The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersiSteve Blog
Ghosts of Africa
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

2018 has been a big year in genetics. One of the more interesting findings that has been slowly emerging in recent years is, just as Eurasians tend to have genetic contributions from extinct Neanderthals and Denisovans, sub-Saharan Africans seem to have their own admixture from a different archaic population.

Models of archaic admixture and recent history from two-locus statistics

Aaron P. Ragsdale and Simon Gravel
Department of Human Genetics, McGill University, Montreal, QC, Canada
December 6, 2018

Abstract
… we show that human evolutionary models that include archaic admixture in Africa, Asia, and Europe provide a much better description of patterns of genetic diversity across the human genome. We estimate that individuals in two African populations have 6 − 8% ancestry through admixture from an unidentified archaic population that diverged from the ancestors of modern humans 500 thousand years ago.

The two present day African populations studied are Yorubans in Nigerian and the Luhya, a Bantu tribe in Kenya. I don’t believe there is any name yet for the putative “ghost” population, nor any recognized fossils.

An archaic population is an extinct one, a ghost population is one for which we only have statistical evidence. This ancient African population was presumably archaic and ghost.

Back in April in reviewing David Reich’s book, I suggested that

Can 2018’s tsunami of DNA data on the origins of human biodiversity help explain the puzzle of why Americans tend to equate “diversity” with Africans? …

There are, of course, two contrasting kinds of genetic diversity: within races and between races. Although it sounds politically impious, the last half century of research has shown that typical sub-Saharan Africans are more genetically different from the rest of the human race than any other large racial group on Earth.

 
Hide 75 CommentsLeave a Comment
75 Comments to "Ghosts of Africa"
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. Anonymous[265] • Disclaimer says:

    Actually, amongst ‘those in the know’ this has been known for quite sometime now.

    It has been suppressed – for obvious reasons – but hints and glimpses manage to peek under the ‘curtain of silence’ every now and then.

  2. Anonymous[265] • Disclaimer says:

    Another finding, which is generally suppressed, is that all extant sub Saharan Africans have ancient ‘typically Eurasian’ admixture from prehistoric times, perhaps related to the ‘Natufians’ or ‘Iberomaurisians’.

    • Replies: @Anonym
  3. Anon[676] • Disclaimer says:

    There needs to be a pan-African DNA comparison just to find out where in Africa this archaic population lived. Mapping this might be quite revealing.

    Just for the record, American blacks are around 50% Yoruban.

    • Replies: @Nigerian Nationalist
  4. Sean says:

    Rhodesian Man

    Carlton Coon’ s reconstruction

    • Replies: @Tiny Duck.
    , @Anonymous
  5. Bill P says:

    Acheulean tools were still being manufactured in West Africa as recently as 10k BC. This industry, which is nearly two million years old, was replaced by the Mousterian in Europe by 160,000 years ago.

    Furthermore, some West African men, including some African Americans, have y chromosomes that are separated from the rest of the world’s modern lineages by an estimated 400,000 years. That’s a long time.

    The implications are pretty clear.

    • Replies: @dearieme
    , @Mr. Rational
  6. TS says:

    Hey Mr. Sailer, would love a review of “The Lost Book of Enki”.

  7. Anon[167] • Disclaimer says:

    If the African Invasion continues, whites will go the way of Neanderthals. White DNA will just be swallowed by black DNA like Neanderthal DNA got swallowed by Cro-Magnon DNA.

    • Agree: Steve in Greensboro
    • Replies: @bomag
    , @Autochthon
    , @Corvinus
  8. @Sean

    “Carlton Coon”???? Can you get any more racist than a guy who claimed “coons” were part monkey? Wow just wow. Reporting you to the FBI.

    • Replies: @Sean
  9. neutral says:

    Is it a good guess to assume that Pygmies are the closest ancestors to this ghost population, if not them then who?

  10. @Anonymous

    “suppressed — for obvious reasons”

    Call me dense, but the reason is not obvious to me.

    Because it might validate simian jokes?

    Whitey’s got ghost ancestry too. And “Neanderthal” has hardly been used as a compliment.

  11. dearieme says:
    @Bill P

    “The implications are pretty clear.” What do you have in mind?

    • Replies: @Bill P
  12. Anonymous[139] • Disclaimer says:
    @Almost Missouri

    Basically it ‘drives a coach and horses’ through the ‘strong OOA’ (Out of Africa) theory, which posits a ‘common origin’ of all extant Homo Sapiens 50,000 years ago.

    This theory is still the prevailing dogma.

  13. Sean says:
    @Tiny Duck.

    A very primitive skull from Nigeria (Iwo Eleru) is only 13,000 years old

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-14947363

    I think the introgression of archaic genes was related to the Bantu expansion, in which men competed with other men for extra wives in order to cultivate more land. That is why blacks are associated with masculinity, they have been selected for that. High testosterone genes from the archaics spread quickly into an exploding modern human population in Saharan Africa because of the female farming system.

  14. bomag says:
    @Anon

    …like Neanderthal DNA got swallowed by Cro-Magnon DNA.

    Well, Cro-Magnon has some claim to being more adaptive.

    This new invasion is more analogous to a parasite killing the host.

    • Agree: Mr. Rational
  15. Carol says:

    I can’t read that PDF. Did they get hold of any archaic African DNA to work with?

    I’m finishing the Reich book now. He goes back and forth, race – no race haterz! – but race exists, just not as old a split as once thought.

    At least that’s what I’m getting out of it.

  16. This archaic stuff is interesting–keep it coming. But it is *not* really the main driver of the HBD we see today. It isn’t “who left Africa when”–cue Australian aboriginals, or my “nationalist” buddies in the Andamans.

    It really is “The 10,000 Year Explosion”.

    Never–ok, skipping meteor impact and arguably mass volcanism or fast onset of ice age–has a species had it’s selective environment so radically change as once humans entered the neolithic, and humans started radically altering their own selective environment. Or more precisely–and the key point–their environments. Our ancestors kicked off a rapid process of gene culture co-evolution, starting with settlement and agriculture, but then zipping on to trade, hierarchy, taxes, civilization, money, written language … all the way down to welfare states, the birth control pill, feminism, the Internet. And simply put, everyone did not have the same geography and go down the same path. Our civilizations and gene-culture co-evolution have simply not been the same.

    This is the big laffer of leftist/blank slate/”it’s environment” ideology. The left fervently believes in “Evolution” the airy theory of origins as a counterpoint to religion–and to slap around Christian
    Bible beating hicks. But don’t actually believe in regular old evolution, the core idea (logically and scientifically) that natural selection is an active process and changes our genome as the selective environment changes.

    • Agree: Mr. Rational, Lot
    • Replies: @415 reasons
  17. @AnotherDad

    Well it’s quite simple, you see. It’s simply a question of time scales. Environment can make any child a genius in a single lifetime. On the time scale of tens of thousands of years that human populations were separated into different ecological niches environment is powerless to change anything.

    • LOL: Mr. Rational
    • Replies: @AnotherDad
  18. WHAT says:
    @Almost Missouri

    Anything pointing to distinctive races is bad in the current year. Much worse if you start to talk about whole different subspecies.

    • Agree: Mr. Rational
  19. TWS says:
    @Almost Missouri

    No because we’re all supposed to be, ‘out of Africa’ equally and because they are terrified of the idea of any archaic admixture in Africa post the exodus. They are afraid of what they will find. Dr Zaius would be happy to put this genie back in the bottle.

  20. Anonym says:
    @Anonymous

    Another finding, which is generally suppressed, is that all extant sub Saharan Africans have ancient ‘typically Eurasian’ admixture from prehistoric times, perhaps related to the ‘Natufians’ or ‘Iberomaurisians’.

    The Dindunuffian admixture tends to dominate though.

    • LOL: BB753
  21. Pardon my ignorance, but would the sub-Saharan African population have interbred with the ghost population after other human populations split off from the sub-Saharan Africans? I guess if sub-Saharan Africans and the ghost population would have interbred early enough, all people would have pretty much the same admixture.

    In other words, is it only the sub-Saharan Africans that have the ghost species DNA?

  22. anonomy says:

    Have Neadertals been tested as being white? Facial feature from skeleton they look black or Asian featured not white. Darwin thought everyone in the cold was white in color, but I guess he never went to Alaska, or Mongollia. Just who were the old Asians, or Asian mix? Russian has white-asian mixes.

  23. @Almost Missouri

    I think the archaic and/or ghost population contribution to sub-Saharan Africans is noticeably larger than that of the Neanderthals or Denisovans contribution to any non-Africans anywhere, even in combination. There was also recently a hominid discovered in South Africa with a australiopithicene sized brain, and it lived into recent times, contemporary with modern humans. Perhaps those in academia fear that species is one of the contributions?

    • Replies: @Jm8
    , @Jm8
    , @Jm8
  24. @Anonymous

    At least half the time I see the phrase “for obvious reasons”, the reasons are not obvious to me.

    • Replies: @Mr. Rational
  25. At last, some hope that we might finally find proof of Wakanda.

    • LOL: Mr. Rational
  26. @Almost Missouri

    Raise your spears and proclaim it aloud:
    Of Neanderthal race are we proud.
    Their fires flamed bold
    Through the hunger and cold,
    Though “No Einsteins!” are they to the crowd.

    • LOL: Mr. Rational
  27. @Bill P

    The Neanderthals had remarkably consistent tool styles for a long long time, so it isn’t too surprising to find the same sort of stability (conservatism) in other hominins (we WEIRDOs are truly the freaks).  What gets me, though, is that the primitive population wasn’t invaded and replaced by more advanced groups.  Perhaps they were protected by disease resistance that their prospective enemies didn’t have.

    The implications are pretty clear.

    Just confirms the conclusion you get from looking at Fxt:  extant hominins are not all, and maybe not even a majority, actual Homo sapiens sapiens and the groups really should be considered distinct (and incompatible).

  28. BB753 says:

    Some kind of evolved Heidelbergensis? Guess who’s coming to dinner!
    https://goo.gl/images/RkYp6e

  29. @Mark Spahn (West Seneca, NY)

    Obvious to me:  they do NOT want to offer support to the “old racist idea” that extant hominins are not all actual Homo sapiens sapiens and the groups really should be considered distinct.

    That might lead to conclusions like “White people have a right to exist AS White people.”  Can’t have that!

  30. ic1000 says:

    > We estimate that individuals in two African populations have 6 − 8% ancestry through admixture from an unidentified archaic population that diverged from the ancestors of modern humans 500,000 years ago.

    “Admixture” seems to be one of the big themes that genomics has introduced into the story of human ancestry and evolution over the past few years. “Foundation” populations from the Stone Age like ASI (Ancestral South Indian) and EEF (Early European Farmer) turn out to be, themselves, admixtures of earlier groups. It gets complicated fast.

    So these authors are looking harder at the genomes of Africans, and seeing the same thing.

    50,000 to 80,000 years ago, homo sapiens started moving “Out of Africa” and into the Middle East, then Asia, Europe, and Oceania. So it’s likely that circa 90% to 95% of admixture into modern Africans from groups of ghost/archaic non-sapiens humans would have happened prior to the departure of the ancestors of non-African homo sapiens.

    Very few people (i.e. very few Africans) contributed to the ancestry of the ~ 6 billion non-Africans who occupy most of the globe. Perhaps this bottleneck effect makes it hard to see the long-ago within-Africa admixtures, in the genomes of non-Africans.

    Some commenters are implying that this/these ancient admixture(s) distinguish Asians, Europeans, Oceanians, etc. from Africans. That seems very unlikely to me.

    • Replies: @pyrrhus
    , @Hypnotoad666
  31. Imagine archaic humans hadn’t gone extinct. What would our politics be like? Would we have drawn a sharp line between species that get full political rights and those that get none, or would there be a continuum?

    Would we have Affirmative Action and if so what would it look like?

    I realize the archaics had almost no chance of surviving the long period (like, until about 1960) when Homo Sapiens was less solicitous about such things as civil rights and endangered species. Which is probably why they did not, in fact, survive.

    • Replies: @Hail
    , @Anonymous
    , @Hypnotoad666
  32. There are ghosts in Africa to this day, and it is not good to be one.

    https://www.thesouthafrican.com/malawian-man-found-with-human-bones-of-albino-killed-last-year-police/

    https://www.thesouthafrican.com/albinos-murders-south-africa-why/

    They can be hated, they can be loved, and, as with Jeffrey Dahmer’s victims, sometimes there’s no real difference between the two. This one– lawyer, poet and model– lucked out:

    https://www.news24.com/You/Archive/south-african-albino-model-shatters-stereotypes-20170728-2

    https://www.zambianobserver.com/top-5-successful-albinos-in-africa/

  33. Hail says: • Website

    Erectus Walks Amongst Us, by Richard Fuerle (written c.2007, published 2008) predicted a lot of this. His book is a sustained attack on Out of Africa, proposing instead what he labels Out of Eurasia, but which is actually a long-haul, multi-regional origins story, over hundreds of millennia, involving largely trace admixtures here and there that introduced new traits, some of which eventually became pervasive. Along the way he makes a number of points that have been apparently corroborated in the 2010s.

    The Denisovan admixture is presumably represented somewhere in the vicinity of the box E.Hs [eastern Homo Sapiens] in this simplified schematic from Fuerle:

    [MORE]

    Fuerle was sure that archaic admixture would be found; his theory demanded it.

    In the mid 2000s, the total-replacement version of Out of Africa was still largely sacrosanct. Neanderthal admixture in Eurasians was only confirmed and agreed-upon, to some worldwide acclaim, in 2010. It was, AFAIK, fringe science before about the mid 2000s, turning point in the late 2000s, victory/confirmation in 2010 (for Neanderthal, anyway).

    • Replies: @AnotherDad
  34. Hail says: • Website
    @International Jew

    Imagine archaic humans hadn’t gone extinct

    Imagine the World’s Most Important Graph showed Australian Aboriginies (not Subsaharans) would be reaching two, three, four billion in coming decades.

    Meet Australian Aboriginies. They make African Americans look like a model minority,” by Lance Welton (March 2018).

    They have an average IQ of 64

    Lynn implies some of this is environmental. They likely exceed 70 in ideal conditions.

    Aborigines are 3% of the Australian population and, in 2009, 25% of its prison population

    over 50% of Aborigines…have mental health problems

    • Agree: Mr. Rational
  35. anonomy says:

    Well Genesis tells us that Gods people that he created ie Angels, couldn’t have children, I would guess that neither could God, until they created a hybrid line of people they could have children with. Like God could have a child with Mary, but probably not some other woman. I would say that those origianal earlier white people are who maybe created, then melted into the pot, popping up now and again. Just my two cents.

  36. anonomy says:

    How many of these other skeletons have acturally been found? I still say Neaderthals are some type of aboriginal.

  37. Anonymous[244] • Disclaimer says:
    @International Jew

    Put it this way, ‘Australian Aborigines’ *absolutely* cannot cope with the modern world they have unwittingly been plunged into.

    • Agree: Mr. Rational
  38. pyrrhus says:
    @ic1000

    6-8% archaic genes is a huge percentage, and suggests that the archaic population was around much later than Neanderthals….Pretty strange.

  39. 6-8% admixture is a lot more than the 2.5% Neanderthal we see in west Eurasians. Really astounding and maybe explains the reason Africans look so archaic at times. I wonder how much of the genome of this unknown species is still floating around in Africans. Up to 20% of the Neanderthal is still distributed throughout Eurasians.

  40. I understand how Neanderthals became a separate (sub) species from modern humans in Africa as the Neanderthals were geographically and genetically isolated in Europe and were evolved to a different (Ice Age) environment.

    But how does a separate “ghost” subspecies evolve separately in Africa over the course of 500,000 years when it is geographical contiguous with other groups that it can interbreed with?

    I guess the answer would have to be that the “ghosts” somehow occupied a separate ecological niche that kept them separate from the surrounding populations. It would all be wild speculation at this point, but one has to wonder what these “ghosts” were up to that kept them separate, and when and how the barrier ultimately broke down.

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
  41. @International Jew

    One thing that is really hard to remember about natural selection is that “success” of a genotype is solely based on its rate of reproduction — not by what we would consider to be a “superior” phenotype by our current value system.

    For example, archaic Africans or Neanderthals could theoretically have been bigger, stronger and more intelligent than their competitors. But some of their other genes relating to, say, their immune system or metabolism, could have been responsible for a slight reproductive disadvantage.

    If an average archaic female had 2.0 surviving offspring but modern humans due to these relative advantages averaged 2.05 offspring, the archaics would eventually be displaced no matter how “superior” they may have seemed on an individual basis.

  42. @ic1000

    Very few people (i.e. very few Africans) contributed to the ancestry of the ~ 6 billion non-Africans who occupy most of the globe. Perhaps this bottleneck effect makes it hard to see the long-ago within-Africa admixtures, in the genomes of non-Africans.

    Some commenters are implying that this/these ancient admixture(s) distinguish Asians, Europeans, Oceanians, etc. from Africans. That seems very unlikely to me.

    That’s a good point. Any admixtures existing in African circa 80,000 y.o. should have been carried out of the continent with the “out of Africa” migration. I suppose Archaic African genes could have disappeared in this process because they either: (a) weren’t present in the small migrating “founder” subgroup; or (b) were subsequently weeded out by natural selection in the new environment.

    (Alternatively, it could be that the Archaic genes didn’t mix back into the the African population until after the migration. But I imagine that they should be able to date the timing of the admixture to figure this out.)

  43. Bill P says:
    @dearieme

    There was another species running around there, and humans mated with it, producing hybrids. Possibly quite recently. This was not the first or even second time this happened. In fact, it appears to be a pattern.

    This means that OOA as usually expounded is bunk.

  44. @Hypnotoad666

    Bushmen are kind of an archaic population that’s still around.

  45. Jm8 says:
    @Unladen Swallow

    “I think the archaic and/or ghost population contribution to sub-Saharan Africans is noticeably larger than that of the Neanderthals or Denisovans contribution to any non-Africans anywhere, even in combination”

    Not really. Papuans, Melanesians and Australian Aborigines have 4-6% Denisonan dna and 1.5-2.5% neanderthal dna (making their archaic proportion between about 5.5% and 8.5%, about the same-slightly more than the 6-7.5 found in certain African groups.

    And it is in some West African groups, perhaps some more than others, but the admixture is unlikely/much less likely to be present or significant in, for instance, East African Subsaharans such as Sudanese Nilotes (who are just as subsaharan, having no Eurasian admixture, but belong to an East African population that would probably not have encountered or mixed with the likely West African archaic hominid).

    Also the archaic species in those African groups in the study is not the very primitive homo naledi (the one you refer to from South Africa) but from a hominid even less diverged from modern humans than neanderthals/denisovans were, likely from a form of African homo heidelbergensis that was transitional/intermediate to homo sapiens (in fact making the admixture slightly less archaic than neanderthal/denisovan admixture is; the African ghost hominid’s ancestors split from the ancestors of homo sapiens less long ago at ca 460-540kya bc, than the ancestors of neanderthals/denisovans which split from the ancestors of homo sapiens by ca 470-650kya bc with most estimates being older at more like 600-750kya bc). (The earliest homo sapiens remains so far are known from Africa from around ca 270-310,000bc/270-310kya bc at Jebel Irhoud Morocco, with some other roughly contemporary evidence from Ethiopia and Southern Africa).

    (page 10)
    https://www.biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/early/2018/12/07/489401.full.pdf

    Also, the admixture found in some West African groups would not necessarily be found in all subsaharan Africans. Nilotic populations such as one from South Sudan e.g. the Dinka, Nuer, etc, or other Nilo-Saharan populations likely lack (or almost lack) this archaic admixture. Nilotes (and many other Nilo-Saharan speaking groups), being indigenous to East Africa (where the major wave, or a major wave, of modern humans originated), would seem likely to lack/almost lack this archaic component present in West Africans—or many West Africans (though early homo sapiens appear at least ca 310,000bc in Africa). Other indigenous East African populations (such as the ones that contributed the subsaharan ancestry of Horn Africans (perhaps represented by the Mota specimen), or an indigenous East African groups such as the Hadza, might have absent-low levels of this archaic component as well.

    It would also be interesting too compare the levels of this archaic/basal component in subsaharan West Africans from the West African forest zone (such as the Yoruba) to those of subsaharan West Africans from the Sahel and Savannah zones (perhaps the latter group may have more ancestry derived from the above mentioned East African wave of modern human migration, and thus have at least marginally less of this archaic admixture, if the archaic admixture came from an archaic/basal population local to the forest zone, such as something ancestral/related to the possibly archaic-admixed Iwo Eleru population whose remains were found in southern Yorubaland).

    • Replies: @Jm8
    , @Unladen Swallow
  46. Jm8 says:
    @Jm8

    (page 10 in the linked source above)

  47. Corvinus says:
    @Anon

    “If the African Invasion continues, whites will go the way of Neanderthals. White DNA will just be swallowed by black DNA like Neanderthal DNA got swallowed by Cro-Magnon DNA.”

    Nope. We still remain human beings in the end.

    • Troll: Mr. Rational
  48. Jm8 says:
    @Unladen Swallow

    Also, some early Eurasian homo sapiens seem to have had more neanderthal dna than any Eurasians do today; it was later lowered by selection and also by replacement and admixture/dilution from other less neanderthal-admixed modern humans entering Europe/Eurasia. Some early paleolithic Europeans, like the Aurignacian-era (ca. 42-30kya bc) Pestera Cu Oase specimens from Romania, had about 6-9% neanderthal dna: about 9% in specimen Oase 1 and about 6% in specimens Oase 2 and 3. And some specimens from Asia, like Tianyuan man at 4-5% neanderthal, had significantly more neanderthal dna than any modern people do today (later waves of proto-Asians—who contributed more to the modern peoples of the region—had less and mixed with the earlier peoples there)

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peștera_cu_Oase#Oase_1

    https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/10/was-ancient-person-china-offspring-modern-humans-and-neandertals

    • Replies: @Jm8
  49. Jm8 says:
    @Jm8

    Edit: “…it was later lowered by gradually by selection (locally) toward the later paleolithic-mesolithic, and later also by admixture from less neanderthal-admixed groups”

  50. Houston, We Have a Problem

    As Barack Hussein Obama II, Wardell Stephen Curry II is another Wonderchild of the Rainbow Revolution. Curry is a fine specimen at 6 feet, 3 inches and signed the first $200 million “supermax” basketball contract. With this amount of money comes a supersized measure of public influence. One of Curry’s pet projects is trying to disabuse the public of the notion humans ever set foot on the moon. Curry instructs us: “You gotta do the research on Stanley Kubrick.”

    “Woke” colleges have seized the baton. Ad hoc workshops at Evergreen and such like are pouring over Kubrick’s films with an intensity worthy of Kremlinologists. After Forest Whitaker’s ringing endorsement of Idi Amin Dada*, there has been a resurgence of interest in the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. (Amin kept his dogeared copy at hand to the end.) The general conclusion among the woke is that many of the events of the last century were, in fact, Jewish film productions created to deceive the African. D-Day – grossly overblown. Vietnam – mostly filmed as Kubrick’s East London sets. 9/11 – largely the work of Israeli demolition teams and Steven Spielberg, sotto voce.

    With the NASA-Hollywood doctrine now in vogue, using space metaphors is problematic. Still, the Space Shuttle Challenger disaster was eventually tracked down to simple O-rings not tested below 10’C. A tragic and terrifying modern example of the proverb “For Want of a Nail”. One might say Space Shuttle America is being built with O-rings that exhibit serious defects; they evidently don’t hold up in the environment of cold, hard facts. Even throwing $200 millions and billions at this complicated superstructure will not compensate for these defects. Mind, theoretical physicist Richard Feynman, who demonstrated the faulty O-rings on television, was a Jew – as Kubrick. Presumably, the whole thing was staged as per Wardell Stephen Curry II et al.

    *Forest Whitaker of Idi Amin Dada: “…one of the few leaders of Africa that had spoken up and rose up against the British, the Israelis, against the Western powers, and said, “Get out!”. As a result, he ran the African union for quite a while. He was a spokesman for them. He went to the UN and spoke in Swahili, in his native dialect. They had to translate it, which is unusual for African leaders. It was a statement. I think that they also recognize that as tragic as it was when he kicked the Asians out of Uganda, they did control 80-90 percent of the economy, and once they were kicked out, they scramble around and the people were trying to figure how to work and survive and taking over these jobs and ultimately today, they have Uganda businessmen. They didn’t have Uganda businessmen then. There’s a lot of things that he did, implementing the constitution, there’s things he did; he started a radio station, he started to audition some plays there; he kicked out the British ex-patriots and all of a sudden, Uganda theatre began.”

    • LOL: Mr. Rational
    • Replies: @Mr. Rational
  51. Jm8 says:
    @Unladen Swallow

    Also (which I should have mentioned). the South African hominid (homo naledi) was so primitive (seemingly like an offshoot of a proto-hominid that was transitional between australopithecus and the genus homo, or derived from a very early and primitive homo species just barely within our genus), that hybrids, especially fertile hybrids, between homo sapiens and such a primitive species would be very unlikely. Even neanderthal/sapiens hybrids (and neanderthals and denisovans, like us, were part of the homo heidelbergensis lineage) were not always fertile.

    • Replies: @Jm8
  52. @Steve Sailer

    Bushmen are kind of an archaic population that’s still around.

    Yep, just like Democrats.

  53. @Corvinus

    Nope. We still remain human beings in the end.

    Your inclusion of yourself does not qualify you as a member of “We” Corvinus. You are one of them.

    • Replies: @Corvinus
  54. @415 reasons

    Well it’s quite simple, you see. It’s simply a question of time scales. Environment can make any child a genius in a single lifetime. On the time scale of tens of thousands of years that human populations were separated into different ecological niches environment is powerless to change anything.

    Ahh … now I get it. I’m kinda slow, but now that you’ve explained it, it makes perfect sense. Well done.

  55. Jm8 says:
    @Jm8

    And anyway the admixture is not from naledi, and naledi did not live in West Africa anyway (or outside of the region of South Africa as far as we know).

  56. @Pat Rockford

    It is very unsurprising that jealousy over White accomplishment would trickle down to denial of the moon landings at HBCUs.  They must have gotten tired of people laughing at their own cargo cultists.

    It would make a very funny social science experiment to see just how many HBCU students would take this as documentary instead of satire:

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
  57. @Anon

    That is likely false.

    Some of them sure, but not all.

    • Replies: @Jm8
  58. Jm8 says:
    @Nigerian Nationalist

    It is false. Few Yoruba were brought as slaves to the US. More were brought to Cuba (and other Spanish Caribbean colonies) and to Brazil.

  59. @Hail

    The bottom line though–this chart is just wrong.

    Totalreplacement was possible, but unlikely. (Usually–if it’s possible–the conquerors enjoy the conquest.)

    But essentially it is “out of Africa” in the recent last 100k years range. However many waves, we simply aren’t primarily descended from people who left Africa even 300kya, much less 1.7 million. The Y-chromosome and mtDNA lineages turn out to be straightforward trees with recent roots for some branches inside Africa and everything outside of it. And the archaics are only small percentages of our DNA.

    I don’t know why anyone is publishing charts like the above–even in 2006, ridiculous and embarrassing.

    • Replies: @Hail
  60. Anonymous[375] • Disclaimer says:
    @Sean

    How accurate are reconstructions? Coon’s reconstruction makes him look Negroid, whereas these reconstructions of Rhodesian Man may him look like a Caucasoid type:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhodesian_man#Africa

  61. @Jm8

    I thought I read somewhere ( I can’t recall where exactly ) that some Africans had between 13-15 percent archaic admixture.

    I also found a link to a paper that current highly divergent Africans such as Bushmen and Pygmies had interbreed with a much older lineage of humans that diverged between 1.2 and 1.3 million years ago around 40K years ago. That separation time is much older than Neanderthal and Denisovan splits from modern humans which I recall were between 600-750K years ago.

    I wasn’t giving an opinion on Homo Naledi, just a sense that people where upset that such an obviously primitive form was still in Africa until relatively recently, and so possibly could have contributed.

    • Replies: @Jm8
  62. Anonymous[115] • Disclaimer says:
    @Steve Sailer

    Strangely enough, even Bushmen have ancient admixture from an Eurasian source.

  63. protonic says:

    Maybe the admixture in Africans was from Homo erectus (or an equivalent lineage) whose cranial capacity was not so great?

    • Replies: @Jm8
  64. @Almost Missouri

    ” And “Neanderthal” has hardly been used as a compliment.”

    Right, but now that we know that OOA populations in Europe and East Asia were changed by Neanderthal and Denisovan admixture, it’s pretty obvious that both ancestral non-african populations were smart.

    • Replies: @Jm8
  65. Jm8 says:
    @protonic

    It wasn’t from erectus. It was from a hominid (a from of late homo heidelbergensis/a hominid descended from heidelbergensis) whose ancestors split from modern humans’/our ancestors a bit more recently than neanderthals/denisovans did (and thus it was slightly closer to us than neanderthals and denisovans were)—its in the study. And the admixture is likely from a West African hominid, so black East Africans (like Nilotes/Nilo-Saharans, Hadzas, etc) would not likely have it (and some West African regions might have it more than others). Also, though some Pygmy groups do have a very small amount, 2%, of their ancestry from a form of late erectus, West Africans do not have that admixture, nor do most other Africans.
    (heidelbergensis was the common ancestor of homo sapiens, neanderthals, denisovans, and apparently also of this African ghost hominid. Erectus was in turn the ancestor of heidelbergensis, and thus somewhat more primitive)

    (see my comment above, comment #48):

    “It’s likely from a form of African homo heidelbergensis (or heidelbergensis descendant) that was transitional/intermediate to homo sapiens (in fact making the admixture slightly less archaic than neanderthal/denisovan admixture is; the African ghost hominid’s ancestors split from the ancestors of homo sapiens less long ago at ca 460-540kya bc, than the ancestors of neanderthals/denisovans which split from the ancestors of homo sapiens by ca 470-650kya bc with most estimates of the sapiens from neanderthal/denisovan split being older at more like 600-750kya bc). (The earliest homo sapiens remains so far are known from Africa from around ca 270-310,000bc/270-310kya bc at Jebel Irhoud Morocco, with some other roughly contemporary evidence from Ethiopia and Southern Africa).”

    and:

    “And it is in some West African groups, perhaps some more than others, but the admixture is unlikely/much less likely to be present or significant in, for instance, East African Subsaharans such as Sudanese Nilotes (who are just as subsaharan, having no Eurasian admixture, but belong to an East African population that would probably not have encountered or mixed with the likely West African archaic hominid).”

  66. Jm8 says:
    @Joe Bloggs

    All non African groups have neanderthal Admixture, including Australian Aborigines, Andaman Islanders, Melanesians, Papuans, Native Americans, South East Asian Negritos, South Pacific Islanders, Middle Easterners, etc, as well as Asians and Europeans. And Papuans and Australian Aboriginals have more denisovan than any other group (Andaman Islanders and Western Negritos have no denisovan dna, though Eastern Negritos have a little, and East Asians and Native Americans have barely any denisovan at less than 1%).

  67. Jm8 says:
    @Unladen Swallow

    Not 13-15% archaic, but admixture from early-diverging/divergent homo sapiens groups. The majority of the ancestry of Khoisans (ca 65-70%) and a minority percent (ca 20-25%) of the ancestry of some West African groups derives from divergent branches of homo sapiens that split about 250-270,000bc, or ca 250-300,000bc (homo sapiens is known to date to ca 300,000bc, likely a little earlier)—much of the ancestry in Pygmies diverged early too. The rest of the ancestry of those and most other African groups (and all or almost all of the ancestry in East Africans like Nilotes, etc) comes from a branch of homo sapiens native to East Africa that diverged there and began to spread over the rest of Africa ca 80-75,000bc, mixing with the sapiens they found there (and that branch was similar/related to the branch of East African homo sapiens that left Africa ca 70,000bc and eventually became the ancestors of non-Africans). (Pygmies and Khoisans are the most divergent groups, having most of their ancestry from more divergent branches of homo sapiens).

    • Replies: @Jm8
  68. Jm8 says:
    @Jm8

    Edit: “…(homo sapiens dates to at least ca 300,000bc, likely a bit earlier)…”

  69. Hail says: • Website
    @AnotherDad

    I don’t know why anyone is publishing charts like the above–even in 2006, ridiculous and embarrassing.

    I don’t think that chart is so outside the mainstream for the Multiregionalist family of human origin theories.

    The 2010s have been a lot kinder to Multiregionalism than the 1990s and 2000s were (Out of Africa domination). Fuerle (1941-2014), who uses the chart of which you are critical, proposed what he calls an Out of Eurasia theory, but in fact conceptually stayed within Multiregionalism. Parts of his book were criticized as having specific errors, and he published (2007) before the wave of genetic studies started coming out. He died before the ability to publish a revised edition that he was planning.

    Multiregionalism is far from dead, though its grave diggers have been spade-at-hand for a very long time. Partly it’s all a definition-semantics game, though, with each side declaring strawmen of the opposing theory refuted.

    I’d like to append here a post by someone at Anthrogenica on what Multiregionalism is:

    [MORE]

    [Multiregionalism] is really a question of paradigm, the conceptual scheme one is utilizing when examining human evolution.

    Out-of-Africa was always about conceptualizing human genetic variation as structured in a tree-like manner. The relative uniformity of our species was construed as being contingent on our comparatively recent origin from a very small number of African founders. Multiregionalism has always been about construing human genetic variation in terms of reticulation, seeing it as far more accurately pictured in terms of a rhizome, rather than a tree.

    Living human homogeneity really boils down to ever persistent gene flow-admixture, and isolation-by-distance dynamics. And it’s obvious which paradigm is more feasible today. It is now quite clear that gene flow between populations is not some minor but annoying problem when modeling relationships between populations, but a very basic rule in the course of things, and one which has few exceptions. […]

    In regards to Y-DNA and mtDNA, you’re dealing with two exceedingly small aspects of one’s genetic ancestry, two markers that are often very uninformative of total genomic ancestry. It’s a given you will see tree-like structure, but that’s a statistical artifact. I mean, they don’t even recombine. I don’t think it’s reasonable to fixate on these two rather aberrant and minor aspects of genomic ancestry, when we have data for millions of SNPs.

  70. @Mr. Rational

    Stephen Curry didn’t go to a black college, he went to Davidson, a rich kid’s school. He is a rich kid.

    • Replies: @Mr. Rational
  71. @Steve Sailer

    Even MORE fascinating to do that study at Davidson, then!  As the SAT vs. family income curves prove, money doesn’t bestow mental ability.  It doesn’t even bestow memorization of facts.

  72. Corvinus says:
    @Charles Erwin Wilson II

    “Your inclusion of yourself does not qualify you as a member of “We” Corvinus. You are one of them.”

    No, we are “we”, as in you and I are white people. We belong to the same race. We are also human beings. Perhaps you have forgotten what it is like to be human and showing our humanity.

    Would you like to know more, citizen?

    • Troll: Mr. Rational

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Steve Sailer Comments via RSS
PastClassics
Are elite university admissions based on meritocracy and diversity as claimed?
The sources of America’s immigration problems—and a possible solution
The evidence is clear — but often ignored
What Was John McCain's True Wartime Record in Vietnam?