Slashdot Mirror
Europeans Came From Three Ancestry Groupings
Taco Cowboy writes A recent study by researchers at Harvard Medical School and the University of Tübingen in Germany has found that present day Europeans are descendants of three different groups of people — A near east farmer group, an indigenous hunter gatherer group, and an ancient North Eurasian group from Siberia. "Nearly all Europeans have ancestry from all three ancestral groups," said Iosif Lazaridis, a research fellow in genetics in Reich's lab and first author of the paper. "Differences between them are due to the relative proportions of ancestry. Northern Europeans have more hunter-gatherer ancestry — up to about 50 percent in Lithuanians — and Southern Europeans have more farmer ancestry." The most surprising part of the project, however, was the discovery of the Basal Eurasians. Before Australian Aborigines, New Guineans, South Indians, Native Americans and other indigenous hunter-gatherers split, they split from Basal Eurasians. The study also found that Mediterranean groups such as the Maltese, as well as Ashkenazi Jews, had more Near East ancestry than anticipated, while far northeastern Europeans such as Finns and the Saami, as well as some northern Russians, had more East Asian ancestry in the mix.
"Ashkenazi Jews, had more Near East ancestry than anticipated" What!? Off the cuff I'd think they would have 100% Near Eastern ancestry. How much did they anticipate? Apparently a number less than 100.
Maybe Finnish really is related to Korean, then
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Shem, Ham, and Japheth, of course!
What did they expect? There are only three types of Euros: Nazi, Fascist and Communist.
-5 biggotry, -3 spelling
Is there a connection with the adjacent story?
Table-ized A.I.
Aliens.
We know that warlike once-nomadic Aesir mingled with settled farmer Vanir.
Which speaks heaps about their worshippers.
The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
There's no measurable genetic differences. There's only one race: the human race, and that's all that ever was and ever will be.
People with fair skin are from the North, people with darker skin are from the Soutb (or, as said here, the Near East).
Is that supposed to be surprising?
If you want to post goatses as a surprise to people, don't do it in slashdot, because
1. We have all seen him enough times to find him a bit trivial,
2. The way slashdot presents links gives it away by attaching [goat.cx]
Europeans product of menage a trois.
I have personally never seen that goatse image I keep reading about. Either that, or my mind has been extremely successful at repressing those particular memories of seeing the goatse images, gruesome as they are based on the descriptions I've read.
Don't fornicate. Seriously, just don't do it.
Speaking of things we've "seen enough times"... these markov chain posts appear at least once in nearly every single /. story and have done so for my entire time on the site, surely you've noticed them before?
If they stopped appearing then we could truly say the site had died. :)
Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law
First of all, what about the highly confirmed hypothesis of the Indo-Europeans' migrations from the Caucasus since the 5th millennium BC, that later split into several groups (italic tribes, greek tribes, celts, slavs, germanic tribes, etc...) ? Most modern-day europeans have been supposed to descend from them. How does this study renconcile with it? Maybe the Indo-Europeans carried the genes of what the study calls "farmers from the Near East"?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Secondly, the study says that there is a new, extremely ancient group, that it calls "basal eurasians", of "non-African ancestry". Oh, really? Are they really saying that mankind, AKA "Homini Sapientes Sapientes", didn't come from modern-day Ethiopia? This is either a massive revolution in the history of anthropology, or a huge, embarrassing error.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
I think that AT LEAST the wording used in the study (and in the article) is quite confused and imprecise.
Look at the time frames! The article talks about the genetic influences until 7000 years ago, while the spread of the indo-european tribes started about 5000 years ago. So we are talking about populations in different times eras. And then it's quite sure that the spread of the Indo-Europeans was not so much a complete elimination of the old Europeans but rather an assimilation. The Indo-Europeans came with new social structures and technologies, intermixing with the local population and assimilated them into their indo-european clans and tribes. Thus the local languages died out, but the genetic traits were preserved in their descendants.
You can imagine 10 different sects popping up with different versions of the dietary rules. The ones that happened to align with health and reduced death would have an evolutionary advantage, and ultimately become dominant.
That's basically how teaching/learning mechanism on the whole did evolve. That's why lot of mammal have youngs observe the adult and copy behavious. That's why in some mammal species, the parent actively teach the young. That's why some mammals (humans, dogs, etc.) from very strictly hierarchical societal organisation, with the underling strongly following the alpha, etc.
That's also why memes work on the internet.
"Religion" itself, is just a side phenomenon, that happens to hi-jack this transmission of knowledge methode and packs together useful information ("Things to avoid eating not to get sick") with complete non-sensical mythology/legends. That all still gets perpetuated because "that what we've always been doing".
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
I think the wording is just off. The 'basal Europeans' are most likely descendants of the Cro Magnon with a sprinkling of Neaderthal. The original stock most likely was from an earlier migration out of Africa.
Wrong explanation, the time frames are actually the same. Indo-Europeans started migrating in the 5th millennium BC, as the linked Wikipedia article says. Hopefully you know what "BC" means.
I think my previous guess was right: the authors of the study imply that Indo-Europeans carried the genes of the so-called "farmers from the Near East", even if, while in the Caucasus, they developed a completely different civilization and culture.
According to my sources (e.g. the german version of Wikipedia), the first sources of an indoeuropean language date much later, between 3000 and 2500 BC.
On an evolutionary time scale, this is a snapshot. "Europeans" meant something for several thousand years, but the intermarriage and population growth and travel will commingle DNA in a century or two (evolutionarily known as an "instant"). I'm white and have native American DNA, most black / African Americans are dark skinned and have loads of European DNA, etc etc. These DNA results are interesting but it's like trying to follow a weather pattern, the geographical barriers are toast.
Gently reply
The english wikipedia says 5000 BC. Furthermore, if it were 3000 BC and indo-europeans didn't have the genes of "the farmers from the near east", then modern europeans would descend from FOUR groups, not three: the hunter-gatherers, the farmers from the near east, the indo-europeans, and these "new" north eurasians that the article mentions. And this would be an entirely new theory that I've never heard of.
> A near east farmer group, an indigenous hunter gatherer group, and an ancient North Eurasian group from Siberia
I knew German Summer Glau had some Asian in her!
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
Here we are, in year 2014, talking about a society some 7,000 to 8,000 years ago, and we project the society then, using what we have now
Dear Sir, I would hope you realize that even in our society today we still have barbarians enjoying slitting other people's throats and cutting off people's heads, and in societies 7 to 8 millennia before us, I reckon there would be even bigger proportion of human population who enjoyed cutting off other people's heads
In other words, the so-called "intermarriage", if occurred at all, did not happen like what we are enjoying today
Most of the events that led to the "exchange of genetic materials" and the "commingle of DNA sequences" most probably happened via brutal wars and gang rapes
In other words, all of us, no matter which racial background we came from, we are the descendants of those who were strong, intelligent, or lucky, or the combination of 2 or even all three of the above, for the weak, the low-minded and/or the unlucky, didn't get the chance to pass on their genetic material down through the millennia
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
Eurasia is at war with Oceania. Eurasia has always been at war with Oceania.
All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain.