(03-18-2024, 04:27 AM)TanTin Wrote: During the test, that I was doing for A0 - A00 I've seen Oase , which is supposed to be A0 as well.
However on my data projection Oase came between T1 individuals.
In anno file Oase is described as: A0-T .
Despite the low coverage in my data Oase is clear hg T.
Oase is K2a-M2308* rather than T. A0-T includes all haplogroups between A0 and T. In other words, A0, A1a, A1b1, B, C, D, E, G, H, IJ, L and K2 all belong to it.
Quote:Conclusions
Paleontological descriptions largely differ from the iconic gorilla-to-human linear evolution and even from a human family tree mode. In reality, the human phylogenetic tree contains a large gap between chimpanzee and Ardipithecus ramidus (4.3–4.4 million (m) ya) and smaller gaps in the nearest human tree, making it difficult to infer potential interactions. Nonetheless, it is clear that in the past million years, several lineages including perhaps the Homo erectus (‘Java man’) (0.6–0.2 mya), Homo heidelbergensis (‘Heidelberg Man’) (735–230 kya),41 Homo rhodesiensis (400–110 kya),42 and Homo neanderthalensis (‘Neanderthal’) (400–30 kya)43, 44 coexisted and interbred with each other leading to the appearance of the first AMH. In the Middle Paleolithic (∼100–200 kya), AMH like the Omo (195±5 kya)9 and the Homo sapiens idaltu (160–154 kya)45, 46 evolved from these archaic Homo sapiens and persisted alongside modern humans.47, 48 The question of whether and to what extent AMH interbred with their archaic predecessors is one of the most fascinating questions in anthropology.
We have shown that consistently throughout their examination, Mendez et al2 have chosen the assumptions, approximations, numerical miscalculations and data manipulation that inflated the final TMRCA estimate. We agree that Mendez et al,2 in collaboration with members of the public and the FamilyTreeDNA company, have identified a novel Y haplotype that pushes back the estimate of the Y-specific TMRCA further than previous studies. However, we argue that the autosomally-derived Y substitution rate lacks support, and show that the TMRCA estimate from sequence data should be 208 300 (95% CI=163 900–260 200 ya), which is within the time frame of the emergence of AMH, excluding the possibility of introgression with more ancient hominin taxa.
Let continue our discussion for Denisovan and Neanderthals.
I reported here some bug for Admixtools. Then I found a workaround how to avoid it. And here I will share more F4 stats for Neanderthals.
It's interesting to see how the human groups are related to some Neanderthals. It depend who do we check as Neanderthal. Because different Neanderthals may have different connections to some groups and others.
Here is a check for shared alleles with Altai Neanderthal (who has the highest coverage) and Mezmaiskaya Neanderthal.
(04-09-2024, 07:50 PM)TanTin Wrote: Let continue our discussion for Denisovan and Neanderthals.
I reported here some bug for Admixtools. Then I found a workaround how to avoid it. And here I will share more F4 stats for Neanderthals.
It's interesting to see how the human groups are related to some Neanderthals. It depend who do we check as Neanderthal. Because different Neanderthals may have different connections to some groups and others.
Here is a check for shared alleles with Altai Neanderthal (who has the highest coverage) and Mezmaiskaya Neanderthal.
(04-24-2024, 07:32 AM)Jerome Wrote: Is this first set good for checking basal Eurasian ancestry?
The set should be good. It is V52.2 HO dataset that I mostly used. The resulsts from the other set V52 or V54 1240 K should be more reliable, because we have more snips there. But we have more individuals in HO datasets and the quality/ results are still good and reliable.
(03-04-2024, 05:30 AM)Megalophias Wrote: The Spy Neanderthal paper says that Spy and Mezmaiskaya share a Y clade that falls outside of modern human variation, including A00 in the modern human clade. So why do you figure Spy has A0, TanTin?
According to Petr et al. 2020 (https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abb6460), Spy is indeed outside of human variations.
The pre-A00 node for Modern Humans and late-Neanderthals is not even doubteous and is found for the 100 bootstraps replications.
The TMRCA they obtained with Modern humans is ~370 kyr ago (way before A00 splitting).
A claim that late-Neanderthals are under modern TMRCA would need a proper analysis with a peer reviewed publication.
I haven't seen anything convincing on this topic so far.
(03-04-2024, 03:07 AM)Horatio McCallister Wrote: So then wouldn't it be more accurate to say that modern human y-DNA is actually Neanderthal derived instead of the other way around?
There is a chance it is the case (but we lack early samples to make strong claims).
I might put a dedicated post about that, that would discuss the mtDNA and Y-chr splitting timings and the possible implications.
Ancient DNA Reveals the First Known Neanderthal Family
