User Tag List

Page 20 of 24 FirstFirst ... 10 18 19 20 21 22 ... LastLast
Results 191 to 200 of 236

Thread: German Dziebel's Out of America origin of humanity urheimat hypothesis1358 days old

  1. #191
    Regular Member
    Junior Member
    Last Online
    2015-03-13 @ 17:32
    Join Date
    2012-11-02
    Posts
    71
    Gender

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by inquisitive View Post
    Admixture=/=diversity. You need to study population genetics.
    I did. Sorry if my education is threatening to create an identity crisis in your head.

    Quote Originally Posted by inquisitive View Post
    Africa's diversity is not a result of admixture but rather from years and years of mutation equilibrium. The South African San have admixed events in their genome.
    Just like with genetic diversity, the extent of LD depends on a lot of factors including allele frequencies in the parental populations, the nature of admixture, population sizes, bottlenecks, etc. The rate of decay is assumed to be constant but there's little direct data. E.g., the Ust-Ishim study shows that Amerindians are the least removed from the Neandertal admixture event among modern human populations and they have the largest LD values from that event, but it's clear that the Neandertal connection in the human genome is at least 45,000 years old, so the rate of DNA chunk decay must be unequal from continent to continent. This means you need to have a RC dated ancient DNA sample to see which population has taken longer to break down the admixture signal, rather than - and this is a common but untested assumption - to assume that the rate is constant and then judge the age of a population from LD data. You get similar LD values for such diverse groups as San and Fang. But then related groups such as San and Hadza get widely different LD estimates. I take Hadza to be more representative of ancient African LD. (BTW, mutation drift equilibrium is also something that was claimed for Amerindians, although in admittedly an old study http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1776656.)

    Quote Originally Posted by inquisitive View Post
    They are still a basil population in the human autosomal phylogenetic tree.
    They are basal due to the introgressed alleles.

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

    Power77 (2017-08-10)

  3. # ADS
    Advertisement bot
    Join Date
    2013-03-24
    Posts
    All threads
       
     

  4. #192
    Established Member
    Molecular Biologist inquisitive's Avatar
    Last Online
    2016-03-14 @ 04:11
    Join Date
    2012-02-21
    Posts
    1,452
    Location
    Central Florida
    Gender
    Y-DNA
    R1b1b2a1a1*
    mtDNA
    L2c
    Ethnicity
    AA
    Barbados Jamaica United States Cuba

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by German Dziebel View Post
    I did. Sorry if my education is threatening to create an identity crisis in your head.



    Just like with genetic diversity, the extent of LD depends on a lot of factors including allele frequencies in the parental populations, the nature of admixture, population sizes, bottlenecks, etc. The rate of decay is assumed to be constant but there's little direct data. E.g., the Ust-Ishim study shows that Amerindians are the least removed from the Neandertal admixture event among modern human populations and they have the largest LD values from that event, but it's clear that the Neandertal connection in the human genome is at least 45,000 years old, so the rate of DNA chunk decay must be unequal from continent to continent. This means you need to have a RC dated ancient DNA sample to see which population has taken longer to break down the admixture signal, rather than - and this is a common but untested assumption - to assume that the rate is constant and then judge the age of a population from LD data. You get similar LD values for such diverse groups as San and Fang. But then related groups such as San and Hadza get widely different LD estimates. I take Hadza to be more representative of ancient African LD. (BTW, mutation drift equilibrium is also something that was claimed for Amerindians, although in admittedly an old study http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1776656.)



    They are basal due to the introgressed alleles.
    It's not coincidental that the San are the most genetically diverse and possess the oldest mtDNA and Y haplogroup markers. The phylo tree of autosomal and haplogroup data are consistent with one another leading to proof of Out of Africa migration.

  5. #193
    Regular Member
    Junior Member
    Last Online
    2015-03-13 @ 17:32
    Join Date
    2012-11-02
    Posts
    71
    Gender

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by inquisitive View Post
    It's not coincidental that the San are the most genetically diverse and possess the oldest mtDNA and Y haplogroup markers. The phylo tree of autosomal and haplogroup data are consistent with one another leading to proof of Out of Africa migration.
    I just explained to you how things work, and you continue to insist on your out-of-Africa nonsense. None of those "oldest mtDNA and Y haplogroup markers" are found outside of Africa. At the same time they are easy to find among African Americans such as yourself. The post-1492 migration of blacks out of West Africa clearly happened, while the 100-50,000 migration out of Africa clearly did not. BTW, farmers tend to be more genetically diverse than foragers, so again diversity is a poor predictor of population age unless we first strip it off secondary admixture and population growth effects.

  6. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to German Dziebel For This Useful Post:

    Alfur (2014-11-06), Eyptianknight (2014-11-05), inquisitive (2014-11-03), Power77 (2017-08-10)

  7. #194
    Established Member
    Molecular Biologist inquisitive's Avatar
    Last Online
    2016-03-14 @ 04:11
    Join Date
    2012-02-21
    Posts
    1,452
    Location
    Central Florida
    Gender
    Y-DNA
    R1b1b2a1a1*
    mtDNA
    L2c
    Ethnicity
    AA
    Barbados Jamaica United States Cuba

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by German Dziebel View Post
    I just explained to you how things work, and you continue to insist on your out-of-Africa nonsense. None of those "oldest mtDNA and Y haplogroup markers" are found outside of Africa. At the same time they are easy to find among African Americans such as yourself. The post-1492 migration of blacks out of West Africa clearly happened, while the 100-50,000 migration out of Africa clearly did not. BTW, farmers tend to be more genetically diverse than foragers, so again diversity is a poor predictor of population age unless we first strip it off secondary admixture and population growth effects.
    lol

    You remind me of flat and young earthers.

    Denialists always twist facts to go against mainstream consensus.


    I will check out your blog though. Seems interesting

  8. #195
    Regular Member
    Junior Member
    Last Online
    2015-03-13 @ 17:32
    Join Date
    2012-11-02
    Posts
    71
    Gender

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by inquisitive View Post
    You remind me of flat and young earthers.
    I call people like you "cryptocreationists". On the surface you use 'scientific" terminology but deep inside you are still the same "turtles all the way down" Gospel reader.

    Quote Originally Posted by inquisitive View Post
    Denialists always twist facts to go against mainstream consensus.
    Consensus is the worst predictor of truth, and Out-of-Africa keeps replacing facts with myths to drive this consensus. And it's so easy to demonstrate every step of the way.

    Quote Originally Posted by inquisitive View Post
    I will check out your blog though. Seems interesting
    There's a donation button there.

  9. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to German Dziebel For This Useful Post:

    Eyptianknight (2014-11-05), Power77 (2017-08-10)

  10. #196
    Established Member
    Molecular Biologist
    Last Online
    Yesterday @ 23:49
    Join Date
    2010-01-07
    Posts
    4,004
    Gender
    Y-DNA
    E1b1a8*
    mtDNA
    L0a1a2

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by German Dziebel View Post

    But since 1492 the New World has become the most genetically diverse continent, again through the forces of admixture and population growth. But if an amateur geneticist of the future looked at post-1492 America and he didn't have the privilege of knowing the actual history of this continent, he would've concluded that humans came from America. And he would've been technically right, but for a wrong reason.
    .
    No they would not. This was Debunked in April. Your argument is as stupid as saying a geneticist would assume all life came forth from the city that has the largest Zoo.

    Where is a source stating the New world is the most genetically diverse continent? If an "amateur geneticist of the future" looks at the Americas he would be smart enough to see very recent admixture dates on all the populations in question. He would note that all the differing American populations would not look the same and it would be obvious that the different human groups were adapted to different geographic areas. It was explained to you a long time ago that Heterogeneity does not equal diversity:

    Better even still, take a look at Cape Coloured Africans. Of the many genetically distinct populations mish-mashed into their genome....Cape Coloured = West African, East African, Bantu, Khoi, San, Nilote, Horner, Euro, Indian, Arab, Asian, etc.


    The Cape Coloured African population is likely the most heterogeneous population in Sub Saharan Africa............this does not make them the most Genetically diverse
    . See Tishkoff et al. An "amateur geneticist" will understand that all humans didn't come from America just as they understand that Cape Coloured Africans are not the parental population of worldwide humanity. And although being the most mixed with all those populations from across the globe they are NOT the most genetically diverse population in Africa.

  11. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to beyoku For This Useful Post:

    Awale (2014-11-04), Iron Hand (2014-11-04), pgbk87 (2014-11-04)

  12. #197
    Established Member
    Molecular Biologist
    Last Online
    @
    Join Date
    2012-03-04
    Posts
    1,600
    Gender

    Default

    Stay on-topic.
    [8 posts deleted]
    //mod


    Edit:
    Further posts deleted according to Rule 1.2.2
    If you have an issue, PM me.
    //mod
    Last edited by Zakar-Baal; 2014-11-05 at 01:43.

  13. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Zakar-Baal For This Useful Post:

    Awale (2014-11-05), beyoku (2014-11-05)

  14. #198
    Established Member
    Junior Member dr. Drago's Avatar
    Last Online
    2016-06-13 @ 04:09
    Join Date
    2012-03-06
    Posts
    543
    Gender
    Race
    Caucasian
    Politics
    Conservative
    Religion
    Christian
    United States

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by German Dziebel View Post
    Re: archaic admixture in modern Africans. Just came across an old post by Peter Frost which says: "But there’s a third possible reason: archaic admixture. Just as modern humans mixed to some extent with Neanderthals in Europe and Denisovans in Asia, perhaps there was also mixture with archaic hominins in Africa, and perhaps this admixture introduced archaic dental features into present-day Africans." http://evoandproud.blogspot.com/2012...l-complex.html. And by "archaic dental features" Frost means pretty much all of the defining dental traits of Afridonty.
    Archaic admixture can also explain the low-to-zero proportion of Neandertal and Denisovan genes in modern Africans.
    Interesting. I've always thought OOA correlated with a "layman" (speaking for myself here) view of the racial traits.
    SSAs with their lower IQs, thicker skulls, higher testosterone etc are closer to primates on the evolution scale so it makes perfect sense that more evolved races are built on top of that ancestry.
    How much evidence is there in terms of this alleged "archaic admixture" ?

  15. #199
    Regular Member
    Junior Member
    Last Online
    2015-03-13 @ 17:32
    Join Date
    2012-11-02
    Posts
    71
    Gender

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dr. Drago View Post
    Interesting. I've always thought OOA correlated with a "layman" (speaking for myself here) view of the racial traits.
    SSAs with their lower IQs, thicker skulls, higher testosterone etc are closer to primates on the evolution scale so it makes perfect sense that more evolved races are built on top of that ancestry.
    How much evidence is there in terms of this alleged "archaic admixture" ?
    There's statistical evidence for archaic admixture in Africa and there's cranial evidence for it (e.g., Iwo Eleru). Without ancient DNA from Africa it's impossible to ascertain for sure and determine the extent to which archaic admixture happened. But indirect evidence (lack of divergent and African-specific lineages outside of Africa along the putative route of the 100-60K migration and their presence in post-1492 American blacks; the unlikely dates of 200,000 YBP for the divergence of Khoisan in the absence of any paleontological evidence for independent emergence of culture and language in Khoisans vs. the rest of humans; the limited extent of linguistic diversity in Africa - language being a sign of behavioral modernity - compared to Asia, America and the Sahul; the pull of autosomal allele frequencies in chimp direction in Africa; archaism of African dentition and the sheer absence of African dental features outside of Africa, e.g., in East Asia or Europe) all point to Archaic Admixture in Africa as the first-line hypothesis and to Serial Bottleneck out of Africa as a secondary hypothesis. Considering that typical Eurasian traits - including Neandertal genes and Eurasian skulls such as Hofmeyr - are well attested in Sub-Saharan Africa, Eurasians migrated to Africa some 50,000 years ago and mixed with local hominins there.

    BTW, observations on this forum's "culture" can be found at http://anthropogenesis.kinshipstudie...round-the-web/.

  16. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to German Dziebel For This Useful Post:

    dr. Drago (2014-11-06), Power77 (2017-08-10)

  17. #200
    Established Member
    Junior Member dr. Drago's Avatar
    Last Online
    2016-06-13 @ 04:09
    Join Date
    2012-03-06
    Posts
    543
    Gender
    Race
    Caucasian
    Politics
    Conservative
    Religion
    Christian
    United States

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by German Dziebel View Post
    ...
    BTW, observations on this forum's "culture" can be found at http://anthropogenesis.kinshipstudie...round-the-web/.
    cool. just so we're clear, don't think I qualify for an "OOA Conservative" title according to your classification
    it's just that the "archaic admixture" model is somewhat new (well to me anyway) and is going to take some time to ponder/settle in.
    not just because - using your own words - it kind of goes against the "linear evolutionary logic", after all Neanderthal admixture in non-SSAs allegedly responsible for some traits in non SSA populations isn't exactly "linear evolution" either.
    so I wouldn't rule out a potential archaeological discovery, along the lines of the "denisovan pinky" that will identify the exact source of this admixture at some point.

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

    German Dziebel (2014-11-06)

Page 20 of 24 FirstFirst ... 10 18 19 20 21 22 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. "out of Africa" hypothesis vs multiregional hypothesis
    By inquisitive in forum Evolution
    Replies: 88
    Last Post: 2014-05-27, 16:04
  2. Replies: 3
    Last Post: 2014-04-19, 17:29
  3. Replies: 28
    Last Post: 2014-02-16, 18:07
  4. German town Jamaica Jamaican German heritage
    By dave6 in forum Race & Ethnicity in Society
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 2012-07-16, 10:38

Posting Permissions

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