Did Blacks Split off from the Rest of Humanity 250-300,000 Years Ago?

8ball writes: No, I’m telling you, the latest data shows the human genetic tree split into two about 250,000-300,000 years ago. Sub-Saharan Africans on one side, the rest on the other.

That is a fucking long time ago. For comparison Neanderthals split off from us about 600,000 years ago.

I am not aware of this new data. Someone needs to link me to some proof of this if it is even true at all, which I doubt. I don’t see how it’s true. All non-Africans came out of Africa 65,000 YBP. Africans could not have split off from non-Africans so early because all non-Africans were Africans themselves until 65,000 YBP.

There were no Homo sapiens sapiens 250-300,000 YBP. Our species had not even been created yet. We were some prior form or Homo, I think Homo sapiens idaltu, but even he does not appear until 190,000 YBP. I have never heard that Blacks split off that early. Anyway, Negroids are a new race. They were only formed in the last 9,000 years. The oldest races are the Khoisan (52,000 years), and the Orang Asli in Thailand (72,000 years). Everybody else is way more recent. There are no human lines that go back 250-300,000 years and anyway back then we were not even the fully modern humans that we are today.

If you enjoy the hard work that goes into this website, please consider a contribution to support the continuation of the site. Donations are the only thing that keep the site operating.

32 Comments

Filed under Africa, Anthropology, Asia, Blacks, Khoisan, Physical, Race/Ethnicity, Regional, SE Asia, Thailand

32 responses to “Did Blacks Split off from the Rest of Humanity 250-300,000 Years Ago?

  1. You are right, damn right : even though technically speaking humanity started out in Africa, present-day Africans are NOT the primitive stock out of which others evolved through migration to other climates. The Negroid race (some say Congoid) is a late feat of evolution, not of retention of primitive less than human traits. One the grandest mistakes racist biological evolutionists love to indulge in is the theory of neoteny, or in other words the retention at adult age of traits other more primitive race or species lose after childhood. The Black race appears to be less neotenic than others by many visible traits (not all though, and it is not even certain these visible traits form the majority of all) such as for instance the quicker ability of Black babies to learn movements such as sitting and walking. The theory of neoteny stipulates that man gradually evolved from ape or common primate ancestor by keeping at adult age more and more infantile traits of appearance and behaviour, and that blacks have climbed less upwards towards full humanity. This is seducing, but utterly FALLACIOUS : neoteny alone NEVER explains or produce evolution from one species to another. Let us take a devastating counter-example sufficient to infirm the whole theory : dogs. The ancestors of all dogs are a certain species of wolves (not any wolves, though, but a very specific kind of wolf which even though its appearance was not very distinguishable from other wolves deserved already to be called a wild dog). Dogs have evolved far more neotenically than all primates and all humans, that is very easy to observe, and yet the most neotenic among the contemporary salon dogs show no sign promising their future transformation into human-like beings endowed with articulate language and industry : quite the contrary, the most wolf-like wild dogs of Africa seem to be more intelligent as regards canine abilities of communication. Despite their being more and more puppy-like and even baby-like with each generation passing, despite being less and less able to survive outside a well-heated apartment, they are not becoming less animal to draw nearer humankind. They are cuter and cuter to the point of utter dependence towards masters and that’s it.

    In the very same way, less neotenic (in certain respects only : for instance Africans are indeed more prognathous but their foramen magnum is better centred enabling them to a much more upright and aristocratic posture of the whole spine) Africans are by NO means less human. They are wilder humans for sure, but even more human, not ape-like. Take another species : the elephant. The African version of the elephant bull cannot so far be domesticated by the ways of domestication we know of, but he not less elephant-like than his more servile and useful Indian counterpart. The African queen bee, though of inferior use at best when it comes to honey production, it by no means less a bee than her European counterpart, it is not any kind of wasp or hornet even though its sting can kill even more than a hornet’s and can even threaten human villages with killer swarms. It seems that subsaharan Africa is a natural conservatory of countless sub-species throughout the whole animal realm that cannot be domesticated or easily so at least, and it also seems that the human being makes no exception among the onagres, the wild buffaloes and the wild turkeys. For sure the African man has up to now proven less useful (to us) for so many tasks and less programmable into less patterns of civilized behaviour as are necessary for an organized mode of production to grow and thrive, but that by no means make a person less human, less an homo sapiens (maybe less an homo faber so to speak, but even then Africans developed the use of iron agricultural tools and of elaborately dyed and patterned tissues as early as other humans in the world though with less voluminous infrastructure to do so). The time-old saying goes that the proper trait of man is laughter : are Africans less endowed of it?

    There is no such thing as a Homo Africanus to be distinguished as a separate species, it is not the same thing as rather similar birds zoologists classify into different species, the same zoologists would never classify the various dogs we stroll and train into so many different species as we breed so many new ones each year. The Negroid and the Caucasoid form a continuum, all shades of grey will always be available in between, though not necessarily in Gauss curve proportion, they form a continuum exactly like between blond-haired and dark-haired Germans or Greeks though of greater magnitude of difference. This is not to deny that there may be very big differences of genetic origin as regards many abilities, but these abilities too are along a continuum, not a one-drop-ruled discrete function.

    I will tell you a secret : the whole of this continuous function between “golden-blond Northern barbarians” and “jet-black African savages” with the whole gamut in between is governed by only six (read my lips : 6) pairs of alleles, which govern not only the colour of skin but nearly all other physical and also behavioural traits commonly associated to negritude or albedo. Actually the only thing these chromosomal markers do to make a human into a Black is giving to melatonine rather than to serotonine the role of privileged neurotransmitter of impulses of moderation not only within the brain and but also within the other neurones of the body and from those neurones to the physical organs controlled by them (please don’t fear for melatonine taken in pills or injections for the betterment of the sleep, it will never turn you into a Negro : what it is about here is not the concentration of the molecule in the blood or other tissues but the ROLE played by it, no matter the concentration low or high, as a neurotransmitter : but the 6 said pairs of alleles are actually most easy to toggle through the agency of other rarer molecules available in nature and that information is top secret as its divulgation and resulting practical availability of total race change would cause an evident identity catastrophe in the modern world : once the alleles are toggled, nearly everything ensues in one direction or the other, not only as regards skin colour but also the lips, the hair, the facial soft tissues, the reflexes, the movements, the functioning of all organs ; this explains why suddenly for instance, here and there though not often, perfectly blond aryan-trait children (not albinos) are born in all-black families having never know a white ancestor … and vice-versa, and also why, somewhat more often, having had a black boyfriend at some point of her life may dispose a White woman to beget Coloured or even full Black offspring with future white partners … and vice-versa). When the six chromosomal markers are toggled to negritude, one effect is not only hyper-melanism but also spontaneous and over-easy psychic fusion among all affects (most notably between sexuality and emotions, but also between emotion and intellect or attention, which does not mean sexuality is dominant), a phenomenon most desired among aficionados of yoga under the name of kundalini rising as a promise of supernatural powers of magic : darkest Africa is in a certain sense a world where are reincarnated those who have done too much yoga in past lives, though I don’t believe in any bit of that crap. It must be noted that the oldest and most venerable strains of “pure-bred” Black Africans are not the Blackest but rather sand-hued with about three to four alleles toggled to black, and vice-versa, the oldest and most venerable ancient Aryans having invaded India, destroyed the Indus civilization and replaced its unquestionable material and sanitary achievements by their own dubious occult powers of yoga and utter carelessness towards their hygienic environment, are not the most purely White by that standard, but rather golden-skinned by their own ancient ideal of beauty (real natural-born and origin-faithful Whites never wash, they naturally fear they might lose some powers down the drain of their tub, they also feel that once they have been bathed in supernatural light by their religious initiation they no longer need a physical bath). The darker and sometimes very dark skin of so many Indians is another genetic phenomenon which concerns only the skin in reaction to sunlight : these people are more or less tanned Europeans, never African-like in any respect. African melanism concerns all organs whereas Indian browning or darkening (with the exception of some far out groups such as the Andaman Islanders and the Veddas) is only skin-deep.

    Mongoloid traits are also dependent whether present or not upon six pair of alleles only, which govern another neurotransmitter resulting into a different regime of lipid storage and thereby in different facial traits and mental functioning too. There also the result is a continuum. Many Australians, Polynesians and even more so South American Amerindians have both the Mongoloid and Negroid toggles, resulting into a rather cloud-purplish skin colour rather than sand-brownish when both factors are heavily combined (which happens quite rarely except on Andaman Islands and other forlorn places where very dark skin and kinky hair combines with mongoloid adipose tissue and dispassionate face expression).

    • Phil78

      “You are right, damn right : even though technically speaking humanity started out in Africa, present-day Africans are NOT the primitive stock out of which others evolved through migration to other climates. The Negroid race (some say Congoid) is a late feat of evolution, not of retention of primitive less than human traits”

      Thank you.

      • Gummy

        Evolving differently only enhances the glaring differences though. Sub-Saharan Africans have also been bred with an African Hominid, while non-Africans like East Asians and Europeans share DNA with Neanderthals.
        Here’s a good vid on the subject:

    • aryaavart

      Except niggers didn’t create the Indus Valley Civilization it was Haplogroup L from Tajikistan.

      Dravidas also only become Black in Tamil Nadu due to abo admixture. In the rest of the country they’re much lighter.

      WE WUZ KANGZ

  2. 8Ball

    All non-Africans came out of Africa 65,000 YBP. Africans could not have split off from non-Africans so early because all non-Africans were Africans themselves until 65,000 YBP.

    I’m talking specifically about sub-Saharan Africans. There’s several different lineages in Africa that have been diverging for a long time. Africa’s a huge place, bigger than China, India, Europe, and America all put together, and it’s possible for populations to split and remain separate for 100,000s of years.

    The latest data show that the African population split into two about 250,000-300,000 years ago and remained largely separate for all that time. About 60,000-100,000 years ago one of these populations came out of Africa and populated Europe and Asia.

  3. Erkki

    Hey Robert,

    Field is changing fast I’ll post some new links. Gist is modern human found in Morocco dates 300,000BP. There was also a find genetically tested in South Africa talking about a split between groups of Homo sapiens in Africa 300,000BP along with a slew of Eurasian finds. There’s now talk of migration into Africa from Eurasia.

    But remember one that got pulled under the rug real quick was modern human teeth being found in an Israeli cave that dated to 400,000 BP. Sort of curious about that one.

    What could this mean? Not sure. I’m just picking up the popcorn and watching. It’s fascinating. I have a feeling that the main nexus of human evolution was in North Africa and southwest Eurasia. There’s talk of Haplogroup DE being Eurasian and back migration into Africa. It looks muddled and very interesting. Only thing I think here is that modern humans are way older than we thought and Ice Age aridity cycles have something to do with it.

    https://www.phys.org/news/2010-12-world-oldest-human-israel.amp

    https://www.phys.org/news/2017-06-scientists-oldest-homo-sapiens-fossils.amp

    https://m.phys.org/news/2017-09-modern-humans-emerged-years.html

    https://dienekes.blogspot.ca/2018/01/eurasian-origin-of-mtdna-l3-and-y.html?m=1

    https://dienekes.blogspot.ca/2018/01/out-of-africa-theory-in-crisis.html?m=1

    • Phil78

      The first link’s date of 400 can be dismissed due to it’s lack of replication and reporting, most likely conforming to the 220 dispersal.

      Dienekes interpetations on OOA in the last link was commented by Razib to be a trend with him.

      https://www.gnxp.com/WordPress/2018/01/25/out-of-africa-to-out-of-eden-well-perhaps-not-yet/#comment-6678
      Speaking of which, while a L3 and E Eurasian origin is possible, the study mentioned also solidies and African origins for in the discreption Ultimately.(Plus notice commenter’s Jm8 comments on the study).

      https://www.gnxp.com/WordPress/2018/01/11/out-of-africa-out-of-asia-out-of-africa/

      https://www.biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/early/2017/12/13/233502.full.pdf

      “The recent 702 dating of Middle Stone Age tools (315 ± 34 kya) and early modern
      703 human fossils (286 ± 32 kya) from Jebel Irhoud in Morocco, places
      704 the emergence of our species, and of the Middle Stone Age, close in 705 time and long before the age of about 200 kya previously suggested 706 for the common origin of all humans in eastern Africa [124]. These 707 data coincide in time with the existence of an old Y-chromosome 708 lineage (A00) detected in samples of western-central African 709 ascendance and dated 338 kya (95% CI: 237-581 kya), remarkably 710 older than common estimates based on the Y-chromosome and 711 mtDNA TMRCAs [125]. The fact that the following more divergent Y712 chromosome A lineages (A0, A1a) also have a western-central not peer-reviewed) is the author/funder. All rights reserved. No reuse allowed without permission. bioRxiv preprint first posted online Dec. 13, 2017; doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1101/233502. The copyright holder for this preprint (which was 713 African location, strongly supports this region as the origin of an 714 ancestral human population from which the ancestors of early 715 modern humans emerged [90, 103]. The most ancient splits and 716 spreads of the mtDNA lineages also situated the hypothetical origin 717 of all extant maternal lineages around this area. Although the 718 earliest L0 clade diverged around 145 kya (Additional file 1: Table 719 S3) and had its first expansions in southern Africa (L0d, L0k), the 720 subsequent splits gave rise to L1 and L5 around 131 kya and 123 721 kya spreading to western and eastern Africa respectively. These 722 long range African dispersions place its putative origin somewhere 723 in Central Africa (Figure 1a). The same “centre-of-gravity” argument 724 was used by other authors to suggest a Central African origin [126]. ”

      Basically, the picture as to recent humans could be constructed like this based on the study.

      200k ago, Humans arised in the Grassland network of North Africa and eventually the near East, from there they explanded as far as South East Asia around 100k-120k.

      Here, DE and E splitted and M and N in South East asia were established. When Eurasia became closer aling the equator, humans there that were pushed down became oceanic and SE asian Hunter Gatherers, and the other Westward group went back to Africa with L3 and E at 70k, the expanded into the interior and North wards into Europe and Asia between 70k-50k.

      • Jm8

        Yes, I agree, there seems to be evidence of a from of early modern humans/sapiens from ca. 300 ka bc; in addition to the Moroccan fossils, there is some indirect evidence of the presence of early or proto-moderns (a proto-modern/perhaps ancestral Idaltu-like sapiens variant) in Ethiopia from about 279 ca bc, in the form of weapons (projectiles, a more modern human/homo sapiens behavior, not seen in other hominids) and behavior., not surprising given the appearance of other early modern evidence in that region not long after

        http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0078092

        “Projectile weapons (i.e. those delivered from a distance) enhanced prehistoric hunting efficiency by enabling higher impact delivery and hunting of a broader range of animals while reducing confrontations with dangerous prey species.
        Projectiles therefore provided a significant advantage over thrusting spears. Composite projectile technologies are considered indicative of complex behavior and pivotal to the successful spread of Homo sapiens. Direct evidence for such projectiles is thus far unknown from >80,000 years ago. Data from velocity-dependent microfracture features, diagnostic damage patterns, and artifact shape reported here indicate that pointed stone artifacts from Ethiopia were used as projectile weapons (in the form of hafted javelin tips) as early as >279,000 years ago. In combination with the existing archaeological, fossil and genetic evidence, these data isolate eastern Africa as a source of modern cultures and biology.”

        i may be that early moderns/homo sapiens originated somewhere in North and/or East Africa in the 250,000-300,000 bc range (or possibly even slightly earlier)

        Non-Africans derive from a group of Africans that migrated into Eurasia around 70,000 bc from East Africa. That same East African group (or a related one) also spread within Africa/to other parts of Africa around that same time (ca. 70,000 bc), mostly replacing or absorbing (but not entirely replacing in every case—as the Khoisan and other evidence shows) other more divergent African groups (but which also belonged to the subspecies modern human/homo sapiens sapiens, only more divergent ones with pre-70 ka ancestry) of sapiens/moderns.

        Indeed the (non-peer reviewed preprint) positing Eurasian origins for DE, E, and L3, (esp. re: L3 in it particular case) is not very well founded in my opinion (and the opinions of several other commentators well versed in the subject), and there are many problems in it and its reasoning.
        As I commented and cited in the comments at link below (as you mentioned):

        https://www.gnxp.com/WordPress/2018/01/11/out-of-africa-out-of-asia-out-of-africa/

        • Jm8

          Edit:
          “Non-Africans derive from a group of East Africans (one subgroup of the modern human/sapiens species that existed at the time, which was more widely distributed in Africa) that migrated into Eurasia around 70,000 bc from East Africa. (there were also one or a few earlier proto/early modern migrations into Eurasia that left little-no trace in most modern Eurasians)”

        • Jm8

          Edit: (a proto-modern/perhaps ancestral Idaltu-like—which is classified as early modern—sapiens variant)

        • Jm8

          Edit:
          “Non-Africans derive from a group of East Africans (one subgroup of the modern human/sapiens species that existed at the time which was more widely distributed in Africa)”

          meaning that the species was more widely distributed in Africa, and that they came from one subgroup/population (an East African one) of it .

          My apologies for my ambiguous punctuation and over-frequency editing—much of which is due to anxiety—(I will try to avoid both).

      • Jm8

        “200k ago, Humans arised in the Grassland network of North Africa and eventually the near East, from there they explanded as far as South East Asia around 100k-120k.

        Here, DE and E splitted and M and N in South East asia were established. When Eurasia became closer aling the equator, humans there that were pushed down became oceanic and SE asian Hunter Gatherers, and the other Westward group went back to Africa with L3 and E at 70k, the expanded into the interior and North wards into Europe and Asia between 70k-50k.”

        Though early modern human migrations did take place out into Eurasia from Africa around 100k-120k, they are not ancestral to current non-Africans—as the author/Cabrera strangely seems to be claiming/implying),—except for a small about 2% of ancestry in Papuans and Australian Aboriginals but not in other Eurasians—. Current Eurasians rather derive from the later 70k bc migration.

        It appears more likely that L3 (as well as CT and DE,—E possibly being a later diverging African branch of DE, which later migrated both into Western Eurasia and within Africa, and D an Asian branch that diverged in Asia) were part of the ca. 70 ka migration from East Africa leading to early Eurasians (or also from East Africa and roughly contemporary to the OOA, in the case of DE), as well as a similar migration within Africa (also originating in East Africa from a similar population), as reflected from the autosomal evidence.

        As I commented regarding that point (as well as on other issues with the author’s theory)

        https://www.gnxp.com/WordPress/2018/01/11/out-of-africa-out-of-asia-out-of-africa/

        “One other (seemingly important) observation is that the (OOA) ancestry/origin (apparently all or the the vast majority) in modern Eurasians dates from the approximately 70 ka BC wave (the second major wave) of migration of modern humans from Africa, and not from an earlier one dating to 125 ka BC ., as the authors seem to suggest (which instead seems to have left little to no legacy in modern Eurasians overall). Much less (it would seems to me) would said earlier migration (with generally little to no autosomal legacy) be likely to be the source of such major/dominant modern Eurasian uni-parental lineages (as the paper discuses)—particularly when concerning the maternal lineages ancestral to all/nearly all those of living Eurasian populations.”

        Sorry for my redundancy here. I should have included much of this in my first post above.

        • Phil78

          Jm8, can you paste some passages from that one study that shows the affinities of the ghost population of sapiens with modern populations, I believe you showed closer association with the San (as a proxy for paleoafricans) as you described similarly to the Aterian humans?

        • Jm8

          Phil78
          I’ll continue to look for (passages from) the original study (I believe Kuhlwilm et al. 2016, as mentioned below). But I am having a bit of trouble finding the full version of it.
          I was referring to the comment (referencing that study) by commenter NonFingo below:

          http://www.forumbiodiversity.com/showthread.php?t=49193&page=2

          ““The authors cite a paper that found DNA of a modern human ghost population in Neanderthals. This Neanderthal-ghost population admixture event was dated to 100ky ago. Cabrera et al use this admixture event as evidence that the ancestors of all living Eurasians must have already been in Eurasia by 100ky ago. I checked what their source (Kuhlwilm et al 2016) actually says, and it has nothing to do with living Eurasians, nor with the Africans who supposedly back migrated to Africa.

          If this new OOA model were accurate, we’d expect the ghost human DNA in these Neanderthals to be closely related to living Eurasians and the Africans who supposedly back migrated. That is, the last populations we’d expect to have an affinity with this ghost population’s DNA, is Pygmies and Khoisan. However, the actual paper says that Khoisan are closest to this ghost population, not the supposed ‘backmigrants’ or Eurasians:”

          Pygmies and Khoisans testing as the closest existing proxies for the ghost population is what one would expect given the early expansion out of Africa of that early group of sapiens/modern humans pre-100,000 bc (the ghost population), and the fact that modern Eurasians do not descend directly from them (but from a genetically bottlenecked subgroup of later out-migrating East African humans).

          The affinity to Khoisans and Pygmies is presumably because of the genetic diversity in both them—as much earlier diverged/more basal, less bottlenecked groups of modern humans—(and likely Aterians also, but Aterians no longer exist and as far as I know no Aterian dna has yet been analyzed) as well as in the ghost population compared to other more bottlenecked branches of modern humans (like most other—non-Pygmy/non-Khoisan—Subsaharans and Eurasians, both being predominantly or largely descended from the ca. 70,000 wave from East Africa).

          It appears that (as NonFingo explains), Cabrera as part of his argument that Eurasians descend directly from the early OOA migrating ghost population, deceptively cites early sapiens admixture in neanderthals as somehow evidence of this (when all that that proves is that sapiens did indeed migrate OOA early, but not that modern Eurasians descend from that wave of migration—Eurasians being derived from a later OOA wave).

          In cabrera’s model, one would expect a closest resemblance between the ghost population and groups of living Eurasians and/or certain other subsaharan groups (those largely descended from the ca. 70,000 ka wave/expansion, such as those that carry L3 and DE/E in significant amounts) (Eurasians, of course, mostly also carry L3 daughter lineages like M and N., and also descend from the ca 70 ka wave of expansion. But this wave is more likely from a common East African source, of both eurasians and much of the ancestry of many African groups).

          (Nor are Eurasians, as far as we know, descended from/admixed with the Altai neanderthals—the group that had admixture from the early migrating ghost population of modern humans before the more important OOA.
          Their neanderthal admixture, of course, rather deriving from the Western neanderthals of Europe and the Middle East.)

          The below post by John hawks discusses the early wave (though lacking what we know about the early dates of some of the oldest sapiens OOA migrations, most of it still holds).

          From the population tree image around the middle-top of page, it is clear that he ghost population was from an earlier-diverging branch of sapiens (seemingly diverging roughly around the same time as the San perhaps—the dates of which would likely be revised back a bit now, knowing what we now know about the likely dates of San divergence and the first early modern Out of Africa migrations—before the one leading to modern Eurasians) and they are clearly very distinct from the (direct OOA) ancestors of living Eurasian populations (such as Papuans/Oceanians, French/Europeans and Han Chinese/E. Asians) and not very close either to non hunter-gatherer Africans such as Yoruba/Niger-Congo groups.

          http://johnhawks.net/weblog/reviews/neandertals/neandertal_dna/neandertal-early-modern-gene-flow-kuhlwilm-2016.html

        • Phil78

          Thanks, this really helps. At first I found the paper convincing in regards to explaining the divergence between basal africans and OOA africans, but of course I’m limited in my knowledge of haplogroup interpretations.

        • Jm8

          Edit:
          “(those largely descended from the ca. 70,000 ka wave/expansion, such as those that carry L3 and DE/E in significant amounts) (Eurasians, of course, mostly also carry L3 daughter/offshoot lineages like M and N., and also descend from the ca 70 ka wave of expansion. But this wave is more likely from a common East African source—the same source as L3, DE and CT—, of both eurasians and much of the ancestry of many African groups).”

        • Jm8

          Phil:

          Another significant issue with Cabrera’s theory:

          He claims that the lack of relative lack of mtdna M in the levant (and its greater abundance in deeper rootedness further toward South East Asia an Oceania (rather than nearer to Africa), as well as the south East Asian base of N, is evidence that they (M and N) did not originate near Africa, and therefore that its ancestor L3 did not originate in Africa but somewhere closer to Asia. However, the lack of basal M in current populations near Africa (such as the Levant), seems more likely due to later migrations within Western Eurasia, which could easily obscure the original earlier paleolithic distribution of lineages. As commenter Lank explained:

          https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?13043-Carriers-of-mitochondrial-DNA-macrohaplogroup-L3-basic-lineages-migrated-back-to-Afri

          “The correlation between Y-DNA DE and mtDNA L3 in Africa has been obvious for many years. There is no a priori reason to assume Y-DNA DE originates outside Africa, especially when it has roughly the same age as mtDNA L3 (although, if it was part of a back migration, it certainly would have brought some mtDNA L3). There was mtDNA M and even pre-N, as well as a lot of Y-DNA C even in Paleolithic Europe, so the modern concentration of Y-DNA/mtDNA diversity in eastern rather than western parts of Eurasia is not representative of the distribution going back tens of thousands of years.”

          Also, the makeup of Western Eurasia (and some degree India) greatly changed during prehistory due to the back-migrations of more northerly Eurasians, in waves between the late paleo-lithic/mesolithic and neolithic— (who were likely of a proto-caucasoid type) into South West Asia (including the Levant and Near East)—whose ancestry is now dominant in those areas, largely replacing the earlier inhabitants (directly descended from the first 70 ka bc OOA settlers of those regions (who would have been closer to a proto-Oceanic or proto-Austaloid type).

          The descendants of the earlier modern human inhabitants of South Eurasia survive only in mixed form in India (the ASI/ancestral South Indian component, which is always to some degree hybridized with the more N. W. Eurasian/early caucasoid-related ANI component), and sometimes in less mixed form in Oceania and a few parts of South East Eurasia (as Negritos, Andamanese, Melanesians, Papuans, Australians, etc), some of which populations may preserve some more basal Eurasian lineages lost closer to Western Eurasia due to later migration and population replacement.

          As far a I know M is also found in the horn of Africa—Somalia and Ethiopia, and at low levels in the Maghreb (considered to come from a paleolithic migration from S.W. Eurasia into N. E. Africa and the horn (indicated that early M once existed in early South West Eurasia; in Arabia and/or the Levant, before later population movements)

          A somewhat similar back-migration of more northern Eurasians occurred in the South East of Eurasia involving the swamping of the S.E. Asian Negritos in many areas by early and proto-mongoloids (who likely originated from South China, North Thailand, or some where between that region and the south Himalayas such as N. E. Myanmar/Burma) in the neolithic period.

          It seems more likely that the originally East African L3 left Africa, split into M (in South West Asia, perhaps near Arabia or the Near East), and into N perhaps closer to South Asia/India or East India bordering S. E Asia. And that much M/more basal M in West Eurasia, the Middle East, and parts of West India (and N in West Asia and the Indian subcontinent), was replaced (with more derived/less basal lineages—less basal than those that had survived in places like Australasia) by later more northern-derived populations.

        • Jm8

          Phil:

          Also, here is the passage of the Kuhlwilm 2016 paper NonFingo quoted (I forgot to post earlier, or which I might not have noticed):

          The passage says (referring to the closest affinities of the early OOA ghost population to current populations, and to its likely divergence):

          “Because there is fairly weak information in the data to support such inference, the uncertainty in the inferred values is quite high, and different values are obtained in the four runs (lowest in the ‘Chinese’ analysis and highest in the ‘San’ analysis). However, if we take the union of the 95% Bayesian credible intervals for the four runs, we can conclude that the source population likely diverged from present-day humans between 138,000 and 433,000 years ago, which is consistent with divergence either before or slightly after the divergence of the San from other present-day populations.”

          I believe the source in here:
          https://media.nature.com/original/nature-assets/nature/journal/v530/n7591/extref/nature16544-s1.pdf

          NonFingo continues:

          “Note that this is not a case of a self-defeating citation that just happens to disagree with Cabrera et al. They can’t fix this by removing the citation from the preprint and pretending Kuhlwilm et al just had a different opinion. Cabrera’s whole 120ky OOA migration doesn’t even involve the ancestors of living populations, but some extinct human population that’s older than the Khoisan.”

          http://www.forumbiodiversity.com/showthread.php?t=49193&page=2

  4. TRASH 2

    PHIL

    Point taken.

    You remain the best commentator on this site and you are usually right.

    • Phil78

      Yeah. Sorry for my absence. Been doing alot of HBD related stuff.

      • TRASH 2

        PHIL

        A few thoughts to our cerebral commentator-

        1) Human races apparently diverged post-agriculture which was a common occupation in West Africa.

        2) African-Americans borrow their genes and swagger-culture from Scotland and English medieval honor-culture. To cite AA’s is a bit suspect given each owns one European grandparent.

        • Phil78

          “A few thoughts to our cerebral commentator-

          1) Human races apparently diverged post-agriculture which was a common occupation in West Africa.”

          I’m not sure how to interpret this. True, technological advances as well as certain phenotypes occurred during this time, but the actual genetic divergence was far more ancient.

          “2) African-Americans borrow their genes and swagger-culture from Scotland and English medieval honor-culture. To cite AA’s is a bit suspect given each owns one European grandparent.”

          I agree that using one cultural influenced subgroup to make inferences in deviancy of the whole race is faulty.

  5. jim

    There’s a new paper claiming that the Nilotic people have some genes from an unkown species of homo. I’ll post it when I get home.

  6. Oscar

    A healthy White tongue and a pumkin seed shaped pussy seem to be unique to blacks. Most human tongues are just pink. The different tongue color fascinates me.

  7. Anuseed

    Look how long ago the L0 lineage split off from the lineage leading to Eurasians. It’s half the way back to when Neanderthals split off. Fuck. The L1 lineage split off a long time ago too.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

w

Connecting to %s