(07-24-2024, 05:37 AM)alchemist223 Wrote: This is mostly because Near Easterners (especially from the Gulf countries) are heavily overrepresented among testers at places like FTDNA or YFull. Likewise, African populations are significantly underrepresented, which can give a misleading impression for African-origin haplogroups such as E-M329, E-V16, or A-M28.
The authentic African haplogroups are only A + B.
Hg E is a result of Back to Africa huge migration.
I don't think that Hg E appeared in Africa. I am sure it appeared OOA.
Hg E is linked to Hg D. We almost have no signs of Hg D in Africa.
Additional data from Africa is not going to change the picture. We have plenty of data from Yoruba, Mbuti, etc.. Africans are not " underrepresented " .
There is no proof that E originated outside of Africa, considering that E in Africa. The only branch of E that is prevalent outside of Africa and that has been discovered in ancient human remains outside of Africa is E-M35. These two facts strongly indicate that E originated in Africa and was carried out of Africa much later by peoples who carried subclades of E-M35.
As for D, D0 has been discovered in 3 Nigerians and 2 African Americans (who descend from Nigerians and other Niger-Congo peoples).
You have to consider that CT - which is ancestral to C, F, D & E - is the brother of B-M60, which is undoubtedly of African origin. Therefore, there is no reason to doubt that CT originated in Africa alongside its brother, B-M60, and that various carriers of CT lineages migrated out of Africa while those who carried E remained therein.
You also have to consider the maternal counterpart to CT, which is L3. Only two of its extant subclades are Non-African (M & N), while five are African: L3a, L3bcd, L3eikx, L3f & L3h. This strongly indicates that L3 originated in Africa and that some carriers of L3 lineages migrated out of Africa, alongside carriers of CT lineages.
Attached below is a phylogenetic tree that I've created for a video that I'm working on. It's subject to change based on what new information I may discover as I continue making the video.
Hopefully we will get some really old ancient DNA from Africa soon. I do recall some coming from hunter-gatherers in Malawi.
(07-24-2024, 05:11 AM)Mnemonics Wrote: Mota almost certainly has some excess Taforalt-like ancestry. Most of the Southeast African Hunter-gatherer cline can be best modelled as Dinka + South_African_HG + ZlatyKun, Mota is modelled very well (P > 0.5) without Morocco_EN in the right pops list but including it creates a massive underfit (Z: -5.2) that can't be solved by using any Pastoral_N population.
Mota are mostly related to South Africa/ baa001/. No need to model Mota with IBM / TAF/.
On opposite: TAF are more related to OOA populations like PM1, Sunghir, UstIshim.
There is some connection between Mota - TAF, but it is not because back to Africa migration. Opposite: Mota is connected to OOA migration, Mota is the source population.
Mota doesn't have signs of back to Africa migration (BTA)
You said in another post that yDNA E-M96 originated outside of Africa. However, in this post you say that Mota does not descend from a back-migration into Africa, which is odd because Mota carries E-M96 via E-Y240395.
If E-M96 originated outside of Africa - which is your assertion - then how does Mota carry a downstream subclade of E-M96 if he does not descend from a back-to-Africa migration?
Are you saying that Mota's autosomal DNA is indigenous to Africa but that his yDNA is the result of a founder effect (which has left no autosomal ancestry from outside of Africa)?
Also, Mota is not most closely related to Ancient Southern African baa001; he's most closely related to the Late Stone Age Kenyan I8808 (yDNA E-V22 & mtDNA L4b2a2c), followed by the Shum Laka Foragers (yDNA A00 & B-M60; mtDNA L0a and L1c).
I8808 was likely a Hadza man, because his uniparentals are shared by them and he's closely related to them via G25; the Hadza carry B-M112, E-M2, and E-M35, as well as L4b2 (AKA L4g).
(07-24-2024, 02:29 PM)Merriku Wrote: Do you guys think CT(xDE,xCF) may turn up with more sampling in SSA?
Absence of CT(xDE,xCF) branches in Africa has always puzzled me. One way I can think of is CT is actually OOA with CF and DE being bottleneck survivors & E & D in SSA might be backmigrations. Autosomal constraints of OOA are much younger than CT though.
My hypothesis explains why only D0 and subclades of E-M96 are the only lineages of CT that have survived in Africa. I hypothesize that CT originated in Northeast Africa (which comprises part of the Sahara) and that the transition of the Sahara from a grassland to a desert 100 kya to 50 kya caused many lineages of CT to become extinct.
I don't think Mota autosomally is that unique or significant for Paleolithic genetics. It is very young in comparison to the haplogroups and populations being discussed here. It seems to be on the East African and South African cline with some Cushitic ancestry with Natufian. East Africans may be closest to OOA.
(07-24-2024, 02:47 PM)Inquirer Wrote: You said in another post that yDNA E-M96 originated outside of Africa. However, in this post you say that Mota does not descend from a back-migration into Africa, which is odd because Mota carries E-M96 via E-Y240395.
If E-M96 originated outside of Africa - which is your assertion - then how does Mota carry a downstream subclade of E-M96 if he does not descend from a back-to-Africa migration?
Are you saying that Mota's autosomal DNA is indigenous to Africa but that his yDNA is the result of a founder effect (which has left no autosomal ancestry from outside of Africa)?
We see such examples of Hg E in many parts of Africa. Hg E was re-introduced in Africa for long time ago, we see Hg E in many african populations that are autosomally Africans.
(07-24-2024, 02:47 PM)Inquirer Wrote: Also, Mota is not most closely related to Ancient Southern African baa001; he's most closely related to the Late Stone Age Kenyan I8808 (yDNA E-V22 & mtDNA L4b2a2c), followed by the Shum Laka Foragers (yDNA A00 & B-M60; mtDNA L0a and L1c).
I8808 was likely a Hadza man, because his uniparentals are shared by them and he's closely related to them via G25; the Hadza carry B-M112, E-M2, and E-M35, as well as L4b2 (AKA L4g).
Depending how do you check on this.
If you check for Y-chromosome: there are only 60 k snips . 60 000.
If you check the Mitochondrial DNA: there are only 16k .
When you check autosomally DNA: this is for all chr: 1-23 . 23 is excluded in some tests, but it's not a problem to include this one as well.
So the number of snips is about 1200 - 1300k .
The picture that you get from Y and Mit. could be very different compared to 1-23 autosomal . In some cases you may find individuals HgA - and Hg E, that are the same autosomally. Same for some hg B: you may find hg E next to hg B individual. We can't tell when exactly the haplogroup was re-introduced to Africa, but we may do some estimations.
07-24-2024, 03:20 PM (This post was last modified: 07-24-2024, 03:27 PM by Inquirer.)
(07-24-2024, 02:53 PM)Norfern-Ostrobothnian Wrote: I don't think Mota autosomally is that unique or significant for Paleolithic genetics. It is very young in comparison to the haplogroups and populations being discussed here. It seems to be on the East African and South African cline with some Cushitic ancestry with Natufian. East Africans may be closest to OOA.
Mota carries no Cushitic ancestry. Cushitic = Aboriginal East African + Natufian; Mota carries Aboriginal East African ancestry but he doesn't carry Natufian ancestry.
Aboriginal East Africans share ancestry with the OOA population, which is why Mota is partly modelled by the oldest Eurasian sample available: Zlaty Kun; and they share ancestry with ANA, which is why Mota is partly modelled by the Taforalt hunter-gatherers.
Below are the coordinates I used to model Mota. I included Natufians among the sources, but Vahaduo does not select Natufians to model part of Mota's ancestry when other sufficient samples are also included among the sources. However, it does select Natufians to model part of Cushitic peoples' ancestries.
This indicates that Mota has no Cushitic ancestry.
07-24-2024, 03:32 PM (This post was last modified: 07-24-2024, 03:32 PM by Inquirer.)
(07-24-2024, 03:04 PM)TanTin Wrote:
(07-24-2024, 02:47 PM)Inquirer Wrote: You said in another post that yDNA E-M96 originated outside of Africa. However, in this post you say that Mota does not descend from a back-migration into Africa, which is odd because Mota carries E-M96 via E-Y240395.
If E-M96 originated outside of Africa - which is your assertion - then how does Mota carry a downstream subclade of E-M96 if he does not descend from a back-to-Africa migration?
Are you saying that Mota's autosomal DNA is indigenous to Africa but that his yDNA is the result of a founder effect (which has left no autosomal ancestry from outside of Africa)?
We see such examples of Hg E in many parts of Africa. Hg E was re-introduced in Africa for long time ago, we see Hg E in many african populations that are autosomally Africans.
(07-24-2024, 02:47 PM)Inquirer Wrote: Also, Mota is not most closely related to Ancient Southern African baa001; he's most closely related to the Late Stone Age Kenyan I8808 (yDNA E-V22 & mtDNA L4b2a2c), followed by the Shum Laka Foragers (yDNA A00 & B-M60; mtDNA L0a and L1c).
I8808 was likely a Hadza man, because his uniparentals are shared by them and he's closely related to them via G25; the Hadza carry B-M112, E-M2, and E-M35, as well as L4b2 (AKA L4g).
Depending how do you check on this.
If you check for Y-chromosome: there are only 60 k snips . 60 000.
If you check the Mitochondrial DNA: there are only 16k .
When you check autosomally DNA: this is for all chr: 1-23 . 23 is excluded in some tests, but it's not a problem to include this one as well.
So the number of snips is about 1200 - 1300k .
The picture that you get from Y and Mit. could be very different compared to 1-23 autosomal . In some cases you may find individuals HgA - and Hg E, that are the same autosomally. Same for some hg B: you may find hg E next to hg B individual. We can't tell when exactly the haplogroup was re-introduced to Africa, but we may do some estimations.
The diversity of E-M96 is greatest in Africa, and African subclades of E-M96 typically have older TMRCAs than those that are carried by Non-Africans. This indicates that E-M96 originated in Africa.
Aboriginal Africans carry E-M75, E-M132, and E-V38 (E-M329 & E-M2). However, the only subclade of E-M96 that Non-Africans carry to a notable degree is E-M35, which is younger than the aforementioned subclades and which is still carried at its highest frequencies in North Africa and the Horn of Africa. This all indicates that E-M96 is native to Africa.
07-24-2024, 05:47 PM (This post was last modified: 07-24-2024, 05:47 PM by Qrts.)
(07-24-2024, 03:32 PM)Inquirer Wrote: The diversity of E-M96 is greatest in Africa, and African subclades of E-M96 typically have older TMRCAs than those that are carried by Non-Africans. This indicates that E-M96 originated in Africa.
Aboriginal Africans carry E-M75, E-M132, and E-V38 (E-M329 & E-M2). However, the only subclade of E-M96 that Non-Africans carry to a notable degree is E-M35, which is younger than the aforementioned subclades and which is still carried at its highest frequencies in North Africa and the Horn of Africa. This all indicates that E-M96 is native to Africa.
Agreed, E-M96 likely never left Africa. The main question is which groups carried E and how the distribution came to be. Unfortunately there's very little to work with from West/Central Africa aside from Shum Laka. What do you think the latter group represented in the larger West African phylogeny?
(07-24-2024, 02:47 PM)Inquirer Wrote: You said in another post that yDNA E-M96 originated outside of Africa. However, in this post you say that Mota does not descend from a back-migration into Africa, which is odd because Mota carries E-M96 via E-Y240395.
If E-M96 originated outside of Africa - which is your assertion - then how does Mota carry a downstream subclade of E-M96 if he does not descend from a back-to-Africa migration?
Are you saying that Mota's autosomal DNA is indigenous to Africa but that his yDNA is the result of a founder effect (which has left no autosomal ancestry from outside of Africa)?
We see such examples of Hg E in many parts of Africa. Hg E was re-introduced in Africa for long time ago, we see Hg E in many african populations that are autosomally Africans.
(07-24-2024, 02:47 PM)Inquirer Wrote: Also, Mota is not most closely related to Ancient Southern African baa001; he's most closely related to the Late Stone Age Kenyan I8808 (yDNA E-V22 & mtDNA L4b2a2c), followed by the Shum Laka Foragers (yDNA A00 & B-M60; mtDNA L0a and L1c).
I8808 was likely a Hadza man, because his uniparentals are shared by them and he's closely related to them via G25; the Hadza carry B-M112, E-M2, and E-M35, as well as L4b2 (AKA L4g).
Depending how do you check on this.
If you check for Y-chromosome: there are only 60 k snips . 60 000.
If you check the Mitochondrial DNA: there are only 16k .
When you check autosomally DNA: this is for all chr: 1-23 . 23 is excluded in some tests, but it's not a problem to include this one as well.
So the number of snips is about 1200 - 1300k .
The picture that you get from Y and Mit. could be very different compared to 1-23 autosomal . In some cases you may find individuals HgA - and Hg E, that are the same autosomally. Same for some hg B: you may find hg E next to hg B individual. We can't tell when exactly the haplogroup was re-introduced to Africa, but we may do some estimations.
The diversity of E-M96 is greatest in Africa, and African subclades of E-M96 typically have older TMRCAs than those that are carried by Non-Africans. This indicates that E-M96 originated in Africa.
Aboriginal Africans carry E-M75, E-M132, and E-V38 (E-M329 & E-M2). However, the only subclade of E-M96 that Non-Africans carry to a notable degree is E-M35, which is younger than the aforementioned subclades and which is still carried at its highest frequencies in North Africa and the Horn of Africa. This all indicates that E-M96 is native to Africa.
Of course Hg E-M96 is formed in Africa ( likely East Africa ) but E-M35 isn't younger than the aforementioned subclades if you compared btw E-M35 and E-M2 and even E-M132 its younger subacles in TMRCA TMRCA subclades
E-M35 : 27.723 B.c
E-M2 : 14.811 B.c
E-M329 : 21.428 B.c
E-M132 : 17.671 B.c
Target: CapsianWGS_scaled Distance: 1.2510% / 0.01251049
37.2 Iberomaurusian
36.8 Early_European_Farmer
12.8 Early_Levantine_Farmer
8.0 Steppe_Pastoralist
4.8 SSA
0.4 Iran_Neolithic FTDNA : 91% North Africa +<2% Bedouin + <2 Southern-Levantinfo + <1 Sephardic Jewish + 3% Malta + 3% Iberian Peninsula 23andME : 100% North Africa
WGS ( Y-DNA and mtDNA) Y-DNA: E-A30032< A30480 (~1610 CE) ( Native in North African Amazigh ) mtDNA: V25-C16298T!! ( 3197 BCE ) Bell-Beaker ~ Roman < North Africa
(07-24-2024, 03:04 PM)TanTin Wrote: We see such examples of Hg E in many parts of Africa. Hg E was re-introduced in Africa for long time ago, we see Hg E in many african populations that are autosomally Africans.
Depending how do you check on this.
If you check for Y-chromosome: there are only 60 k snips . 60 000.
If you check the Mitochondrial DNA: there are only 16k .
When you check autosomally DNA: this is for all chr: 1-23 . 23 is excluded in some tests, but it's not a problem to include this one as well.
So the number of snips is about 1200 - 1300k .
The picture that you get from Y and Mit. could be very different compared to 1-23 autosomal . In some cases you may find individuals HgA - and Hg E, that are the same autosomally. Same for some hg B: you may find hg E next to hg B individual. We can't tell when exactly the haplogroup was re-introduced to Africa, but we may do some estimations.
The diversity of E-M96 is greatest in Africa, and African subclades of E-M96 typically have older TMRCAs than those that are carried by Non-Africans. This indicates that E-M96 originated in Africa.
Aboriginal Africans carry E-M75, E-M132, and E-V38 (E-M329 & E-M2). However, the only subclade of E-M96 that Non-Africans carry to a notable degree is E-M35, which is younger than the aforementioned subclades and which is still carried at its highest frequencies in North Africa and the Horn of Africa. This all indicates that E-M96 is native to Africa.
Of course Hg E-M96 is formed in Africa ( likely East Africa ) but E-M35 isn't younger than the aforementioned subclades if you compared btw E-M35 and E-M2 and even E-M132 its younger subacles in TMRCA TMRCA subclades
E-M35 : 27.723 B.c
E-M2 : 14.811 B.c
E-M329 : 21.428 B.c
E-M132 : 17.671 B.c
I'm talking about their formation dates, not their TMRCAs.
The first five are virtually unique to Africa or Africans carry subclades of them that have older TMRCAs than the subclades that are carried by Non-Africans; this indicates that they've always been in Africa. That's why I had their formation dates in mind.
07-24-2024, 09:40 PM (This post was last modified: 07-24-2024, 10:18 PM by Inquirer.)
(07-24-2024, 08:51 PM)Norfern-Ostrobothnian Wrote: Use Dinka as a source as a source.
I would rather use ancient samples as sources rather than modern ones, because they carry less unique genetic drift and recent admixtures that might throw things off. So, using Dinka may force Vahaduo to select Natufians in order to model part of Mota's ancestry, but I doubt that the Natufian component is accurate - especially considering that it models less than 1% of Mota's genome under this condition.
(07-24-2024, 08:51 PM)Norfern-Ostrobothnian Wrote: Use Dinka as a source as a source.
By the way, when I use the Gumuz rather than the Dinka to model Mota (since they are closer to Mota than the Dinka), Vahaduo produces a more accurate model (it has a distance of only 3.2699%) that doesn't include Natufians. Additionally, when I model the Gumuz, Vahaduo also does not select Natufians to model them.
This indicates that Mota has no Natufian ancestry and therefore has no Cushitic ancestry.
(07-24-2024, 03:32 PM)Inquirer Wrote: The diversity of E-M96 is greatest in Africa, and African subclades of E-M96 typically have older TMRCAs than those that are carried by Non-Africans. This indicates that E-M96 originated in Africa.
Aboriginal Africans carry E-M75, E-M132, and E-V38 (E-M329 & E-M2). However, the only subclade of E-M96 that Non-Africans carry to a notable degree is E-M35, which is younger than the aforementioned subclades and which is still carried at its highest frequencies in North Africa and the Horn of Africa. This all indicates that E-M96 is native to Africa.
Agreed, E-M96 likely never left Africa. The main question is which groups carried E and how the distribution came to be. Unfortunately there's very little to work with from West/Central Africa aside from Shum Laka. What do you think the latter group represented in the larger West African phylogeny?
I think that Shum Laka represents a combination of basal West African ancestry (Ghost Modern) that originated in Northwest Africa (an offshoot of Basal Homo sapiens like the Jebel Irhoud humans) and two waves of ancestry from Anatomically Modern Humans (AMHs), whom I believe evolved from Basal Homo sapiens individuals who migrated to East-Central Africa.
The Basal Homo sapiens ancestry would have been the Shum Laka Foragers' source of A00.
The first wave of AMH ancestry would have derived from the AMHs who would have remained in East-Central Africa after Ancient Southern Africans split from them; they would have introduced A0 and L1 to the Basal Homo sapiens of West Africa.
The second wave of AMH ancestry would have derived from the AMHs of East-Central Africa after B-M60, L5, L2, L6, & L4 formed among them - and after L0a introgressed into their lineage from Ancient Southern Africans. They would have introduced B-M60, L0a, and L2 to the Basal Homo sapiens of West Africa.
This explains why the Shum Laka foragers and Pygmies carried / carry A00, A0, B-M60, L1, L2, and L0a.
