User Tag List

Page 3 of 13 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 121

Thread: Ancestral heterogeneity of ancient Eurasians (Shriner 2018)480 days old

  1. #21
    Established Member
    Junior Member
    Last Online
    2019-04-23 @ 23:05
    Join Date
    2011-04-18
    Posts
    387
    Gender

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by beyoku View Post
    That is the average... take a look at the actual results. Some of the guys are like 30% Horner.
    Not surprised, 10,000 years ago there would have had mixing and people do move about. Just don't get the excitement.

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

  3. #22
    Established Member
    Molecular Biologist nee4speed111's Avatar
    Last Online
    Yesterday @ 03:57
    Join Date
    2011-12-01
    Posts
    465
    Gender

    Default

    Good find, just giving it a brief once over now, and I am understanding the authors correctly, they simply reanalyzed the ancient DNA we had using a larger reference panel, but it was still a admixture analysis, wherein the ancestries of these ancient populations was estimated through present day ancestry-specific allele frequencies. Which is basically how inferences about how the Natufians SSA shift of approximately 6-7% was made in the first place, i.e when they were put into Eurogenes K15 and they would score around 6% NorthEast African ancestry.

    Sorry but don't get it? I looked at the PDF file and at admixture, all I saw was over 60% Arabian,10% west asian and over 22% North African. Am I missing something?
    They projected the Natufians as also including 6% Omotic Admixture

    Speaking of the Abusir mummies. What does this mean for their Natufian-like component seeing as the Natufians were not monolithic in African admixture?

    In terms of the Abusir mummies (or really any population that is projected using natufians as a reference), it just means that if you projected their ancestry using a Natufian reference instead of the traditional " Arabian", etc population clusters used in older admixture models, then their SSA ancestry goes up.
    Last edited by nee4speed111; 2018-02-21 at 19:34.

  4. The Following 8 Users Say Thank You to nee4speed111 For This Useful Post:

    BlessedbyHorus (2018-02-21), El-Maestro (2018-02-21), Iron Hand (2018-02-21), Kasekemwy (2018-02-22), pgbk87 (2018-02-21), Power77 (2018-02-21), Protospatha (2018-03-16), Truthcentric (2018-02-21)

  5. #23
    Established Member
    Molecular Biologist
    Last Online
    Today @ 16:36
    Join Date
    2010-01-07
    Posts
    5,064
    Gender
    Y-DNA
    E1b1a8*
    mtDNA
    L0a1a2
    Ethnicity
    "Black"
    Politics
    Praise the Sun
    Religion
    Sun Worship
    African Union(OAS) United States

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by StarDS9 View Post
    Not surprised, 10,000 years ago there would have had mixing and people do move about. Just don't get the excitement.
    Perhaps you are "Not Surprised".....but your lack of enthusiasm is a minority view in a forum to tools that swore their was no "African" ancestry, let alone Sub Saharan African ancestry in Natufian. Do you think it has any implications for AA languages?

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

    BlessedbyHorus (2018-02-21), Truthcentric (2018-02-21)

  7. #24
    Established Member
    Junior Member But Cool
    Last Online
    Today @ 19:36
    Join Date
    2012-05-31
    Posts
    3,157
    Location
    Bedford England
    Gender
    Age
    33
    Y-DNA
    E-U174
    mtDNA
    U6a3
    Race
    Sub-Saharan African
    Metaethnos
    Akan/Mande/Igbo
    Ethnicity
    Jamaican
    Phenotype
    Goldwindid Sudanid
    Politics
    Monarchy over Republic
    Religion
    Nunya
    England Jamaica Skull and crossbones

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by StarDS9 View Post
    Sorry but don't get it? I looked at the PDF file and at admixture, all I saw was over 60% Arabian,10% west asian and over 22% North African. Am I missing something?
    Quote Originally Posted by nee4speed111 View Post
    They projected the Natufians as also including 6% Omotic Admixture
    If they were using modern day North Africans (Maghrebis/NW Africans) as a reference then the SSA percentage will be higher than 7% overall for Natufians because modern day North Africans (Maghrebis/NW Africans) are about 20-30% SSA.

  8. The Following User Says Thank You to Iron Hand For This Useful Post:

    Truthcentric (2018-02-21)

  9. #25
    Established Member
    Molecular Biologist nee4speed111's Avatar
    Last Online
    Yesterday @ 03:57
    Join Date
    2011-12-01
    Posts
    465
    Gender

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Iron Hand View Post
    If they were using modern day North Africans (Maghrebis/NW Africans) as a reference then the SSA percentage will be higher than 7% overall for Natufians because modern day North Africans (Maghrebis/NW Africans) are about 20-30% SSA.
    They were using the "North African" cluster that is traditionally found in older admixture models, which does contain SSA ancestry but it does not encompass all of the SSA ancestry in Maghrebi's, so probably less than that.

  10. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to nee4speed111 For This Useful Post:

    BlessedbyHorus (2018-02-21), pgbk87 (2018-02-21), Power77 (2018-02-21)

  11. #26
    Established Member
    Molecular Biologist BlessedbyHorus's Avatar
    Last Online
    Yesterday @ 16:31
    Join Date
    2017-06-01
    Posts
    1,843
    Gender
    Age
    25
    Ethnicity
    Nigger/Abeed
    Politics
    Trouble Maker Negro
    Religion
    Agnostic
    United States Haiti Dominican Republic

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Iron Hand View Post
    If they were using modern day North Africans (Maghrebis/NW Africans) as a reference then the SSA percentage will be higher than 7% overall for Natufians because modern day North Africans (Maghrebis/NW Africans) are about 20-30% SSA.
    I need sources for this...

    Edit: Do you mean East African?

  12. #27
    Established Member
    Junior Member But Cool
    Last Online
    Today @ 19:36
    Join Date
    2012-05-31
    Posts
    3,157
    Location
    Bedford England
    Gender
    Age
    33
    Y-DNA
    E-U174
    mtDNA
    U6a3
    Race
    Sub-Saharan African
    Metaethnos
    Akan/Mande/Igbo
    Ethnicity
    Jamaican
    Phenotype
    Goldwindid Sudanid
    Politics
    Monarchy over Republic
    Religion
    Nunya
    England Jamaica Skull and crossbones

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BlessedbyHorus View Post
    I need sources for this...
    I can't find the source. I do remember seeing admixture results of modern day Maghrebis having 20-30% SSA (seemingly split equally between 'East' and 'West' African). I have no problem with you taking what I say with a pinch of salt.
    Last edited by Iron Hand; 2018-02-21 at 19:52.

  13. #28
    Wiki Editor
    Moderator
    Your favourite (((Skype))) Semitic Duwa's Avatar
    Last Online
    @
    Join Date
    2010-02-26
    Posts
    3,411
    Location
    In your closet
    Gender
    Y-DNA
    J1-Z18271 (YSC234+)
    mtDNA
    J1c5
    Race
    Caucasoid
    Metaethnos
    (((Skype))) + British
    Ethnicity
    (((Canaanite)))
    Politics
    Pump & Trump
    Religion
    Jehovah's Fitness
    Israel Israel Star of David Israel Israel

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kasekemwy View Post
    Man, we are barely three months into the year. By the time the year is over FBD will be buried in so many Ls. @Polako , @Semitic Duwa , What's good?
    I'll tell you what I usually tell people who use Gedmatch calculators on ancient samples: This is like reading a book upside down.

    There is nothing new in this pre-print, this is a reanalysis of the data, and a very poor one at that. While I understand why you'd want to focus on an ADMIXTURE run showing the Natufians as 6.8% Omotic, unless you are about to show me formal stats validating such a signal this is best described as a result of the author's sloppy methodology.

    But for argument's sake, let's pretend this is relevant. In this case, you'd have to explain why this component is absent in subsequent populations from the Levant, Levant_N and Levant_BA (the latter being the only population in the dataset that can reliably be described as an AA-speaking one). You'd also have to explain some of the more idiosyncratic results, such as Iran_EN being 1.8% East African or Macedonia_EN being 5% West-Central African for example. None of this fits too well with the kind of theories you and your homies have been promoting on this forum.

    So yeah, a lot of noise for nothing. If you're looking for data that will vindicate the claims you've made since you've joined this forum, you won't find it in this pre-print, simple as that.
    Last edited by Semitic Duwa; 2018-02-21 at 19:55.


    Quote Originally Posted by MnM View Post
    Morocco is a western lapdog.
    Quote Originally Posted by NonFingo View Post
    Those Bronze Age samples are just red herrings to distract you from the actual arrivals of populations with Semitic ancestry. Don’t take the bait by focusing on the wrong samples, lol. He is passing off Bronze Age Levantines with no evidence of strong predynastic input, as “Semites“. This way, he can flip it around and say Proto-Semitic speakers and predynastics were more or less identical to the Bronze Age Levantines sampled so far.
    Quote Originally Posted by NonFingo View Post
    @Semitic Duwa

    Wonder what the resident Proto-Semite has to say about this. I thought unmixed Egyptians were supposed to be Abusir with less/zero Chl?

    In your view, does this prove you wrong, or is it just a coincidence () that M1 is absent in one of the three subsamples from Abusir, and rare overall?

    And don’t change your signature now, please. I’m looking forward to you looking more and more incompetent as more aDNA is published. Wish there was a way to speed this up. But the extra wait and seeing you with your pants down every day, kinda has its own appeal, too.

  14. The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to Semitic Duwa For This Useful Post:

    DDBG (2018-02-21), EliasAlucard (2018-02-22), Menelik (2018-02-22), nee4speed111 (2018-02-21), Power77 (2018-02-21), Protospatha (2018-03-16)

  15. #29
    Established Member
    Molecular Biologist BlessedbyHorus's Avatar
    Last Online
    Yesterday @ 16:31
    Join Date
    2017-06-01
    Posts
    1,843
    Gender
    Age
    25
    Ethnicity
    Nigger/Abeed
    Politics
    Trouble Maker Negro
    Religion
    Agnostic
    United States Haiti Dominican Republic

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Iron Hand View Post
    I can't find the source. I do remember seeing admixture results of modern day Maghrebis having 20-30% SSA (seemingly split equally between 'East' and 'West' African).
    I believe its mostly East African. Whenever Northwest Africans take Gedmatch test I see them showing more East African admixture around 30% more so than West African.

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

    Iron Hand (2018-02-21)

  17. #30
    Established Member
    Molecular Biologist El-Maestro's Avatar
    Last Online
    Yesterday @ 07:05
    Join Date
    2017-06-25
    Posts
    378
    Location
    N.Y.
    Gender
    Age
    26
    Race
    Negroid
    Phenotype
    Elongated -_-

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BlessedbyHorus View Post
    Speaking of the Abusir mummies. What does this mean for their Natufian-like component seeing as the Natufians were not monolithic in African admixture?
    oooh, Like I said this study (the op) is light. A lot of shit has been explained away with this "Natufian component", a component that wasn't even fully established/understood. There's some interesting nuances when looking at various populations who have respectable levels of the "Natufian Component." We have modern North East African who'll show 40-60% Natufian + SSA but show primarily signs of admixture from European Farmers in formal tests and ultimately showing heightened distance from the actual natufians. Normally it's no biggie considering the temporal gap between Natufians and contemporary populations BUT that Natufian component always seems to take precedence over the non-African portion of "Admixed" Africans in STRUCTURE/ADMIXTURE.

    Now the reason for that have always been answerable... people like to get spoon fed. But even that's not the problem, the problem is neglect like said before. I've seen posters (myself included) post data and commentary disregarded and fought on here for no true objective reason. I've literally posted an official ADMIXTURE run highlighting an east African overlap with Natufians from schueneman ...And people still echoed "no African Admixture"

    ...So it's like, I'm only here to point and laugh at this point. This article is nothing to be celebrated, it actually makes me a lil upset lol. There's more "insightful" things I'm waiting for, I wanna see the reactions when they hit... And that involves DNA we haven't seen yet.
    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

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

    BlessedbyHorus (2018-02-21)

Page 3 of 13 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 ... 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
  •  
<