”http://www.researchgate.net/publication/280841721_Genomic_evidence_for_the_Pleistocene_and_recent_population_history_of_Native_Americans argue that there is continuity between modern Native Americans and the paleoamericans.
Raghavan et al (2015), provide abundant double-speech that is truly misleading and outright lies. Neves et al has made it clear that there is a difference between Paleoamericans who were Negroid, and contemporary Indians that are mongoloid. Raghavan et al (2015) are attempting to prove that there is continuity between the contemporary mongoloid Indians and paleoamericans. In the conclusion of the article the authors write:
quote:Although this is their conclusion, the findings in the article reveal a different story. They contradict themselves throughout in Raghavan, M. et al 2015 “Genomic evidence for the Pleistocene and recent population history of Native Americans,”http://www.researchgate.net/publication/280841721_Genomic_evidence_for_the_Pleistocene_and_recent_population_history_of_Native_Americans
The data presented here are consistent with a single initial
migration of all Native Americans and with later gene
flow from sources related to East Asians and, more distantly,
Australo-Melanesians. From that single migration, there
was a diversification of ancestral Native Americans leading
to the formation of ‘northern’ and ‘southern’ branches,
which appears to have taken place ca. 13 KYA within the
Raghaven et al, noted that
” We, therefore, sequenced 17 ancient individuals affiliated to the now-extinct Pericúes from Mexico and FuegoPatagonians from Chile and Argentina (28), who, on the basis of their distinctive skull morphologies, are claimed to be relicts of Paleoamericans (23, 27, 58, 59). Additionally, we sequenced two pre-Columbian mummies from northern Mexico (Sierra Tarahumara) to serve as morphological controls, since they are expected to fall within the range of Native American morphological cranial variation (28). We found that the ancient samples cluster with other Native American groups and are outside the range of Oceanian genetic variation (28) (Fig. 5 and figs. S32, S33, and S34). Similarly, outgroup f3 statistics (47) reveal low shared genetic ancestry between the ancient samples and Oceanians (28) (Figs. S36, S37), and genome-based and masked SNP chip genotype data-based D-statistics (46, 47) show no evidence for gene flow from Oceanians into the Pericúes or FuegoPatagonians (28) (fig. S39).”
This was not a surprising finding because none of these skeletal remains date back to Paleoamerican times.
Raghaven et al, write
quote:This statement is double speech, the authors declare that there is ” no support for an early migration of populations directly related to Australo-Melanesians into the Americas “ ; while in the same “paragraph the authors say ” We note that male Pericúes samples displayed more craniometric affinities with populations from Africa and Australia relative to the female individuals of their population “. If the “craniometric affinities [are] with populations from Africa and Australia “, this is support for an early migration of populations directly related to Australo-Melanesians into the Americas, and directly contradict what the authors have written.
Consequently, for the Fuego-Patagonians, the female Pericúes and the Lagoa Santa Paleoamerican sample, we were not able to replicate previous results (24) that report close similarity of Paleoamerican and AustraloMelanesian cranial morphologies. We note that male Pericúes samples displayed more craniometric affinities with populations from Africa and Australia relative to the female individuals of their population (fig. S41). The results of analyses based on craniometric data are, thus, highly sensitive to sample structure and the statistical approach and data filtering used (51). Our morphometric analyses suggest that these ancient samples are not true relicts of a distinct migration, as claimed, and hence do not support the Paleoamerican model. Similarly, our genomic data also provide
no support for an early migration of populations directly related to Australo-Melanesians into the Americas.
Moreover, the paintings of California Indians show a clear Melanesian influence.
Raghaven et al, also note that
quote:In conclusion, Raghaven et al, argue that there is continuity between the contemporary and modern Native American populations but the evidence they present for this hypothesis fails to support this hypothesis. It appears that the craniometrics evidence and genetic evidence does not agree, and the contemporary and modern Native Americans represent distinct populations as suggested by Neves.
We found that some American populations, including the Aleutian Islanders, Surui, and Athabascans are closer to Australo-Melanesians compared to other Native Americans,such as North American Ojibwa, Cree and Algonquin, and the South American Purepecha, Arhuaco and Wayuu (fig.S10). The Surui are, in fact, one of closest Native American populations to East Asians and Australo-Melanesians, the latter including Papuans, non-Papuan Melanesians, Solomon Islanders, and South East Asian hunter-gatherers such as Aeta (fig. S10). We acknowledge that this observation is based on the analysis of a small fraction of the whole genome and SNP chip genotype datasets, especially for the
Aleutian Islander data that is heavily masked due to recent admixture with Europeans (28), and that the trends in the data are weak.
Nonetheless, if it proves correct, these results suggest there may be a distant Old World signal related to AustraloMelanesians and East Asians in some Native Americans. The widely scattered and differential affinity of Native Americans to the Australo-Melanesians, ranging from a strong signal in the Surui to much weaker signal in northern Amerindians such as Ojibwa, points to this gene flow occurring after the initial peopling by Native American ancestors.
Post a Comment