>>17620377(cont here)
and with this
"These results raise the question of whether Takarkori’s ancestors are closely related to OoA groups but remained in Africa"
keyword: (REMAINED) in africa suggesting a genetic link to ooa but eventual geographic and genetic divergence.
In combination with "Conversely, none of the ancient or modern groups tested showed a significantly negative signal, indicating no detected closer affinity with Takarkori than Taforalt. Notably, both ancient and modern sub-Saharan groups, who are mostly unadmixed with Eurasian groups, yielded no significant value (|Z| < 3), suggesting that these groups are equally distant from both the Takarkori and Taforalt groups"
somehow Takarkori isnt any more related to SSA compared to Taforalt despite taforalt having masssive amounts of regular Eurasian and takarkori, this does not make any sense unless takarkori is unrelated to these SSA groups
and to repeat
"“Analysis reveal that ancestry of the Takarkori rock shelter individuals primarily derives from a North African lineage that diverged from sub- Saharan Africa populations at about the same time as the modern human lineages that spread outside of Africa around 50,000 years ago”
""The genomes do not carry sub-Saharan African ancestry, suggesting that, contrary to previous interpretations, the Green Sahara was not a migration corridor between Northern and Sub-Saharan Africa."
all of this combined concludes that ANA was a unrelated ssa and just a mere early split from what would end up as OOA
>it's an africanyes a unique north african distantly related to ooa, not related to sub-saharan tho and the study specifies it has no genetic relation between this unique north african group and ssa yet implies a relation to ooa, why?
its over for you, you have been btfod i win you lose