Eupedia Forums
Site NavigationEupedia Top > Eupedia Forum & Japan Forum
Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 51 to 75 of 119

Thread: Teasers: Anatolians of 6300 BC Y DNA G2a, ancestral to EEF

  1. #51
    Advisor Achievements:
    Three FriendsVeteranTagger First Class50000 Experience PointsRecommendation First Class
    Awards:
    Discussion Ender
    LeBrok's Avatar
    Join Date
    18-11-09
    Location
    Calgary
    Posts
    10,329
    Points
    110,111
    Level
    100
    Points: 110,111, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b Z2109
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H1c

    Ethnic group
    Citizen of the world
    Country: Canada-Alberta



    Quote Originally Posted by Aaron1981 View Post
    The analysis in the El Portalon paper had regional HG groups appearing closer to the local farmers relative to other hunter gatherers, so I suspect there was some mixture between the two. For example, La Brana is closer to El Portalon farmers than Motala is to El Portalon. Although both the hunter gatherers and farmers were relatively homogeneous, there was regional variation. It seems the farmers were more homogeneous because it was a fairly rapid transition, the largest variation being which hunter gatherers were absorbed along the way.

    I'll be interested to see which hunter gatherers were closest to the NW Anatolian farmers. I guess Balkan ones if we had such a sample.
    I think you are right. I suspect WHG of Balkans staid in Anatolian refuge while WHG of Iberia had refuge in Iberia. They could have been split during LGM for 10 thousand years drifting genetically apart.
    Be wary of people who tend to glorify the past, underestimate the present, and demonize the future.

  2. #52
    Elite member Achievements:
    Veteran10000 Experience Points
    epoch's Avatar
    Join Date
    13-09-13
    Posts
    779
    Points
    10,483
    Level
    30
    Points: 10,483, Level: 30
    Level completed: 89%, Points required for next Level: 67
    Overall activity: 2.0%


    Country: Netherlands



    Quote Originally Posted by Tomenable View Post
    Not really.

    At least not according to these m
    aps posted by Anglecynn (I don't know what's their ultimate source):

    From: http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthre...ll=1#post64896

    Not sure how accurate are these maps, though.
    He seems to add the WHG component of EEF to WHG. Lazardis did not. Lazardis did however add the WHG component of Yamnaya to WHG. On the basis of these maps you would conclude that either farmers got extra WHG admixture, or Anatolia's indigenous WHG admixture decreased.

  3. #53
    Advisor Achievements:
    Three FriendsVeteran25000 Experience Points
    Awards:
    Most Popular
    bicicleur's Avatar
    Join Date
    27-01-13
    Location
    Zwevegem, Belgium
    Posts
    5,254
    Points
    41,765
    Level
    63
    Points: 41,765, Level: 63
    Level completed: 9%, Points required for next Level: 1,185
    Overall activity: 63.0%


    Country: Belgium - Flanders



    Quote Originally Posted by epoch View Post
    No, the gist of it was that KO1, a Hungarian HG contemporary to neolithics, was more related to farmers than all other HGs and therefore they concluded admixture in the Balkans was the most probable scenario.




    This also clearly shows the re-uptake of HG by later, local neolithic cultures such as Funnel Beaker. See Gok2's higher affiliation to Loschbour.
    afaik KO1 skeleton was found in a neolithic site

    Korös Hungary Tiszaszölös-Domaha´za [KO1] M 5780-5650 BC I2a I2a1a2a1-L1287 xL233 Genetiker 18+ 22- op 82 autosomal HG, no EEF R3 Gamba 2014

    according to Genetiker he is HG, not EEF which contradicts your D functions

  4. #54
    Regular Member Achievements:
    VeteranThree Friends25000 Experience Points
    Sile's Avatar
    Join Date
    04-09-11
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    5,120
    Points
    29,699
    Level
    52
    Points: 29,699, Level: 52
    Level completed: 96%, Points required for next Level: 51
    Overall activity: 37.0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    T1a2 -Z19945..Jura
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H95a1 ..Pannoni

    Ethnic group
    North Alpine Italian
    Country: Australia



    Quote Originally Posted by Tomenable View Post
    Well, I agree that ancestors of WHG surely came from somewhere, considering that we all ultimately stem from Africa.

    Ultimately all Non-Africans are descended from that "Out-of-Africa tribe", which had L3 mtDNA and CT Y-DNA:

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3104569/

    However, modern Eurasians generally do not appear to be African autosomally, which means that if a population lives for a long time in relative isolation from other populations, then it developes its own discrete autosomal component.

    And indeed WHG could be such a local development. Ancestors of WHG probably came from areas between the Black Sea and the Caspian Sea, crossing the Caucasus. But at that time they probably did not appear to be "WHG" autosomally.

    What we call "autosomal WHG" could evolve in Europe over thousands of years.

    It is possible that no significant amount of WHG will be found in ancient DNA samples from outside of Europe.

    this latest paper states mtdna L3 is 8000 years old


    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25130626

    Over the sands and far away: interpreting an Iberian mitochondrial lineage with ancient Western African origins.
    Pardiñas AF1, Martínez JL, Roca A, García-Vazquez E, López B.
    Author information
    Abstract
    OBJECTIVES:

    There is an ongoing effort to characterize the genetic links between Africa and Europe, mostly using lineages and haplotypes that are specific to one continent but had an ancient origin in the other. Mitochondrial DNA has been proven to be a very useful tool for this purpose since a high number of putatively European-specific variants of the African L* lineages have been defined over the years. Due to their geographic locations, Spain and Portugal seem to be ideal places for searching for these lineages.
    METHODS:

    Five members of a minor branch of haplogroup L3f were found in recent DNA samplings in the region of Asturias (Northern Spain), which is known for its historical isolation. The frequency of L3f in this population (≈1%) is unexpectedly high in comparison with other related lineages in Europe. Complete mitochondrial DNA sequencing of these L3f lineages, as well phylogenetic and phylogeographic comparative analyses have been performed.
    RESULTS:

    The L3f variant found in Asturias seems to constitute an Iberian-specific haplogroup, distantly related to lineages in Northern Africa and with a deep ancestry in Western Africa. Coalescent algorithms estimate the minimum arrival time as 8,000 years ago, and a possible route through the Gibraltar Strait.
    có che un pòpoło no 'l defende pi ła só łéngua el xe prónto par èser s'ciavo

    when a people no longer dares to defend its language it is ripe for slavery.

  5. #55
    Advisor Achievements:
    Three FriendsVeteran25000 Experience Points
    Awards:
    Most Popular
    bicicleur's Avatar
    Join Date
    27-01-13
    Location
    Zwevegem, Belgium
    Posts
    5,254
    Points
    41,765
    Level
    63
    Points: 41,765, Level: 63
    Level completed: 9%, Points required for next Level: 1,185
    Overall activity: 63.0%


    Country: Belgium - Flanders



    Quote Originally Posted by Tomenable View Post
    This is probably where ancestors of WHG came from (Bicicleur was the one who suggested this):

    In terms of Y-DNA they were descended from IJ - I crossed the Caucasus, while J stayed in the south:

    But in my opinion they were not yet "WHG" autosomally back then. That evolved only later, in Europe:



    Edit:

    Or maybe WHG did not evolve in Europe and actually came to Europe (as Angela has suggested) - but from North-Western Africa? Why is there so much WHG there today compared to the Middle East - between 12% and 16% ???

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

    East Asian admixture (I guess in North Africa it was spread by Turks from Anatolia?):


    IMO the IJ split happened +/- 42 ka in Transcaucasia (findings in Ortvale Klde and Dzudzuana caves, Georgia)
    I crossed the Caucasus and stayed in Mezmayskaya cave, from where it expanded into Europe 33 ka, they were the Gravettians
    the crucial thing was at Mezmayskaya they had developped borers to drill eyes in bone needles
    the Gravettians had better clothing and tents and so they outcompeted Aurignacians on the cold steppe which was all over Europe
    Aurignacians even didn't know needles

    J would have stayed in Transcaucasia till the onset of LGM and then have moved south to SW Asia (Kebaran industry in the Levant)

    WHG would be Y-DNA I and mtDNA U
    I don't know whether U was allready in Europe with Aurignacians or they came from Transcaucasia too

    during neolithic revolution J was one of the main components in SW Asia, allthough they didn't bring the first farming to Europe

    I and J being brothers would account for some similarities in DNA

  6. #56
    Advisor Achievements:
    Three FriendsVeteran25000 Experience Points
    Awards:
    Most Popular
    bicicleur's Avatar
    Join Date
    27-01-13
    Location
    Zwevegem, Belgium
    Posts
    5,254
    Points
    41,765
    Level
    63
    Points: 41,765, Level: 63
    Level completed: 9%, Points required for next Level: 1,185
    Overall activity: 63.0%


    Country: Belgium - Flanders



    Quote Originally Posted by Sile View Post
    this latest paper states mtdna L3 is 8000 years old


    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25130626

    Over the sands and far away: interpreting an Iberian mitochondrial lineage with ancient Western African origins.
    Pardiñas AF1, Martínez JL, Roca A, García-Vazquez E, López B.
    Author information
    Abstract
    OBJECTIVES:

    There is an ongoing effort to characterize the genetic links between Africa and Europe, mostly using lineages and haplotypes that are specific to one continent but had an ancient origin in the other. Mitochondrial DNA has been proven to be a very useful tool for this purpose since a high number of putatively European-specific variants of the African L* lineages have been defined over the years. Due to their geographic locations, Spain and Portugal seem to be ideal places for searching for these lineages.
    METHODS:

    Five members of a minor branch of haplogroup L3f were found in recent DNA samplings in the region of Asturias (Northern Spain), which is known for its historical isolation. The frequency of L3f in this population (≈1%) is unexpectedly high in comparison with other related lineages in Europe. Complete mitochondrial DNA sequencing of these L3f lineages, as well phylogenetic and phylogeographic comparative analyses have been performed.
    RESULTS:

    The L3f variant found in Asturias seems to constitute an Iberian-specific haplogroup, distantly related to lineages in Northern Africa and with a deep ancestry in Western Africa. Coalescent algorithms estimate the minimum arrival time as 8,000 years ago, and a possible route through the Gibraltar Strait.
    one could speculate L3f came from Africa along with R1b-V88 8000 years ago, and that R1b-V88 was detected at Els Trocs

    Spain Els Trocs [Troc3] M 5178-5066 BC R1b1c M415+, M343+, [L754 equivalent: L774/PF6245/YSC277+, PF1144+, V88 eqivalent: PF6376+] M478-, PF6399-, L265-, L150-, M269-, V35-, V69- R1b1c(xR1b1c2, R1b1c3) pre-T2c1d2 Haak 2015; personal comm Sergey Malyshev, review of Y-DNA raw data

    on the other hand, wasn't there E-M81 in Asturias, which couldn't be Moorish
    and TMRCA for E-M81 is just 2100 years

  7. #57
    Elite member Achievements:
    Veteran10000 Experience Points
    epoch's Avatar
    Join Date
    13-09-13
    Posts
    779
    Points
    10,483
    Level
    30
    Points: 10,483, Level: 30
    Level completed: 89%, Points required for next Level: 67
    Overall activity: 2.0%


    Country: Netherlands



    Quote Originally Posted by bicicleur View Post
    afaik KO1 skeleton was found in a neolithic site

    Korös Hungary Tiszaszölös-Domaha´za [KO1] M 5780-5650 BC I2a I2a1a2a1-L1287 xL233 Genetiker 18+ 22- op 82 autosomal HG, no EEF R3 Gamba 2014

    according to Genetiker he is HG, not EEF which contradicts your D functions

    No, it doesn't: The goal was to check the affinity famers had with different known HG's, in order to see which is most likely the source of the WHG admixture. The fact that KO1 was contemporary to neolithic could be influential, though. Perhaps KO1 was slightly admixted with farmers.

  8. #58
    Elite member Achievements:
    Veteran10000 Experience Points
    epoch's Avatar
    Join Date
    13-09-13
    Posts
    779
    Points
    10,483
    Level
    30
    Points: 10,483, Level: 30
    Level completed: 89%, Points required for next Level: 67
    Overall activity: 2.0%


    Country: Netherlands



    1 out of 1 members found this post helpful.
    And if you take a look at this, Gokhem 4 is far more WHG admixted than Gok2.


  9. #59
    Regular Member Achievements:
    VeteranThree Friends25000 Experience Points
    Sile's Avatar
    Join Date
    04-09-11
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    5,120
    Points
    29,699
    Level
    52
    Points: 29,699, Level: 52
    Level completed: 96%, Points required for next Level: 51
    Overall activity: 37.0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    T1a2 -Z19945..Jura
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H95a1 ..Pannoni

    Ethnic group
    North Alpine Italian
    Country: Australia



    Quote Originally Posted by epoch View Post
    No, it doesn't: The goal was to check the affinity famers had with different known HG's, in order to see which is most likely the source of the WHG admixture. The fact that KO1 was contemporary to neolithic could be influential, though. Perhaps KO1 was slightly admixted with farmers.
    no....the goal is to check if the 6300BC anatolian farmers are compatible with the central european farmers belonging to LBK_EN

    it has nothing to do with hunters or any markers that exceed thousands of years from these Anatolians

  10. #60
    Regular Member Achievements:
    VeteranThree Friends25000 Experience Points
    Sile's Avatar
    Join Date
    04-09-11
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    5,120
    Points
    29,699
    Level
    52
    Points: 29,699, Level: 52
    Level completed: 96%, Points required for next Level: 51
    Overall activity: 37.0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    T1a2 -Z19945..Jura
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H95a1 ..Pannoni

    Ethnic group
    North Alpine Italian
    Country: Australia



    Quote Originally Posted by bicicleur View Post
    IMO the IJ split happened +/- 42 ka in Transcaucasia (findings in Ortvale Klde and Dzudzuana caves, Georgia)
    I crossed the Caucasus and stayed in Mezmayskaya cave, from where it expanded into Europe 33 ka, they were the Gravettians
    the crucial thing was at Mezmayskaya they had developped borers to drill eyes in bone needles
    the Gravettians had better clothing and tents and so they outcompeted Aurignacians on the cold steppe which was all over Europe
    Aurignacians even didn't know needles

    J would have stayed in Transcaucasia till the onset of LGM and then have moved south to SW Asia (Kebaran industry in the Levant)

    WHG would be Y-DNA I and mtDNA U
    I don't know whether U was allready in Europe with Aurignacians or they came from Transcaucasia too

    during neolithic revolution J was one of the main components in SW Asia, allthough they didn't bring the first farming to Europe

    I and J being brothers would account for some similarities in DNA
    IMO, the IJ split occurred around trabazon

  11. #61
    Regular Member Achievements:
    VeteranThree Friends25000 Experience Points
    Sile's Avatar
    Join Date
    04-09-11
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    5,120
    Points
    29,699
    Level
    52
    Points: 29,699, Level: 52
    Level completed: 96%, Points required for next Level: 51
    Overall activity: 37.0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    T1a2 -Z19945..Jura
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H95a1 ..Pannoni

    Ethnic group
    North Alpine Italian
    Country: Australia



    Quote Originally Posted by bicicleur View Post
    one could speculate L3f came from Africa along with R1b-V88 8000 years ago, and that R1b-V88 was detected at Els Trocs

    Spain Els Trocs [Troc3] M 5178-5066 BC R1b1c M415+, M343+, [L754 equivalent: L774/PF6245/YSC277+, PF1144+, V88 eqivalent: PF6376+] M478-, PF6399-, L265-, L150-, M269-, V35-, V69- R1b1c(xR1b1c2, R1b1c3) pre-T2c1d2 Haak 2015; personal comm Sergey Malyshev, review of Y-DNA raw data

    on the other hand, wasn't there E-M81 in Asturias, which couldn't be Moorish
    and TMRCA for E-M81 is just 2100 years
    maybe E-81

    latest paper

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25677690

    Am J Phys Anthropol. 2015 Jun;157(2):242-51. doi: 10.1002/ajpa.22705. Epub 2015 Feb 11.
    Paternal lineages in Libya inferred from Y-chromosome haplogroups.
    Triki-Fendri S1, Sánchez-Diz P2, Rey-González D2, Ayadi I1, Carracedo Á2,3, Rebai A1.
    Author information
    Abstract

    Many studies based on genetic diversity of North African populations have contributed to elucidate the modelling of the genetic landscape in this region. North Africa is considered as a distinct spatial-temporal entity on geographic, archaeological, and historical grounds, which has undergone the influence of different human migrations along its shaping. For instance, Libya, a North African country, was first inhabited by Berbers and then colonized by a variety of ethnic groups like Phoenicians, Greeks, Romans, Arabs and, in recent times, Italians. In this study, we contribute to clarify the genetic variation of Libya and consequently, of North African modern populations, by the study of Libyan male lineages. A total of 22 Y-chromosome-specific SNPs were genotyped in a sample of 175 Libyan males, allowing the characterization of 18 Y-chromosomal haplogroups. The obtained data revealed a predominant Northwest African component represented by haplogroup E-M81 (33.7%) followed by J(xJ1a,J2)-M304 (27.4%), which is postulated to have a Middle Eastern origin. The comparative study with other populations (∼5,400 individuals from North Africa, Middle East, Sub-Saharan Africa, and Europe) revealed a general genetic homogeneity among North African populations (FST = 5.3 %; P-value < 0.0001). Overall, the Y-haplogroup diversity in Libya and in North Africa is characterized by two genetic components. The first signature is typical of Berber-speaking people (E-M81), the autochthonous inhabitants, whereas the second is (J(xJ1a,J2)-M304), originating from Arabic populations. This is in agreement with the hypothesis of an Arabic expansion from the Middle East, shaping the North African genetic landscape.

    © 2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

  12. #62
    Regular Member Achievements:
    Veteran5000 Experience Points
    Arame's Avatar
    Join Date
    21-03-15
    Posts
    182
    Points
    5,963
    Level
    22
    Points: 5,963, Level: 22
    Level completed: 83%, Points required for next Level: 87
    Overall activity: 0%


    Country: Armenia



    1 out of 1 members found this post helpful.
    The situation of the Europeans reaching the Americas is completely different because the two groups had been genetically separated for over 15,000 years and they evolved in completely different natural environments during that time, exposed to different microbes. In Eurasia all populations constantly had some sort of contact with their immediate neighbours
    Of course there was contacts in Eurasia, but that contacts are not sufficient to have the same level of immunity all across Eurasia. The best example is the Black Death that decimated the half of medieval European population. There was other cases in Late antiquity in Near East.

    Anyway, if immunity played any role in "wiping out" Neolithic lineages, it should have affected both paternal and maternal lineages, which isn't the case at all.
    Exact. But when the epidemy ends women have better chances to transmit their genes than the males. They can become the concubine of new males etc etc. Modern Mexicans and Venezuelans large have number of native mtDNA. But they have high European Y DNA.

    My point is that what happened in Europe was special and all that can't be explained by wars and killings.
    For example we don't see such mass replacement of Y DNA among southern IEs ( Indians, Iranians, Armenians and Greeks ). So it is possible that the European neolithic population density also played a role.

    And of course there is the question of autosomal genetics. I think there are some not well understood phenomens with autosoms that we don't take into account. The so called "native ancestry resurgence".
    It's my opinion it could be wrong but I think in the long run the alleles that are adapted to a specific climatic and regional conditions are favoured, and the 'alien' genes or alleles that creates incompatibilities with the others genes functioning are removed. In the long run we get something like Basques with so high ANE related R1b but with native autosoms.

  13. #63
    Elite member Achievements:
    Veteran10000 Experience Points
    epoch's Avatar
    Join Date
    13-09-13
    Posts
    779
    Points
    10,483
    Level
    30
    Points: 10,483, Level: 30
    Level completed: 89%, Points required for next Level: 67
    Overall activity: 2.0%


    Country: Netherlands



    Quote Originally Posted by Sile View Post
    no....the goal is to check if the 6300BC anatolian farmers are compatible with the central european farmers belonging to LBK_EN

    it has nothing to do with hunters or any markers that exceed thousands of years from these Anatolians
    Wait. I was referring to the CB13 paper. Not the El Portalon paper. Perhaps I am confused, but to my best knowledge that was the one that tried to find where EEF got its WHG admixture.

    From the paper itself:

    D-statistics
    Using the 1000 Genomes reference dataset, we computed D-statistics (Durand et al. 2011) of the form D (Hunter-gatherer1, Hunter-gatherer2; Neolithic farmer; Outgroup) to test whether any Neolithic farmer, including CB13 Cardial sample, is closer to one of the two hunter-gatherers (Fig.4 and Table S10). Standard errors were computed using a weighted block jackknife approach (Busing et al. 1999) over 5 Mb blocks
    http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/conten....full.pdf+html

  14. #64
    Advisor Achievements:
    Three FriendsVeteran25000 Experience Points
    Awards:
    Most Popular
    bicicleur's Avatar
    Join Date
    27-01-13
    Location
    Zwevegem, Belgium
    Posts
    5,254
    Points
    41,765
    Level
    63
    Points: 41,765, Level: 63
    Level completed: 9%, Points required for next Level: 1,185
    Overall activity: 63.0%


    Country: Belgium - Flanders



    Quote Originally Posted by epoch View Post
    No, it doesn't: The goal was to check the affinity famers had with different known HG's, in order to see which is most likely the source of the WHG admixture. The fact that KO1 was contemporary to neolithic could be influential, though. Perhaps KO1 was slightly admixted with farmers.
    the D stats compare KO1 with Motala 12, Loschbour and La Brana.

    it could be KO1 is slightly less WHG then Motala 12, Loschbour and La Brana but still WHG

    Gökhem Västergötland [regional TRB] Sweden Gok4 M 4-5 ka I2a1b1 L161.1 xS2639 Genetiker 1+ 0 – op 35 onzeker

    Pitted Ware Sweden Ajvide [Ajv 52] M 3000-2400 BC 4,75 ka I2a1a2a1-L1287 xL233 Genetiker 2+ 5- op 82 I, I2, I2a en I2a1 onzeker


    Pitted Ware Sweden Ajvide [Ajv 58] M 2800-2000 BC 4,75 ka I2a1 I2a1a2a1-L1287 xL233 Genetiker 18+ 36- op 82 M429+, P126+, P129+, L460+, P37.2+ U4d Skoglund 2014
    Pitted Ware Sweden Ajvide [Ajv 59] M 2800-2000 BC 4,75 ka I-M170 Genetiker 1+ 0- op 149 onzeker
    U Skoglund 2014
    Pitted Ware Sweden Ajvide [Ajv 70] M 2800-2000 BC 4,75 ka I2a1a2a1-L1287 xL233 Genetiker 1+ 11- op 82 onzeker
    U4 Malmstrom 2009; Skoglund 2012; Brandt 2013;Skoglund 2014
    Pitted Ware Sweden Ire, Hangvar, Gotland [Ire 8] M 2800-2000 BC 4,5 ka I2a1b1a1-S2703 L1498+ S2703 = Y3749 xY3722 Genetiker Y3749 2+ 0- op 5 onzeker
    U4d Malmstrom 2009;Skoglund 2012; Brandt 2013; Skoglund 2014; Malmstrom 2015

    Sweden Stora Förvar 11 M 7,5 ka I1-M253 Genetiker 7+ 10 – op 301

    all with low coverage
    AJV58 has best coverage of them
    don't know anything about Gök2

  15. #65
    Regular Member Achievements:
    Veteran5000 Experience Points
    Arame's Avatar
    Join Date
    21-03-15
    Posts
    182
    Points
    5,963
    Level
    22
    Points: 5,963, Level: 22
    Level completed: 83%, Points required for next Level: 87
    Overall activity: 0%


    Country: Armenia



    War is not a one sided thing. With more or less equal technology the invading male has approximatively the same chances to be killed than to kill. All that history from antiquity to medieval time show that wars don't change much the Y DNA frequency. Of course it change but no so dramatically as in the case of Western European R1b.

    It is possible to explain that by pacifist matriarchal societies but I don't think it will work. There are cases of violence and killings at Late Neolithic. The Neolithic Europe before IE was not the pacifist society that we imagine and certainly they did know what is the war.

  16. #66
    Elite member Achievements:
    Veteran10000 Experience Points
    epoch's Avatar
    Join Date
    13-09-13
    Posts
    779
    Points
    10,483
    Level
    30
    Points: 10,483, Level: 30
    Level completed: 89%, Points required for next Level: 67
    Overall activity: 2.0%


    Country: Netherlands



    Quote Originally Posted by Angela View Post
    I think it's probably the case, as I've previously proposed, that WHG in Europe is descended from a hunter-gatherer population that existed in the Near East.

    Of course, the migration of these hunter-gatherers into Europe would have been before the LGM, so there was plenty of time for WHG to undergo a lot of drift.
    O dear. I think I misunderstood you, in that I assumed you were arguing the WHG *component* in current day Europe descended from EEF/ANE. But you seem to argue that mesolithic and UP HGs came from the near east. Sorry for that.

    K14 is interesting in that respect. But IIRC Razib Kahn mentioned that WHG was more related to Asians than to EEF.

  17. #67
    Advisor Achievements:
    VeteranThree Friends50000 Experience PointsRecommendation Second Class
    Awards:
    Posting Award
    Angela's Avatar
    Join Date
    02-01-11
    Posts
    14,824
    Points
    249,375
    Level
    100
    Points: 249,375, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 99.6%


    Ethnic group
    Italian
    Country: USA - New York



    Quote Originally Posted by epoch View Post
    O dear. I think I misunderstood you, in that I assumed you were arguing the WHG *component* in current day Europe descended from EEF/ANE. But you seem to argue that mesolithic and UP HGs came from the near east. Sorry for that.

    K14 is interesting in that respect. But IIRC Razib Kahn mentioned that WHG was more related to Asians than to EEF.
    No, no, I didn't mean that. Or, yes, yes, you misunderstood me. Let's just say we got our wires crossed. :)

    What I was talking about is the fact that in the Lazaridis et al paper the authors said that their statistical analysis showed that EEF (Stuttgart) seemed to contain anywhere from a couple of percent to 40% WHG. They further said that this "WHG" component in the EEF was likely picked up on the way into Europe (the Balkans) or in Central Europe itself. However, they also said that they doubted either extreme, but that only an ancient farmer genome from the Near East would settle the matter, because their calculations were based on using the Bedouin as a proxy (as Allentoft did after them, along with a lot of bloggers.)

    You can find all this starting on page 59 of the Lazaridis et al paper.
    http://www.nature.com/nature/journal...ture13673.html

    Now, I think I recall that somewhere else in their paper they settled for a "best guess" of around 20%, but don't hold me to that because I don't have the reference, and I don't have the time right now to read the almost 200 pages again. Certainly, however, a figure of around 25% is what the bloggers were using, and using to posit extremely high "WHG" figures in the European Neolithic farmers.

    Now we have this abstract of the new Lazaridis paper from the Reich Lab seemingly saying that the Early European farmers are virtually identical to the Anatolian Neolithic farmers. So, what to make of this?

    Clearly, there wasn't any picking up of any WHG in the Balkans or Central Europe. (That isn't to say some wasn't picked up from around the Middle Neolithic period, about which more later.)

    So, what is the composition of these homogeneous Near Eastern Farmers? Do they still seemingly share a component with the WHG of Europe? How much is it? What was the direction of gene flow?

    Did the WHG at some point migrate to parts of the Near East? I'm not aware of any such possible early movement, but I suppose it's possible. Europe is usually a sink for gene flow.

    Or, was the gene flow going in the other direction? In considering that, with what movements could we connect it? Well, there are a couple of papers that suggest that the Gravettian, thousands of years before, moved from the greater Near East to Europe.(That's discussed on a thread here, with the relevant citations.) IF that were the case, then we might have a situation where the "WHG" in Europe are distantly removed and drifted descendants of hunter-gatherers from the Near East. That might explain the "WHG-LIKE" partial signal they were picking up in Stuttgart.

    That's what I meant.

    We'll have to wait for the paper to see how they explain it all.

    Oh, and I'd like an update about "Basal Eurasian" please. :) Were there two groups (or more) of hunter gatherers in the Near East, one distantly related to the WHG of Europe, and one from the early "split" in the OOA population, i.le the "Basal Eurasian"hunter-gatherers?
    Did one group of these hunter-gatherers invent agriculture and animal domestication and then merge with the other group, or did they merge and then invent agriculture?

    It seems that some people would like there to be real, discernible substructure, with the Natufians being the Basal Eurasian group that invented agriculture, and the "other" hunter-gatherers, the ones "related" to WHG, being absorbed later. Maybe then it would show that EEF doesn't equal ENF, and that those ENF numbers might have some validity as representing the Natufians? I don't know. I don't see how it matters in the long run. The point is that we now know, I think, that the EEF number represents the percentage of total ancestry in modern Europeans that can be attributed to Near Eastern farmers who arrived in Europe after about 7000 BC.

    I do remember seeing a statement from Patterson somewhere to the effect that the admixing had been going on for so many thousands of years that it was difficult to detect substructure, or something like that, but maybe I'm misremembering, or maybe they've changed their minds. We'll soon know.


    Non si fa il proprio dovere perchè qualcuno ci dica grazie, lo si fa per principio, per se stessi, per la propria dignità. Oriana Fallaci

  18. #68
    Advisor Achievements:
    VeteranThree Friends50000 Experience PointsRecommendation Second Class
    Awards:
    Posting Award
    Angela's Avatar
    Join Date
    02-01-11
    Posts
    14,824
    Points
    249,375
    Level
    100
    Points: 249,375, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 99.6%


    Ethnic group
    Italian
    Country: USA - New York



    I just wanted to address this issue of the numbers for "EEF" "EN" in various charts, maps etc.

    This is the original 3 Population Table from Lazaridis et al:

    Attachment 7417

    This is the table of Early Neolithic (in Europe)/WHG/Yamnaya: (Same authors)



    It's very apparent that the "farmer" numbers, roughly speaking, have changed. Does that mean that the first chart is "wrong" now? I don't think that's necessarily so, although a little clarification from the authors would be nice. :)

    Looking at the Haak table, can we interpret it as saying that the EN figure here (based on LBK) strictly represents not just those people who left for Europe from Anatolia/Northern Levant around 7000 BC (and continuing gene flow), but actually what remains of those people in modern Europeans after subsequent migrations?

    It was said in Haak that Yamnaya could be modeled as half " MODERN Armenian like". I don't know how much WHG Modern Armenians have, but I doubt they have much. They have quite a bit of ANE, I would think. The rest, however, is "farmer" ancestry, is it not? (I think we're going to have to wait for the Reich Lab analysis of Near Easterners to get some real clarity.)

    So, does the "EEF" number from Lazaridis et al represent the specifically LBK type ancestry remaining in Europeans PLUS the "eastern" farmer ancestry which went into the ethnogenesis of Yamnaya?

    @Tomenable

    If this new Lazaridis et al paper says what we think it will say, then any map with an "EEF" figure based on subtracting supposedly "WHG" ancestry from the Lazaridis et al EEF percentage is just flat out wrong. (which I said at the time, not that anyone listened. :))

    If someone wants to make a map of EEF they should use the numbers in the Lazaridis et al paper. You can't use the blogger "estimates" which have now been proved wrong, or even some combination of the Lazaridis et al figures and the blogger figures, because they are measuring two different things.

    Or, someone could make a trio of maps based on the Haak et al paper, with some sort of note that the EN number doesn't represent all the Near Eastern farmer ancestry in Europeans.

    Ed. Another more minor problem is that the divide in Spain is in no way that far south. Spain North in Lazaridis et al's list of populations is Pais Vasco, so virtually all of Spain should get the population figures listed under "Spain".
    Last edited by Angela; 15-09-15 at 21:31.

  19. #69
    Advisor Achievements:
    VeteranThree Friends50000 Experience PointsRecommendation Second Class
    Awards:
    Posting Award
    Angela's Avatar
    Join Date
    02-01-11
    Posts
    14,824
    Points
    249,375
    Level
    100
    Points: 249,375, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 99.6%


    Ethnic group
    Italian
    Country: USA - New York



    It used to be thought that the Gravettian grew out of the Aurignacian:
    http://www.academia.edu/3164654/The_...anging_Climate

    More recent thinking (2007)sees it as a new flow of people, but what I have been able to find is papers that see it as an outgrowth of the Ahmarian culture of the eastern Mediterranean. Interestingly, the area on the maps corresponds to the Levant, southern Anatolia.
    http://paleo.revues.org/607

    If someone has a site for a paper positing an origin in the Caucasus and thus a migration flow from north of it and then west into Europe I'd love to see it.

  20. #70
    Elite member Achievements:
    Veteran10000 Experience Points
    epoch's Avatar
    Join Date
    13-09-13
    Posts
    779
    Points
    10,483
    Level
    30
    Points: 10,483, Level: 30
    Level completed: 89%, Points required for next Level: 67
    Overall activity: 2.0%


    Country: Netherlands



    Quote Originally Posted by Angela View Post
    No, no, I didn't mean that. Or, yes, yes, you misunderstood me. Let's just say we got our wires crossed. :)

    What I was talking about is the fact that in the Lazaridis et al paper the authors said that their statistical analysis showed that EEF (Stuttgart) seemed to contain anywhere from a couple of percent to 40% WHG. They further said that this "WHG" component in the EEF was likely picked up on the way into Europe (the Balkans) or in Central Europe itself. However, they also said that they doubted either extreme, but that only an ancient farmer genome from the Near East would settle the matter, because their calculations were based on using the Bedouin as a proxy (as Allentoft did after them, along with a lot of bloggers.)

    You can find all this starting on page 59 of the Lazaridis et al paper.
    http://www.nature.com/nature/journal...ture13673.html

    Now, I think I recall that somewhere else in their paper they settled for a "best guess" of around 20%, but don't hold me to that because I don't have the reference, and I don't have the time right now to read the almost 200 pages again. Certainly, however, a figure of around 25% is what the bloggers were using, and using to posit extremely high "WHG" figures in the European Neolithic farmers.
    Didn't they mention the more WHG they assume in EEF, the more Sub-Saharan admixture they had to assume in Bedouin? I don't really get this. Others have assumed African admixture in BE, on the basis that TreeMix sometimes comes up with that, if I may quote from memory. But I have seen TreeMix runs where admixture from EEF to Mbuti is assumed. That is seriously strange. I can understand backflow to Africa, but to Pygmee's? They are supposed to have forked ages ago from Bantu's.

    What if Basal Eurasian is an far earlier human wave out of Africa than WHG/Part of EEF/East Asians? They could even be something like these:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skhul_and_Qafzeh_hominids

    If you add Neanderthals to admixture runs without aloowing them to become a separate instance they look all African. That is because they share ancestral DNA with Africans that are derived or drifted in the OoA bunch.

    O, look at some of K=20 admixture runs where Bedouin becomes a separate instance. All of a sudden WHG in EEF goes up, and oddly enough, Loschbour starts having a EEF component.


    Quote Originally Posted by Angela View Post
    Now we have this abstract of the new Lazaridis paper from the Reich Lab seemingly saying that the Early European farmers are virtually identical to the Anatolian Neolithic farmers. So, what to make of this?

    Clearly, there wasn't any picking up of any WHG in the Balkans or Central Europe. (That isn't to say some wasn't picked up from around the Middle Neolithic period, about which more later.)

    So, what is the composition of these homogeneous Near Eastern Farmers? Do they still seemingly share a component with the WHG of Europe? How much is it? What was the direction of gene flow?

    Did the WHG at some point migrate to parts of the Near East? I'm not aware of any such possible early movement, but I suppose it's possible. Europe is usually a sink for gene flow.

    Or, was the gene flow going in the other direction? In considering that, with what movements could we connect it? Well, there are a couple of papers that suggest that the Gravettian, thousands of years before, moved from the greater Near East to Europe.(That's discussed on a thread here, with the relevant citations.) IF that were the case, then we might have a situation where the "WHG" in Europe are distantly removed and drifted descendants of hunter-gatherers from the Near East. That might explain the "WHG-LIKE" partial signal they were picking up in Stuttgart.

    That's what I meant.

    We'll have to wait for the paper to see how they explain it all.
    Couldn't Kostenki 14's EEF component be interesting in this regard? Here is a man that already carries both components.

    Quote Originally Posted by Angela View Post
    Oh, and I'd like an update about "Basal Eurasian" please. :) Were there two groups (or more) of hunter gatherers in the Near East, one distantly related to the WHG of Europe, and one from the early "split" in the OOA population, i.le the "Basal Eurasian"hunter-gatherers?
    Did one group of these hunter-gatherers invent agriculture and animal domestication and then merge with the other group, or did they merge and then invent agriculture?

    It seems that some people would like there to be real, discernible substructure, with the Natufians being the Basal Eurasian group that invented agriculture, and the "other" hunter-gatherers, the ones "related" to WHG, being absorbed later. Maybe then it would show that EEF doesn't equal ENF, and that those ENF numbers might have some validity as representing the Natufians? I don't know. I don't see how it matters in the long run. The point is that we now know, I think, that the EEF number represents the percentage of total ancestry in modern Europeans that can be attributed to Near Eastern farmers who arrived in Europe after about 7000 BC.

    I do remember seeing a statement from Patterson somewhere to the effect that the admixing had been going on for so many thousands of years that it was difficult to detect substructure, or something like that, but maybe I'm misremembering, or maybe they've changed their minds. We'll soon know.
    The Natufians are in the right place (Israel), doing the right thing (Harvesting wild cereals) at the right time.

  21. #71
    Elite member Achievements:
    Veteran10000 Experience Points
    epoch's Avatar
    Join Date
    13-09-13
    Posts
    779
    Points
    10,483
    Level
    30
    Points: 10,483, Level: 30
    Level completed: 89%, Points required for next Level: 67
    Overall activity: 2.0%


    Country: Netherlands



    @Angela

    The upper paleolithic samples we have seen are strange too. We have a few which have clear affinity with Europeans, to wit Mal'ta, K14 and Afontova Gora 2. All three of them carry components present in current day Europeans. And we have two that appear to have little clear affinity to Europeans: Ust Ishim and Oase 2. The latter are considered "dead ends" by a number of people, for whatever reason. K14 is considered an admixture that didn't have any influence in Europeans as we consider EEF to be of later date.

    So only the most eastern two are considered somewhat ancestral to Europeans. That does seem rather odd.

    EDIT: I think a number of upper paleolithic samples are to be investigated, under which the famous Red Lady of Paviland (despite his name a man). So we may find more interesting stuff.

  22. #72
    Advisor Achievements:
    VeteranThree Friends50000 Experience PointsRecommendation Second Class
    Awards:
    Posting Award
    Angela's Avatar
    Join Date
    02-01-11
    Posts
    14,824
    Points
    249,375
    Level
    100
    Points: 249,375, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 99.6%


    Ethnic group
    Italian
    Country: USA - New York



    1 out of 1 members found this post helpful.
    Epoch:
    Didn't they mention the more WHG they assume in EEF, the more Sub-Saharan admixture they had to assume in Bedouin? I don't really get this. Others have assumed African admixture in BE, on the basis that TreeMix sometimes comes up with that, if I may quote from memory. But I have seen TreeMix runs where admixture from EEF to Mbuti is assumed. That is seriously strange. I can understand backflow to Africa, but to Pygmee's? They are supposed to have forked ages ago from Bantu's.
    I'm not totally clear on it either, which is why I hope they clarify things in the paper. That's also my recollection of what they said, for what it's worth.

    Are you referring to the paper that showed EEF in the San? I don't have the paper at my fingertips but from what I recall it's been demonstrated that there is evidence of more recent gene flow from East African "farmers" into them. It's sort of like the situation with some very isolated, presumed "pure" Amazonian Indians who wind up having some small amounts of "European". Didn't one paper also show some much more recent East Asian in one isolated tribe, and the researchers can't figure out how it got to them? There are absolutely no "pure" groups anymore.

    Anyway, to the best of my recollection the paper posited a flow from the Near East into the populations of East Africa then many years later with another major migration trickling into the San. That was just talking about post Neolithic gene flow. Recent papers just dealing with yDna "E" clades show the same thing. Maybe gene flow north, but then a stay in the southern Levant for a while, then a flow back down to the Horn where new clades are born, then that moving south and southwest. That's without considering that perhaps it was DE that moved out of Africa, with a split out of Africa, and then E going back to Africa and then the back and forth described above starting.

    What if Basal Eurasian is an far earlier human wave out of Africa than WHG/Part of EEF/East Asians? They could even be something like these:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skhul_and_Qafzeh_hominids
    That might be what Lazaridis et al had in mind as a possible explanation.

    O, look at some of K=20 admixture runs where Bedouin becomes a separate instance. All of a sudden WHG in EEF goes up, and oddly enough, Loschbour starts having a EEF component.
    It just might turn out that whatever admixtures took place that far back in pre-history just can't be parsed out mathematically the way that somepeople had hoped. I'd be happy to get some clarity for events starting from the late Mesolithic.

    One thing that's clear, however, is that the Bedouin weren't a good proxy.

    Couldn't Kostenki 14's EEF component be interesting in this regard? Here is a man that already carries both components.
    I think it might prove that when you have genomes that are that old, that far back in the tree, there are going to be correlations and similarities to all of us.

    The Natufians are in the right place (Israel), doing the right thing (Harvesting wild cereals) at the right time.
    Yes, they are and some scholars believe they were probably the first farmers as well:
    http://www.columbia.edu/itc/anthropo...7/baryo.pdfbut not all scholars believe that they were necessarily the first to do so; some papers say that this was going on in the foothills of the Euphrates either contemporaneously or perhaps even earlier.

    However, by 2010, the same author was having doubts that they actually were the first to domesticate grains. See Michael Balter: The Tangle Web of Agriculture:
    https://www.google.com/webhp?ie=utf-...of+Agriculture

    Plant cultivation, which is different from plant foraging, is also different from plant "domestication":
    http://www.academia.edu/1529206/Evid...thic_Near_East

    One of the sites where the earliest signs of tilling (plant cultivation) have been found is Tell Abu Hureyah in far northern Syria:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tell_Abu_Hureyra

    There are signs in the Levant as well, but they're later.

    I could go on, but you get the point. It's by no means clear that the Natufians were the first "farmers" or even that the first farmers are necessarily descended from the Natufians.

  23. #73
    Regular Member Achievements:
    VeteranThree Friends25000 Experience Points
    Sile's Avatar
    Join Date
    04-09-11
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    5,120
    Points
    29,699
    Level
    52
    Points: 29,699, Level: 52
    Level completed: 96%, Points required for next Level: 51
    Overall activity: 37.0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    T1a2 -Z19945..Jura
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H95a1 ..Pannoni

    Ethnic group
    North Alpine Italian
    Country: Australia



    Quote Originally Posted by Angela View Post
    I just wanted to address this issue of the numbers for "EEF" "EN" in various charts, maps etc.

    This is the original 3 Population Table from Lazaridis et al:

    Attachment 7417

    This is the table of Early Neolithic (in Europe)/WHG/Yamnaya: (Same authors)



    It's very apparent that the "farmer" numbers, roughly speaking, have changed. Does that mean that the first chart is "wrong" now? I don't think that's necessarily so, although a little clarification from the authors would be nice. :)

    Looking at the Haak table, can we interpret it as saying that the EN figure here (based on LBK) strictly represents not just those people who left for Europe from Anatolia/Northern Levant around 7000 BC (and continuing gene flow), but actually what remains of those people in modern Europeans after subsequent migrations?

    It was said in Haak that Yamnaya could be modeled as half " MODERN Armenian like". I don't know how much WHG Modern Armenians have, but I doubt they have much. They have quite a bit of ANE, I would think. The rest, however, is "farmer" ancestry, is it not? (I think we're going to have to wait for the Reich Lab analysis of Near Easterners to get some real clarity.)

    So, does the "EEF" number from Lazaridis et al represent the specifically LBK type ancestry remaining in Europeans PLUS the "eastern" farmer ancestry which went into the ethnogenesis of Yamnaya?

    @Tomenable

    If this new Lazaridis et al paper says what we think it will say, then any map with an "EEF" figure based on subtracting supposedly "WHG" ancestry from the Lazaridis et al EEF percentage is just flat out wrong. (which I said at the time, not that anyone listened. :))

    If someone wants to make a map of EEF they should use the numbers in the Lazaridis et al paper. You can't use the blogger "estimates" which have now been proved wrong, or even some combination of the Lazaridis et al figures and the blogger figures, because they are measuring two different things.

    Or, someone could make a trio of maps based on the Haak et al paper, with some sort of note that the EN number doesn't represent all the Near Eastern farmer ancestry in Europeans.
    http://open-genomes.org/images/P5A%20with%20migrations.png

    the armenians began in the map as AMUQ B lands.....basically where modern turkey meets syria on the meditteraen

    you can read other information on these ancient "armenian" archeology in AMUQ ( Cicilia )

    the logical answer is that htese 6300BC NW Anatolians farmed from this anatolian lands to central german lands and the the later hungarian samples was due to hunters arriving into hungarian lands via the steppe

  24. #74
    Advisor Achievements:
    VeteranThree Friends50000 Experience PointsRecommendation Second Class
    Awards:
    Posting Award
    Angela's Avatar
    Join Date
    02-01-11
    Posts
    14,824
    Points
    249,375
    Level
    100
    Points: 249,375, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 99.6%


    Ethnic group
    Italian
    Country: USA - New York



    There is another interesting paper that will be presented at the ASHG conference:

    Ancient European haplotype enrichment in modern Eurasian populations.

    Authors:
    D. Harris1 ; T. O’Connor2



    Institutes
    1) Graduate Program in Molecular Medicine, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD; 2) Institute for Genome Sciences, Program in Personalized and Genomic Medicine, Department of Medicine, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD.


    "Abstract:
    The diversification of modern European populations is a fascinating puzzle that has recently advanced due to the sequencing of ancient European genomes. We analyzed 732 modern West Eurasian individuals using three ancient samples coming from the Lazardis et al. Human Origins Array dataset. Specifically, we determined ancient European haplotype enrichment by calculating pairwise differences (PWD) between each ancient European individual and modern Western Eurasian individuals in 50 SNP blocks. Modern Western Eurasians had the fewest PWD across all population groups with the farming Stuttgart individual and had the most PWD with the Loschbour and Motala12 hunter-gatherer individuals confirming Lazardis et al. observation that modern Europeans are more similarly related to ancient individuals coming from a farming community. We selected SNP blocks, for gene ontology enrichment analysis through the use of GORILLA, based on 1) the 10% of regions with greatest differences of PWD between groups, and 2) the 10% of those regions from the first criterion that most closely correlated with the geography of those groups. Most SNP blocks positively correlated to PC1 (latitude) and PC2 (longitude), therefore we focused on outliers that negatively correlated to biogeography. For SNP blocks that negatively correlated to PC1; “regulation of chondrocyte development”, “androsterone dehydrogenase activity”, and “antigen processing and presentation of endogenous peptide antigen” had the highest enrichment score in the comparison of the Stuttgart, Loschbour, and Motala12 individuals, respectively. Interestingly, the “alpha-beta T cell receptor complex” and “interleukin-17 receptor activity” (including CD3D,E,G and IL17RC,E) were enriched in the Loschbour and Motala12 comparisons of SNP blocks that were positively correlated to PC2. In addition, the Stuttgart individual had the lowest PWD disparity between all modern populations for the SNP blocks that contain the IL17R and CD3 genes, which potentially indicates selection acting on these immune system haplotypes from the Stuttgart individual consistent with the Stuttgart farmer and modern Europeans’ continual close interaction with animals and zoonotic disease exposure. In conclusion, our approach of calculating PWD in small SNP blocks supported prior conclusions made by Lazardis et al. and illuminated small genomic haplotypes that are of importance to the evolution of modern West Eurasian populations."

    It looks like selection for genes found in Stuttgart to me.

  25. #75
    Elite member Achievements:
    Veteran10000 Experience Points
    epoch's Avatar
    Join Date
    13-09-13
    Posts
    779
    Points
    10,483
    Level
    30
    Points: 10,483, Level: 30
    Level completed: 89%, Points required for next Level: 67
    Overall activity: 2.0%


    Country: Netherlands



    Quote Originally Posted by Angela View Post
    It looks like selection for genes found in Stuttgart to me.
    Yes. No matter what our descent is made off, we live in the environment more similar to Stuttgart rather than Loschbour.

Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •