong WHG, anything that could boost WHG ancestry in Wielbark appears to make sense as an explanation - as long as the details remain unknown.

And I'm sure Slavs in general don't have a lot of Germanic admixture, because in the areas of the Eastern and Southern Slavs there were just the Goths and their relatives the Gepids migrating through. Only the West Slavs may have absorbed some Germanic remnants - how much remains to be seen. At any rate, an Unetice-Bell Beaker mix wouldn't appear completely un-Germanic, and Hungary_BA:I1504 is even French-like in the PCA.

Simon_W said...

But returning to that PCA provided by Arza, I'm not sure how realistic it is, and how much affected by shrinkage. Narva and PWC look suspiciously close to modern Europeans, not remote like pure HGs.

Now, Wielbark was a culture of the Roman era Iron Age, hence it would seem useful to compare it to Iron Age or Bronze Age cultures, rather than to Neolithic farmers or HGs. For example it would be interesting to compare it to PL_N17 (the Poland_EBA sample) and to the Lithuanian_LBA sample RISE598. These two were extremely similar to each other in the West Eurasian PCA. And IF Wielbark really is BR1-like (BR1 = Hungary_BA:I1502), then we would need a shift from PL_N17- and RISE598-like people into the direction of a population that was lying inbetween Basques and WHG. Which would be a strange thing.

Rob said...

@ SimonW

I don't think it's too odd, if my understanding is correct. Essentially BR1 can stand in as a something which represents a lot of Central Europe through the Bronze Age: WHG high MNEs, with about 20% steppe. A sort of typical Alpine Bronze Ager. Its presence in Poland could go back to the Pomoranian, not sure exact timing without aDNA.

Simon_W said...

@ Rob
Well, BR1 and also Hungary_BA RISE479 have quite peculiar positions in the PCA plot, they are slightly off the European main cline, like Basques are slightly off. And other Hungary_BA samples are quite different. They were all over the place, with many plotting with the French, and others with North Italians or Iberians, RISE247 even between Iberians and Sardinians. Hence these WHG-rich specimens were not the average type for Bronze Age Hungary, they were one extreme of the variation. And RISE471 from Bronze Age southern Germany wasn't BR1-like either, but French-like and similar to the Hungary_BA average.

But maybe Wielbark wasn't exactly BR1-like, I don't know. That's the crucial question.

In any case, a shift from PL_N17 towards a mix of TRB_MN + WHG would also work as an explanation. But that a pocket of TRB+WHG people could survive in the Bay of Gdansk for such a long time seems hard to believe. So a different explanation could be that BR1-like people were lurking around somewhere and migrated in without much continuity.

Rob said...

@ Simon W

TRB- like groups continued to exist in parts of Poland & Scandinavia until at least 2000 BC as distinct entities. Therefore resurfacing in the Iron Age perhaps isn't too surprising .

Simon_W said...

Yes, somewhere in a yet unsampled area there must have been a population with stronger Europe_MN + WHG ancestry. Not pure ones of course. But mixed with some standard Europe_LNBA admixture you get something BR1-like. Apparently this wasn't in Silesia, Czechia or central Germany, given the character of the Unetice people there. And considering the similarity and strong Europe_LNBA character of PL_N17 from Gustorzyn (EBA) and RISE598 from southwestern Lithuania (LBA), it seems dubious that a very different population occupied the Bay of Gdansk in the EBA. But eventually in the Bronze Age a change may have occured.

From what I've read the Lusatian culture, which extended to the Bay of Gdansk, arose from a mix of local pre-Lusatian, eastern Trziniec and southern Tumulus influences. And at its cultural peak in the LBA it showed strong influence from the Urnfield cultures, again another southern influence.

Rob said...

@ SimonW

Agree. That is what I meant by 'Alpine Bronze Age' groups.

As for BR1, to me she looks as a north European WHG & Lengyel mix, with some steppe. So it could indeed be from an incorporated TRB group somewhere in central - north Europe. Its odd position in overall PCAs is because today very few European groups remain which are a mixture of mostly WHG and EEFs; because there has been further steppe admixture by way of later Slavs, East Germanic groups, Vikings, etc into central, southern and western Europe; as well as East Mediterranean admixture in southern Europe, which occurred after the Bronze Age.

Angantyr said...

@ Rob

Where in Scandinavia would there have been TRB groups as late as 2000 BC? I haven't seen any such late dates published. (With the reservation that I lack good knowledge of the Norwegian TRB, but I can't see Norwegian TRB (with was marginal to begin with) having any major impact on continental genetics.)

Simon_W said...

Though I think southern, 'Alpine Bronze Age' Tumulus and Urnfield influence would perhaps have increased BR2-like rather than BR1-like affinity. And moreover it would hardly explain the Germanic language of the Goths. The latter could be explained by elite dominance, but that would be less parsimonious at the moment. If on the other hand the GAC was like TRB with extra WHG (I think I heard that rumor recently) it could be right in the ballpark. An area of stronger GAC survival with diminished Corded Ware influence, maybe in Pomerania or Mecklenburg? Just wildly speculating.

Nirjhar007 said...

What happened to GAC genomes!! .

Matt said...

Rob: Essentially BR1 can stand in as a something which represents a lot of Central Europe through the Bronze Age: WHG high MNEs, with about 20% steppe.

That's one way to look at them. Another might be as an intermediate on a Baltic BA->Hungary CA cline.

The Hungarian samples are pretty interesting in that they have quite different affinities to modern Europeans depending on the measure you use:

- Haplotype affinity peaks in Poland, and radiates out from there, and has a very East Central European distribution.

- Direct Fst suggests the least differentiated populations are Hungary, Croatian, Bulgarian, Czech, Croatian, German French (very East Central European again but slightly more southern).

- IBS shows a strongest dual affinity to Lithuanian / Estonians and Basque / Sardinian.

- Davidski's PCA probably puts them closest to being just beyond range of the NW Europe end of a NW-NE Europe cline.

Their Y-dna is unusual for post-BA population in that R appears to (thus far) be absent, and instead you have I2, J, etc. This quality is shared by the sole Iron Age Hungary sample we have.

Rob said...

@ Angantyr

2350 BC to be specific in east Denmark is amongst the latest. Also, Megalithic burials continued more generally in southern Scandinavia during CWC period. whatever the case I am not suggesting that Norweignan TRB explains the Wielbark individual, but rather that pockets of TRB and such individuals survived well into the CWC period in N-C Europe.

@ SimonW

No, obviously I can;t recall many people theorizing that Germanic is from Halstatt or Urnfield. Good point there.

Antoni Małkowski said...

Gotów łączy tyle z Germanami co Węgry z Finami.
Przypuszczam że Goci to Darkowie w kolażu z innymi kulturami wschodnioeuropejskimi.

Rob said...

Thanks Matt

xyyman said...

From the study
Genetic evidence for an origin of the Armenians from Bronze Age mixing of multiple populations - Marc Haber1 David Comas 2015

-----

http://egyptsearchreloaded.proboards.com/thread/1897/goes-neighborhood-armenoids-ids-africans

I am not too familiar with the mumbo-jumbo pseudonyms used by the racialist like Dienekes and Storm Front people etc. But from what little I know they hold Armenians in high regard and is often referenced in their racialist anthropology discussions/debates. So when I saw this paper I decided to take a peek at it not expecting to find anything of significance. Boy, was I wrong.

Not only is the beloved European Armenians admixed with the dreaded sub-saharans but many of present day Armenians are new migrants to Armenia. Apparently the Armenian population can be divided into two clusters or groups.

Man, genetics has thrown us another twist in unraveling the saga of the history of modern Europeans. Stay tuned, the best is yet to come.

I wonder if this paper will be cited in the racialist contemporary debates. Hmmmmmm! Lol!

What is fascinating is how quickly a population shift occurs. Within a few hundred years a population can either disappear or emerge as dominant. Sub-Saharans occupying central Europe 4000BCE (AEians inception) and the Euro Nuts argue that AEians are Europeans. In fact the Sub-Saharans was responsible for the creation of the Armenian Kingdom and civilization. Talk about a mind job

This statement blew my mind :
The******* oldest***** mixture events appear to be between populations related to sub-Saharan Africans and West Europeans occurring ~3,800 BCE, followed closely by mixture of Sardinian and Caucasus-related populations. …… East Asian ancestry in Turks from admixture occurring 800 (±170). We also detect sub-Saharan African gene flow 850 (±85) years ago in Syrians, Palestinians and Jordanians


From the study
Genetic evidence for an origin of the Armenians from Bronze Age mixing of multiple populations - Marc Haber1 David Comas 2015

QUOTE(S)

Armenians have since remained isolated and genetic structure within the population developed ~500 years ago when Armenia was DIVIDED between the Ottomans and the Safavid Empire in Iran. Finally, we show that Armenians have higher genetic affinity to Neolithic Europeans than other present-day Near Easterners, and that 29% of the Armenian ancestry may originate from an ancestral population best represented by Neolithic Europeans.


In this study, we analyse newly-generated genome-wide data from Armenians as well as individuals from 78 other worldwide populations.


themselves highly admixed (Supplementary Table 1). We collected results that were significant (z-score >|4|) and summarized the findings in Table 1 after pooling populations into respective geographical groups. Sardinians appear to have a distinctive admixture pattern from other West Europeans and therefore are shown separately. For tests of genetic affinity to Neolithic Europeans, we merged our samples with the genome of the Tyrolean Iceman




Last Edit: Feb 25, 2015 at 5:32am by djoser-xyyman
Without data you are just another person with an opinion - Deming
djoser-xyyman
Nomarch
****

Salden said...

https://mathildasanthropologyblog.wordpress.com/2008/11/09/egyptians-are-not-arabs-they-are-egyptians/

Salden said...

https://mathildasanthropologyblog.wordpress.com/2008/06/10/voted-the-worlds-worst-population-dna-study/

Salden said...

https://mathildasanthropologyblog.wordpress.com/2008/07/22/the-faces-of-ancient-egypt/

xyyman said...

Salden! Salden! Salden! What wrong with you brother? You do know Mathilda forum is dead? You know Dienekes is forum is dead also. Also FTDNA. And you do know why! I assume you just got started in history anthropology etc and but don't understand genetics studies exceed all these other disciplines. I know you are excited about what you THINK you know. But trust me you are very very very far from the truth. This sites are dead because they refuse to acknowledge the growing evidence coming out from aDNA and other genetic studies. All the falsehood we were taught is be proven inaccurate. Davidski forum may go the same way. If he keeps up the Steppes nonsense. Modern Europeans are 80% Sub-Saharan Africans. You don't have to believe me. Let some of your buddies on here who understand genetics explain what I am saying to you. They probably have a better understanding that is why they cannot refute what I am posting. They know but you don't...although in you little brain you think you do. Mathilda 2008!!!! ...really. SMH


xyyman said...

Do you understand the implication of this statement from the study?

Quote ": Armenians have since remained isolated and genetic structure within the population developed ~500 years ago when Armenia was DIVIDED between the Ottomans and the Safavid Empire in Iran. Finally, we show that Armenians have higher genetic affinity to Neolithic Europeans than other present-day Near Easterners, and that 29% of the Armenian ancestry may originate from an ancestral population best represented by Neolithic Europeans."

1. Present day Near easterners are NOT the indigenous population of the "middle east". They are left-overs from the Ottoman Turks. Modern People from the Levant are NOT indigenous that is why they are NOT used in genetic studies as representing "Near east".
2. The Shifting of population in the Near East And parts of Africa occurred during the Ottoman years and not through pre-history. Modern Egyptians are heavily admixed with Ottoman Turks that is why many studies have shown they are the are the most admixed or unpure Africans north of the Sahara.
3. Only 29% of Armenian ancestry is from Neolithic Europeans the rest are Ottoman Turks ie Asians.

So a picture do NOT tell a thousand words.



Salden said...

Your position isn't accepted by the scientific community. Like other Afrocentrics.

Salden said...

Levantines and Egyptians have little to none admixture from what are modern Turks and Balkan populations. Lower Egypt (if not all of Egypt) has already been found to not group with Tropical African populations. Like Natufians.

xyyman said...

It does matter what is accepted or the belief. It is what the data show.

Young man! Salden /Cass. I am starting to sound like a broken record but this is not too difficult to understand. Just put aside your racialist beliefs for a minute. Based upon the CURRENT genetic evidence ALL modern Humans originated in Africa. The regional Theory is Dead. There were essentially TWO major migration events. First, the initial OOA and second the Neolithic Migration. The time period of the initial OOA can be contested. I speculate it is about 40-50000years ago. Some say 100,000ya. The second migratory evident was about 6-10000years ago. I also believe between the Bronze and medieval age there was tremendous political upheaval and NOT migratory events which led to the dominance of R1b-M269. There was NO migration from the Steppes of Asia. R1b-M269 is indigenous to Western Africa and Western Europe. The question is why the sudden dominance. Within 500years. If you know genetics you know that not even the Vikings carried typical European DNA.....At least the few that were tested.



Salden said...

http://racialreality.blogspot.com/2016/06/natufians-not-sub-saharan-african.html?m=1

Natufians were already West Eurasian.

Salden said...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oxRAwVKW6MI

Salden said...

Afrocentrics are noticeably New Worlders descended from slave populations and immigrants. Being New Worlders, they don't have a sure ethnic identity. As such, they claim more illustrious civilizations like Egypt and the Hebrews to boost their self-esteem.

xyyman said...

WOULD YOU STOP SHOWINg ME STUFF FROM YOUTUBE!!!! You are driving me nuts! With these Youtube links. Use your fugking brain! And construct an argument YOURSELF. If you cannot then GTFOH since you are not qualified to have this discussion.

Deep breath...so...
Another word of advice. Young man. I know you are new to this. But when you make a claim it is good to cite sources. Eg Natufians are from Africa because they carried E1b1b Lazaridis et al. They had tropical body proportions because they were from the tropics and sub-Saharan Africa Trenton Holliday ? So Natufians are Tropical Africans. Now were they "closer" related to YRI. I would say..... ...no!! They cannot be. It is impossible. Why? Think!. E1b1a the sibling of E1b1b is no older than 7000year old. You do know Berbers/North African are OLDER than YRI. E1b1b is OLDER than E1b1a. You do know that? That is why you need to understand "CONTEXT". Mbuti is just ONE SSA population. And I hate to tell you this Mbuti is NOT a good representation of YRI. Shocking!!! Lol! So too are San and there may be more.


So please understand ....context.


Salden said...

Afrocentrics contrive stories to dance around the observation of how little Tropical African populations contributed to actual civilization when put up with Europeans, Indians, etc...

xyyman said...

" Afrocentrics contrive stories to dance around the observation of how little"

I am going to ask you a simple question but I don't intend to be offensive. Did you have any formal college education? Why Am I asking you this. Because it seems like you are easily influenced and don't do research yourself. Looks like you don't read a lot or at least prefer to learn through picture. You don't need to answer me. But it is food for thought. And a lesson to be learnt. If you have to learn through pictures it shows deficiencies and may be character flaws. I get the same feeling on Davidski. He lucked out with this website. But when he uses phrases like "a behemoth is coming" or "it is logical" when there nothing logical about his statement.

Samuel Andrews said...

@xyyman,

I can see you understand ancient Eurasians were distinct from modern Sub Saharan Africans. I can see you understand they and modern Eurasians are not the same as modern Sub Saharan Africans. But for the data to fit your afrocentrist view that Europeans are depigmented Sub Saharan Africans or that Natufians are Sub Saharan Africans you change the definition of Sub Saharan African.

You change the definition from being related to modern Sub Saharan Africans to being descended from ancestors who lived in the geographic location of Sub Sahara Africa.

So while you admit Natufians or Europeans or whoever are genetically distinct from modern Sub Saharan Africans you insist they were Sub Saharan Africans because their ancestors lived in Sub Sahara Africa.

Most here agree humanity orignated in Africa. But most here also agree the ancestors of ancient and modern Eurasians have lived outside of Africa for at the very least 50,000 years.

For you that date is too old to give ancient Eurasians a special connection to Sub Sahara Africa. So you change the date to 8,000 years ago.

Let me tell you that there's nothing which supports such a young out of Africa data. Actually there's data which proves that young date is wrong.

Dozens of Paleolithic, older than 8,000 years old, Eurasian genomes have been sequenced. Europeans and Natufians have a higher affinity to a random guy who died in Siberia 45,000 years ago than anyone in Sub Sahara Africa today.

So how can Natufians or Europeans be recent immigrants from Sub Sahara Africa if they are more related to Paleolithic Eurasians than anyone in Sub Sahara Africa today?

xyyman said...

Ok! I see Sammy is finally catching on. I sated from the very time I appeared on this site. I am speaking strictly from geographic point of view. Because I don't believe race exist. We have to do this in "baby-step' because you people get too emotional

xyyman said...


1. I never changed the definition of sub-Saharan African. You people did! Sub-Sahara Africa is south of the current Sahara. You and some of your boys started using phrases like "SSA" when I said Villabruna was African and black skinned.
2. So, again, for BOTH Natufians and Villabruna to be tropical adapted they...had to come from the tropics. Or at least their ancestors. Simple logic. Right David?
3. " modern Eurasians have lived outside of Africa for at the very least 50,000 years". Nonsense! Basal Eurasian is African. EEF only left Africa within the last 8000years. Morphological the Neolithics entering Iberia from Morocco and South Italy from Tunisia and Greece from Egypt were tropically adapted. This happened again, only 8000years ago.
4. The date is not" too old" for me because that is what it is. You are the one making shyte up. EEF and Neolithic RECENTLY entered Europe. 8000 is rather recent compared to 50,000ya. Right?
5. Where is the data (not some crackpot data) showing an older age of Neolithic migrants to Europe prior to 8000ya?
6. " Natufians have a higher affinity to a random guy who died in Siberia 45,000 years ago" impossible. Closest affinity to modern population to the Natufians are North Africans. That is why Lazaridis could not parse then out from North Africans. And carried E1b1b. A North African marker clearly originating in SSA. At the same time Natufians were NOT ancestral to modern Europeans per Lazaridis et al. Want me cite the sections of the study?
7. Again let "ancient genome" and Capra" or anyone knowledgeable(not Daviski since he is clueless) explain why modern Europeans carry more SSA ancestry at K2 than Eurasian ancestry.

This is not bury your head in the sand time....lol! This is not about dogma and singing KKK songs around the campfire telling tales. Ask your boy Capra and Ancient Genome to explain this to you if you do not understand..


Davidski said...

@xyyman

You can deny that race exists, but you can't deny that human genetic variation and structure exist.

And in terms of human genetic structure, Europeans are very similar to ancient Egyptians and Natufians.

But Europeans, ancient Egyptians and Natufians are all relatively highly diverged from modern Sub-Saharan Africans.

ser nam said...

xyyman:
"1. Present day Near easterners are NOT the indigenous population of the "middle east". They are left-overs from the Ottoman Turks. Modern People from the Levant are NOT indigenous that is why they are NOT used in genetic studies as representing "Near east".
2. The Shifting of population in the Near East And parts of Africa occurred during the Ottoman years and not through pre-history. Modern Egyptians are heavily admixed with Ottoman Turks that is why many studies have shown they are the are the most admixed or unpure Africans north of the Sahara.
3. Only 29% of Armenian ancestry is from Neolithic Europeans the rest are Ottoman Turks ie Asians."

1. It only mentions the present day Turkish as being descended from medieval Turks.

2. from the paper "Admixture signals decrease to insignificant levels after 1200 bce"....."The genetic landscape in most of the Middle East appears to have been continuously changing since then."

3. "We note that these mixture dates also coincide with the legendary establishment of Armenia in 2492 bce. Admixture signals decrease to insignificant levels after 1200 bce, a time when Bronze Age civilizations in the Eastern Mediterranean world suddenly collapsed, with major cities being destroyed or abandoned and most trade routes disrupted. This appears to have caused Armenians' isolation from their surroundings, subsequently sustained by the cultural/linguistic/religious distinctiveness that persists until today. "

Olympus Mons said...

@xyyman
I Like you. But you're completely wacko. - you are an intelligent dude, but regretfully smart does not get one closer to truth, just to be a good lawyer of whatever he/she thinks is their interests. Things are what they are.

All that the study you reference tell us is that the movement of some of the Delta Nile population disappearing from Merimde and El-omari and even in part Fayum, during the early 4th millennium, also ended up in Armenia, being pushed away by the Badarian and Tasian cultures moving up the Nile. Hell that everybody knows. That movement of people with some SSA admix must have carry on for a while. So, nothing new there.

Although, large part of Merimde and el-omari, originally people from south Caucasus, ended up in Iberia by 3500BC (so same time as per paper you reference) a long side with other north African population.... well for some reason ancient Greeks called Iberia to one of the Georgian kingdoms and to Iberia itself?

Anyway... keep on. I like freaks. And its a good change from the Steppe freaks here. You are not that different from them, ehehehe.

Matt said...

xxyman: 7. Again let "ancient genome" and Capra" or anyone knowledgeable(not Daviski since he is clueless) explain why modern Europeans carry more SSA ancestry at K2 than Eurasian ancestry.

It's highly unstable as to whether this happens. It doesn't here - http://go.nature.com/2okR9tQ. Nor here - http://bit.ly/2pz9uo3. Nor here - http://bit.ly/2peLWrl.

It does here - http://bit.ly/2peBkc6 and here http://bit.ly/2pxHxjh, the latter of which would also lead you to, at K=2, the brilliant conclusion that East Asians are Native Americans with African admixture, like another beloved by German Dziebel - http://bit.ly/2pPNvbE. Likewise here's a run where Africans are, at K=2, Sardinians with a little East Asian admixture http://bit.ly/2oL1ArI (obviously true, right?).

Or how about this brilliance - http://bit.ly/2ol5Ehi? Who knew that Europeans were Africans at K=2, and that East Asians were Africans with 20% Papuan admixture? That's solved that then.

In all instances K=2 is a highly unstable model with low predictive accuracy. This K=2 stuff is all meaningless. It's not telling you anything meaningful about the degree to which West Eurasian allele frequencies resemble African / East Asian groups, etc. because there just aren't enough K to cover that. The solutions that come out are almost random and depend on the composition of samples in your panel (e.g. did you pack it full of Oceanian populations?). It doesn't tell anyone anything other than that you're dumb enough to think it's a model that contains much of the information.

(Really, I'm not telling you this for your benefit, to help you learn something, because I doubt you're even capable of understanding this much very basic information, but frankly more to help onlookers laugh more at your expense than they already are. You may as well contribute that much.)

Olympus Mons said...

@Alberto,
If you drop by…
we had a long conversation about horses in south Caucasus and around during neolithic. At the time I don’t think I got you same papers stating the existence of Horse remains in Shulaveri sites clearly 6th milenia BC..
Here are some:
https://f.hypotheses.org/wp-content/blogs.dir/3148/files/2016/03/Badalyan2010_AknashenTUBA-AR.pdf

http://www.persee.fr/doc/paleo_0153-9345_2008_num_34_2_5258

and a nice job of equids all over Anatolia, Levant and Egypt. It keeps the Yamnaya, horses and domestication a little bit in perspective.

http://www.persee.fr/docAsPDF/paleo_0153-9345_2012_num_38_1_5468.pdf

Salden said...

The fruit of Affirmative Action.

Salden said...

I see you're not interested in showing you're credible. You too are rejected by the scientific community.

Salden said...

By this point, "alternative history" should be put on the same level intelligent design. I wouldn't be surprised if they all denied the Holocaust.

Olympus Mons said...

Still OT, but talking about movements of people out of Egypt.

One of my favorite parts of this paper ....http://www.persee.fr/docAsPDF/paleo_0153-9345_2012_num_38_1_5468.pdf


" they may have undergone the
process of domestication in Egypt during the late 5th millennium,bearing in mind the few remains from El Omari (middle or late 5th millennium) which are thought to represent donkeys (Boessneck and von den Driesch, 1990). They could have been taken into the Negev and far beyond during the late 5th or more certainly the early 4th millennium, reaching eastern Iraq by the
late 4th millennium."


Maadi already mixing Badarian, and those probably had SSA admixture, already had loads of domesticated Donkeys.

And is usually forgotten that early arriving populations at Iberia, actually Portugal, where later we see bell beakers arising, had by 3300BC newly formed settlements that showed a lot of horses. Specially Mercador (or was it paraiso, or Jorumenha) in places with no others species butchery.

Salden said...

Only in America would you have hordes saying it doesn't matter if they're rejected by the scientific community.

Salden said...

North Africans aren't Tropical African beyond foreign admixture either. Nice try.

Whether genomically:

http://forwhattheywereweare.blogspot.com/2012/01/north-african-autosomal-genetics-again.html?m=1

http://forwhattheywereweare.blogspot.com/2017/01/ancient-aboriginal-dna-from-el-hierro.html?m=1

http://www.pnas.org/content/111/25/9211.abstract

http://www.nature.com/articles/srep25501 (bonus)

Or artisically:

https://mathildasanthropologyblog.wordpress.com/2009/01/03/the-faces-of-north-africa-from-rock-art-to-the-age-of-the-moors/

http://www.angelfire.com/md/8/moors.html

http://www.angelfire.com/md/8/coinage.html

Samuel Andrews said...

@xyyman,

-"tropical" adapted body is very weak evidence of a tropical African origin.

-Sub Saharan African can be used for more than a geographic term, it can be used as a genetic term. People there share ancestry other people in the world don't have. When we say Sub Saharan African we are referring to genetics not geography.

-If having ancestors who lived in Sub Sahara Africa makes someone Sub Saharan African than calling someone a Sub Saharan Africans is the equivalent of calling someone human. In discussions about human genetic diversity that means nothing.

-You have grabbed the 8ky-out of Africa date out of thin air. There's nothing which supports that date. We've layed out how the evidence you have used is wrong.

Samuel Andrews said...

@xyyman,
"EEF only left Africa within the last 8000years. "

We have Anatolian EEF genomes dating 10,000 years old. EEF didn't come from Africa. WHG(Villabruna) didn't come from Africa. Btw, 30,000 year old genomes from Europe are closely related to WHG.

Of course parts of Africa could have been apart of the Eurasian gene pool, separate from most of the gene pools modern Sub Saharan Africans' ancestors were apart of. It's possible distant ancestors of EEF lived in let's say Egypt. But that wouldn't make them anymore Sub Saharan African than if they lived on the Moon.

Gioiello said...

@ xyyman
I posted this tree other times, and had no answer from you. Someone said that you are "intelligent". I think that you are a stupid African who reasons with a magical and not a scientific mentality, thus show me some African or Middle Easterner R-V88 which is put in the oldest subclades and not after
R-Y7771 Y7790 * Y8439 * SK2071/V1944+12 SNPs 5900 ybp, TMRCA CI 95% 6300 4500 ybp"formed 7000 ybp, TMRCA 5400 ybp
and have survived samples not older that 5400 years whereas in Europe we have subclades old at least 11700 years.
R-V88 from Italy: definitely demonstrated
"R-V88 Z30230/Y7770 * V88/PF6279 * PF6332+59 SNPs15400 ybp, TMRCA CI 95% 13400 10200 ybp"" class=""age""formed 17100 ybp, TMRCA 11700 ybp
R-V88*
⦁ id:YF07201 [ITALY and UK]
R-M18 PF6372 * PF6319 * YP5453+34 SNPs
⦁ id:ERS256975ITA [IT-CA]
⦁ id:ERS256965ITA [IT-CA]
R-Y7777 SK2065/FGC21014/Y7777 * Y7768 * FGC21018/Y8460+10 SNPs10200 ybp, TMRCA CI 95% 11000 8200 ybp"" class=""age""formed 11700 ybp, TMRCA 9600 ybp
R-Y7777*
⦁ id:YF07902 GBR [and ITALY and France]
R-Y8451 FGC20993/Y7786 * FGC21063/Y7784 * FGC21033/Y8445+15 SNPs8200 ybp, TMRCA CI 95% 8900 6400 ybp"" class=""age""formed 9600 ybp, TMRCA 7600 ybp
R-Y8451*
R-V35 V35
⦁ id:ERS256961ITA [IT-CA]"
The R-V88 in Iberia (7100 YBP) very likely with the migration from Italy Zilhao spoke about.
p.s. I invited to test Galea (Malta/Italy) for FGC29073 but FTDNA tested him for the upstream FGC21005 (at the level of FGC20973) and he resulted positive. Note that the subclades of FGC20973 have an Arab whose subclade is old 3600 years, and may have come also from Europe, being all this subclade Italian/Iberian and the "Jewish cluster" is recent and introgressed from Iberia.
R-FGC20973 FGC20973 * FGC21003 * FGC21040+29 SNPs 5900 ybp, TMRCA CI 95% 4600 2600 ybp" class="age"formed 7000 ybp, TMRCA 3600 ybp
R-FGC20973*
id:YF04009SAU
Galea (Malta/Italy)
345171 Dominic Galea bc 1870, Malta Malta R-FGC21005
13 24 15 11 12-14 11 12 13 13 13 29 17 10-10 11 12 26 14 18 28 12-12-15-15 11 11 21-23 15 16 19 19 32-39 12 11 12 8 15-16 8 10 11 8 11 11 12 21-22 16 11 12 12 15 8 13 21 20 14 12 11 13 11 12 12 11
R-FGC20980*
I don't think that our Y-s and mt-s come from Africa and I had so far no demonstration from Davidski that the theories of Shi Huang and colleagues are false.

xyyman said...

Got tied up yesterday. Will comment after reading through posts.

xyyman said...

All name calling does not get under my skin. Trying refuting my post. Show what I am posting is inaccurate. That! Gets my juices flowing. I like to be proven wrong. All most of you have done is quoted “written’ abstracts from supposed historically text. I have always said genetics will make liars of historians. The ancient genetic data emerging is changing the way we look at what we were taught…in academia.

--
Blogger Davidski said...
“You can deny that race exists, but you can't deny that human genetic variation and structure exist.”
Xyyman; I agree, Structure do exist, Isolation By Distance(IBD) , from Africa, is the Structure we see consistently. The BS of high frequency indicates origin is exactly that…BS. Isolation between humans NEVER existed. Rosenberg et al and “Population geneticists often not very good at population genetics” as you said and I responded and you deleted. And this new interpretation is done deliberately. These scientists know it is IBD.

“But Europeans, ancient Egyptians and Natufians are all relatively highly diverged from modern Sub-Saharan Africans.”

Xyyman: Lie!! How can the AEians Egytians be highly diverge from modern SSA when they carry lineage clearly SSA. In fact they are clearly diverge from modern European since they carry absolutely no H1 and H3. They are not even Amazigh(AEians). Natufians are clearly North Africans I agree. The Amarnas clearly carry SSA STR and Lineage. But if you read the paper on the Natufians they said “no more SSA” ancestry not “no SSA Ancestry. The paper also made it clear Natufians are NOT ancestral to modern Europeans. Have you read the paper?
--

Blogger ser nam said...
Xyyman: No comment. Not sure what your point was.

------
Olympus Mons:
“All that the study you reference tell us is that the movement of some of the Delta Nile population disappearing from Merimde and El-omari and even in part Fayum, during the early 4th millennium, also ended up in Armenia, being pushed away by the Badarian and Tasian cultures moving up the Nile. Hell that everybody knows. That movement of people with some SSA admix must have carry on for a while. So, nothing new there.
Although, large part of Merimde and el-omari, originally people from south Caucasus, ended up in Iberia by 3500BC (so same time as per paper you reference) a long side with other north African population.... well for some reason ancient Greeks called Iberia to one of the Georgian kingdoms and to Iberia itself?”

xyyman :History major? You can challenge Ricky for coming up with good story lines.
---
Blogger Matt:
“xxyman: 7. Again let "ancient genome" and Capra" or anyone knowledgeable(not Daviski since he is clueless) explain why modern Europeans carry more SSA ancestry at K2 than Eurasian ancestry.”

Trying to justify and deny. Explain it to Salden. Tell him have a glass of whisky first. Even at K3 the same the IBD pattern is observed. And K4. SSA carry all ancestry up to K4(unsupervised). So you know what you are saying there is BS.

xyyman said...

----
Sammy Andrews : “We've layed out how the evidence you have used is wrong.”. “You have grabbed the 8ky-out of Africa date out of thin air.” “We have Anatolian EEF genomes dating 10,000 years old. EEF didn't come from Africa. WHG(Villabruna) didn't come from Africa. Btw, 30,000 year old genomes from Europe are closely related to WHG.


Xyyman: Sammy! Sammy! Sammy! “we”. A follower I see. And no I did not grab 8000years out of thin air. Don’t you read? Entry of Neolithics started on about6000bc. Ok …I may be off by 500years but you get my point. Lol! Will someone explain to him the origin of Basal origin? Capra, Olympus, anyone? He! He! He! Explain to him that Natufians and Basal Eurasian carried no Neanderthal DNA and the implication. Explain to him ANE/Basal Eurasian probably split in Africa along the Nile. Sources cited.

---
Blogger Salden: “I see you're not interested in showing you're credible. You too are rejected by the scientific community.” “North Africans aren't Tropical African beyond foreign admixture either. Nice try.

Xyyman; Clueless as ever and have nothing to add. And still citing outdate material …you have not read. SMH
Not tropical adapted? So these anthropologist are liars. Salden knows more than them. They don’t how to use a measuring tape but Salden who never went to college does. SMH. My point; The data don’t lie, interpretation of the data is where there is confusion. Remember Davidski prior thread I cited above. Geneticist are not historians.
----


Xxyman: if Davidski will stop deleting my post I can post citation to those interested. I don’t pull shyte out my …you know where. And I am not racist…really. Since I don’t belive race exist. He!HE! But seriously. I am always up to an intelligent discussion. And please no far fetched fairy tales. That goes mostly to you Ricky

xyyman said...


Gioello:
“I posted this tree other times, and had no answer from you. Someone said that you are "intelligent". I think that you are a stupid African who reasons with a magical and not a scientific mentality, thus show me some African or Middle Easterner R-V88 which is put in the oldest subclades and not after”


I replied many times Gioello. I said you need to compare apples vs apples. There isn’t enough high resolution data on R-V88 in modern African population vs Italians . But this paper, “The genetic landscape of Equatorial Guinea and the
origin and migration routes of the Y chromosome haplogroup R-V88 - Miguel Gonza´lez1,”, clearly shows R-V88 migrated from SSA to coastal Africa. To all 3 jump off points. Morocco-Iberia, Tunisia-Italy, Siwa-Levant. This is not a coincidence. Trust me! He! He! He! READ THE PAPER and get back to me. R-V88 is OLDER than R1b-M269. To those interested in R1b-M269 origins. Read George Busby paper on origin of R1b-M269 then get back to me. I contend R1b-M269 originated either in western Sahara Africa or a land mass off (now submerged) the coast between Europe and Africa. Keep in mind the ancient Native Canary Islanders dated PRIOR to Spanish colonization already carried a high frequency of R1b.


xyyman said...

Ok! Since Davidski hasn’t deleted my post as yet. Let us proceed and have an intelligent discussion. Salden you know that does not include you. No picture and Youtube allowed

From Lazaridis paper on Natufians:

Quote: Extended Data Table 1: No evidence for admixture related to sub-Saharan Africans in
Natufians. We computed the statistic f4(Natufian, Other Ancient; African, Chimp) varying African to
be Mbuti, Yoruba, Ju_hoan_North, or the ancient Mota individual. Gene flow between Natufians and
African populations would be expected to bias these statistics positive. ***However, we find most of
them to be negative in sign*** and all of them to be non-significant (|Z|<3), providing no evidence that
Natufians **differ** from other ancient samples with respect to African populations

Figure 2: Basal Eurasian ancestry explains the reduced Neanderthal admixture in West
Eurasians. Basal Eurasian ancestry estimates are negatively correlated to a statistic measuring
Neanderthal ancestry f4(Test, Mbuti; Altai, Denisovan).

We truncated to 0-60% on the assumption that Basal
**Eurasians had no less Neanderthal admixture than Mbuti from sub-Saharan Africa**

We can rule out the hypothesis that European farmers stem
** directly** from a population related to the ancient farmers of the southern Levant30,31, however

xyyman said...

Since some of you don’t read and I do let me help out those who don’t like to read or at least cannot understand. Salden?!


Quote:
Supporting this theory, we observe a negative
correlation between Basal Eurasian ancestry and the rate of shared alleles with Neanderthals19
(Supplementary Information, section 5; Fig. 2). By extrapolation, we infer that the Basal
Eurasian population had lower Neanderthal ancestry than non-Basal Eurasian populations **and
possibly none **(ninety-five percent confidence interval truncated at zero of 0-60%; Fig. 2;
Methods). The finding of **little if any Neanderthal ancestry in Basal Eurasians** could be
explained if the Neanderthal admixture into modern humans 50,000-60,000 years ago11

Quote
A population without Neanderthal admixture, basal to other Eurasians, may have plausibly
lived in Africa. **Craniometric analyses have suggested that the Natufians may have migrated
from north or sub-Saharan Africa**25,26, a result that finds some support from Y chromosome
analysis which shows that the Natufians and successor Levantine Neolithic populations
carried haplogroup E, of **likely ultimate African origin**, which has not been detected in other
ancient males from West Eurasia (Supplementary Information, section 6) 7,8. However, no
affinity of Natufians to sub-Saharan Africans is evident in our genome-wide analysis, as
present-day sub-Saharan Africans **do not share MORE alleles with Natufians than with other
ancient Eurasians (Extended Data Table 1)**. (We could not test for a link to present-day North
Africans, who owe most of their ancestry to back-migration from Eurasia27,28.) The idea of
Natufians as a vector for the movement of Basal Eurasian ancestry into the Near East is also
**not supported by our data**, as the Basal Eurasian ancestry in the Natufians (44±8%) is
consistent with stemming from the same population as that in the Neolithic and Mesolithic
populations of Iran, and is not greater than in those populations (Supplementary Information,
section 4). Further insight into the **origins and legacy of the Natufians **could come from
comparison to Natufians from additional sites, and to ancient DNA from north Africa.


xyyman said...

So what does the above quotes from Lazaridis tell us?

1. Ancient Eurasians and Natufians share the same amount of SSA ancestry. No more or no less. Notice it said ancient Eurasian NOT modern Europeans.
2. Cranometric analysis indicates Natufians are from Sub-Saharan Africa
3. Natufians and later farmers carried yDNA-E1b1b of ultimate African origin just as E1b1a found in SSA
4. Natufians did not bring basal Eurasian into the Near East meaning basal Eurasian entered Europe via a different path. ????anyone?


Salden said...

> !! How can the AEians Egytians be highly diverge from modern SSA when they carry lineage clearly SSA.

Genomics point otherwise. As does actual Egyptian artwork (paintings sculptures) that depicted them as distinct from their southern neighbors in both skin and facial features. The most you can call them is a fruit of a West Eurasian population mixing with East Africans here and there.

> The Amarnas clearly carry SSA STR and Lineage

http://s1.zetaboards.com/anthroscape/single/?p=3089128&t=8064231

> But if you read the paper on the Natufians they said “no more SSA” ancestry not “no SSA Ancestry.

https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-XMLt1tGOTH4/V2esZSlR-zI/AAAAAAAAAfI/Ohf7nsPxfpwcquDVws4tEdUjfUD6TqG_gCLcB/s1600/Lazaridis2016_EDT1.png

"Most of them to be negative"

> The paper also made it clear Natufians are NOT ancestral to modern Europeans. Have you read the paper?

They're not Negroes.

Salden said...

Still aren't Negroes.

Salden said...

>And still citing outdate material …you have not read.

You haven't demonstrated it's outdated.

>SMH

Stop talking like a Twitter dullard.

>Not tropical adapted? So these anthropologist are liars.

Good luck demonstrating the majority of respected anthropologists call Natufians or Egyptians Negroes.

>Salden knows more than them. They don’t how to use a measuring tape but Salden who never went to college does. SMH.

I didn't go to an Affirmative Action Class (African Studies, Gender Studies) if that's what you're asking.

>My point; The data don’t lie, interpretation of the data is where there is confusion. Remember Davidski prior thread I cited above. Geneticist are not historians.

You haven't demonstrated the Natufians or Egyptians were even close to Negroes. Or that Europeans are depigmented Negroes. Or that Young Out of Africa happened.

xyyman said...

Straw man! I never said Natufians were Negros because I have no idea what is a “Negro’. I have demonstrated Natufians are Africans. I have also demonstrated AEians are SSAfricans via STR, JAMA report and BMJ carrying E1b1a etc. Which is a SSA lineage. So I don’t get what your point is. AEians are far removed from present day “Near Easterners” and definitely not Europeans. So I am still at a loss. What is your point? What is a negro? Are Onge Negros or are they EurAsians?


xyyman said...

Let us break it down...."Are Onge Negros or are they EurAsians? " I am trying to understand when you use the term "Negro" what you mean by it? I am clueless through affirmative action. As YOU would expect. Educate me!

Samuel Andrews said...

Salden shut up. While I agree xyyman is wrong it's obvious you're one of those sick pro-pepe the frog racists.

xyyman said...

@Salden - I will give you a hint. If you don’t explain to me in your own words what your point is I am not going to follow your link and read a post or video. I have found it to be a waste of time. Because it shows me I am discussion something with a dogmatic fool who is not intelligent enough for waste my time on. Totally useless and waste of time. So I ask again what are those links and what is your point? What are YOU showing me?

but on the other hand heed advice "Shut up" if you have nothing meaningful to contribute.

1Mero171 said...

From Lazaridis et al. (2016)

doi:10.1038/nature19310


[b] Extended Data Table 1 [/b]

No evidence for admixture related to sub-Saharan Africans in Natufians

We computed the statistic f4(Natufian, Other Ancient; African, Chimp) varying African to be Mbuti, Yoruba, Ju_hoan_North, or the ancient Mota individual. Gene flow between Natufians and African populations would be expected to bias these statistics positive. However, we find most of them to be negative in sign and all of them to be non-significant (|Z|<3), providing no evidence that Natufians differ from other ancient samples with respect to African populations.

xyyman said...

You thought you are unto something? A Gotcha moment! SMH . Seems like this site if filled with people who read and don’t understand. You reposted what I posted, I highlighted section and you still did not get it. I have to dumb things down. Understand the context of the Title to the paragraph.

It is saying that Natufians and ANCIENT Eurasian(not modern Europeans) have the same amount of SSA ancestry not they don’t have SSA ancestry. All populations have sub-saharan ancestry …all of them. What they are trying to determine is if Natufians came from recent SSAians. I already admitted that Natufians are probably more related to North Africans who originated in SSA. So what is your point? Natufians carry E1b1b which originated in Africa and Also south of the Sahara. Note also E1b1a is much younger than E1b1b. Meaning North Africans lineage are older Africans than most Africans South of the Sahara. Significance? What is this dumb and dumber moment (Jim Carrey and Jeff bridges)?? Secondly they are saying Basal Eurasian and Natufians came from the same stock. One did not come from the other. In other words Basal Eurasian did NOT migrate through the Near East. Get it?!

Can someone explain this to him? Salden?!




Gioiello said...

@ xyyman
" But this paper, “The genetic landscape of Equatorial Guinea and the origin and migration routes of the Y chromosome haplogroup R-V88 ”, clearly shows R-V88 migrated from SSA to coastal Africa".

Not only stupid but a moron. Not only the paper says that hg. R1b1a2-M269 is of Western European origin (due to many European males that have been there in these last centuries), but also the R-V88 samples, all belonging to the R-V88 (x M18, V7, V8, V69) haplogroup, are derived from the SNP Z7771 and are an unique haplotype with the rare mutation in DYS385 13.2-16 with underived 13-16 and 13-14 due to a founder effect of a sample arrived in Guinea probably many thousands of years ago but not different from all the other African R-V88 with DYS437=14 and DYS448=19.
Test one of then for the SNP Z7771 and everything will be clear.

R-Y7771 Y7790 * Y8439 * SK2071/V1944+12 SNPs formed 7000 ybp, TMRCA 5400 ybp

xyyman said...

English may not be your first language but I will quote and make it easy for you….on R-V88

Quote:
The origin of the V88 lineages
Although the recently advanced hypothesis that the V88 lineages
migrated with Proto-Chadic speakers from the North Africa through
the Central Sahara into the Lake Chad Basin,7 given that a high
variance was found in lineages from haplogroup R1b1a in the sample from Equatorial Guinea, ***our results are also compatible with an
origin of the V88 lineages in Central-West Africa. ***
----

As I said the name calling don’t bother me. Watching you racialist people squirm and make fools of yourselves gets me off. Read it again….Gioello.


xyyman said...

Also, from the same study
Quote:
In summary, altogether, our data are compatible with an origin of
the V88-derived allele in Central-West Africa and a later migration (or
migrations) across the Sahara to North Africa. Assuming this origin
for V88, both the ‘Trans-Saharan’ and ‘Inter-Saharan’ hypotheses for
the arrival of Chadic groups in the Lake Chad Basin are equally likely,
as already described in other studies,8,46 but this model is also
compatible with the dispersion of V88 from Central-West to North
Africa, ***contrary to what was proposed by Cruciani et al***.7

-------

As I said before Villabruna was black sub-saharan African ………or his father was. Lol!
Any more questions? I got the answers. I call it like it is. No fantasy BS from me. “Without data you are just a person with an opinion”


xyyman said...

BTw - we haven't begun to delve into the origin of R1b-M269. Read Busby et al and then we can talk. Hit me up.

Alberto said...

@OM

Thanks for the papers. Interesting and good summaries about the culture.

I don't think they change significantly anything related to horses, since what we see is that they mostly relied on domestic animals (and crops), with a little bit of hunting of a wide variety of wild animals, which include horses. This actually proves that there were some wild horses in the south Caucasus too, which is interesting in itself. But its quite clear that the Shulaveri-Shomutepe culture didn't have any specific connection to horses, other than occasional captures of wild specimens (which account to some 0.5% of the faunal remains).

Alberto said...

@xyyman

May I suggest you something? Why don't you open your own blog to debate these things with people who are actually interested? Instead of cluttering this one with your comments before Davidski comes and deletes them, you could actually be productive in your own blog without bothering anyone (as you are obviously doing here, in case you didn't get it).

Fair enough?

xyyman said...

@Alberto. So I understand. You are not interested in the origin of R-V88 and/or R1b-M269? Where do you dumb ,..MFers come from? Did not you see Davidski respond to my post. If YOU are not interested don’t read my post. If I am off topic tell me or us. I commented on the dogs of Europe and my post was deleted. Why? In fact the entire thread was deleted.

If Davidski is not interested in hearing the truth like you. He will ban me. If he is interested, I will not be banned. So, cry-baby Alberto. Speak for yourself. The sign should say intelligent people and blacks are not welcome. Only dogmatic people should sign up.

Go snitch and report to Davidski that I am posting and he should come delete my post. Dumb set of people!

xyyman said...

Ok. Again quote from Lazaridis 2016
Quote: “We can rule out the hypothesis that European farmers stem ** directly** from a population related to the ancient farmers of the southern Levant30,31, however”

To those like Salden who don’t understand what was said there. Near East farmers are related to European farmers but genetics show Near East farmers are NOT ancestral modern Europeans. Meaning this BS are Levant farmers migrating to Europe is …BS! Modern Europeans are depigmented Africans. …ok depigmented North Africans (if you prefer the “north” prefix) who are in turn descendants of sub-Saharan Africans. A continuum. This is not rocket science. There is no race!

But to those of you who are well read. Remember Lazaridis 2015(not 2014) made that claim also. Read it. This is not news to those who are well read.


epoch2013 said...

What I find so lovely about modern times is that there is a not even so very distinct possibility xyyman is actually an academic with tenure.

Salden said...

More:

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v466/n7303/fig_tab/nature09103_F3.html

https://evolutionistx.wordpress.com/2016/03/14/haak-et-als-full-graph/

http://s1.zetaboards.com/anthroscape/topic/5083648/1/

https://westhunt.wordpress.com/2015/05/29/out-of-africa/

Olympus Mons said...

@alberto.
Agree. Its just that horses were more ubiquitous in cultures than people tend to mention.

ser nam said...

xyyman: "Show what I am posting is inaccurate. That! Gets my juices flowing. I like to be proven wrong. All most of you have done is quoted “written’ abstracts from supposed historically text."

If you're referring to my post, what I did is quote from the paper you were making points from that you misrepresented.

Salden said...

> AEians are far removed from present day “Near Easterners” and definitely not Europeans.

I'll wait for you show the artwork showing Egyptians resembling any Tropical African populations. Or genomics showing they're close to any Tropical African populations.

https://evolutionistx.wordpress.com/2016/03/14/haak-et-als-full-graph/

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v466/n7303/fig_tab/nature09103_F3.html

Egyptians are far closer to MENAs than Tropical Africans.

https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-UF_WH4Xiiyk/WN8X9BMfMDI/AAAAAAAAFc4/ih_GTQE2gsUELWvSo1agBfgSQ_HVEZHegCLcB/s1600/Ancient_Egyptians.jpg

Egypt has a significant link to the contemporary Near East. Who as early as Seti I were depicted by Egyptians as much lighter than Nubians.

http://web.archive.org/web/20091026220804im_/http://geocities.com/enbp/images/races2.jpg

xyyman said...

"selective" deletion of my posts huh Davidski? deleting the more important stuff.

Davidski said...

The reason I'm deleting your posts is because you're a total moron, with nothing even remotely interesting to say.

That's a fact. Deal with it. Maybe try and do something about it, like, you know, by posting logical and coherent stuff?