Page 27 of 35 FirstFirst ... 172526272829 ... LastLast
Results 261 to 270 of 346

Thread: #paleoamericanodyssey tweets on 24,000-year old Mal'ta Siberian

  1. #261
    Legacy Account
    Posts
    7,362
    Sex
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Nationality
    British
    mtDNA (M)
    H

    United Kingdom
    Quote Originally Posted by German Dziebel View Post
    For example, Spanish has borrowings from Basque: if you don't exclude them from your phylogenetic analysis, it'd look like Spanish descended from Basque and not from Latin because Basque words in Spanish are very divergent from any common vocabulary shared between Spanish, Greek and Hittite. These borrowings are restricted to Spanish and not found in Greek, Hittite, Armenian or Russian. A parallel with mtDNA would look like this: L0 and L1 are not found outside of Africa, hence they likely entered the modern human gene pool (analogy: Spanish) from African archaics (analogy: Basque).
    This is a false analogy. The true parallel is between the tree form of the Indo-European languages and the tree form of the mtDNA phylogeny. Spanish descends from Romance, and Romance from Latin, and Latin from Italic, and Italic from PIE (with or without the intermediate step of Proto-Italo-Celtic according to preference). This we can deduce from the logical trail of sound-changes. So with phylogeny. There is a logical trail of mutations that enables us to deduce the line of descent. L0 and L1 are not "borrowed" from archaics. They fit onto the tree of human descent. They have mutations that are shared by those descended from L3. It really is necessary to understand the process of deduction here, rather than imagining that it can be swept away by a non-geneticist.

    Recently, such "prestigious" journals as "Science" and "Nature" have been letting through publications that applied geneticists' phylogenetic methods to linguistic data. They are all demonstrably flawed by any linguistic standards and their publication has compromised "Science" and "Nature."
    I couldn't agree more. It is prime example of ill-informed arrogance in imagining that methodology from one discipline can be applied to another without any real grasp of that other discipline. Not an example that linguists should follow surely.
    Last edited by Jean M; 11-14-2013 at 03:34 PM.

  2. #262
    Registered Users
    Posts
    2,285
    Sex
    Location
    Canada
    Ethnicity
    Mixed Euro/Near East
    Nationality
    Canadian
    Y-DNA (P)
    R1a-YP4516/YP4807*
    mtDNA (M)
    H11a2a3

    Canada Franco-Manitoban European Union Ottoman Empire Russia Imperial United States Grand Union
    Quote Originally Posted by German Dziebel View Post
    Vine Deloria considered the current models of the peopling of the New World politically driven justifications of the conquest and a symbolic expression of the triumph of the civilized West over primitive tribes in America
    So you think Amerindian creationism (which is also fringe) can trump fossil records, geology, and DNA. That explains a lot about your mistrust of things like evidence and logic and phylogeny.
     

    Other ancestral Y lines:

    E1b-M81 Ukraine (Ashkenazi)
    E1b-V13 England
    I1-M253 Ireland
    I2-M423 Ukraine
    R1a-L176.1 Scotland
    R1b-L584 Syria/Turkey (Sephardi)
    R1b-L20 Ireland
    R1b-L21 (1)England; (2)Wales?>Connecticut
    R1b-L48 England
    R1b-P312 Scotland
    R1b-FGC32576 Ireland

    Other ancestral mtDNA lines:

    H1b2a Ukraine (Ashkenazi)
    H6a1a3 Ukraine
    K1a9 Belarus (Ashkenazi)
    K1c2 Ireland
    V7a Ukraine

  3. #263
    Registered Users
    Posts
    974
    Sex
    Omitted
    Location
    Colorado, USA
    mtDNA (M)
    U5a2a1

    Quote Originally Posted by German Dziebel View Post
    Once again, you prefer to protest and not debate and to appeal to authority and not to facts.
    I also cited the mtDNA data itself. I've spent several years analyzing thousands of samples of mtDNA data, and each sample is entirely consistent with the current consensus tree. I also cited ALL of the available ancient mtDNA data which is also fully consistent with current consensus tree. The fact that every other scientist who analyzes the data reaches the same conclusion is simply evidence of how robust the current tree is. You fail to provide any mtDNA data that supports your claim, you have not attempted to constuct a phylotree that is consistent with the available data, and you claim that every published paper in the last 25 years has incorrectly interpreted the data. There is a saying that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, but you have not presented any mtDNA evidence that supports any of your extraordinary claims.


    Quote Originally Posted by German Dziebel View Post
    You've brought up phylogeography as if it supports out-of-Africa, but in fact phylogeography is one of my core counterarguments against it. If you have a set of low-frequency, geographically localized, phylogenetically divergent lineages, you should first consider admixture and not common descent.
    All of the L clades share dozens of common mutations that form an extremely robust Phylotree, and this is proof of common descent. Migrations of unrelated populations that do not have common descent would have extremely divergent mtDNA with multiple roots. We have a single root of the L tree in Africa. So again, you are making claims that very obviously shown to be incorrect when you look at the mtDNA data.


    Quote Originally Posted by German Dziebel View Post
    The out-of-AFrica model is an abstract model that needs to be tested against ancient DNA, especially so because phylogeographic support for it is poor. Unless we have ancient DNA from a clearly behaviorally modern population represented by Hofmeyr skull (36,000 YBP) and some Mid-Pleistocene so-called "anatomically modern humans" (Skhul/Quafzeh, Herto, Omo, etc.), the out-of-Africa model remains a model.
    Out-of Africa is a theory supported by extremely compelling evidence, and it is widely accepted by researchers who specialize in the field. It is also consistent with the ancient mtDNA that we currrently have. It remains to be seen if we will be able to recover mtDNA from samples older than 200,000 years in Africa. But the theory has strong support even without that data.


    Quote Originally Posted by German Dziebel View Post
    You are assuming a non-scientific position because you refuse to admit that out-of-Africa is a model and as such needs to be tested.
    I've said repeatedly that out-of-Africa for mtDNA is a theory that needs to continue to be tested with data. My hope is that I'll find data among FTDNA customers that challenges or refines the theory, I would be thrilled to discover data that challenges the theory. I've also said that human migrations are much more complext than can be determined from analysis of mtDNA or y-DNA. Autosomal DNA show a much more complex history with admixture with archaic humans, probably within and outside of Africa. You continue to make statements about me that are just simply untrue.

    I would characterize your position as non-scientific because you reject 25 years of research on mtDNA without analyzing the actual mtDNA data or publishing your alternate version the mtDNA phylotree.
    Last edited by GailT; 11-14-2013 at 10:09 PM.

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

     AJL (11-14-2013),  Anglecynn (11-14-2013),  Joe B (11-15-2013)

  5. #264
    Registered Users
    Posts
    4,850
    Sex

    Some of you guys are famous now...

    http://anthropogenesis.kinshipstudie...hrogenica-com/

  6. The Following User Says Thank You to Generalissimo For This Useful Post:

     GailT (11-15-2013)

  7. #265
    Registered Users
    Posts
    897
    Sex
    Location
    California
    Y-DNA (P)
    R1b-Z2103>Y14416

    Kunstkamera: Pseudoanthropology at Anthrogenica.com
    Really cheap shots. Bust this guy.

  8. #266
    Gold Class Member
    Posts
    8,329

    Quote Originally Posted by German Dziebel View Post
    .

    There are two main sources for out-of-America thinking in Churchill: one is internal to the Native American intellectual circles (Vine Deloria considered the current models of the peopling of the New World politically driven justifications of the conquest and a symbolic expression of the triumph of the civilized West over primitive tribes in America; the Bering Strait theory is often listed among "ethnic and racial stereotypes" about Native Americans), the other one goes back to fringe academic and amateur scientific circles (represented mainly by Alvah Hicks, who revived the old idea of human evolution by Florentino Ameghino, plus Jeffrey Goodman who later walked away from out-of-America thinking and switched to parapsychology). Ward Churchill is not an original writer: he's put together a quilt blanket of various radical ideas none of which are of his own making. He was accused of plagiarism and even people who he technically quoted such as Alvah Hicks feel they got ripped off.
    Thanks. I will have read up on these folk/items.
    Do you have any information on the tribe Guaymi? I had thought their singleton R1a1 to be European derived.
    But maybe the paper was correct:
    The first migration originated in southern Middle Siberia with the founding haplotype M45a (10-11-11-10). In Beringia, this gave rise to the predominant Native American lineage, M3 (10-11-11-10), which crossed into the New World. A later migration came from the Lower Amur/Sea of Okhkotsk region, bringing haplogroup RPS4Y-T and subhaplogroup M45b, with its associated M173 variant. This migration event contributed to the modern genetic pool of the Na-Dene and Amerinds of North and Central America.
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC384887/

    Have the Guaymi been in contact with Europeans or are they isolated?


    "R1a1-M17 haplotypes have been observed only in the Guaymi (Ngöbe), a Chibchan-speaking tribe from Costa Rica"
    http://www.sas.upenn.edu/~tgschurr/p...rry%202004.pdf
    http://www.iiirm.org/publications/Ar...ones%20DNA.pdf
    Last edited by parasar; 11-15-2013 at 03:52 AM.

  9. #267
    Gold Class Member
    Posts
    2,718
    Sex

    Quote Originally Posted by Generalissimo View Post
    Hilarious.

  10. #268
    Gold Class Member
    Posts
    8,329

    Quote Originally Posted by Jean M View Post
    ... L0 and L1 are not "borrowed" from archaics. They fit onto the tree of human descent. They have mutations that are shared by those descended from L3. It really is necessary to understand the process of deduction here, rather than imagining that it can be swept away by a non-geneticist.

    ...
    There is almost no way to confirm that.
    On the Y side an equivalent statement would be: A00 is not borrowed from archaics. It fits on the tree of human descent.
    That initial A00 could be as archaic or even more so than any Neanderthal, and the return flow of non-archaic humans to Africa could have made those archaic lineages non-archaic.
    So in that sense these lineages while ancestral, could also later have been borrowed from archaics and integrated.

    All we can say is that descendants of A00*, L0* and L1* lines continue to be present among modern humans.
    Last edited by parasar; 11-15-2013 at 04:53 AM.

  11. #269
    Registered Users
    Posts
    974
    Sex
    Omitted
    Location
    Colorado, USA
    mtDNA (M)
    U5a2a1

    Quote Originally Posted by parasar View Post
    There is almost no way to confirm that.
    On the Y side an equivalent statement would be A00 is not borrowed from archaics. It fits on the tree of human descent. That initial A00 could be as archaic or even more so than any Neanderthal, and the return flow of non-archaic humans to Africa could have made those archaic lineages non-archaic. So in that sense these lineages while ancestral, could also later have been borrowed from archaics and integrated.

    All we can say is that descendants of A00*, L0* and L1* lines continue to be present among modern humans.
    mtDNA haplogroups L0 and L1 are estimated to be less than half as old as y-DNA A00, so based on the age estimate, it is much less likely that L0 and L1 represent archaic humans. As of yet, there is no genetic evidence for return flow, or back migration from Eurasia to Africa until around 30,000 years ago, and the back migration haplogroups descend directly from L1'2'3'4'5'6, the same lineage in which L1 arose.

    A new paper was just published in PLOS with 42 new FMS samples in L0, and they discuss the evidence for origins and migrations within Africa: The First Modern Human Dispersals across Africa
    .

  12. The Following User Says Thank You to GailT For This Useful Post:

     parasar (11-15-2013)

  13. #270
    Gold Class Member
    Posts
    8,329

    Quote Originally Posted by GailT View Post
    mtDNA haplogroups L0 and L1 are estimated to be less than half as old as y-DNA A00, so based on the age estimate, it is much less likely that L0 and L1 represent archaic humans. As of yet, there is no genetic evidence for return flow, or back migration from Eurasia to Africa until around 30,000 years ago, and the back migration haplogroups descend directly from L1'2'3'4'5'6, the same lineage in which L1 arose.
    ...
    That I agree with, relatively compared to A00 it is less likely.
    The 30000 date, I've no idea.

    The A00 paper noted this possibility:
    our estimate of the Y chromosome TMRCA predates both that of known mtDNA lineages9,10 and of the likely time of origin of AMHs on the basis of current fossil evidence ... This could take the form of long-standing population structure among AMH populations45 or archaic introgression from an archaic form into the ancestors of AMHs.46 Interestingly, the Mbo live less than 800 km away from a Nigerian site known as Iwo Eleru, where human skeletal remains with both archaic and modern features were found and dated to ~13 kya.
    http://onlinedigeditions.com/article...0/article.html

Page 27 of 35 FirstFirst ... 172526272829 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Difference between Siberian and NE Asian
    By ayhan in forum Autosomal (auDNA)
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 03-13-2020, 02:53 AM
  2. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 05-12-2016, 01:37 AM
  3. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 05-05-2016, 12:05 AM
  4. Russian/Siberian ancestry!
    By Herb. in forum General
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 01-14-2016, 09:39 AM
  5. Replies: 26
    Last Post: 02-06-2014, 07:41 PM

Posting Permissions

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