Garaad Awal
Former African
Razib is a clown
Ancient DNA from the Green Sahara reveals ancestral North African lineage
- Thread starter Juke
- Start date
Well to honest, non of the replies mentioned here is on the same level of understanding with average guy on twitter. Maybe It should be given some time to digest what said and gather more information.
@The alchemist could you make it simpler, how they are contradicting their data and that the Takafori are 60 sub saharan? 
I just read it. Don't know how this got past peer review, let alone Nature. Retraction/significant revision probably on the way.
I think we will come to find that ANA isn’t one single component, the kind of ANA in Natufians will not be the same as the IBM ANA, that ANA is from Egypt/Sudan not Morocco and it has its own unique history.
I think ANA is basically a mix between something along the SSA-Basal Eurasian cline and local Aterian populations who I think would be SSA-like and have their own local adaptions within NW and NE Africa and would have been the major cause of this distinction between ANA in NW and NE Africa.
I do agree with you in that these samples probably have some recent Green Sahara SSA ancestry not found in Taforalt.
There is no way the Takarkori samples are majority "ANA."
View attachment 358436
View attachment 358437
Previously, I theorized it could have been actual proto-Niger Congo and early Nilo-Saharans mixing, but I could be wrong. The archaeology somewhat supports this, too.
Either way, Takarkori does not maximize what is essentially the African half of Iberomarusians.
Same model for Taforalt:
View attachment 358438
There is a clear affinity in whatever is in Nilotics and Yoruba to infer an ANA signature for that DNA.
I think this f4 statistic method is not ideal for African populations. Reminds me of when Kadruka samples, who were half northeast African, had the closest affinity with the Iranian Neolithic.
View attachment 358471
I know people say G25 is flawed with deep time depths associated ancestral modelling, but I have never seen a result like this. It would never show close distance if it lacked drift with "sub-Saharan African groups." Usually, and it has been 100%, when deep drift is involved, the distance is always high, not this low.
If it is the case that the Yoruba and Nilotic samples used do not reflect actual admixture but instead shared affinity (althgouht that makese no sense based on how Vahaduo behaves), the equidistant measures could mean that this population was the pre-bifurcation of West and northeast African populations, reflecting that OOA really was no different from the bulk of the West and Northerneastern African ancestry. So either way, this notion that it shares no drift with other groups is just untenable; it shares high affinity, in fact.
There is a truly bizarre thing these people have done, in my opinion. This paper should have garnered headlines saying, "Green Saharan individuals show mixture between West, East, and North African ancestry, echoing how the Sahara was a migratory crossroad and refuge, arguably the origins for Niger-Congo speakers" - Instead, they doubled down on the ever implied north-south geographic and racially charged forced distinction between North Africa and "sub-Saharan Africa" (always forcing North Africa to be an extension of Eurasia as it pertains to human population history) where when we in fact have an undeniable population with clear affinity (more than 60% of its ancestry) with the same group they claim they share no drift with, and somehow claim they're closer to Eurasians based on wrong methodology and false interpretation of data.
Their paper itself contradicts their statements. They claim Takarokori samples have no drift with Africans and that they are closer to Eurasians (which in my opinion is just a wrong reading of the data and not ideal processing type use, as stated), but then show how Cushitic groups like Somalis and southern Cushites are closer to Eurasians...
View attachment 358473
...yet somehow Takarokori lacks drift with Africans? Even if this was just an innocent error (which I am getting tired of these days because it seems they do their worst work when it deals with Africans), they should have picked up on their inconsistencies and how the claims are just not reasonable. How in the world do they do lousy work when they complain about the dearth of aDNA availability?
They contradict themselves more by saying the samples share no drift but quite outwardly claim a dataset for Fulanis (FulaniA) is the closest, a group we can literally perfectly define as Senegambian + Berber....
View attachment 358475
This is more proposterious than anything I have seen in ancient DNA for a long time, and you can see the cadaans are very silent about this when if this had been done in their interest area, they would have thrown ruckus. Dumbasses are now claiming a people who are 63% indisignuishable from a Yoruba and a Dinka with 3/20 ANA (85% "SSA" (their words, not mine) is now closer to Eurasians... No offence, that is just geographical racial politics at its finest. These fools have for years feigned the notion that ANA was closer to Eurasians, now jump on the stupid bandwagon that Africans in North Africa were Eurasian-like, just to claim that the Sahara was not "SSA" and that it had been Eurasian land, reinforcing this objectively untrue claim that it was a separator during the African Human Period when this paper should have been the one to dispell that. All these people needed to do was to say the obvious but somehow forced a Eurasian-centered narrative... again.
It is so strange because I have read some studies from one of the guys involved in this paper, who worked for Max Planck, and I remember they produced a high-quality paper on Neolithic Turkey. Now these characters are pushing "these people were closer to Eurasian" arguments to a new plateau of disproportionality that now people who have the levels of Eurasians, as African Americans, are considered closer to Eurasians.
The fact that a study from Africa, dealing with African genetics, classifies one highly divergent group as "sub-Saharan Africans" and the other as separate from that should tell you how racial objectives seep unprofessionality into the work. And it has gotten so bad that this scientist, who should easily tell the difference, is desperate not to classify North African Saharan individuals as African when everything indicates as such. Heck, even the PCA should tell it obviously.
I can already imagine some bums somewhere are discussing this, as I've seen it before:
"Uhh, thus us, uuh, Basal Eurasian, the Yoruba and Dinka affinity is Afghani Mujahideen apparitions playing mindtricks on you. These people are Negroid-Caucasians, Moomin ghost. They really are Norwegians in disguise. As a dweeb who goons to Darwins literature (the man who designated me a better evolved ape), my word is law (and I am white). This is just Scandinavians with African characteristics, really just sun-tan, a few Eurasinites who wanted a vacation somewhere in the Oasis somewhere in Broader Western Eurasia, Libya, and accidentally took a selfie appearing fully n-word passing. I dub it, rapid evolution camouflage. Do you hear me, you half archaic Afrocentricus? These are not your forefathers. My Siberian ancestors are closer to them than you! Keep your discussions within your field, in Sub-Saharan Africa, North Africa is ou.. Ehm, I mean, there is a sea of desert between you and North Africa. Mixture is impossible, ignore the mixed adapted people that live between, or the Nile, or the African Humid Period, that is irrelevant to the relevant topic. Those mixed people were just transplanted, grafted, and genetically modified (are we sure they're not slaves?) with no history."
These bums come with the most asspull when it comes to African genetics.
I seriously don't even wanna blog about this shit. I think I'll literally just post your post here. Or paraphrase and give you credit. Couldn't have said it better myself.
I agree. When I made my simulation it was interesting how the ANA simulation fits perfectly for IBM but poorly for Natufians even though nMonte still models Natufians as 15-20% derived from it. More or less the same for the Genopolot simulation.
Even before all this simulation sixir I found it curious how when you throw IBMs into Horner models you just get a few IBM percentages (1-5%) that improve the models but we otherwise remain "Natufian" admixed outside of the Arabian stuff.
Tells you plainly, imho, that ANA isn't one single group but some sort of continuum and what's in Neolithic and Epipaleolithic Egyptians isn't the same as what's in IBMs.
Last edited:
I swear. It's the same shit from the DNA forum days except now they have "credentials" and are veiled about their bullshit.
That lunatic has been telling people that actual Iran Neolithic farmers migrated into the Horn and that's where we Horners get our Iran-N admixture.
Last edited:
Considering e1b1 is from east africa could ancestral north Africans just be one descendant of from one branch of ancestral east african and somalis from different branch.
Trending
-
-
-
Somali girl on a UK national TV dating show brings up FGM (big sigh😔)
- Started by EainA2
- Replies: 66
