https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.98.2.537

Oh, they hate this guy! He messes up the whole
"Out of Africa" purity thing!

Which is stupid. Because why is "Out of Asia" or
"Out of Oceania" any more racist than "Out of
Africa?"

It's not. It can't be. Yet the status quo pretends that
it is!

Why?

Truth is, the only reason anyone says "Out of Africa"
instead of "Out of Asia" or "Oceania" is because of
Toba.

That's it.

AND, the African population here was probably better
grouped with the Eurasian population anyway. They
weren't "Different." Oh, sure, they may have been
culturally different -- probably sexually selected -- but
that's it. They couldn't have been any different than
Chimps from Bonobos and probably a lot less.





-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/705405424857497600

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Op dinsdag 3 januari 2023 om 09:23:32 UTC+1 schreef JTEM is so reasonable:

https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.98.2.537

Thanks!

Yes, "Out-of-Africa" is a infantile slogan, based on 0:
AFAWK, Homo came from S.Asia or even SE.Asia:
coastal dispersal Pleistocene Homo.

There's 0 evidence for "OoA". Zero.
AFAICS, sub-Saharans are derived in most instances.

See my hypothesis, very simple:
Homo/Pan split when the Red Sea opened into the Gulf (Zanclean flood? 5.3 Ma): --Pan went right: E.Afr.coastal forests ->southern Rift ->africanus->robustus etc.
--Homo went left: S.Asian coastal forests ->SE.Asia -> Pleist.Java etc. = "aq.ape"s.s.

Google "human evolution Verhaegen". :-)

____

Oh, they hate this guy! He messes up the whole
"Out of Africa" purity thing!

Which is stupid. Because why is "Out of Asia" or
"Out of Oceania" any more racist than "Out of
Africa?"

It's not. It can't be. Yet the status quo pretends that
it is!

Why?

Truth is, the only reason anyone says "Out of Africa"
instead of "Out of Asia" or "Oceania" is because of
Toba.

That's it.

AND, the African population here was probably better
grouped with the Eurasian population anyway. They
weren't "Different." Oh, sure, they may have been
culturally different -- probably sexually selected -- but
that's it. They couldn't have been any different than
Chimps from Bonobos and probably a lot less.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

JTEM is so reasonable wrote:

https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.98.2.537

It's from 2001 and was even referenced in this group in 2004


<https://groups.google.com/g/sci.anthropology.paleo/c/Xni6_rAvbjk/m/K9CvYVa4_lQJ>


And then in 2007

https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.0702928104
Revealing the prehistoric settlement of Australia
by Y chromosome and mtDNA analysis

Abstract
Published and new samples of Aboriginal Australians
and Melanesians were analyzed for mtDNA (n = 172)
and Y variation (n = 522), and the resulting profiles
were compared with the branches known so far within
the global mtDNA and the Y chromosome tree. (i) All
Australian lineages are confirmed to fall within the
mitochondrial founder branches M and N and the Y
chromosomal founders C and F, which are associated
with the exodus of modern humans from Africa
≈50–70,000 years ago. The analysis reveals no
evidence for any archaic maternal or paternal lineages
in Australians, despite some suggestively robust
features in the Australian fossil record, thus
weakening the argument for continuity with any earlier
Homo erectus populations in Southeast Asia. (ii) The
tree of complete mtDNA sequences shows that Aboriginal
Australians are most closely related to the autochthonous
populations of New Guinea/Melanesia, indicating that
prehistoric Australia and New Guinea were occupied
initially by one and the same Palaeolithic colonization
event ≈50,000 years ago, in agreement with current
archaeological evidence. (iii) The deep mtDNA and Y
chromosomal branching patterns between Australia and most
other populations around the Indian Ocean point to a
considerable isolation after the initial arrival.
(iv) We detect only minor secondary gene flow into
Australia, and this could have taken place before the
land bridge between Australia and New Guinea was
submerged ≈8,000 years ago, thus calling into question
that certain significant developments in later Australian
prehistory (the emergence of a backed-blade lithic
industry, and the linguistic dichotomy) were externally
motivated.


"These results indicate that Australians and New Guineans
are ultimately descended from the same African emigrant
group 50–70,000 years ago..."

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Primum Sapienti wrote:

JTEM is so reasonable wrote:

https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.98.2.537

It's from 2001 and was even referenced in this group in 2004

Well. There's answering a question nobody asked...

Abstract
Published and new samples of Aboriginal Australians
and Melanesians were analyzed for mtDNA (n = 172)
and Y variation (n = 522), and the resulting profiles
were compared with the branches known so far within
the global mtDNA and the Y chromosome tree. (i) All
Australian lineages are confirmed to fall within the
mitochondrial founder branches M and N and the Y
chromosomal founders C and F, which are associated
with the exodus of modern humans from Africa
≈50–70,000 years ago.

But you know for a fact this isn't true and even cited
discussions as far back as 2001.

Are you insane? You can tell me. We're all friends here.




-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/705742582064496640

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

JTEM is so reasonable wrote:

Primum Sapienti wrote:

JTEM is so reasonable wrote:

https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.98.2.537

It's from 2001 and was even referenced in this group in 2004

Well. There's answering a question nobody asked...

You thought it was a new study. LOL

Abstract
Published and new samples of Aboriginal Australians
and Melanesians were analyzed for mtDNA (n = 172)
and Y variation (n = 522), and the resulting profiles
were compared with the branches known so far within
the global mtDNA and the Y chromosome tree. (i) All
Australian lineages are confirmed to fall within the
mitochondrial founder branches M and N and the Y
chromosomal founders C and F, which are associated
with the exodus of modern humans from Africa
≈50–70,000 years ago.

But you know for a fact this isn't true and even cited
discussions as far back as 2001.

If it isn't true then cite the RECENT research that shows
your claim to be true...

Are you insane? You can tell me. We're all friends here.

Says Space Alien NostraDumbAss...


https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.0702928104
Revealing the prehistoric settlement of Australia
by Y chromosome and mtDNA analysis

Abstract
Published and new samples of Aboriginal Australians
and Melanesians were analyzed for mtDNA (n = 172)
and Y variation (n = 522), and the resulting profiles
were compared with the branches known so far within
the global mtDNA and the Y chromosome tree. (i) All
Australian lineages are confirmed to fall within the
mitochondrial founder branches M and N and the Y
chromosomal founders C and F, which are associated
with the exodus of modern humans from Africa
≈50–70,000 years ago. The analysis reveals no
evidence for any archaic maternal or paternal lineages
in Australians, despite some suggestively robust
features in the Australian fossil record, thus
weakening the argument for continuity with any earlier
Homo erectus populations in Southeast Asia. (ii) The
tree of complete mtDNA sequences shows that Aboriginal
Australians are most closely related to the autochthonous
populations of New Guinea/Melanesia, indicating that
prehistoric Australia and New Guinea were occupied
initially by one and the same Palaeolithic colonization
event ≈50,000 years ago, in agreement with current
archaeological evidence. (iii) The deep mtDNA and Y
chromosomal branching patterns between Australia and most
other populations around the Indian Ocean point to a
considerable isolation after the initial arrival.
(iv) We detect only minor secondary gene flow into
Australia, and this could have taken place before the
land bridge between Australia and New Guinea was
submerged ≈8,000 years ago, thus calling into question
that certain significant developments in later Australian
prehistory (the emergence of a backed-blade lithic
industry, and the linguistic dichotomy) were externally
motivated.


"These results indicate that Australians and New Guineans
are ultimately descended from the same African emigrant
group 50–70,000 years ago..."

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Primum Sapienti wrote:

You thought it was a new study. LOL

The 2001 study I cited? I thought it's 2001?

Look. You habitually posts cites you never read. Not me. Don't
attribute your errors to me.

...I've cited Mungo Man countless times over the years.

If it isn't true then cite the RECENT research

I have. And I ignored the headlines -- AS I HAVE ALWAYS DONE
-- and concentrated on the data. I'm not a child. I don't stop at
claims. I read the justification. And the claim was literally
impossible. AND I'VE CITED THIS! I've posted on the topic. I've
point it out as an example of the FAKE science that trolls like
you believe in...

AND IT NEVER MATTERED!

Although Mungo Man's mtDNA originates from a line that only
exists on Chromosome 11 of living humans, it's not the same.
There were mutations between the two. Which is exactly what
you'd expect if the original findings were correct. But they claimed
the findings were the result of contamination WHICH WOULD
REQUIRE THAT THEY BE IDENTICAL. And they weren't.

But, let's make one thing clear: BILLIONS of living humans are
walking around with the remains of an mtDNA line VASTLY more
ancient than any "Mitochondrial Eve," and it originates outside
of Africa... GOING BY ALL THE ACCEPTED STANDARDS OF
THE SCIENCE!

It is an Eurasian sequence, not an African one. It's not rare
except in Africa. It is by the very standards for evaluating DNA,
used by the Out of Africa purity nutters, Eurasian. AND, it's
far older than any "Out of Africa" claim supported by mtDNA.

We don't need Mungo Man. Mungo Man is simply the softest
target the owners of your fake "Science" can attack. But he's
irrelevant. The sequence exists, it's well known, it's carried by
BILLIONS and it is Eurasian. None of this can be changed by
Mungo Man. They attack Mungo Man because mouth breathers
don't even know how to map out a claim, much less figure out
how to prove or disprove one... as you so aptly demonstrate.

There is no dispute of the facts: BILLIONS of living humans
are walking around with remnants of this mtDNA line stuck to
their chromosome 11. And it's Eurasian. No dispute.

But see how they switched this, made it about Mungo Man and
you missed all this completely?

Go on, surprise us all... admit your mistake. Admit that you were
fooled. Because you were.



-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/707463053539672064

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

JTEM is so reasonable wrote:

Primum Sapienti wrote:

You thought it was a new study. LOL

The 2001 study I cited? I thought it's 2001?

Look. You habitually posts cites you never read. Not me. Don't
attribute your errors to me.

https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.98.2.537

Oh, they hate this guy! He messes up the whole
"Out of Africa" purity thing!

The paper's title is "Mitochondrial DNA sequences in ancient
Australians: Implications for modern human origins"

It's plain you didn't read it.

...I've cited Mungo Man countless times over the years.

If it isn't true then cite the RECENT research

I have. And I ignored the headlines -- AS I HAVE ALWAYS DONE

No, you haven't cited the recent research. I did.

-- and concentrated on the data. I'm not a child. I don't stop at

Did you run that claim by your space alien and NOstraDumbAss
crowd?

claims. I read the justification. And the claim was literally
impossible. AND I'VE CITED THIS! I've posted on the topic. I've
point it out as an example of the FAKE science that trolls like
you believe in...

THIS is the recent research


https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.0702928104
Revealing the prehistoric settlement of Australia
by Y chromosome and mtDNA analysis
...
"These results indicate that Australians and New Guineans
are ultimately descended from the same African emigrant
group 50–70,000 years ago..."

AND IT NEVER MATTERED!

Although Mungo Man's mtDNA originates from a line that only
exists on Chromosome 11 of living humans, it's not the same.
There were mutations between the two. Which is exactly what
you'd expect if the original findings were correct. But they claimed
the findings were the result of contamination WHICH WOULD
REQUIRE THAT THEY BE IDENTICAL. And they weren't.

But, let's make one thing clear: BILLIONS of living humans are
walking around with the remains of an mtDNA line VASTLY more
ancient than any "Mitochondrial Eve," and it originates outside
of Africa... GOING BY ALL THE ACCEPTED STANDARDS OF
THE SCIENCE!

It is an Eurasian sequence, not an African one. It's not rare

"These results indicate that Australians and New Guineans
are ultimately descended from the same African emigrant
group 50–70,000 years ago..."

except in Africa. It is by the very standards for evaluating DNA,
used by the Out of Africa purity nutters, Eurasian. AND, it's
far older than any "Out of Africa" claim supported by mtDNA.

We don't need Mungo Man. Mungo Man is simply the softest
target the owners of your fake "Science" can attack. But he's
irrelevant. The sequence exists, it's well known, it's carried by
BILLIONS and it is Eurasian. None of this can be changed by
Mungo Man. They attack Mungo Man because mouth breathers
don't even know how to map out a claim, much less figure out
how to prove or disprove one... as you so aptly demonstrate.

There is no dispute of the facts: BILLIONS of living humans
are walking around with remnants of this mtDNA line stuck to
their chromosome 11. And it's Eurasian. No dispute.

But see how they switched this, made it about Mungo Man and
you missed all this completely?

Go on, surprise us all... admit your mistake. Admit that you were
fooled. Because you were.

"These results indicate that Australians and New Guineans
are ultimately descended from the same African emigrant
group 50–70,000 years ago..."

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Primum Sapienti wrote:

The paper's title is

...irrelevant.

The "Conclusions" were reached 22 years ago. It's not like they pretend
to have accepted the science, waited two decades and suddenly got
access to remains that nobody is allowed access to only to THEN AND
ONLY THEN come up with an alternative idea. They've been saying the
same things all along. They've never said anything different.

That was your first blaring obvious clue.

The second is that it's irrelevant. The mtDNA line exists, it's not under
any dispute, it's carried by BILLIONS OF PEOPLE today as an insert on Chromosome 11, a lucky mutation there, and it's Eurasian. It's significantly older than any "Mitochondrial Eve" and it's Eurasian.

Taken literally, interpreted the exact same way as the Out of Africa purists "Interpret" the evidence -- only they ignore the insert -- it means the African population descends from a migration from Eurasia.

Now you can argue that the Out of Africa purity model is wrong, which it is,
or you can argue for an Out of Asia model or you can even argue that "We
don't know." Instead, you're arguing that Mungo Man can alter any of this
when he can't.





-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/709313954911027200

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)