World Families Forums - Beaker Folk Finds: Skulls, Reconstructions, Artifacts, etc.

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
April 18, 2014, 09:14:57 PM
Home Help Search Login Register

+  World Families Forums
|-+  General Forums - Note: You must Be Logged In to post. Anyone can browse.
| |-+  R1b General (Moderator: rms2)
| | |-+  Beaker Folk Finds: Skulls, Reconstructions, Artifacts, etc.
« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 Go Down Print
Author Topic: Beaker Folk Finds: Skulls, Reconstructions, Artifacts, etc.  (Read 7471 times)
Jean M
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1253


« Reply #100 on: July 01, 2012, 06:42:44 AM »

It seems to me some folks are attempting to parlay some extremely tenuous autosomal resemblances into an argument for continuity in NW Europe.

Not just the NW. These results seem to be causing heartburn in several quarters. Lawrence Mayka became caustic, feeling that the Lithuanians should come up tops in the "most ancient Europeans" competition. Meanwhile the Basques would like to point out that if you examine the evidence with due care it goes away and we can return to them as top dogs in said competition. This of course will have the Irish up in arms, as they should be top dogs in all competitions as is well known. (What was the competition again? Was it most red-headed?)
« Last Edit: July 01, 2012, 06:45:24 AM by Jean M » Logged
rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #101 on: July 01, 2012, 06:57:16 AM »

It seems to me some folks are attempting to parlay some extremely tenuous autosomal resemblances into an argument for continuity in NW Europe.

Not just the NW. These results seem to be causing heartburn in several quarters. Lawrence Mayka became caustic, feeling that the Lithuanians should come up tops in the "most ancient Europeans" competition. Meanwhile the Basques would like to point out that if you examine the evidence with due care it goes away and we can return to them as top dogs in said competition. This of course will have the Irish up in arms, as they should be top dogs in all competitions as is well known. (What was the competition again? Was it most red-headed?)

It's kind of amusing. Since the La Braña skeletons don't really resemble any modern humans, any resemblance to Basques or Lithuanians or whomever has got to be threadbare at best.

I wonder what happened to the y-dna runs on these two skeletons. The estimates of the chances of contamination seem reasonably low (but I'm not sure what the threshold standard is). If contamination were a problem for the y-dna runs, that would taint the entire effort on all genetic fronts, it seems to me. So, what happened?

I doubt the results showed any kind of R1b. That would have been big news and would have been remarked on as a possible link to modern Iberians.
« Last Edit: July 01, 2012, 07:17:41 AM by rms2 » Logged

Jean M
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1253


« Reply #102 on: July 01, 2012, 07:02:07 AM »

I wonder what happened to the y-dna runs on these two skeletons. The estimates of the chances of contamination seem reasonably low (but I'm not sure what the threshold standard is). If contamination were a problem for the y-dna runs, that would taint the entire effort on all genetic fronts, it seems to me. So, what happened?

We'd love to know. More publications on the DNA are planned. Let's hope that they can get a clear sequence from the Y-DNA. It might be an extinct haplogroup, which would really need a separate paper to get a grip on.   
« Last Edit: July 01, 2012, 07:05:18 AM by Jean M » Logged
acekon
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 152


« Reply #103 on: July 01, 2012, 10:10:25 AM »

Ah yes, chasing the old hypothetical and elusive ydna trail thingy for setting up mathematical models of ancestral movements.
Logged

YDNA: R-Z2105* Śląsk-Polska
MtDNA: U5b2a2*Königsberg-Ostpreussen
alan trowel hands.
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2012


« Reply #104 on: July 01, 2012, 10:52:36 AM »

7000 years ago, was R1b in the Iberian Peninsula?

La Brana, rough breakdown

45%- Atlantic_Med found in French Basque @73.1%
41.6%-North_European found in Lithuanians @ 77.1%
10.3%-East_African found in Somalians @ 69.9%
1%-Sub_Saharan found in Yoruba @100%

However the French Basque in  k12b have no East African[Somalia] or Sub_Saharan[Yoruba].  However they do have 9.8% "Gedrosia" which peaks around Balochi/Brahui. So  what happened to the African components 7000 years ago?

To be honest I have always felt that NW Europeans are likely to owe a big chunk of their autosomal from the outpouring from the western refuges associated with Magdallenian, although not forgetting that the latter are descendants of people who thrust into the west from east-central Europe.  I do tend to think of NW and NE European to be related to hunter gatherer groups in the SW and east of Europe who moved out after the ice age.  it would normally be thought that Iberians in the late Mesolithic are still in some way descended from the Magdalenian hunters and not some late Mesolithic influx from the east.  Anyway the predominance of temperate European in these hunters doesnt surprise me one bit.  What is really interesting is the African component.  There has been suggestions in the past that the Solutrean might have had links with Africa.  I wonder if that could be some sort of remnant that survived among the Magdalenians.  I recall reading that the root culture of the Magdalenians, the Badeguallian was a cold-adapted culture from the east, possibly better placed to do well in the LGM conditions compared to the Soluterans.
Logged
Jean M
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1253


« Reply #105 on: July 01, 2012, 11:39:39 AM »

Oh golly Alan! Full-on anti-migrationism like grandad used to make. Is this nostalgia time? Or are you hoping to catch the next swing of the pendulum? The backlash against the backlash against the backlash, so to speak.   
« Last Edit: July 01, 2012, 11:55:39 AM by Jean M » Logged
alan trowel hands.
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2012


« Reply #106 on: July 01, 2012, 12:22:26 PM »

Oh golly Alan! Full-on anti-migrationism like grandad used to make. Is this nostalgia time? Or are you hoping to catch the next swing of the pendulum? The backlash against the backlash against the backlash, so to speak.   

lol lord no.  I just think that in autosomal DNA the pre-farming people may have left a mark in some of the extremities.  Its a period I find interesting.   I actually wonder if a lot of Mesolithic DNA was absorbed by the farmers as they moved SE-NW and perhaps because of this the farmers that arrived in NW Europe already had a lot genetically in common with the hunter-gathers. The sample is still way to small to say.  But no I have no wish to join the anti-migrationists or back-project R1b into that period. I would be curious to know how much the relative input of famers and hunters has been in terms of non-Y DNA though.  Seems the database is gathering pace now but not quite enough to draw conclusions.  Seems like in another year or two and it will be clear enough.  I dont follow mtDNA that closely but there seems to be a bit of a ding dong going on about pre-farming haplogroup H and that will have a bearing on how much farming and pre-farming input there was.  Clearly if it was all U then the input is not that huge in NW Europe but I would like to see how the haplogroup H thing resolves.

BTW, how is the book coming along? 
Logged
Jean M
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1253


« Reply #107 on: July 01, 2012, 12:49:18 PM »

I actually wonder if a lot of Mesolithic DNA was absorbed by the farmers as they moved SE-NW and perhaps because of this the farmers that arrived in NW Europe already had a lot genetically in common with the hunter-gathers.

That idea has been around for quite a while. Goes back to Albert Ammerman and Luca Cavalli-Sforza (1971) cline of classical markers which they proposed to link to a steady "wave of advance". Sir Walter Bodmer is still living in 1971 in this respect and cited this study as evidence that by the time the farmers reached the north they were genetically Mesolithic.

In fact Ammerman has changed his mind and the whole "wave of advance" has been shot full of holes. The actual live farmers went in for leap-frogging colonization and movement in fits and starts, heading for unused land where possible and keeping apart from hunters and generally not behaving as predicted by the model in any way whatever.  Just typical of human beings one feels. So far the aDNA is leaning more towards apartheid than fraternization in the early Neolithic, but it is  more mixed in the southern late Neolithic and in the Copper Age - particularly in the cultures that I deduce to be IE. But you can see for yourself in my table. 

Quote
BTW, how is the book coming along?

I've got to the stage of feeling fit to scream, as you can probably tell.
« Last Edit: July 01, 2012, 12:54:55 PM by Jean M » Logged
alan trowel hands.
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2012


« Reply #108 on: July 01, 2012, 01:27:13 PM »

I actually wonder if a lot of Mesolithic DNA was absorbed by the farmers as they moved SE-NW and perhaps because of this the farmers that arrived in NW Europe already had a lot genetically in common with the hunter-gathers.

That idea has been around for quite a while. Goes back to Albert Ammerman and Luca Cavalli-Sforza (1971) cline of classical markers which they proposed to link to a steady "wave of advance". Sir Walter Bodmer is still living in 1971 in this respect and cited this study as evidence that by the time the farmers reached the north they were genetically Mesolithic.

In fact Ammerman has changed his mind and the whole "wave of advance" has been shot full of holes. The actual live farmers went in for leap-frogging colonization and movement in fits and starts, heading for unused land where possible and keeping apart from hunters and generally not behaving as predicted by the model in any way whatever.  Just typical of human beings one feels. So far the aDNA is leaning more towards apartheid than fraternization in the early Neolithic, but it is  more mixed in the southern late Neolithic and in the Copper Age - particularly in the cultures that I deduce to be IE. But you can see for yourself in my table. 

Quote
BTW, how is the book coming along?

I've got to the stage of feeling fit to scream, as you can probably tell.

I get days of writers block even on relatively short reports.  Usually no point trying on days like that.  Do you have a hard and fast deadline?
Logged
JeanL
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 425


« Reply #109 on: July 01, 2012, 01:37:44 PM »

Let’s out things in perspectives here:

The remains are from La Braña Cave, Leon., they were dated to:
 
  • Braña 1: 6980±50 calBP (5990-5750 BP – raw C14)
  • Braña 2: 7030±50 calBP (6010-5800 BP – raw C14)

Now onto the SNPs used for each PCA graph:

Quote from: Sanchez.Quinto.et.al.2012


Sequence Analysis and SNP Filtering

Raw reads were first filtered with an in-house script to remove low quality and adapter sequences as well as low quality stretches at the 3’ ends. Filtered reads were then mapped to the human reference genome (hg18) using BWA version 0.5.9 [6] requiring a mapping quality of >25. Clonal reads were removed using the rmdup program of the Samtools (version 0.1.18 [7]) suite. Ambiguously mapped reads were also filtered out using Samtools and controlling for XT and XA tags.  Sites were overlapped with the low coverage SNPs Phase1 dataset from the 1,000 Genomes Project (http://ftp://ftp.1000genomes.ebi.ac.uk/vol1/ftp/release/20101123/interim_phase1_release) [8].
To exclude potentially damaged sites from the analysis, the first and last five nucleotides in each read were “masked” with the lowest quality and only bases with base quality of >40 were consider for  downstream analysis. Due to limited coverage, most positions were covered with a single read; in positions covered by >1 reads a random read was sampled. To compensate for the fact that no heterozygous/homozygous state could be ascertained in the ancient data due to the low coverage, one allele was randomly sampled from all SNPs in the modern reference individuals. Subsequently, the information in both ancient and modern datasets was duplicated to generate homozygote individuals. All triallelic sites (N=35 for La Braña 1 and N=11 for La Braña 2), likely to be sequencing or alignment errors, were excluded from the SNP dataset. All SNPs with C/T and G/A changes in La Braña 1 sequences were also excluded, to avoid possible artifacts derived from the typical ancient DNA base modifications. Once all SNP positions were identified, sites were pruned using PLINK software, with the LD-based SNP pruning option with default parameters (pairwise genotypic r2 > 0.5 within sliding windows of 50 Kb) in order to only retain informative positions and avoid the possible linkage biases.

Several reference sets were considered for comparison with the La Braña 1 and 2 specimens; the first included only European populations while the second included African, Asian and European populations from 1,000 Genomes Project. Positions in these sets were filtered using plink (http://pngu.mgh.harvard.edu/purcell/plink/) [9] and only SNPs with a MAF >0.5% considered. For La Braña 1, 67,401 sites overlapped with SNPs from European individuals and 106,120 SNPs with the populations worldwide. After quality filters were applied, these figures were reduced to 47,742 and 73,347, respectively. For La Braña 2, the overlapped SNPs were 109,960 and 48,513, respectively. After filtering, the number of SNPs was reduced to 32,339 and 20,750, respectively.

Principal Component Analysis
 
We performed a principal component analysis (PCA) on the SNP data from the La Braña 1 and 2 specimens, using data from the 1,000 Genomes Project for comparison. This dataset includes 379 European individuals and 850 individuals worldwide from contemporary populations. In order to control for possible bias in the subset of SNPs mapped from the sequence data, a Site Frequency Spectrum plot for both datasets (whole and thinned) was generated. No major differences were found at any population in the thinned dataset pointing that randomly distributed SNPs were selected from the Mesolithic individuals.

So the Principal Component Analysis was done with a higher number of SNPs for worldwide comparisons than for European comparisons. Nonetheless, since the long term plan is to fully sequence the genome, I would say that anything can happen when instead of 20,000 SNPs and 50,000 SNPs are used for European PCA, or 70,000 SNPs and 35,000 SNPs for worldwide PCA. Nonetheless, the changes would likely be minor, given that statistically speaking 20,000 SNPs is a number sufficient enough to yield truly representative data. Now, something to note is that in worldwide comparisons the number of nonEuropeans is higher(850) than the number of European individuals(379).  Now onto the comparisons made using PCA analyses.

Quote from: Sanchez.Quinto.et.al.2012
A worldwide genomic principal component analysis (PCA) with data from the 1000 Genomes Project [31] places La Braña 1 and 2 near, but not within the variation of current European populations (Figure S2). However, when compared exclusively to European  populations, La Braña 1 and 2 fall closer to Northern European populations such as CEU and Great Britons than Southern European groups such as Iberians or Tuscans (Figure 3). With 1KGPomni chip [31] data, the PCA generates a similar pattern (Figure S3), although the general geographic structure is less clear because of the limited number of SNPs (see Supplemental Experimental Procedures).

In the worldwide genomic PCA graph, what happens is that the sole genome of either one of La Braña individuals is plotted against the genomes of all those modern day individuals, each one plots based on what their principal components are. The main reason why La Braña appears closer to Subsaharan Africans and East Asians than modern Europeans, is because their genomes are a snapshot of the genomes of 2 individuals 7000 ybp, genetic drift does exists, and what is more powerful selection, selection we know acts as adaptive changes to the environment, in fact a good amount of the differences that are driving Europeans away from SSA or EA are due to selection. Relative to modern Europeans in a worldwide context, this individuals are 7000 years behind in mutations under positive selection, or even neutral mutations linked to locus under positive selection. Hence why they appear closer to SubSaharan Africans and East Asians than modern Europeans do.  If they had no modern descendants on modern day European populations as some are claiming, then in a worldwide plot they would be no reason for them to plot closer to East Asian and SubSaharan Africans at the same time relative to modern Europeans, mainly because assuming this complete dissociation of Mesolithic Europeans to modern Europeans, then it is very safe to say that Mesolithic West Asians, who according to the proponents of migrationism sprung modern Europeans in the last 10 kya, would be closer to both East Asians and SubSaharan Africans than Mesolithic Europeans are. If you add to it, the patterns of migrations of West Asia in recent times (3-5 kya), or even Africa to some European populations, or even the Finns who received a good input of Siberian genes, then there is no reason for these Mesolithic Europeans to cluster the way they do in global PCA. What’s more interesting, when they are only given the choice of European populations, they cluster well within the European populations, in fact they cluster closest to NW Europeans. If they were truly outside of the modern European variation, they would cluster as outliers even in a plot containing only Europeans. Heck even Oetzi clusters southeastern of Sardinians in clusters using only Europeans, showing that he is somewhat of an outlier in Modern European terms, because of having a higher near eastern input, which manifest itself even in intraEuropean PCA plots.

Something else to take into account is that these individuals belonged to mt-DNA U5b, which appears to have been dominant amongst Mesolithic Europeans, now to claim complete uniformity in Mesolithic Europeans based on U5b, is to ignore the presence of mt-DNA H in Magdalenian Cantabrians, or mt-DNA H in Mesolithic Guipuzcoans. Now, I know Dienekes happily ignores them, because he just said it today, and he doubts they’ll ever find mt-DNA H in Mesolithic Europe, in a context he’d deem appropriate. For whatever the case, it is quite an oversimplification to assume that all Mesolithic Europeans circa 7000 ybp looked alike and that there was no genetic variation amongst them. Hence, this is why I claimed that it is still very possible that Balts do share a fair percentage of their ancestry with Mesolithic Europeans, simply from the Baltic region. The Swedish Hunter Gatherers turned out to be according to Dienekes Euro7 calculator:

Ajv70 turns out to be 100% "Northeastern" in this analysis; Ajv52 is 75.1% "Northeastern", 21.8% "Northwestern", 2.9% "Far_Asian", and 0.3% "African".

Whereas the Megalithic farmer turned out to be:

Gok4, the Megalithic farmer was 61.5% "Northwestern", 21.4% "Southeastern", and 17.1% "Southwestern". The "Northwestern" component is modal in Atlantic Europe.

Now based upon those conclusions Dienekes claimed:

  • The "Northwestern" component represents the pre-Megalithic first farmers of Northwestern Europe, consisting of Linearbandkeramik farmers emanating from Central Europe and admixing with pre-farming Atlantic hunter-gatherers.
  • The "Megalithic" phase of the Neolithic saw the infusion of a new wave of maritime colonists originating in the eastern Mediterranean ("Southeastern") via Iberia ("Southwestern") and reaching their terminus in Scandinavia.
  • The last major population movement into Northwestern Europe involved the arrival of a population element from the northern parts of the Near East via the Caucasus, probably originating in the north Iran/Armenia/Azerbaijan/Dagestan "short arc" west and south of the Caspian where there is a local maximum of R1b frequency.

But it turns out that the La Braña samples yielded the following results when analyzed under the Euro7 calculator:

Quote from: Dienekes
UPDATE III: In terms of the euro7 calculator, the results are: 89.6% Northwestern, 1.6% Southeastern, and 8.7% Far_Asian.

So it turns out the Northwestern European component is a far better proxy for Western European Mesolithic Individuals than any other component in Euro7 calculator. In this case, Dienekes’s conclusions of the Northwestern European component representive a mixture of Linearbandkeramik farmers and  pre-farming Atlantic hunter-gatherers is for the most part erroneous, because this component is far more related to pre-farming Atlantic hunter-gatherers than it is to Linearbandkeramik farmers. If one was to assume that the Swedish Hunter Gatherers for the most part represented the pre-farming populations of the area, then one can conclude that there were at least two Mesolithic European populations, one more akin to the Northeastern European component, and one more akin to the Northwestern European component. The fact that one of the Swedish Hunter-Gatherers turned out  to have some 21.8% Northwestern European points that there was some minor absorption of Western European Hunter Gatherers by the incoming Eastern European Hunter Gatherers who moved into the region.

Mind everyone, I haven’t spoken of the Northwestern European component being fully pre-Neolithic, or the Northeastern European component being fully pre-Neolithic, but being more akin to describing the genome of Hunter Gatherers from each geographical regions.
« Last Edit: July 01, 2012, 02:06:40 PM by JeanL » Logged
Jean M
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1253


« Reply #110 on: July 01, 2012, 02:08:48 PM »

I get days of writers block even on relatively short reports. 

Not suffering in that department. Even the extended text was written in May. I'm into the endless polishing and revising and working in the new papers stage. The thing has been gone over by endless helpful pairs of eyes both academic and you lovely lot, not to mention mine dozens of times, but I am still finding problems. I just know that the editor will go over it and I will go over it and still nobody will notice X, Y and Z until the thing is in print. Happens every time.
Logged
JeanL
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 425


« Reply #111 on: July 01, 2012, 02:10:02 PM »

7,000 years is a long time, but those Mesolithic skeletons are as likely to be outside the range of modern variation because they have no modern descendants (or share no reasonably close ancestor with modern humans) as that their differences are the product of drift.

With all due respect, such statement shows to me that you are unaware of certain biological concepts either by accident, or you are deliberately choosing to ignore them. If they left no modern descendants, assuming you are referring to these two particular individuals, they would still cluster there, because the other Western Mesolithic Europeans did leave descendants, and they were probably similar genetically to these two. Now if you mean that Mesolithic Europeans left no modern descendants, then there is no explanation for their position in the global PCA, or in the European PCA as I explained above. Again, it is not just genetic drift, natural selection is by far more powerful than drift,  and to think that selection hasn’t play its part in the last 7000 years,  is just plain deluded.

It seems to me some folks are attempting to parlay some extremely tenuous autosomal resemblances into an argument for continuity in NW Europe. If anything, these results argue for discontinuity, at least with the Mesolithic population of Europe.

Do the work Richard; sit down, and think for yourself, learn to question the stuff that you don’t understand, do not take stuff for granted because it fits your beliefs. Before you come down on me with whatever thing you can think of, I seriously was not expecting to see NW Europeans as direct descendants of Mesolithic Iberians, or at least as having a great share of their genome from Mesolithic Iberians. If anything, the Basques seem to be fairly distant from these two folks, so either they descend from other Mesolithic people, or they were affected by the Neolithic transition more than imagined. But, that doesn’t mean that I have to go on now, and claim that this study is bull, or that it shows discontinuity for everybody, or anything that would help fit any sort of presumed agenda some of you have tried to hang on me.
« Last Edit: July 01, 2012, 03:43:34 PM by JeanL » Logged
acekon
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 152


« Reply #112 on: July 01, 2012, 02:45:46 PM »

You have to reconcile  the samples  autosomal 85%-90%+/- readings with 7000 [[250 generations+/-] years of mutations. The question is, was R1b present and thereby part of the process of generating theses high Western European autosomal figures,when these individuals were alive, or did they arrive later on from a different area, to generate the high R1b figures like in the Basque?
« Last Edit: July 01, 2012, 02:46:30 PM by acekon » Logged

YDNA: R-Z2105* Śląsk-Polska
MtDNA: U5b2a2*Königsberg-Ostpreussen
rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #113 on: July 01, 2012, 02:54:21 PM »

7,000 years is a long time, but those Mesolithic skeletons are as likely to be outside the range of modern variation because they have no modern descendants (or share no reasonably close ancestor with modern humans) as that their differences are the product of drift.

With all due respect, such statement shows to me that you are unaware of certain biological concepts either by accident, or you are deliberately choosing to ignore them. If they left no modern descendants, assuming you are referring to these two particular individuals, they would still cluster there, because the other Western Mesolithic Europeans did leave descendants, and they were probably similar genetically to these two. Now if you mean that Mesolithic Europeans left no modern descendants, then there is no explanation for their position in the global PCA, or in the European PCA as I explained above. Again, it is not just genetic drift, natural selection is by far more powerful than drift,  and to think that selection hasn’t play its part in the last 7000 years,  is just plain deluded.

You are using drift and selection to explain away the fact that the two skeletons lie outside the range of modern humans. You could be right, but another possible explanation, which you are choosing to ignore, is that the La Braña skeletons are only very distantly related to modern humans, having no modern descendants themselves and not sharing common descent from an ancestor who was both reasonably close to them and who has descendants among today's Europeans.

That is not the same as saying modern Europeans have absolutely no Mesolithic ancestors. It is merely pointing out that it is likely these two individuals were not among them.

The fact is that these two skeletons do not appear to be genetically like modern Europeans, especially the kind of Europeans who inhabit the vicinity in which they were found. One can argue, as you do, that, oh no, they really are like us and are probably our ancestors, it's just that genetic drift and natural selection have moved us away from them. But there is no proof of that; it's really just special pleading on behalf of continuity.

It seems to me some folks are attempting to parlay some extremely tenuous autosomal resemblances into an argument for continuity in NW Europe. If anything, these results argue for discontinuity, at least with the Mesolithic population of Europe.

It also seems some folks lack the analytical thinking, and rather parrot what other people say on other blogs than sit down, analyze the study, look at the data, apply biological concepts, and come up with their own conclusions.

That was particularly obnoxious and insulting.

You are letting your attachment to European population continuity and your own pet hypothesis lead you into not only special pleading, but rudeness.


But I suppose it is far easier to parrot the words of some other person without having a clue to what the data shows.

That was also unnecessarily insulting and obnoxious.

I am no geneticist. I will be the first to admit that. But I read pretty well. The report says the two skeletons fall outside the variation of current European populations but are closer to Northern European populations than to southern. That is not too hard to understand. They aren't like modern people, but they are less unlike Northern Europeans (whom they are unlike) than they are Southern Europeans (whom they are even more unlike).



Do the work Richard;

I don't know you. I do not even like you. Do me a favor: don't call me by my first name. Use my screen name, if you must. It isn't "Richard".

sit down, and think for yourself, learn to question the stuff that you don’t understand, do not take stuff for granted because it fits your beliefs. Before you come down on me with whatever thing you can think of, I seriously was not expecting to see NW Europeans as direct descendants of Mesolithic Iberians, or at least as having a great share of their genome from Mesolithic Iberians. If anything, the Basques seem to be fairly distant from these two folks, so either they descend from other Mesolithic people, or they were affected by the Neolithic transition more than imagined. But, that doesn’t mean that I have to go on now, and claim that this study is bull, or that it shows discontinuity for everybody, or anything that would help fit any sort of presumed agenda some of you have tried to hang on me.


I think it is pretty obvious this study is a real disappointment to you. I saw your posts at Dienekes' blog. You began immediately to plead genetic drift, and Dienekes disagreed with you (as he seems to do with some regularity).

I would appreciate it if you do not address me or my posts any longer. Don't quote them. Don't use my first name. Don't insult or otherwise attempt to belittle me.

I have told you in the past I do not like your debating style, which I find tiresome and less than honest. Who has time to answer every quote-box-laden diatribe, every insult, whether direct or implied?

You spoil any persuasiveness your arguments might have had with the obnoxious manner in which you choose to communicate them.

So, I choose not to listen to you. Someone else accused you of being a Basque partisan. I think whoever that was was probably right.

Back off.

« Last Edit: July 01, 2012, 02:57:19 PM by rms2 » Logged

JeanL
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 425


« Reply #114 on: July 01, 2012, 03:43:10 PM »

It also seems some folks lack the analytical thinking, and rather parrot what other people say on other blogs than sit down, analyze the study, look at the data, apply biological concepts, and come up with their own conclusions. But I suppose it is far easier to parrot the words of some other person without having a clue to what the data shows.

I admit that was uncalled for, so I have proceeded to remove that part from my initial statement, and I apologize to those affected by it.
Logged
princenuadha
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 115


« Reply #115 on: July 01, 2012, 10:15:14 PM »

7,000 years is a long time, but those Mesolithic skeletons are as likely to be outside the range of modern variation because they have no modern descendants (or share no reasonably close ancestor with modern humans) as that their differences are the product of drift.

It seems to me some folks are attempting to parlay some extremely tenuous autosomal resemblances into an argument for continuity in NW Europe. If anything, these results argue for discontinuity, at least with the Mesolithic population of Europe.

I'm having trouble understanding your first comment, but drift doesn't mean admixture. Drift can happen over time without any "outside" input.

I don't think these results argue for discontinuity at all. Brana is closer to both Africans and Asians which strongly suggests that Europeans had drifted from Africans, Asians, and Brana himself; no admixture required. In fact the drift away from Africans and Asians paints a picture of less widespread admixture for europeans.

As for the continuity issue (whatever that means...), the reason it looks like western meso survived is because it is genetically closer to inhabitants of the area it once occupied. To argue replacement, you would need to say that some population replaced western meso, but that western meso was still genetically closer to these invaders than to eastern Europeans. Even more, is that western and eastern meso were probably similar and eastern Europeans do have eastern meso. So what possible migrations could make western europe more western meso than eastern europe?

For me, this study pretty much seals the deal for some western continuity.

Also, I (necessarily) agree with j 2; western meso is different/distinguishable from eastern meso as we likely saw reflected in the swedish study.
Logged
Mike Walsh
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2963


WWW
« Reply #116 on: July 01, 2012, 11:42:13 PM »

....
You are using drift and selection to explain away the fact that the two skeletons lie outside the range of modern humans. You could be right, but another possible explanation, which you are choosing to ignore, is that the La Braña skeletons are only very distantly related to modern humans, having no modern descendants themselves and not sharing common descent from an ancestor who was both reasonably close to them and who has descendants among today's Europeans.

That is not the same as saying modern Europeans have absolutely no Mesolithic ancestors. It is merely pointing out that it is likely these two individuals were not among them.

The fact is that these two skeletons do not appear to be genetically like modern Europeans, especially the kind of Europeans who inhabit the vicinity in which they were found. One can argue, as you do, that, oh no, they really are like us and are probably our ancestors, it's just that genetic drift and natural selection have moved us away from them. But there is no proof of that; it's really just special pleading on behalf of continuity.

I have to agree that the "genetic drift" argument is oftentimes really just special pleading when the probabilities don't fit the desired conclusion. "Genetic drift" could be the real, but it's no different than saying "there could be an exception to what is highly probable."
Logged

R1b-L21>L513(DF1)>L705.2
princenuadha
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 115


« Reply #117 on: July 02, 2012, 01:00:25 AM »

....
You are using drift and selection to explain away the fact that the two skeletons lie outside the range of modern humans. You could be right, but another possible explanation, which you are choosing to ignore, is that the La Braña skeletons are only very distantly related to modern humans, having no modern descendants themselves and not sharing common descent from an ancestor who was both reasonably close to them and who has descendants among today's Europeans.

That is not the same as saying modern Europeans have absolutely no Mesolithic ancestors. It is merely pointing out that it is likely these two individuals were not among them.

The fact is that these two skeletons do not appear to be genetically like modern Europeans, especially the kind of Europeans who inhabit the vicinity in which they were found. One can argue, as you do, that, oh no, they really are like us and are probably our ancestors, it's just that genetic drift and natural selection have moved us away from them. But there is no proof of that; it's really just special pleading on behalf of continuity.

I have to agree that the "genetic drift" argument is oftentimes really just special pleading when the probabilities don't fit the desired conclusion. "Genetic drift" could be the real, but it's no different than saying "there could be an exception to what is highly probable."

There nearly had to be drift (assuming that brana was representative of meso europe). How else would you explain Europeans moving further from Africans and Asians? A mysterious supper European group?
Logged
rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #118 on: July 02, 2012, 06:26:28 AM »

7,000 years is a long time, but those Mesolithic skeletons are as likely to be outside the range of modern variation because they have no modern descendants (or share no reasonably close ancestor with modern humans) as that their differences are the product of drift.

It seems to me some folks are attempting to parlay some extremely tenuous autosomal resemblances into an argument for continuity in NW Europe. If anything, these results argue for discontinuity, at least with the Mesolithic population of Europe.

I'm having trouble understanding your first comment, but drift doesn't mean admixture. Drift can happen over time without any "outside" input.

I don't think these results argue for discontinuity at all. Brana is closer to both Africans and Asians which strongly suggests that Europeans had drifted from Africans, Asians, and Brana himself; no admixture required. In fact the drift away from Africans and Asians paints a picture of less widespread admixture for europeans.

As for the continuity issue (whatever that means...), the reason it looks like western meso survived is because it is genetically closer to inhabitants of the area it once occupied. To argue replacement, you would need to say that some population replaced western meso, but that western meso was still genetically closer to these invaders than to eastern Europeans. Even more, is that western and eastern meso were probably similar and eastern Europeans do have eastern meso. So what possible migrations could make western europe more western meso than eastern europe?

For me, this study pretty much seals the deal for some western continuity.

Also, I (necessarily) agree with j 2; western meso is different/distinguishable from eastern meso as we likely saw reflected in the swedish study.

Read the report, if you haven't. The two La Braña skeletons are not like modern humans. They are a little less unlike modern Northern Europeans (whom they are UNlike) than they are Southern Europeans (whom they are even more UNlike).

They are definitely NOT like the current inhabitants of the vicinity in which they were found. That is one of the conclusions of the paper.

Some western continuity, however slight (and this makes continuity look really slight), is not the same as continuity.
Logged

rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #119 on: July 02, 2012, 06:34:40 AM »

....
You are using drift and selection to explain away the fact that the two skeletons lie outside the range of modern humans. You could be right, but another possible explanation, which you are choosing to ignore, is that the La Braña skeletons are only very distantly related to modern humans, having no modern descendants themselves and not sharing common descent from an ancestor who was both reasonably close to them and who has descendants among today's Europeans.

That is not the same as saying modern Europeans have absolutely no Mesolithic ancestors. It is merely pointing out that it is likely these two individuals were not among them.

The fact is that these two skeletons do not appear to be genetically like modern Europeans, especially the kind of Europeans who inhabit the vicinity in which they were found. One can argue, as you do, that, oh no, they really are like us and are probably our ancestors, it's just that genetic drift and natural selection have moved us away from them. But there is no proof of that; it's really just special pleading on behalf of continuity.

I have to agree that the "genetic drift" argument is oftentimes really just special pleading when the probabilities don't fit the desired conclusion. "Genetic drift" could be the real, but it's no different than saying "there could be an exception to what is highly probable."

There nearly had to be drift (assuming that brana was representative of meso europe). How else would you explain Europeans moving further from Africans and Asians? A mysterious supper European group?

That's assuming our actual ancestors (as opposed to some people who once inhabited one part of Europe) were like those two skeletons but drifted away over subsequent millennia. What is more likely is that we are unlike those two skeletons because they were not among our ancestors and did not share any common ancestor with us who was reasonably close to them.

Assuming what you are really trying to prove in the first place is called affirming the consequent.

That is not to say we have no Mesolithic European ancestors. But there is nothing to indicate the La Braña skeletons were among them or were especially like them.
Logged

rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #120 on: July 02, 2012, 07:04:58 AM »

Can we get this thread back on the Beaker Folk, some of whom may have actually been among our ancestors?
Logged

Jarman
Senior Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 58


« Reply #121 on: July 02, 2012, 08:09:13 AM »

Quoting from Wiki re the Vucedol culture:

"Marija Gimbutas characterized the Bell Beaker culture complex as an amalgam of Vucedol and Yamna culture traditions formed after the incursion of the Yamna people into the milieu of the Vučedol culture, which evolved in the course of the three or four centuries after 3000/2900 BC."

Is anyone reading this familiar with evidence of a Vucedol culture connection to the Bell Beaker folk?
Logged
rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #122 on: July 02, 2012, 10:20:58 AM »

Quoting from Wiki re the Vucedol culture:

"Marija Gimbutas characterized the Bell Beaker culture complex as an amalgam of Vucedol and Yamna culture traditions formed after the incursion of the Yamna people into the milieu of the Vučedol culture, which evolved in the course of the three or four centuries after 3000/2900 BC."

Is anyone reading this familiar with evidence of a Vucedol culture connection to the Bell Beaker folk?


I have heard of the Vučedol culture, but I cannot say I am all that familiar with it or its connection to the Beaker Folk. It is interesting, though.

I imagine Jean M and Alan know a lot more about it than I do.
Logged

princenuadha
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 115


« Reply #123 on: July 02, 2012, 01:00:55 PM »

Quote from: rms2
They are definitely NOT like the current inhabitants of the vicinity in which they were found.

That's why I said closer. And I gave a very good line of reasoning as to why there is likely some continuity, ie actual western meso descent.

You haven't even attempted to address the specifics which makes me think you don't understant autosomal ancestry.

Quote from: rms2
That's assuming our actual ancestors (as opposed to some people who once inhabited one part of Europe) were like those two skeletons but drifted away over subsequent millennia...

Assuming what you are really trying to prove in the first place is called affirming the consequent.

I wasn't trying to prove anything. I was trying to argue for drift. What I assumed was that the Brana individuals were representative of meso Europeans, which is not an unreasonable assumption. The question then becomes, what took europeans away from asians and africans, drift or admixture.

If you were more familiar with genetic maps you would know that Europeans usually fall at one of the extremes in a map with Africa and Asia, ie all other eurasians will be placed towards asia and/or Africa. That is why I sarcastically asked for a "super European" group that would mix with meso Europeans (assuming brana can represent them) and bring them further from asians AND Africans. Good luck finding that...

Your post sounds a bit defensive, but when I made my previous post I was trying to explain things to you in a nice way. It is kinda obvious you don't know admixture that well. I wasn't looking down on you. Why would I? I'm an idiot when it comes to ydna...
Logged
rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #124 on: July 02, 2012, 02:01:27 PM »

Quote from: rms2
They are definitely NOT like the current inhabitants of the vicinity in which they were found.

That's why I said closer. And I gave a very good line of reasoning as to why there is likely some continuity, ie actual western meso descent.

You haven't even attempted to address the specifics which makes me think you don't understant autosomal ancestry.

No need to be insulting. My knowledge of autosomal dna is, I think, at least as good as yours, although I am no geneticist. I am tempted to deliver a few insults in return, but I will resist the temptation.

What I had to say I said in my last post.


Quote from: rms2
That's assuming our actual ancestors (as opposed to some people who once inhabited one part of Europe) were like those two skeletons but drifted away over subsequent millennia...

Assuming what you are really trying to prove in the first place is called affirming the consequent.

I wasn't trying to prove anything. I was trying to argue for drift. What I assumed was that the Brana individuals were representative of meso Europeans, which is not an unreasonable assumption. The question then becomes, what took europeans away from asians and africans, drift or admixture.

If you were more familiar with genetic maps you would know that Europeans usually fall at one of the extremes in a map with Africa and Asia, ie all other eurasians will be placed towards asia and/or Africa. That is why I sarcastically asked for a "super European" group that would mix with meso Europeans (assuming brana can represent them) and bring them further from asians AND Africans. Good luck finding that...

Your post sounds a bit defensive, but when I made my previous post I was trying to explain things to you in a nice way. It is kinda obvious you don't know admixture that well. I wasn't looking down on you. Why would I? I'm an idiot when it comes to ydna...

There you go again with insults. Those are not merely optional ways of communicating here. They are totally inappropriate. So stop.

Arguing involves having a point or position to prove. Assuming that position up front is affirming the consequent.

Autosomal dna, as you know, is tricky at best. It is subject to recombination and the laws of dominance and recession. The report on the La Braña Mesolithic skeletons actually says their autosomal dna is outside the range of modern Europeans but more like that of North Europeans than Southern Europeans. That is not continuity. It is discontinuity.

Now, as moderator - and I rarely put on that hat - I am going to say that La Braña needs to start cluttering up another thread. This one is about the Beaker Folk. Any more La Braña posts here will either be deleted or moved someplace else, like the autosomal subforum.

« Last Edit: July 02, 2012, 02:12:45 PM by rms2 » Logged

Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 Go Up Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


SEO light theme by © Mustang forums. Powered by SMF 1.1.13 | SMF © 2006-2011, Simple Machines LLC

Page created in 0.167 seconds with 19 queries.