"Ghost" Archaic introgression in African populations

John Hawks was one of those who went on a witch hunt against David Reich and other ancient DNA researchers. To Hell with him.
 
Alyan said:
John Hawks was one of those who went on a witch hunt against David Reich and other ancient DNA researchers. To Hell with him.
Click to expand...

Well, he may still be right about the subject of this thread.

I was disappointed in him as well as far as the Reich story goes.
 
Keep in mind that these are just simulated models. The numbers are not necessarily reliable. They are using 95% CI intervals, just like all the social sciences, which produce conflicting claims with equally deserving methodology. Their CI for admixture time goes from 0 to 125.000 ybp! The CI for archaic DNA inheritance is 2%-19%, as you all noted, a huge interval. In my experience, that is not a very good sign. If they set the CI at 99% it would have probably included 0. And remember that they did this a year ago, and since then the numbers have changed quite a bit.

In any case, the split they suggested for this archaic human lineage is around 625.000 ybp, quite far, but not that much further than the Sapiens-Neaderthal/Denisova split.

But disregarding the numbers, the main conclusion that some African population interbred with yet unknown archaic humans looks very plausible.
 
Ownstyler said:
Keep in mind that these are just simulated models. The numbers are not necessarily reliable. They are using 95% CI intervals, just like all the social sciences, which produce conflicting claims with equally deserving methodology. Their CI for admixture time goes from 0 to 125.000 ybp! The CI for archaic DNA inheritance is 2%-19%, as you all noted, a huge interval. In my experience, that is not a very good sign. If they set the CI at 99% it would have probably included 0. And remember that they did this a year ago, and since then the numbers have changed quite a bit.

In any case, the split they suggested for this archaic human lineage is around 625.000 ybp, quite far, but not that much further than the Sapiens-Neaderthal/Denisova split.

But disregarding the numbers, the main conclusion that some African population interbred with yet unknown archaic humans looks very plausible.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the analysis. Very clear.
 
Moi-même said:
Mende in Sierra Leone, Liberia and Guinea; Yoruba from Nigeria to Côte-d'Ivoire...

From the fossil record, homo rhodesiensis seems too young, maybe homo antecessor or homo ergaster? Maybe a new homo species we haven't found trace of yet?
Click to expand...

In the past it has been assumed that it is a sub-species of Homo Erectus.

“Based on our analysis, the most plausible explanation for this extreme variation is archaic introgression — the introduction of genetic material from a ‘ghost’ species of ancient hominins,” Gokcumen says. “This unknown human relative could be a species that has been discovered, such as a subspecies of Homo erectus, or an undiscovered hominin. We call it a ‘ghost’ species because we don’t have the fossils.”

http://www.buffalo.edu/news/releases/2017/07/028.html
Click to expand...
 
Are there efforts to find fossils for the "ghosts"?
 
Farstar said:
Are there efforts to find fossils for the "ghosts"?
Click to expand...

Absolutely. The problem is that with the climate in many areas of Africa, they degrade more quickly than in more northern, colder parts of the world.

Newer techniques are making it easier to get some dna from them, but I don't know if we'll ever have as much as from more northern areas.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

This thread has been viewed 16917 times.

Back
Top