Europeans are genetically the most diverse

[Prisoner Of Ice]

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_x6Y4ZgFsZdY/S_07tlECD3I/AAAAAAAAATY/FRcwNzNHULA/s1600/PCgraphWorld.png

Just look at the chart, it's written all over the basic PCA chart of humanity.

First off, what is a PCA plot? Well, it takes some variables basically, and it looks for differences between some groups. Each gene is a different variable in itself.

Each of these dimensions is then compressed in a way that keeps as much of the variation as possible. So if you have three groups, and one group has the most difference from the other two, it will be the one with the highest score.

Now look at the graph. Wait a minute, europeans have the most extreme score in both components! It means that europeans have the most variation, period. The PCA is a measure of variation in the first place.

That alone is enough proof but theres loads more. There's simply way more genes selected on of european origin than any other genes. Way more european specific variations of basically everything. Blood type, pigmentation and eyes, bone structure, everything. Now nobody comes out and makes a direct study about this so they won't be called racist but all the data says this, and always has.

[Harkonnen]

Wut.

[Prisoner Of Ice]

Wut.
Maths.

[Sarmatian]

Yet phenotypically Europeans are the most homogenous.

[Harkonnen]

So can you please explain me what this all has to do with racism? Do you mean to say that Europeans are more mixed than all other races and if so why it would be racist to claim so?

[Prisoner Of Ice]

Yet phenotypically Europeans are the most homogenous.

No, that's not true either. Look at hair, eye, and skin color for starters.

Look how many european types their are in classifications. There's only paleonegrid and east asian that are outside of it. Most of the so called variation in africa actually comes from european or eurasian introgression.

There's tons of genes unique to europids, fewer in east asia, and almost no unique genes in africa.

[Prisoner Of Ice]

So can you please explain me what this all has to do with racism? Do you mean to say that Europeans are more mixed than all other races and if so why it would be racist to claim so?

It means that others are more mixed to europeans than the other way around, probably.

It's not racist to say that europeans are more diverse, it's truth. But europeans being more diverse is not politically popular idea because it implies that africa is not the source of all our evolution, which is very popular right now.

[Harkonnen]

It means that others are more mixed to europeans than the other way around, probably.

It's not racist to say that europeans are more diverse, it's truth. But europeans being more diverse is not politically popular idea because it implies that africa is not the source of all our evolution, which is very popular right now.

No it does not mean that. Fex usually when a population goes through bottle neck it looses genetic diversity. For example South Euros have higher genetic diversity because mixture from North Africa. If Africans indeed would have Euro admixture, like you proclaimed earlier, that would add to their genetic diversity.


(Phys.org) —Southern Europeans are more genetically diverse than Northern Europeans. Geneticists have several different explanations for this phenomenon, one of which is migration from Africa to southern Europe. However, previous studies, which have relied on samples from sub-Saharan populations, have not revealed much shared ancestry between Africans and Europeans. Recognizing that there are many genetic differences between Northern and sub-Saharan Africans, Carlos Bustamante of Stanford University and his colleagues performed a DNA analysis that included North African populations. The study, published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, shows high levels of shared ancestry between Southern Europeans and North Africans.

Population geneticists have formulated three hypotheses to explain the greater genetic diversity of Southern Europeans. One says that about 20,000 years ago, people from all over Europe retreated southward to escape advancing glaciers. When the glaciers receded, only a small segment of the original population recolonized the North.
http://phys.org/news/2013-06-southern-europeans-north-african-genes.html

[Sarmatian]

No, that's not true either. Look at hair, eye, and skin color for starters.

Look how many european types their are in classifications. There's only paleonegrid and east asian that are outside of it. Most of the so called variation in africa actually comes from european or eurasian introgression.

There's tons of genes unique to europids, fewer in east asia, and almost no unique genes in africa.

Pigmentation is not as important anthropology-wise as cranial measurements. And cranial variations of Negroids and Mongoloids are times higher than in case of Europeans.

[Harkonnen]

that africa is not the source

I've never understood why, to some people, it is such a big deal that humans originate in Africa. Why all these emotions? Even funnier is that often these people accuse scientist of having agendas. Most likely jewish agendas of cource. Of course. This is some sort of weird emotional faggitry of the mentally impaired.

[Prisoner Of Ice]

No it does not mean that.

It absolutely means that.



Fex usually when a population goes through bottle neck it looses genetic diversity. For example South Euros have higher genetic diversity because mixture from North Africa.

You don't make any point here, you don't seem to get what this is all about. North africans came from europe and from the east anyway.



If Africans indeed would have Euro admixture, like you proclaimed earlier, that would add to their genetic diversity.
That's where they get what little they have, which is not much.

[Prisoner Of Ice]

I've never understood why, to some people, it is such a big deal that humans originate in Africa.


It's not a 'big deal' it's the truth. There's no point to discuss any topics if they are not controversial and everyone agrees, they only come up if the opposite is the case.



Why all these emotions?


Exactly, why do you work so hard to defend it? I don't know how to describe how silly all this crap is, but reality is I am least emotional person imaginable. If I get any emotion it's just annoyance at people like yourself.



Even funnier is that often these people accuse scientist of having agendas.


No, no 'scientists' do. Anthropologists are basically retards with a political agenda who make bullshit up. I don't think any archaeologists will say multiregionalism is dead, or that they EVER thought that. No way on earth. All the archaeology papers coming out lately say the exact opposite, shows how much you know.



Most likely jewish agendas of cource. Of course.


Don't be a jackass. I am one of the most jew-friendly people on the board, dumbfuck. Now talk about getting emotional. Every thread finns have to go on a chimpout rampage on anything that slightly affects finns, in some imaginary way.



This is some sort of weird emotional faggitry of the mentally impaired.

Dude, you stupid fucking cunt. Don't give me your Finnish Butthurt Disease bullshit. I get it now...everything has to do with you stupid dickheads.

Yes, it's true that finns are very homogenous. That is not the same as saying that they don't have diversity in their genome, though. The total genetic variation count is what makes diversity, not the amount of variation from person to person...for fuck's sake, man.

The diversity does NOT really come from mixing, it comes from high population and selection pressure, most of the new gene variants seem to come in modern times, others are old ones like neanderthal stuff. The reason finns are homogenous is same reason small tribes in africa are - it's the middle of buttfuck nowhere and there's not much gene flow from elsewhere.

But gene homogenousnous is NOT the same thing as diversity you stupid aspie assclown. That's measured right by PCA chart. It's undeniable. It's a solid fact. Truth is you don't get this which is why you can't grasp basics of genetics so make a fool of yourself.

Now go fuck yourself, cunt, because obviously you can't discuss things in a civil normal manner and have to immediately go to bullshit ad hominem attacks. I am smarter than you, and actually know what I am talking about. You are some ignorant cretin googling shit as he types, who doesn't know an eigenvector from a hole in his ass. Deal with it.

[Prisoner Of Ice]

Let me put it another way to explain what this means.

First off see how all the african tribes are on a line heading to europe? This means they are all somewhat mixed to europeans.

This is also what people point to to try and say that africans are the most diverse. They are saying that the africans are more disimilar to each other as groups than european groups are to each other. Which is TECHNICALLY true, but it's obvious they get this diversity from european intrusion. More importantly THIS IS NOT WHAT WE CARE ABOUT. This isn't real diversity. Diversity is the total amount of differences that exist in the group as compared to the OTHER groups NOT internally which is fucking ridiculous.

THIS is what the axes on the actual graph measure in the first place. Each axis represents dozens or even HUNDREDS of gene variants. This is the basis for my claim europeans have the most diversity, they are the source of more of these variants, obviously. As expected, on either axis one group dominates more with respect to the other. However the euro group is at the outer edge and the others are boxed within its border. European result is more extreme in borth components.

If africa were really more diverse, it would be further to the right and europe further to the left. Make sense? Probably not but those are the facts.

[Prisoner Of Ice]

Also, mixing won't change your position for the 'better' on the graph. Just like with the africans, it will make you even more enclosed by the more diverse group - see how contained the most europe mixed ones are?

The axes don't represent the internal differences of groups, they are calculated to show the things which are unique between the three main groups. The fact there's simply more total variants in europe accounts for the result you get, some of them don't exist in asia or europe so there's no way to express them except as bounded by the european results.

[Prisoner Of Ice]

Pigmentation is not as important anthropology-wise as cranial measurements. And cranial variations of Negroids and Mongoloids are times higher than in case of Europeans.

First off, that is not something KNOWN so you can't make that claim. We have no way to map genes to phenotype in detail like that so it's a pretty ridiculous claim to try and make.

Second off, the diversity claim here is crap as well. The differences in phenotype are mainly that some euro types have mixed into both populations. And some asian ones into africa like khoesan. The only unique type in africa is negroid types, which are themselves recent types not old types as you might imagine, brought on mainly by mixing.

[Prisoner Of Ice]

Also, like I said in another thread, interest in archaeology and anthropology doesn't mean you believe in aliens or that you have a racist agenda. It's just a sign you actually have a brain. Retards of the world could give two shits how the pyramids were made or what the deal with the people with freaky heads in south america is.

[Prisoner Of Ice]

Also, another vital clue, look how the variation of europe is up and down on the axis (true unique variants) instead of being pulled towards another population. This means it's real internal differences, unique things in some populations, and NOT mere mixing. So by that token you would say the internal variation in europe is also greater, since asia has almost none, and all the variation for africa represents populations pulled towards europe.

[Harkonnen]

Let me put it another way to explain what this means.

First off see how all the african tribes are on a line heading to europe? This means they are all somewhat mixed to europeans.



There doesn't seem to be all African tribes represented in your pic. It reads there are Bantu and Maasai. Maasai of course do indeed have some Eurasian admixture which shows by them pulling to Europe. As west eurasians seem to be slightly shifted towards Africa compared to east eurasians and overall appear genetically slightly more similar to Africans, then that could indicate that west eurasians, including euros, could have some admix from africa after the original OOA migrations. What is your opinion on this?

[Virtuous]

Then they say WE need diversity.

[Prisoner Of Ice]

There doesn't seem to be all African tribes represented in your pic.

Point wasn't to show every single tribe, but those two are the ones that are most important.



It reads there are Bantu and Maasai. Maasai of course do indeed have some Eurasian admixture which shows by them pulling to Europe. As west eurasians seem to be slightly shifted towards Africa compared to east eurasians and overall appear genetically slightly more similar to Africans, then that could indicate that west eurasians, including euros, could have some admix from africa after the original OOA migrations. What is your opinion on this?

Well we know maasi came into africa. So properly if you really wanted to make some argument that africa is diverse you'd want pure "africa only" populations. But they don't seem to exist.

There's now known to be no tribe that has 0% neanderthal DNA for example, which is a good argument in and of itself for multiregionalism.

Only ones that look to be almost pure are pygmie types.

My main point though is that the extremes on the axes are information in and of itself. I didn't even really look at this and really see it until I posted this thread but the axes are the definition of differences between the populations.

[Fire Haired]

If you define Europe as a group its possible they are the most diverse. If you defined south asia as one group they would be way ahead of Europe for diversity. Central asians and Hispanics are genetically the most diverse people in the world.

[zhaoyun]

Europeans are a lot more phenotypically diverse than East Asians, primarily due to the differences in eye and hair color, although East Asians also have a diverse range of facial features and other phenotypes. I think it is primarily because of the geography and topography of Europe which is very mountainous and has many peninsulas and islets, which allowed many early populations to evolve in isolation and develop different features.

[Kiyant]

Which people and wich races are included in the Europe department?

[Svipdag]

I should think that the "melting pot" before it became the "salad bowl" would have made the Americans more diverse genetically than anybody else.

[Prisoner Of Ice]

If you define Europe as a group its possible they are the most diverse. If you defined south asia as one group they would be way ahead of Europe for diversity. Central asians and Hispanics are genetically the most diverse people in the world.

No, that's not true. South Asia is just mixed. It doesn't have many unique, original variants, though it does have some. If you look at haplomaps and autosomal maps it's just east and west blended together - the situation there is like in ethiopia.

Like I said, this is exactly what the axes represent, real diversity. Indians are in the middle of the triangle, meaning they have the least overall variation compared to the other groups.

[Prisoner Of Ice]

I should think that the "melting pot" before it became the "salad bowl" would have made the Americans more diverse genetically than anybody else.

Again, that is simply mixing. Not real, unique genetic variations, which is what the graph is measuring.

[Stefan_Dusan]

Africa is most genetically diverse and that is reflected in the PCA plot you showed. And it's also common sense, Africans have inhabited their homeland much longer than Europeans have theirs.

[Smaug]

Yet phenotypically Europeans are the most homogenous.

I disagree. We've got a wide range of phenotypes, from dark-pigmented Sicilians to mongolian-influenced blond Finns. I think other groups are more diverse.

[Argang]

I'll just leave this here...


Chromopainter-finestructure literacy check, do you have this fascinating skill you'll never need irl?
http://fennoscandia.blogspot.no/2013/04/updated-world-analysis.html
https://sites.google.com/site/fennobga/CCAggrWorld240413.png

[Fire Haired]

Africa is most genetically diverse and that is reflected in the PCA plot you showed. And it's also common sense, Africans have inhabited their homeland much longer than Europeans have theirs.

Africans are the ones who stayed so of course there is much more diversity there.

[Fire Haired]

No, that's not true. South Asia is just mixed. It doesn't have many unique, original variants, though it does have some. If you look at haplomaps and autosomal maps it's just east and west blended together - the situation there is like in ethiopia.

Like I said, this is exactly what the axes represent, real diversity. Indians are in the middle of the triangle, meaning they have the least overall variation compared to the other groups.

I don't know much about south asian genetics but i do know they have some of the greatest diversity of non African mtDNA and Y DNA. They are defintley the most mixed/diverse non Africans.

[Tropico]

The chart literally says Africans are but since you happen to be a retarded fucktard I wouldn't expect you to come to that conclusion.

[LightHouse89]

It means that others are more mixed to europeans than the other way around, probably.

It's not racist to say that europeans are more diverse, it's truth. But europeans being more diverse is not politically popular idea because it implies that africa is not the source of all our evolution, which is very popular right now.

this is why European women despite coming from diverse backgrounds can all be very attractive. I mean if I was in a room with mixed euro women and they were all attractive I would be confused at the first one I should have sex with hahahaha. I would want al of them muahahahaha.

[LightHouse89]

Europeans are a lot more phenotypically diverse than East Asians, primarily due to the differences in eye and hair color, although East Asians also have a diverse range of facial features and other phenotypes. I think it is primarily because of the geography and topography of Europe which is very mountainous and has many peninsulas and islets, which allowed many early populations to evolve in isolation and develop different features.

I think North East Asians like Japanese, Chinese, Mongols, and Koreans are the most diverse looking from pictures. I mean they look pretty unique to me.

[Fire Haired]

I should think that the "melting pot" before it became the "salad bowl" would have made the Americans more diverse genetically than anybody else.

We Americans are not an ethnicty, we all came from the old world within the last 500 years or so except native Americans. Not every American is part German-black-Chinese-Mexican-ect. Hispanics techincalley may be the most diverse people(mixed Iberian, Native American, and west African) but like Americans they are new world so very young.

[Fire Haired]

I think North East Asians like Japanese, Chinese, Mongols, and Koreans are the most diverse looking from pictures. I mean they look pretty unique to me.

What? No offense to them but they look like clones. Besides east asians are some of the most undiverse people in the world. They are perfect representatives of the eastern branch of Eurasians.

[Fire Haired]

The chart literally says Africans are but since you happen to be a retarded fucktard I wouldn't expect you to come to that conclusion.

Says a Spainish-native American-west African-and whatever else mutt. Just having fun.

[LightHouse89]

We Americans are not an ethnicty, we all came from the old world within the last 500 years or so except native Americans. Not every American is part German-black-Chinese-Mexican-ect. Hispanics techincalley may be the most diverse people(mixed Iberian, Native American, and west African) but like Americans they are new world so very young.

I laugh at tri-racial losers

[Tropico]

Says a Spainish-native American-west African-and whatever else mutt. Just having fun.

lol you say it as an insult. But this racial mutt is a Biology major who is headed off to Grad school or Med school depending on how I do on the MCAT who has taken a number of biology and anthropology classes. While others here who speak of genetics base their "facts" of Wikipedia and bull shit assumptions.

[Tropico]

I laugh at tri-racial losers

This triracial loser has a bigger cock and is going to Grad school for medicine. What are your accomplishments?

[Kale]

Just look at the chart, it's written all over the basic PCA chart of humanity. First off, what is a PCA plot? Well, it takes some variables basically, and it looks for differences between some groups. Each gene is a different variable in itself.

Ok... so what are the variables used in this graph? That kind of totally effects the conclusion you can draw from it.

[Prisoner Of Ice]

I don't know much about south asian genetics but i do know they have some of the greatest diversity of non African mtDNA and Y DNA. They are defintley the most mixed/diverse non Africans.

Diversity is not how mixed you are I explained that in the thread about 20 times already.

[Tropico]

Diversity is not how mixed you are I explained that in the thread about 20 times already.

Incorrectly. It's what happens when you have NO formal education about Genetics. FUCKTARDED GERBIL.

[Prisoner Of Ice]

Ok... so what are the variables used in this graph? That kind of totally effects the conclusion you can draw from it.

Gene variations. I explained how they make PCA graph already, by grouping together different variables into fewer dimensions. If you don't get it you will have to read about it in more detail I guess.

I was thinking about making a dummy graph with variables people would understand instead of raw gene variation, maybe I will do that at some point to illustrate what you are really looking at.

[Tropico]

I definitely trust one inbred twat brain over loads of genetic evidence proving Africans are the most diverse on the planet. I'm sure if you presented these plots at a convention you'd get a Nobel Prize...
Lmao

[LightHouse89]

This triracial loser has a bigger cock and is going to Grad school for medicine. What are your accomplishments?

LOL good for you I am going o grad school too......let me guess you get free ticket for being a 'minority' LOL. 'bigger cock' LOL I love how the best way a tri-racial or black can defend their own stupidity is by mentioning the size of a penis....not only are the stupid and uncultured dogs they are perverse animals. At least I do not post pics of me being naked on an internet forum you stupid man slut.

[Tropico]

LOL good for you I am going o grad school too......let me guess you get free ticket for being a 'minority' LOL. 'bigger cock' LOL I love how the best way a tri-racial or black can defend their own stupidity is by mentioning the size of a penis....not only are the stupid and uncultured dogs they are perverse animals. At least I do not post pics of me being naked on an internet forum you stupid man slut.

[Tropico]

LOL good for you I am going o grad school too......let me guess you get free ticket for being a 'minority' LOL. 'bigger cock' LOL I love how the best way a tri-racial or black can defend their own stupidity is by mentioning the size of a penis....not only are the stupid and uncultured dogs they are perverse animals. At least I do not post pics of me being naked on an internet forum you stupid man slut.

Lol yeah my 3.7 GPA is getting me in. And no, I don't have any scholarships for being a minority. I get them for my dad being in the military and defending this country and my kick ass GPA. What do you get them for?

[LightHouse89]

You prove? .................................................. ....................Nothing....I do not care if your going to school on Government tax payer money. I am going to school I earned to go to school. Good luck being a biologist with your out of Africa theory.

[LightHouse89]

Lol yeah my 3.7 GPA is getting me in. And no, I don't have any scholarships for being a minority. I get them for my dad being in the military and defending this country and my kick ass GPA. What do you get them for?

LOL welfare.

[Smeagol]

Africans may be the most diverse, but ''African'' doesn't really mean anything. There is no African race, or people. That's just a myth that mostly black American pan-Africanists like to say, and believe. Africa is a huge continent with many peoples and races, and an Egyptian has absolutely nothing to do with a Pygmy, or Bantu for example.

[Tropico]

LOL welfare.

Yeah. Military soldiers families are usually on welfare. :rolleyes:

[Roy]

No they are not (Africans are), you don't uderstand what is behind these charts.

[LightHouse89]

Yeah. Military soldiers families are usually on welfare. :rolleyes:

No the usual Puerto Rican entitlements.

[Sarmatian]

I disagree. We've got a wide range of phenotypes, from dark-pigmented Sicilians to mongolian-influenced blond Finns. I think other groups are more diverse.

Did you read my second post?


Pigmentation is not as important anthropology-wise as cranial measurements. And cranial variations of Negroids and Mongoloids are times higher than in case of Europeans.

Color doesn't mean much, sizes and proportions do.

[Kastrioti1443]

Maybe if you take Europe as a whole it might be a bit more diverse but if you take Asia and Africa as a whole, Asians will be the most diverse people in the world, even south Asia is much more diverse that Europe as a whole. Even Mongoloids are very diverse, from Khazars to Japanese who also have a much higher cranial diversity than the people in Europe.

Africa is also much much more diverse than Europe. In Europe you have much more Europid European subtypes because anthropology is much more developed in Europeans.

[Tropico]

Eurocentricity at it's worst. This isn't White Nationalism, it's a Eurocentric wet dream.

[Smaug]

Did you read my second post?



Color doesn't mean much, sizes and proportions do.

Still, I disagree. A short-skulled Alpinoid Bavarian looks different from long-skulled Nordid Swede.

[Fire Haired]

This triracial loser has a bigger cock and is going to Grad school for medicine. What are your accomplishments?

The average Spainish, west African, and native American cock combines into an over-sized Hispanic one right?

[Fire Haired]

Eurocentricity at it's worst. This isn't White Nationalism, it's a Eurocentric wet dream.

What is?

[Tropico]

The average Spainish, west African, and native American cock combines into an over-sized Hispanic one right?

I guess. We are called "The Cosmic Race" for a reason ;)

[Tropico]

What is?

The notion that Europe is the most genetically diverse peoples on Earth. Sike !

[Prisoner Of Ice]

No they are not (Africans are), you don't uderstand what is behind these charts.

no u

If you don't know how to actually make such a plot, you have zero idea what you are talking about.

[LightHouse89]

I guess. We are called "The Cosmic Race" for a reason ;)

LOL :rotfl:

[Prisoner Of Ice]

Maybe if you take Europe as a whole it might be a bit more diverse but if you take Asia and Africa as a whole, Asians will be the most diverse people in the world, even south Asia is much more diverse that Europe as a whole. Even Mongoloids are very diverse, from Khazars to Japanese who also have a much higher cranial diversity than the people in Europe.

Africa is also much much more diverse than Europe. In Europe you have much more Europid European subtypes because anthropology is much more developed in Europeans.

Nothing you said is true.

Asians are the least diverse as compared to each other. They have more total number of gene variants but no diversity. Chinese went through a big bottleneck when plague came and wiped most of them out, and their farming expansion was all out of one area.

[LightHouse89]

Maybe if you take Europe as a whole it might be a bit more diverse but if you take Asia and Africa as a whole, Asians will be the most diverse people in the world, even south Asia is much more diverse that Europe as a whole. Even Mongoloids are very diverse, from Khazars to Japanese who also have a much higher cranial diversity than the people in Europe.

Africa is also much much more diverse than Europe. In Europe you have much more Europid European subtypes because anthropology is much more developed in Europeans.

Well how do you think we have different subtypes? Hmmmm I guess they just popped up out of nowhere. Africans [Negroes] all look the same. They all have about the same level of intelligence which is not that high.

[LightHouse89]

The average Spainish, west African, and native American cock combines into an over-sized Hispanic one right?

They are as retarded as Aframs here. I blame JFK for brining boat loads of the losers here. They are tri-racial garbage.

[Prisoner Of Ice]

Still, I disagree. A short-skulled Alpinoid Bavarian looks different from long-skulled Nordid Swede.

Exactly, only a complete moron or blind man could think that east asians or africans are more diverse phenotpically speaking, even excluding eye and hair color. I mean holy shit.

[Tropico]

LOL :rotfl:

Wait you're 24 and you're STILL not in grad school.
How intelligent. :rolleyes:

[Prisoner Of Ice]

This triracial loser has a bigger cock and is going to Grad school for medicine. What are your accomplishments?

Dude you are some little kid as far as I am concerned. I have had graduate degree since before you were born, and not some pussy biology degree. I had to learn all about biology at one point to do some work in bioinformatics. You can literally pick up any biology book and understand, as a layman, exactly that's going on. Try to do that with math or computer science, you won't even know what you are looking at bro.

Biology is major of all the dumb chicks who were easy lays back in my college days, nobody with a brain is going to be impressed especially since you go to some school in puerto rico and have not even graduated.

[Kamal900]

Exactly, only a complete moron or blind man could think that east asians or africans are more diverse phenotpically speaking, even excluding eye and hair color. I mean holy shit.

well, do be quite frank i cant tell the difference between Asians, and most of them look similar to each other. Whenever i watch some Asian movie i couldn't tell them apart. Am i the only one who see the same way?

[LightHouse89]

Wait you're 24 and you're STILL not in grad school.
How intelligent. :rolleyes:

I work 40 hours a week. Live on my own now. Take night school because I cannot take regular courses. It must be wonderful to have the tax payer pay for your full time college status. I do not get that luxury.... Age has nothing to do with going to school moron. I am transferring into the Maritime Academy in two years. Yes I am intelligent unlike your worthless subhuman Puerto Ricans that have immigrated to my state. Total low lifes.

[Prisoner Of Ice]

Well how do you think we have different subtypes? Hmmmm I guess they just popped up out of nowhere. Africans [Negroes] all look the same. They all have about the same level of intelligence which is not that high.

Actually they are obviously just part europid and asiatic. That is where 100% of the difference comes from.

This is not 'african race' being diverse, but 'african race' having members of the other two races mixed to them. I can see the distinction is not clear to a lot of people, but say you have brunn as part of the european race, then if some parts of africa have brunn influence then it's still not making the african race more diverse.

Real african race is exclusively pygmies. They are the only really distinct type with many unique variations that don't exist in the other races.

Clearly when you look phenotypically, east africans are influenced by something kinda like a gheg highlander. These e1b people are actually related, that's what the paternal marker means. But e1b doesn't come from africa but obviously eurasia.

Obvious when you look a bit, but of course many people only see what they want.

[LightHouse89]

well, do be quite frank i cant tell the difference between Asians, and most of them look similar to each other. Whenever i watch some Asian movie i couldn't tell them apart. Am i the only one who see the same way?

to me Koreans, Chinese and Japs all look similar but if you compare them to lets say Vietnamese people they look different than one another. The Vietnamese people across the street from me look different from Japanese people.

[LightHouse89]

Actually they are obviously just part europid and asiatic. That is where 100% of the difference comes from.

This is not 'african race' being diverse, but 'african race' having members of the other two races mixed to them. I can see the distinction is not clear to a lot of people, but say you have brunn as part of the european race, then if some parts of africa have brunn influence then it's still not making the african race more diverse.

Real african race is exclusively pygmies. They are the only really distinct type with many unique variations that don't exist in the other races.

Clearly when you look phenotypically, east africans are influenced by something kinda like a gheg highlander. These e1b people are actually related, that's what the paternal marker means. But e1b doesn't come from africa but obviously eurasia.

Obvious when you look a bit, but of course many people only see what they want.

don't tell Afro-Centrists that because everyone comes from Africa! LOL

[Prisoner Of Ice]

Eurocentricity at it's worst. This isn't White Nationalism, it's a Eurocentric wet dream.

It's triracial dumbness at its worst. Maybe you get a real degree and you will have some idea what science is, and can comment.

Out of africa is afrocentrist. Realizing out of africa is a lie just means you have an IQ over 100.

[Prisoner Of Ice]

well, do be quite frank i cant tell the difference between Asians, and most of them look similar to each other. Whenever i watch some Asian movie i couldn't tell them apart. Am i the only one who see the same way?

They all have a fairly similar head shape, and are all brachy. The only big difference is some types with outside europid influence. Eyeballing doesn't say all that there is to say, but genetic results are same, and are actually readable by the graph as I said.

[Prisoner Of Ice]

don't tell Afro-Centrists that because everyone comes from Africa! LOL

Khoesan come out of asia. And until very recently occupied 90+% of sub sahara africa, before bantu killed most of them off. When white people came to south africa, there were no black people there yet.

[LightHouse89]

how dare you question the Politically Correct Afro-Centrists theories! How dare you question it!

[Kale]

Gene variations. I explained how they make PCA graph already, by grouping together different variables into fewer dimensions. If you don't get it you will have to read about it in more detail I guess.

I was thinking about making a dummy graph with variables people would understand instead of raw gene variation, maybe I will do that at some point to illustrate what you are really looking at.

You say: Genes are variables.
I ask: Which genes are these variables?
You say: Genes are variables.

....I ask again, which genes are the variables in this particular graph?

[Kamal900]

It's triracial dumbness at its worst. Maybe you get a real degree and you will have some idea what science is, and can comment.

Out of africa is afrocentrist. Realizing out of africa is a lie just means you have an IQ over 100.

Lets suppose the whole out-of-Africa theory is true, black people at that time didn't even exist. The oldest proto-Negroid(remember not fully developed negroid) skull they have ever found was in what is now Nigeria from 10,000 years old. All races(caucasians, mongoloids and Australoids) are genetically related to one another, while blacks are the most distant, which tell us more about the evolutionary lines between Negroids and other races.

[Prisoner Of Ice]

how dare you question the Politically Correct Afro-Centrists theories! How dare you question it!

It's funny too that the scientific process, the reason it's not pure bullshit, is that nothing is considered absolutely provable in the first place and questioning is the only way to strengthen theories. Yet the second you do question certain ones you immediately get enraged chimp pseudoscientists with the credentials of baboons talking about diversity and edmafications as if they represent the scientific establishment.

[Kamal900]

how dare you question the Politically Correct Afro-Centrists theories! How dare you question it!

oh lordy, call Jesse Jackson, lol.

[Prisoner Of Ice]

You say: Genes are variables.
I ask: Which genes are these variables?
You say: Genes are variables.

....I ask again, which genes are the variables in this particular graph?

Like I said already, all of them. Every single one of them, it's based on whole genomes.

[Prisoner Of Ice]

Lets suppose the whole out-of-Africa theory is true, black people at that time didn't even exist. The oldest proto-Negroid(remember not fully developed negroid) skull they have ever found was in what is now Nigeria from 10,000 years old. All races(caucasians, mongoloids and Australoids) are genetically related to one another, while blacks are the most distant, which tell us more about the evolutionary lines between Negroids and other races.

That's true, too, but honestly I don't care. I don't think anything is needed to distance the rest of the world from west africans, the proof is in the pudding as they say.

To me it's more of an affront to archaeology than anything else. Stupid fucks will always find some way to shovel propaganda. Smart people won't buy it, dumb ones will and will suffer for it. I am just sick of them trying to use history and anthropology as their tools, and basically ruining any chance for real science or discoveries.

When the arabs falsify shit about phoenicians then it gets hard to tell WHO THE FUCK WERE THE PHOENICIANS? This is the same thing here. The victim is actual knowledge of reality which gets distorted or even wholly cast aside.

[Kale]

Weird, because this one has the opposite conclusions of yours. It says Africans are more diverse.

45700

This one says Asians are most diverse.

http://blog.goldenhelix.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/PCA-Full.png

[Fire Haired]

It's funny too that the scientific process, the reason it's not pure bullshit, is that nothing is considered absolutely provable in the first place and questioning is the only way to strengthen theories. Yet the second you do question certain ones you immediately get enraged chimp pseudoscientists with the credentials of baboons talking about diversity and edmafications as if they represent the scientific establishment.

Most scientists are do not have sometype of raciest agenda. For example Olalde et al. 2014 did not go crazy over La brana-1 having dark skin(according to current knowledge), and even considered that all of the causes to light skin in modern Europeans are not entirely known and for that and other reasons never said it is impossible la brana-1 had light skin. They did not make a big fuse about it, they were scientists and treated it the same way they would if they were talking about the biology of a shark. Our media though has alot of raciest agenda and went crazy over his 'Scandinavian' blue eyes and 'African' dark skin.

[LightHouse89]

oh lordy, call Jesse Jackson, lol.

LOl yes he will show up and video cameras from the news would and his organization would say do not let him walk on the side walk or do this he is racist!!! how dare he question us LOL.

[Prisoner Of Ice]

Weird, because this one has the opposite conclusions of yours. It says Africans are more diverse.

45700

This one says Asians are most diverse.

http://blog.goldenhelix.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/PCA-Full.png

Like I said, you are just too stupid to understand wtf any of this means. Your retarded as shit questions prove this already.

The DATA says exactly what I said, THEY say the opposite. Mixing is not diversity however.

[LightHouse89]

yes the argument though is that groups like Neanderthals did not exist or were exterminated by the proto Negrids which did not happen. Its not to say there isn't any admixture but its not that large either. I honeslty believe some African groups have Neanderthal backgrounds or DNA but the farther west Africa you go the less of it is there or present.

[Kale]

Like I said, you are just too stupid to understand wtf any of this means. Your retarded as shit questions prove this already.

The DATA says exactly what I said, THEY say the opposite. Mixing is not diversity however.

K, let me see the paper your original PCA came from, I'd like to read it. Or did you neglect to provide a link on purpose?

[Prisoner Of Ice]

Most scientists are do not have sometype of raciest agenda. For example Olalde et al. 2014 did not go crazy over La brana-1 having dark skin(according to current knowledge), and even considered that all of the causes to light skin in modern Europeans are not entirely known and for that and other reasons never said it is impossible la brana-1 had light skin. They did not make a big fuse about it, they were scientists and treated it the same way they would if they were talking about the biology of a shark. Our media though has alot of raciest agenda and went crazy over his 'Scandinavian' blue eyes and 'African' dark skin.

Anthropologists are not the same as scientists, they are main ones who are biased. Much of the crap that people say is also not even from any real anthropologist, just made up internet bullshit.

Archaeologists don't believe in out of africa for the most part. There's not really any out of africa theory archaeology papers. There's many, many multiregionalism papers for archaeology instead. Being a real scientist and being biased are mutually exclusive. But interpretations like kurgan hypothesis and all the bullshit that maciamo posts, are not something you would ever see in a real science paper. However it gets accepted as fact anyway, and pushed due to political agendas of the media and of individuals like dienekes and his swarthoid agenda where ireland was colonized by the greeks.

[Prisoner Of Ice]

K, let me see the paper your original PCA came from, I'd like to read it. Or did you neglect to provide a link on purpose?

Go and reread first post over until you understand what is being discussed before you make dumb comments. The graphs are the same fucking thing, arranged slightly differently.

[Fire Haired]

Anthropologists are not the same as scientists, they are main ones who are biased. Much of the crap that people say is also not even from any real anthropologist, just made up internet bullshit.

Archaeologists don't believe in out of africa for the most part. There's not really any out of africa theory archaeology papers. There's many, many multiregionalism papers for archaeology instead. Being a real scientist and being biased are mutually exclusive. But interpretations like kurgan hypothesis and all the bullshit that maciamo posts, are not something you would ever see in a real science paper. However it gets accepted as fact anyway, and pushed due to political agendas of the media and of individuals like dienekes and his swarthoid agenda where ireland was colonized by the greeks.

I agree there is some agenda out there but you defintley exaggerate it. You say everyone is bullshit except yourself, who do you think knows more Maciamo who has college degrees in this stuff and a gazzilion other things or one of us? Maciamo and others may have some agenda but overall they are just trying to find the truth. The out of Africa theory has practically been proven with modern DNA, the fact you are so against it makes me think you may have an agenda or you think everyone who believes that theory has an agenda. Spencer Wells is full of agenda, and many people do add racism to the whole out of Africa thing. I don't see that racism though in mainstream experts.

[Prisoner Of Ice]

yes the argument though is that groups like Neanderthals did not exist or were exterminated by the proto Negrids which did not happen. Its not to say there isn't any admixture but its not that large either. I honeslty believe some African groups have Neanderthal backgrounds or DNA but the farther west Africa you go the less of it is there or present.

All african groups have ancient neanderthal mixture, which basically proves multiregionalism.

There's almost no africa-specific gene variants either, which is what diversity really is. Europe has twice as many as asia, and for africa is's basically zilch.

There's also basically zilch when it comes to selection in africa, as well. So it seems impossible that this is humanity's evolutionary hotbed.

[StonyArabia]

That's certainly not true, it's Africans, if anything Europeans lack genetic diversity. The genetic diversity they have is from the outside like Mongoloid admixture in the North and SSA admixture in the South.

[Fire Haired]

oh lordy, call Jesse Jackson, lol.

Sorry, he's busy complaining about the MLB not having 90% black players and that there are not enough Black and Hispanic professors at world class universities.

[LightHouse89]

All african groups have ancient neanderthal mixture, which basically proves multiregionalism.

There's almost no africa-specific gene variants either, which is what diversity really is. Europe has twice as many as asia, and for africa is's basically zilch.

There's also basically zilch when it comes to selection in africa, as well. So it seems impossible that this is humanity's evolutionary hotbed.

I would say North Africans and maybe like Cushites have diverse backgrounds or DNA as it shows in their phenotypes they look very different. However the larger African groups have less diversity.

[Fire Haired]

That's certainly not true, it's Africans, if anything Europeans lack genetic diversity. The genetic diversity they have is from the outside like Mongoloid admixture in the North and SSA admixture in the South.

Europeans are very diverse, many people assume Europe is a homogenus place. There are three main ancestral populations of modern Europeans, European(Upper Palaeolithic/mesolithic European) aka WHG, Upper Paleolithic Siberian(closely related to WHG) aka ANE, and middle eastern(mainly from near easterns who spread farming to Europe) aka EEF or ME. Of course percentages from these populations vary acroos Europe and there are some extra sources for some regions of Europe. The genetic makeup of most regions in Europe formed during the bronze age at the earliest.

[LightHouse89]

That's certainly not true, it's Africans, if anything Europeans lack genetic diversity. The genetic diversity they have is from the outside like Mongoloid admixture in the North and SSA admixture in the South.

not necessarily mongol, more so the turanid types are eastern Europeans.

[LightHouse89]

Europeans are very diverse, many people assume Europe is a homogenus place. There are three main ancestral populations of modern Europeans, European(Upper Palaeolithic/mesolithic European) aka WHG, Upper Paleolithic Siberian(closely related to WHG) aka ANE, and middle eastern(mainly from near easterns who spread farming to Europe) aka EEF or ME. Of course percentages from these populations vary acroos Europe and there are some extra sources for some regions of Europe. The genetic makeup of most regions in Europe formed during the bronze age at the earliest.

true. But Afro-centrist dversity means mixed race peoples.....which to me is laughable.

[Prisoner Of Ice]

I agree there is some agenda out there but you defintley exaggerate it.

Not at all


You say everyone is bullshit except yourself,

Not true at all. John Hawks is super smart guy, so are many archaeologists.


who do you think knows more Maciamo who has college degrees in this stuff and a gazzilion other things or one of us?

He's full of crap. This thread and confusion over PCA sums up why people like him are not real scientists. You can press a button to make a pca chart, that doesn't mean you really have any idea what it means. Most 'scientists' don't. I do. I have done programming of far more complex stuff, I am world class programmer and back in the day something of a math whiz. I could give two shits how many degrees maciamo has, he has a crazy agenda probably sponsored by the European Union - I bet he gets payed to push this bullshit out.



Maciamo and others may have some agenda but overall they are just trying to find the truth.


Guys like him start with the truth and work backwards from there. He is one of the worst ones for bias in my opinion.



The out of Africa theory has practically been proven with modern DNA,

First off you don't prove anything in science, that's not how it works. People who try to act like things are proven are doing so because they don't want to address the weakness of their case. Calling people racist etc. just for questioning a theory is a true ad hominem attack - not just an insult but a way to avoid addressing criticism.

Second off it's all circumstantial evidence.

Third, the deeper splits of mtdna are found in europe and eurasia, anyway. So this completely invalidates mtdna evidence as we have older stuff OUTSIDE africa now.

Finally, archaeology and more advanced dna analysis (like the plot in this thread showing NO african dna in europe and a TON of european dna in africa) say out of africa is utter bunk.



the fact you are so against it makes me think you may have an agenda or you think everyone who believes that theory has an agenda.

Nope, I used to be FOR it, like you apparently are. That was just due to ignorance, though. The more I studied neanderthals and got interested in archaeology the weaker the case seemed, and with current ability to look more closely at DNA it's completely shattered as far as I am concerned. And as far as archaeologists go if you look at their papers.



Spencer Wells is full of agenda, and many people do add racism to the whole out of Africa thing. I don't see that racism though in mainstream experts.

Political correctness is like a disease, and very hard to shake off. When you are not even allowed to question things then you tread lightly on anything that might touch it. Nobody wants people to think they are a nazi, and if it is attached to your career somehow you will be even ten times more careful.

Media today is full fledged propaganda, and out of africa is part of this.

[Prisoner Of Ice]

http://johnhawks.net/weblog/topics/evolution/selection/acceleration_embargo_ends_2007.html



the Neolithic and later periods would have experienced a rate of adaptive evolution more than 100 times higher than characterized most of human evolution.


Basically europe, and to less extent asia, went through a time of crazy evolutionary pace, which africa missed out on. Africa OTOH moves in slow motion because there's not much selection pressure on hunter gatherers.

[Prisoner Of Ice]

BTW what IS that new diversity?

http://johnhawks.net/weblog/reviews/genetics/brain/lahn_2005_aspm_microcephalin_science.html



I say "human brains" rather than "the human brain" quite deliberately: with these alleles, some people have them, and other people don't. And more noteworthy, some populations have them, and others don't.


Mostly brain genes, actually. Can you guess who has them and who doesn't?

[zhaoyun]

Sub-Saharan Africans are still the most genetically diverse group of people. They range from 4 feet tall pygmies to 7 feet tall Dinkas. So that in itself tells you a lot about Africa's genetic variability.

[Harkonnen]

But can you really prove on diversity alone that the population is "old". Take Native Americans, natives are a very young population in Americas, yet you could make a claim that they have more phenotypic diversity contra East Asians. Natives are descended of a very few original settlers who then went on to populate the continent (and importantly in a north-to-south dispersal dichotomy) in a founder effect after founder effect. In those conditions, new novel mutations could spread in a population very quickly. Compare that to East Asia where new mutations get quickly drowned into that massive settled population.

[Prisoner Of Ice]

Sub-Saharan Africans are still the most genetically diverse group of people. They range from 4 feet tall pygmies to 7 feet tall Dinkas. So that in itself tells you a lot about Africa's genetic variability.

No matter how I say it, I guess, some people will not read. There's very few genes unique to africa. Africans have the least genetic diversity, and the apparent differences in phenotype come from outside of africa in the first place.

[Prisoner Of Ice]

But can you really prove on diversity alone that the population is "old". Take Native Americans, natives are a very young population in Americas, yet you could make a claim that they have more phenotypic diversity contra East Asians. Natives are descended of a very few original settlers who then went on to populate the continent (and importantly in a north-to-south dispersal dichotomy) in a founder effect after founder effect. In those conditions, new novel mutations could spread in a population very quickly. Compare that to East Asia where new mutations get quickly drowned into that massive settled population.

Everyone is same age. A lot of what you say about native americans is wrong, they come from at least 4 different migrations.

What you say about mutations is wrong, too. Larger population leads to more rapid selection and helpful genes quickly become fixed in the whole population.

In tiny populations the dfferences between groups are large but there's fewer actual variants. So a complete idiot could say this makes these small groups 'diverse', when in reality they might have a lot of outside influence and could have almost no unique features at all, which happens to be the reality.

[Argang]

not necessarily mongol, more so the turanid types are eastern Europeans.

"East Eurasian" is ancient in Europe anyway, mesolithic hunter-gatherers with sequenced genomes cluster to the east of all northeast europeans on global plots and turn out like below in admixture tests. Later neolithic population movements have for the most part replaced that.
Mesolithic hunter-gatherer from northern Iberia:
La_Brana-1
Atlantic 37.41
Baltic 44.13
West Med 0.06
West Asian 0
East Med 0
Red Sea 0
South Asian 0
East Asian 10.27
Siberian 2.47
Amerindian 0.41
Oceanian 5.25
Northeast African 0
Sub-Saharan 0

[Prisoner Of Ice]

That's certainly not true, it's Africans, if anything Europeans lack genetic diversity. The genetic diversity they have is from the outside like Mongoloid admixture in the North and SSA admixture in the South.

Read the thread, dumbass.

[Prisoner Of Ice]

not necessarily mongol, more so the turanid types are eastern Europeans.

They don't really cluster to east asians anyway.

[Argang]

They don't really cluster to east asians anyway.

True that. Because there used to be ancient eurasian populations ancestral to europeans, amerindians and east asians all of them share genes to some degree. The paleolithic siberian Mal'ta boy clusters between amerindians, east eurasians and west eurasians but with less Middle Eastern and African affinity than any of them.

The even older (40k years) Tianyuan remains from near Beijing seem to be equally related to most europeans, asians and amerindians, but less related to Africans, Melanesians and Middle Easterners.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-ULBG5HNom6E/UwEwe7aFFPI/AAAAAAAACY8/ejtxWpqOpxI/s1600/Alznick-Tianyuan.png
(if someone's wondering what's Anzick-1, it's pretty much a typical amerindian)

[Stears]

Melonhead, it is your pure fantasy. Please give me a source whic states that Europeans are the most diverse. Genetically a greek is closer to an irish, or a russian is closer to a Portugal, than a North Korean to a South Korean , or a North indian to a south indian, or a North Japan to a Southern Japan..

[Tropico]

Melonhead, it is your pure fantasy. Please give me a source whic states that Europeans are the most diverse. Genetically a greek is closer to an irish, or a russian is closer to a Portugal, than a North Korean to a South Korean , or a North indian to a south indian, or a North Japan to a Southern Japan..

He can't. He jus takes graphs and pretends to see what he wants to see. He has no idea what he's doing.

[Prisoner Of Ice]

Melonhead, it is your pure fantasy. Please give me a source whic states that Europeans are the most diverse. Genetically a greek is closer to an irish, or a russian is closer to a Portugal, than a North Korean to a South Korean , or a North indian to a south indian, or a North Japan to a Southern Japan..

No, that's not true at all. The chart is the source, dude.

[LightHouse89]

"East Eurasian" is ancient in Europe anyway, mesolithic hunter-gatherers with sequenced genomes cluster to the east of all northeast europeans on global plots and turn out like below in admixture tests. Later neolithic population movements have for the most part replaced that.
Mesolithic hunter-gatherer from northern Iberia:
La_Brana-1
Atlantic 37.41
Baltic 44.13
West Med 0.06
West Asian 0
East Med 0
Red Sea 0
South Asian 0
East Asian 10.27
Siberian 2.47
Amerindian 0.41
Oceanian 5.25
Northeast African 0
Sub-Saharan 0

but this would make Europeans al inbreds and not s diverse as isolated Africa? :rotfl2

[Kamal900]

Europeans are very diverse, many people assume Europe is a homogenus place. There are three main ancestral populations of modern Europeans, European(Upper Palaeolithic/mesolithic European) aka WHG, Upper Paleolithic Siberian(closely related to WHG) aka ANE, and middle eastern(mainly from near easterns who spread farming to Europe) aka EEF or ME. Of course percentages from these populations vary acroos Europe and there are some extra sources for some regions of Europe. The genetic makeup of most regions in Europe formed during the bronze age at the earliest.

Indeed, southern Italians and some Greeks have high percentage of West Asian admixture which results them having phenotypes that is commonly found in west Asia.

[Kamal900]

LOl yes he will show up and video cameras from the news would and his organization would say do not let him walk on the side walk or do this he is racist!!! how dare he question us LOL.

Speaking of political correctness, here is Mark Weber about the american decline in it's economy, cultural and racial character(it's european character). God bless the independent historians, like Mark Weber, who risked their lives to reveal the truth.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K0P5mFAS4JA

[EyeOfTheTiger]

what about middle easteners?

[LightHouse89]

Speaking of political correctness, here is Mark Weber about the american decline in it's economy, cultural and racial character(it's european character). God bless the independent historians, like Mark Weber, who risked their lives to reveal the truth.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K0P5mFAS4JA

true the good America is long gone. Its a morally depraved Sodom and Gomorrah today.

[Prisoner Of Ice]

what about middle easteners?

Like africa and india, they are mostly only diverse in the mixed sense. There's not a lot of middle east specific genes or phenotypic types.

[Kamal900]

true the good America is long gone. Its a morally depraved Sodom and Gomorrah today.

or the whore of babylon, like what Berlin was during the 1920's. *sigh* Americans need someone like the great roman emperor, Augustus, to take down immorality and bring the traditional family and european values back.

[SobieskisavedEurope]

"East Eurasian" is ancient in Europe anyway, mesolithic hunter-gatherers with sequenced genomes cluster to the east of all northeast europeans on global plots and turn out like below in admixture tests. Later neolithic population movements have for the most part replaced that.
Mesolithic hunter-gatherer from northern Iberia:
La_Brana-1
Atlantic 37.41
Baltic 44.13
West Med 0.06
West Asian 0
East Med 0
Red Sea 0
South Asian 0
East Asian 10.27
Siberian 2.47
Amerindian 0.41
Oceanian 5.25
Northeast African 0
Sub-Saharan 0

Do you have a link for this!?

La_Brana-1 was more Baltic than Atlantic!?

Interesting so it seems La_Bana-1 was more of a East-European than a West-European.

Is the Atlantic facade even very European!?

[Argang]

Do you have a link for this!?

La_Brana-1 was more Baltic than Atlantic!?

Interesting so it seems La_Bana-1 was more of a East-European than a West-European.

Is the Atlantic facade even very European!?

In EUtest v2 the eastern and western european components in La_Brana-1 are a bit more evenly distributed, so there is a western connection too. What it does not score is med and west asian (and african), those seem to be more recent in Europe.

K15 La_Brana-1,
Baltic 24.51
North_Sea 23.97
Atlantic 21.26
Eastern_Euro 14.51
Southeast_Asian 8.8
Oceanian 4.84
Siberian 1.44
Amerindian 0.68

Updated K13 and K15 averages with La Braña and Mal'ta:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0Ato3EYTdM8lQdEUtZjRwTkQxRzBCeHdTaTdWUUY4Z 0E#gid=0
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0Ato3EYTdM8lQdHRPeVdMUDNjOVZETVoxZHpqVG5qN Hc&usp=sharing

[Fire Haired]

Do you have a link for this!?

La_Brana-1 was more Baltic than Atlantic!?

Interesting so it seems La_Bana-1 was more of a East-European than a West-European.

Is the Atlantic facade even very European!?

La Brana-1 was neither east or west European, he was Mesolithic European. He was nearly 100% descended from one of three major ancestral populations to modern Europeans. He probably groups more in Baltic because north Atlantic has more farmer admixture. Basque score higher IBD with La brana-1 than Danish even though Danish have much more Mesolithic ancestry, the probable reason is Basque have a high amount of Mesolithic west European ancestry. La Brana-1's mtDNA was west European specific. If anything his people's modern descendants are mainly in western Europe.

[SobieskisavedEurope]

In EUtest v2 the eastern and western european components in La_Brana-1 are a bit more evenly distributed, so there is a western connection too. What it does not score is med and west asian (and african), those seem to be more recent in Europe.

K15 La_Brana-1,
Baltic 24.51
North_Sea 23.97
Atlantic 21.26
Eastern_Euro 14.51
Southeast_Asian 8.8
Oceanian 4.84
Siberian 1.44
Amerindian 0.68

Updated K13 and K15 averages with La Braña and Mal'ta:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0Ato3EYTdM8lQdEUtZjRwTkQxRzBCeHdTaTdWUUY4Z 0E#gid=0
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0Ato3EYTdM8lQdHRPeVdMUDNjOVZETVoxZHpqVG5qN Hc&usp=sharing

Still La_Brana-1 is clearly more like living East-Europeans than like living West-Europeans.

Are there any genetic cluster charts or maps on La_Brana-1!?

It looks like La_Brana-1 would come out close to Poland actually.

[Fire Haired]

In EUtest v2 the eastern and western european components in La_Brana-1 are a bit more evenly distributed, so there is a western connection too. What it does not score is med and west asian (and african), those seem to be more recent in Europe.

K15 La_Brana-1,
Baltic 24.51
North_Sea 23.97
Atlantic 21.26
Eastern_Euro 14.51
Southeast_Asian 8.8
Oceanian 4.84
Siberian 1.44
Amerindian 0.68

Updated K13 and K15 averages with La Braña and Mal'ta:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0Ato3EYTdM8lQdEUtZjRwTkQxRzBCeHdTaTdWUUY4Z 0E#gid=0
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0Ato3EYTdM8lQdHRPeVdMUDNjOVZETVoxZHpqVG5qN Hc&usp=sharing

There are no more nearly pure Europeans like la brana-1 anymore, and this admixture i based on modern people so don't take La Brana-1's results to seriously. His membership in west European specific components is probably because of farmer ancestry and because those west European components have La brana-1(Mesolithic west European) admixture that east European specific components do not.

[Fire Haired]

Still La_Brana-1 is clearly more like living East-Europeans than like living West-Europeans.

Are there any genetic cluster charts or maps on La_Brana-1!?

It looks like La_Brana-1 would come out close to Poland actually.

There are many just go to Eurogenes. La brana-1 is closest to north-east Europeans because they have the highest amount of European specific ancestry, not because west Europeans were originally east European like.

[Argang]

La Brana-1 was neither east or west European, he was Mesolithic European. He was nearly 100% descended from one of three major ancestral populations to modern Europeans. He probably groups more in Baltic because north Atlantic has more farmer admixture. Basque score higher IBD with La brana-1 than Danish even though Danish have much more Mesolithic ancestry, the probable reason is Basque have a high amount of Mesolithic west European ancestry. La Brana-1's mtDNA was west European specific. If anything his people's modern descendants are mainly in western Europe.

You might want to take a look at Anders Pålsen's analysis (http://fennoscandia.blogspot.no/2014/03/la-brana-1-closest-to-basque-sardinians.html) of La Braña for more info on that.



Chromopainter/Finestructure analyses are based on genomewide similarity, but in case you aren't familiar with the heatmaps here's the meat of analysis.



The unlinked model appear to show a result consistent with the previous analysis with the La Braña 1 in the same heatmap box as Finns and Saamis especially what appear to be East-Finns and North-Saami. However also notice that the La Braña 1 in the heatmap show affiliation to Basque, Lithuanians and a mixed group of Scandinavians and Finns.

The unlinked and linked model may give different time depths in the analysis with the unlinked model showing the most ancient time depth and the linked analysis more recent ancestry. This analysis may confirm this statement. The difference between the linked and unlinked model may be the "masking" effect of recombination that may hide ancient relationships seen in the unlinked model. This is to my knowledge the first haplotype based analysis of the La Braña 1 as the La Brãna 1 was phased.

The linked analysis shows a very different clustering of the La Braña 1. He is in the same heatmapbox as with Western Europeans and in particular with Basque and Sardinians. The La Braña 1 also show strong "heat" to the Lithuanians but the strong affiliation to Finns and Saami we so earlier is in the linked model much weaker but still quite easy to see.

As we can see the different models appear to give different results and its due to that in geneology the La Braña 1 closest to Basque, Sardinians and Western Europeans but in ancient ancestry closest to Finns and Saamis. The clustering in geneology with Basque, Sardinians and Western Europeans in the linked model make sense as the La Braña 1 individual was found in today northern Spain. This means that the La Braña 1 like haplotypes is still much present among Western Europeans of today suggesting continuity in the autosomes.

[Argang]

There are no more nearly pure Europeans like la brana-1 anymore, and this admixture i based on modern people so don't take La Brana-1's results to seriously. His membership in west European specific components is probably because of farmer ancestry and because those west European components have La brana-1(Mesolithic west European) admixture that east European specific components do not.

Nevertheless, while admixture results are approximations those give a pretty good picture to which populations it's closest to in terms of modern global variation. Genomewide analysis and PCA's show similar results, though he does have a western european connection.

[SobieskisavedEurope]

La Brana-1 was neither east or west European, he was Mesolithic European. He was nearly 100% descended from one of three major ancestral populations to modern Europeans. He probably groups more in Baltic because north Atlantic has more farmer admixture. Basque score higher IBD with La brana-1 than Danish even though Danish have much more Mesolithic ancestry, the probable reason is Basque have a high amount of Mesolithic west European ancestry. La Brana-1's mtDNA was west European specific. If anything his people's modern descendants are mainly in western Europe.

Do you think that Atlantic is a mix of Baltic & West Mediterranean!?

This would make a lot of sense & explains why Basques genetically cluster as far West-European.

[Argang]

Do you think that Atlantic is a mix of Baltic & West Mediterranean!?

This would make a lot of sense & explains why Basques genetically cluster as far West-European.

K15 Atlantic is somewhere between North Atlantic and West Mediterranean. K13 North Atlantic is probably mesolithic West European, or the parts of it that can not be included in Baltic component.

[Black Wolf]

La Brana-1 was neither east or west European, he was Mesolithic European. He was nearly 100% descended from one of three major ancestral populations to modern Europeans. He probably groups more in Baltic because north Atlantic has more farmer admixture. Basque score higher IBD with La brana-1 than Danish even though Danish have much more Mesolithic ancestry, the probable reason is Basque have a high amount of Mesolithic west European ancestry. La Brana-1's mtDNA was west European specific. If anything his people's modern descendants are mainly in western Europe.

Yup it looks like all the mtDNA haplogroup U5b2c subclades probably have their origins in Mesolithic western Europe.

[SobieskisavedEurope]

K15 Atlantic is somewhere North Atlantic and West Mediterranean. K13 North Atlantic is probably mesolithic West European, or the parts of it that can not be included in Baltic component.

But if La_Brana-1 was more Baltic than Atlantic doesn't it suggest that Baltic is actally mesolithic West European!?

[Argang]

But if La_Brana-1 was more Baltic than Atlantic doesn't it suggest that Baltuic is actally mesolithic West European!?

Baltic component clearly contains alleles that existed in mesolithic West Europeans, and West Europeans do have a significant amount of it even today, it's over 20% in all Northwest Europeans.

[Black Wolf]

I asked Polako about the origins of the North European type components in this calculator and here is what he said about them.

''Yes, it seems to me that these components are largely of pre-Neolithic European origin, particularly the Baltic and East Euro. I'd say that Atlantic is the most mixed, and might represent early Neolithic farmer admixture in La Brana-1.

It looks like the East Euro was already present in most of Europe before the Indo-European expansion, but I think that a large part of it is indeed from this expansion during the Copper Age. The little that the Basques have can probably be attributed to native Iberian ancestry.

Overall, the results seem to match the outcomes from the Lazaridis paper, when viewed in the right context.''

[SobieskisavedEurope]

I asked Polako about the origins of the North European type components in this calculator and here is what he said about them.

''Yes, it seems to me that these components are largely of pre-Neolithic European origin, particularly the Baltic and East Euro. I'd say that Atlantic is the most mixed, and might represent early Neolithic farmer admixture in La Brana-1.

It looks like the East Euro was already present in most of Europe before the Indo-European expansion, but I think that a large part of it is indeed from this expansion during the Copper Age. The little that the Basques have can probably be attributed to native Iberian ancestry.

Overall, the results seem to match the outcomes from the Lazaridis paper, when viewed in the right context.''

Polako's East European & Baltic are close but his East European seems to be more Finno-Ugric than Baltic is.

Polako's Baltic however could be Indo-European as it peaks in Lithuanians who have the most pure Indo-European language!

[Argang]

Polako's East European & Baltic are close but his East European seems to be more Finno-Ugric than Baltic is.

Polako's Baltic however could be Indo-European as it peaks in Lithuanians who have the most pure Indo-European language!

Genetics don't necessarily correlate with languages. However, Lithuanians do have more East Euro in K15 than Ukrainians, Finns and Poles. Davidski thinks Proto-IE's were heavily East Euro in any case.

[Black Wolf]

Polako's East European & Baltic are close but his East European seems to be more Finno-Ugric than Baltic is.

Polako's Baltic however could be Indo-European as it peaks in Lithuanians who have the most pure Indo-European language!

The East_European and Baltic components probably have the most Mesolithic derived alleles of all the components in this calculator. Polako seems to think this is the case anyways.

[Argang]

The East_European and Baltic components probably have the most Mesolithic derived alleles of all the components in this calculator. Polako seems to think this is the case anyways.

Even East Asian, Amerindian, and Siberian components contain ancient alleles shared between populations from Europe to America, but not with Middle Easterners and Africans. That's why ancient genomes score them. La Braña has more IBS sharing with Mongola and Yakut than with Mozabite Berbers. This isn't the case for most Northeast Europeans (like Balts, Finns and North Russians), but is for Saami (http://www.nature.com/ejhg/journal/v19/n3/extref/ejhg2010179x2.xls) who are very close to La Braña too.

[Fire Haired]

Do you think that Atlantic is a mix of Baltic & West Mediterranean!?

This would make a lot of sense & explains why Basques genetically cluster as far West-European.

Yes.

[Fire Haired]

Even East Asian, Amerindian, and Siberian components contain ancient alleles shared between populations from Europe to America, but not with Middle Easterners and Africans. That's why ancient genomes score them. La Braña has more IBS sharing with Mongola and Yakut than with Mozabite Berbers. This isn't the case for most Northeast Europeans (like Balts, Finns and North Russians), but is for Saami (http://www.nature.com/ejhg/journal/v19/n3/extref/ejhg2010179x2.xls) who are very close to La Braña too.

Maybe ANe ancestry in Siberia and no ANE or WHG ancestry in north-west Africa is the reason.

[Fire Haired]

Nevertheless, while admixture results are approximations those give a pretty good picture to which populations it's closest to in terms of modern global variation. Genomewide analysis and PCA's show similar results, though he does have a western european connection.

MA-1's admixture results did not tell much, mainly just some populations who partly descend from his people.

[SobieskisavedEurope]

Even East Asian, Amerindian, and Siberian components contain ancient alleles shared between populations from Europe to America, but not with Middle Easterners and Africans. That's why ancient genomes score them. La Braña has more IBS sharing with Mongola and Yakut than with Mozabite Berbers. This isn't the case for most Northeast Europeans (like Balts, Finns and North Russians), but is for Saami (http://www.nature.com/ejhg/journal/v19/n3/extref/ejhg2010179x2.xls) who are very close to La Braña too.

So essentially Europeans have become more & more like Africans & Arabs & less like Asians.

[Fire Haired]

But if La_Brana-1 was more Baltic than Atlantic doesn't it suggest that Baltic is actally mesolithic West European!?

This is how i see it: Those components are modern and formed because of admixture events that happened after La Brana-1's time. La Brana-1 was a Mesolithic west European(with some farmer ancestry), he is most related to Baltic people because they have the highest amount of Mesolithic European ancestry and components centered in the Baltic region have more Mesolithic admixture than ones centered in west Europe so La Brana-1 will seem to be very Baltic or east European. A decent amount of Mesolithic ancestry in west Europeans(especially south-west) is more related to la brana-1 than Mesolithic ancestry in other Europeans. This could be why la Brana-1 has scores high in components centered in west Europe.

[Fire Haired]

So essentially Europeans have become more & more like Africans & Arabs & less like Asians.

I don't get what he is saying here. Maybe it has something to do with ANE. Farmers from the near east made Europeans much more middle eastern and much less European, and then Europe's brother ANE comes in play and alot of complicated things that created genetic makeups in regions of Europe today.

[SobieskisavedEurope]

This is how i see it: Those components are modern and formed because of admixture events that happened after La Brana-1's time. La Brana-1 was a Mesolithic west European(with some farmer ancestry), he is most related to Baltic people because they have the highest amount of Mesolithic European ancestry and components centered in the Baltic region have more Mesolithic admixture than ones centered in west Europe so La Brana-1 will seem to be very Baltic or east European. A decent amount of Mesolithic ancestry in west Europeans(especially south-west) is more related to la brana-1 than Mesolithic ancestry in other Europeans. This could be why la Brana-1 has scores high in components centered in west Europe.

Yes there are genetic pieces more close to La_Brana-1 in Western Europe than Eastern European due to left overs before Neolithic farmer expansion.

Regardless though essentially from Iberia to Siberia at one time was basically of Eastern European stock!?

Do you think this was the Indo-European expansion!?

Was La_Brana-1 Indo-European do you think!?

[Fire Haired]

Yes there are genetic pieces more close to La_Brana-1 in Western Europe than Eastern European due to left overs before Neolithic farmer expansion.

Regardless though essentially from Iberia to Siberia at one time was basically of Eastern European stock!?

Do you think this was the Indo-European expansion!?

Was La_Brana-1 Indo-European do you think!?

No. In my opinion its just that east Europeans(not counting Balkans) are the most Mesolithic like, not the other way around. La Brana-1 was definitely not an Indo European, i do think though that Indo Europeans raised Mesolithic ancestry in north-west and eastern Europe.

[Argang]

So essentially Europeans have become more & more like Africans & Arabs & less like Asians.

Essentially yes, since both WHG (La Braña) and ANE (Mal'ta) are more like Asians and less like Middle Easterners than modern europeans. This similarity was mostly caused by common ancestry in Northern Eurasians in both eastern and western ends of the continent.

[Fire Haired]

I forgot to mention Norse are about as Mesolithic as Poles, but besides that no one is as Mesolithic as east Europeans.

[Fire Haired]

Essentially yes, since both WHG (La Braña) and ANE (Mal'ta) are more like Asians and less like Middle Easterners than modern europeans. This similarity was mostly caused by common ancestry in Northern Eurasians in both eastern and western ends of the continent.

It could also be higher amounts of basal Eurasian ancestry(rember Laz 2013) in middle easterns than Mesolithic Europeans. All non west Eurasians are more related to north Eurasian hunter gatherers(Loschbour, Motala12 and MA-1) than to Stuttgart.

[Argang]

It could also be higher amounts of basal Eurasian ancestry(rember Laz 2013) in middle easterns than Mesolithic Europeans. All non west Eurasians are more related to north Eurasian hunter gatherers(Loschbour, Motala12 and MA-1) than to Stuttgart.

Basal Eurasian is (as that study also estimated) most likely nothing more than North or East african residue in Middle Eastern-like ancestry. Seen in greater IBS sharing of Middle Easterners (even people like Armenians who have no readily visible African admixture) with SSA. Sardinians who are very neolithic also have more IBS sharing with Mozabites (over 20% SSA) than Druze do.

The end result of mixing with farmers was a population with less distance to Middle East and more to East Asians who did not get Middle Eastern admix.

In any case, IBS sharing measures genomewide similarity and high similarity between La Braña and Siberians really does mean they have shared genes.

[Insuperable]

Basal Eurasian is (as that study also estimated) most likely nothing more than North or East african residue in Middle Eastern-like ancestry. Seen in greater IBS sharing of Middle Easterners (even people like Armenians who have no readily visible African admixture) with SSA. Sardinians who are very neolithic also have more IBS sharing with Mozabites (over 20% SSA) than Druze do.

The end result of mixing with farmers was a population with less distance to Middle East and more to East Asians who did not get Middle Eastern admix.

In any case, IBS sharing measures genomewide similarity and high similarity between La Braña and Siberians really does mean they have shared genes.

Isn't that the case because its Mozabites who share a lot of European early neolithic ancestry and not the other way around? Mozabites seem to be African/Euromed mix since they have high Med comp.

[SobieskisavedEurope]

I forgot to mention Norse are about as Mesolithic as Poles, but besides that no one is as Mesolithic as east Europeans.

The Norse are more Atlantic than Baltic unlike La_Brana-1.

La_Brana-1 has a proportion of Atlantic & Baltic much like Poles!

[SobieskisavedEurope]

This is how i see it: Those components are modern and formed because of admixture events that happened after La Brana-1's time. La Brana-1 was a Mesolithic west European(with some farmer ancestry), he is most related to Baltic people because they have the highest amount of Mesolithic European ancestry and components centered in the Baltic region have more Mesolithic admixture than ones centered in west Europe so La Brana-1 will seem to be very Baltic or east European. A decent amount of Mesolithic ancestry in west Europeans(especially south-west) is more related to la brana-1 than Mesolithic ancestry in other Europeans. This could be why la Brana-1 has scores high in components centered in west Europe.

So Eastern Europeans are closest to Mesolithic Europoeans.

WHo s the closest to Paleolithic Europeans!? The Saami!?

Or is it also East Europeans who are closest to Paleotlithic Europeans!?

[Argang]

Isn't that the case because its Mozabites who share a lot of European early neolithic ancestry and not the other way around?

Mozabites are quite heavy in East Med, Red Sea and SSA components while West Med is Sardinian modal component.

Sardinians also do have some extra, don't know if we should speak of admixture but at least shared ancestry with Africans, results (https://sites.google.com/site/fennobga/CCRawWorld240413.png)in increased genomewide similarity to not only Mozabites but to the Yoruba-Mandenka-Mbuti-San group.

[Argang]

So Eastern Europeans are closest to Mesolithic Europoeans.

WHo s the closest to Neolithic Europeans!? The Saami!?

Or is it also East Europeans who are closest to Neolithic Europeans!?

Saami are also close to Mesolithic Europeans and about as far from Neolithic Europeans as you can get. Sardinians are closest to Neolithic farmer types.

[Insuperable]

Mozabites are quite heavy in East Med, Red Sea and SSA components while West Med is Sardinian modal component.

Sardinians also do have some extra, don't know if we should speak of admixture but at least shared ancestry with Africans, results (https://sites.google.com/site/fennobga/CCRawWorld240413.png)in increased genomewide similarity to not only Mozabites but to the Yoruba-Mandenka-Mbuti-San group.

They are also heavy on West Med, both Morrocans and Mozabites. I have seen in some spreadsheet over 1/3 of West Med for some North African group, probably Mozabites, but I can't remember which one spreadsheet.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0Ato3EYTdM8lQdEUtZjRwTkQxRzBCeHdTaTdWUUY4Z 0E#gid=0

High AtlanticMed
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0Aqn7iMc2P-yQdEItR3hlYzVVSE5yQjBkUzBzT1E5Ymc#gid=0

and so on

[SobieskisavedEurope]

Saami are also close to Mesolithic Europeans and about as far from Neolithic Europeans as you can get. Sardinians are closest to Neolithic farmer types.

My mistake I meant Paleolithic.

Are Basques also Neolithic farmers?!

[Fire Haired]

So Eastern Europeans are closest to Mesolithic Europoeans.

WHo s the closest to Neolithic Europeans!? The Saami!?

Or is it also East Europeans who are closest to Neolithic Europeans!?

No, Sami are actually probably the most Mesolithic. Sardinians have nearly identical results in admixtures to Neolithic European farmer samples and in PCA's always cluster right next to them. So Neolithic type Europeans are not extinct. Early European farmer aka EEF ancestry or other forms of middle eastern ancestry are highest in southern Europe, while Mesolithic European aka WHG ancestry and also Ancient north Eurasian aka ANE(very related to WHG) are highest in northern Europe. I can't explain all the details now.

[SobieskisavedEurope]

No, Sami are actually probably the most Mesolithic. Sardinians have nearly identical results in admixtures to Neolithic European farmer samples and in PCA's always cluster right next to them. So Neolithic type Europeans are not extinct. Early European farmer aka EEF ancestry or other forms of middle eastern ancestry are highest in southern Europe, while Mesolithic European aka WHG ancestry and also Ancient north Eurasian aka ANE(very related to WHG) are highest in northern Europe. I can't explain all the details now.

My mistake I meant Paleolithic rather than Neolithic.

[SobieskisavedEurope]

No, Sami are actually probably the most Mesolithic. Sardinians have nearly identical results in admixtures to Neolithic European farmer samples and in PCA's always cluster right next to them. So Neolithic type Europeans are not extinct. Early European farmer aka EEF ancestry or other forms of middle eastern ancestry are highest in southern Europe, while Mesolithic European aka WHG ancestry and also Ancient north Eurasian aka ANE(very related to WHG) are highest in northern Europe. I can't explain all the details now.

So what is the final verdict on the Basques are they Neolithic or Mesolithic!?

[Insuperable]

So what is the final verdict on the Basques are they Neolithic or Mesolithic!?

Half early Neolithic, half Mesolithic imo

[armenianbodyhair]

Yet phenotypically Europeans are the most homogenous.

I think East Asians...

[SobieskisavedEurope]

Half early Neolithic, half Mesolithic imo

Basques are quite like Sardinians by DNA though.

Sardinians are very close to Neolithic farmers by DNA.

[Fire Haired]

So what is the final verdict on the Basques are they Neolithic or Mesolithic!?

Basque are by far mainly Neolithic. After Sardinians are probably the most Neolithic Europeans, they also have a decent chunk it seems of west European Mesolithic ancestry. Basque are very unque you can see that in admixtures and i think have had a small amount of foreign influence(Indo Europeans) since the Neolithic.

[Insuperable]

Basques are quite like Sardinians by DNA though.

Sardinians are very close to Neolithic farmers by DNA.


Yes, Sardinians are very much similar to early neolithic migrants to Europe and Basques seem to be a mix of this early neolithic migrants and Mesolithic Europeans IMO. Since that is my point of view don't take me for granted.

[SobieskisavedEurope]

Basque are by far mainly Neolithic. After Sardinians are probably the most Neolithic Europeans, they also have a decent chunk it seems of west European Mesolithic ancestry. Basque are very unque you can see that in admixtures and i think have had a small amount of foreign influence(Indo Europeans) since the Neolithic.

Do you think that the bulk of Western Europe is actually a mix of Basques with R1b haplogroup (Mediterranean / Atlantic DNA) & Polish Indo-Europeans with R1a haplogroup (North European / Baltic DNA)

Why else would Western Europe DNA cluster between Basques & Eastern Europeans!?

[Fire Haired]

Do you think that the bulk of Western Europe is actually a mix of Basques with R1b haplogroup (Mediterranean / Atlantic DNA) & Polish Indo-Europeans with R1a haplogroup (North European / Baltic DNA)

Why else would Western Europe DNA cluster between Basques & Eastern Europeans!?

I think R1b L11 was brought to west Europe originally from west Asia, and it rapidley spread between 5,000-3,000BP with Indo european languages and high amounts of WHG and ANE. There has already been plenty of Y DNA samples taken from neolithic west Europeans probably none of them had any form of R1b. They were mainly under G2a, next probably native Mesolithic I2a1(and other forms of I2), next E1b1b(mainly V13), next J1 and J2, next farmer T, hunter gatherer C1a2-V20 and F-96.

[SobieskisavedEurope]

I think R1b L11 was brought to west Europe originally from west Asia, and it rapidley spread between 5,000-3,000BP with Indo european languages and high amounts of WHG and ANE. There has already been plenty of Y DNA samples taken from neolithic west Europeans probably none of them had any form of R1b. They were mainly under G2a, next probably native Mesolithic I2a1(and other forms of I2), next E1b1b(mainly V13), next J1 and J2, next farmer T, hunter gatherer C1a2-V20 and F-96.

R1b is highest in Europe in Basques & R1a is lowest in Basques wouldn't that suggest that R1b isn't really Indo-European!?

[Fire Haired]

R1b is highest in Europe in Basques & R1a is lowest in Basques wouldn't that suggest that R1b isn't really Indo-European!?

No it would not. R1b L11 rapidly became dominate in western Europe at the exact same time Indo Europeans supposble spread. mtDNA samples from Bell beaker culture show the same signs of Indo European mtDNA as Corded ware and Unetice, so the R1b in those Bell beaker people i think was Indo European.

[Prisoner Of Ice]

No it would not. R1b L11 rapidly became dominate in western Europe at the exact same time Indo Europeans supposble spread. mtDNA samples from Bell beaker culture show the same signs of Indo European mtDNA as Corded ware and Unetice, so the R1b in those Bell beaker people i think was Indo European.

None of those things are really true. Bell Beaker had far less H than we have today, and anciently there's more H to west of bell beaker while bell beaker existed. Bell beaker also got wiped out, and is probably not the origin of anything. Archaeology also said it came from west, anyway.

The timeframe is wrong for what you are saying anyway. There's not really a timeframe this could reasonably happen. The germanic migrations don't happen til way later, so this has to be something we don't really know about, and something huge, nothing to do with what you are thinking, and way, way earlier. If it's true, but then I will just say it's not true, it's basically been falsified.

[Fire Haired]

Speaking of genetic diversity in Europe, I have found i am probably not 100% European and not all of my European is north-west European.

Eurogenes reveal Fire Haired's not 100% North-west European (http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?119816-Eurogenes-reveal-Fire-Haired-s-not-100-North-west-European)

[Prisoner Of Ice]

http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2013/04/mtdna-haplogroup-h-and-origin-of.html

H could not possibly have come from bell beaker.

[Prisoner Of Ice]

Bomp. Maybe I am wrong about h though, it seems highly linked to med component.

[Prisoner Of Ice]

http://johnhawks.net/weblog/topics/space/effective-size-starship-smith-2014.html

This talks about genetic diversity loss a little bit. Basically, small groups are different FROM EACH OTHER but don't generally have any unique traits. That is what africa has, to some extent, but also they are all mixed to europe and asia as well. That is it for their diversity.

[Prisoner Of Ice]

Bump this up for EuopeArise.

[Prisoner Of Ice]

bump

[Prisoner Of Ice]

Bumping this up for lighthouse89.

[DeyDay]

Europid (Caucasoid) humans have the most diversity on the Earth. From the Europe to West Asia. Even the White branch (European Caucasoid) is very diverse. Unique phenotypes in every region.

And it's interesting that new researches debunk that "Out of Africa" BS. Good for Afro-centrist! :1127:

Question
Are Mongoloids (or some of them) the newest type/evolution of human? New race?

[Prisoner Of Ice]

Europid (Caucasoid) humans have the most diversity on the Earth. From the Europe to West Asia. Even the White branch (European Caucasoid) is very diverse. Unique phenotypes in every region.

And it's interesting that new researches debunk that "Out of Africa" BS. Good for Afro-centrist! :1127:

Question
Are Mongoloids (or some of them) the newest type/evolution of human? New race?

Mongols are just cromags that raped a lot of east and south asians and browned up.

[LightHouse89]

Europid (Caucasoid) humans have the most diversity on the Earth. From the Europe to West Asia. Even the White branch (European Caucasoid) is very diverse. Unique phenotypes in every region.

And it's interesting that new researches debunk that "Out of Africa" BS. Good for Afro-centrist! :1127:

Question
Are Mongoloids (or some of them) the newest type/evolution of human? New race?

watch out you sound racist.

[Dombra]

Mongols are just cromags that raped a lot of east and south asians and browned up.

What do you think about the Chinese and the rice farmers? Have they been swarthyfied or are they swarthyfiers themselves who recently expanded? It could be regional?

[Prisoner Of Ice]

What do you think about the Chinese and the rice farmers? Have they been swarthyfied or are they swarthyfiers themselves who recently expanded? It could be regional?

The rice farmers have had the biggest expansion of all. Not only in neolithic, but because of the plague. All but 10% of china got wiped out, and the people who were left quickly filled in the gaps, mostly rice farmers. The original settlers of china were more korean-like.

Mongols and chinese are pretty pale unless they have swrthed up through slavery and rape.

[igo112]

...

[Cristiano viejo]

"Mongols and chinese are pretty pale"

True, I saw v.Luschan maps where Nordsinid are lighter than Yakonid, but they both already drifted away some from Cro-Magnoids in other ways (even boreal steppe crossing occurred as late as ~250 CE) -- so it is new ethnogenesis but not as foreign to us as mixing further south.
Maps mean nothing, the only important is what we can see. Very few Asians are pale skin actually.

[igo112]

...

[Yuffayur]

I think Asia is the most diverse, just look at distance between Siberians, Japs, Indians, Pakis, Iranians, Lebanese, Turks, Bedouins, ...

[Tooting Carmen]

I think Asia is the most diverse, just look at distance between Siberians, Japs, Indians, Pakis, Iranians, Lebanese, Turks, Bedouins, ...

The Middle East is usually regarded as separate from Asia, genetically at least. And once the Indian Subcontinent is taken out of the equation, then Asia's diversity is much diminished.

[Yuffayur]

The Middle East is usually regarded as separate from Asia, genetically at least. And once the Indian Subcontinent is taken out of the equation, then Asia's diversity is much diminished.

I thought he was talking about Macro-groups (Africans, Asians, Europeans).

[Prisoner Of Ice]

Maps mean nothing, the only important is what we can see. Very few Asians are pale skin actually.

Not true at all, I have spent my life around tons of them. Chinese and koreans are usually very pale, and thais. The darker ones are mixed with other crap, basically.

[♥ Lily ♥]

I was looking at this video of a Chinese Hell March and to me they all look like clones of each other.... their heights, builds, face shapes, exact same skin tone, hair colour and texture and eye colour. With a population of over 1.2 billion (more than all of Europe, the US, Canada & Australia combined,) I wonder how Chinese detectives solve a crime if the description of a person is virtually the same.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tbhxduo_jQ8

[Prisoner Of Ice]

There's differences but they are not easy to quantify in language. What's frightening is the head moment, which is incredibly well-synced. You won't see that in any other military parade.

[♥ Lily ♥]

A Chinese person said that westerners look the same to him, but I don't think people of European descent look the same. There's similarities of course, but there's much more variation of heights, builds, hair colours and textures and eye colours. The first 2 minutes of this US Memorial Day Parade proves there's more variety amongst people of European descent.... brunettes, red heads, blonds, different heights and builds, different facial shapes, some with freckles, some with tans, some pale, curly hair, straight hair, different physiques, different eye colours. I'm pleased we all don't all look like clones of each other, I'd hate it if everyone looked the exact same. It's much easier to recognise different people in the west. We're more unique.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mXRh1zKlWfs

[♥ Lily ♥]

There's differences but they are not easy to quantify in language. What's frightening is the head moment, which is incredibly well-synced. You won't see that in any other military parade.

It's well synchronised, but it's also kind of robotic and scary to watch.
It makes my vision appear blurred watching it, like I'm seeing double everywhere. :lol:

They look so much the same in this Northern Korean military parade too.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f6PxkeOIMA8

[щрбл]

I was looking at this video of a Chinese Hell March and to me they all look like clones of each other.... their heights, builds, face shapes, exact same skin tone, hair colour and texture and eye colour.

Parading soldiers are purposely selected to be of the same height actually, equalizing people is such a communist fetish....

[♥ Lily ♥]

Parading soldiers are purposely selected to be of the same height actually, equalizing people is such a communist fetish....

True, but even looking at the crowds of people watching the military parades, the peoples hair and eye colour all looks the same in the crowd of spectators too.

China is 1.2 billion people, of which 97% are Chinese and they mostly look the same as each other, and the other 3% of their population consists mostly of Japanese and Korean people.

A mixed race girl went on a Chinese TV show (news report below) and it resulted in loads of angry comments from Chinese people about her looking different. They saw one half-Chinese descent person as being a threat to their 1.2 billion population.

My small island is only a tiny fraction of Chinas population and yet we have Europes largest China Town in London, (China Towns can be found in many European, US, Canadian and Australian cities,) and yet people call westerners as 'racist'?! I think it's the other way around, since countries like China, Japan, Korea, India, African countries, and Arabic countries mostly consists of their own people only and they're hostile towards people who look different to them in their countries.

I saw complaints about advertisements in Japan mocking western peoples features and I also saw complaints from the few westerners in their country about the way Japanese police treat white people like criminals there.

We're forced to have loads of mosques in western countries and muslims move into western nations for a better quality of life, yet they disrespect our culture at the same time and want everyone to convert to Islam and change our culture to suit muslims and be like the oppressive Islamic nations. I don't know why muslims don't just move to an Islamic nation if they disrespect western culture so much. Imagine the reaction if a single church was built in a middle-eastern country.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y2XAWcs7HbM

[Alessio]

In Thailand some people thought I was Turkish.

[Alessio]

I was looking at this video of a Chinese Hell March and to me they all look like clones of each other.... their heights, builds, face shapes, exact same skin tone, hair colour and texture and eye colour. With a population of over 1.2 billion (more than all of Europe, the US, Canada & Australia combined,) I wonder how Chinese detectives solve a crime if the description of a person is virtually the same.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tbhxduo_jQ8

red Alert 2 ;)

[♥ Lily ♥]

'This fascinating subject deals with the cranial shapes in humans and geneticists say that the cranial shape is very relevant to genetics. Cephalic Index (also known as cranial index) is a parameter used by medical professionals and anthropologists and it is the ratio of the maximum head width divided by its maximum length, then multiplied by 100.'

Apparently, the lower the CI is, the higher the corresponding human intelligence generally is according to the research done by the Portuguese person who made this video. The results for European countries cranial shape indexes are shown in this video below. The Scottish and Portuguese ranked with the lowest CIs, followed closely by Irish, Belgians, Dutch, Icelandics, Scandinavians, and then English, Germans and Spanish who also ranked amongst having low CIs in Europe.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oTlk9wtZDXg

[LightHouse89]

So can you please explain me what this all has to do with racism? Do you mean to say that Europeans are more mixed than all other races and if so why it would be racist to claim so?

its racist to consider the concept of race? So to state that there are different races is infact now all of a sudden racist? :rolleyes:

Europeans are not 'more' mixed than other old world races. That is a lie. They are not mixed like the majority of old world races you lame brain moron.

He means they have more variation. However I tend to disagree with this. As I would think the various other old world races would be similar.

[Arch Hades]

OP is retarded. That plot shows Europeans with the least variation. They are a very tight group.

[Shah-Jehan]

dude, the Gujaratis who are 60 million and a very small portion of Southern Asia are spread out more than Europeans who are clustered tightly and Europeans are diverse?

[LightHouse89]

dude, the Gujaratis who are 60 million and a very small portion of Southern Asia are spread out more than Europeans who are clustered tightly and Europeans are diverse?

I guess this means we need more diversity?

[LightHouse89]

OP is retarded. That plot shows Europeans with the least variation. They are a very tight group.

Maybe or maybe not. I do not pay much of any attention to this stuff. I think the map shows that various populations are different but then again this is incorrect because everything is a social construct anyway. :rolleyes:

[Arch Hades]

The map shows Europeans more similar to each other than to outside populations. It also shows the variation is low for Europe since the cluster is so compact.

[LightHouse89]

The map shows Europeans more similar to each other than to outside populations. It also shows the variation is low for Europe since the cluster is so compact.

maybe Europe needs more diversity? after all everyone is the same! :rolleyes:

[Arch Hades]

dude, the Gujaratis who are 60 million and a very small portion of Southern Asia are spread out more than Europeans who are clustered tightly and Europeans are diverse? OP isnt the brightest bulb when it comes to racial science.. But he belongs to the Northern European redneck master race which created both ancient Greek and Vedic Aryan civilization.

[coolstorybro]

OP isnt the brightest bulb when it comes to racial science.. But he belongs to the Northern European redneck master race which created both ancient Greek and Vedic Aryan civilization.

No, clearly it was the shit shoveling darks of India and the desert dwelling camel herders of Arabia. It was negroes who built the pyramids, then they unlearned all that engineering including the wheel. Or maybe it is the current swarthy greeks and turks, the Greeks the only absolutely shit country in the EU.

Because current populations clearly are no indicator of previous genetic ancestry. If swarties are stupid and shit, drink and die in the same river, then it's because some Swedish blonde isn't mindful of their patriarchal white privilegde.

You open your eyes and you see the darker the skin, the shittier society and it's like this anywhere in the world.

[Prisoner Of Ice]

its racist to consider the concept of race? So to state that there are different races is infact now all of a sudden racist? :rolleyes:

Europeans are not 'more' mixed than other old world races. That is a lie. They are not mixed like the majority of old world races you lame brain moron.

He means they have more variation. However I tend to disagree with this. As I would think the various other old world races would be similar.

Racism is not really bigotry, it's a marxist concept. Basically it means white ppl b gud dark ppl b bad there no such thing as as race but white people be cause of all provlems.

This is where the term 'doublespeak' comes in. You can attack white people based on their identity, while adjusting the language in such a way as to preclude counterattack. This is why all commie should be shot.

[Mortimer]

i think you are not right, how did you inferred that from that pca plot, maybe im not right but i read that africans are the most diverse i mean from one individual to another like between two neighbours

[Mortimer]

http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-30318291

[Black Wolf]

Sub-Saharan Africans are the most diverse genetically.

[Prisoner Of Ice]

i think you are not right, how did you inferred that from that pca plot, maybe im not right but i read that africans are the most diverse i mean from one individual to another like between two neighbours

If you look at the plot you can see that the tribes go in a line towards europeans. Those distances between tribes are what the 'diversity' is. But since the 'diversity' is all on a line towards europeans that means it is from mixing from ancient eurasian DNA.

The europeans clump kind of together, but separate, and in all different directions. That means it's not anything to do with mixing, but real variation.

The east asians clump together extremely tightly, they are very close as if they were one of the single groups in europe. So they are not all that diverse really.

[Thunder_shock]

Well, Sub saharan Africans are the most genetically diverse. Sans, pygmies and Bantus are genetically all highly distant from one another (this is excluding horn africans whom i suppose most people would not consider consider to be genetically full sub saharan african).
I have a problem with excluding masaai though they are too pure to be ignored. Race mixing pretty much has happened within ever race/sub race, for instance the extreme plots amongst the Euros can be accounted for the mixing with Menas and Siberians
Even if we disregard Horn Africans and Masaais Sub saharan Africans would still be the most genetically diverse people of all the races. Fact.

/end thread

[Thunder_shock]

double post.

[Prisoner Of Ice]

Well, Sub saharan Africans are the most genetically diverse. Sans, pygmies and Bantus are genetically all highly distant from one another (this is excluding horn africans whom i suppose most people would not consider consider to be genetically full sub saharan african).
I have a problem with excluding masaai though they are too pure to be ignored. Race mixing pretty much has happened within ever race/sub race, for instance the extreme plots amongst the Euros can be accounted for the mixing with Menas and Siberians
Even if we disregard Horn Africans and Masaais Sub saharan Africans would still be the most genetically diverse people of all the races. Fact.

/end thread

The only diversity source is the pygmies in central africa.

The bantu came into africa (or back migrated if you believe out of africa). They have E1a clade y-dna.

The san were once though to be the oldest people but they are not. The san culture came into africa, there's both physical and genetic evidence for this.

It's just some pygmies around the congo that have the rare A and B y-dna clades. African internal diversity is mainly due to outside admixture.

[Thunder_shock]

The only diversity source is the pygmies in central africa.

The bantu came into africa (or back migrated if you believe out of africa). They have E1a clade y-dna.

The san were once though to be the oldest people but they are not. The san culture came into africa, there's both physical and genetic evidence for this.

It's just some pygmies around the congo that have the rare A and B y-dna clades. African internal diversity is mainly due to outside admixture.

No, the San didnt come into Africa, they never part of the OOA movement; as a matter of fact they were separate from the proto OOA in another part of Africa. If you dispute the established/common narrative then provide sources for this bogus claim.
In regards to the Pygmies, Its seems we are in agreement that Africa is the location of greatest genetic diversity.

[Prisoner Of Ice]

No, the San didnt come into Africa, they never part of the OOA movement; as a matter of fact they were separate from the proto OOA in another part of Africa. If you dispute the established/common narrative then provide sources for this bogus claim.
In regards to the Pygmies, Its seems we are in agreement that Africa is the location of greatest genetic diversity.

No, you just don't know what you are talking about and you're making bullshit up.

Hello!

Welcome to The Apricity Forums. This is a very fun place to learn about and exchange European culture and art, and discuss anthropology, archaeology, history, prehistoric civilizations and anything that pertains to europe, its people, its colonies, and its culture. This is a free speech forum that lets people with all different views discuss all different subjects so long as they can stop short of calling for genocide on each other, but just remember a lot of it is pure BS. Especially the Out of Africa theory. That's why I greet every new member with this short list of facts that help them decide for themselves in a fair and balanced manner that this theory is a lie originating as part of the plan to disenfranchise europeans from their land and marginalize their political power.

Yet it is fairly easy to debunk, so let's take a look at the facts, shall we?

Check it out:


Interestingly, data supports san coming TO africa as easily as FROM africa. Which makes perfect sense as they are asiatic in appearance.
http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2013/06/60-50-thousand-coastal-migration-to.html

Africa always had large eurasian influence, not other way around

"To assess the effect of gene flow on population differentiation in SSA, we masked Eurasian ancestry across the genome (Supplementary Methods and Supplementary Note 6). This markedly reduced population differentiation, as measured by a decline in mean pairwise FST from 0.021 to 0.015 (Supplementary Note 6), suggests that Eurasian ancestry has a substantial impact on differentiation among SSA populations. We speculate that residual differentiation between Ethiopian and other SSA populations after masking Eurasian ancestry (pairwise FST = 0.027) may be a remnant of East African diversity pre-dating the Bantu expansion10. "

http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2014/12/african-genome-variation-project-paper.html

There's now multiple studies saying neanderthal DNA percentage in europeans and asians is about twice as high as initial estimates (other says up to 8%). These are the genes that MUST be nonafrica, many others could have nonafrican origin as well. NO HUMAN DNA WAS EVER PROVEN TO BE AFRICAN IN ORIGIN AND WE HAVE NO ANCIENT AFRICAN DNA SAMPLES.

How can out of africa be true if there's so much non african DNA and no proof that ANY DNA actually IS African in origin?
http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2014/04/neandertal-admixture-not-african.html


" KNM-LH 1 and other Pleistocene African specimens, all of which are potentially sampling candidate populations for dispersals across and out of Africa during the Late Pleistocene (12–15, 50, 59), differ substantially not only from recent Africans but also from individuals drawn from Holocene LSA archaeological sites. KNM-LH 1 and other Pleistocene African specimens (found with MSA and LSA artifacts) are also distinct from most EUP individuals."

This is afroasiatics going into africa or "backmigrating" if you believe in out of africa nonsense. Regardless, this later on forms the negro race by mixing with some archaic holdout HGs.

http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2015/02/knm-lh1-23000-year-old-human-from-kenya.html

IDB segments in west africans show they have much greater DNA sharing with bonobo chimps than anyone outside africa. The same has been discovered for many hominid mixtures – they are localized. How is this possible in an out of africa scenario?

http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2012/12/variance-of-ibd-sharing-carmi-et-al-2012.html

The 37k year old hofmeyr skull is completely unlike negroid skulls. It it much like eurasian skulls yet more primitive compared to concurrent skulls in Eurasia. This shows that at the time an out of africa event would supposedly be happening, an into africa migration is what was really happening.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hofmeyr_Skull

The first cromag skulls only show up in africa about 30k years ago, much later than in Europe, and again they have smaller braincases than those in europe. This is now recognized as a 'back migration' to africa but tell me why do we have evidence of the back migration and not the initial one? And if all these 'finnish looking' people came from africa, then why don't they exist there today? Genetics also show they do not originate in africa, if you doubt the archaeology.
http://mathildasanthropologyblog.wordpress.com/2008/08/31/cro-magnon-man-in-europe-and-africa/

Archaeology says there's continuity in asia and europe for a million years or more. Neanderthal and denisova both have perikymata on teeth, africans don't. Europeans and east asians also have it. If anything, this property INCREASES in africa over time from migration INTO africa. This should be impossible if we came out of africa.
http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?126184-Out-of-africa-theory-debunked-again

In this thread I take a look at a hilarious paper that claims that modern humans invented everything while surrounded by neanderthals on every side. In spite of the fact there is no evidence these 'modern' humans were not neanderthals, and no actual fossil remains exist in the area except neanderthal ones! Obviously there is some big bias against neanderthals, which I suppose there must be if you believe they are nothing to do with people today; however, over time we find evidence they actually invented everything in the ancient world from thread to makeup to short oceanic voyages.
http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?137420-When-exactly-did-neanderthals-disappear


There is also evidence that dozens of hominids contributed to human DNA. All african populations show evidence of migration into africa. Yet no population shows any archaeological or genetic evidence whatsoever of migration out of africa.
"We detect likely West Eurasian gene flow into the ancestors of Yoruba West Africans within the last ten thousand years, which indirectly contributed a small amount of Neandertal ancestry to Yoruba."

"These results mean that we have not identified any sub-Saharan African sample that we are confident has no evidence of back-to-Africa migration. Our best candidate at present is the Dinka but it is possible that with a phased genome or large sample sizes we would detect evidence of non-African ancestry in this population as well."
http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2013/12/a-neandertal-from-altai-mountains.html

Eventually even the guy who came up with the idea realizes 100k+ years is really the minimum age mixing started with neanderthal to others. However he's looking at people far away from the neanderthals sequenced and the actual data shows a clear slow mixing/diffusion not some absurd single time mixing or even 2-3 times of mixing it was later changed to. The results in modern people would be impossible to replicate in such a manner.
http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2014/04/svante-paabo-talk-at-nih.html


Oldest mtdna divide for humans has been found - in EUROPE.
http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2013/12/400-thousand-year-old-human-mtdna-from.html


OoA was supposed to happen 30k-50k years ago but we have genetically sequenced very modern east asians in beijing at 40k years ago.
http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2013/01/ancient-dna-from-tianyuan-cave.html
And in siberia one that's even older at 45k years old.
http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2014/03/oldest-modern-human-genome-from-siberia.html


Upper Paleolithic fossils go TO african from arabia, not the other way around. The paper's author himself talks in detail about driving around and digging and finding more modern tools towards arabia. That culture probably is influenced/spawned from aurignacian, even further off in europe or iran. That's right, cromag type originates in europe and nowhere else. This is why they stopped using this term in favor of the imaginary "anatomically modern humans" who suddenly show up - though there is absolutely no fossil record of them or any archaeological culture they might have come from!
http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2013/12/arabian-origin-of-upper-paleolithic-in.html

In same vein, nubian complex (often pointed to as african in origin to support out of africa) is obviously exotic to africa and goes into africa. It originates even further away in Eurasia.
http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2013/07/nubian-complex-site-from-central-arabia.html

Dogs were domesticated in Europe. By the dates given, by neanderthals. Note that only europids really like dogs, too.
http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2013/11/european-origin-of-domesticated-dogs.html


This alone is enough to kill out of africa. Last video shows that pygmies in africa intermixed with an archaic hominid that has no genes outside of africa 100K years ago. This means that rhodiensiensis in south africa is nothing at all to do with human evolution, and it also means that modern humans did not arrive in africa until 100k years ago or so. It also shows that neanderthal are at the root for many cladal gene structures, just not the ones for y-dna and mtdna. This is impossible for any OoA scenario.
http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2013/08/the-origin-of-us.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GvoiPUHfOXI


North Africans...came from Iberia.
http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2013/07/origin-of-iberomaurusian.html
And some genetic evidence to back it up.
http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2013/12/recent-origin-of-north-african.html

And combined with this which shows lots of intermixing with eurasia, it's confirmed they had eurasian admixture before they got to africa (this is from populations with no exposure outside their little tribes until very recently, who remain pure).
http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2013/07/west-eurasian-admixture-in-khoe-san-via.html

Forested Nkongho-Mbo pygmie region source of y-dna A00, so called oldest human y-dna. Which is also a hotspot for r1b admixture from europe. 9/13 A00 were actually found in france in seeming non-africans, but it's been labeled as african anyhow.
http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2013/07/new-a00-project.html

Modern humans have been in china have been dated to around 100k years ago, making any recent out of africa hypothesis implausible.
http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2013/07/81-100-thousand-year-old-modern-humans.html

Here is typical a OoA enthusiast. Accuses someone of racism and falsifying data, and then is caught falsifying data himself. Is not a real scientist at all, just an idiot with a political agenda.
http://johnhawks.net/weblog/topics/meta/gould-morton-lewis-2011.html
This fraud is the one who came up with this particularly laughable bit of pseudoscience which supposedly justifies out of africa:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punctuated_equilibrium

As well as having much bigger brains than people today, neanderthals could talk.
http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2013/12/neandertals-could-talk.html

Here's another one that, all on its own, debunks out of africa. As early as 12k years ago, fossils in sub saharan africa show no signs of modernity, and are much less modern than much older fossils in east africa and outside of africa. The "failed out of africa" skulls from middle east 90k years ago also show striking similarity to upper paleolithic european skulls (and metrically are a hybrid between neanderthal and modern europeans). So the further from africa you get the more like modern humans the skulls look, in all time periods! Not to mention the brain volumes are consistently lower. If they came out of africa, this is impossible.
http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2011/09/12-6ka-humans-with-archaic-features.html

30-40k BC neanderthal-modern hybrid found, genetically sequenced. Since we have actually found one, obviously it happened all the time and wasn't a one time thing. This also happened in italy, destroying the silly theories that it was some one time event in levant during a mythical out of africa mass migration.
http://www.nbcnews.com/science/first-love-child-human-neanderthal-believed-found-1C9127823?franchiseSlug=sciencemain

the study of modern populations has revealed evidence for both archaic African, and -more recently and surprisingly- even a little archaic Eurasian ancestry in virtually all Sub-Saharan Africans. Populations from one of the presumed cradles of H. sapiens (Eastern Africa) are now conclusively known to be recent mixtures of West Eurasians, and even the Bushmen of southern Africa, the subject of so many TV documentaries as an exemplum of the ur-Humans did not escape this admixture. That's right, archaic european DNA made it to africa while archaic african DNA never made it out at all.
http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2014/01/happy-new-year-2014.html

The only ape fossil ever found to have a human finger-to-thumbpad grip is in EUROPE. Feet were also very humanlike. Many supposed upright walkers from africa are very doubtful. Yet we never hear about finds like this in the news.
http://forwhattheywereweare.blogspot.com/2014/01/ancient-italian-ape-had-human-like.html

Missing link found...in Germany, 50 million years ago. This is the ONLY missing link that contains ALL the features in common between humans, gorillas and chimps.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/05/090519-missing-link-found.html


Did europeans evolve directly from neanderthals? Were neanderthals really the foundation of the first cultures we consider to belong to 'modern' humans?
http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?137420-When-exactly-did-neanderthals-disappear


links to some relavent threads:
http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?104709-Why-all-the-candidates-for-human-chimp-ancestors-aren-t-hominids-but-homidaints&p=2160679#post2160679

http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?103388-Neanderthals-had-longer-childhoods-than-some-quot-modern-quot-human-populations

http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?108389-San-are-not-oldest-people-in-world-Nor-do-they-originate-in-africa

http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?118559-Europeans-are-genetically-the-most-diverse

http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?137420-When-exactly-did-neanderthals-disappear

http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?167027-Nothing-ever-came-out-of-africa-part-40000-ancient-north-africans-were-neanderthals&p=3514187#post3514187

[Thunder_shock]

Lol it's funny how you think you can refute established scientific concensus (backed by genetic and fossil evidence) by copying and pasting poorly compiled and argued posts in blogs from amateur geneticists like Dienekes. I had to stop reading at the part where you tried to use epicanthic fold (such features dont just evolve in Asia) in Sans as evidence for Asian descent and admixture in Horners (recent admixture) as being some kind of evidence that refutes OOA. Dude, go back to the drawing board and this time actually learn stuff from people that know their shit, capiche?

[Prisoner Of Ice]

Lol it's funny how you think you can refute established scientific concensus (backed by genetic and fossil evidence) by copying and pasting poorly compiled and argued posts in blogs from amateur geneticists like Dienekes. I had to stop reading at the part where you tried to use epicanthic fold (such features dont just evolve in Asia) in Sans as evidence for Asian descent and admixture in Horners (recent admixture) as being some kind of evidence that refutes OOA. Dude, go back to the drawing board and this time actually learn stuff from people that know their shit, capiche?

Dienekes doesn't make the papers himself you stupid fuck, go read them.

It's funny that a fucking idiot like you who's never read anything thinks he knows about the subject.

There's no such thing as scientific fact, you stupid fuck. There's theories backed by evidence. Out of africa doesn't really have any evidence to back it up though. If you read the links provided you would understand that. Archaeology does NOT support out of africa. Most archaeological papers support multiregionalism. Most of the data in genetic papers does as well, but leftists spin it to show otherwise. Multicultural sweden is the country doing the most genetic testing.

A dumb ignorant cunt who can't be bothered to read, shouldn't comment either.

[Unome]

It's easy to refute scientific consensus when you're right about common sense.

A lot of "scientific consensus" is built upon a foundation of liberal polickal-correctness supporting a social status quo (lies).

It's only "science" if it toes the party line.


However the "It's science!" statement fools most people (80%). Science is the New Age Religion. If you're a "scientist" then it's the same as being a "priest" in the 1000s era. People believe you based on your title alone, no forethought required. The western "scientist" is equivalent to the 1000 era catholic priest. Same thing. Same position. Same establishment. Same indoctrination. Same brainwashing. Same authority.


EDIT:

It's the same reason why "Science" supports the Big Bang Theory which is just a secular-atheist form of Creation Theory.

Both are perversions of the same idea: Something-out-of-Nothing, Ex Nihilo philosophy.

[Thunder_shock]

Dienekes doesn't make the papers himself you stupid fuck, go read them.

It's funny that a fucking idiot like you who's never read anything thinks he knows about the subject.

There's no such thing as scientific fact, you stupid fuck. There's theories backed by evidence. Out of africa doesn't really have any evidence to back it up though. If you read the links provided you would understand that. Archaeology does NOT support out of africa. Most archaeological papers support multiregionalism. Most of the data in genetic papers does as well, but leftists spin it to show otherwise. Multicultural sweden is the country doing the most genetic testing.

A dumb ignorant cunt who can't be bothered to read, shouldn't comment either.

I did not write down scientific "fact" but concensus and your telling me to learn how to read?
It's the most widely accepted model of human origins, that you cannot deny regardless how many retarded copy and pastes from Dienekes blogs you make. Now i've no problem with arguing about multiregional hypothesis (after all OOA is not a fact) but the retarded arguments that you initially made and the wall of posts (which is something i expect from a 5 year old) you followed up is what made me quit reading your post. And your personal attacks only makes me further doubt whether things are all right up there in your head.

[Prisoner Of Ice]

Well, you're an idiot and you're wrong. Guys like you are always ignorant of what any of this basic shit even means, as this thread has proved. If you want to try to prove your case go ahead but the typical leftist ad hominem attacks and paint people far more educated than you as conspiracy theorists bullshit is just pointless. Only other indoctrinated people like yourself will give a shit anyway so just fuck off already.

[Katie Karma]

The chart on the first post just says Europeans are the most distant group from others. It does not say they are the most diverse. "Diverse" would be a comparison of internal variation among Europeans (for example) compared to internal variation of another group.

[Prisoner Of Ice]

The chart on the first post just says Europeans are the most distant group from others. It does not say they are the most diverse. "Diverse" would be a comparison of internal variation among Europeans (for example) compared to internal variation of another group.

:rolleyes:

That's exactly what the PCA shows. Each european group is clustered together near europeans but in a random direction from them. The only african variation comes from groups that are pulled towards europe. The south asians are likewise as they are from mixing. All the east asians are in an extremely tight cluser.