Posts
I already commented on the HUGO paper (paywall, but full PDF here) before as a "working note". Recent discussion at another blog has got me working again on it.
I ended up with this map reflecting as well as possible the geographical distribution of the various components:
Names (arbitrary but descriptive) are my creation, as are the arrows illustrating possible gene flows. Question marks indicate where there's lack of data. Continuous lines indicate "pure" areas, dotted lines indicate greater or thinner presence of each component.
I suspect that the blue component represents the Neolithic stock, spreading first autonomously and then also (but more limitedly) in admixture with other components. If so, the other major components may have receded before it or may have just absorbed each other in mutual interactions.
Observations
The expansion of the Peninsular component to Indonesia did not carry the Neolithic component. So either is pre-Neolithic of was made by non-mixed Austroasiatic peoples after getting the "neolithic package" from further north without getting the genes.
The expansion of the Neolithic component to sub-Hymalayan South Asia did not carry other Eastern components, so it happened before or, in any case, in a separate way to admixture with other East Asian groups.
The South Maritime (Austronesian) expansion happened also independently from any genetic input, other than admixture with native Austronesians and Melanesians (West and East of Wallace Line respectively)
North and South Maritime populations did not interact, not even in the mainland, excepting Han expansion. This is quite curious and might explain the physiognomic differences between northern and southern "Mongoloids" much better than old hypothesis of admixture with Negritos/Melanesians.
Several distinct aboriginal groups seem to have receded before Austroasiatic and Austronesian expansion without significantly penetrating the settlers' genetic pools. These are mostly Negritos (Malay and Filipino) but also the Proto-Malay and the Mentawai. The Hmong, even if a larger ethnicity, can be argued to have suffered a similar destiny, absorbing a lot of Neolithic component and impacting other groups only minimally. In this they are similar to Austroasiatics, though in ISEA, the overlaying component is Austronesian, not Continental (and they have been absorbed linguistically).
Reconstructing the past
A plausible reconstruction of pre-Neolithic/Early Neolithic distribution could be this map:
Colors as above. I ignored the Mlabri and Proto-Malay. Please don't be too nit-picky with the necessary/convenient simplifications, thanks.I understand that some quite reasonable ethnic interpretations can be made:
Sino-Tibetan: Neolithic Blue with various mixtures. Northern Neolithic may soon have evolved into a Blue-Yellow mix speaking proto-Sinitic.
Tai-Kadai (Kradai): Neolithic Blue with South Maritime Green (Southern Neolithic genesis).
Austroasiatic: Red, often with Neolithic Blue. Must have existed in Sundaland prior to Austronesian expansion and prior or simultaneous to Neolithic (Blue) expansion. Did they arrive there as Neolithic settlers, Epipaleolithic maybe, or were there "all the time"?
Austronesian: Bright Green, often in admixture. Must be original from the Taiwan-Philippines-SE China area.
Hmong-Mien: Along with their ethnic component (Light Blue), they display Neolithic Blue with minor Bright Green, suggesting that they adopted Neolithic before Tai-Kadai genesis. They have absorbed some Tai-Kadai blood but their genesis seems older than that (peripheral South Neolithic genesis).
Melanesian, Filipino Negrito and Malaysian Negrito are three different stocks.
32 comments:
"Please don't be too nit-picky with the necessary/convenient simplifications, thanks".
That looks quite good Maju. I especially like the way you now have groups moving down from the north. I suggest that you may be able to work out the associated Y-haps with some of the movements. Just a few 'nit-picky' comments:
"North and South Maritime populations did not interact, not even in the mainland, excepting Han expansion".
Especially not in the mainland. However Y-hap O2 does seem common to both Japan and SE Asia. It does move inland a little in both regions, but that could be relatively recent.
"The expansion of the Neolithic component to sub-Hymalayan South Asia did not carry other Eastern components, so it happened before or, in any case, in a separate way to admixture with other East Asian groups".
I'm not so sure. Y-hap Os are found in India and could be associated with movement from East Asia into South Asia.
"The South Maritime (Austronesian) expansion happened also independently from any genetic input, other than admixture with native Austronesians and Melanesians (West and East of Wallace Line respectively)"
I agree, although Argiedude seems to have a problem with that conclusion. And I'm not altogether happy calling them 'Austronesians' before the Austronesians had actually formed. I'm not sure what we could call them. And 'Papuans' would be my choice instead of 'Melanesians'.
Y-DNA has nothing to do. It should represent in most cases older flows. That's a limitation of autosomal DNA, which tends to reproduce the Neolithic or Epipaleolithic clusters in continental studies (at least that's what I've seen so far and makes sense, because homogenization should be more intense when populations were low, i.e. in the Paleolithic).
Haploid genetics should rather reflect older flows, S->N in the case you mention probably.
"And I'm not altogether happy calling them 'Austronesians' before the Austronesians had actually formed".
I imagine they spoke Austronesian or proto-Austronesian and are the ancestral core of all Austronesian peoples today. So Austronesian is fine.
"And 'Papuans' would be my choice instead of 'Melanesians'".
I can't say that because the HUGO paper does not sample a single Papuan group, just an Austronesian-speaking insular Melanesian group, which have no participation of the Austronesian component, btw. I included Papuans (with "?") based on the other study but I'd like more data.
Maju said,
"I can't say that because the HUGO paper does not sample a single Papuan group, just an Austronesian-speaking insular Melanesian group, which have no participation of the Austronesian component, btw. I included Papuans (with "?") based on the other study but I'd like more data."
Actually, the authors of the HUGO paper have included a very small sample of five speakers of the Nasioi language, a non-Austronesian (i.e. so-called "Papuan") language of a people who inhabit the south of Bougainville Island at the northern end of the Solomon Islands Archipelago.
Maju said,
"The expansion of the Neolithic component to sub-Hymalayan South Asia did not carry other Eastern components, so it happened before or, in any case, in a separate way to admixture with other East Asian groups."
The only samples obtained from individuals in India that reveal significant East Asian influence are the sample of Western Archaic Tibetan speakers from Spiti and the sample of Pahari-speaking Tharus. For both the Ladakhis and the Tharus, the dark blue "mainland East Asian" component predominates, but both populations also exhibit significant proportions of the yellow "northern maritime East Asian," olive "US White/European," and teal "indigenous South Asian" components, with the yellow and olive components being relatively strong in the sample of Ladakhis from Spiti and the teal component being relatively strong in the sample of Tharus. The light red "indigenous Indochina-Sundaland" component also appears in the Ladakhi sample as a minor influence, but it is practically negligible in the Tharu sample. The one East Asian component that is notably missing from the Tharus and the Ladakhis is the light green "southern maritime East Asian" component.
Fair enough, Ebizur.
However I have decided for simplicity, as should be obvious from the first map to ignore the duality of South Asian components and treat them all as "Western" (relative to East Asia). Dealing with that duality in this context would be too cumbersome. It deserves, if anything, a separate discussion.
Not sure if I was correct or not in emphasizing a blue-only migration along the Hymalayas but should not change the overall picture much if it migrated with the yellow one. It'd be nice to check Munda and Assamites, as well as Burmese peoples to get a better picture.
Maju said,
"However I have decided for simplicity, as should be obvious from the first map to ignore the duality of South Asian components and treat them all as "Western" (relative to East Asia). Dealing with that duality in this context would be too cumbersome. It deserves, if anything, a separate discussion."
"As should be obvious" from my having labeled the teal component as "indigenous South Asian," I have never intended to suggest an idea of grouping it with the East Asian components as opposed to the European (strictly speaking, US Whites) one. Of course, if the analysis were to be repeated with the inclusion of samples from populations of Southwest Asia and Southern Europe, the teal component might be found to be "Indian Ocean coastal," "Mediterranean," or whatever else rather than "indigenous South Asian." However, your attempt to gloss over the fact that you have mistakenly claimed that the dark blue component has migrated to the sub-Himalayan region unaccompanied by any other Eastern component is misguided and really quite lame.
What I say is that I decided to ignore the South Asian problematic and focus on Eastern Eurasia. Maybe I should have changed the title to "Eastern Eurasian..." or "East Asian" and in fact I thought of it but in the end I decided not to for some silly reason.
Now I corrected that oversight.
It's possible that I'm wrong or not about my reading of the Nepali penetration but it's again not central, specially since I corrected the title.
Still I gather from that only sample that the migration along the eastern Himalays may not have got yellow component and that this comes from a migration through the steppary corridor, as is quite stronger among Uyghurs and in Ladakh.
It's not a central matter and you do not need to be so aggressive.
Maju said,
"It's possible that I'm wrong or not about my reading of the Nepali penetration but it's again not central, specially since I corrected the title. ...
It's not a central matter and you do not need to be so aggressive."
It's not "possible" that you are wrong, it is "obvious" that you are wrong, but I suppose reading data incorrectly and then drawing an incorrect conclusion from your misinterpretation of the data does not bother you as long as it is not a "central matter."
Maju said,
"Still I gather from that only sample that the migration along the eastern Himalays may not have got yellow component and that this comes from a migration through the steppary corridor, as is quite stronger among Uyghurs and in Ladakh."
Please note that several populations of Thailand and southern Yunnan (Jinuo, Palong, etc.) also have been found to contain some of the yellow component. Data on other populations in Thailand, Yunnan, and hopefully also Myanmar and Northeast India should help to elucidate the path by which the yellow component has reached the Tharus.
The yellow component does appear to be stronger in the Uyghurs and the Ladakhis than in the Tharus, but that does not change the fact that the Tharu sample also has been analyzed to contain some of the yellow component. This is what really "should be obvious" to you and to anyone who is not color blind, but I will not waste any more time on this.
Also, please note that the Tharu sample used in this HUGO study has been obtained from Tharu individuals in India, and not Nepal. The Tharus are somewhat heterogeneous, so one should be cautious about extrapolating the results of this study to the Tharu population as a whole, much less the entire Nepali or eastern sub-Himalayan zone.
Ok. I'm not going to say anything because it looks as a trial, where everything you say can be used against you.
"Ok. I'm not going to say anything because it looks as a trial, where everything you say can be used against you".
I'm sorry if you feel that way, and I'm sure Ebizur doesn't mean to sound 'so aggressive'. Discussion is the way we all expand our knowledge. But it's difficult with the written word to correct faulty comments succintly. And sometimes you can appear to be rather aggressive yourself, too. I sincerely thank you for taking the trouble to provide us with all this data.
"Y-DNA has nothing to do. It should represent in most cases older flows. That's a limitation of autosomal DNA"
I suspect that it's very rare for autosomal DNA to move through a population without any corresponding movement of at least some mtDNA or, more usually Y- DNA. In fact I'm sure that haploid genetics move more rapidly than most autosomal genes. So it's hardly likely that 'Haploid genetics should rather reflect older flows, S->N in the case you mention probably'. Y-hap O in SE Asia is therefore very likely to be Neolithic.
"I suspect that it's very rare for autosomal DNA to move through a population without any corresponding movement of at least some mtDNA or, more usually Y- DNA".
I'd generally agree with this. But what you're mentioning is the opposite case: migration of Y-DNA without autosomal DNA. That should be older, before the cluster had time to coalesce.
"In fact I'm sure that haploid genetics move more rapidly than most autosomal genes".
We are not talking of individual genes but of full homogeneous packages.
As I see it, such homogeneous clusters, as we detect them now within world regions at a reasonable K depth, should represent more or less accurately the Paleo-Neolithic transition and it does seem to fit with that idea in all practical cases I have contrasted. It will depend also of depth, sampling strategies and even actual diversity within the region analyzed.
So if you studied by K-means an homogeneous region, say Ireland, you'd still get clusters but they should be very intermixed because the process of homogenization has been continued all along.
"But what you're mentioning is the opposite case: migration of Y-DNA without autosomal DNA".
No. I'm arguing very much in favour of migration of autosomal DNA, along with Y-haps (although probably not much mtDNA movement in the mainland).
"As I see it, such homogeneous clusters, as we detect them now within world regions at a reasonable K depth, should represent more or less accurately the Paleo-Neolithic transition and it does seem to fit with that idea in all practical cases I have contrasted".
But the situation in Southern China is probably the product of the latter part of the 'Paleo-Neolithic transition'. Or perhaps even later, to a considerable extent. Most anthropologists suggest a substantial human movement south through the region, perhaps only from the latitude of Taiwan. But others see its origin as being even further north, associated with the spread of population from the middle Hwang Ho Basin, starting with the Lung Shan people. Sure, a proportion of the more ancient population remained.
"We are not talking of individual genes but of full homogeneous packages".
Many geneticists claim that, in a way, each individual gene can be thought of as moving through a population independently (see for example Jobling's book 'Human Evolutionary Genetics'). Of course genes are transmitted through population movements, but as the population moves it mixes with residents as it passes through. in the advancing wave of population advantageous genes in the combined population are selected for, and disadvantageous ones selected out. Just such a phenomenon seems to have occurred with the Eurasian wolf you mentioned elsewhere. In fact the pheneomenon easily explains the whole of biological evolution.
"So if you studied by K-means an homogeneous region, say Ireland, you'd still get clusters but they should be very intermixed because the process of homogenization has been continued all along".
Very true. But generally the difference is less than the sort of clusters we see over the wider perspective. Over time, unless gene flow occurrs between them periodically, the clusters will become more and more different from each other. Lack of gene flow between clusters will lead first to the formation of subspecies and then to species. The process is easy to understand.
"a substantial human movement south through the region, perhaps only from the latitude of Taiwan. But others see its origin as being even further north, associated with the spread of population from the middle Hwang Ho Basin, starting with the Lung Shan people".
Correct me if I am wrong but the Longshan culture only reached as south as Hubei. It doesn't look like a strong penetration. Also by that time Neolithic had already spread all around. Any language that spread at that time (Sinitic, I presume) would show a very clear family structure, just like Indoeuropean. The formation of the other East Asian language families, never convincingly grouped, must pre-date this episode.
"Many geneticists claim that, in a way, each individual gene can be thought of as moving through a population independently"...
Only up to a point. See: genetic linkage.
Also an isolated populations exchanges once and again the same genes (barring novel mutations) with no or very little input, so the resulting stock has relatively low diversity and tends to show up easily as clusters in the K-means analysis (always considering other factors such as depth or sampling). But remember that even if running in a sample of two identical twins, you'll always get two clusters... because the process is about splitting the population in two, in three, etc. by greatest genetic affinity - nothing else.
"Of course genes are transmitted through population movements, but as the population moves it mixes with residents as it passes through. in the advancing wave of population advantageous genes in the combined population are selected for, and disadvantageous ones selected out".
The main objection I have to this is the idea that genes, or more properly alleles, are advantageous or disadvantageous in an absolute sense. Often they are very much neutral. I can think of alleles that are absolutely disadvantageous and hence get extinct quickly but I can't think of alleles that are absolutely advantageous, just slightly so and even temporarily so. And weak and punctual evolutionary pressure is not as effective as would be necessary because you can always do almost as well without the allele and you probably have comparative advantage in other genes (and/or gene expression, which varies independently). The possible combos are nearly infinite while the human population (much more in the past but even today) is very much finite.
There is always someone better than you and there's always something that you just suck at.
So you need a very specific combo of nearly absolute advantage that really cannot be generated by genes alone in the short run. Sapiens and Neanderthals were in contact since 130,000 years ago but Neanderthals survived for yet 100,000 more and even final their decline is longer than a dozen thousand years. This is not quick change! And I'm pretty sure that genetics only mattered so much, that random and cultural conditions also influenced the outcome.
"Correct me if I am wrong but the Longshan culture only reached as south as Hubei. It doesn't look like a strong penetration".
This link :
http://www.ceramicstudies.me.uk/Lungshan.html
claims, 'In fact, the culture was wide-spread in the eastern coastal region of China from Shantung to Chekiang, and later spread to the central and western areas that had been bases for the Yangshao culture'. So, almost as far south as Taiwan, and we can presume its influence certainly spread even further.
"Any language that spread at that time (Sinitic, I presume) would show a very clear family structure, just like Indoeuropean. The formation of the other East Asian language families, never convincingly grouped, must pre-date this episode".
The various groups of East Asian languages (Thai-Kradai, Austro-Asiatic, Hmong-Mien/Miao-Yao, Austronesian and Sino-Tibetan/Tibeto-Burman) would each individually surely be no older than Indo-European. And the wider grouping of them, if ever 'convincingly grouped', would not have a common origin more than 10,000 years ago. Otherwise no-one at all would see any connection between them, whereas at least some linguists do.
"Only up to a point. See: genetic linkage".
Even without considering gene linkages each individual gene would travel on its own only 'up to a point'. Migrating groups contain a collection of genes that would tend to stay together, to later be discernable as a marker of the migration. Hence the genetic clusters, either principal component or K analysis.
"Also an isolated populations exchanges once and again the same genes (barring novel mutations) with no or very little input, so the resulting stock has relatively low diversity and tends to show up easily as clusters in the K-means analysis"
I am virtually certain that no human groups have remained isolated since the Paleolithic.
"the process is about splitting the population in two, in three, etc. by greatest genetic affinity - nothing else".
But obviously a population that has split into two more recently than some other population will show closer genetic affinity. That's why Polynesians are closer to Chinese than they are to Europeans.
"The main objection I have to this is the idea that genes, or more properly alleles, are advantageous or disadvantageous in an absolute sense".
Not necessarily so. Evolutionists and animal breeders consider genes with a mathematical breeding advantage of 0.5% or so. Obviously such a small advantage takes a long time to reach fixation, but achieve fixation it certainly does.
"So you need a very specific combo of nearly absolute advantage that really cannot be generated by genes alone in the short run".
I agree that for humans technological and cultural advantage have become progressively more important than biological advantage.
"'In fact, the culture was wide-spread in the eastern coastal region of China from Shantung to Chekiang, and later spread to the central and western areas that had been bases for the Yangshao culture'. So, almost as far south as Taiwan".
Shanghai, not Taiwan! Taiwan is at the latitude of Canton.
What I find interesting is the coastal distribution claimed for this culture and the ulterior expansion inwards in North China, what may well correlate with the expansion of the yellow component.
"The various groups of East Asian languages (Thai-Kradai, Austro-Asiatic, Hmong-Mien/Miao-Yao, Austronesian and Sino-Tibetan/Tibeto-Burman) would each individually surely be no older than Indo-European. And the wider grouping of them, if ever 'convincingly grouped', would not have a common origin more than 10,000 years ago. Otherwise no-one at all would see any connection between them, whereas at least some linguists do".
Disagree. Some linguists also see "Nostratic" and "Dene-Caucasian" and that doesn't mean anything. We can only compare those families that are proven, such as IE, Afroasiatic, etc.
For what I see, my impression is that Sino-Tibetan should correspond to Yellow-River Neolithic (proto-Sinitic) and peripheral migrations along the Hymalayan arch (Tibeto-Burman). Tai-Kadai and/or Hmong-Mien should correspond to the Southern China Neolithic. Austroasiatic should correspond with SEA Neolithic, later also Austronesian in the islands and coasts. Proto-Korean or Proto-Japonic might have been spoken in the northern coastal Neolithic (Shandong, Hebei, Manchuria) but it's hard to tell.
That's my impression at least. The hypothetical superfamilies' linguistic connections may just be areal features. I can however consider Austro-Tai on light of the genetic connection but should be rather old (Epipaleolithic, Late UP). Consider that Afroasiatic is of Epipaleolithic origins and still clearly identifiable, just as Sino-Tibetan, which I also suspect Epipaleolithic by origin.
"I am virtually certain that no human groups have remained isolated since the Paleolithic".
I'm not so sure. Negritos for example show very little outsider input in some cases, so do many African hunter-gatherers and the Mlabri. The fact that they remain hunter-gatherers or have remained that way till very recently says it all.
Not total isolation but very high effective isolation yes.
"But obviously a population that has split into two more recently than some other population will show closer genetic affinity. That's why Polynesians are closer to Chinese than they are to Europeans".
When K is deep enough, you won't see the higher level affinities. Also if you see an affinity at K=2 and it vanishes at K=3 (or whatever numbers) is likely to be very much illusory. Instead if an affinity appears at, say, K=4 and stays there until K=12, then you probably have an old direct connection in that cluster. Sadly I have not been able to see the whole K sequence for this paper.
"Not necessarily so. Evolutionists and animal breeders consider genes with a mathematical breeding advantage of 0.5% or so. Obviously such a small advantage takes a long time to reach fixation, but achieve fixation it certainly does".
Breeding is clearly different because there's a plan. Natural evolution has no plan and hence it's subject to changing conditions, dynamic equilibriums, mutual nullification of adaptative pluses and mere accidents. For example now an allele for surviving hunger at a price (less intelligence for example) may be handy but later it's the other way around.
So no: genes should not be considered in isolation.
"I agree that for humans technological and cultural advantage have become progressively more important than biological advantage".
Not only for humans, there's a whole array of species among which culture is critical (elephants, dolphins, apes...). And you cannot ignore epigenetics anymore either.
"Breeding is clearly different because there's a plan".
In this case the term doesn't refer only to the artificial situation of controlled breeding, where the breeder has a plan. Far from it in fact. In controlled breeding very few genes could be said to have an advantage of any particular percentage, because a breeder may be able to make the advantage 100%, depending on whether he needed to amintain population numbers for economic reasons. The expression 'breeding advantage' is used in evolutionary biology rather than the term 'survival advantage' because mere survival does not necessarily mean the production of offspring. And that's the important and necessary part of evolution. Breeding advantage is really a statistical average. This statistical measure takes care of all the variables you mention such as 'changing conditions, dynamic equilibriums, mutual nullification of adaptative pluses and mere accidents'.
"This statistical measure takes care of all the variables you mention such as 'changing conditions, dynamic equilibriums, mutual nullification of adaptative pluses and mere accidents'".
I don't think that's correct because it'd be calling "breeding advantage" to the Hunchback having more reproductive success than Superman, once in 100 times... but accidentally in our world history (damn kryptonite!)
Chance can't be an advantage: it's just luck.
Similarly I don't think that dynamic equilibrium has any room in breeding because that would imply including all the animal community and its changing environment and even the economy and future technologies in planning. Not just all this beats any breeder, theoretical or practical, but it's just impossible to quantify or even imagine altogether.
Nature tackles this problem allowing for huge "unnecessary" diversity, so that if something goes wrong, there's always something else to perpetuate life... as long as conditions allow for life.
So you cannot imitate nature in this with breeding, because you'd have to have not the perfectly bred herd but only the most imperfectly bred one probably.
I was deeply impressed in my childhood when I read that most domestic animals, notably cows, would not survive if reverted to wild conditions. Actually I know now that a few "primitive" stocks would survive because they are still semi-wild but in general the breeder's activity is to reduce survivability except in the much desired lab conditions, I mean... industrial farm conditions.
So I understand that the role of the breeder is mostly opposed to that of nature: reduces diversity in favor of a few favored stallions who often don't even know where the female cunt is (that happens often with horses for example) but happen to be excellent meat loafs. This simply never happens in Nature, where such a primacy has to be earned, if anything, through many millennia of systematic survival and "breeding" (reproductive success) tests.
Finally, Maju is beginning some obvious signs, but only 4 years after me telling him to actually go look at the data.Well, at least there is some hope for you to become slightly objective. So, now, you are fully welcome back to Quetzalcoatl. After all, this is the creative, well-informed place where you ripped off your basic ideas from (and you are still get ideas from Quetzalcoatl members like natsuya and Ebizur).
I meant to say maju is beginning to admit some obvious phenomenon.
"it'd be calling 'breeding advantage' to the Hunchback having more reproductive success than Superman, once in 100 times..."
It would only be a 'breeding advantage' only if the Hunchback produced more offspring than Superman did, and that the offspring in turn survived to produce more offspring, and so on.
"I don't think that dynamic equilibrium has any room in breeding because that would imply including all the animal community and its changing environment"
That's the trick to success in animal breeding. You have to consider the whole animal community, or herd (or whatever else you're working on). It's not really useful to select for just one quality only. They tried that with dairy cattle, using just production, and the result was greatly reduced fertility and development of very bad udders and feet. So now a whole range of factors are considered when selecting sires for the dairy herd.
"So no: genes should not be considered in isolation".
But haplogroups behave pretty much as single genes. When a new haplogroup arrives in a region it presumably carries along with it a particular suite of genes, some already shared with the pre-existing population. As the incoming population begins to breed with the pre-existing one these new genes do not simply tie themselves just to the spreading haplogroup. They spread, relatively independently, through the regional population as a whole. So, to quote Karafet et al ('Ancestral Asian Sources of New World Y-chromosome Founder Haplotypes), 'Each gene has its own evolutionary history' or, to quote Jobling, each gene 'has a separate ancestor'.
Wow, that all read like I couldn't speak English.
"So, now, you are fully welcome back to Quetzalcoatl".
The self-delusion of some never ceases to amaze me. I left your forum because you are a damn patronizing manipulative bitch.
Here nobody but me cuts what I have to say and I put the titles to my own posts and most of the time nobody misreads my words as insistently as you used to. 'Thanks' for the 'invitation' but you forget that I have been member of your forum all this time just that totally inactive for a reason or two. You forget that it was me who left your forum.
"After all, this is the creative, well-informed place where you ripped off your basic ideas from"...
Blah, blah.
As I am a knowledge-hungry person, I've been taking (or "ripping off" ideas) from everywhere. But mostly I bother processing them myself and having my own opinion, right or wrong.
I was actually trying to be annoyingly lil'kid humorous. But thanx for the hate.
As for me editing your posts, I did it 3 times.
1. I split a new topic because you were going off topic in an Ainu post. I said the Ainu didn't look Russian and you went wild.
2. I merged two Aurignacian topics because it was about the samething.
3. And you left because I merged two Basque topics, but they were about the samething, two silly topics about what Basques should look like.
"I was actually trying to be annoyingly lil'kid humorous".
You do that very well, specially the "annoying" part.
"As for me editing your posts, I did it 3 times".
Rather twisting my words and their meaning in your replies as you just did.
You create snowball discussions on which whatever the other says does not matter, what matter is what you want to read in their words: your paranoid imagination attributing double meanings and transforming what the other actually said to what you imagine they said.
Then splitting posts like a maniac, always where someone else is replying to you and giving them idiotic titles.
It's a problem of incompatible personalities if you want to take it that way.
So enough said.
Maju, I assure you that your accusations are unnecessary. For the Ainu split topic, for example, I asked you where you think Ainu were from, and you said that the Ainu and "Mongoloids" were from different sources and Ainu could've arrived from Central Asia. Based on your view that "Mongoloids" developed in the southern coast, I think it was appropriate to name the slip topic with the theme of Western origins of Ainu.
It's not me reading into things but where the logic leads. If you say "2+2", and I say "=4", it's perfectly reasonable. I mean I'm not the only one who thinks you argue in circles, am I? You made it very hard to keep engaging in conversations with you. In efficiently naming topics, I just wanted to get to the point.
Enough: you are manipulating the facts, representing, as always, only your subjective view of reality. I don't need to hear all that junk again, thanks. :(
A new study is coming today.
Global distribution of Y-chromosome haplogroup C reveals the prehistoric migration routes of African exodus and early settlement in East Asia
Hua Zhong et al.
The regional distribution of an ancient Y-chromosome haplogroup C-M130 (Hg C) in Asia provides an ideal tool of dissecting prehistoric migration events. We identified 465 Hg C individuals out of 4284 males from 140 East and Southeast Asian populations. We genotyped these Hg C individuals using 12 Y-chromosome biallelic markers and 8 commonly used Y-short tandem repeats (Y-STRs), and performed phylogeographic analysis in combination with the published data. The results show that most of the Hg C subhaplogroups have distinct geographical distribution and have undergone long-time isolation, although Hg C individuals are distributed widely across Eurasia. Furthermore, a general south-to-north and east-to-west cline of Y-STR diversity is observed with the highest diversity in Southeast Asia. The phylogeographic distribution pattern of Hg C supports a single coastal ‘Out-of-Africa’ route by way of the Indian subcontinent, which eventually led to the early settlement of modern humans in mainland Southeast Asia. The northward expansion of Hg C in East Asia started ~40 thousand of years ago (KYA) along the coastline of mainland China and reached Siberia ~15 KYA and finally made its way to the Americas.
Link:
http://www.nature.com/jhg/journal/vaop/ncurrent/abs/jhg201040a.html
SI:
http://www.nature.com/jhg/journal/vaop/ncurrent/suppinfo/jhg201040s1.html?url=/jhg/journal/vaop/ncurrent/abs/jhg201040a.html
The whole paper:
http://viewer.zoho.com/docs/sRbQt
Thanks a lot for the links Natsuya. Quite interesting: even if I fail to see what exactly is new, the data seems important.
Particularly, it seems we can forget about C6, that does not appear anywhere, and we can ratify a SE Asian origin for C and an East Asian one for C3 with particularly strong peripheral expansion in general, right?
Yes, the origin of C may be in or near Southeast Asia, and C3 for East Asia. The leading role in the paper would be C3 subclades, and the data from Chinese populations is interesting. Would you like to introduce the paper in your blog if you have some time to read it?
I plan to mention it, sure, just that I've been these days so centered on the Neanderthal admixture stuff (reading, discussing, writing and relaxing about it) that I did not see the occasion.
I will re-read it select a pic and post in few lines.
Thou shall not publish in the month before or after Paabo does. It's eclipse time... ;)
Done. Just that I did not bother with the pic. :)
Post a Comment