The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersiSteve Blog
Is 8% of West African Yoruban DNA from a "Ghost Archaic" Species?
🔊 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

In recent years, it has been discovered that many human beings not from sub-Saharan Africa trace a few percent of their DNA back to two mostly extinct species, the Neanderthals and the Denisovans.

But what about Africans? Do they have lost ancestors of their own?

A preprint:

New Results
Recovering signals of ghost archaic admixture in the genomes of present-day Africans

Arun Durvasula, Sriram Sankararaman

This article is a preprint and has not been peer-reviewed .

Abstract

Analyses of Neanderthal and Denisovan genomes have characterized multiple interbreeding events between archaic and modern human populations. While several studies have suggested the presence of deeply diverged lineages in present-day African populations, we lack methods to precisely characterize these introgression events without access to reference archaic genomes. We present a novel reference-free method that combines diverse population genetic summary statistics to identify segments of archaic ancestry in present-day individuals. Using this method, we find that ~7.97±0.6% of the genetic ancestry from the West African Yoruba population traces its origin to an unidentified, archaic population (FDR ≤20%). We find several loci that harbor archaic ancestry at elevated frequencies and that the archaic ancestry in the Yoruba is reduced near selectively constrained regions of the genome suggesting that archaic admixture has had a systematic impact on the fitness of modern human populations both within and outside of Africa.

John Hawks tweets:

If this @biorxivpreprint from Durvasula and Sankararaman is correct, it shows a remarkable level of deep hybridization in the ancestry of today’s African populations.

Could some West African populations (in this case, Yoruba) really have 8% of their genomes from a deeply diverged, extinct population?

The estimate is not hugely more than the 5% that Jeff Wall suggested back in 2006, based on different methods, so in one sense this is an incremental increase (and independent confirmation) of the level of introgression.

In this new preprint, the methods don’t support any inferences about the nature of the “archaic” source population. We might like to know how deeply divergent it was: equal to Neandertals? More? Answers will take better datasets.

This sentence I predict we will hear a lot more of in the near future: “there was a rich diversity of hominin species within Africa and that introgression was commonplace”

To be clear, we are talking about species that continued to exist and mix with modern populations within the last 50,000 years.

Dienekes blogs:

I have long maintained that the higher genetic diversity of extant Sub-Saharan Africans is the result of admixture between “Afrasians” (a population that spawned Eurasians and much of the ancestry of Sub-Saharans and which had “low” (Eurasian-level) of genetic diversity) and multiple layers of “Palaeoafricans”. It would seem that one such layer has now been discovered.

Where did the Afrasians live? Recent developments pushed back the presence of modern humans in both North Africa and the Middle East, making both regions highly competitive as the cradle of the Afrasians. The odds for Sub-Saharan Africa have greatly diminished also by the discovery of late non-sapiens H. naledi in South Africa (which was naively postulated as a cradle based on the presence there today of genetically diverse San Bushmen, but who are not descendants of even Late Pleistocene South Africans), as well as of the archaic component in the genomes of West Africans. These discoveries pile up on top of known archaic skulls of late provenance in both Central and West Africa.

Remember though, that the archaic admixture in West Africans is “less archaic” (more closely related to H. sapiens) than the Neandertal/Denisovan ancestry which contributed to extant Eurasians. All Africans (modern or archaic) are a branch within the phylogeny of Eurasians, with Australoids (and now apparently East Asians too) having the deepest known strain of human ancestry inherited from the elusive Denisovans.

Here’s an earlier post by Dienekes:

Out of Africa: a theory in crisis

January 26, 2018

The sensational discovery of modern humans in the Levant 177-194 thousand years ago should cause a rethink of the currently held Out-of-Africa orthodoxy.

By Out-of-Africa, I mean here the origin of anatomically modern humans, as opposed to the earlier origin of the genus Homo or the later origin of behaviorally fully modern humans.

Two main pieces of evidence supported the conventional OOA theory:

1. The observation that modern Eurasians possess a subset of the genetic variation of modern Africans.
2. The greater antiquity of AMH humans in the African rather than the Eurasian palaeoanthropological record.

Both these observations are in crisis.

You can read the whole thing there.

 
Hide 67 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. Anonymous[264] • Disclaimer says:

    If true, utterly explosive.

    It will be interesting to see how the ‘scientific establishment’ will handle these findings, if confirmed.

    • Replies: @Pat Boyle
    The most immediate outcome of the discovery of the 8% "Ghost" population in the modern black genome is the realization that we were right all along to call them "spooks".

    Forgive me, I couldn't resist.
  2. anonymous[144] • Disclaimer says:

    If Out of Africa is wrong, then virtually *everything* that’s been taught in anthropology classes across the West for the last 7 decades has been wrong: Pots not people, denial of human genetic differences, and now, the geographic origin of man.

    And frankly, all three of those dogmas have been held in place by oppressive political ideology. It turns out, when you suppress dissent on a subject, it’s usually because you’re *wrong* and it’s the only way you can keep the cat from getting out of the bag. Who woulda thought?

  3. Out of Africa: a theory in crisis

    Good. I always knew it was bullshit.

    • Replies: @ThirdWorldSteveReader
    Well, Africa still holds the greatest diversity of mtDNA and the deppest branches of Y-DNA, so don't get too confident :)
    , @Yirmil
    It doesn't seem that the out of Africa theory is under threat. What is under threat is the point at which my people first left Africa to mate with subhuman species that would produce the illusionary racial distinctions that are purveyed by White Supremacist Nazis. If my ancestors had not had a thing for monkey booty, there would be no Caucasians.
  4. Whatever that species was, I bet it would be extraordinarily telegenic if it still existed in an unadulterated form.

    I’ve long been skeptical of OOA, largely because it has always been heavily influenced by Genesis and Exodus. In the US, but not nearly as much elsewhere, it has taken on the same dogmatic role as its biblical predecessor.

    • Replies: @Logan
    Curious why you think OOA is influenced by the Bible. Most of those who take the Bible literally see humanity as spreading out from SW Asia, not from Africa.
    , @midtown
    Genesis implies that Eden was in the general region of Iraq, or at least the general Tigris/Euphrates region. Which would be consistent with the Sumerian civilization.
  5. 1. Afrasians appear to be the native population Tiger Woods sprang from.

    2. For a bit there has been talk of one or two African species that wound their way into the homo homo line. This is the usual lumper/splitter unsolvable b.s. We have actual archaic humans around (pygmies, Andaman Islanders, Australian Aboriginal and a few Hottentots). I don’t see why there would not be more than a few more.

    • Replies: @anonymous coward

    We have actual archaic humans around (pygmies, Andaman Islanders, Australian Aboriginal and a few Hottentots).
     
    Australian Aboriginals are definitely not an archaic human species. They're a relatively modern mix of Papuans and SE Asians. (Vietnamese.)

    They only look "archiac" because of severe inbreeding. Also, I'm betting the original founding stock wasn't that great in the first place. Seems like Australia has been the dumping ground for criminals and undesirables since time immemorial.
  6. Peter Frost wrote about this right here before the Canadian Mounted thought-police began to track him down.

    http://www.unz.com/pfrost/archaic-admixture-in-africans/

  7. I lived in Africa for 35 years. I can tell you for a fact that black guys sometimes go into the forest to copulate with monkeys and apes. Take this behavior and stretch it out over 150K years. Very plausible.

    • Replies: @Buffalo Joe
    TDGM, Two black women are at the Bronx zoo. One leans in too far at the gorilla enclosure and the large male seizes her, beats her and rapes her. When she comes to a week later, she is still in ICU with her friend hovering at bedside. Her friend asks..."Does it hurt." The victim looks up and says..."Do it hurt. Damn right it hurts, he don't call. He don't write."
    , @Peripatetic commenter
    This seems unlikely.

    The fact that 2A and 2B are separate in Pan would suggest that fertile offspring could never exist, and may not even be carried to term.

    Then of course there is the problem that a female chimp in estrus is likely to be surrounded by suitors who could rip a black man's dick off ...

    , @Anonymous
    I knew there was a good explanation for TD. Guess we should feel sorry for him, if it's due to the mating habits in his family, there's not much he coulda done about that.
    , @Briny Schmuck
    Whites are the socially constructed offspring of Neanderthals and Rhesus Monkeys. Straight outta the caves.
    , @Yirmil
    Had Africans not been so interested in monkey booty, there would be no racial distinctions. It was the ancient Africans love of monkey buttocks which produced Caucasians.
  8. @Bill P
    Whatever that species was, I bet it would be extraordinarily telegenic if it still existed in an unadulterated form.

    I've long been skeptical of OOA, largely because it has always been heavily influenced by Genesis and Exodus. In the US, but not nearly as much elsewhere, it has taken on the same dogmatic role as its biblical predecessor.

    Curious why you think OOA is influenced by the Bible. Most of those who take the Bible literally see humanity as spreading out from SW Asia, not from Africa.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    Silly gentile, everyone knows it was Independence, Missouri!
  9. Two observations:

    1) If the Jebel Irhoud remains are indeed Homo sapiens than we have H. sapiens living at the same time as we have archaics in Zimbabwe (Broken Hill) and Tanzania: 300 Ky ago. The first time we see H. sapiens in Sub-Saharan Africa it is Ethiopia, never really far from the Nile. One of the Omo remains looks to have some archaic features.

    2) The Florisbad skull is 260 Ky old. It has been assigned either to Homo heidelbergensis or a very archaic H. sapiens. What if it is a hybrid?

  10. With the help of these [better genetic] tools, we are learning that while race may be a social construct, differences in genetic ancestry that happen to correlate to many of today’s racial constructs are real.

    How Genetics Is Changing Our Understanding of ‘Race’ [sic – obligatory, asinine quotation marks around race original.]

    These fools really are torturing the language anymore to continue the charade that race is not a collection of genes. Negroes don’t have dark skin and big lips because we all socially constructed them that way; they have these characteristics as biochemical and physiological expressions of genes without regard for society. Small children realize this once you teach them elementary biology (I think we learned about Punnett squares around fifth grade).

  11. The Misliya Cave discovery now means the out of Africa narrative is anti-Semitic!

    In all seriousness, these recent discoveries open and who new avenue for defenders of the faith. Explaining this stuff a way will fill up a library.

  12. It’s remarkable that DNA can be used to track a “social construct”. It nearly persuades me that Jim Watson should be given a second Nobel Prize.

  13. @Bill P
    Whatever that species was, I bet it would be extraordinarily telegenic if it still existed in an unadulterated form.

    I've long been skeptical of OOA, largely because it has always been heavily influenced by Genesis and Exodus. In the US, but not nearly as much elsewhere, it has taken on the same dogmatic role as its biblical predecessor.

    Genesis implies that Eden was in the general region of Iraq, or at least the general Tigris/Euphrates region. Which would be consistent with the Sumerian civilization.

    • Replies: @midtown
    Of course, Genesis would date the more "modern" origins of man from the sons of Noah: Japheth (Indo-Europeans), Shem (Semitic peoples), and Ham (Africans and Assyrians). Admittedly, it doesn't say much about East Asian origins. For what it's worth.

    This provides an interesting history of the peoples descended from them: http://www.israel-a-history-of.com/sons-of-noah.html
  14. @midtown
    Genesis implies that Eden was in the general region of Iraq, or at least the general Tigris/Euphrates region. Which would be consistent with the Sumerian civilization.

    Of course, Genesis would date the more “modern” origins of man from the sons of Noah: Japheth (Indo-Europeans), Shem (Semitic peoples), and Ham (Africans and Assyrians). Admittedly, it doesn’t say much about East Asian origins. For what it’s worth.

    This provides an interesting history of the peoples descended from them: http://www.israel-a-history-of.com/sons-of-noah.html

  15. 8% is trivial. The Out of Africa theory is still 90% true. Only the extreme form (total replacement with zero admixture) has been debunked. And as Rushton realized, the Out of Africa theory supports HBD because it crudely implies Africans are ancestral, so it’s ironic that so many HBDers want to debunk it.

    • Replies: @ThirdWorldSteveReader
    I'm also not getting the excitement. To my knowledge, nobody considered the lack of admixture in Africa as evidence of the African origin of H. sapiens sapiens; rather it was that the deepest branches of the human phylogenetic tree were found there. And really, after Neanderthal and Denisovan admixture were found in Eurasians, most people kind exxpected something similar would be found in Africa.
  16. @Tiny Duck’s Gay Mom
    I lived in Africa for 35 years. I can tell you for a fact that black guys sometimes go into the forest to copulate with monkeys and apes. Take this behavior and stretch it out over 150K years. Very plausible.

    TDGM, Two black women are at the Bronx zoo. One leans in too far at the gorilla enclosure and the large male seizes her, beats her and rapes her. When she comes to a week later, she is still in ICU with her friend hovering at bedside. Her friend asks…”Does it hurt.” The victim looks up and says…”Do it hurt. Damn right it hurts, he don’t call. He don’t write.”

    • LOL: JMcG
    • Replies: @Truth
    I think the vaudeville hotels downstate in the Catskills have been closed for 60 years now, Hennie.
  17. Half of all American blacks have Yoruban ancestry. They were one of the main feeders of the slave trade. There is a reason why the black American Mr. Perry created a big to-do among genetic circles a while back because he has a Y-dna of A00.

    • Replies: @Grace Jones
    Yorubans are not the source of A00. It's the Mbo.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mbo_people_%28Cameroon%29
  18. It isn’t the people who take the Bible literally, but rather those who take it figuratively (who are far more numerous among both Christians and Jews), who have made this association between the Garden of Eden and Africa.

  19. Has anyone compared the DNA of the Yoruba to that of the ancient inhabitants of the Canary Islands, the Guanches? These people have been thought to be Berber in ancestry, but DNA analysis has revealed that there is an indigenous Canarian substrate. The mummified remains of ancient Canarians exist in some numbers, and according to Wikipedia, “mtDNA haplogroup U subclade U6b1 is Canarian-specific and is the most common mtDNA haplogroup found in aboriginal Guanche archaeological burial sites.”

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guanches

    Moreover, the inhabitants of one of the Canary Islands, Gomera, have a peculiar whistled language, Silbo Gomera, in which the sounds of the spoken language are transposed into a sequence of pitches. There is a parallel to this in Yoruba:

    “There are other examples of transposition of an oral natural language into a pitch string. When quickly spoken, Yoruba vowels are assimilated and consonants elided, so the linguistic information is carried by the tone system, which can therefore be transposed into talking drums.”

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silbo_Gomero

    • Replies: @backup
    U subclade U6 almost certainly originated in Europe or West-Asia:

    https://www.nature.com/articles/srep25501
    , @dearieme
    Hats off for an interesting remark. You know what gets my goat about all the anti-semitic stuff in Unz comment threads? None of it is interesting.
  20. In other news, it seems that physiognomy is not the racist anti-Semitic junk Gould claimed it was.

    See here also:

    https://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2018/03/17/judging-by-appearances/

  21. OT, I have been interested in anthropology since taking (and almost flunking) Physical Anthro in college. Just the sheer expanse of time involved slays me the way the expanse of the universe does. I loved 10,000 Year Explosion and even Dragons of Eden.

    Can someone recommend a good Anthro 101 text that I could find online? I imagine the discipline is full of a lot of PC now, and as #1 says could change greatly in the future. Still, I’d like to get a better handle on the basic timeline and geography.

    • Replies: @Anon
    I would advise you to wait a bit. There's still a lot of very basic information that is coming out of DNA analysis, and we still don't have a full picture as of yet. Things are changing dramatically every few months.

    And yes, the field is so PC there are real issues trying to find books that are untainted with it.
  22. @Tiny Duck’s Gay Mom
    I lived in Africa for 35 years. I can tell you for a fact that black guys sometimes go into the forest to copulate with monkeys and apes. Take this behavior and stretch it out over 150K years. Very plausible.

    This seems unlikely.

    The fact that 2A and 2B are separate in Pan would suggest that fertile offspring could never exist, and may not even be carried to term.

    Then of course there is the problem that a female chimp in estrus is likely to be surrounded by suitors who could rip a black man’s dick off …

    • Replies: @International Jew
    A human is unlikely to know (or care) if she's in estrus. I suspect that, outside of estrus, the female chimp would be annoyed enough to perform the penisectomy herself.
  23. I thought that the Out Of Africa theory was disproved when it was shown that non-Africans have Neanderthal genes. And again with the discovery of Denosivan genes.

    The Out Of Africa theory was used to claim that all humans are essentially the same. No one wants to give up that claim.

    • Agree: Travis
    • Replies: @ThirdWorldSteveReader
    First sentence: no, it wasn't disproven by the admixture events in Eurasia. The remaining 96-98% of the non-Neanderthal, non-Denisovan DNA came from the same source of that contributed to 93-100% of African gene pool, and is still more likely to have originated in Africa.

    Second sentence: indeed, it has been used as such - wrongly used, though; there is nothing in OOA theory that precludes further evolution after dispersal.
    , @Yirmil
    The reality Africans are the only humans while, all other racial groups are African/Subhuman hybrids. Actually Jews because of rampant inbreeding would probably have the most Subhuman genes in a modern human hybrid population.
  24. Anon[304] • Disclaimer says:

    Yorubans are west Africans. Cameroon, Gabon, and Equatorial Guinea were the big slave-producing areas. They also have the very lowest, absolute rock-bottom IQs on the African continent. Geographically speaking, these countries are all concentrated on that West African armpit area.

    This area of West Africa has a geographic peculiarity. Any DNA that mixes with it from the north has to cross the Sahara Desert. Any DNA that mixes with it from the east side of Africa has to cross a lot of dense and very difficult-to-travel-through jungle, populated by hostile tribes. This means that European Y-dna would have a very difficult time traveling out of Europe and into this region. The only area where genes could spread into it with any ease would come from southern Africa. These two geographic barriers mean the genes would tend to become more isolated than some of the other areas of Africa, in terms of receiving more modern European genes.

    It is exactly the sort of place where the genes of an ancient population would survive.

  25. how much daylight is this stuff ever going to see ,do profs want to stand up in front of a class with antifa-blm snowflakes and teach that blacks are 8% ???????

  26. @Crawfurdmuir
    Has anyone compared the DNA of the Yoruba to that of the ancient inhabitants of the Canary Islands, the Guanches? These people have been thought to be Berber in ancestry, but DNA analysis has revealed that there is an indigenous Canarian substrate. The mummified remains of ancient Canarians exist in some numbers, and according to Wikipedia, "mtDNA haplogroup U subclade U6b1 is Canarian-specific and is the most common mtDNA haplogroup found in aboriginal Guanche archaeological burial sites."

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guanches

    Moreover, the inhabitants of one of the Canary Islands, Gomera, have a peculiar whistled language, Silbo Gomera, in which the sounds of the spoken language are transposed into a sequence of pitches. There is a parallel to this in Yoruba:

    "There are other examples of transposition of an oral natural language into a pitch string. When quickly spoken, Yoruba vowels are assimilated and consonants elided, so the linguistic information is carried by the tone system, which can therefore be transposed into talking drums."

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silbo_Gomero

    U subclade U6 almost certainly originated in Europe or West-Asia:

    https://www.nature.com/articles/srep25501

    • Replies: @Crawfurdmuir
    It probably did, but where did it end up? Could some of it have ended up in West Africa? Might that be the now-extinct "ghost" in Yoruba DNA?
  27. OT

    A male birth control pill that dramatically lowers testosterone levels is moving forward into a 3-month trial

    The experimental drug was recently tested in a one-month trial involving 83 subjects…In its current form, the pill lowers a man’s testosterone levels to what they were in boyhood or lower, essentially like a chemical castration.

    The article is illustrated:

  28. @Crawfurdmuir
    Has anyone compared the DNA of the Yoruba to that of the ancient inhabitants of the Canary Islands, the Guanches? These people have been thought to be Berber in ancestry, but DNA analysis has revealed that there is an indigenous Canarian substrate. The mummified remains of ancient Canarians exist in some numbers, and according to Wikipedia, "mtDNA haplogroup U subclade U6b1 is Canarian-specific and is the most common mtDNA haplogroup found in aboriginal Guanche archaeological burial sites."

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guanches

    Moreover, the inhabitants of one of the Canary Islands, Gomera, have a peculiar whistled language, Silbo Gomera, in which the sounds of the spoken language are transposed into a sequence of pitches. There is a parallel to this in Yoruba:

    "There are other examples of transposition of an oral natural language into a pitch string. When quickly spoken, Yoruba vowels are assimilated and consonants elided, so the linguistic information is carried by the tone system, which can therefore be transposed into talking drums."

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silbo_Gomero

    Hats off for an interesting remark. You know what gets my goat about all the anti-semitic stuff in Unz comment threads? None of it is interesting.

    • Replies: @schnellandine
    Today I read some long paragraphs of what may be labeled general antisemitism, however bogus that use, from commenter Colleen Pater. They're jumbled, unpolished, and interesting.
    , @DFH
    Jews are tediously predictable
    , @anonymous
    wwebd said - If I want to read a comment thread, I block the midwits. Thanks to Ron Unz for giving people the choice between (a) posting anonymously and (b) more or less keeping the same user name. If Ron Unz had not done that we could not quite as easily block the midwits, including, of course, the ones who like to talk boring retread trash about Jews.

    The best criticism of any ethnic group comes from people who (a) understand that group and (b) understand why people in that group are glad to be in that group. You can be misanthropic and not like any group all that much and still be able to be interesting if you meet those two criteria.

    There are probably dozens of commenters on the Steve Sailer threads that touch on Jews (or Africans, or Italian-Americans, or WASPs, or fat people, or older women, or older men, etc.) who overly like the sound of their own voice (I assume they all think of themselves as the contemporary versions of great orators from the past) but clearly do not understand any group of humans (probably including their own groups) because they are clearly un-self-aware midwits. I have tried to engage some of them in conversation but failed to elicit a rational response: in each case, I assume they believe they triumphed over me by calling me a "Jew" (I am not, although I would be proud to be) or some other insult. So I block the most prolific, and spend a few seconds of my day, if the day includes reading a Steve Sailer thread, skipping over the less prolific midwits.

    By the way, Dearieme, if you are reading this - in spite of your expensive Cambridge education, which I assume someone besides you paid for, you are sort of a midwit yourself when you deign to touch on Christianity. Well, wisdom is not like advanced math used to be in the ambitious over-specialized 20th century - we are never too old to get better at understanding the world, my young friend. I will not recommend C.S. Lewis as a starting point (you probably think you are more intelligent than CS Lewis, and my advice is for you is to confront the thinking of a Christian who you do not consider less intelligent than yourself) - I would recommend Hans Urs von Balthasar (not on aesthetics, but on history - he corrected Hegel in a quite intelligent and likable and convincing way) or George MacDonald (just for the laughs) or, if you want to read a theologian who understood science as well as any human ever has, (my distant cousin) Dr Adrienne von Speyr is a good source, to begin with. (Duhem was fascinating but too academic, I think: then there is Blake and Goethe, all that crowd, Christian geniuses all - Bruce Charlton discusses all that - or try Peguy, who grew up a three day walk from London, and who was much more intelligent than I, your humble correspondent. Good luck!)

  29. Do humans and pygmies produce fertile offspring? I’ve always wondered

  30. @Buffalo Joe
    TDGM, Two black women are at the Bronx zoo. One leans in too far at the gorilla enclosure and the large male seizes her, beats her and rapes her. When she comes to a week later, she is still in ICU with her friend hovering at bedside. Her friend asks..."Does it hurt." The victim looks up and says..."Do it hurt. Damn right it hurts, he don't call. He don't write."

    I think the vaudeville hotels downstate in the Catskills have been closed for 60 years now, Hennie.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    Erectus Posts Amongst Us
    , @Buffalo Joe
    Thuth, Hennie, as in Henny Youngman.
  31. While reading up on some of the John Hawk’s views on this issue I ran across the ‘Mad’ Mike Hughes story. Yesterday just a little bit from you in the Mohave desert this guy Mike Hughes blasted off into space in his home built rocket ship. He got over 1,800 feet up. His rocket is steam powered. Mike is an interesting guy. He believes the earth is flat and he running for governor. He’s got my vote.

    How could miss this story?

    • Replies: @Bizarro World Observer
    Actually, I don't think he really believes the Earth is flat. He was looking for financing for his project and couldn't find it until he convinced some Flat Earthers to give him money so he could prove their theory. I think he just wanted to fly his rocket.
  32. Anonymous[119] • Disclaimer says:
    @Logan
    Curious why you think OOA is influenced by the Bible. Most of those who take the Bible literally see humanity as spreading out from SW Asia, not from Africa.

    Silly gentile, everyone knows it was Independence, Missouri!

    • LOL: Logan
  33. Anon[304] • Disclaimer says:
    @carol
    OT, I have been interested in anthropology since taking (and almost flunking) Physical Anthro in college. Just the sheer expanse of time involved slays me the way the expanse of the universe does. I loved 10,000 Year Explosion and even Dragons of Eden.

    Can someone recommend a good Anthro 101 text that I could find online? I imagine the discipline is full of a lot of PC now, and as #1 says could change greatly in the future. Still, I'd like to get a better handle on the basic timeline and geography.

    I would advise you to wait a bit. There’s still a lot of very basic information that is coming out of DNA analysis, and we still don’t have a full picture as of yet. Things are changing dramatically every few months.

    And yes, the field is so PC there are real issues trying to find books that are untainted with it.

    • Replies: @Carol
    Oh well, today I found Troublesome Inheritance among my unread books so I'm reading that. But Wade is annoyingly apologetic..
  34. @Peripatetic commenter
    This seems unlikely.

    The fact that 2A and 2B are separate in Pan would suggest that fertile offspring could never exist, and may not even be carried to term.

    Then of course there is the problem that a female chimp in estrus is likely to be surrounded by suitors who could rip a black man's dick off ...

    A human is unlikely to know (or care) if she’s in estrus. I suspect that, outside of estrus, the female chimp would be annoyed enough to perform the penisectomy herself.

  35. Anonymous[400] • Disclaimer says:
    @Truth
    I think the vaudeville hotels downstate in the Catskills have been closed for 60 years now, Hennie.

    Erectus Posts Amongst Us

  36. @dearieme
    Hats off for an interesting remark. You know what gets my goat about all the anti-semitic stuff in Unz comment threads? None of it is interesting.

    Today I read some long paragraphs of what may be labeled general antisemitism, however bogus that use, from commenter Colleen Pater. They’re jumbled, unpolished, and interesting.

  37. Maybe the new theory can be called just barely out of Africa?

  38. If Yoruba are partially descended from ghost species, shouldn’t they be more pale?

    Seriously though, I wonder what kind of genes this mysterious species had contributed. If modern humans really arose somewhere in the extended Southern Mediterranean, they’d need protection against tropical deceases if they wanted to move further south.

  39. @backup
    U subclade U6 almost certainly originated in Europe or West-Asia:

    https://www.nature.com/articles/srep25501

    It probably did, but where did it end up? Could some of it have ended up in West Africa? Might that be the now-extinct “ghost” in Yoruba DNA?

    • Replies: @backup
    It *did* end up there. But it's clearly human as it is a subclade of U, a human mtDNA.
  40. @dearieme
    Hats off for an interesting remark. You know what gets my goat about all the anti-semitic stuff in Unz comment threads? None of it is interesting.

    Jews are tediously predictable

  41. @Anon
    Half of all American blacks have Yoruban ancestry. They were one of the main feeders of the slave trade. There is a reason why the black American Mr. Perry created a big to-do among genetic circles a while back because he has a Y-dna of A00.

    Yorubans are not the source of A00. It’s the Mbo.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mbo_people_%28Cameroon%29

  42. @Truth
    I think the vaudeville hotels downstate in the Catskills have been closed for 60 years now, Hennie.

    Thuth, Hennie, as in Henny Youngman.

  43. @Anon
    I would advise you to wait a bit. There's still a lot of very basic information that is coming out of DNA analysis, and we still don't have a full picture as of yet. Things are changing dramatically every few months.

    And yes, the field is so PC there are real issues trying to find books that are untainted with it.

    Oh well, today I found Troublesome Inheritance among my unread books so I’m reading that. But Wade is annoyingly apologetic..

  44. Anonymous[527] • Disclaimer says:
    @Tiny Duck’s Gay Mom
    I lived in Africa for 35 years. I can tell you for a fact that black guys sometimes go into the forest to copulate with monkeys and apes. Take this behavior and stretch it out over 150K years. Very plausible.

    I knew there was a good explanation for TD. Guess we should feel sorry for him, if it’s due to the mating habits in his family, there’s not much he coulda done about that.

  45. @Crawfurdmuir
    It probably did, but where did it end up? Could some of it have ended up in West Africa? Might that be the now-extinct "ghost" in Yoruba DNA?

    It *did* end up there. But it’s clearly human as it is a subclade of U, a human mtDNA.

  46. Homo Sapiens Sapiens is turning out to be as panta rhei as Canis Familiaris.

  47. @Hodag
    1. Afrasians appear to be the native population Tiger Woods sprang from.

    2. For a bit there has been talk of one or two African species that wound their way into the homo homo line. This is the usual lumper/splitter unsolvable b.s. We have actual archaic humans around (pygmies, Andaman Islanders, Australian Aboriginal and a few Hottentots). I don't see why there would not be more than a few more.

    We have actual archaic humans around (pygmies, Andaman Islanders, Australian Aboriginal and a few Hottentots).

    Australian Aboriginals are definitely not an archaic human species. They’re a relatively modern mix of Papuans and SE Asians. (Vietnamese.)

    They only look “archiac” because of severe inbreeding. Also, I’m betting the original founding stock wasn’t that great in the first place. Seems like Australia has been the dumping ground for criminals and undesirables since time immemorial.

  48. I remember reading many years ago about how they traces the paternal DNA of an American Black man to an ancestor who lived nearly 400000 years ago in West Africa. Which was puzzling to many, because it was assumed that modern Homo Sapiens Sapiens came into being only slightly more than 100k years ago (“Mitichondrial Eve” only goes back about 150kya). Assuming the OOA theory is still correct, what probably happened is as follows: a group of HSS migrated from East Africa to West Africa, where they encountered another Archaic hominid species. This species was physically much stronger (think modern Bantus vs modern Bushmen), so the hybridization would have been on the paternal side.

    • Replies: @backup
    Y-DNA A00 (Perry) is presumably 270.000 years old [1], which back then was considered before the origin of Homo sapiens. However, the date of origin of H. sapiens has since been pushed backed a lot. The oldest H. sapiens currently is at 315.000 years ago, the Moroccan Jebel Irhoud samples, but from Denisovan and Neanderthal DNA we know that those split off ancestral anatomical modern humans (That is: us, H. sapiens) several 100's of thousands years earlier.

    [1] https://genome.cshlp.org/content/25/4/459.long

  49. https://www.sciencedaily.com/terms/allele_frequency.htm

    The frequencies of all the alleles of a given gene often are graphed together as an allele frequency distribution histogram.

    Population genetics studies the different “forces” that might lead to changes in the distribution and frequencies of alleles – in other words, to evolution.

    We are constantly reminded at the great genetic diversity in sub-Sahara Africa. Given that the frequency of alleles in a population is the working definition of evolution, and that only non-sub-Saharans have neanderthal genes, perhaps we should stop claiming no genetic basis for the races.
    This includes several stipulations
    1) that race is a population characteristic rather than an individual characteristics
    2) that the population frequencies will continue change over time, likely erasing current distinctions

  50. @Anonymous
    If true, utterly explosive.


    It will be interesting to see how the 'scientific establishment' will handle these findings, if confirmed.

    The most immediate outcome of the discovery of the 8% “Ghost” population in the modern black genome is the realization that we were right all along to call them “spooks”.

    Forgive me, I couldn’t resist.

    • Replies: @Uncle Remus
    Perhaps, Boyle, following your logic, the 8% "Ghost" population was not from a hominid after all,
    but a procyonid, and we were right all along to call them "coons".
  51. “The greater antiquity of AMH humans in the African rather than the Eurasian palaeoanthropological record.”

    The oldest AMH/modern human fossils are in Africa (Jebel Irhoud in Morocco ca. 300,000 bc; and two sites in Ethiopia at Omo at ca. 195,000 bc and Herto at ca. 160,000 bc.)—The Levantine Misliya finds (from 175,000-194,000 bc) are slightly later and likely represent an early migration out of Africa (likely leaving no current descendants) to the nearby Levant. The origin of moderns would likely be somewhere in North Africa (and/or parts of the current Sahel) or East Africa, in region between those areas and/or a broader zone including some of both.

    • Replies: @Jm8
    Edit (to my prior post):

    "...The Levantine Misliya finds are later (than the African AMH finds: Jebel Irhoud—significantly later than Jebel Irhoud—, and slightly later than the Ethiopian Omo) and likely represent an early migration out of Africa (leaving little modern genetic legacy, and none in most populations—modern Eurasians rather descend from a later ca 70,000 bc migration from Africa, though ca. 2% of DNA/ancestry from the earlier wave/OOA migration survives in Papuans and Australian Aborigines; an early migration to the to the nearby Levant that is not too surprising given the area's proximity to Africa...

  52. @Jm8
    "The greater antiquity of AMH humans in the African rather than the Eurasian palaeoanthropological record."

    The oldest AMH/modern human fossils are in Africa (Jebel Irhoud in Morocco ca. 300,000 bc; and two sites in Ethiopia at Omo at ca. 195,000 bc and Herto at ca. 160,000 bc.)—The Levantine Misliya finds (from 175,000-194,000 bc) are slightly later and likely represent an early migration out of Africa (likely leaving no current descendants) to the nearby Levant. The origin of moderns would likely be somewhere in North Africa (and/or parts of the current Sahel) or East Africa, in region between those areas and/or a broader zone including some of both.

    Edit (to my prior post):

    “…The Levantine Misliya finds are later (than the African AMH finds: Jebel Irhoud—significantly later than Jebel Irhoud—, and slightly later than the Ethiopian Omo) and likely represent an early migration out of Africa (leaving little modern genetic legacy, and none in most populations—modern Eurasians rather descend from a later ca 70,000 bc migration from Africa, though ca. 2% of DNA/ancestry from the earlier wave/OOA migration survives in Papuans and Australian Aborigines; an early migration to the to the nearby Levant that is not too surprising given the area’s proximity to Africa…

  53. @Pat Boyle
    The most immediate outcome of the discovery of the 8% "Ghost" population in the modern black genome is the realization that we were right all along to call them "spooks".

    Forgive me, I couldn't resist.

    Perhaps, Boyle, following your logic, the 8% “Ghost” population was not from a hominid after all,
    but a procyonid, and we were right all along to call them “coons”.

    • Replies: @Yirmil
    I agree with you. Genetically Africans are the most human. Now when you consider Dennis Hopper in the movie True Romance. "Your great great grandmother got monkey f-----d by an African." You understand if not for recessive genetic trait defects and ancient Africans enjoying monkey booty Caucasians wouldn't exist. This is the reason the white supremacists in America want science taken out of public education and replaced with the biblical creation narrative.
  54. I don’t know much about anthropology, but here is an old anthropology blog (last post appears to be from 2010) where the blog host claimed that Out of Africa does not enjoy the widespread support among anthropologists and geneticists that the media would have you believe:

    I think… the ‘out of Africa’ theory of human evolution is somewhat inaccurate, even though the media seem to be all for it. It’s not amazingly popular among anthropologists and geneticists (see blog for papers on that) although it’s repeatedly printed as the proven truth. I’ve got multiple DNA and anthropological studies that don’t support it.

  55. @anonymous coward

    Out of Africa: a theory in crisis
     
    Good. I always knew it was bullshit.

    Well, Africa still holds the greatest diversity of mtDNA and the deppest branches of Y-DNA, so don’t get too confident 🙂

  56. @pumpkinperson
    8% is trivial. The Out of Africa theory is still 90% true. Only the extreme form (total replacement with zero admixture) has been debunked. And as Rushton realized, the Out of Africa theory supports HBD because it crudely implies Africans are ancestral, so it's ironic that so many HBDers want to debunk it.

    I’m also not getting the excitement. To my knowledge, nobody considered the lack of admixture in Africa as evidence of the African origin of H. sapiens sapiens; rather it was that the deepest branches of the human phylogenetic tree were found there. And really, after Neanderthal and Denisovan admixture were found in Eurasians, most people kind exxpected something similar would be found in Africa.

  57. @Hapalong Cassidy
    I remember reading many years ago about how they traces the paternal DNA of an American Black man to an ancestor who lived nearly 400000 years ago in West Africa. Which was puzzling to many, because it was assumed that modern Homo Sapiens Sapiens came into being only slightly more than 100k years ago (“Mitichondrial Eve” only goes back about 150kya). Assuming the OOA theory is still correct, what probably happened is as follows: a group of HSS migrated from East Africa to West Africa, where they encountered another Archaic hominid species. This species was physically much stronger (think modern Bantus vs modern Bushmen), so the hybridization would have been on the paternal side.

    Y-DNA A00 (Perry) is presumably 270.000 years old [1], which back then was considered before the origin of Homo sapiens. However, the date of origin of H. sapiens has since been pushed backed a lot. The oldest H. sapiens currently is at 315.000 years ago, the Moroccan Jebel Irhoud samples, but from Denisovan and Neanderthal DNA we know that those split off ancestral anatomical modern humans (That is: us, H. sapiens) several 100’s of thousands years earlier.

    [1] https://genome.cshlp.org/content/25/4/459.long

  58. @Roger
    I thought that the Out Of Africa theory was disproved when it was shown that non-Africans have Neanderthal genes. And again with the discovery of Denosivan genes.

    The Out Of Africa theory was used to claim that all humans are essentially the same. No one wants to give up that claim.

    First sentence: no, it wasn’t disproven by the admixture events in Eurasia. The remaining 96-98% of the non-Neanderthal, non-Denisovan DNA came from the same source of that contributed to 93-100% of African gene pool, and is still more likely to have originated in Africa.

    Second sentence: indeed, it has been used as such – wrongly used, though; there is nothing in OOA theory that precludes further evolution after dispersal.

  59. anonymous[179] • Disclaimer says:
    @dearieme
    Hats off for an interesting remark. You know what gets my goat about all the anti-semitic stuff in Unz comment threads? None of it is interesting.

    wwebd said – If I want to read a comment thread, I block the midwits. Thanks to Ron Unz for giving people the choice between (a) posting anonymously and (b) more or less keeping the same user name. If Ron Unz had not done that we could not quite as easily block the midwits, including, of course, the ones who like to talk boring retread trash about Jews.

    The best criticism of any ethnic group comes from people who (a) understand that group and (b) understand why people in that group are glad to be in that group. You can be misanthropic and not like any group all that much and still be able to be interesting if you meet those two criteria.

    There are probably dozens of commenters on the Steve Sailer threads that touch on Jews (or Africans, or Italian-Americans, or WASPs, or fat people, or older women, or older men, etc.) who overly like the sound of their own voice (I assume they all think of themselves as the contemporary versions of great orators from the past) but clearly do not understand any group of humans (probably including their own groups) because they are clearly un-self-aware midwits. I have tried to engage some of them in conversation but failed to elicit a rational response: in each case, I assume they believe they triumphed over me by calling me a “Jew” (I am not, although I would be proud to be) or some other insult. So I block the most prolific, and spend a few seconds of my day, if the day includes reading a Steve Sailer thread, skipping over the less prolific midwits.

    By the way, Dearieme, if you are reading this – in spite of your expensive Cambridge education, which I assume someone besides you paid for, you are sort of a midwit yourself when you deign to touch on Christianity. Well, wisdom is not like advanced math used to be in the ambitious over-specialized 20th century – we are never too old to get better at understanding the world, my young friend. I will not recommend C.S. Lewis as a starting point (you probably think you are more intelligent than CS Lewis, and my advice is for you is to confront the thinking of a Christian who you do not consider less intelligent than yourself) – I would recommend Hans Urs von Balthasar (not on aesthetics, but on history – he corrected Hegel in a quite intelligent and likable and convincing way) or George MacDonald (just for the laughs) or, if you want to read a theologian who understood science as well as any human ever has, (my distant cousin) Dr Adrienne von Speyr is a good source, to begin with. (Duhem was fascinating but too academic, I think: then there is Blake and Goethe, all that crowd, Christian geniuses all – Bruce Charlton discusses all that – or try Peguy, who grew up a three day walk from London, and who was much more intelligent than I, your humble correspondent. Good luck!)

  60. @Pat Boyle
    While reading up on some of the John Hawk's views on this issue I ran across the 'Mad' Mike Hughes story. Yesterday just a little bit from you in the Mohave desert this guy Mike Hughes blasted off into space in his home built rocket ship. He got over 1,800 feet up. His rocket is steam powered. Mike is an interesting guy. He believes the earth is flat and he running for governor. He's got my vote.

    How could miss this story?

    Actually, I don’t think he really believes the Earth is flat. He was looking for financing for his project and couldn’t find it until he convinced some Flat Earthers to give him money so he could prove their theory. I think he just wanted to fly his rocket.

  61. @Tiny Duck’s Gay Mom
    I lived in Africa for 35 years. I can tell you for a fact that black guys sometimes go into the forest to copulate with monkeys and apes. Take this behavior and stretch it out over 150K years. Very plausible.

    Whites are the socially constructed offspring of Neanderthals and Rhesus Monkeys. Straight outta the caves.

  62. @anonymous coward

    Out of Africa: a theory in crisis
     
    Good. I always knew it was bullshit.

    It doesn’t seem that the out of Africa theory is under threat. What is under threat is the point at which my people first left Africa to mate with subhuman species that would produce the illusionary racial distinctions that are purveyed by White Supremacist Nazis. If my ancestors had not had a thing for monkey booty, there would be no Caucasians.

  63. @Tiny Duck’s Gay Mom
    I lived in Africa for 35 years. I can tell you for a fact that black guys sometimes go into the forest to copulate with monkeys and apes. Take this behavior and stretch it out over 150K years. Very plausible.

    Had Africans not been so interested in monkey booty, there would be no racial distinctions. It was the ancient Africans love of monkey buttocks which produced Caucasians.

  64. @Uncle Remus
    Perhaps, Boyle, following your logic, the 8% "Ghost" population was not from a hominid after all,
    but a procyonid, and we were right all along to call them "coons".

    I agree with you. Genetically Africans are the most human. Now when you consider Dennis Hopper in the movie True Romance. “Your great great grandmother got monkey f—–d by an African.” You understand if not for recessive genetic trait defects and ancient Africans enjoying monkey booty Caucasians wouldn’t exist. This is the reason the white supremacists in America want science taken out of public education and replaced with the biblical creation narrative.

  65. @Roger
    I thought that the Out Of Africa theory was disproved when it was shown that non-Africans have Neanderthal genes. And again with the discovery of Denosivan genes.

    The Out Of Africa theory was used to claim that all humans are essentially the same. No one wants to give up that claim.

    The reality Africans are the only humans while, all other racial groups are African/Subhuman hybrids. Actually Jews because of rampant inbreeding would probably have the most Subhuman genes in a modern human hybrid population.

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Steve Sailer Comments via RSS