African DNA study detects mysterious human species

[Applesandoranges]

Arent west africans partially eurasian though?
Which could possibly mean they had more of that ghost admix to begin with?


Not really interested in racist part here, just curious

[Jingle Bell]

Damn, previously the most "non-sapiens" humans were Australoids with abt 95% Homo Sapiens Dna
But if West Africans are 20% Non-Sapiens how they cluster so close with Central Africans which supposedly are 100% Sapiens?
Or these non-Sapiens group were very very close fo actual humans or there smth strange on study
For a comparison Khoisans have abt 5% of Archaic variant of Homo-Sapiens and they clusters very far from others Ssa, so how West Africans which are 20% clusters normally with others?? Or i misunderstand smth?

[Jingle Bell]

Arent west africans partially eurasian though?
Which could possibly mean they had more of that ghost admix to begin with?


Not really interested in racist part here, just curious

Just like Fulanis and Hausa are Caucasoid admixed, the rest is pretty much 100% SSA, bit if remember thy have a bit of DNA from Non-Sapiens of a group which go in Eurasia but migrated back to Africa, and they carried a bit of Non-Sapiens dna too

[DraviXi99]

Maybe this could explain why they look so different from caucasoids, even mongs looks closer than them.

Yes,maybe we could say the same about australoids ?

[Marshall Theodore]

Yes,maybe we could say the same about australoids ?

Maybe.

[Loki]

I believe they have homo naledi or erectus admixture. I have seen some pictures of Neanderthals, and they actually look very, very Northern European. I don't want to sound like a cunt, but SSAs and homo naledi share quite a bit phenotypically.

I'm a bit skeptical. There's a lot of academic fraud in the anthropology business, and in particular this supposed "Homo naledi" remains...a lot is guessed of incomplete remains. I've heard stories about it.

[Italicus]

I'm a bit skeptical. There's a lot of academic fraud in the anthropology business, and in particular this supposed "Homo naledi" remains...a lot is guessed of incomplete remains. I've heard stories about it.

I think we can infer on their appearance based on skeletal remains. They look quite similar to Homo Erectus from what I can recall. I think it's ery highly likely that thr archaic hominid SSAs are mixed with are probably erectus or naledi. Perhaps this would explain SSA IQ as well.

[Mingle]

I think we can infer on their appearance based on skeletal remains. They look quite similar to Homo Erectus from what I can recall. I think it's ery highly likely that thr archaic hominid SSAs are mixed with are probably erectus or naledi. Perhaps this would explain SSA IQ as well.

Homo erectus didn't coexist with modern humans, and by a long shot too, so they couldn't have mixed with each other. All modern humans (along with recently extinct hominids like Neanderthals) are likely descended from Homo erectus.

Not sure which species (Homo naledi seems plausible as one of them), but some SSAs are mixed with other hominin species more than other humans, with admixture rates of 5%+.

We note that the extent of admixture between modern and archaic humans, while clearly of historical and evolutionary interest, also has direct implications for human disease genetics. If selection against introgressed DNA is ongoing, then our results suggest that individuals with sub-Saharan African ancestry are likely to have an elevated disease burden due to the presence in their genomes of maladapted archaic human DNA. Given the much larger difference in the number of PGHs between African and non-African populations (Figure 2) compared with the differences between non-African populations shown in Figure 1, we speculate that the magnitude of this admixture (in terms of the divergence of the introgressing archaic human population, the amount of admixture, or both) is substantially greater than the previously documented Neanderthal and Denisovan admixture events. The results shown in Figure 3B are consistent with high (e.g., ≥5%) rates of admixture into some sub-Saharan African populations. This is consistent with the admixture rate estimates obtained in another recent study.18

https://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...02929719304264

[HannibaltheGreat]

Homo erectus didn't coexist with modern humans, and by a long shot too, so they couldn't have mixed with each other. All modern humans (along with recently extinct hominids like Neanderthals) are likely descended from Homo erectus.

Not sure which species (Homo naledi seems plausible as one of them), but some SSAs are mixed with other hominin species more than other humans, with admixture rates of 5%+.

We note that the extent of admixture between modern and archaic humans, while clearly of historical and evolutionary interest, also has direct implications for human disease genetics. If selection against introgressed DNA is ongoing, then our results suggest that individuals with sub-Saharan African ancestry are likely to have an elevated disease burden due to the presence in their genomes of maladapted archaic human DNA. Given the much larger difference in the number of PGHs between African and non-African populations (Figure 2) compared with the differences between non-African populations shown in Figure 1, we speculate that the magnitude of this admixture (in terms of the divergence of the introgressing archaic human population, the amount of admixture, or both) is substantially greater than the previously documented Neanderthal and Denisovan admixture events. The results shown in Figure 3B are consistent with high (e.g., ≥5%) rates of admixture into some sub-Saharan African populations. This is consistent with the admixture rate estimates obtained in another recent study.18

https://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...02929719304264

Shouldnt homosapians have homoerectus dna? If they all decend from homo erectus.?