The most EXTENSIVE DNA STUDY ever on Ethiopians (results are in, they're mixed)

[Oceanicpuppy]

Europeans and Native Americans just share a common ancestry. That's it.

Thats what I meant their ancestry originates in Central Asia. They poster was saying they came from Native Americans and Blonde native Europeans.

 

[Poitier]

Imagine if Arabs and Mediterranean folk bragged about their dark features and kinky hair due to "African admixture"

Is this fakkit even Habesha? Don't tell me OP is some dark skin, nappy haired cat obsessed over this?

 

[Bawon Samedi]

Thats what I meant their ancestry originates in Central Asia. They poster was saying they came from Native Americans and Blonde native Europeans.

I know you didnt say that but that other character.

 

[BigMan]

Ethiopians = 80% African + 20%''Eurasian''

didn't read thread but the average black American is prolly 70-80 African so whats the issue here op?

 

[Bawon Samedi]

this pretty much agrees with everything i've said. why the big fuss?

You were saying Ethiopians are "mixed". That does not show they are "mixed" but intermediate between two African groups. They're still African.

 

[Bawon Samedi]

didn't read thread but the average black American is prolly 70-80 African so whats the issue here op?

Your guess is as good as mines.

 

[BigMan]

Not mixed... It's just like Sudanese, and some other groups in the area....... they just possess everything that could repopulate the planet and create the races again.


and specifically with Ethiopians.. they have the most connected to prophets, jesus and other people blood on Earth. It seems like most important people in ancient times dropped seeds in Ethiopian hoes.

lol, aren't you Ethiopian..

and a woman?

the closest thing to God on Earth
That's why I wouldn't cheat on you

just blew my mind breh

if God made us and Ethiopia is the home of the human race; than Ethiopians are the OG humans

 

[Oceanicpuppy]

@Canadadry

Take over. I'm about to hit

Sheeiit, I'm about hit up this baked chicken right quick.

 

[Swagnificent]

http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2014/12/african-genome-variation-project-paper.html

To assess the effect of gene flow on population differentiation in SSA, we masked Eurasian ancestry across the genome (Supplementary Methods and Supplementary Note 6). This markedly reduced population differentiation, as measured by a decline in mean pairwise FST from 0.021 to 0.015 (Supplementary Note 6), suggests that Eurasian ancestry has a substantial impact on differentiation among SSA populations.We speculate that residual differentiation between Ethiopian and other SSA populations after masking Eurasian ancestry (pairwise FST = 0.027) may be a remnant of East African diversity pre-dating the Bantu expansion10.


This suggests that a large proportion of differentiation observed among African populations could be due to Eurasian admixture, rather than adaptation to selective forces (Supplementary Note 6).This study also confirms the presence of Eurasian admixture in the Yoruba
Our finding of ancient Eurasian admixture corroborates findings of non-zero Neanderthal ancestry in Yoruba, which is likely to have been introduced through Eurasian admixture and back migration, possibly facilitated by greening of the Sahara desert during this period13, 14.

Our finding of ancient Eurasian admixture corroborates findings of non-zero Neanderthal ancestry in Yoruba, which is likely to have been introduced through Eurasian admixture and back migration, possibly facilitated by greening of the Sahara desert during this period13, 14.



http://www.unz.com/gnxp/2014/12/03/



On the Eurasian admixture, the authors confirm what we always knew about Ethiopia and the Horn of Africa, that it was the scene of a relatively recent admixture event between an Afro-Asiatic people, and a group related to modern Nilotic peoples. What is more interesting is that they observed Eurasian admixture within Yoruba people. This admixture has been suggested by others, as the Yoruba have traces of Neandertal ancestry. This group dates the admixture back to nearly 10,000 years ago, so it as likely associated with goings on that were trans-Saharan. If that is the case these were almost certain quasi-Eurasian hunter-gatherers, and their ancestry might have been diminished in current North African groups subject to waves of farmers issuing from the east during the Neolithic. But there is also admixture with Eurasians further east in Uganda among Bantu groups. Reading the details of the supplements there is a chance that this was mediated through admixture of Eurasians with hunter-gatherer populations, and then the absorbtion of this hybrid group into the expanding wave of Bantu farmers. Speaking of which, this issue is solved, it is clear that the Bantu expansion was a major demographic transformation of eastern and southern Africa. The genes speak loudly and clearly. Additionally, the Sub-Saharan African admixture of Ethiopians is more closely related to that of the Nilotic people than the Bantus. The paper didn’t tease out the details archaeological and historically, but if you look at the dates all this was going on in eastern Africa during the rise and fall of ancient Egypt. In other words, within historical memory the whole demographic landscape of Africa was reshaped. Contrary to the idea that Africa was static, there are indications here of massive transformations.

Though the Eurasian admixture story among these populations is fascinating, there is also nuance in the input of hunter-gatherer ancestry within West African and Bantu populations. First, I suspect that these estimates are low bounds, because they don’t have exact reference populations. Some of the hunter-gatherers mixed into the Igbo and Bantu groups may have been more like agriculturalists than the extant hunter-gatherer groups within Africa. One of the peculiarities of the genetics is that it looks as if the hunter-gatherers of Sub-Saharan Africa, the Khoisan in the south and the Pygmies in the center, share more recent common ancestors than they do with the agriculturalists. This may simply be due to the fact that the agriculturalists went through rapid expansion, and this whole constellation of peoples derive from a group which was an outgroup to extant hunter-gatherers. The only complicating issue is that of Eurasian admixture; it seems likely that for very old admixture events we’re seeing underestimates, or they aren’t picked up. In other words, the “reference” Sub-Saharan Africans themselves are compounds of people who remained within Africa, and Out of Africa. The eastern Pygmies may be the only people in the world without much Out of Africa input (recall that the Khoisan have some level of Out of Africa input mediated by East African pastoralists).

A second interesting aspect of the paper is about selection within African populations. As I said above you can find much in the supplements, so I won’t review that laundry list. But, it is interesting that many of the signatures disappeared once Eurasian ancestry was “masked.”That is, within the genomes of individuals you have a mosaic of ancestries, and high genetic distances between populations at particular loci turn out often to be simply due to historical demography. Once you remove this confound you pick out signals of selection which might be due to local adaptation (though some of the Eurasian alleles might also have been subject to selection, so in some ways the filtering might be too stringent). But the masking of Eurasian ancestry also highlighted something important: the genetic variation across African populations once you remove Eurasian ancestry is not that high. This is curious in light of the truism that most genetic variation in humans is found within Africa, but as Nick Patterson pointed out to me years ago: this applies to variation within populations, not across them. Since most variation is not partitioned across populations that explains why Africans can be so genetically varied despite exhibiting not too high between population variation. After masking Eurasian ancestry the mean pairwise Fst was ~0.015. To give a sense of perspective, the Fst between Northern Italians and Lithuanians is 0.01. The Fst between the Ethiopian African ancestry (so Eurasian segments are masked) and other African populations is still 0.027, on average (the distance between Lithuanians and Southern Italians is 0.015). This reinforces the fact that the African ancestors of Ethiopians are somewhat atypical (further confirmed by the relative inaccuracy of imputation from public data sets).

The result that the Igbo seem to have ancestry from a hunter-gatherer group genetically closer to the Khoisan than the Mbuti Pygmies makes a lot more sense when you accept that much of the genetic population structure within African disappeared with the rise of agriculturalist groups which demographically swamped them. It seems plausible that the preexistent variation can be reconstructed to some extent by analyzing patterns within agriculturalists, as they likely absorbed hunter-gatherer groups over time. Within the paper the authors suggest that whole genome sequencing of more populations should be high on the priority list, and I agree. The future is going to be interesting.

Awesome post. Pretty much confirms what I expected. East Africans are pretty much a combo of an ancestral african population native to east africa similar to the Nilotic speaking tribes of today and some Eurasian back migration into africa. there are probably differing levels of that admixture which explains the diversity in phenotypes we see in ethiopia.

great find.

 

[Oceanicpuppy]

didn't read thread but the average black American is prolly 70-80 African so whats the issue here op?

It means that African gene is skrong. ( in gucci mane voice)

 

[Swagnificent]

http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2014/12/african-genome-variation-project-paper.html

To assess the effect of gene flow on population differentiation in SSA, we masked Eurasian ancestry across the genome (Supplementary Methods and Supplementary Note 6). This markedly reduced population differentiation, as measured by a decline in mean pairwise FST from 0.021 to 0.015 (Supplementary Note 6), suggests that Eurasian ancestry has a substantial impact on differentiation among SSA populations.We speculate that residual differentiation between Ethiopian and other SSA populations after masking Eurasian ancestry (pairwise FST = 0.027) may be a remnant of East African diversity pre-dating the Bantu expansion10.


This suggests that a large proportion of differentiation observed among African populations could be due to Eurasian admixture, rather than adaptation to selective forces (Supplementary Note 6).This study also confirms the presence of Eurasian admixture in the Yoruba
Our finding of ancient Eurasian admixture corroborates findings of non-zero Neanderthal ancestry in Yoruba, which is likely to have been introduced through Eurasian admixture and back migration, possibly facilitated by greening of the Sahara desert during this period13, 14.

Our finding of ancient Eurasian admixture corroborates findings of non-zero Neanderthal ancestry in Yoruba, which is likely to have been introduced through Eurasian admixture and back migration, possibly facilitated by greening of the Sahara desert during this period13, 14.



http://www.unz.com/gnxp/2014/12/03/



On the Eurasian admixture, the authors confirm what we always knew about Ethiopia and the Horn of Africa, that it was the scene of a relatively recent admixture event between an Afro-Asiatic people, and a group related to modern Nilotic peoples. What is more interesting is that they observed Eurasian admixture within Yoruba people. This admixture has been suggested by others, as the Yoruba have traces of Neandertal ancestry. This group dates the admixture back to nearly 10,000 years ago, so it as likely associated with goings on that were trans-Saharan. If that is the case these were almost certain quasi-Eurasian hunter-gatherers, and their ancestry might have been diminished in current North African groups subject to waves of farmers issuing from the east during the Neolithic. But there is also admixture with Eurasians further east in Uganda among Bantu groups. Reading the details of the supplements there is a chance that this was mediated through admixture of Eurasians with hunter-gatherer populations, and then the absorbtion of this hybrid group into the expanding wave of Bantu farmers. Speaking of which, this issue is solved, it is clear that the Bantu expansion was a major demographic transformation of eastern and southern Africa. The genes speak loudly and clearly. Additionally, the Sub-Saharan African admixture of Ethiopians is more closely related to that of the Nilotic people than the Bantus. The paper didn’t tease out the details archaeological and historically, but if you look at the dates all this was going on in eastern Africa during the rise and fall of ancient Egypt. In other words, within historical memory the whole demographic landscape of Africa was reshaped. Contrary to the idea that Africa was static, there are indications here of massive transformations.

Though the Eurasian admixture story among these populations is fascinating, there is also nuance in the input of hunter-gatherer ancestry within West African and Bantu populations. First, I suspect that these estimates are low bounds, because they don’t have exact reference populations. Some of the hunter-gatherers mixed into the Igbo and Bantu groups may have been more like agriculturalists than the extant hunter-gatherer groups within Africa. One of the peculiarities of the genetics is that it looks as if the hunter-gatherers of Sub-Saharan Africa, the Khoisan in the south and the Pygmies in the center, share more recent common ancestors than they do with the agriculturalists. This may simply be due to the fact that the agriculturalists went through rapid expansion, and this whole constellation of peoples derive from a group which was an outgroup to extant hunter-gatherers. The only complicating issue is that of Eurasian admixture; it seems likely that for very old admixture events we’re seeing underestimates, or they aren’t picked up. In other words, the “reference” Sub-Saharan Africans themselves are compounds of people who remained within Africa, and Out of Africa. The eastern Pygmies may be the only people in the world without much Out of Africa input (recall that the Khoisan have some level of Out of Africa input mediated by East African pastoralists).

A second interesting aspect of the paper is about selection within African populations. As I said above you can find much in the supplements, so I won’t review that laundry list. But, it is interesting that many of the signatures disappeared once Eurasian ancestry was “masked.”That is, within the genomes of individuals you have a mosaic of ancestries, and high genetic distances between populations at particular loci turn out often to be simply due to historical demography. Once you remove this confound you pick out signals of selection which might be due to local adaptation (though some of the Eurasian alleles might also have been subject to selection, so in some ways the filtering might be too stringent). But the masking of Eurasian ancestry also highlighted something important: the genetic variation across African populations once you remove Eurasian ancestry is not that high. This is curious in light of the truism that most genetic variation in humans is found within Africa, but as Nick Patterson pointed out to me years ago: this applies to variation within populations, not across them. Since most variation is not partitioned across populations that explains why Africans can be so genetically varied despite exhibiting not too high between population variation. After masking Eurasian ancestry the mean pairwise Fst was ~0.015. To give a sense of perspective, the Fst between Northern Italians and Lithuanians is 0.01. The Fst between the Ethiopian African ancestry (so Eurasian segments are masked) and other African populations is still 0.027, on average (the distance between Lithuanians and Southern Italians is 0.015). This reinforces the fact that the African ancestors of Ethiopians are somewhat atypical (further confirmed by the relative inaccuracy of imputation from public data sets).

The result that the Igbo seem to have ancestry from a hunter-gatherer group genetically closer to the Khoisan than the Mbuti Pygmies makes a lot more sense when you accept that much of the genetic population structure within African disappeared with the rise of agriculturalist groups which demographically swamped them. It seems plausible that the preexistent variation can be reconstructed to some extent by analyzing patterns within agriculturalists, as they likely absorbed hunter-gatherer groups over time. Within the paper the authors suggest that whole genome sequencing of more populations should be high on the priority list, and I agree. The future is going to be interesting.

Awesome post. Pretty much confirms what I expected. East Africans are pretty much a combo of an ancestral african population native to east africa similar to the Nilotic speaking tribes of today and some Eurasian back migration into africa. there are probably differing levels of that admixture which explains the diversity in phenotypes we see in ethiopia.

great find.

 

[Oceanicpuppy]

Awesome post. Pretty much confirms what I expected. East Africans are pretty much a combo of an ancestral african population native to east africa similar to the Nilotic speaking tribes of today and some Eurasian back migration into africa. there are probably differing levels of that admixture which explains the diversity in phenotypes we see in ethiopia.

great find.

Their is no creditable proof of an Eurasian Back-to-Africa migration.

 

[Elle Driver]

Imagine if Arabs and Mediterranean folk bragged about their dark features and kinky hair due to "African admixture"

Is this fakkit even Habesha? Don't tell me OP is some dark skin, nappy haired cat obsessed over this?

He makes all sorts of comments about mulattos, and desiring good hair and lighter skin in women. He's been saying that Habesha are mulatto because apparently they're all light skin with curly hair. He's not Habesha, I'm assuming he's black American.

 

[Poitier]

He makes all sorts of comments about mulattos, and desiring good hair and lighter skin in women. He's been saying that Habesha are mulatto because apparently they're all light skin with curly hair. He's not Habesha, I'm assuming he's black American.

Dude is a fukking weirdo

 

[Camile.Bidan]

Thats what I meant their ancestry originates in Central Asia. They poster was saying they came from Native Americans and Blonde native Europeans.

Kinda of annoying that I have post links to recent news and easily googled information.

I'm seriously.... Stay current on the knowledge base if you're interested in human history,!!!!!


http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-29213892

http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environme

The modern European gene pool was formed when three ancient populations mixed within the last 7,000 years, Nature journal reports.

Blue-eyed, swarthy hunters mingled with brown-eyed, pale skinned farmers as the latter swept into Europe from the Near East.

But another, mysterious population with Siberian affinities also contributed to the genetic landscape of the continent.

The findings are based on analysis of genomes from nine ancient Europeans.

Agriculture originated in the Near East - in modern Syria, Iraq and Israel - before expanding into Europe around 7,500 years ago.

Multiple lines of evidence suggested this new way of life was spread by a wave of migrants, who interbred with the indigenous European hunter-gatherers they encountered on the way.

But assumptions about European origins were based largely on the genetic patterns of living people. The science of analysing genomic DNA from ancient bones has put some of the prevailing theories to the test, throwing up a few surprises.

Genomic DNA contains the biochemical instructions for building a human, and resides within the nuclei of our cells.

In the new paper, Prof David Reich from the Harvard Medical School and colleagues studied the genomes of seven hunter-gatherers from Scandinavia, one hunter whose remains were found in a cave in Luxembourg and an early farmer from Stuttgart, Germany.

........When the researchers looked at DNA from 2,345 present day people, they found that a third population was needed to capture the genetic complexity of modern Europeans.

This additional "tribe" is the most enigmatic and, surprisingly, is related to Native Americans.

Hints of this group surfaced in an analysis of European genomes two years ago. Dubbed Ancient North Eurasians, this group remained a "ghost population" until 2013, when scientists published the genome of a 24,000-year-old boy buried near Lake Baikal in Siberia.

This individual had genetic similarities to both Europeans and indigenous Americans, suggesting he was part of a population that contributed to movements into the New World 15,000 years ago and Europe at a later date.

The ancient hunter from Luxembourg and the farmer from Germany show no signs of mixture from this population, implying this third ancestor was added to the continental mix after farming was already established in Europe.

The study also revealed that the early farmers and their European descendents can trace a large part of their ancestry to a previously unknown, even older lineage called Basal Eurasians. This group represents the earliest known population divergence among the humans who left Africa 60,000 years ago.