• Human bottleneck

    From RonO@21:1/5 to All on Fri Sep 1 18:34:56 2023
    https://www.science.org/doi/full/10.1126/science.adj9484

    https://www.science.org/doi/full/10.1126/science.abq7487

    The early genomic interpretation of the first large batch of human
    genomes (The data set was short on African genomes) came up with the
    inference that there was a population bottleneck around 100,000 years
    ago, but later estimates claimed that the bottleneck was much further
    back in time than that. The current group of researchers created a data
    set of genes that they believed had a low probability of having been
    under selection for the last couple million years. They claim that they
    can place the population bottleneck that may have nearly been our
    extinction back to 900,000 years ago. They estimate that there were
    only 1,280 breeding individuals that left descendants from that time
    period between 930,000 and 813,000 years ago. They claim that the
    reduced population size extended over a 117,000 year period.

    They look for reasons why the population might crash. The 100,000 year
    cycle for ice ages started at this time and messed up what had been
    going on for over a million years.

    What they do not consider is a speciation event. A speciation event
    would look like a population crash if only a small portion of the
    existing population participated in the speciation event. What is
    amazing is that the latest estimate for when the chromosome 2 fusion
    event occurred (around 900,000 years ago) coincides with when the
    bottleneck started, and the fusion was present in the population of Homo
    that existed when the Neanderthals and Denisovans left Africa and took
    the chromosome 2 fusion with them around 800,000 years ago. It looks
    like there was a speciation event that took a while to get going and by
    800,000 years ago the population of the new species had increased enough
    for the Neanderthal migration out of Africa. The Neanderthal genomes
    indicate that they too suffered a population bottleneck at some point,
    and it could be the same bottleneck.

    We do not know what phenotypic change, if any, is associated with the chromosome fusion, but there may have been a noticeable phenotypic
    difference of those that carried the fusion. The fused ends of the
    chromosome stopped recombining as much as if they were at the ends of
    the chromosome, and the haplotypes of the fusion would be set in place.
    So the future generations inheriting the fusion would inherit that
    particular gene variant order instead of having it scrambled during meiosis.

    With the loss of one of the centromeres on the fused chromosome there
    would be missegregation of one of the chromosomes involved in the fusion
    among hybrids. This might have limited the gene flow into the
    population with the fusion. There might have been a period of time
    where gene flow into the fusion population kept it small and caused
    reduced fitness until the population was able to produce a large enough
    number of fusion homozygotes to grow on it's own and was able to select
    against hybrids and fend off further introgression. Eventually the new
    species took over Africa.

    Ron Okimoto

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From JTEM is my hero@21:1/5 to RonO on Sat Sep 2 04:29:57 2023
    RonO wrote:

    The early genomic interpretation of the first large batch of human
    genomes (The data set was short on African genomes) came up with the inference that there was a population bottleneck around 100,000 years
    ago, but later estimates claimed that the bottleneck was much further
    back in time than that.

    Toba was like, what? Maybe 74,000 years ago? It had to be a bottleneck.

    The last time Yellowstone detonated it was like 50 Krakatoa eruptions
    happening all at once. The Toba eruption was roughly 2.8x Yellowstones.

    It was a bottleneck.

    I've argued for many years how molecular dating, when it isn't just
    plain wrong, exaggerates age.

    They claim that they
    can place the population bottleneck that may have nearly been our
    extinction back to 900,000 years ago.

    There was a very large asteroid strike about 800k years ago, many
    sources claim multiple hits in the 800,000ish period.

    Asteroids can be worse than volcanoes as all their energy is released
    at once, while volcanoes erupt over hours, days, weeks and could be
    months.

    I know, I know, you don't get a steady, even eruption over a period of
    weeks. Krakatoa erupted for like 5 months, Wiki claiming it peaked
    in month-3.

    If there's a large impact it's pretty much over with as soon as
    whatever got kicked up lands. The fires may still be burning but all
    the energy it's going to release has already been released...

    I also recall some claims that some genetics that may have been
    useful for cannibalism plots to this time. Not my area of interest,
    and the searching the Google archive is a joke at this point (Google
    ruins everything, it seems) but do with it as you may...

    What they do not consider is a speciation event. A speciation event
    would look like a population crash if only a small portion of the
    existing population participated in the speciation event.

    Actually, it would look like the Retrovirus evidence.

    I've argued that it doesn't mean that our ancestral species wasn't in
    Africa. It just means that the African POPULATION either died out
    or was genetically swamped -- absorbed by either the Pan side of
    the family tree or the Eurasian population.

    The problem here is that the test can't actually tell you what they
    are pretending it says.

    They're not sampling 900,000 year old DNA, so there is no
    comparison what so ever. It literally is speculation.

    They are looking at TODAYS genetics and pretending that tells
    us what the DNA looked like 900,000 years ago.. an assumption
    that has been falsified time and time again.

    Like the Chromosome 11 insert. It's pretty common even in
    Europe, but nobody has identified the population that it stems
    from. And nobody would have any clue that this population
    ever existed if it weren't for this insert...

    Fact is, you can't even go back to the early Holocene and find
    a matching population in Europe today. It looks like a
    replacement happened about 4.5k years ago...

    https://www.nationalgeographic.com/history/article/130423-european-genetic-history-dna-archaeology-science

    But most seem to believe that it was more like what happened
    with Neanderthals earlier: The new arrivals out bred and
    genetically swamped the old guard.

    Coastal -- Aquatic -- populations could support a higher
    population density than inland hunter-gatherers, while an
    agricultural society could support a higher population
    density than could the coastal groups...

    DNA is an either/or game. A baby gets its DNA from THIS
    man or THAT man, but never both.

    What is
    amazing is that the latest estimate for when the chromosome 2 fusion
    event occurred (around 900,000 years ago) coincides with when the
    bottleneck started

    As the term "Latest estimates" implies, that figure is (very) subject
    to change.

    and the fusion was present in the population of Homo
    that existed when the Neanderthals and Denisovans left Africa and took
    the chromosome 2 fusion with them around 800,000 years ago.

    The asteroid impact of around 800k years ago was probably similar to
    Toba in that it favored Africa.

    The impact was exactly in the wrong place for "Out of Asia," and of
    course the northern hemisphere would've suffered the prolonged
    consequences... likely something similar to a Younger Dryas cooling
    event.

    The fact is, the current claim is that a VEI8 volcano erupts on an
    average of about once every 50k years. There's literally no shortage
    of potential bottlenecks. It's really about how big we're talking about,
    and what we can align them with.

    Also: Such events favored coastal groups, aquatic ape. The ocean
    moderates temperature and the sea is a fairly dependable source
    for food... compared to hunter gathering during a global volcanic
    winter.

    Outside of NOAA, a government agency, nobody buys into the
    "Ice Dam" claim for touching off the Younger Dryas cooling. What
    evidence there is seems to falsify it, and the premise is just plain
    stupid as the end of every glacial period should have resulted in
    the same type of event. Even the end of the Younger Dryas should
    have touched off another one!

    No, do the Google on "Bolide Forcing" and "Younger Dryas." Next
    on the list, though not as popular, is a large volcano...





    -- --

    https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/726388970389389312

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)