Divergence of races

[Peterski]

Currently the best model is roughly this:

Timeline of key events:

250-200,000 years ago - AMH (modern humans) evolve in Africa
250-200,000 years ago - estimated lifetimes of "Y Adam" and "mt Eve"
195,000 years ago - Omo I (the oldest known skull considered AMH)
160,000 years ago - Herto (the 2nd oldest known skull considered AMH)
125-100,000 years ago - 1st "Out of Africa" migration (e.g. Qafzeh 9 skull)
90,000 years ago - Ice Age desertification decimates Eurasian AMH
75,000 years ago - Toba eruption leads to extinction of Eurasian AMH
75-70,000 years ago - 2nd (successful) "Out of Africa" migration of AMH
70-60,000 years ago - Eurasian AMHs first admix with Neanderthals

Time of divergence of races:

1) Capoids - ca. 160-150,000 years old
2) Bambutids - ca. 130,000 years old
3) Negroids - ca. 90-65,000 years old
4) Negritoids - ca. 65-55,000 years old
5) Veddoids - ca. 65-55,000 years old
6) Australoids - ca. 60-40,000 years old
7) Caucasoids - ca. 45-30,000 years old
8) Mongoloids - ca. 45-30,000 years old
9) Amerinds - ca. 30-20,000 years old*

*They evolved in Beringia (see the "Beringian standstill hypothesis").

Capoids = Khoisan Bushmen (and similar groups)
Bambutids = African Pygmies (and similar groups)
Negroids (also known as Congoids) = Black Africans
Negritoids = Andamanese and other Negrito groups in Asia
Veddois = Ancestral South Indians (ASI admixture)
Australoids = Sahulians (Australia, Tasmania, New Guinea)

[Peterski]

Omo I skull from Ethiopia (it is the oldest skull considered AMH, ca. 195,000 years old):

http://objectivechristianworldview.weebly.com/uploads/4/0/4/1/4041137/3014991_orig.jpg

Qafzeh 9 skull from Israel (ca. 100,000 years old, early Eurasian AMH who got extinct):

https://assets.rbl.ms/5130904/980x.jpg

[Mingle]

Australoid, Negritoid, and Veddoid are the same thing. The Onge (Negritos) and Papuans (Australoids) are used as a proxy for ASI on some calculators.

The only difference seems to be geography:

Australoid - native Australians
Negrito - native Southeast Asians, native Melanesians, native Polynesians, native Micronesians, Andamanese
Veddoid - native Indians

But I've also seen Veddoids and Negritos referred to as Australoid. Sometimes a differentiating factor is that because of geography, Veddoids and Negritos have minor Cuacsoid and Mongoloid blood, but pure Veddoids and Negritos are the same as Australoids.

If there is an actual difference between the three, then I'd like to know what it is. But I highly doubt there is.

[Mingle]

Amerindians for the most part are Mongoloid, I don't think the differences are large enough to say they are a different race. Although there is a subset of Amerindians (and Kets/Altaians as well I think) that look non-Mongoloid. Perhaps a Mongoloid-Caucasoid mix?

http://images.huffingtonpost.com/2014-04-15-PRETTY_NOSE.jpg

http://cdn.history.com/sites/2/2014/01/low-dog-P.jpeg

[cosmoo]

Usual "Out of Africa" nonsense, claiming that negroids became anatomically Caucasoid the moment they set their foot in Europe... what a rubbish.

Amerindians for the most part are Mongoloid, I don't think the differences are large enough to say they are a different race. Although there is a subset of Amerindians (and Kets/Altaians as well I think) that look non-Mongoloid. Perhaps a Mongoloid-Caucasoid mix?

Yes, there is influence of European Upper Palaeolithic types among some Native Americans, most visibly among Indians of Great Plains.
Comanche chieftain Wild Horse:
http://www.badeagle.com/badeagle/wildhorse2.jpg

[Shah-Jehan]

Australoid, Negritoid, and Veddoid are the same thing. The Onge (Negritos) and Papuans (Australoids) are used as a proxy for ASI on some calculators.

The only difference seems to be geography:

Australoid - native Australians
Negrito - native Southeast Asians, native Melanesians, native Polynesians, native Micronesians, Andamanese
Veddoid - native Indians

But I've also seen Veddoids and Negritos referred to as Australoid. Sometimes a differentiating factor is that because of geography, Veddoids and Negritos have minor Cuacsoid and Mongoloid blood, but pure Veddoids and Negritos are the same as Australoids.

If there is an actual difference between the three, then I'd like to know what it is. But I highly doubt there is.

"Veddoids" are a phenotype named after Vedda people who are a small tribe in Sri Lanka.

http://vedda.org/pix/vedda_kids.jpg
http://vedda.org/pix/polebedda.jpg
http://chandlersfordtoday.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/The-Vedda.jpg
https://c2.staticflickr.com/6/5092/5471076134_e78c662bc5_b.jpg
https://nirvairrai.files.wordpress.com/2013/07/mg_7290.jpg
http://vedda.org/pix/dambana_veddas_2000.jpg
http://m4.i.pbase.com/o2/81/887181/1/137366854.IBJwRflt.Vedda28.jpg

[Milo]

Australoid, Negritoid, and Veddoid are the same thing. The Onge (Negritos) and Papuans (Australoids) are used as a proxy for ASI on some calculators.

The only difference seems to be geography:

Australoid - native Australians
Negrito - native Southeast Asians, native Melanesians, native Polynesians, native Micronesians, Andamanese
Veddoid - native Indians

But I've also seen Veddoids and Negritos referred to as Australoid. Sometimes a differentiating factor is that because of geography, Veddoids and Negritos have minor Cuacsoid and Mongoloid blood, but pure Veddoids and Negritos are the same as Australoids.

If there is an actual difference between the three, then I'd like to know what it is. But I highly doubt there is.please leave this forum

[Peterski]

"Veddoids" are a phenotype named after Vedda people who are a small tribe in Sri Lanka.

Australoids are related to Ancestral South Indians / Ancestral South Eurasians.

I uploaded 100% Australian Aboriginal genome to GEDmatch, check his results:

http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?196465-Ancient-Australian-DNA&p=4090763&viewfull=1#post4090763

GEDmatch kit number: Z905945


Amerindians for the most part are Mongoloid, I don't think the differences are large enough to say they are a different race.

They are a different race.

It emerged from a mixture of several groups. That mixture took place in Beringia, where also a demographic bottleneck took place - and later that population settled the Americas. Most of their ancestry is Mongoloid-like, but they have also Caucasoid-like (ANE) and Negritoid-like or Australoid-like ancestry:

http://oi68.tinypic.com/i2ovtj.jpg

http://oi68.tinypic.com/i2ovtj.jpg

I believe that there is some Pre-Columbian Polynesian admixture in South America as well:

http://i.imgur.com/okkSeZx.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/okkSeZx.jpg

Check also: https://genetics.med.harvard.edu/reich/Reich_Lab/Welcome_files/SkoglundReich2016_Americas.pdf

Map: http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5728/30140537110_825215c769_b.jpg

Han = Mongoloid-like admixture
MA1 = Caucasoid-like admixture
Onge = Negritoid-like admixture

http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5728/30140537110_825215c769_b.jpg

Most ancient DNA from North America:

http://www.nature.com/news/north-america-s-oldest-mummy-returned-to-us-tribe-after-genome-sequencing-1.21108

http://www.nature.com/polopoly_fs/7.40986.1481046744!/image/nature_news_American-Skeleton-map_08.12.2016-WEB.png_gen/derivatives/fullsize/nature_news_American-Skeleton-map_08.12.2016-WEB.png

===============

Edit:

The "Beringian standstill hypothesis" has been confirmed:

http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0169486

Earliest Human Presence in North America Dated to the Last Glacial Maximum: New Radiocarbon Dates from Bluefish Caves, Canada

Lauriane Bourgeon, Ariane Burke, Thomas Higham

PLOS

Published: January 6, 2017

Abstract: The timing of the first entry of humans into North America is still hotly debated within the scientific community. Excavations conducted at Bluefish Caves (Yukon Territory) from 1977 to 1987 yielded a series of radiocarbon dates that led archaeologists to propose that the initial dispersal of human groups into Eastern Beringia (Alaska and the Yukon Territory) occurred during the Last Glacial Maximum (LGM). This hypothesis proved highly controversial in the absence of other sites of similar age and concerns about the stratigraphy and anthropogenic signature of the bone assemblages that yielded the dates. The weight of the available archaeological evidence suggests that the first peopling of North America occurred ca. 14,000 cal BP (calibrated years Before Present), i.e., well after the LGM. Here, we report new AMS radiocarbon dates obtained on cut-marked bone samples identified during a comprehensive taphonomic analysis of the Bluefish Caves fauna. Our results demonstrate that humans occupied the site as early as 24,000 cal BP (19,650 ± 130 14C BP). In addition to proving that Bluefish Caves is the oldest known archaeological site in North America, the results offer archaeological support for the “Beringian standstill hypothesis”, which proposes that a genetically isolated human population persisted in Beringia during the LGM and dispersed from there to North and South America during the post-LGM period.

From Sarkoboros: http://sarkoboros.net/2017/01/lgm-occupation-of-eastern-beringia-at-bluefish-caves/

[Shah-Jehan]

Australoids are related to Ancestral South Indians / Ancestral South Eurasians.

I uploaded 100% Australian Aboriginal genome to GEDmatch, check his results:

http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?196465-Ancient-Australian-DNA&p=4090763&viewfull=1#post4090763

GEDmatch kit number: Z905945

Yes, but the distances are massive, and culturally not related as well.

Also, the population for "ASI" in DNA tests used are most commonly, Paniyars from South India, or sometimes Andamanese Islanders.

[Milo]

Australoids are related to Ancestral South Indians / Ancestral South Eurasians.

I uploaded 100% Australian Aboriginal genome to GEDmatch, check his results:

http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?196465-Ancient-Australian-DNA&p=4090763&viewfull=1#post4090763

GEDmatch kit number: Z905945
Single Population
# Population (source) Distance
1 Onge 8.46
2 Australian 11.34
3 Andamanese 11.34
4 Papuan 11.34
5 Paniyas 50
6 Palliyar 55.51
7 Kharia 59.47
8 Bengali 71.01
9 Punjabi_PJL 73.41
10 GujaratiD 75.01
11 GujaratiC 76.65
12 GoyetQ116 81.42
13 GujaratiB 82.13
14 GujaratiA 83.5
15 Punjabi 85.48
16 Burusho 86.43
17 Sindhi 86.64
18 Kusunda 89.35
19 Pathan 89.43
20 Kalash 90.08

Look at the distances, are you for real?
It is possible that ASI is a very very distant cousin of Australian Aborigines, but you cannot call them "related" anymore

[Bell Beaker]

The first homo sapiens was a proto Wadaadoid?

[Mingle]

"Veddoids" are a phenotype named after Vedda people who are a small tribe in Sri Lanka.

http://vedda.org/pix/vedda_kids.jpg
http://vedda.org/pix/polebedda.jpg
http://chandlersfordtoday.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/The-Vedda.jpg
https://c2.staticflickr.com/6/5092/5471076134_e78c662bc5_b.jpg
https://nirvairrai.files.wordpress.com/2013/07/mg_7290.jpg
http://vedda.org/pix/dambana_veddas_2000.jpg
http://m4.i.pbase.com/o2/81/887181/1/137366854.IBJwRflt.Vedda28.jpg

That is basically just Australoid with some Caucasoid admix then? I wouldn't say they're a separate race.

[Milo]

That is basically just Australoid with some Caucasoid admix then? I wouldn't say they're a separate race.There is no population in mainland south asia that is predominantly ASI(or Australoid, if you want to call it that). The people with the highest ASI are the Paniyars, but they too only score around 43% ASI, the rest is western eurasian.
These Veddas look less "Australoid" than them.

[Bell Beaker]

How the fuck Australoids arrived India?

Did they arrived via Indonesia>Malasya>Myannmar/Birmania>India?

[Shah-Jehan]

That is basically just Australoid with some Caucasoid admix then? I wouldn't say they're a separate race.

Well, some Veddas look distinct, but most of them don't look much different from Sinhalese people.

[Mingle]

There is no population in mainland south asia that is predominantly ASI(or Australoid, if you want to call it that). The people with the highest ASI are the Paniyars, but they too only score around 43% ASI, the rest is western eurasian.
These Veddas look less "Australoid" than them.

So do you consider Veddoids a race? They seem to be just a mix of Australoid and Caucasoid. I guess the term 'pure Veddoid' that I used in my original post was stupid since Veddoid is a mixed race, but I was referring to ASI.

[Milo]

Well, some Veddas look distinct, but most of them don't look much different from Sinhalese people.I did some research on them, and found out that there are different types of Veddas, some who speak Sinhala and some who speak Tamil. They have retained words from an older Vedda language, whose origins are not clear. Overall they do not deviate much(or at all) from a mainland Indian point of view in terms of phenotypes, although they seem to have some "distinct" looks(which may still be found among mainland Indian tribals I guess)


So do you consider Veddoids a race? They seem to be just a mix of Australoid and Caucasoid. I guess the term 'pure Veddoid' that I used in my original post was stupid since Veddoid is a mixed race, but I was referring to ASI.

Veddoid is as much a race as Gracile Mediterranean or Dinarid or Iranid or whatever. It is some random phenotypical distinction created by some random western anthropologists. Veddas are obviously a blend of a standard South Asian Caucasoid type, along with that unknown entity ASI(unknown because we have no idea how they looked).

[Peterski]

Australoid, Negritoid, and Veddoid are the same thing. The Onge (Negritos) and Papuans (Australoids) are used as a proxy for ASI on some calculators.

They have some common ancestry (from ASI people), but they are not the same thing.

Sahul was probably settled by groups related to Onge and Veddas.

But Onge and Veddas have no Denisovan admixture. Sahulians do.

Bottleneck among ancestors of Australoids was dated to 50,000 years ago. Denisovan admixture event was dated to around 45,000 years ago (probably when they were enroute from Sundaland to Sahul):

See: Figure 3 | Settlement of Australia in the link below:

http://www.nature.com.sci-hub.cc/nature/journal/v538/n7624/full/nature18299.html

Today, Denisovan admixture is present in very large amounts only in what used to be Sahul:

1) Map of Sahul during the LGM:

http://s2.postimg.org/5z1zdpugp/Linia_Wallace_a.png

2) Denisovan admixture today:

http://s17.postimg.org/oh7xh2qqn/Wallace_vs_Denisovan.png

Eurasians (especially East Asians) also have some Denisovan, but much less than Sahulians.

[Peterski]

That is basically just Australoid with some Caucasoid admix then?

More like "Australoid minus Denisovan". Australoids have Denisovan. Veddoids do not have it.

Andamanese Negritos (such as Onge) also don't have Denisovan. But they have Neanderthal.

[Mortimer]

Australoid, Negritoid, and Veddoid are the same thing. The Onge (Negritos) and Papuans (Australoids) are used as a proxy for ASI on some calculators.

The only difference seems to be geography:

Australoid - native Australians
Negrito - native Southeast Asians, native Melanesians, native Polynesians, native Micronesians, Andamanese
Veddoid - native Indians

But I've also seen Veddoids and Negritos referred to as Australoid. Sometimes a differentiating factor is that because of geography, Veddoids and Negritos have minor Cuacsoid and Mongoloid blood, but pure Veddoids and Negritos are the same as Australoids.

If there is an actual difference between the three, then I'd like to know what it is. But I highly doubt there is.

They are sometimes all grouped under the australoid umbrella, but to me they are obviously different a negrito looks very different then a australian aboriginal, maybe they had somwhere back the same ancestor but all humans had the same ancestor somewhere back then, i wouldnt call them the same no way.

[Mortimer]

More like "Australoid minus Denisovan". Australoids have Denisovan. Veddoids do not have it.

Andamanese Negritos (such as Onge) also don't have Denisovan. But they have Neanderthal.

Denisovan is only 5% I doubt its the major factor. Different Australoids look very different to me. They are traditionally grouped as australoid but I think they are different. To me mongoloid admixture or denisovan admixture cant explain the vast difference in look between negrito and aboriginal and papuan etc. even papuans look different then aborginals plus there are alot of pacific islander populations who are 50%+ oceanian like maori or samoans and look totally different, whether to group them as australoid or not. Probably they did hat at one time the same out of africa ancestor but so did mongoloids and caucasians had at one time the same ancestor or mongoloids and australoids.

[Peterski]

Denisovan is only 5% I doubt its the major factor. Different Australoids look very different to me.

Another facto is probably adaptation to desert environment (that was the case in Australia).


Polynesians

Polynesians are mixed-race (that mixing probably took place ca. 3,000 - 2,000 years ago):

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v538/n7626/full/nature19844.html

See Figure 3 from the link above:

https://s15.postimg.org/5igo3hoc9/Zasiedlanie_Oceanii_png.png

[Mortimer]

Polynesians = Mongoloid-Australoid mix (mixing took place ca. 3,000 - 2,000 years ago):

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v538/n7626/full/nature19844.html

See Figure 3 from the link above:

https://s15.postimg.org/5igo3hoc9/Zasiedlanie_Oceanii_png.png

If the mixture took place 3000 years ago I dont think we can still call them mixed race. And probably they went through experiences which seperates them from other populations. If you look at it european mixing between european forefathers took also about 3000 years ago, about the same time when metal age invaders, mixed with indigenous europeans.

[Peterski]

If you look at it european mixing between european forefathers took also about 3000 years ago, about the same time when metal age invaders, mixed with indigenous europeans.

That was actually 5000 years ago (3000 years BC, but you must add 2000 of Common Era). Another difference is that PIE were the same race as indigenous Europeans, they were also Caucasoid. I made a map:

https://media.giphy.com/media/JA4zHDeZ1Jib6/giphy.gif

And before that, there was expansion of Anatolian farmers into Europe. That was 8000 years ago.

But Anatolian farmers were also Caucasoid. They just had more of "Basal Eurasian".

I guess we can divide Caucasoids into Northern and Southern Caucasoids.

[Sacrificed Ram]

So do you consider Veddoids a race? They seem to be just a mix of Australoid and Caucasoid. I guess the term 'pure Veddoid' that I used in my original post was stupid since Veddoid is a mixed race, but I was referring to ASI.

if is pure "Veddoid", the correct nomenclature is "Veddid". Pure "Australoid" is "Australid". Suffix "id" for pure and full types, suffix "oid" for dominant but not full type.

[Mortimer]

That was actually 5000 years ago (3000 years BC, but you must add 2000 of Common Era). Another difference is that PIE were the same race as indigenous Europeans, they were also Caucasoid. I made a map:

https://media.giphy.com/media/JA4zHDeZ1Jib6/giphy.gif

And before that, there was expansion of Anatolian farmers into Europe. That was 8000 years ago.

But Anatolian farmers were also Caucasoid. They just had more of "Basal Eurasian".

I guess we can divide Caucasoids into Northern and Southern Caucasoids.

They were probably significantly different in look even if you label them all as caucasoid, but nevertheless, lets compare it with amerindians, amerindians have westeuroasian and australoid admixture and mongoloid. And they dont count as "mixed race". Also weddoids and negritos seem to be older then aboriginals in your timeline but people still think that aboriginals are the represantives of the australoid look and papuans also look different then aboriginals, papuans are to me on a similar level as negroes while aboriginals have a totally different look.

[Peterski]

And they dont count as "mixed race".

But that was like 20,000 years ago. And Polynesian mixing was only +/- 2,000 years ago.

So there is a huge time difference between these two events.

In case of Latinos, mixing has been taking place from ~500 years ago to the present-day.

[Mortimer]

But that was like 20,000 years ago. And Polynesian mixing was only +/- 2,000 years ago.

So there is still a huge difference between these two events.

In case of Latinos, mixing has been taking place from ~500 years ago to the present-day.

3000 years is still old enough to me. Well Latinos I count as mixed race because it was in modernity, new age. But polynesians are a old world population 3000 years ago was before most populations had a script.

[Peterski]

IMO this is a mixed population (proportions of admixtures are very different from individual to individual):

There are large differences, some people close to 99% European, some people over 80% Native American:

http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?200088-Summary-of-Argentine-Genetic-Studies&p=4172318&viewfull=1#post4172318

http://i1070.photobucket.com/albums/u492/cmv_88/Estudios%20Argentina/Argentina_zpsexprbjyu.png

And when proportions of admixtures become more evenly distributed and stabilized, it is no longer mixed.

[Mortimer]

IMO this is a mixed population (proportions of admixtures are very different from individual to individual):

http://i1070.photobucket.com/albums/u492/cmv_88/Estudios%20Argentina/Argentina_zpsexprbjyu.png

And when proportions of admixture become more evenly distributed and "stabilized", it is no longer mixed.

well europeans have different levels of admixtures (but you say they are all caucasoid etc.)

[Peterski]

well europeans have different levels of admixtures (but you say they are all caucasoid etc.)

Because they have almost exclusively Caucasoid admixtures, so this is all related anyway.

Here David Reich explains that all Caucasoid (Europe + MENA) groups are closely related:

https://videocast.nih.gov/summary.asp?Live=19940&bhcp=1

https://oir.nih.gov/wals/2016-2017/ancient-dna-new-science-human-past

http://i.imgur.com/0RPJX3E.png

Edit:

Reich claims that modern clusters are only 5000 years old, but I don't think he is right (considering that other studies dated for example the split of Mongoloids and Caucasoids to 45,000-35,000 years ago):

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/wires/ap/article-2824389/DNA-study-narrows-Eurasian-split-East-Asians.html

Tianyuan man (dated to 42,000-39,000 years ago) was already Mongoloid-like genetically:


He was DNA-tested in 2013, which revealed that he hasancestral relation "to many present-day Asians and Native Americans", "but had already diverged genetically from the ancestors of present-day Europeans".

[Mortimer]

Because they have almost exclusively Caucasoid admixtures, so this is all related anyway.

Here David Reich explains that all Caucasoid (Europe + MENA) groups are closely related:

https://videocast.nih.gov/summary.asp?Live=19940&bhcp=1

all humans are closely related, why are you racist? why do you believe in sharp racial distinctions, you always make threads about races. what did the first caucasoid look like anyways

[Mortimer]

also your link doesnt say they are closesly related it says the oppossite

Dr. Reich will begin his lecture by describing how present-day Europeans derive from a fusion highly divergent ancestral populations as different from each other as are Europeans and East Asians.

[Mortimer]

Because they have almost exclusively Caucasoid admixtures, so this is all related anyway.

Here David Reich explains that all Caucasoid (Europe + MENA) groups are closely related:

https://videocast.nih.gov/summary.asp?Live=19940&bhcp=1

https://oir.nih.gov/wals/2016-2017/ancient-dna-new-science-human-past

http://i.imgur.com/0RPJX3E.png

====================

Edit:

Reich claims that modern clusters are only 5000 years old, but I don't think he is right (considering that other studies dated for example the split of Mongoloids and Caucasoids to 45,000-35,000 years ago):

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/wires/ap/article-2824389/DNA-study-narrows-Eurasian-split-East-Asians.html

Tianyuan man (dated to 42,000-39,000 years ago) was already Mongoloid-like genetically:

Dr. Reich will begin his lecture by describing how present-day Europeans derive from a fusion highly divergent ancestral populations as different from each other as are Europeans and East Asians.

[Peterski]

also your link doesnt say they are closesly related it says the oppossite

Reich is wrong in that part, because Caucasoid-like people existed alredy 36,000 years ago:

http://science.sciencemag.org/content/early/2014/11/05/science.aaa0114

http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2014/11/european-genetic-identity-may-stretch-back-36000-years

Those people were ancestral to pretty much all Caucasoid populations which emerged later. And mixing which took place later, was between different descendants of those Upper Paleolithic people.

Also Mongoloid-like people existed already between 40,000 and 35,000 years ago:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tianyuan_man

======================

Genetic affinity to Kostenki14:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kostyonki_(palaeolithic_site)#Ancient_human_remain s

https://verenich.files.wordpress.com/2014/11/k14ibdext1.png

https://verenich.files.wordpress.com/2014/11/k14ibdext1.png

Genetic affinity to Ust'-Ishim:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ust'-Ishim_man

http://s020.radikal.ru/i700/1411/99/39e84d81c245.png

http://s020.radikal.ru/i700/1411/99/39e84d81c245.png

[Mortimer]

Reich is wrong in that part, because Caucasoid-like people existed alredy 36,000 years ago:

http://science.sciencemag.org/content/early/2014/11/05/science.aaa0114

http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2014/11/european-genetic-identity-may-stretch-back-36000-years

Those people were ancestral to pretty much all Caucasoid populations which emerged later.

And mixing which took place later, was between different descendants of those UP people.

Why do you quote him if he is wrong? You sugarcoat what you want to believe.

[Mortimer]

skeleton of a short, dark-skinned, dark-eyed man who lived at least 36,000 years ago along the Middle Don River in Russia presents a different view: This young man had DNA from all three of those migratory groups and so was already “pure European,”

[Mortimer]

skeleton of a short, dark-skinned, dark-eyed man who lived at least 36,000 years ago along the Middle Don River in Russia presents a different view: This young man had DNA from all three of those migratory groups and so was already “pure European,”

doesnt look caucasoid must had other admixtures too or the way we look at caucasoid is wrong

http://www.sciencemag.org/sites/default/files/images/sn-bust.jpg

if you look at it that way, and europeans are not mixed race, you canot name others mixed race. europeans think of themselfes as "pure" and that the purest are the lightest etc. thats traditional eurocentric view

[Peterski]

all humans are closely related

Yes of course. But for example humans also share 60% of DNA with bananas.

So we are still more related than not with bananas. All life on Earth is related.

[Milo]

doesnt look caucasoid must had other admixtures too or the way we look at caucasoid is wrong

http://www.sciencemag.org/sites/default/files/images/sn-bust.jpg
https://www.cricruns.com/system/application/views/images/player-images/lasith-malinga.jpeg

[Mortimer]

Yes of course. But for example humans also share 60% of DNA with bananas.

So we are still more related than not with bananas All life on Earth is related.

true too, we decide where we draw the line and who are us and who are the others, its a matter of what we want to believe. well we cant talk to bananas but some humans dont eat meat and believe animals have a soul so its all relative

[Peterski]

https://www.cricruns.com/system/application/views/images/player-images/lasith-malinga.jpeg

According to Genetiker's theory, Caucasoids evolved from Veddoids:


70–55 ka — Negritoids in India evolve into Veddoids. A key innovation is the evolution of straight hair from tufted, woolly hair.
55–45 ka — Veddoids in Pakistan, Afghanistan, and the Middle East evolve into proto-Caucasoids.
55–45 ka — Veddoids in Southeast Asia and Southern China evolve into proto-Mongoloids.

Note that first humans moved into Europe around 45,000 years ago.


well we cant talk to bananas

There are some studies which say that when you talk to plants, they grow faster... :)

[Mortimer]

According to Genetiker's theory, Caucasoids evolved from Veddoids:

so indians are pure the same way you said it about europeans

[Peterski]

so indians are pure the same way you said it about europeans

Modern Indians are a mix of everything (migrations into India from west, north and east).

But maybe some South Indian tribes and the Veddas of Sri Lanka are relatively "pure" ASI.

[Milo]

According to Genetiker's theory, Caucasoids evolved from Veddoids:



Note that first humans moved into Europe around 45,000 years ago.



There are some studies which say that when you talk to plants, they grow faster... :)"Veddoid" is probably the wrong term. Maybe he means ASI resembling people?
Veddoid refers to a phenotype that is found in present day South Asia, in pure or mixed forms. It is described as a blend of local caucasoid and "australoid"(ASI).

Anyways the bulk of Caucasoid genetics in South Asia is Neolithic, from western Asia.


The most ASI shifted tribal South Indians are only 43% ASI, as I had previously stated.

[Mortimer]

Modern Indians are a mix of everything (migrations into India from west, north and east).

But maybe some South Indian tribes and the Veddas of Sri Lanka are relatively "pure" ASI.

your first european looks ASI, dude. You are a hypocrite because you use different logic for europeans and indians, if veddoid is the father of caucasoid so that means indians were already pure indians back then (carried all those admixtures back then) the same logic you use for your ancient european man

[Peterski]

Why do you quote him if he is wrong?

He is not totally wrong, most of what he said was correct. Just some parts were IMO wrong.

[Peterski]

your first european looks ASI, dude.

In Upper Paleolithic times, people just did not look like their modern descendants.

In other parts of the world they also looked differently. Even Paleo-Americans did not look like Native Americans from 1492 AD (but DNA shows, that people such as Kennewick or Clovis Anzick were direct ancestors of Native Americans, even though their physical appearance changed during thousands of years):

https://i.imgur.com/dEHMvxg.jpg

^ Modern Inuits / Eskimos look a bit like that Paleo-American. They also have rugged skulls.

[Mortimer]

In Upper Paleolithic times, people just did not look like modern people.

In other parts of the world they also looked differently.

Even Paleo-Americans did not look like Native Americans from 1492 AD:

https://i.imgur.com/dEHMvxg.jpg

Why would that be any less true for indians but true for europeans

[Mortimer]

In Upper Paleolithic times, people just did not look like modern people.

In other parts of the world they also looked differently. Even Paleo-Americans did not look like Native Americans from 1492 AD (but DNA shows, that people such as Kennewick Man or Clovis Anzick were direct ancestors of Native Americans, even though their physical appearance changed during thousands of years):

https://i.imgur.com/dEHMvxg.jpg

Kennewick man looks pretty native american

[Peterski]

Kennewick man looks pretty native american

Not really, he looks more like e.g. the Ainu from Japan.

And Ainu look Pseudo-Caucasoid or Pseudo-Australoid.

[Mortimer]

Not really, he looks more like Ainu from Japan. And Ainu like Pseudo-Caucasoid or Pseudo-Australoid.

he was compared to a white guy, and some said first natives were whites, well that was wrong, to me he looks normal native american, but he is bald etc. give him hair and feathers, also our eyes can deceive us from a image

[Milo]

Not really, he looks more like e.g. the Ainu from Japan.

And Ainu look Pseudo-Caucasoid or Pseudo-Australoid.Ainus probably descend from the people who hadn't split into Caucasoids/Australoids yet, and therefore they show features of both groups. Just speculating.

Australoid features in many ways are just exaggerated versions of Caucasoid ones in my opinion.

[Shah-Jehan]

Not really, he looks more like e.g. the Ainu from Japan.

And Ainu look Pseudo-Caucasoid or Pseudo-Australoid.

Ainu are said to be genetically clustering with other Japanese people.

[Peterski]

Upper Paleolithic European skull vs. modern European skull (white outline):

https://i.imgur.com/D9aQLjy.jpg

https://i.imgur.com/D9aQLjy.jpg

[Milo]

Ainu are said to be genetically clustering with other Japanese people.source? I'd imagine that they'd have mixed a lot with locals though.

[Peterski]

Ainu are said to be genetically clustering with other Japanese people.

Not really, Ainu are indigenous. Japanese are mostly Neolithic immigrants (but they also have that indigenous admixture, which is why they overlap with Ainu). Ainu are descended from Jomon people while Japanese are mixed, descended from Yayoi people with some Jomon admixture. Yayoi people were Neolithic immigrants who spread farming into Japan, and mixed with local hunter-gatherers (Jomon people).

Japan's hunters: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jōmon_period

Japan's farmers: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yayoi_period

Jomon skull (left) vs. Yayoi skull (right):

http://thekishicut.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/screen-shot-2011-12-03-at-08-53-00.png

So basically just like in Europe, there was a massive immigration of farmers.

[Shah-Jehan]

source? I'd imagine that they'd have mixed a lot with locals though.

Found it in some blogs, think it was Dniekes as well as Razib khan. They cluster within the East Asian spectrum quite well, and are the most similar to Ryukyuan people of Kyushu (southern Japan).



Not really, Ainu are indigenous. Japanese are mostly Neolithic immigrants (but they also have that indigenous admixture, which is why they overlap with Ainu). Ainu are descended from Jomon people while Japanese are mixed, descended from Yayoi people with some Jomon admixture. Yayoi people were Neolithic immigrants who spread farming into Japan, and mixed with local hunter-gatherers (Jomon people).

Japan's hunters: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jōmon_period

Japan's farmers: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yayoi_period

Jomon skull (left) vs. Yayoi skull (right):

http://thekishicut.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/screen-shot-2011-12-03-at-08-53-00.png

So basically just like in Europe, there was a massive immigration of farmers.

Yeah, but that is skull-wise though, genetically, they are within the East Asian spectrum and are not "west Eurasian" as their looks may tell.

[Shah-Jehan]

Even so, Ainu are probably more Melanesian or Siberian shifted than Yamato people, but are not connected in any way to West Eurasian populations. But, the people as a whole are quite interesting, and several Ainu-like cultures have been absorbed by the Yamato people like the Emishis in the Tohoku region of Honshu island. Ryukyuan people also have more of a melanesian-shifted look than Yamato people from the north.




Pictures by Bronislav Pilsudski are probably the most documented of pure Ainu people.


https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/564x/d8/cd/69/d8cd69dbffc9f651b36ad48aea1d6910.jpg
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/fd/a4/23/fda423dd03e92d5176477a4152730dee.jpg
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/51/0b/30/510b30bb97a69b5550b4719d661a667c.jpg
http://buszujacawkulturze.cafesenior.pl/wp-content/uploads/sites/6/2016/08/fotografia-ze-zbior%C3%B3w-B.-Pi%C5%82sudskiego.jpg
https://i.ytimg.com/vi/iVo6frbCBhA/maxresdefault.jpg

[Peterski]

Although there is a subset of Amerindians (and Kets/Altaians as well I think) that look non-Mongoloid. Perhaps a Mongoloid-Caucasoid mix?

https://pl.pinterest.com/roxygsss/native-americans-miscellaneous/

Sitting Bull:

http://100leaders.org/sites/default/files/sittingbull-loc.jpg

Atsina man:

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/db/03/d8/db03d82f75163920d270e1ae2efa8a73.jpg

Wolf Robe:

https://s32.postimg.org/r47v3x4vp/chief_wolf_robe.png

Taken in 1910s, untitled:

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/f1/04/ab/f104abe5d929c92838489db8ed6ec552.jpg

This Kamayurá guy (Amazonian tribe) looks quite similar to Potentia:

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/5f/8a/3b/5f8a3b9a056c75e5a159408b42c9c74a.jpg


Yes, there is influence of European Upper Palaeolithic types among some Native Americans, most visibly among Indians of Great Plains.

If the Solutrean hypothesis is correct, then Solutreans who traveled to America were probably of Y-DNA C2b and of mtDNA X2. Europe between 42,000 and 17,000 years ago (during Aurignacian, Gravettian and Solutrean cultures) was actually dominated by Y-DNA haplogroup C (mostly C1a2, but with some C1b, some I - and maybe with some C2 too). However, no mtDNA X2 has been found in Pre-Neolithic Europe so far.

Native American Y-DNA haplogroups:

Q1a2a1-L54
Q1a1a-F746
C2b1a1a-P39

In Europe, there are some people with a closely related subclade of C2:

C2b1a1b-F3985

In FTDNA "C Haplogroup Y-DNA Project", they have the following:

C2b1-F1699 - 3 samples (two from Germany, one from Slovakia)
C2b1a1b-F3985 - 4 samples (2 Poland, 1 Austria, 1 Czech Rep.)

Native American mtDNA haplogroups:

A2 (including e.g. A2a, A2b, A2g, A2h)
B2 (including e.g. B2b)
C1b (including e.g. C1b2)
C1c
C1d (including e.g. C1d1)
C4c
D1
D2a
D3
D4h3a
D4e1c
X2a
X2g

In Europe, there are several subclades of X2 (but not X2a and not X2g):

http://www.eupedia.com/europe/Haplogroup_X_mtDNA.shtml#subclades

X2 is a West Eurasian hg. Other Amerindian mtDNA hgs are East Asian:

http://i.imgur.com/nJISuUr.png

[Peterski]

Upper Paleolithic & Mesolithic European mtDNA:
(I am not including Caucasus as part of Europe here)

U8 (including e.g. U8a, U8c)
U6
U5 (including e.g. U5b, U5a - U5a1, U5a2)
U4
U2 (including e.g. U2e, U2d2)
K1c (Mesolithic Greece)
C1g (Mesolithic Karelia)

Generally haplogroup U is most indigenous in Europe.

No X2 has been found in Pre-Neolithic Europe, so far.

[cosmoo]

If the Solutrean hypothesis is correct, then Solutreans who traveled to America were probably of Y-DNA C2b and of mtDNA X2. Europe between 42,000 and 17,000 years ago (during Aurignacian, Gravettian and Solutrean cultures) was actually dominated by Y-DNA haplogroup C (mostly C1a2, but with some C1b, some I - and maybe with some C2 too). However, no mtDNA X2 has been found in Pre-Neolithic Europe so far.

Don't be silly. Europe was not dominated by C (there are plenty of I*/IJ*, even I2 samples from that period), especially to that date in later Palaeolithic you mention. C is highly spread out across Asia and Americas, but I-M170 is actually the only one that was clearly connected to Europe from its very beginning.
And actually, among those tribes with high Upper Palaeolithic European (CM) influence, we can see a lot more of R1 (among Blackfoot especially, they even have A blood type at over 80 percent, which is very unusual for Native Americans) compared to other Amerindian tribes (though I can't really explain why is it like that). Plus, mtDNA X probably existed somewhere in pre-Neolithic Europe, for there is no evidence so far that it came with either Neolithic farmers or Indo-Europeans.

[Peterski]

Don't be silly. Europe was not dominated by C (there are plenty of I*/IJ*, even I2 samples from that period)

You always go against the data and against evidence, because you have a clear agenda / bias. There is no I2 from that period. From 42,000-17,000 years ago there are: six C1, two I*, one F* and one IJ*.

60% of samples from that period are C1 (it also existed later in Mesolithic-Neolithic Europe).

And that period corresponds to Aurignacian, Gravettian and Solutrean cultures in Europe. Then from Magdalenian culture (16,000-14,000 years ago) there are 3 samples of basal I* (but no any I2 or I1).

The oldest I2 is Bichon in Switzerland (13,800-13,500 years ago), that was Azilian culture:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azilian

The second oldest I2 is Rochedane (13,100-12,800 years ago) from Epipaleolithic France.


actually, among those tribes with high Upper Palaeolithic European (CM) influence, we can see a lot more of R1

All of this R1 is Post-Columbian, from European admixture after 1492 AD.

European traders and pioneers (especially French) mixed into Indian tribes.

Maybe some of it is from Viking admixture (around 1000 AD), but I doubt it.

Show me any R1 from ancient DNA, older than 1000 AD, in North America.

[Harkonnen]

You always go against the data and against evidence, because you have a clear agenda / bias. There is no I2 from that period. From 42,000-17,000 years ago there are: six C1, two I*, one F* and one IJ*.

60% of samples from that period are C1 (it also existed later in Mesolithic-Neolithic Europe).

And that period corresponds to Aurignacian, Gravettian and Solutrean cultures in Europe. Then from Magdalenian culture (16,000-14,000 years ago) there are 3 samples of basal I* (but no any I2 or I1).

The oldest I2 is Bichon in Switzerland (13,800-13,500 years ago), that was Azilian culture:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azilian

The second oldest I2 is Rochedane (13,100-12,800 years ago) from Epipaleolithic France.



All of this R1 is Post-Columbian, from European admixture after 1492 AD.

European traders and pioneers (especially French) mixed into Indian tribes.

Maybe some of it is from Viking admixture (around 1000 AD), but I doubt it.

Show me any R1 from ancient DNA, older than 1000 AD, in North America.

Do not think that I do not know that you are omitting in purpose that the F was actually NO you Polak piece of shit.

[Peterski]

Age of major Y-DNA haplogroups (according to YFull, as of May 2016):

Y-DNA "Adam" lived 250-200 thousands of years ago (236 according to YFull):

http://s32.postimg.org/k8goin551/YDNA_Tree.png

Map of Y-DNA haplogroup A (made by Passa from Anthrogenica):

https://s32.postimg.org/uvbv9q291/hg_A.png

Map of Y-DNA haplogroup B (made by Passa from Anthrogenica):

https://s32.postimg.org/e1dvrj311/hg_B.png

Map of Y-DNA haplogroup E (made by Passa from Anthrogenica):

https://s31.postimg.org/e4ezeuzsb/hgr_E.png

[cosmoo]

You always go against the data and against evidence, because you have a clear agenda / bias. There is no I2 from that period. From 42,000-17,000 years ago there are: six C1, two I*, one F* and one IJ*.
I forgot that there are no I2 samples before Epipalaeolithic yet, sorry about that.
Yet, you still can't explain how is C supposed to be original European haplogroup, when it's all but clearly connected to Europe, in stark contrast with I-M170.


All of this R1 is Post-Columbian, from European admixture after 1492 AD.

European traders and pioneers (especially French) mixed into Indian tribes.

Maybe some of it is from Viking admixture (around 1000 AD), but I doubt it.

Show me any R1 from ancient DNA, older than 1000 AD, in North America.
LOL. Europeans married Native American women, they didn't marry into their tribes, ffs. It's pretty much impossible that up to 50% of R1 in some tribes is European. Mal'ta boy (R1) was found in roughly same area from which many of their ancestors headed north to cross Bering strait.

[Peterski]

how is C supposed to be original European haplogroup, when it's all but clearly connected to Europe

C just got extinct. Except for some pockets (especially C1a2 is "Paleo-European"):

http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?195882-oldest-Y-haplogroup-found-in-europe-C-and-CF-any-members-who-have-them&p=4085504&viewfull=1#post4085504

Probably already during the Last Glacial Maximum most of C in Europe got extinct.

But not all of it, because there is some C also in Mesolithic and Neolithic samples.

What really "finished off" last C in Europe, were Indo-European (R1) invasions.


It's pretty much impossible that up to 50% of R1 in some tribes is European.

Why? Natives with some European admixture had more immunity to smallpox, etc.

So children with R1 (those who had European fathers) survived diseases better.

=========================

There are also people who are enrolled into tribes but are mostly European:

https://www.doi.gov/tribes/enrollment


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


Europeans married Native American women, they didn't marry into their tribes, ffs.

No, they also sometimes joined their tribes, they were like this famous novel character:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natty_Bumppo


Natty Bumppo, the child of white parents, grew up among Delaware Indians

Check also:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Métis_in_Canada


The Métis in Canada (/meɪˈtiː/; Canadian French: [meˈt͡sɪs]; Standard French: [meˈtis]; Michif: [mɪˈtʃɪf]) are a group of peoples in Canada who trace their descent to First Nations peoples and European settlers. They represent the majority of those identifying as Métis, though smaller communities also exist in the United States. They are recognized as one of Canada's aboriginal peoples under the Constitution Act of 1982, along with First Nations and Inuit peoples. They number over 451,795 as of 2011.[1]

While the Métis initially developed as the mixed-race descendants of early unions between First Nations people and colonial-era European settlers (usually indigenous women and settler men), within generations (particularly in central and western Canada, but also in the Eastern parts of Canada), a distinct Métis culture developed. The early mothers were usually Mi'kmaq, Algonquin, Saulteaux, Cree, Ojibwe, Menominee, or Maliseet, or of mixed descent from these peoples. Their unions with European men were often of the type known as Marriage à la façon du pays.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage_%27à_la_façon_du_pays%27


Marriage à la façon du pays ("according to the custom of the country") refers to the practice of common-law marriage between European fur traders and aboriginal or Métis women in the North American fur trade.[1]:4 Rituals surrounding them were based on a mix of European and Indigenous customs, though predominantly the latter. Canadian historian Sylvia Van Kirk calls them "the basis for a fur trade society."[2]

While the presence of women in the "factories" (i.e. trading posts) of what is now Canada had been banned by the Hudson Bay Company as early as 1683, intermarriage was common from the start of the fur trade, and by 1739 the Company overturned its ban. The practice was both a social and a political institution, securing trade relations between Europeans and aboriginals, just as intermarriage between tribes was a political instrument of the aboriginals themselves.[3] These marriages came with the expectation that trade between the woman's relations and the trader would be secured, and that aid would be mutually provided in times of need. It was also the hope of the woman's family that the trader's generosity would increase after the marriage took place. The marriages between these two groups would lead to the creation of the Métis people, who would be considered the offspring of the fur trade.[4]:73

IMO R1 comes from such marriages. Sons of those European men often identified as Indians.

[Peterski]

Upper Paleolithic South African (36,000 years old, as old as Kostenki 14):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hofmeyr_Skull


The Hofmeyr fossil has a very close affinity with Upper Paleolithic skulls from Europe. Some scientists have interpreted this relationship as being consistent with the Out-of-Africa theory, which hypothesizes that at least some UP human groups in Africa, Europe and Asia should morphologically resemble each other.[5] A piece of parietal bone (surgically removed) will be sent to prof. Eske Willerslev in Copenhagen for ancient DNA analysis.[6]

About DNA testing: https://elmuseumscience.wordpress.com/2016/07/26/hofmeyr-skull-research-update/

[cosmoo]

C just got extinct. Except for some pockets (especially C1a2 is "Paleo-European"):
http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?195882-oldest-Y-haplogroup-found-in-europe-C-and-CF-any-members-who-have-them&p=4085504&viewfull=1#post4085504
Probably already during the Last Glacial Maximum most of C in Europe got extinct.
But not all of it, because there is some C also in Mesolithic and Neolithic samples.
What really "finished off" last C in Europe, were Indo-European (R1) invasions.

It just got extinct out of blue?
C is extremely spread out, from Australian Aborigines to Native Americans to the western Eurasia, while I-M170 was clearly tied to Europe from its very beginning.


What really "finished off" last C in Europe, were Indo-European (R1) invasions.
If I'm biased... then I don't know what this is. First the talk about IE "cleansing" Europe from Neolithic "immigrants" (who were purely European, and were anthropologically close to IE Nordids anyways), then this.


There are also people who are enrolled into tribes but are mostly European:
IMO R1 comes from such marriages. Sons of those European men often identified as Indians.
Of course they tested only pure Native Americans, not all of these men with tiny drop of Amerindian blood with "enrollment" certificate.

[Peterski]

C is extremely spread out, from Australian Aborigines to Native Americans

Well, it is not so common in Australia and in the Americas today.

It mostly got extinct after 1500 AD in these two regions as well.

Also totally "out of the blue". Just like in Europe long before that.


First the talk about IE "cleansing" Europe from Neolithic "immigrants" (who were purely European

They came from Anatolia, so how could they be "purely European", lol?


Of course they tested only pure Native Americans

No. There are hardly any 100% pure Native Americans left in North America.

Even in South America people who are 99% Native are not so common today:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l12eckFp2tM

[cosmoo]

Upper Paleolithic South African (36,000 years old, as old as Kostenki 14):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hofmeyr_Skull



About DNA testing: https://elmuseumscience.wordpress.com/2016/07/26/hofmeyr-skull-research-update/

It is far from being pure UP in form, but it's kinda related to them. BTW, there are outliers everywhere. If one among first modern Negroids, Grimaldi man, was found (quite high up north) in Italy, that doesn't have to mean they came from there. Same goes for Hofmeyr skull.

[Peterski]

Australian Aborigines also have a lot of R1 and even I2 and I1 (see Extended Data Table 1):

http://www.nature.com.sci-hub.cc/nature/journal/v538/n7624/full/nature18299.html

http://i.imgur.com/vOYzhJl.png

Of course this is also due to recent European admixture, just like in case of Native Americans.

Some Australian Aborigines look White, most of them look mixed-race, only some are "pure":


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q5YZlypz9E0

[Sacrificed Ram]

Age of major Y-DNA haplogroups (according to YFull, as of May 2016):

Y-DNA "Adam" lived 250-200 thousands of years ago (236 according to YFull):

http://s32.postimg.org/k8goin551/YDNA_Tree.png

Map of Y-DNA haplogroup E (made by Passa from Anthrogenica):

https://s31.postimg.org/e4ezeuzsb/hgr_E.png

Does't YAP+ have a full evolution into Africa? There are diverse clades of DE* in West Africa, despite was found some misterious DE* in Syria. Can we think in a back migration of DE and not E to Africa? Or sucessive back migrations of DE and E to Africa? Or will YAP+ be genuinely african?

[ButlerKing]

Lol with the negroids and negrotoids, even in names they aren't that different.

Amerindians are genetically/racially Mongoloid but they aren't Asian Mongoloids. The difference between them properly the same as between Caucasoids Europeans/Middle easterners/South Asians.

http://signaturebooks.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/dna2.jpg

[Peterski]

Amerindians are genetically/racially Mongoloid

No, they are a mix of Mongoloid and Caucasoid traits. Some tribes also have Negrito-like admixture.

[ButlerKing]

No, they are a mix of Mongoloid and Caucasoid traits. Some tribes also have Negrito-like admixture.


They don't have mix of Mongoloid and Caucasoid traits. Those traits that you think look Caucasoid can be found pure Taiwanese aboriginal tribes of Taiwan. Just because DNA shows some tribes are mix does not mean they look like one not to mention their Caucasoid DNA are in the minority.


There is no amerindian with negroid traits either. It was a mistake and they refute that claim like they had made with Luzia women

" Neves conclusions have been challenged by research done by anthropologists Rolando Gonzalez-Jose Frank Williams and William Armelagos who have shown in their studies that the cranio-facial variability could just be due to genetic drift and other factors affecting cranio-facial plasticity in Native Americans. Comparison in 2005 of the Lagoa Santa Minas Gerais specimens with modern Aimoré people of the same region also showed strong affinities leading Neves to classify the Botocudos as Paleo-Indians. "


These Taiwanese aborigines Seediq people, they have similar facial charateristic with Amerindians. DNA had shown these people have no Caucasian DNA and are 100% Mongoloid. They are the ancestors of Polynesians.


http://i47.tinypic.com/50ijax.jpg
http://i50.tinypic.com/6qw2ah.jpg
http://i47.tinypic.com/16sy2t.jpg
http://i49.tinypic.com/14udvzm.jpg
http://i46.tinypic.com/2nunoo.jpg
http://i47.tinypic.com/1hrthu.jpg

[ButlerKing]

More example.

Women on the right look a indigenous Peruvian Andeas women only she have light skin.

http://i48.tinypic.com/30iz5fn.jpg

http://i47.tinypic.com/xp3dkh.jpg

These people have traits that you would claim are mixed with Caucasians but these are just paleo-mongoloid or proto-mongoloid traits.

http://www.spacedaily.com/images-lg/taiwan-indigenous-protest-afp-lg.jpg
http://www.taiwangoodlife.org/files/imagecache/photo_500x375/photo/Gao_Hai_Ba_Shi_Jue_Xi_Mei_Nu_.jpg
http://i50.tinypic.com/2nk75f.jpg

[johen]

Don't be silly. Europe was not dominated by C (there are plenty of I*/IJ*, even I2 samples from that period), especially to that date in later Palaeolithic you mention. C is highly spread out across Asia and Americas, but I-M170 is actually the only one that was clearly connected to Europe from its very beginning.
And actually, among those tribes with high Upper Palaeolithic European (CM) influence, we can see a lot more of R1 (among Blackfoot especially, they even have A blood type at over 80 percent, which is very unusual for Native Americans) compared to other Amerindian tribes (though I can't really explain why is it like that). Plus, mtDNA X probably existed somewhere in pre-Neolithic Europe, for there is no evidence so far that it came with either Neolithic farmers or Indo-Europeans.
wow, really? very good information. C. Loring brace said that blackfoot indian resembled UP people and bronze age mongolian, chandman, who are connected to XioungNu and Turk, being different from modern people in Mongolia.

And I think R people built mound, but Q people built pyramid. Sometimes giants(over 7feets) were buried. In bronze Europe, giant warriors appeared.
http://www.ancient-origins.net/sites/default/files/field/image/adena-giants.jpg
Grave Creek Mound, in Moundsville, West Virginia in the US
http://www.ancient-origins.net/unexplained-phenomena/adena-giant-revealed-profile-prehistoric-mound-builders-004876

[johen]

These Taiwanese aborigines Seediq people, they have similar facial charateristic with Amerindians. DNA had shown these people have no Caucasian DNA and are 100% Mongoloid. They are the ancestors of Polynesians.


I think it is maybe connected to Hg C of UP mentioned by Litvin


The fact that Late Pleistocene populations in northwest Europe and northeast Asia show morphological similarities suggests that there may have been actual genetic ties at one time. Those morphological similarities can still be shown between Europe and the descendants of the aboriginal population of the Japanese archipelago, i.e., the Ainu. This similarity provides some basis for the long-time claim that the Ainu represent an “Indo-European,” “Aryan,” or “Caucasoid” “type” or “race” (54, 55), however unfortunate those designations and their implications may be.

The prehistoric Jomon of Japan, along with the living Ainu, still clearly resemble that northern stratum, although the latter are a bit closer to linking up with the mainland East Asian core. The same thing is true for the Polynesian samples, with the tie to the mainland Asian core being just slightly stronger than was true for the Ainu

[Dema]

Cool

[Peterski]

Johen,

If you claim that Amerindians have no Caucasoid, then it means that North-Western Europeans have a lot of Mongoloid. Because North-Western Europeans and Native Americans share a lot of ANE admixture.

Below a comparison of some Native Americans and Europeans in Gedrosia K6 calculator:

Native Americans:

NA42 ancient Peru 1000-1500 AD:

Admix Results (sorted):

# Population Percent
1 East_Asian 72.22
2 Ancestral_North_Eurasian 18.62
3 Ancestral_South_Eurasian 9.16

MARC1492 Mi'kmaq 1550-1700 AD:

Admix Results (sorted):

# Population Percent
1 East_Asian 62.05
2 Ancestral_North_Eurasian 26.07
3 West_European_Hunter_Gartherer 5.36
4 Natufian 3.6
5 Ancestral_South_Eurasian 2.6
6 Sub_Saharan 0.33

Paleo-Eskimo Saqqaq ca. 2000 BC:

Admix Results (sorted):

# Population Percent
1 East_Asian 76.08
2 Ancestral_North_Eurasian 10.91
3 West_European_Hunter_Gartherer 6.09
4 Sub_Saharan 3.06
5 Ancestral_South_Eurasian 2.66
6 Natufian 1.2

Clovis Anzick-1 Montana 10700-10550 BC:

Admix Results (sorted):

# Population Percent
1 East_Asian 60.7
2 Ancestral_North_Eurasian 23.77
3 West_European_Hunter_Gartherer 8.54
4 Ancestral_South_Eurasian 5.84
5 Sub_Saharan 1.16

Kennewick Man USA 7000-6900 BC:

Admix Results (sorted):

# Population Percent
1 East_Asian 58.83
2 Ancestral_North_Eurasian 20.52
3 West_European_Hunter_Gartherer 11.66
4 Natufian 3.23
5 Sub_Saharan 3.08
6 Ancestral_South_Eurasian 2.68

============================

North-Western Europeans:

Modern Scottish:

Admix Results (sorted):

# Population Percent
1 West_European_Hunter_Gartherer 44.13
2 Natufian 32.90
3 Ancestral_North_Eurasian 20.78
4 East_Asian 1.23

Modern Scottish:

Admix Results (sorted):

# Population Percent
1 West_European_Hunter_Gartherer 43.12
2 Natufian 34.23
3 Ancestral_North_Eurasian 18.99
4 Ancestral_South_Eurasian 1.94
5 East_Asian 1.73

Modern North Dutch:

Admix Results (sorted):

# Population Percent
1 West_European_Hunter_Gartherer 44.75
2 Natufian 35.9
3 Ancestral_North_Eurasian 18.07
4 Ancestral_South_Eurasian 1.15
5 Sub_Saharan 0.14

Modern English:

Admix Results (sorted):

# Population Percent
1 West_European_Hunter_Gartherer 42.61
2 Natufian 36.62
3 Ancestral_North_Eurasian 17.84
4 East_Asian 1.41
5 Sub_Saharan 1.14
6 Ancestral_South_Eurasian 0.38

Modern Swedish:

Admix Results (sorted):

# Population Percent
1 West_European_Hunter_Gartherer 46.24
2 Natufian 33.38
3 Ancestral_North_Eurasian 18.13
4 East_Asian 2.25

Modern Irish:

Admix Results (sorted):

# Population Percent
1 West_European_Hunter_Gartherer 43.1
2 Natufian 33.58
3 Ancestral_North_Eurasian 20.8
4 Ancestral_South_Eurasian 1.72
5 East_Asian 0.8

Rathlin-1 Ireland 2030-1880 BC:

Admix Results (sorted):

# Population Percent
1 West_European_Hunter_Gartherer 43.39
2 Natufian 29.8
3 Ancestral_North_Eurasian 22.68
4 Sub_Saharan 2.27
5 East_Asian 1.86

Hinxton-1 Britain 160 BC - 25 AD:

Admix Results (sorted):

# Population Percent
1 West_European_Hunter_Gartherer 45.16
2 Natufian 35
3 Ancestral_North_Eurasian 19.84

Hinxton-4 Britain 170 BC - 80 AD:

Admix Results (sorted):

# Population Percent
1 West_European_Hunter_Gartherer 45.11
2 Natufian 33.9
3 Ancestral_North_Eurasian 19.27
4 East_Asian 1.72

[Harkonnen]

Johen,

If you claim that Amerindians have no Caucasoid, then it means that North-Western Europeans have a lot of Mongoloid. Because North-Western Europeans and Native Americans share a lot of ANE admixture.

Below a comparison of some Native Americans and Europeans in Gedrosia K6 calculator:

Native Americans:

NA42 ancient Peru 1000-1500 AD:

Admix Results (sorted):

# Population Percent
1 East_Asian 72.22
2 Ancestral_North_Eurasian 18.62
3 Ancestral_South_Eurasian 9.16

NA40 ancient Peru 1000-1500 AD:

Admix Results (sorted):

# Population Percent
1 East_Asian 55.92
2 Sub_Saharan 22.07
3 Ancestral_North_Eurasian 18.92
4 West_European_Hunter_Gartherer 3.1

MARC1492 Mi'kmaq 1550-1700 AD:

Admix Results (sorted):

# Population Percent
1 East_Asian 62.05
2 Ancestral_North_Eurasian 26.07
3 West_European_Hunter_Gartherer 5.36
4 Natufian 3.6
5 Ancestral_South_Eurasian 2.6
6 Sub_Saharan 0.33

Paleo-Eskimo Saqqaq 2000 BC:

Admix Results (sorted):

# Population Percent
1 East_Asian 76.08
2 Ancestral_North_Eurasian 10.91
3 West_European_Hunter_Gartherer 6.09
4 Sub_Saharan 3.06
5 Ancestral_South_Eurasian 2.66
6 Natufian 1.2

Clovis Anzick-1 Montana 10700-10550 BC:

Admix Results (sorted):

# Population Percent
1 East_Asian 60.7
2 Ancestral_North_Eurasian 23.77
3 West_European_Hunter_Gartherer 8.54
4 Ancestral_South_Eurasian 5.84
5 Sub_Saharan 1.16

Kennewick Man USA 7000-6900 BC:

Admix Results (sorted):

# Population Percent
1 East_Asian 58.83
2 Ancestral_North_Eurasian 20.52
3 West_European_Hunter_Gartherer 11.66
4 Natufian 3.23
5 Sub_Saharan 3.08
6 Ancestral_South_Eurasian 2.68

============================

North-Western Europeans:

Modern Scottish:

Admix Results (sorted):

# Population Percent
1 West_European_Hunter_Gartherer 44.13
2 Natufian 32.90
3 Ancestral_North_Eurasian 20.78
4 East_Asian 1.23

Modern Scottish:

Admix Results (sorted):

# Population Percent
1 West_European_Hunter_Gartherer 43.12
2 Natufian 34.23
3 Ancestral_North_Eurasian 18.99
4 Ancestral_South_Eurasian 1.94
5 East_Asian 1.73

Modern North Dutch:

Admix Results (sorted):

# Population Percent
1 West_European_Hunter_Gartherer 44.75
2 Natufian 35.9
3 Ancestral_North_Eurasian 18.07
4 Ancestral_South_Eurasian 1.15
5 Sub_Saharan 0.14

Modern English:

Admix Results (sorted):

# Population Percent
1 West_European_Hunter_Gartherer 42.61
2 Natufian 36.62
3 Ancestral_North_Eurasian 17.84
4 East_Asian 1.41
5 Sub_Saharan 1.14
6 Ancestral_South_Eurasian 0.38

Modern Swedish:

Admix Results (sorted):

# Population Percent
1 West_European_Hunter_Gartherer 46.24
2 Natufian 33.38
3 Ancestral_North_Eurasian 18.13
4 East_Asian 2.25

Modern Irish:

Admix Results (sorted):

# Population Percent
1 West_European_Hunter_Gartherer 43.1
2 Natufian 33.58
3 Ancestral_North_Eurasian 20.8
4 Ancestral_South_Eurasian 1.72
5 East_Asian 0.8

You dumb Polak NW Euros have have way more Mongoloid than those stone age admixture calculators ans their "ANE" suggest.

I seriously want to strangle all Polish Ladyboys

[johen]

Johen

If you claim that Amerindians have no Caucasoid, then it means that North-Western Europeans have a lot of Mongoloid. Because North-Western Europeans and Native Americans share a lot of ANE admixture.



I never claimed that. Can we discuss their ancestor first? Why do you think AG 2 is mongoloid?

Afontova Gora II with Eurogenes K15:

North sea 19.25
Baltic 9.77
East Euro 51.75
south aisan 2.26 south
east asian 1.63
sibreian 3.58
american Idian 16.97
oceanian 0.34
Northeast African 0.26

"V. P. Alekseev discussed the racial types of the Altai-Sayan uplands during the Neolithic and Bronze Age. On the basis of geological and palreo-climatic evidence, he feels that the initial human settlement of the area could have taken place as far back as the Lower Palreolithic (which in Soviet usage includes the Mousterian). Judging by the Afontova Gora II cranial fragment, the Upper Palreolithic population evidently must be assigned to the Mongoloid race. The Europeoid component begins to penetrate into certain areas during the Neolithic-especially into the southern part of the Krasnoyarsk Territory.

[Rethel]

Currently the best model is roughly this:

Timeline of key events:

250-200,000 years ago - AMH (modern humans) evolve in Africa
250-200,000 years ago - estimated lifetimes of "Y Adam" and "mt Eve"
195,000 years ago - Omo I (the oldest known skull considered AMH)
160,000 years ago - Herto (the 2nd oldest known skull considered AMH)
125-100,000 years ago - 1st "Out of Africa" migration (e.g. Qafzeh 9 skull)
90,000 years ago - Ice Age desertification decimates Eurasian AMH
75,000 years ago - Toba eruption leads to extinction of Eurasian AMH
75-70,000 years ago - 2nd (successful) "Out of Africa" migration of AMH
70-60,000 years ago - Eurasian AMHs first admix with Neanderthals

Time of divergence of races:

1) Capoids - ca. 160-150,000 years old
2) Bambutids - ca. 130,000 years old
3) Negroids - ca. 90-65,000 years old
4) Negritoids - ca. 65-55,000 years old
5) Veddoids - ca. 65-55,000 years old
6) Australoids - ca. 60-40,000 years old
7) Caucasoids - ca. 45-30,000 years old
8) Mongoloids - ca. 45-30,000 years old
9) Amerinds - ca. 30-20,000 years old*

*They evolved in Beringia (see the "Beringian standstill hypothesis").

Capoids = Khoisan Bushmen (and similar groups)
Bambutids = African Pygmies (and similar groups)
Negroids (also known as Congoids) = Black Africans
Negritoids = Andamanese and other Negrito groups in Asia
Veddois = Ancestral South Indians (ASI admixture)
Australoids = Sahulians (Australia, Tasmania, New Guinea)

You do not need fictional hundreds of thousands
of years to developed a race. All what you need
is a small inbreeding group. When 70 people did
cross Beringia, then even if they all would be of
different races during first 2-5 generations would
become one race type. But they were obviously
not so different, so their type emerged almost
immidiatly, and the same is the truth about rest
of the people. There is no older race than some
4-6k years, and even some of modern types are
a result of mixing in last 500 years, so come on!

[Rethel]

LOL. Europeans married Native American women, they didn't marry into their tribes, ffs.

Yes, they did. The best example is Cherokee nation. There are
almost everybody - Jews, IEs, Negros, Arabs, Chinese, you name
it. Many white settlers, when they lived in neighbourhood of indian
tribes they were prisoned during war time, and mostly remained as
a part of tribe. Some were slaves even in late XIXth century.

Sometimes, they joined the closest tribe on their own, especially,
where there was some tragedy - for example disease which killed
most of neighbours or famine, and indian tribe was closest human
settlement in hundrets of miles... For example Lost Colony did it.

In many cases, Indian women had bastard children with Europeans,
and becasue noone knew what to do with them, they did remain in
the tribes; in matrilineal automaticly (minority) in patrilineal either by
adoption either by living so long among them, that everybody forgot,
where did they come from... And probably many other reasons had
place also. I remember one western, where guy from the Sioux trbie
was a pure blond white, and another one which came me into mind
is last Mohikanin, where main character is regular white but in tribe.

Btw, even indianic chiefery use to mingled with Europeans.
For example Nonhelema, (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonhelema) very famous and influential woman,
chieftess of Shawnee tribe.

She had three husbands, but her sons, were from white lovers....

Nonhelema had three husbands. The first was a Shawnee man.
The third was Shawnee Chief Moluntha. She had a son, Thomas
McKee, through her relationship with Indian Agent Col. Alexander
McKee and another son, Captain Butler/Tamanatha, through her
relationship with Colonel Richard Butler.

Indian women liked to be banged on the side... unfortunatly...


It's pretty much impossible that up to 50% of R1 in some tribes is European.

It is easly possible, becasue these high R1sampled tribes are
usually very small communities, which have today couple of
hundrets or thousands of members, and they are living among
hundrets of millions of Europeans.

In the US in total live 2.2+ millions people who racialy
are halfindian, and another three millions claim to be of
one race, but they are probably mixed in last previous
generations, but they are figuring like one race Indians,
because parents or grands were members of the tribes.


Mal'ta boy (R1) was found in roughly same area from which many of their ancestors headed north to cross Bering strait.

Malta boy simply had an amerindian granny, as
Costas, Potentia and CraisDaisy have. No big deal.

[XenophobicPrussian]

Johen,

If you claim that Amerindians have no Caucasoid, then it means that North-Western Europeans have a lot of Mongoloid. Because North-Western Europeans and Native Americans share a lot of ANE admixture.

Below a comparison of some Native Americans and Europeans in Gedrosia K6 calculator:

Native Americans:

NA42 ancient Peru 1000-1500 AD:

Admix Results (sorted):

# Population Percent
1 East_Asian 72.22
2 Ancestral_North_Eurasian 18.62
3 Ancestral_South_Eurasian 9.16

MARC1492 Mi'kmaq 1550-1700 AD:

Admix Results (sorted):

# Population Percent
1 East_Asian 62.05
2 Ancestral_North_Eurasian 26.07
3 West_European_Hunter_Gartherer 5.36
4 Natufian 3.6
5 Ancestral_South_Eurasian 2.6
6 Sub_Saharan 0.33

Paleo-Eskimo Saqqaq ca. 2000 BC:

Admix Results (sorted):

# Population Percent
1 East_Asian 76.08
2 Ancestral_North_Eurasian 10.91
3 West_European_Hunter_Gartherer 6.09
4 Sub_Saharan 3.06
5 Ancestral_South_Eurasian 2.66
6 Natufian 1.2

Clovis Anzick-1 Montana 10700-10550 BC:

Admix Results (sorted):

# Population Percent
1 East_Asian 60.7
2 Ancestral_North_Eurasian 23.77
3 West_European_Hunter_Gartherer 8.54
4 Ancestral_South_Eurasian 5.84
5 Sub_Saharan 1.16

Kennewick Man USA 7000-6900 BC:

Admix Results (sorted):

# Population Percent
1 East_Asian 58.83
2 Ancestral_North_Eurasian 20.52
3 West_European_Hunter_Gartherer 11.66
4 Natufian 3.23
5 Sub_Saharan 3.08
6 Ancestral_South_Eurasian 2.68

============================

North-Western Europeans:

Modern Scottish:

Admix Results (sorted):

# Population Percent
1 West_European_Hunter_Gartherer 44.13
2 Natufian 32.90
3 Ancestral_North_Eurasian 20.78
4 East_Asian 1.23

Modern Scottish:

Admix Results (sorted):

# Population Percent
1 West_European_Hunter_Gartherer 43.12
2 Natufian 34.23
3 Ancestral_North_Eurasian 18.99
4 Ancestral_South_Eurasian 1.94
5 East_Asian 1.73

Modern North Dutch:

Admix Results (sorted):

# Population Percent
1 West_European_Hunter_Gartherer 44.75
2 Natufian 35.9
3 Ancestral_North_Eurasian 18.07
4 Ancestral_South_Eurasian 1.15
5 Sub_Saharan 0.14

Modern English:

Admix Results (sorted):

# Population Percent
1 West_European_Hunter_Gartherer 42.61
2 Natufian 36.62
3 Ancestral_North_Eurasian 17.84
4 East_Asian 1.41
5 Sub_Saharan 1.14
6 Ancestral_South_Eurasian 0.38

Modern Swedish:

Admix Results (sorted):

# Population Percent
1 West_European_Hunter_Gartherer 46.24
2 Natufian 33.38
3 Ancestral_North_Eurasian 18.13
4 East_Asian 2.25

Modern Irish:

Admix Results (sorted):

# Population Percent
1 West_European_Hunter_Gartherer 43.1
2 Natufian 33.58
3 Ancestral_North_Eurasian 20.8
4 Ancestral_South_Eurasian 1.72
5 East_Asian 0.8

Rathlin-1 Ireland 2030-1880 BC:

Admix Results (sorted):

# Population Percent
1 West_European_Hunter_Gartherer 43.39
2 Natufian 29.8
3 Ancestral_North_Eurasian 22.68
4 Sub_Saharan 2.27
5 East_Asian 1.86

Hinxton-1 Britain 160 BC - 25 AD:

Admix Results (sorted):

# Population Percent
1 West_European_Hunter_Gartherer 45.16
2 Natufian 35
3 Ancestral_North_Eurasian 19.84

Hinxton-4 Britain 170 BC - 80 AD:

Admix Results (sorted):

# Population Percent
1 West_European_Hunter_Gartherer 45.11
2 Natufian 33.9
3 Ancestral_North_Eurasian 19.27
4 East_Asian 1.72
Did you make this post before or after I already corrected your ignorant mistake?

Amerindians do not have any Caucasoid admixture. None. Look at Karitiana Indians, they don't have any Caucasoid features what so ever. They show up as ANE on admixture runs because ANE had Amerindian. Amerindians are population outliers(near Mongoloids and close cousins, but not inbetween Mongoloids and any other population), as PCA plots show. They are a pure race. The genetic distance(and historical circumstances) are also big between them(indicating the split happened a long time ago, your estimate seems about right but it's definitely closer to 30k than 20k) and other Mongoloids so no, they are not just arctic Han either.

Where's the European features? Not to mention they have a 0% rate of light eyes/hair excluding albinos, if they had WHG admixture they would have atleast a small rate of light eyes like every other Caucasoid population. It's not a coincidence people have to post North American native Indians to find ones with Caucasoid features, given those are the most admixed with colonist Europeans.

https://rondoniaovivo.com/imagensEventos/06082010154905/KARITIANA_01.jpg

NW Europeans absolutely do have a lot of Mongoloid. People like Norman Reedus wouldn't exist if they didn't. Also, you shouldn't use Eurasia K6. Useless calculator, it has Scandinavians as having more ANE than NE Europeans and puts various non-Bell Beaker ancient IE groups closer to NW Euros than NE Euros which is obviously inaccurate. Unfortunately Basal Rich K7 isn't on GEDMatch, which is a giant shame.

As for someone earlier saying Australoid/Onge/Oceanian are the same thing, they aren't. Australoids/Papuans cluster closely(although still have a great amount of distance between them, probably split off a long time ago) on a world PCA plot but Onge are pretty far away. It could be they are the same thing but the Neanderthal/Denisovan puts them extremely far away from Onge, Onge also might have some unknown archaic human admixture.

[Peterski]

Also, you shouldn't use Eurasia K6. Useless calculator

More useful than Eurogenes ANE K7, in which Mal'ta Boy is only 49% ANE:

http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?202378-The-oldest-known-White-person-lived-11-000-years-ago-in-Ukraine/page8&p=4223850#post4223850

In Gedrosia K6 Mal'ta Boy is 94% ANE, which is closer to the truth (100%):

http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?202378-The-oldest-known-White-person-lived-11-000-years-ago-in-Ukraine&p=4223835&viewfull=1#post4223835

[XenophobicPrussian]

More useful than Eurogenes ANE K7, in which Mal'ta Boy is only 49% ANE:

http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?202378-The-oldest-known-White-person-lived-11-000-years-ago-in-Ukraine/page8&p=4223850#post4223850

In Gedrosia K6 Mal'ta Boy is 94% ANE, which is closer to the truth (100%):

http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?202378-The-oldest-known-White-person-lived-11-000-years-ago-in-Ukraine&p=4223835&viewfull=1#post4223835
No one said anything about ANE K7, but yes, another shitty calc. It still atleast gets Indo-Europeans as NE Europeans though unlike K6, that's a pretty unforgivable mistake Eurasia K6 makes.

Davidski really needs to get a new ancient calc up on GEDMatch, the rest are made by amateur hobbyists with too few SNPs.

[cosmoo]

Where's the European features? Not to mention they have a 0% rate of light eyes/hair excluding albinos, if they had WHG admixture they would have atleast a small rate of light eyes like every other Caucasoid population. It's not a coincidence people have to post North American native Indians to find ones with Caucasoid features, given those are the most admixed with colonist Europeans.
I'm not really well-versed in these aDNA calculators, but going by anthropology, many of northern Native Americans of Great Plains do have significant Upper Palaeolithic European influence.
In the totality of facial features, with a few exceptions, the Upper Palaeolithic people may be said to have resembled modern white men. Some, however, probably looked like a certain type of American Indian, notably that of the North American Plains, and of the Onas and Tehuelche of southernmost South America. This comparison, we must remember, is wholly morphological, since we do not know Upper Palaeolithic man’s pigmentation, hair form, or hair distribution.
(TRoE, chapter II, section 6)
Comanche chieftain Wild Horse (note that this is before mixing with Europeans) is a good example of that influence (had better picture, can't find it on Google anymore):
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/564x/11/92/07/11920734a940e4433323e6ff4a54c706.jpg
Cheyenne chieftain Dull Knife:
http://ep.yimg.com/ay/yhst-13903421038269/dull-knife-6.jpg

[Dick]

http://askwhy.co.uk/dinosauroids/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/indian_cromagnon0-e1354575670883.jpg

[Rethel]

More useful than Eurogenes ANE K7, in which Mal'ta Boy is only 49% ANE:

In Gedrosia K6 Mal'ta Boy is 94% ANE, which is closer to the truth (100%):

So such huge differences show only, that these tests are guzik warte... :rolleyes:

[Rethel]

http://askwhy.co.uk/dinosauroids/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/indian_cromagnon0-e1354575670883.jpg

So I1-Latinos are a result of renewig the folk? :confused:

[cosmoo]

http://askwhy.co.uk/dinosauroids/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/indian_cromagnon0-e1354575670883.jpg
Reconstruction on the right is very bad, here is the most accurate reconstruction of Cro-Magnon 1/Les Eyzies 1 done so far:
http://www.sciencephoto.com/image/481157/530wm/C0145942-Cro-Magnon_hunter_model-SPL.jpg
http://www.daynes.com/images/photos/galeries/202-700w163612.jpg?v=2

Still, many Native Americans of Great Plains have significant UP influence.

[Peterski]

Time of divergence of races:

1) Capoids - ca. 160-150,000 years old

Capoids = Khoisan Bushmen (and similar groups)

See also:

http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?203897-Do-genitals-look-different-depending-on-race-or-ethnicity&p=4255770&viewfull=1#post4255770


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W5_OGa_Ktek

[Taiguaitiaoghyrmmumin]

https://pl.pinterest.com/roxygsss/native-americans-miscellaneous/

Sitting Bull:

http://100leaders.org/sites/default/files/sittingbull-loc.jpg

Atsina man:

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/db/03/d8/db03d82f75163920d270e1ae2efa8a73.jpg

Wolf Robe:

https://s32.postimg.org/r47v3x4vp/chief_wolf_robe.png

Taken in 1910s, untitled:

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/f1/04/ab/f104abe5d929c92838489db8ed6ec552.jpg

This Kamayurá guy (Amazonian tribe) looks quite similar to Potentia:

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/5f/8a/3b/5f8a3b9a056c75e5a159408b42c9c74a.jpg



If the Solutrean hypothesis is correct, then Solutreans who traveled to America were probably of Y-DNA C2b and of mtDNA X2. Europe between 42,000 and 17,000 years ago (during Aurignacian, Gravettian and Solutrean cultures) was actually dominated by Y-DNA haplogroup C (mostly C1a2, but with some C1b, some I - and maybe with some C2 too). However, no mtDNA X2 has been found in Pre-Neolithic Europe so far.

Native American Y-DNA haplogroups:

Q1a2a1-L54
Q1a1a-F746
C2b1a1a-P39

In Europe, there are some people with a closely related subclade of C2:

C2b1a1b-F3985

In FTDNA "C Haplogroup Y-DNA Project", they have the following:

C2b1-F1699 - 3 samples (two from Germany, one from Slovakia)
C2b1a1b-F3985 - 4 samples (2 Poland, 1 Austria, 1 Czech Rep.)

Native American mtDNA haplogroups:

A2 (including e.g. A2a, A2b, A2g, A2h)
B2 (including e.g. B2b)
C1b (including e.g. C1b2)
C1c
C1d (including e.g. C1d1)
C4c
D1
D2a
D3
D4h3a
D4e1c
X2a
X2g

In Europe, there are several subclades of X2 (but not X2a and not X2g):

http://www.eupedia.com/europe/Haplogroup_X_mtDNA.shtml#subclades

X2 is a West Eurasian hg. Other Amerindian mtDNA hgs are East Asian:

http://i.imgur.com/nJISuUr.png

haplogroup is x2 in natives is likely from ancestors of Atlai peoples not Solutreans. Or possibly Evenks which would explain its low distribution and why the oldest x2a is found in kennewick man along the west coast and not the east coast.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_X_(mtDNA)



Earlier (2001) research indicated that Altaians have maintained their native identity and only begun, very recently, to mix with groups (mostly Russians and Kazakhs) who do not show mtDNA haplogroup X. Genetic studies and researchers show, "the analysis of the tribal structure of Southern Altaians has shown that the present-day Altaians have retained their native language and ethnic identity. They have begun to mix with other ethnic groups (mostly Russians and Kazakhs) only recently, so the interethnic admixture is estimated to be <5% (Luzina 1987; Osipova et al. 1997). The haplogroup X mtDNAs have not been found in populations of central Asia, including Kazakhs, Uighurs, and Kirghizs (Comas et al. 1998). Since the frequency of haplogroup X in Russians is extremely low (3 of 336; Orekhov et al. 1999; Malyarchuk and Derenko 2000; authors’ unpublished data), the recent European admixture cannot explain the presence of haplogroup X in the Altaians. Hence, the results of the present study allow us to suggest that haplogroup X was the part of the ancestral gene pool for Altaian populations, being found both in northern and southern Altaians."[13]
In addition, these same (2001) researchers indicated that the mtDNA haplogroup X haplotype present in the Altaians of Siberia is intermediate between Native Americans clades and that of Europeans. As a Russian research group observed, "American Indian and European haplogroup X mtDNAs ... are distantly related to each other". They propose however not an early European colonization of America, but that Altaians contributed to migrants bound for Europe and America; "The network further suggests that the Altaian X haplotypes occupy the intermediate position between European and American Indian haplogroup X mtDNA lineages"[13] However, further research in 2003 indicated that the haplotype present in the Altaians is not intermediate between Native American clades and that of Europeans, and that the Native Americans probably split early from the others, with the split occurring "likely at the very beginning of their expansion and spread from the Near East, ... around, or after, the Last Glacial Maximum when the climate ameliorated".[7]
One theory of how the X Haplogroup ended up in North America is it migrated from central Asia along with the A, B, C, and D Haplogroups, from an ancestor from the Altai Region of Central Asia.[15] Two sequences of haplogroup X2 were sampled further east of Altai among the Evenks of Central Siberia.[7] These two sequences belong to X2* and X2b. It is uncertain if they represent a remnant of the migration of X2 through Siberia or a more recent input.[15]
This relative absence of haplogroup X2 in Asia is one of the major factors used to support the Solutrean hypothesis. However, the New World haplogroup X2a is as different from any of the Old World X2b, X2c, X2d, X2e, and X2f lineages as they are from each other, indicating an early origin "likely at the very beginning of their expansion and spread from the Near East".[15]

[Peterski]

As of 2022, I would add also 10) to the list of races, North-Eastern African foragers:

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-022-04430-9

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-022-04430-9/figures/3

https://europepmc.org/article/pmc/pmc8386425

https://europepmc.org/articles/PMC8386425/figure/F4/

https://landofpunt.wordpress.com/tag/mota/

https://i.imgur.com/9gh25gO.png

https://i.imgur.com/ZhjRJw3.jpg

https://i.imgur.com/rTvr87G.png

[Peterski]

Try my new G25 calculator, which is partially based on my concept from this thread (but improved and updated):

https://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?361135-Try-my-new-G25-calculator

^^^
Let's move further discussion to the calculator's thread above. I'm now closing this thread.

[Septentrion]

Currently the best model is roughly this:

Timeline of key events:

250-200,000 years ago - AMH (modern humans) evolve in Africa
250-200,000 years ago - estimated lifetimes of "Y Adam" and "mt Eve"
195,000 years ago - Omo I (the oldest known skull considered AMH)
160,000 years ago - Herto (the 2nd oldest known skull considered AMH)
125-100,000 years ago - 1st "Out of Africa" migration (e.g. Qafzeh 9 skull)
90,000 years ago - Ice Age desertification decimates Eurasian AMH
75,000 years ago - Toba eruption leads to extinction of Eurasian AMH
75-70,000 years ago - 2nd (successful) "Out of Africa" migration of AMH
70-60,000 years ago - Eurasian AMHs first admix with Neanderthals

Time of divergence of races:

1) Capoids - ca. 160-150,000 years old
2) Bambutids - ca. 130,000 years old
3) Negroids - ca. 90-65,000 years old
4) Negritoids - ca. 65-55,000 years old
5) Veddoids - ca. 65-55,000 years old
6) Australoids - ca. 60-40,000 years old
7) Caucasoids - ca. 45-30,000 years old
8) Mongoloids - ca. 45-30,000 years old
9) Amerinds - ca. 30-20,000 years old*

*They evolved in Beringia (see the "Beringian standstill hypothesis").

Capoids = Khoisan Bushmen (and similar groups)
Bambutids = African Pygmies (and similar groups)
Negroids (also known as Congoids) = Black Africans
Negritoids = Andamanese and other Negrito groups in Asia
Veddois = Ancestral South Indians (ASI admixture)
Australoids = Sahulians (Australia, Tasmania, New Guinea)

I don't think there is a real difference between Capoids and Negroids.

[Peterski]

I don't think there is a real difference between Capoids and Negroids.

Genetically they are very different (compare where South Africa and West Africa plot in this PCA):

https://i.imgur.com/GZlf1vz.png

[YangWenli]

The Australoid brethren is everwhere, from Tajikstan to Sri Lanka to Japan!

We need an Australoid banner

[YangWenli]

doesnt look caucasoid must had other admixtures too or the way we look at caucasoid is wrong

http://www.sciencemag.org/sites/default/files/images/sn-bust.jpg

if you look at it that way, and europeans are not mixed race, you canot name others mixed race. europeans think of themselfes as "pure" and that the purest are the lightest etc. thats traditional eurocentric view

I definitely agree with this. A lot of the Caucasoid etc stuff is a bit illogical because the actual populations would be very different from each other.