User Tag List

Page 9 of 13 FirstFirst ... 7 8 9 10 11 ... LastLast
Results 81 to 90 of 121

Thread: Ancestral heterogeneity of ancient Eurasians (Shriner 2018)484 days old

  1. #81
    Established Member
    Evolutionary Biologist
    Last Online
    Today @ 16:00
    Join Date
    2017-04-20
    Posts
    227
    Location
    World
    Gender
    Age
    39
    Ethnicity
    Black
    Phenotype
    Negroid
    Politics
    Fuck Intersectionality
    Religion
    Rasta

    Default

    @Polako
    The Iberomaurusians lived before the Natufians, but they were not their direct ancestors: The Natufians lack DNA from Africa, Krause says. This suggests that both groups inherited their shared DNA from a larger population that lived in North Africa or the Middle East more than 15,000 years ago, the team reports today in Science."
    Is this him talking or the reporter interpreting his words? How on earth is it possible for Natufians to lack African ancestry after saying their population was sourced together with the Iberomaurusians from a common ancestral group North Africa?

    Someone for once and for all tell me what is the definition of Africa which they use in these kinds of statements?

  2. # ADS
    Advertisement bot
    Join Date
    2013-03-24
    Location
    ForumBiodiversity.com
    Age
    2010
    Posts
    All threads
       
     

  3. #82
    Established Member
    Your Friend
    Last Online
    @
    Join Date
    2009-10-23
    Posts
    9,652
    Gender
    Y-DNA
    R1a-Z282
    mtDNA
    H7
    Metaethnos
    Slavic
    Ethnicity
    Polish
    Phenotype
    Barbarian
    Religion
    Crop Circles
    Poland

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kasekemwy View Post
    @Polako Is this him talking or the reporter interpreting his words? How on earth is it possible for Natufians to lack African ancestry after saying their population was sourced together with the Iberomaurusians from a common ancestral group North Africa?

    Someone for once and for all tell me what is the definition of Africa which they use in these kinds of statements?
    Read the paper, do your best to understand it, and quit being a dickhead.

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

    Power77 (2018-03-17), Semitic Duwa (2018-03-24), voyager (2018-03-19)

  5. #83
    Established Member
    Evolutionary Biologist
    Last Online
    Today @ 16:00
    Join Date
    2017-04-20
    Posts
    227
    Location
    World
    Gender
    Age
    39
    Ethnicity
    Black
    Phenotype
    Negroid
    Politics
    Fuck Intersectionality
    Religion
    Rasta

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Polako View Post
    Read the paper, do your best to understand it, and quit being a dickhead.
    A typical Polako one liner. Dickhead is what stares back at you in the mirror. You are a living and breathing embodiment of it. In fact, you should just stop shopping for clothes and just buy condoms instead!
    Last edited by Kasekemwy; 2018-03-16 at 08:06.

  6. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Kasekemwy For This Useful Post:

    Game Theory (2018-03-19), pgbk87 (2018-03-16)

  7. #84
    Established Member
    Molecular Biologist El-Maestro's Avatar
    Last Online
    2019-06-18 @ 19:43
    Join Date
    2017-06-25
    Posts
    386
    Location
    N.Y.
    Gender
    Age
    26
    Race
    Negroid
    Phenotype
    Elongated -_-

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Polako View Post
    This isn't about me. This author already put out a couple of very questionable papers, and this preprint is downright bizarre. Fact is, Natufians don't have any ancestry that can be described as Sub-Saharan, not that I give a crap either way, but this is now a very solid academic consensus.

    "The Iberomaurusians lived before the Natufians, but they were not their direct ancestors: The Natufians lack DNA from Africa, Krause says. This suggests that both groups inherited their shared DNA from a larger population that lived in North Africa or the Middle East more than 15,000 years ago, the team reports today in Science."

    https://phys.org/news/2018-03-scient...stone-age.html

    On the other hand, it is surprising for me to see foragers from Northwest Africa with 1/3 Sub-Saharan ancestry. If that's what it is, then fine. But it seems like most of this forager + ancient Sub-Saharan admix was wiped out by migrations from the Near East into North Afica during the Neolithic, which is what I expected to see.
    more like 2/5ths...
    Nonetheless are the Ifri n Amir Moussa an example of this "wipeout"?
    Forum biodiversity is awesome!


    Quote Originally Posted by Polako View Post
    Depends which prehistoric North Africa you mean. There's a preprint here saying that Neolithic North Africans (you know, the ones who replaced the hunter-gatherers there), were fully West Eurasian. Makes sense.

    https://www.biorxiv.org/content/early/2017/09/21/191569

  8. The Following User Says Thank You to El-Maestro For This Useful Post:

    pgbk87 (2018-03-16)

  9. #85
    Established Member
    Evolutionary Biologist
    Last Online
    Today @ 16:00
    Join Date
    2017-04-20
    Posts
    227
    Location
    World
    Gender
    Age
    39
    Ethnicity
    Black
    Phenotype
    Negroid
    Politics
    Fuck Intersectionality
    Religion
    Rasta

    Default

    Polako: This isn't about me. This author already put out a couple of very questionable papers, and this preprint is downright bizarre. Fact is, Natufians don't have any ancestry that can be described as Sub-Saharan, not that I give a crap either way, but this is now a very solid academic consensus.

    "The Iberomaurusians lived before the Natufians, but they were not their direct ancestors: The Natufians lack DNA from Africa, Krause says. This suggests that both groups inherited their shared DNA from a larger population that lived in North Africa or the Middle East more than 15,000 years ago, the team reports today in Science."

    https://phys.org/news/2018-03-scient...stone-age.html

    On the other hand, it is surprising for me to see foragers from Northwest Africa with 1/3 Sub-Saharan ancestry. If that's what it is, then fine. But it seems like most of this forager + ancient Sub-Saharan admix was wiped out by migrations from the Near East into North Afica during the Neolithic, which is what I expected to see.
    This post is a perfect example of what is wrong with this forum. This cat spent more than a dozen pages dismissing, mocking, and making fun of the possibility of SSA ancestry in prehistoric North Africa. Now one ancient DNA paper later, he grudgingly admits "If that's what it is, then fine." That's it? After all the pig-headedness and bombast, that's it? That is how he admits he was wrong.

    But that's not the end of it. He continues to insist that Natufians have no African DNA. If given the chance, he will spend another dozen pages mocking and making fun of the idea of African DNA in Natufians. Then when the next paper comes out that proves otherwise, the same thing will repeat itself.

    What is the point of talking about consensus when the consensus changes with every new DNA paper published?

  10. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Kasekemwy For This Useful Post:

    beyoku (2018-03-17), BlessedbyHorus (2018-03-17), Itoli (2018-03-17), pgbk87 (2018-03-17)

  11. #86
    Senior Moderator
    Plant of Life = Biological Magic 麻 EliasAlucard's Avatar
    Last Online
    @
    Join Date
    2009-10-22
    Posts
    14,679
    Location
    Sweden
    Gender
    Age
    34
    Y-DNA
    J1a2a1a2-P58+
    mtDNA
    H5a
    Race
    Caucasian
    Phenotype
    Alpinid
    Metaethnos
    proto-Semitic
    Ethnicity
    Assyrian/Armenian
    Politics
    Environment, Cannabis
    Religion
    Secular Agnostic
    Assyria Assyria 1913-1923 Armenia Lebanon Sweden Greece

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Polako View Post
    This isn't about me. This author already put out a couple of very questionable papers, and this preprint is downright bizarre. Fact is, Natufians don't have any ancestry that can be described as Sub-Saharan, not that I give a crap either way, but this is now a very solid academic consensus.

    "The Iberomaurusians lived before the Natufians, but they were not their direct ancestors: The Natufians lack DNA from Africa, Krause says. This suggests that both groups inherited their shared DNA from a larger population that lived in North Africa or the Middle East more than 15,000 years ago, the team reports today in Science."

    https://phys.org/news/2018-03-scient...stone-age.html

    On the other hand, it is surprising for me to see foragers from Northwest Africa with 1/3 Sub-Saharan ancestry. If that's what it is, then fine. But it seems like most of this forager + ancient Sub-Saharan admix was wiped out by migrations from the Near East into North Afica during the Neolithic, which is what I expected to see.
    Yeah sounds about right. So this Daniel Shriner is a trickster?

    If the Natufians had any Negroid admixture, such Negroid admixture would be far more present in modern Middle Easterners in take say, Turkey, Armenia and so on. After the OOA migrations ended, it doesn't seem like sub-Saharans ever left Africa again, until they were bought and brought to the New World by Europeans and some Arab slave masters.

    Those wiped out mulatto foragers, was that this race war?

    Saharan remains may be evidence of first race war, 13,000 years ago

    Either way it does seem consistent with the migrations of Near Eastern Afro-Asiatic speakers into Africa, which obviously -- to the extent that there were Negroes in north Africa -- made northern Africa more Middle Eastern demographically.

    Quote Originally Posted by Game Theory View Post
    Overall, I'm just tired of your BS games Elias. Everything you have said as far as claims in this topic is a fail, and when that doesn't win,, you resort to the BS "You're a Negro, your IQ is lower so your claims are false" logic rather than admit you are wrong and even when white genetics make the same claims I made with results that validate those claims. You're a clown. I predicted and made thee suggestion that Natufians have NORTH AFRICAN ancestry and I was right all along.
    Well Charlie, it looks like you done fucked up now Read Polako's answer. And yes, unlike you, Polako is an authority on genetics, so if he says the Natufians lacked Negroid admixture, then the Natufians lacked Negroid admixture. Polako isn't stupid to lie about something like this; he doesn't want to risk his reputation on giving inaccurate information. You on the other hand, you're dumb enough to believe that wishing makes it so

    The issue here Charlie, is that you and your brothaz/posse, can't be objective on topics like these. Finding minuscule, trace amounts of Negroid admixture, makes you happy; it makes you feel more human, or something like that, I don't know, but it's beyond me why this is so important to you. Even if the Negroid admixture isn't there, you're gonna pretend it's there by pointing to skull shapes and similar sorcery. That's your clown rhetoric, using pseudo-science to black wash the ancient Egyptians, and anything -- however remote -- that you can connect the ancient Egyptians and black Africa, such as the Natufians, you're gonna jump on it. By behaving this clownish, you're shaping your black power world-view.

    Quote Originally Posted by Game Theory View Post
    Overall, I'm just tired of your BS games Elias.
    Dawg, you're a native speaker of bullshit.

    Quote Originally Posted by Game Theory View Post
    Everything you have said as far as claims in this topic is a fail
    On the contrary mon ami, I've been right all along on this topic. This Shriner study won't be taken seriously by any population geneticist, be it professional geneticists who do it for a living, or genome bloggers like Polako and others. But hey, maybe you can give Dienekes a Ghostbusters call and tell him to champion your black Natufians hypothesis? Both you and him are proponents of proto-Afro-Asiatic Straight outta Ethiopia, and that's because you both have the wrong mentality and are wrong about pretty much everything.

    Quote Originally Posted by Game Theory View Post
    and when that doesn't win,, you resort to the BS "You're a Negro, your IQ is lower so your claims are false" logic rather than admit you are wrong and even when white genetics make the same claims I made with results that validate those claims.
    I'm not sure what you're insinuating here about "white genetics make the same claim", but I can't remember having accused you of being a low IQ Negro in this thread? Or any thread? When was the last time I accused you of having a low IQ? I do think your IQ is low but I rarely -- if ever -- shove it down your throat.

    Look, you're an iGnorant iDiot who believes the ancient Egyptians were black, and your desperation in arguing that the Natufians had Negroid admixture is tied up to exactly the ancient Egyptians.

    Quote Originally Posted by Game Theory View Post
    You're a clown. I predicted and made thee suggestion that Natufians have NORTH AFRICAN ancestry and I was right all along.
    Okay, if you say so. They didn't have any Negroid admixture though, fact
    ReactOS <--- support this project so that we can get rid of Windows!
    Ubuntu MATE 16.04.1 LTS | PRISM-Break! | Windows7sins

    “A wise man makes his own decisions; an ignorant man follows public opinion.” ― Chinese proverb

    “Every decent man is ashamed of the government he lives under.” ― H. L. Mencken

    “The only good is knowledge and the only evil is ignorance.” ― Socrates

    “Damnant quod non intelligunt.” ― Latin proverb

    Quoted for truth:
    Quote Originally Posted by Alaron View Post
    Anatolian Urhemait supporters are mostly butthurt Meds.
    For the lulz:
    Quote Originally Posted by drgs View Post
    Poland is a misunderstanding. It is a country which lies on the frontier between western and slavic world, and which combines elements of both.
    In fact, they are not even the Europeans in strict sense, meaning European as in bearing the responsibility and understanding of European interests. Poland has always been an subordinate country, on one side sucking German dick, on the other side -- Russian one, some kind of "novice" europeans, who are full of inferiority complexes, hysteria and obsessity neuroses. This is also true for all Baltic countries

  12. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to EliasAlucard For This Useful Post:

    Power77 (2018-03-17), Semitic Duwa (2018-03-24), voyager (2018-03-19)

  13. #87
    Established Member
    Your Friend
    Last Online
    @
    Join Date
    2009-10-23
    Posts
    9,652
    Gender
    Y-DNA
    R1a-Z282
    mtDNA
    H7
    Metaethnos
    Slavic
    Ethnicity
    Polish
    Phenotype
    Barbarian
    Religion
    Crop Circles
    Poland

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kasekemwy View Post
    his cat spent more than a dozen pages dismissing, mocking, and making fun of the possibility of SSA ancestry in prehistoric North Africa. Now one ancient DNA paper later, he grudgingly admits "If that's what it is, then fine." That's it? After all the pig-headedness and bombast, that's it? That is how he admits he was wrong.
    Depends which prehistoric North Africa you mean. There's a preprint here saying that Neolithic North Africans (you know, the ones who replaced the hunter-gatherers there), were fully West Eurasian. Makes sense.

    https://www.biorxiv.org/content/early/2017/09/21/191569

    But that's not the end of it. He continues to insist that Natufians have no African DNA. If given the chance, he will spend another dozen pages mocking and making fun of the idea of African DNA in Natufians. Then when the next paper comes out that proves otherwise, the same thing will repeat itself.

    What is the point of talking about consensus when the consensus changes with every new DNA paper published?
    A major paper just came out saying, yet again, that Natufians don't have any Sub-Saharan admixture, so you've again been contradicted on this point. I couldn't care less what you would like to see happen in the future. Your wishful thinking is of no interest to me.

  14. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Polako For This Useful Post:

    EliasAlucard (2018-03-17), Litvin (2018-03-18), Semitic Duwa (2018-03-24), voyager (2018-03-19)

  15. #88
    QBS Banned
    Molecular Biologist
    Last Online
    2019-01-06 @ 19:51
    Join Date
    2016-12-19
    Posts
    1,265
    Gender
    European Union

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by EliasAlucard View Post
    ^^^ This map has Hungarians, Finns and Estonians as parts of the Mongoloid race, LOL.

  16. #89
    Senior Moderator
    Plant of Life = Biological Magic 麻 EliasAlucard's Avatar
    Last Online
    @
    Join Date
    2009-10-22
    Posts
    14,679
    Location
    Sweden
    Gender
    Age
    34
    Y-DNA
    J1a2a1a2-P58+
    mtDNA
    H5a
    Race
    Caucasian
    Phenotype
    Alpinid
    Metaethnos
    proto-Semitic
    Ethnicity
    Assyrian/Armenian
    Politics
    Environment, Cannabis
    Religion
    Secular Agnostic
    Assyria Assyria 1913-1923 Armenia Lebanon Sweden Greece

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Litvin View Post
    ^^^ This map has Hungarians, Finns and Estonians as parts of the Mongoloid race, LOL.
    Yeah, and Somalis/Eritreans/Ethiopians as Caucasoids, lol. I didn't say it was a perfectly accurate map, just that Negroid largely corresponds to the modern genetic/geographic term, sub-Saharan Africans.
    ReactOS <--- support this project so that we can get rid of Windows!
    Ubuntu MATE 16.04.1 LTS | PRISM-Break! | Windows7sins

    “A wise man makes his own decisions; an ignorant man follows public opinion.” ― Chinese proverb

    “Every decent man is ashamed of the government he lives under.” ― H. L. Mencken

    “The only good is knowledge and the only evil is ignorance.” ― Socrates

    “Damnant quod non intelligunt.” ― Latin proverb

    Quoted for truth:
    Quote Originally Posted by Alaron View Post
    Anatolian Urhemait supporters are mostly butthurt Meds.
    For the lulz:
    Quote Originally Posted by drgs View Post
    Poland is a misunderstanding. It is a country which lies on the frontier between western and slavic world, and which combines elements of both.
    In fact, they are not even the Europeans in strict sense, meaning European as in bearing the responsibility and understanding of European interests. Poland has always been an subordinate country, on one side sucking German dick, on the other side -- Russian one, some kind of "novice" europeans, who are full of inferiority complexes, hysteria and obsessity neuroses. This is also true for all Baltic countries

  17. The Following User Says Thank You to EliasAlucard For This Useful Post:

    Litvin (2018-03-18)

  18. #90
    Established Member
    Molecular Biologist El-Maestro's Avatar
    Last Online
    2019-06-18 @ 19:43
    Join Date
    2017-06-25
    Posts
    386
    Location
    N.Y.
    Gender
    Age
    26
    Race
    Negroid
    Phenotype
    Elongated -_-

    Default

    So are we going to vomit/and or regurgitate meaningless interpretations or are we going to put thought into what the results of these studies mean in the grand scheme of things.


    We have LSA Moroccans who can be modeled as Natufian + Vague SSA though, they predate both these candidates.
    We Have Ifri n Amir Moussa(IAM) who share, at the least Maternal Haplogroups with the former(Taforalt). And can't quite be modeled by any modern population combination... Although they do show ~33% SSA membership when they don't form a distinguished cluster.
    and we have the Natufians who can be modeled partly as either of the two above... but formal stats with Yorubans and African huntergatherers says for certain that they lack African Admixture ...nevermind their uniparentals.

    And somehow the story reads
    "Stone age Africans who played no part in shaping the nearby near eastern population where "wiped out" by said Near eastern population in totality."


    So Ibermourasians who predate Natufians but shares drift with them the most, contributed nothing to and where completely wiped out by the latter indicated by the daughter(ish) population IAM who unlike the Natufians are closest to EAST AFRICANS (ie; Somali) sans North Africans their descendants. (yeah F4 stats also "rules out" SSA admixture in IAM)

    Wow... this is some dickhead logic I can't lie.

    someone please untangle this shit. ...Embarassing

    ForumBioDiversity...Is this your God?
    ..Is it?
    Forum biodiversity is awesome!


    Quote Originally Posted by Polako View Post
    Depends which prehistoric North Africa you mean. There's a preprint here saying that Neolithic North Africans (you know, the ones who replaced the hunter-gatherers there), were fully West Eurasian. Makes sense.

    https://www.biorxiv.org/content/early/2017/09/21/191569

  19. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to El-Maestro For This Useful Post:

    beyoku (2018-03-18), BlessedbyHorus (2018-03-19), Game Theory (2018-03-20), Itoli (2018-03-18), Kasekemwy (2018-03-18)

Page 9 of 13 FirstFirst ... 7 8 9 10 11 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 4
    Last Post: 2018-01-13, 23:48
  2. Replies: 9
    Last Post: 2016-11-25, 11:17
  3. 230 Ancient Eurasians
    By staś in forum Europe
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 2015-12-01, 01:17
  4. Proto Indo Europeans related to Ancient North Eurasians?
    By aregint in forum Urheimat Theories
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 2014-04-27, 04:00
  5. X2 = Northwest Eurasians, X1 = Southwest Eurasians?
    By Polako in forum mtDNA Haplogroups
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 2012-10-17, 13:36

Posting Permissions

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