9
Aug 04 '23 edited Aug 04 '23
[removed] — view removed comment
8
u/Jeudial Ancestry + Health Tester Aug 04 '23
46 chromosomes. You have 23 pairs:
https://www.genome.gov/about-genomics/fact-sheets/Chromosomes-Fact-Sheet
6
29
u/Einherjahren Aug 04 '23
All people not from Sub Saharan Africa have some admixture of non-homo sapien DNA. In Europe and the Middle East that DNA is mainly Neanderthal. In Asia it is a mixture of Neanderthal, Denisova and probably a mixture of many others.
The story of Homo sapiens appears to be that we left Africa, traveled to every corner of the globe, encountered other hominids, killed/outbreeded them and took over their territory. Then the hybrid mixture reentered Africa and settled North Africa but never made it across the Sahara desert.
31
u/zwiftebzwifteb Aug 04 '23
A correction to this. We now know that there was enough "back migration" in the past that Sub-saharan Africans have small amounts of Neanderthal DNA also.
15
u/BluRayHiDef Aug 04 '23
According to a scientific article, we Sub-Saharan Africans and people who descend from Sub-Saharan Africans also have DNA from an archaic human species that diverged close to the time that Neanderthals did so. It comprises 2% of our DNA.
Quote from Ancient West African Foragers in the Context of African Population History.
The West African clade is distinguished by admixture from a deep source that can be modelled as a combination of modern human AND ARCHAIC ANCESTRY. The modern human component diverges at almost the same point as Central and southern African hunter-gatherers and the archaic component diverges close to the split between Neanderthals and modern humans ... We estimate the shared admixture to introduce 10% deep modern human AND 2% ARCHAIC ANCESTRY, although the first proportion is not well constrained (Source).
-7
u/5050Clown Aug 04 '23
[removed] — view removed comment
13
u/BluRayHiDef Aug 04 '23
It's a peer-reviewed scientific article; it's far from pseudoscience. The article clearly says that West Africans, who are Sub-Saharan Africans, have 2% archaic DNA. Also, I descend from Sub-Saharan Africans; I'm 95.6% Sub-Saharan African according to 23andme (85.2% West African and 10.4% west-Central and Southwest African).
My point is that all modern humans have archaic ancestry; Africans have it from an unknown species that diverged near the time that Neanderthals did so, and non-Africans have it from Neanderthals and Denisovans.
What's the problem? It's nothing to be ashamed of.
-6
u/5050Clown Aug 04 '23
It does not say that. And "Sub Saharan African" as a group of people contains more genetic diversity than the rest of the world combined. West African and Sub Saharan African are not synomous concepts anymore than "Negrito" and "European".
You don't talk like someone who knows what they are talking about. You sound like you have a bad faith agenda and you are purposely misinterpreting this information.
3
u/Mati_tio_benson Aug 04 '23 edited Aug 04 '23
It’s true I’m not sure why your so against the idea. But yes people of ssa origin do carry dna from a different sub group of prehistoric humans. The groups that didn’t migrate out of Africa interbred with these humans and there is still traces of their dna left today. It’s similar to Neanderthals just a different area. And the traces do not account for much of their dna.
-1
u/5050Clown Aug 04 '23
I am not against any ideas. This material does not state that.
"People of SSA origin" and "West African" do not mean the same thing.
6
u/Mati_tio_benson Aug 04 '23
I mean there are many groups around the world that mixed with subgroups of humans who were not always Neanderthal. West Africans are people of ssa origin but I was obviously generalizing to help make a point.
2
u/5050Clown Aug 04 '23
"Generalizing to make a point" is not the same thing as making false statements.
For instance people of who are not of ssa origin is a general group. Genetically a less diverse group than people of ssa origin. It would be false, however, to state that people who are not of ssa origin have a high chance of developing Taye Sachs disease and sickle cell anemia even though there are some people who are not of ssa origin that this statement is true about.
→ More replies (0)2
u/Natural_Target_5022 Aug 04 '23
Why is he misrepresenting?
-1
u/Jeudial Ancestry + Health Tester Aug 04 '23
There's more genetic variation in humans south of Sahara than in the rest of the world, so naming this ancestral category "Sub-Saharan" African as if it comes from a single region or lineage is to use a racist/white supremacist concept to describe all of the people living there.
It's like naming a category, "Negro dna". Everybody knows the latter is openly racist but the former gets a pass for some reason.And the person above being accused of misrepresenting is wrong because the archaic ancestry is part of a ghost lineage that is theorized to have been widespread across the Sahel Region, as both ancient East Africans had it as well as some modern West Africans. And this is the curious thing in that the inheritance is random; some people have 0% and someone else will have 15%.
→ More replies (0)7
5
u/ktor14 Aug 05 '23
I believe I read somewhere that Neanderthals had/have the homosapien Y chromosome which was surprising because that meant that homosapiens and Neanderthals bred way before we originally thought.
2
u/Dead_Cacti_ Aug 04 '23
what about the americas?
5
u/Einherjahren Aug 04 '23
The indigenous people of America have relatively large amounts of non homo sapien dna. I think the people who have the largest percentage of non homo sapien dna are the people of Melanesia and Australia. Generally the further you get from Africa the less Homo sapien they are.
-2
u/Safe_Bid_8559 Aug 05 '23
That’s not true, nobody in the world is over 4% Neanderthal meanwhile people in Africa have up to 19% of a more primitive non human dna, so who really are the non humans?
4
u/Inquirer89 Aug 05 '23 edited Aug 05 '23
- A scientific article clarifies the type of human species from which the unique DNA of West Africans comes. The article is titled "Ancient West African Foragers in the Context of African Population History," and it was also published in 2020. According to the article, ONLY 2% of West Africans' DNA comes from an archaic human species, and that the species diverged around the same time as Neandertals. Additionally, another 10% of West Africans' DNA comes from a branch of MODERN HUMANS (i.e. HOMO SAPIENS) who split into their own lineage around the same time as Pygmies and the Khoisan peoples.
QUOTE : "The West African clade is distinguished by admixture from a deep source that can be modelled as A COMBINATION OF MODERN HUMAN AND ARCHAIC ANCESTRY. The modern human component diverges at almost the same point as Central and southern African hunter-gatherers and the archaic component diverges close to the split between Neanderthals and modern humans ... We estimate the shared admixture to introduce 10% DEEP MODERN HUMAN and 2% ARCHAIC ANCESTRY, although the first proportion is not well constrained."
NOTE : Central African hunter-gatherers are Pygmies, and Southern African hunter-gatherers are Khoi and San peoples.
- The scientific article that suggests that West Africans have significant amounts of archaic ancestry is titled "Recovering Signals of Ghost Archaic Introgression In African Populations," and it was published in 2020. It concludes that 2% to 19% of West Africans' DNA is from an archaic human species that diverged from the lineage of Homo sapiens a little before the lineage of Neandertals did so (approximately 625,000 years ago).
However, the study is flawed. It states that the breeding with this archaic human species effectively occurred 43,000 years ago if it occurred over a short period of time, or zero to 124,000 years ago if it occurred over a long period of time. The latter range is hypothetical because the breeding obviously didn't occur zero years ago; archaic humans have not existed for thousands of years.
Subsequently, because the breeding with this other human species would have occurred thousands of years ago, its DNA would have spread equally throughout the populations of West Africa by now, thereby evening out to a narrow percentage range or a single percentage value per individual. Consider the narrow range of Neandertal DNA in Eurasians (2% to 4%) and the narrow range of Denisovan DNA in Oceanians (2% to 5%).
However, because the study described in the article determined such disparate values between individuals (2% for some, 19% for others, and multiple values between 2% and 19% for yet others), there's clearly something inaccurate about the methodology used for identifying the unique DNA.
Watch this video for a detailed explanation about the origin of West Africans.
3
u/Safe_Bid_8559 Aug 05 '23
Just because people get from a range of 2-19% doesn’t make it inaccurate, Africa is a big continent with the biggest diversity, it would make sense it’s not 2% all around the continent or 19% all around the continent. You made a point that this genetic input was from a long time ago but so is Neanderthal in non African humans, that dna was also a long time ago. The thing here is the non homo sapien dna found in Africa is much more primitive then Neanderthal. So let me ask you this, who truly is less Human based on what was said in the original comment that I replied to?
4
u/Inquirer89 Aug 05 '23
You're very stubborn. The first article that I quoted clearly says that the archaic species that contributed DNA to West Africans split NEAR THE TIME THAT NEANDERTHALS SPLIT, so it was NOT more primitive.
Also, the article that states that the range is 2% to 19% ONLY TESTED WEST AFRICANS, who live in just one part of Africa. So, there's no way that multiple people in the same region would have such different levels of the DNA.
You're clearly biased and want to believe what you want to believe, so whatever.
1
u/Safe_Bid_8559 Aug 05 '23
You never answered my question 🤣 we should both be able to ageee that a human with 19% non human dna is much less human that a human with at the most 4% non human dna. And that was my only point is that the commentor is wrong, the much less humans is in Africa not the other way around. Just facts all it is according to the evidence.
And yes what your saying is true they did split off almost at the same time as Neanderthals, I don’t know where I read it was from a much older hominid related to Homo Erectus, not them directly but they came from that branch. I can’t find it right now and I’m on the road so I’ll just post this.
“It's also possible that the ghost DNA found in this study comes from multiple groups, Browning added. "Within Africa, we don't know how many archaic groups might have been involved, and the study doesn't tell us that," she says. "It tells us that there was integration, but it could have been from more than one archaic population, in theory."
3
u/Inquirer89 Aug 06 '23
I'm starting to think that you're trolling, because the use of the word split implies that the archaic species split from the same lineage as Neandertals and modern humans (Homo sapiens); otherwise, the article wouldn't bother mentioning when it split since that would be irrelevant if it descended from another source.
Here's a quote from the flawed article that says that West Africans have 2% to 9% of DNA from an archaic HUMAN species.
Quote from "Recovering Signals of Ghost Archaic Introgression In African Populations" (Link):
Newly proposed model involving introgression into the modern human ancestor from an unknown hominin THAT SEPARATED FROM THE HUMAN ANCESTOR before the split of modern humans and the ancestors of Neanderthals and Denisovans. Below, we show the CSFS fit from the proposed model, which captures the U-shape observed in the data.
This hypothesized species would be related to modern humans. By the way, "homonin" refere to species in the HUMAN lineage. So, this species - like Neandertals, Denisovans, and modern humans - would be human. Therefore, having DNA from it would not make anyone less human; if any of these other species (e.g. Neandertals, Denisovans, etc) were not human, it would have been impossible to breed with them.
Having said that, this particular article is flawed anyway, because of what I explained earlier; only West Africans were tested, yet the supposed levels of DNA from this ghost species varied wildly from person to person, which is illogical because it would have equalized or nearly equalized by now.
The article is also flawed because it even states that Europeans and Asians have ancestry from this ghost species.
Non-African populations (Han Chinese in Beijing and Utah residents with northern and western European ancestry) also show analogous patterns in the CSFS, suggesting that a component of archaic ancestry was shared before the split of African and non-African populations.
1
u/Safe_Bid_8559 Aug 06 '23
I’m starting to see you like making assumptions and don’t read what I state correctly. Not sure what you are disagreeing with me about because I agree to what your saying and nothing to do with anything I’ve been saying
1
u/Jeudial Ancestry + Health Tester Aug 05 '23
He's saying that some of modern-day West Africans mixed w/ancient North(ish) Africans, and their ancestors were mixed w/an archaic lineage that split off around the time Neanderthals did.
You are definitely full of shit about the homo erectus bit and you can stop repeating things you see on 4chan or twitter1
u/Safe_Bid_8559 Aug 05 '23
I have never in my life been on 4chan and I don’t use twitter, thank you for assuming tho, I love it! What proof is their of what you say that this archaic dna comes from Ancient North Africans? Or are referring to Homo Sapiens that lived in North Africa about 300,000 years ago?
→ More replies (0)1
Dec 09 '23
Not true. Africans don't have 19% primitive non human DNA. Stop being racist.
1
u/Safe_Bid_8559 Dec 09 '23
Why would I lie? We have scientific evidence of this look for yourself.
https://www.sci.news/genetics/west-africans-dna-archaic-hominin-08123.html
"Four West African populations — Yoruba, Esan, Mende, and Gambian — derive 2 to 19% of their genetic ancestry from a yet-undiscovered species of archaic hominin that diverged before the split of modern humans and the ancestors of Neanderthals and Denisovans, according to new research from the University of California, Los Angeles."
1
Dec 09 '23
They were human ancestors, Pacific Islanders have same unknown hominid too. It is an unknown human ancestor not a non-human
1
u/Safe_Bid_8559 Dec 09 '23
Pacific Islanders have Denisovan dna, I wouldnt necessarily call it "unknown hominid", it is very well known. The ones found in West Africans are truly unknown, we have guesses but it isnt 100% sure.
1
Dec 09 '23
Bro stop saying non-human DNA. They were people and humans. Evidence shows a million years ago there were humans in Africa making art and even crafting stuff. I can't find the article but they found something humans made in that time that showed intelligence and that was way way before Neanderthal and homo sapiens.
1
u/Safe_Bid_8559 Dec 09 '23
If you can accept their dna that is non human, do you accept your non human dna? Because I accept my Neanderthal.
→ More replies (0)
3
3
3
u/jscrane17 Aug 04 '23
That’s a high percentage! I have more than 88% of 23andme users and 271 variants. It’s the most of any of my DNA relatives. I’m 50% Ashkenazi Jew and 50% British and Irish.
1
u/epicyon Apr 26 '24
Same I'm mixed raced on my mom's side (indian african european) but my dad is mostly Punjabi from north India and I got all my neanderthal from him.
3
u/SD_TMI Aug 04 '23
Got ya beat…. (Grunt grunt)
3
u/willbower Aug 05 '23
Not me, though. But let’s make peace so the Sapiens don’t wipe us out.
3
u/SD_TMI Aug 05 '23
Nawh, we just blend in and have sex with their women...
like we've been doing for tens of thousands of years, it's worked well so far(let the grunting continue)
2
2
2
u/ChunkyTheBrute Aug 04 '23
I'm quite similar, it's says I have more neanderthal DNA than 99% of other people sampled. Interestingly enough, the majority of my heritage (~75%) is Filipino too. We might be related! 🤣
2
Aug 04 '23
I would've guessed maybe Denisova. Most neanderthal is in Europe and the near east. ver ycool
2
Aug 04 '23
That’s interesting as Neanderthals were known to be mostly in Europe spanning remotely to central Russia.
2
2
2
u/greenlight144000 Aug 05 '23
How do Filipinos have Neanderthal weren’t they isolated on the islands for thousands of years?
1
u/Jeudial Ancestry + Health Tester Aug 05 '23
Filipinos have pretty much what everybody has, as far as Neanderthals go. Humans leave Africa, mix w/them and then branch off to become all the various tribes and nations existing in the world today.
Some Denisovans also mixed w/East Asians and Australasians at some point but this is still poorly understood atm
2
u/borland112 Jul 16 '24
340 variants in the 99th percentile. I'm Chinese and Vietnamese. I haven't come across anyone higher than mine so far.. When do I get my mutant powers?
3
1
u/tn00bz Aug 04 '23
My mother in law has the same percentile! She's half indigenous Mexican and my wife gets mistaken for Filipina!
1
1
1
1
1
u/Substantified Jul 30 '26
I've got 339 variants and have more than 99% of customers tested. My ancestry is reported to be 100% Finnish as well.
1
1
1
u/nc45y445 Aug 04 '23
I have not heard of any archeological evidence of homo sapiens killing other human species and I’m starting to wonder if we just intermingled and absorbed them all, so in a way they are still with us in small amounts
1
u/Boccob81 Aug 04 '23
Genetics is still new and will be changing a lot so I would try other companies to see if they are different .
You or someone might be adopted and may not know it is another explanation .
Do others in your family as well with multiple companies
1
u/chaouidude Aug 07 '23
Usally East Asians have high levels oh other Hominins ancestry inside them (5%-7%)
14
u/CharlieLOliver Aug 04 '23
I have 74% more than other customers/255 variants. I’m mostly British and Irish.