Sumerians and Native Americans could be related?

[adian808]

I wonder why this kind of pseudoscientific BS is still going on here

so are you saying map of ASI/AASI is a lie ? it's recognised by scientists meanwhile
even Masaman agree this map youtube.com/watch?v=slTy8MvLQ4U
the map show the irak region was peopled by ASI/AASIs 50000 years ago , so before semites come out of africa to people middle east see qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-8a1e2300d2869577d4ed9ae64e0898d3
Masaman showed a similar map and called this people arab veddoid (meaning here veddoids of arab region) and say this kind of people mixed later with jibali people of yemen
Also bernard sergent proposed ancient dravidians come from africa and mixed with AAsi people which come from africa too
and the ASI/AASI map is about presence of dravidians and AASIs from somalia to yemen, coastal arabia , bahrein , irak , iran , afghanistan , tadjikistan and pakistan and india to burma
are you saying Bernars Sergent is a liar too ? he's from the french CNRS !!!!!!!!
See clio.fr/BIBLIOTHEQUE/l_origine_des_populations_de_l_inde_a_la_lumiere_d es_dernieres_decouvertes_archeologiques.asp
- NB: ther's some somalis who contest masaman too ( somalispot.com/threads/masaman-claims-dir-is-austoloid.63709/) but what he says it's the truth even proven true by Bernard Sergent: australoids and dravidians come from horn of africa

 

[Doggerland]

If Africa was the origin of modern humans, it would have the highest/newest haplogroups and mtDNAs. But it hasn't. It has an archaic form of it and not much diversity. Why? I explain it this way: Because this was the first successful wave of migration of modern human ancestors into Africa, a long time ago which also gave rise to Neanderthals in Europe. The main admixture component of Neanderthals is Pygmy. The population did not rise very much in Africa, so not much mutations/new haplogroups and mtDNAs took place. There was also not much environmental pressure to adapt to climate changes or social situations. Only the drying of the Sahara. The fauna of Africa resembling the mega fauna of Eurasia before the glaciation periods.

According to this, the cradle of humanity may lie somewhere in East Asia/Siberia and the waves of migration spread first to Africa, Middle East, Europe, South Asia + Oceania/Australia, Americas.
Asia has the most haplogroup diversity, newest haplogroups.

If Dravidians where the first out of Africa, they would have a low genetic distance in PCAs to them, the fact is that this is not the chase. Dravidians are near modern Indians and 40.000 years old Tianyuan sample from Beijing. Negritos are even more distant to Africans and closer to Neolithic Vietnam, Singapore.

Why doesn't any of the very old Eurasian modern human samples have a large amount of Pygmy (Oldest African) component? They all have a rainbow-like mixed Ancestry of many components but not dominating African ancestry. If they where “Out of Africa” they had to carry this component a lot.
Is there any population in Africa who has the components of today's or pre LGM Eurasians? No. But African ancestry components where present in archaic Eurasian hominids like Neanderthals and Denisovans. The conclusion for this is: Modern Africans originate from Eurasia/Asia and represent a very early migration into Africa.

The only old modern human samples that carry a little more Afrcian ancestry components are Dzudzuana and Iberomaurusian, but they are not so old as Ust Ishim, Zlaty Kun, Yana, Salkhit or Krems who all have rainbow like admixture and not mainly African ancestry like Neanderthals. Dzudzuana and Iberomaurusian are too young to be “Basal Eurasian” and look more like a mixed population, created in later admixture events. So I didn’t see any genetic evidence for an “Out of Africa” as an initiator for human diversity.

In my opinion Dravidians descended from a very old Asian population that also gave rise to Iran HG. There is a connection between fertile crescent Neolithic and Dravidians, but it has nothing to do with Africans in my opinion, but with a very old Asian population.

I would change my mind, if very old samples from Africa, 40.000 years and older would show that i am wrong, but for now i dont see this.

 

[real expert]

I would post this in the original thread about the Aegeans, but it is closed.

About Kou1:

Was more a long, narrow faced person. Wide eye sockets, narrow eye distance, narrow forehead, long nose, broad lips, broad mouth. Data for nose tip position or nose bridge angle is missing.
Two SNPs suggest light skin, one dark, one is missing:

rs1426654 AA light
rs26722 CC light
rs642742 TT dark
rs2424984 MISSING

I would suggest brown skin.
Eye color was light brown to hazel.
Hair was curly and dark brown.

About Log02:

More SNPs for face are missing, but it suggest more round face, narrow forehead. Wide eye sockets, big eyes. Narrow nose, broad lips, middle sized mouth.
Only 2 eye color SNPs, determining the color is not possible.
Skin color:

rs1426654 MISSING
rs26722 CT one allele for dark
rs642742 CC light skin
rs2424984MISSING

Maybe brown, but we don’t know.
Wavy to curly, brown hair.


About PTA08:

More round faced, average forehead, wide eye sockets, narrow eye distance, big eyes, narrow nose, long nose bridge, large mouth, narrow lips.
Only 2 eye color SNPs, determining the color is not possible.
Skin color:

rs1426654 MISSING
rs26722 CC light skin.
rs642742 MISSING
rs2424984 MISSING

Cannot be determined.
Hair was wavy to curly, brown.

Klasse! Thanks for checking the prediction up. So overall you think that the complexion of one individual could be determined with a certain probability unlike the other two? Right? Plus how reliable do find the HIrisPL phenotype analysis on these 3 Aeageans?

 

[MOESAN]

i am not confusing dravidian language and race
according to scientists first people of india are AASIs and dravidians and mundas have a lot of their genes
according to scientists dravidians are a mix of a zagros people and AASIs
but we know Bernard Sergent of the french CNRS said dravidians come from africa and mix with aasis which come from africa too clio.fr/BIBLIOTHEQUE/l_origine_des_populations_de_l_inde_a_la_lumiere_des_dernieres_decouvertes_archeologiques.asp
and according ASI/AASI genetic presence map qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-8a1e2300d2869577d4ed9ae64e0898d3 mesopotamia was peopled by ASI/AASIs 50000years ago and they were the first people of the region, it's what Masaman called arab veddoid, so mesopotamia was peopled by blacks 50000 years ago and we know sumerians are sons of ubaidians and are the first people of mesopotamia,just like ASI/AAsis in the map so ubaidians were blacks and sumerians were blacks roo
my map is not about langage but genetics
about langage we have this site azargoshnasp.net/recent_history/pan_turkist_philosophy/sumd/austricsumerian.htm which says nearly the same thing I
i can' t post clearly linkscause i am newbie the forum said i must post 20 posts before posting pictures,
if you can help me , i can show yoi more and you would see i was right

I cannot read your link; ancestors of Dravidians, at the population level, surely came from Africa like the most of ours, around 50000 BC or earlier; the question is and stays: can we be sure the Sumerians were direct and unmixed descendants of these first "Dravidians"? Did B Sergent say the Dravidians were a secind wave?
Physically speaking we know Koweiti by example show today some "veddoid"like imput; but when occurred it, and where from?

 

[MOESAN]

I wonder why this kind of pseudoscientific BS is still going on here

Whatever your opinion about the present thread, what push you to consider Bernard Sergent is specially "pseudo-scientific" as you say?

 

[adian808]

If Africa was the origin of modern humans, it would have the highest/newest haplogroups and mtDNAs. But it hasn't. It has an archaic form of it and not much diversity. Why? I explain it this way: Because this was the first successful wave of migration of modern human ancestors into Africa, a long time ago which also gave rise to Neanderthals in Europe. The main admixture component of Neanderthals is Pygmy. The population did not rise very much in Africa, so not much mutations/new haplogroups and mtDNAs took place. There was also not much environmental pressure to adapt to climate changes or social situations. Only the drying of the Sahara. The fauna of Africa resembling the mega fauna of Eurasia before the glaciation periods.

According to this, the cradle of humanity may lie somewhere in East Asia/Siberia and the waves of migration spread first to Africa, Middle East, Europe, South Asia + Oceania/Australia, Americas.
Asia has the most haplogroup diversity, newest haplogroups.

If Dravidians where the first out of Africa, they would have a low genetic distance in PCAs to them, the fact is that this is not the chase. Dravidians are near modern Indians and 40.000 years old Tianyuan sample from Beijing. Negritos are even more distant to Africans and closer to Neolithic Vietnam, Singapore.

Why doesn't any of the very old Eurasian modern human samples have a large amount of Pygmy (Oldest African) component? They all have a rainbow-like mixed Ancestry of many components but not dominating African ancestry. If they where “Out of Africa” they had to carry this component a lot.
Is there any population in Africa who has the components of today's or pre LGM Eurasians? No. But African ancestry components where present in archaic Eurasian hominids like Neanderthals and Denisovans. The conclusion for this is: Modern Africans originate from Eurasia/Asia and represent a very early migration into Africa.

The only old modern human samples that carry a little more Afrcian ancestry components are Dzudzuana and Iberomaurusian, but they are not so old as Ust Ishim, Zlaty Kun, Yana, Salkhit or Krems who all have rainbow like admixture and not mainly African ancestry like Neanderthals. Dzudzuana and Iberomaurusian are too young to be “Basal Eurasian” and look more like a mixed population, created in later admixture events. So I didn’t see any genetic evidence for an “Out of Africa” as an initiator for human diversity.

In my opinion Dravidians descended from a very old Asian population that also gave rise to Iran HG. There is a connection between fertile crescent Neolithic and Dravidians, but it has nothing to do with Africans in my opinion, but with a very old Asian population.

I would change my mind, if very old samples from Africa, 40.000 years and older would show that i am wrong, but for now i dont see this.

Yves Coppens wouldn' t agree with you youtube.com/watch?v=3B62pG4i8RA&t=29s
remember also the mitochondrial eve come from africa ...

 

[adian808]

If Africa was the origin of modern humans, it would have the highest/newest haplogroups and mtDNAs. But it hasn't. It has an archaic form of it and not much diversity. Why? I explain it this way: Because this was the first successful wave of migration of modern human ancestors into Africa, a long time ago which also gave rise to Neanderthals in Europe. The main admixture component of Neanderthals is Pygmy. The population did not rise very much in Africa, so not much mutations/new haplogroups and mtDNAs took place. There was also not much environmental pressure to adapt to climate changes or social situations. Only the drying of the Sahara. The fauna of Africa resembling the mega fauna of Eurasia before the glaciation periods.

According to this, the cradle of humanity may lie somewhere in East Asia/Siberia and the waves of migration spread first to Africa, Middle East, Europe, South Asia + Oceania/Australia, Americas.
Asia has the most haplogroup diversity, newest haplogroups.

If Dravidians where the first out of Africa, they would have a low genetic distance in PCAs to them, the fact is that this is not the chase. Dravidians are near modern Indians and 40.000 years old Tianyuan sample from Beijing. Negritos are even more distant to Africans and closer to Neolithic Vietnam, Singapore.

Why doesn't any of the very old Eurasian modern human samples have a large amount of Pygmy (Oldest African) component? They all have a rainbow-like mixed Ancestry of many components but not dominating African ancestry. If they where “Out of Africa” they had to carry this component a lot.
Is there any population in Africa who has the components of today's or pre LGM Eurasians? No. But African ancestry components where present in archaic Eurasian hominids like Neanderthals and Denisovans. The conclusion for this is: Modern Africans originate from Eurasia/Asia and represent a very early migration into Africa.

The only old modern human samples that carry a little more Afrcian ancestry components are Dzudzuana and Iberomaurusian, but they are not so old as Ust Ishim, Zlaty Kun, Yana, Salkhit or Krems who all have rainbow like admixture and not mainly African ancestry like Neanderthals. Dzudzuana and Iberomaurusian are too young to be “Basal Eurasian” and look more like a mixed population, created in later admixture events. So I didn’t see any genetic evidence for an “Out of Africa” as an initiator for human diversity.

In my opinion Dravidians descended from a very old Asian population that also gave rise to Iran HG. There is a connection between fertile crescent Neolithic and Dravidians, but it has nothing to do with Africans in my opinion, but with a very old Asian population.

I would change my mind, if very old samples from Africa, 40.000 years and older would show that i am wrong, but for now i dont see this.

Dravidians come from africa see this genetic map from 50000years ago qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-8a1e2300d2869577d4ed9ae64e0898d3
clio.fr/BIBLIOTHEQUE/l_origine_des_populations_de_l_inde_a_la_lumiere_des_dernieres_decouvertes_archeologiques.asp

 

[Doggerland]

Yves Coppens wouldn' t agree with you youtube.com/watch?v=3B62pG4i8RA&t=29s
remember also the mitochondrial eve come from africa ...

Yes I know, most people wouldn't agree with me, because Out of Africa is the most widely accepted theory today, it also has evidence. But from the data I have seen by myself I wouldn't agree to this theory. I also have doubts about this idea of Basal Eurasian. But that doesn't mean that I am 100% confident that I am right, because if there would be data that convinced me, I would change my mind. But I also explained this widely in my last post.

The mtDNA and Y-DNA that is believed to be of Afrcian origin is also found in very old (low quality) samples from Europe:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archaeological_site_of_Atapuerca#Sima_de_los_Huesos_(1983_to_present)

https://www.ebi.ac.uk/ena/browser/view/PRJEB10597

Predicted mtDNA and Y-DNA:

ERR995358+ ERR995359 Y=BT https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_BT

ERR995361 MT = L1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_L1_(mtDNA)

The oldest Sub Saharan African DNA sample today is from Malawi Mesolithic. Pygmy is its main ancestry component. So there is no genetic evidence for Out of Africa in my opinion, but many against it. Low haplogroup and mtDNA diversity in Africa against Asia, Pygmy as main component of Neanderthals and Denisovans VS diverse Eurasian Ancestry in very old Eurasians like Zlaty Kun, Ust Ishim, Salkhit or Krems. Africans appear isolated on PCAs and populations that are believed to be first out of Africa like Aborigines or Negritos doesn't carry much African admixture and doesn't cluster with Africans, instead of Neanderthals and Denisovans, who cluster with today's Africans.

Eurogenes K36:


Malawi Mesolithic:

Pygmy 55.94
East African 17.83
West African 11.68
Omotic 11.56
1.85 Basque
1.04 French

Neanderthal Forbes Quarry Gibraltar 30-50.000 years old:

Pygmy 71.38
North Atlantic 10
Italian 8.18
Iberian 4.22
East African 3.25
French 1.46
Oceanian 0.96

Salkhit from Siberia 33-34.000 years old:

East Balkan 14.85
Italian 9.91
Siberian 9.05
Indo Chinese 8.86
South Asian 5.94
East African 5.81
West Med 5.52
Oceanian 5.46
North Caucasian 4.35
Near Eastern 4.35
West Caucasian 3.96
East Med 3.35
Fennoscandian 3.33
South Chinese 2.97
Central Euro 2.96
French2.66
Eastern Euro 1.90
Malayan 1.62
North Atlantic 1.28
North African 0.74
North Sea 0.64
Pygmy 0.27
Iberian 0.19
South Central Asian 0.03

Krems from Austria, 31.000 years old:

Iberian 22.75
North Sea 15.55
Central Euro 14.79
Eastern Euro 10.14
North Atlantic 8.89
South Asian 4.53
Basque 4.12
French 4
West Med 3.37
East Med 3.14
Indo Chinese 3
Fennoscandian 2.75
Amerindian 1.56
East Balkan 1.33

Zlaty Kun 45.000 years old human from Europe:

South Asian 24.86
South Central Asian 14.29
Oceanian 8.71
Malayan 7.89
East African 5.03
Omotic 4.56
North African 4.33
West African 3.63
Pygmy 3.05
Volga Ural 2.93
Arabian 2.62
East Asian 2.59
East Med 2.34
North Atlantic 1.67
North Sea 1.61
Amerindian 1.52
Armenian 1.33
Eastern Euro 1.09
West Caucasian 0.20
East Central Asian 0.17
Central African 0.14
Iberian 0.14

Aboriginal Australian:

Oceanian 78.4
South Asian 10.71
Pygmy 3.81
Central African 3.34
Malayan 2.23
Arabian 0.43
West African 0.42

Andaman Islander:

South Asian 42.42
Malayan 29.08
Oceanian 12.5
East Asian 4.03
Omotic 3.16
East Med 2.6
East African 2.47
Central African 1.79
North Caucasian 1.39
Italian 0.55

For me the conclusion is that Africans descended by archaic human ancestors in Eurasia as first wave out of Asia and got relatively isolated by the drying of the Sahara. Rest of humanity also originates in Asia and spread in different waves. The ancient Eurasian samples represent peoples with diverse ancestry that could later divide into today's Non-African populations, while archaic hominids represent a low genetic diversity like today's Sub Saharan Africans and could therefore be their main ancestors.

 

[Doggerland]

Klasse! Thanks for checking the prediction up. So overall you think that the complexion of one individual could be determined with a certain probability unlike the other two? Right? Plus how reliable do find the HIrisPL phenotype analysis on these 3 Aeageans?

Ultimately one can only know how they may really looked, if all SNPs are present. I don’t know how accurate the analysis is, because for that one would need the incomplete and a complete sample of the same person. In this scenario accuracy can be checked like it is possible with Imputation and two different quality samples of the same person.

 

[MOESAN]

It's true we could expect more derived SNP's of the original core population, number favouring mutations; but it depends also of the evolution of the original population; it would be needed to know the different effective populations over time in different places because what is sure is that humans colonised other lands, and according to life/ecological conditions some of the "son" pop's could have been more numerous than the "mother" one... Climate changes could have played a big role.

 

[adian808]

Aborigines , australoids and dravidians are sons of african L3 ( M haplogroups from L

Yes I know, most people wouldn't agree with me, because Out of Africa is the most widely accepted theory today, it also has evidence. But from the data I have seen by myself I wouldn't agree to this theory.

. Africans appear isolated on PCAs and populations that are believed to be first out of Africa like Aborigines or Negritos doesn't carry much African admixture and doesn't cluster with Africans, instead of Neanderthals and Denisovans, who cluster with today's Africans.

Eurogenes K36:


Malawi Mesolithic:

Pygmy 55.94
East African 17.83
West African 11.68
Omotic 11.56
1.85 Basque
1.04 French

Neanderthal Forbes Quarry Gibraltar 30-50.000 years old:

Pygmy 71.38
North Atlantic 10
Italian 8.18
Iberian 4.22
East African 3.25
French 1.46
Oceanian 0.96

Salkhit from Siberia 33-34.000 years old:

East Balkan 14.85
Italian 9.91
Siberian 9.05
Indo Chinese 8.86
South Asian 5.94
East African 5.81
West Med 5.52
Oceanian 5.46
North Caucasian 4.35
Near Eastern 4.35
West Caucasian 3.96
East Med 3.35
Fennoscandian 3.33
South Chinese 2.97
Central Euro 2.96
French2.66
Eastern Euro 1.90
Malayan 1.62
North Atlantic 1.28
North African 0.74
North Sea 0.64
Pygmy 0.27
Iberian 0.19
South Central Asian 0.03

Krems from Austria, 31.000 years old:

Iberian 22.75
North Sea 15.55
Central Euro 14.79
Eastern Euro 10.14
North Atlantic 8.89
South Asian 4.53
Basque 4.12
French 4
West Med 3.37
East Med 3.14
Indo Chinese 3
Fennoscandian 2.75
Amerindian 1.56
East Balkan 1.33

Zlaty Kun 45.000 years old human from Europe:

South Asian 24.86
South Central Asian 14.29
Oceanian 8.71
Malayan 7.89
East African 5.03
Omotic 4.56
North African 4.33
West African 3.63
Pygmy 3.05
Volga Ural 2.93
Arabian 2.62
East Asian 2.59
East Med 2.34
North Atlantic 1.67
North Sea 1.61
Amerindian 1.52
Armenian 1.33
Eastern Euro 1.09
West Caucasian 0.20
East Central Asian 0.17
Central African 0.14
Iberian 0.14

Aboriginal Australian:

Oceanian 78.4
South Asian 10.71
Pygmy 3.81
Central African 3.34
Malayan 2.23
Arabian 0.43
West African 0.42

Andaman Islander:

South Asian 42.42
Malayan 29.08
Oceanian 12.5
East Asian 4.03
Omotic 3.16
East Med 2.6
East African 2.47
Central African 1.79
North Caucasian 1.39
Italian 0.55

For me the conclusion is that Africans descended by archaic human ancestors in Eurasia as first wave out of Asia and got relatively isolated by the drying of the Sahara. Rest of humanity also originates in Asia and spread in different waves. The ancient Eurasian samples represent peoples with diverse ancestry that could later divide into today's Non-African populations, while archaic hominids represent a low genetic diversity like today's Sub Saharan Africans and could therefore be their main ancestors.

it's not the bodies of old humans in africa proved, there's no older bodies of humans in asia
About aborigines they have M haplogroup same way dravidians and australoids and M originate in african L3 and there's modern africans who share this L3 today wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_M_(mtDNA)

 

[Doggerland]

it's not the bodies of old humans in africa proved, there's no older bodies of humans in asia
About aborigines they have M haplogroup same way dravidians and australoids and M originate in african L3 and there's modern africans who share this L3 today wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_M_(mtDNA)

No it is not proved, it is a wide accepted theory. There are hominids and/or primates that where found everywhere from Europe to Asia, Americas and Africa. There are many African archaic hominid fossils but that doesn't proof that modern humans originate there.
There is no ancient genetic African sample older then Mesolithic till today and also some African states block scientists from taking DNA samples from ancient human remains, because they don’t want Europeans to analyze it. For example the Hofmeyr skull.

The only evidence is of fossil record and that is challenged by other fossil records from Eurasia and Americas:

https://www.floridamuseum.ufl.edu/science/oldest-primates-north-america/

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/05/170523083548.htm

https://www.oldest.org/culture/human-fossils/

https://www.oldest.org/people/human-remains/

The prediction when and from where a haplogorup has risen is predicted by hypothetical mathematical calculation. You can read in the article you posted yourself, that scientist don’t know where it really originates, Asia or Africa.
This can only be determined if ancient samples are present and there is no African sample that is older then Mesolithic till today.
Even L3 is hypothetical Asia or Africa. And like I said, these are ancient Archaic Hominid haplogorups, not modern human ones in my opinion.
The ancestor L1 seems to be present in European Homo Heidelbergensis remains from Sima de Los Huesos in Europe.

In my opinion the so called African haplogorups are that of archaic humans like Neanderthals, Denisovans, Homo Erectus/Heidelbergensis from Asia.
That also fits with their strong Pygmy ancestry component and the distribution of mtDNA L1 today:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplo...nterpolation_maps_for_L1_haplogroup_total.png

EurogenesK36

Modern Pygmy from Africa

Pygmy 77.35
West African 18.99
Central African 2.65
East African 0.94

Malawi Mesolithic oldest African genetic sample today:

Pygmy 55.94
East African 17.83
West African 11.68
Omotic 11.56
Basque 1.85
French 1.04

Denisova Cave Child archaic hominid https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denisova_Cave

Pygmy 67.74
West African 11.44
Omotic 5.68
Basque 3.65
North Sea 3.62
Eastern Euro 2.11
French 1.18
North Atlantic 1.23
Fennoscandian 0.72
East Central Euro 1
West Med 0.95

Denisova archaic hominid

Pygmy 87.19
West African 5.89
Omotic 2.52
Oceanian 2.31
Siberian 0.65
East Central Euro 0.57
Indo Chinese 0.52
Volga Ural 0.18
Amerindian 0.18

Neanderthal from Mezmaiskaya https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mezmaiskaya_cave

Pygmy 84.04
West African 5.4
North Atlantic 2.41
Omotic 1.3
Basque 1.25
East Central Euro 1.01
Arabian 0.92
Eas tAfrican 0.84
Armenian 0.72

Neanderthal of Forbes Quarry Gibraltar 30-50.000 years old:

Pygmy 71.38
North Atlantic 10
Italian 8.18
Iberian 4.22
East African 3.25
French 1.46
Oceanian 0.96

Oldest “Living Fossil Primate” Chimpanzee https://www.ebi.ac.uk/ena/browser/view/SAMEA2421546

Pygmy 78.76
West African 8.57
Omotic 7.64
Oceanian 1.57
South Chinese 1.24
North Atlantic 0.73

Tianyuan1 from near Beijing 40.000 years old Asian:

South Asian 35.18
East Asian 20.62
Oceanian 9.04
Siberian 8.82
Fennoscandian 6.88
Malayan 5.89
Amerindian 4.93
Central African 3.84
Basque 3.15
Omotic 1.64
South Chinese 0.02

It is may be true that archaic hominids lived a long time also in Africa, but I don’t think that the main ancestor of modern Eurasians and Africans came from there. And that is because of low haplogorupdiversity in Africa, low genetic variation in traits and ancestry components and the missing large African ancestry components in pre-LGM Eurasian populations and so called “First out of Africa ”populations like Australians.

But this is the last statement I give, I wont waste my time, if my discussion partner is posting only links and Youtube videos and does not have an own opinion or describes his viewpoint detailed.

Or can you explain why archaic hominids and oldest African Populations match really good but don’t match with pre LGM Eurasians of the same age? The missing link from Africa is still missing.

The only possible “Out of Africa” explanation that is supported by the data I have posted would be that: Modern Eurasians are acompletely different Branch of humans and descended from archaic hominids in Asia. Africans evolved independent from them from archaic hominids in Africa. But I don’t think so.

 

[kingjohn]

Anatolia HGs nose had an average long nose bridge and a down tuned nose tip. Other SNPs for nose are missing.

I once posted about the Natufians in another thread. Here are the similarities to modern populations again:

Middle East 75%
Swede 70%
Estonian 67% European 67% Ashkenazi Jewish 67% Northern South Asian 67%
Netherlands 65% United Kingdom 65%
Danish 61% Pygmy 61% African 61%
Basque 51%
Bedouin 50%
Sardinian 48%
Orcadian 46%
Adygei 45% Palestine 45%
French 44% Russian 44%
Italian 43%
Hungarian 39%
Turkish 36%
Ukrainian 21.4 %

IfI only use SNPs for skull physiology, it is only 50% matching with Africans.

About the nose again:

rs4787778 MISSING (nosebridge angle)
rs2058742 TT (Nose tip position is upturned)
rs17640804 TT (Breadth of nostrils is slim)
rs3751074 GG (Nose bridge lenght is long)

Seems that some People disliked that they or some of them had an upturned nose tip, because its not matching with their ideas of how they should look.

Hooked nose bridge with upturned nose tip:https://www.drhilinski.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/FinesseRhino196OblLatBefore1Diagram1.jpg

Straight nose bridge with upturned nose:https://i.pinimg.com/originals/45/80/20/45802075e38f029981bd778c81956d44.jpg

Hooked nose bridge with down turned nose tip:https://rhinoplasty-blog.com/wp-con...e-Historically-Better-Known-As-Roman-Nose.jpg

We don’t know that kind of nose bridge type they had, only nose tip.

these are mine
( your thoght is welcome i think my nostrils are wide and my nose upturned)

MINE ( from ftdna raw data)
rs4787778 GG (nosebridge angle)
rs2058742 TG (Nose tip position)
rs17640804 CC(Breadth of nostrils)
rs3751074 GG (nose bridge length )
rs3920540 TG
rs2045323 GG

 

[Doggerland]

rs4787778 GG is upturned nose bridge angle. TT would be hooked

rs2058742 TG is straight nose tip

rs3751074 GG is long nose bridge

But you have to consider that man wont get a very upturned nose bridge ingeneral, because the influence of testosterone on the bone physiology.
And there may be other SNPs influencing this traits. For example the thickness and structure of the skin which can make a noselook much larger or broader. Or the breadth of the face in general.
For a very exact analysis we would need whole genome sequencing data of living people and ancient samples without damaged DNA.This is in most cases not available.

And another thing has to be considered. The SNPs I am using are selected to be the most relevant on GWAS studies and if they where present in ancient samples.
But none of those SNPS reach a 100% value of effect. That means for example that 71% of the peoples in the study with rs12345 TT have hooked nose bridge, but 29% with rs12345 TT didn’t have.

 

[kingjohn]

Thanks for answere
Thats fascinating how dna
Effect our facial features
Do you have an examples or
Images of
Upturned nose bridge angel ?
Maybe this lady
Carey Mulligan

Or this sicilian dude
http://isabelle.theviot.free.fr/pagim/joe.htm

P.s
I think upturned nose bridge angel is rare no
Maybe more common in east asian

 

[adian808]

No it is not proved, it is a wide accepted theory. .

This map qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-8a1e2300d2869577d4ed9ae64e0898d3 preoves it :
50000 years ago blacks from L3 haplogroup migrate in asia and were of the M haplogroup this prove genes can mute
first people of asia were blacks ( dravidians and australoid peoples)
first people of europe as cheddar man were blacks of M haplogroup which mute and later mute to become white
first humans were from african even the sinanthropus is a mutant coming from africa wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_erectus

 

[Doggerland]

Thanks for answere

I think upturned nose bridge angel is rare no
Maybe more common in east asian

NCBI says concave nose bridge is most common in Africans and Afro Americans, most uncommon in Caucasus, South Asians, Siberians and East Asians.
Maybe the straight or hooked nose bridge is not so prominent in East Asians, because they have a generally more pedomorphic facial bone physiology. But there are also East Asian people which have a little hook or their nose bridge.

https://1.soompi.io/wp-content/uploads/3/b/9f/439743/439743.jpg

https://i.pinimg.com/originals/f1/31/9c/f1319c3c307ba7f920f5dd90306504f2.jpg

 

[Doggerland]

This map qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-8a1e2300d2869577d4ed9ae64e0898d3 preoves it :
50000 years ago blacks from L3 haplogroup migrate in asia and were of the M haplogroup this prove genes can mute
first people of asia were blacks ( dravidians and australoid peoples)
first people of europe as cheddar man were blacks of M haplogroup which mute and later mute to become white
first humans were from african even the sinanthropus is a mutant coming from africa wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_erectus

The term “Black” is not a modern population genetic therm and has no support in modern sciences. It is an outdated concept like “White Race” or “Aryan” in Third Reich Germany.
“Black” is a social empowerment terminology today based on primitive human eye recognition of someones skin color, based on social liberation ideas or racist mythology, but not on genetic science.

Australian Aboriginals and ancient Iranians are genetically very distant from today's Africans.
Cheddar Man is a typical Mesolithic European and not African in any way. See his Eurogenes K36 results:

32.26% Fennoscandian
24.48% North_Sea
16.45% East_Central_Euro
10.70% Eastern_Euro
9.41% North_Atlantic
6.69% Basque

Cheddar Mans Y Haplogroup was I2a2 and mtDNA U5b1 not M.

The nearest ancient populations that cluster with today's Africans are Neanderthals, Denisovans and the living Primates. I have posted you all the Eurogenes K36 results before.

The map you linked says nothing, not what program was used to generate it, nor if it is just someones imagination of how he liked it to be. There is no paleolithic sample from the region you posted and no proof for a “Proto Caucasoid/Veddoid” in this region.

Veddoid/Dravidian peoples are of Eurasian descent, cluster with other Indian Ethnicities and are in a triangle between Tianyuan 1, Vietnam HG and Ust Ishim. No connection to Sub Saharan Africa in the last 45.000years.

There is no such thing as a white race, because depigmentation causing skin, hair and eye alleles evolved independently in Eurasia and there are not only one, but many paleolithic sources of them: Scandinavia, Siberia, Anatolia for example.
There is no single population that was the ancestor of all Europeans. Its a myth with the same harmful social consequences as the myth of a global black race.

Albinism is not the source of fair skin in Europe and Asia, the mutations that cause the so called “Albino Dravidians” from the Black Supermacy internet sites are not on the same SNPs as the ones for today's fair skin.
The blue eyed Africans you can find on google do not posses the same alleles as Eurasians, its a genetic disease called Waardenburg Syndrome and is not located on the same SNPs as Eurasian blue eyes.

 

[kingjohn]

NCBI says concave nose bridge is most common in Africans and Afro Americans, most uncommon in Caucasus, South Asians, Siberians and East Asians.
Maybe the straight or hooked nose bridge is not so prominent in East Asians, because they have a generally more pedomorphic facial bone physiology. But there are also East Asian people which have a little hook or their nose bridge.

https://1.soompi.io/wp-content/uploads/3/b/9f/439743/439743.jpg

https://i.pinimg.com/originals/f1/31/9c/f1319c3c307ba7f920f5dd90306504f2.jpg

interesting from your anlaysis any ancient individual had G/G values like me in rs4787778 ?

 

[Doggerland]

interesting from your anlaysis any ancient individual had G/G values like me in rs4787778 ?

Yes, many ones:

Ancient Roman, Balkan Neolithic, Celtic France, Eastern Bell Beaker, Ertebolle, Hittite, Hungarian Hunter Gatherer, Iberomaurusian, Iron Gates Hunter Gatherer, Karanovo, Kura Araxes, Mal Ta Buret, Megalithic Scotland, Sunghir