Transcription
Concrete biblical truth. Shalom, shalom. Indeed, indeed. Can y'all stand the rain, man? I got my brother swanging and banging from the land of Canaan, my brother James, the argument king, the killmonger of the source. With no further ado, I'm gonna turn it over to him. He gonna give y'all that heat rock, that flame, man. That presentation is about to be powerful. You guys, not talk to him, James.
Oh man, I just want to say shalom to the family, man. Hope everybody had a good Sabbath. But now it's time to go to war, man. The other night on Ban Channel, we had a lot of talk going on from uh Kevin G. We know Lon ain't show his face, he running from us. A lot of what I'm, it's crazy because a lot of what I'm putting together in my presentation gonna deal with some of the things he was bringing up, like the brother don't want to acknowledge that, you know, uh E marker's been in uh the Middle East since the most ancient of time. So I'm just gonna go into this presentation and break down who uh the house of Shim is, man.
Yes, indeed. Yes, indeed, man. Uh, brother James about to give you guys that work, that powerful presentation based off sources. They deal with rhetoric, we deal with sources. All right.
Rise of a New Theory: The Human Y-αλ polymorphic Yap element is of particular interest in the study of human evolution due to its location in the non-recombinant region of the human Y chromosome. The frequencies of Y chromosomes carrying the Y-αλ Yap insertion element vary greatly among human populations from different geographic locations. Yap insertion chromosomes appear at low frequencies (frequency less than 10%) in some Asians, Oceanians, and American Indian populations; at an intermediate frequency (11-25%) in Eurasians; and a very high frequency (above 30%) in the Japanese, Tibetans, and several African populations. The overall high frequency of Yap insertion chromosomes in sub-Saharan African populations led to the proposition that the original Yap insertion occurred on the African wild chromosome and subsequently spread to other continents.
So they're saying it happened in Africa and then it left out. In contrast, Hammer and Aoide and Hammer, in another article, hypothesize an alternate Asian origin. The lineage that acquired the Yap insertion polymorphism is divided into two subclusters: Hlo group E, found today in Africa and the Mediterranean, and Hao Group D, found in Japan and Southeast Asia. While chromosome data on Indian populations revealed that the parental lineages of present-day populations are predominantly derived from the original Indian gene pool rather than a recent influx, to elucidate the regional evolutionary history, we examine the Yap polymorphism in 21 Indian tribal populations. The ancestral L of M174, found exclusively in Africa, supports an African origin of Yap insertion, but the time of mutual events on the Asian Yap insertion chromosome, which Hammer talked about, gives antiquity to M174. Our findings of the preserve of the Yap insertion in Southeast Indian tribes and Adamant Islanders, which again, the other article was saying they didn't, but this article actually found them in the Adamant Islanders with Hao Group D, indicate that some of the M163 chromosomes have given rise to the Yap insurgent and M174 mutation in South Asia. The presence of basal SE Yap surgeon and basal F in India suggest that Y chromosome and well-differentiated into major lineages in South Asia, which they're pretty much saying CT split to CF and DE, and then DE split from D. And in Southeast Asia, in Southeast, then they moved across Southeast Asia and the Adamant Islands. Adamant maternal lineages have been established through mitochondrial M31 lineage, which descends from RL3 with the eastern part of India, in the Ragbashi, West Bengal, and the Pari, I don't know how to say that, of Orissa. After reaching the southern part of East Asia, descendants of the initial dispersal led to the northward diaspora, thus peopling across all of East Asia. Some of the Yap insertion chromosomes without the M174 mutation reached the Mediterranean via Central Asia and gave rise to the E lineages with the mutation M40 and M96. This E lineage migrated back to Africa through the Levant, as hypothesized by Hyde and Hammer. And this is from the article "Yap Insertion Signature in South Asia," published in 2004, the Anthropological Survey of India.
All right, still going on with "Rise of a New Theory" because we're gonna show that that old "Out of Africa" theory is obsolete, and it is what is being used to keep us from our heritage as Shim. A consensus view that emerged that the genomes of present-day human populations outside of Africa originated almost entirely from a single major migration out around 50 to 70,000 years ago, occupied or followed soon after the mixture of Neanderthal, contributing 2% of the genome of all non-Africans. This admixture event is reliably dated from the length of the Neanderthal segments to 7,000 to 13,000 years before the time of the Usima individual lived, which is 45,000 years ago. Thus, Neanderthal admixture took place between 52 to 58,000 years ago, and the migration out of Africa must have occurred earlier than the mixture.
So now they're saying, "Hey, we got to push this migration back." Like I've been saying. Other article, 70,000 years. The admixed population then expanded rapidly across most of Eurasia and Australia. As a result, people were present over much of this vast region by 50,000 years ago. Genome-wide analysis of present-day populations show a steady decrease in genomic variation with traveling distance from Africa, and that have been interpreted in terms of a serial founder model, which predicted such a decrease. While such a pattern may have been initially established in this way, the complexity of subsequent movements and mixing events, increasingly documented by ancient DNA from more recent periods, suggest that any earlier pattern of population structure is unlikely to have persisted for more than 50,000 years. Thus, insights into present-day autosomal genomes into the initial out-of-Africa expansion are confounded by the complexity of subsequent prehistory. Suitable ancient DNA is not yet available, and alternative sources of information are needed.
So a lot of these theories didn't have the information yet. But as I presented in some of the other articles earlier, we got it now. The serial founder model nevertheless provides a standard model by which alternatives can be compared. There is, however, one region of the genome that is potentially useful of these events in a unique way: the Y chromosome, which is another reason why outside of the Most High telling us to call ourselves by our fathers, and that being our cultural tradition, is because the Y chromosome is the most effective way to do so. This is because a male-specific portion provides Hypes from which a detailed, calibrated phenetic tree can be created. Several such branches have been constructed, and they're all consistent with being dominated by a massive expansion of non-African wild lineages, which during the key interval of 50 to 60,000 years ago, starting with a single Hao group designated CT.
So they're even saying that DE had to be out of Africa because CT is hypothesized as the parental group to both macro Hao group CF and DE. And if you look over here in the chart, you can see that illustrated right above the this area right here is the branch CT, which is to be the parent to DE and CF as they hypothesize. But again, we have no evidence of a CT or a BT anywhere in the fossil record. The follow geographic of the Y chromosome in Asia previously suggest that modern humans of African origin initially settled in Mainland Southeast Asia about 25 to 30,000 years ago, migrated northward, spreading throughout East Asia. However, the fragmented distribution of one East Asian specific Y chromosome lineage, D174, which is found at high frequencies in Tibet, Japan, and the Adamant Islands, is inconsistent with the scenario. We propose that D M174 was a southern or has a southern origin, and its northward expansion occurred about 60,000 years ago, predating the north migration of other major East Asian lineages. The Neolithic expansion of the Han culture, which is another descendant of Japan, and the last glacial maximum are the likely key factors leading to the current relic distribution of D M174 in East Asia.
When they talk about the Han culture, they're pretty much talking about them, the Mongol Empire, the Brit, Tibetan, and Japanese population are the admixture of two ancient populations represented by two major East Asian Pacific Y chromosomes: the O, which goes back to the CF lineages, and the D, which of course goes back to the D lineages. Also pointing out what they said earlier, that CT, the hypothetical CT, was already outside of Africa. And this comes from a paper called "A Southeast Asian Origin of Present-Day Non-African Human White Chromosome," Hung by Hungi Huang, Jong, and others. And if you notice, people who seem to not be brought up in European schools of thought, which is not to their, I'm not knocking them forward because it was there before they were born, which has been indoctrinated with racist teachings and stuff like that, they have always just seen as a hpo group that's confined into Africa and had nothing to do. But when you deal with someone from China that hasn't been brought up in that type of thinking, they firmly put it outside of Africa. And we'll see that a lot of European scholars are coming to the same conclusion, as we saw before with our boy Vincent Cabba.
Right here, if you look at this chart right here, which I want to point out, the African ancestral lineages are A and B. That's who our African ancestors. As I was telling Kevin G online yesterday on Ban TV, and he was lying saying, "No, they not that." No, I got to throw in there. No, if you look at the outer Africa event as shown on that chart, it happened with CT at M168, includes DE and CF. So you gonna have to get off that. The Y chromosome Alo polymorphism, or Yap, also called M1, defines the deep-rooted Hao group DE of the global Y chromosome phylogeny. This DE H group is further branched into three subgroups: D, D, and E, which is we already went over that. I'm gonna skip over this. That chart was the major thing I wanted to get into.
We talked about the Adam and Islanders. Okay, I think this may be per starting in the second column. However, a recent study reported that a high frequency of D174 in Adamant people who lived in the remote islands of the Indian Ocean and considered one of the earliest modern human settlers of African origin in Southeast Asia. Another study by Underhill suggests that DM17 likely reached East Asia about 50,000 years ago, which implies that the Yap lineage in East Asia could be indeed very ancient. Our previous studies showed that the dominant and East Asia Pacific Y Happ group OM M175 reflects possibly the earliest modern human expansion in East Asia. Unlike the presence of OM M175 in most of the East Asian populations, populations with relatively high frequencies of D with high frequencies of D M174 are mostly located at the peripheral regions of Mainland East Asia with a fragmented distribution, implying two possible explanations of human prehistory. First, like OM M175, D M174 may also be just one of the lineages going northward during the suggested Paleolithic migration of modern humans in East Asia. Subsequently, due to population substructure, the last glacial is likely a key factor, and recent expansion of Han culture and the distribution of D M174 was fragmented into current geographical pattern.
Which is pretty much saying these Han, or the people who are related to the Han cultures, wiped these people out. That's the reason they're there. That's the reason you find them way out there in Japan, but you're not finding them in Central Asia anywhere. You'll find them in the Adamant Islanders, where nobody has been dealing with them for what they say, 60,000 years. But you're not finding them anywhere in the mid-regions there. And it's because they're saying these old lineages came in and wiped them out, which we know a lot of them did.
The one we proposed previously to address this question, we conduct a systematic sampling of genetic analysis of more than 5,000 male lineages from 73 East Asian, Southeast Asian populations based on the Y chromosome SNP and the STR data, and the estimated ages of the major D M174 lineages. We proposed that there was an independent Paleolithic northward migration of modern humans in East Asia, predating the previously suggested north migration. Which again goes to making it more ancient in time.
Table one suggests that the reported Yap positive frequencies in worldwide populations refer to. Take table. No for references. Africans have a high frequency of Yap positive, and all of them belong to the subgroup E M40. In contrast, D M174 is a general East Asian specific with sporadic occurrences in adjacent regions, example, Central Asia, Middle East, and Northeast India. The average frequency of D M174 in East Asian is about 10%. In Tibet, 41%. In Japan, 35%. And in Adamant Island is 56%, but rare in other East Asian populations. After genotyping of the Y chromosome bolic markers, the 714 positive samples were assigned to six Hao groups: DE, M40, D174, D1, M15, so on and so forth. Furthermore, typing the eight loci of the seven N Y positive generated the complete data sets of 697 samples, consistent with the previous reports, and the prevalence of DM174 is mostly in Western and Southern China and Japan, which again, they were conducted down to these regions.
And I just want to go over this a bit because we want to also highlight our brothers of the DLo group. And I spend all our time focusing on E because they are our brothers at the end of the day. This distribution patterns, the four Deo groups, which I just want to highlight, the Toto-Bur and the DX speaking peoples, they also carry these Hao groups. And I'm gonna move forward in the presentation because I'm really trying to get through as much I possibly can. And this is just the graph and the table that was mentioned beforehand, actually given the same numbers I just read. It should be noted that the estimated gene diversity is subject to potential bias in the age difference of the DM17 lineages. The finding of the two DE in Tibet, which was only observed in Africa, supports the antiquity of D M174. Which again, they were saying they found one in Africa, so Africa had to be the origin. But again, now we're finding two in Tibet. So using that same logic, we put the origin more in that direction, into East Asia. Additionally, the buy distribution of D174 and its ancient coalescent time suggest that an independent Paleolithic migration of modern humans in East Asia.
All right, this is another graph that is showing the distribution of D again, to highlight our other Shemitic brothers that for some reason didn't decide to farm like us and wanted to be hunters and gatherers like everybody else. All right, again, like I said, I'm gonna skip over this because I want to really get into it. And just the summary, because this is the paper I use. In summary, we demonstrated in the ancient Paleolithic population migrated in East Asia, predating the previously suggested Northern population migration. The current fragmented distribution of DN74 is likely due to to the combination of later Neolithic population expansion and the last glacial maximum. And this is from "Y chromosome evidence of the earliest modern human settlement in East Asia and multiple origins of Tibet and Japanese populations."
All right, going into the next article, still focusing on hammering home this new theory, which is placing us outside of Africa. When the tree is calibrated in the mutation rates per base pair per year, the time to the most recent common ancestor of the tree is 190,000 years ago. But we consider the implications of alternative mutation rate estimates below of the clades resulting from the four deepest branching events. All but one are exclusive to Africa. And the most recent common ancestor of all non-African lineages, that is the most recent common ancestor of again, non-African lineages DE and CF is 76,000 years. They always putting them around that 70,000 years ago rank. We saw a notable increase in the number of lineages outside of Africa 50 to 55,000 years ago, perhaps reflecting the geographical expansion and differentiation of Eurasian populations as they settled the vast expanses of these continents. Consistent with previous proposals, a parsimonious interpretation of the phylogeny is that the predominantly African Hpo group E arose outside the continent. As modeled as a model of geographical segment within the CT clade requires just one or one continental capital group exchange of E rather than three of D, C, and F. Out of Africa, which again deals with parsimony. We don't want to use one that has to make three assumptions. We go with one that aligns with the evidence and has one provable assumption, which is that E went back to Africa, because we know that's true because they're there right now. Furthermore, the timing of this punitive return to Africa between the emergence of Hab group E and its differentiation within Africa by 58,000 years ago is consistent with proposals based on non-Y chromosome data, which is the mitochondrial data, of abundant gene flow between Africa and nearby regions of Asia 50 to 80,000 years ago.
And I'm just using this to again, you got to have two or three witnesses in our culture, and these are my two or three witnesses. This is from "Punctuated Bursts in Human Male Demography Inferred from 1,244 Worldwide Y Chromosome Sequences," Nature Genetics, 2016, by David P. Nick and others.
Moving on. Since a decade ago, the field of ancient DNA has flourished with unprecedented success in sequencing genome-wide data from ancient specimens, which is why now that it's coming out, it's more flush style. We can clearly see the models, understand the models. It's why we really started leaning towards now putting out this information because a lot of it, like if anyone went and seen my presentation on Global Media Inc, which is like six, seven years old, I was talking about this, but they didn't have all the DNA data out. I hadn't done the thorough research to build a model yet to go more into the DNA. I was just saying, well, the cranials and the more ancient the cranials are, the more they align with the DNA. The cranials are showing this, the cranials are pointing this out, the culture is showing this, the culture is pointing this out. And now I have the DNA to back that up. And it's because of the expansion of DNA over the recent decade. The majority of the research is focused on past humans, both modern ones with a close R relationship with one or more present-day populations, as well as archaic ones that no longer live today, such as Neanderthals. With a growing pool of genomic data from past humans from many different times and locations, it is increasingly possible to study the large-scale patterns of human prehistory and associated trends over time and space, which is what we're doing now.
A new review published in Trends in Genetics, produced by Professor Fu, I don't know how to say that, I ain't gonna butcher it, and Dr. Melinda Yang at the Molecular Paleontology Lab of the Chinese Academy of Sciences, Institute of Vertebrate Paleontology and Paleoanthropology, contextualizes much of the research to date, providing a comprehensive understanding of major features of human genomic prehistory. Their review covers the genetic patterns and relationships that have been uncovered regarding human prehistory over the last few years, focusing on ancient genetic studies of 45,000 to 7500 years ago humans from primary pre-agricultural cultures. I want, they don't really, you know, they don't go deep into basal, but again, I gotta focus on this map because if you look up here, this is 45 to 35,000 years ago. These European CF lineages, where do they have them at? Up in Europe. U1 is a European lineage, Uchima is a European lineage, this is a European lineage, all of these. But basal Eurasian is by itself in the Near East. I want everyone to see that there's no European lineages, no African lineages of A and B. It's basal Eurasian there. And as you come through time and you go to the next one, 35 to 15,000 years, look, basal Eurasian still dominate. We got European lineages already coming to the Americas, and basal Eurasian is still dominating the Near East. But what happens when you get down to 14,000 to 7.5 thousand years ago? Look at that European expansion right there from the Europeans that were initially up in Europe, then now they're expanding down to Cilicia, around Georgia, Georgia, where you gonna find J markers, G markers, and C markers migrating down. And then we, of course, we know basal Eurasian has disappeared. But we see it by the highlight of on the left side of the N, and you can see from Syria that they've actually integrated into these two populations. We know the Nans are purely Elites. They hypothesize some CT, but again, that was just a placeholder because they didn't really know what to categorize it as, but it's mainly Elites. And then when you get to some of which would be later Iranian Neolithic Iranians, we find some J markers, but we also have a lot of Elites there too.
But going into it, climatic conditions warmed after the last glacial maximum. By 14,000 years ago, more connections appear across Eurasia. Ancient Europeans show connection to present-day populations in East Asia and the Near East. Some ancient Eastern European individuals possess potential Northern Eurasian ancestry, that's European without a doubt. And individuals in the Caucasus began to show partial ancestry related to basal Eurasians, which means they're starting to relate, I mean, to mix with them. And we find this in ancient Iran. And even by the tradition of our ancestors, they say the Mes, which are descendants of Japheth, settled in Northwest Iran. And it seems to be also lining up with the genetic data, which is why it made our model just just pop like that, which made it pop off the paper to us to be like, "Now we gotta build Eurasian population, Eurasian population for which no direct examples are available, but whom separated very, who separated very early from other non-Africans, which would be the CF lineages and the D lineage, and are potentially represented in all recent Europeans and Near Easterners."
Research focused on the phenotypes associated with different genetic variants also reveals some surprising results, such as Europeans as recent as 75,000 years ago still possess dark skin. For you dark-skinned folks like Kevin G, who told us that we're not related to E1B1B because Albert Einstein is white, that's what he pretty much told him. 75,000 years ago, dark skin and blue eyes occurred as early as 14,000 years ago. Also, 75,000-year-old European ancestry with dark skin in Spain also possesses blue eyes, a combination not observed today because we don't really see people due to Roman expansion and wiping folks out. And this is from "How Ancient Genomics Unveils the Prehistory of Human," Bulletin of the Chinese Academy of Sciences, Volume 32, Issue 2018. Up to date, baby. We ain't using this outdated stuff.
This indicates that the Holocene 11 populations overlapping with the post-dating the Taral samples by up to 6,000 years are most closely related to Taral among the Near Eastern populations. Next, we tested if the Tural individuals, and again, I'm saying the sources afterwards, I don't want nobody to get confused and think this right here is coming from "How the Genome Unveils the Prehistory." No, I'll say this source after. Among Near Pop. Next, we test the Tural individuals have sub-Saharan African ancestry. And this, and this right here, I'll give away the article now, is the links between the Near East and sub-Saharan. Which they are found in this top sample. We observe significant positive values for all sub-Saharan African and significant negative values for all Eurasian populations, supporting a substantial contribution from sub-Saharan Africa. West Africans such as Mind and Yuba, most strongly pulled out the sub-Saharan African ancestry in the Tural. All but I want to, which this article is going to go into it and others, but I want to focus in on this right here. You have the Middle Easterns over here, but you have West Africans over here. But the Tural is in the middle, which puts it, makes it look like it should be in a basal position to. And we know the Near Easterns are E1B1B, and the West Africans are E1B1A, which to me leaves only EP2 to be put there as basal to both and be the link between West Africa and the Near East. And it just makes sense because it's the parents of both.
The results from the principal component analysis that are based on African populations to construct the principal component components show that the Taral individuals do not cluster with any present-day population. Instead, they take an intermediate position, like I said, between present-day North Africans and sub-Saharan Africans. Specifically, they are flanked by North African Mosambi and Sahar, Sahari, man, I push it there, and by East African Afar on the Near East and sub-Saharan African direction respectively. The East African groups Afar, Omro, and Somali, as well as a 3,000-year-old individual from Tanzania, are the closest to Taral from the sub-Saharan African side. And I want to point out the East African branch of E1B1A is a lot more ancient than the West African branch, which would probably explain why it's the most closely related to it out of the sub-Saharan African. For these East African groups, which together with Tural, take intermediate positions between sub-Saharan Africans and Western Eurasians. So they take that intermediate position as well. Genetic links with the Near East have been proposed. These links include an introduction of early Neolithic Levant-like ancestry associated with the spread of pastoralism into East Africa 4,000 years ago and South Africa 2,000 years ago. A more recent link is the spread of Bronze Age 11-like ancestry in sub-Saharan Africa together with agriculture during the Bond 2 expansion.
Hey, you might going to have to give me a bomb on this one. I want to hear, I want to hear something explode because they always talking to us about, "Oh, there's no 11 ancestry in sub-Saharan Africa." But hold up, they saying it right here. A more recent link is the spread of Bronze Age 11-like ancestry in sub-Saharan Africa together with agriculture during the Bond 2 expansion. Bro, Bronze Age Levant gene pool has been proposed to be a mixture of the Neolithic Levant with individuals related to Caucasus hunters and gathers and early Neolithic farmers from Iran, again, the basal Eurasians I was just telling y'all about, and from Anatolia. They had mixed with all these populations to obtain an alternative summary of the Taral gene pool. We also conducted an unsupervised genetic clustering of global populations, admixture version 13.1.3.0. We removed duplicate individuals and individuals with a genotype missing rate greater than 95% using PLINK version 1.9. We also performed a lineage disequilibrium based SNP pruning using the independent pairwise 22.2 option in PLINK, which is something I ain't gonna act like I understand, I just know they did it though, leaving 3,080 individuals and 2,361 SNPs to be analyzed. We reduced 354 diploid and haploid calls by randomly sampling one allele to reduce the impact of artificial genetic drift in haploid and haploid ancient individuals on our clustering results. We ran five replicates, different random seeds for each K values ranging from two to 15, and took the replicate with the highest law. Based on our results, we hypothesize that the ancient Taral individuals have a strong genetic affinity both with early Holocene Near Eastern and present-day sub-Saharan Africans. Also, the sub-Saharan African ancestry in the Taral individuals may have links with multiple sub-Saharan African lineages, which is almost all of them, that's E1B1A. Therefore, we conclude that the early Holocene populations who postdate our Taral individuals by up to 6,000 years are most closely related to Taral among Eurasian populations in our data set. We also calibrated to explore the affinity of Taral with African populations. Uima is the upper Paleolithic Siberian individual dated to 45,000 years ago before present. Date East Asians in this case, North African populations such as the Sahari and the Moos show the highest frequency of a frequency with the Taral, suggesting similarity in their genetic profiles. This matches well with their close positions in the principal component analysis plot. 11. Following this, West African populations show a high show outgroup values. We found strong evidence suggesting the sub-Saharan affinity in the Taral by comparing this outgroup with that of the Natufians, while Eurasian populations tightly fall on one line. All African populations clearly deviate from this line. This suggests that sub-Saharans, most notably West African, share ancestry with Taral beyond what could be explained by their Neanderthal-like ancestry. So it got to be something more ancient than that. And they gonna go into it.
Next, we formally test if the Taral individuals have sub-Saharan African ancestry by calculating. As expected, we observe significant positive values for all sub-Saharans and significant negative values for all Eurasian populations. A reduced level of Neanderthal ancestry cannot be the sole explanation for that because we find. Oh, and I want to point this out. The F7, this is just a sample group. And I had someone on Clubhouse ask me, "How can I trust ancient DNA when they use things like chimpanzees in their studies?" What this is called is is an outgroup. It is a group that nothing is supposed to be able to tie back to. So you use that in there as a control. Because if your test is still tying back to a chimpanzee, something's wrong. So this is used to tell you something's wrong. All right, so I just want to educate people on that because if that's what's holding you back from studying DNA, I want to make that clear. We find that it is not significant and positive. Our results clearly support a dual ancestry for our Taral individuals, theoretically related to both early Holocene Near Eastern and present-day sub-Saharan Africans. So the Taral out is the link. So anybody who's trying to take us away from that is tripping. And I think it was the day before yesterday, I was listening to the conversation. Justu, you can correct me if I'm wrong, between y'all and Lon, and Lon was talking about the Ibero-Maurusian. Right? Yes. He brought up the Ibero-Maurusian to his own detriment. Exactly. Because the Tofol samples are from the Ibero-Maurusian, right? Yep. And they are partially sub-Saharan African, and they were across all of North Africa. In the correct. So he checkmated himself. I just wanted to point that out.
Among all the possible no4 admixture, the two-way admixture models on this scuff graph, the best model for the Taral is the mixture of Natufian and Yuba with a 30% contribution from a Yuba-related branch, consistent with the results. The best graph still deviates from the observed data in some statistics, but the outlier statistics do not suggest an unexplained extra affinity between Taral and Western Hunter-Gatherers because, you know, they also always trying to throw these Indo-Europeans in there somewhere because they was trying to swear that the Tarals had to be Indo-European because they was trying to take behalf some Indo-Europeans so they can take credit for civilization or the progression of civilization to Africa, but they ain't got it. Likewise, adding additional gene flow from a relative Western Hunter-Galla to a related branch into Taral results is no increase in the model fit with zero contribution estimated. So Indo-Europeans ain't got nothing to do with the Taral. It is surprising that we observe a high proportion. We went over this already. I'm really hammered on, but I'm gonna read the last sentence. Well, I, this, I'll go start with the second sentence in the thing. Also, a periodic expansion of the Sahara Desert played a role in limiting gene flow between North Africa and sub-Saharan Africa throughout time. For example, a previous study of ancient Egyptian genome shows the genetic affinity with Near Eastern is even greater in the first millennium BC in Egypt. Importantly, our Taral individuals predate the most recent greening of the Sahara by several thousand millennia. Thus, we may speculate that the sub-Saharan African ancestors in Taral divide from a gene pool of pre-last glacial maximum Africans.
All right, remember we were talking about the split of DE? That's right before the last glacial maximum, or right around that time period when it's or during it. So who belong to the Middle Stone Age cultures? Therefore, we conclude that none of the South, Central, and East African groups is a sister group of the sub-Saharan African ancestors in the Taral route, given that our Taral individual outdate even the most ancient Holocene African individual, which is multi by by over 10,000 years. This result is not surprising. Long-term gene flow between the various sub-Saharan African groups during the Holocene period is very likely to have generated a pattern that is not easily modeled as as a rather simple admixture graph. So they're saying it might be a little bit more complicated than that.
Finally, we conclude any ancestry more basal than the deepest known modern human ancestry represented by the South African and present-day Koisan speakers in South Africa as an additional source for the Taral gene. Because remember, they talk, I spoken about it, I don't know if I brought out in the presentation, but I spoke about it numerous times. They talk about a quote-unquote basal West African that gave rise to sub-Saharan Africans, and that's who they're actually speaking of in this right here article. Such a basal ancestry will generate negative affinity with the South African ancestry, not the positive one we observe in our statistics, because such a deep ancestry is an outgroup to both South African and any mixture of Ruba and Neanderthals. Thus, will have a negative value. Examples of such a deep ancestry includes any unknown archaic hominin or a hypothetical deep. This is it right here. Hypothetical deep West African branch suggested by Scin to explain the asymmetrical relationship between Eurasian populations to Yuba and the M. See, they're saying there's an asymmetrical relationship to the two of us. So we're linked. So all y'all got to let that go. Y'all got to quit trying to hide the connection between the Near East and sub-Saharan Africa, which goes back to before we was even in sub-Saharan Africa. Therefore, these hypothetical ancestry, even if they existed, cannot be used to fully categorize the Taral gene flow, which again, I'm pushing for EP2.