Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Ancient DNA Analysis of 8000 B.C. Near Eastern Farmers Supports an Early Neolithic Pi

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    I don’t know as much on the Geology stuff as with human genetics etc. But the FACTS emerging is AMH occupied Eurasia DURING the Ice Age. But the biggest problem with the Refugia Theory is it doesn’t take into account Neanderthals. Did Neanderthal survive during the EARLIER Ice Age. If Neanderthal can do it why couldn’t a superior and more sophisticated incoming AMH. That is why they are called THEORY. The FACTS are Neanderthal survived for 300,000years IN Europe DURING Ice Ages. Carbon Dating puts AMH SURVIVING in Siberia , one of the colderst places on Earth during the LGM. So there you go. More BB?

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by xyyman View Post
      I know sometimes it is difficult for a “non-Scientist” to understand the difference between a FACT and a Hypothesis ie Truth vs “make believe”. But I am here to help! If anyone is not LEARNING anything hit me up I can explain a different way. I have been criticized for being too repetitive. I don’t want to be ignored. (insert tongue in cheek)

      For the record - - WHG did not ORIGINATE in Europe. ALL modern humans originated in one geographich region. WHG were one group of humans that settled in Western Europe after OOA. You are rightly proud to be related and have a long history with Western Hunter Gatherers. I have no problem with that. But don’t don’tget it twisted. First, your freckles came from Loshbour/La Brana and NOT Motala. Both whom were black skinned and darker than Neolithic Stuttgart . I hope you understand that. I would be proud too if my ancestors had such a long history/occupation of the land I now live in. But that is probably on your Maternal side. On you Paternal side you are still “new” to Europe being possibly Bronze or Medieval Age. Your light skin came from the incoming Neolithics as all recent genetic studies have shown that. Now , doesn’t that throw a wrench in your pre-conceived belief. It is not as what it seems.

      BTW – I can back up and cite sources for EVERYTHING I post. EVERYTHING! One guy here did not like when I said “nothing came from the north”. Did he see the new post by Dienekes on the Etruscans. They are NOT Anatolians. I knew that about 3 years ago!!! Babujani et al wrote a paper on it. “They came from the “general south Europe” – whatever that means. Lol! Do you know the Nuragic also came from the “south”? everything came from the south! Everything! . Even the WHG came from the south. Do you want to go down that road?


      The only way around continuing the myth is to start outright lying or faking DNA results………but I am the Myth Buster. I hope I am not “scaring people off”. But I have faith in my fellow humans. Most are not afraid of the truth. The hit counts keep going up. People are not scared…bro.
      I am new to DNA and no I am not a Scientist but I do have a brain in my head and consider myself to be a smart lady.

      I get you what to be sure people are getting the most up to date info and the facts. But this post is very offensive.

      I have seen many times you and others go at it with this one person and I think to myself " how old are these guys?"

      Why do you feel the need to put someone down all the time?
      If you do not like what someone posts or comments don't read their posts, it is that simple.

      I have been staying away from this site and using 23&me because of things like this.

      Have a GREAT DAY and Think about how others view these childish comments.

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by xyyman View Post
        I know sometimes it is difficult for a “non-Scientist” to understand the difference between a FACT and a Hypothesis ie Truth vs “make believe”. But I am here to help! If anyone is not LEARNING anything hit me up I can explain a different way. I have been criticized for being too repetitive. I don’t want to be ignored. (insert tongue in cheek)

        For the record - - WHG did not ORIGINATE in Europe. ALL modern humans originated in one geographich region. WHG were one group of humans that settled in Western Europe after OOA. You are rightly proud to be related and have a long history with Western Hunter Gatherers. I have no problem with that. But don’t don’tget it twisted. First, your freckles came from Loshbour/La Brana and NOT Motala. Both whom were black skinned and darker than Neolithic Stuttgart . I hope you understand that. I would be proud too if my ancestors had such a long history/occupation of the land I now live in. But that is probably on your Maternal side. On you Paternal side you are still “new” to Europe being possibly Bronze or Medieval Age. Your light skin came from the incoming Neolithics as all recent genetic studies have shown that. Now , doesn’t that throw a wrench in your pre-conceived belief. It is not as what it seems.

        BTW – I can back up and cite sources for EVERYTHING I post. EVERYTHING! One guy here did not like when I said “nothing came from the north”. Did he see the new post by Dienekes on the Etruscans. They are NOT Anatolians. I knew that about 3 years ago!!! Babujani et al wrote a paper on it. “They came from the “general south Europe” – whatever that means. Lol! Do you know the Nuragic also came from the “south”? everything came from the south! Everything! . Even the WHG came from the south. Do you want to go down that road?


        The only way around continuing the myth is to start outright lying or faking DNA results………but I am the Myth Buster. I hope I am not “scaring people off”. But I have faith in my fellow humans. Most are not afraid of the truth. The hit counts keep going up. People are not scared…bro.
        1.WHG is dna that is specific to western Europe because people who live in a region for a specific lenth of time have their own SNP profile. If they were recent immigrants from Africa they would have an African dna profile. Out of Africa 70,000+ years. Get it?

        2.Nonsense. You are a Kurganist. You could wait until we get some Mesolithic and Neolithic dna from the Isles before you begin to blow your trumpet.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by xyyman View Post
          xyyman comment - It seems that the substrate of the first farmers still exist somewhat.
          (QUOTE)
          Moreover, it was also highly represented in both Cardial/Epicardial (15.56%) and LBK-AVK (23.08%) Early Neolithic datasets. Haplogroup R0 is especially prevalent in the Near East and North Africa with a mean frequency in both regions around 6%. The maximum frequencies of R0 were detected in SOUTH Arabian populations such as BEDOUIN, Oman and Saudi Arabia (Table S7). The rare European haplogroups U* and N* were also detected in 2 individuals in our ancient sample. The mean frequency of haplogroup U* is 2% in the Near East, 0.9% in the Caucasus region and around 1% in Europe, whereas the N* mean frequency is less than 1% in all three datasets. However, both haplogroups reach peaks of frequency in certain populations, such as haplogroup U* in Crete. The case of N* is especially interesting, because apart from Bulgaria, Crete, Romania and Serbia it was only represented in Near Eastern populations (Iran, Jordan, Near Eastern Jews, Oman, Palestine, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Turkmenistan and United Arab Emirates). Moreover, this haplogroup was
          ALSO detected in 4 Neolithic specimens from Catalonia, in North Eastern Spain, associated to the Cardial/Epicardial culture [27]. Carry- over contamination from these samples processed in the same laboratory can be ruled out, as results were validated in a second independent laboratory. Finally, the skeleton H8 belonged to the African L3 lineage, this being the most prevalent African haplogroup found in present-day Near Eastern populations.


          xyyman comment – ruling out contamination
          (QUOTE)
          These criteria include the replication of the results within the same or in a SECOND laboratory, Real-Time PCR estimation of the


          Xyyman comment- so are modern Near Easterners ancestral to modern Europeans – apparently not. Then who is?
          (QUOTE)
          However, most of the attempts to estimate the Neolithic genetic input in those populations and/or to reconstruct the routes of dispersion of the first farmers into Europe have relied on EXTANT DATA FROM MODERN NEAR EASTERN populations [19,24,27,29–31]. In the present research, ancient DNA results from the original human Near Eastern Neolithic communities are presented, to our knowledge, for the first time. The present study shows that even though the mitochondrial variability of the PPNB population is within the limits of modern Near Eastern, Caucasian and South Eastern European populations (Table 3), both haplotype and haplogroup PPNB frequencies clearly deviate from their modern successors (Figures 2 and 3, Tables S5 and S7). This indicates that the mitochondrial DNA make-up of modern Near Eastern populations may NOT reflect

          Xyyman comment- Again, so are modern Near Easterners ancestral to modern Europeans – apparently not. Then who is?
          (QUOTE)
          All the detected haplotypes but one -the basal node of haplogroup K- have a null or limited distribution in the modern genetic pool, suggesting that a great bulk of ancient Neolithic lineages were NOT integrated into their succeeding populations or were erased by subsequent population movements in the region. This is in agreement with previous observations from other Early Neolithic populations [27,46], and underlines the importance of genetic drift processes at the beginning of the Neolithic [16]. Nevertheless, the multi-population comparative analyses performed

          Xyyman comment – who are the Ashkenazi Jews?
          (QUOTE)
          This observation clearly contradicts the results of a recent study, where a detailed phylogeographical analysis of mtDNA lineages has suggested a predominantly EUROPEAN ORIGIN for the Ashkenazi communities [48]. According to that work the majority of the Ashkenazi mtDNA lineages can be assigned to three major founders within haplogroup K (31% of their total lineages): K1a1b1a, K1a9 and K2a2. The

          Xyyman comment – so, Ashkenazi Jews are “primarily” modern Europeans.
          (QUOTE)
          Moreover, in the light of the evidence presented here of a loss of lineages in the Near East since Neolithic times, the absence of Ashkenazi mtDNA founder clades in the Near East should not be taken as a definitive argument for its absence in the past. The genotyping of the complete mtDNA in ancient Near Eastern populations would be required to fully answer this question and it will undoubtedly add resolution to the patterns detected in modern populations in this and other studies.

          Xyyman comment- So the Modern Near Easterners are primarily new migrants to the area. So which population represent best the FIRST Farmers?
          (QUOTE)
          Our PPNB population includes a high percentage (80%) of lineages with a Palaeolithic coalescence age (K, R0 and U*) and differs from the current populations from the same area, which exhibit a high frequency of mitochondrial haplogroups J, T1 and U3 (Table S7). The latter have been traditionally

          Xyyman comment – so modern Near Easterners are NOT a good representation of FIRST FARMERS
          (QUOTE)
          The first suggestion alerts AGAINST the use of modern Near Eastern populations as representative of the genetic stock of the first Neolithic farmers while the second will be explored in depth in the following section.


          Xyyman comment – Iberians EEF carried a rare N* NOT found in the farmers of the Near East. Tic! Toc!
          (QUOTE)
          Moreover, it is absent in Central European and Northern Iberian Paleolithic/Mesolithic mitochondrial backgrounds [20,23,28]. The presence of ‘‘RARE’’ paragroup N* in both Cardial and Epicardial samples from North Eastern Iberia and PPNB populations CONFIRMS THE CONNECTION between BOTH EDGES of the Neolithic expansion previously suggested in [27]. Haplogroup N1a, representing 12.75% of LBK-AVK samples [19,24], is not present in our PPNB sample, making it unlikely that this cluster was introduced FROM the earliest PPNB farmers of this region [23]. A more complex pattern for the LBK-AVK Neolithic expansion route, involving migration
          Not sure I understand your conclusion about Ashkenazis. Behar claimed that the K subclades were Levantine. Richards and co-workers concluded that the K subclades were European rather than Levantine. Both studies mentioned the same K subclades. The present Fernandez study found one of the K subclades (K1a9) in the ancient Near East. This subclade only covers around 20% of the Ashkenazi K subclades. They suggested that there might be some merit to Behar's view since they found some K in their observations. However the Fernandez study did not observe all the specific Ashkenazi subclades of K and concluded that more research was needed. The bottom line is that the Behar--Richards debate is still unresolved
          Last edited by josh w.; 13 May 2015, 07:17 PM.

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by josh w. View Post
            Not sure I understand your conclusion about Ashkenazis. Behar claimed that the K subclades were Levantine. Richards and co-workers concluded that the K subclades were European rather than Levantine. Both studies mentioned the same K subclades. The present Fernandez study found one of the K subclades (K1a9) in the ancient Near East. This subclade only covers around 20% of the Ashkenazi K subclades. They suggested that there might be some merit to Behar's view since they found some K in their observations. However the Fernandez study did not observe all the specific Ashkenazi subclades of K and concluded that more research was needed. The bottom line is that the Behar--Richards debate is still unresolved
            Clarification. Costa was the first author on the Richards paper, but Richards was the project director

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by hazel_ion View Post
              I am ..consider myself to be a smart lady.


              If you do not like what someone posts or comments don't read their posts, it is that simple.

              :

              Comment


              • #22
                Let's please keep the discussion on scientific merits of the paper. If you don't agree with someone, just say I don't agree with you and state why or move one. No need to demean anyone.

                -Darren
                Family Tree DNA

                Comment


                • #23
                  We can discuss “who are the Jews” in another thread. Agreed Doron is one of the leaders on genetic relatedness of the “Jewish People”. He sometimes let his underlings be lead author. . But one thing is clear. Anyone who is R1b-M269 is NOT a “genetic Jew.” . I have a few threads on other forums on this issue. Undoubtedly there are SNP and lineage(haplogroups) marker clearly associated with the Jewish peoples. The Language branch clearly originated in the Sahara and radiated outwards. The Genetics also tell the same story. E1b1b and J1-M267 being dominant. As I told the guys in the other forum this genetic profile of “Jews” are found as far away as India. Of course they have admixed or have been infiltrated by their neighboring populations. The evidence shows these people migrated BEFORE the concept of Judiasm appeared.

                  But we can take that discussion elsewhere

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Bruce jenner

                    :
                    Originally Posted by
                    I am ..consider myself to be a smart woman .


                    If you do not like what someone posts or comments don't read their posts, it is that simple.

                    :


                    In case you did not get it. I have doubts you are a “Smart”…and a “woman”. Because you did not take your own advice. Do NOT read my post. Leave that to the close to 300 people who read it over the last 2 days. It gets under my skin when men pose as women to make a point. To me it is disrespectful to our fairer sex. Making women appear weak. In case you don’t know, I believe women are the stronger(with drive and mentally) of the sexes. When I had kids I had a true understanding of the strength of our women…especially single mothers. I don’t know how they do it. So if you are a man please don’t disrespect them by pretending to something you are not.

                    And I know you may not be too much into genetics but the evidence emerging is women were the dominant group in our emergence OOA. Show them some respect. Don’t project your modern day prejudices into our past.
                    Last edited by xyyman; 14 May 2015, 08:28 AM.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      These kind of comments have no place on this forum. I sincerely hope that an administrator will step in and take action.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        I am confused. What don’t you like? Me calling out someone for posing as a woman to make them look weak? I said ‘‘if”. I am not sure what he/she is. My point is …he/she is inferring that women as a group don’t like these open discussion ONLY men do. Which to me is a put down on intelligent women. I have a daughter and I certainly don’t want her to grow up thinking she is the weak. She may not be as physically strong as a man but she can be just as demanding, intelligent and driven as any man.

                        Anyone one can be anyone on the internet. I am chinese.


                        Now can we get back on topic?
                        Last edited by xyyman; 14 May 2015, 09:51 AM.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          I find it inappropriate that you question the sex of another poster. Even more inappropriate that you consider the sex of the poster to have any implication for their intellect, strength or right to have an opinion. You are of course entitled to have your own opinions, but this is not the place to be sharing them.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            ?? huh? a high school drop out?

                            that is why certain people should stick to the "beginners' section. We are discussing "scientific papers'. At least I thought that is what we are doing....my bad.

                            Now ...can we move on?

                            Originally posted by 0262
                            Even more inappropriate that you consider the sex of the poster to have any implication for their intellect, strength or right to have an opinion. .
                            Last edited by xyyman; 14 May 2015, 11:05 AM.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by xyyman View Post
                              At least I thought that is what we are doing....my bad.
                              Is that what's supposed to be going on here? 'Cause to the casual observer, it looks more like you're taking a few seconds between insulting everyone to mentally... um... pleasure yourself and then crowing about it triumphantly as though you've managed some great feat of acuity.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by xyyman View Post
                                ?? huh? a high school drop out?

                                that is why certain people should stick to the "beginners' section. We are discussing "scientific papers'. At least I thought that is what we are doing....my bad.

                                Now ...can we move on?
                                You can move on to wherever you choose. I am most definitely not a high school drop out, but I am certainly dropping out of this thread and perhaps even out of the forum. I have better ways to waste my time than on this ridiculous discussion.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X