tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3563811638411839784.post5902481849895584586..comments2023-05-15T07:11:30.874+02:00Comments on Leherensuge: The Role of Geography in Human AdaptationMajuhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comBlogger57125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3563811638411839784.post-72721041403006335892009-06-29T11:54:52.677+02:002009-06-29T11:54:52.677+02:00I claim the female companions are still there in t...<i>I claim the female companions are still there in the form of mtDNA N1 and N2</i>.<br /><br />Ok, it's an opinion. But why? Just because they happen to be N? IMO W (N2) is the latest mtDNA arrival to West Eurasia, not the first one. <br /><br />Also I've been reviewing the mtDNA tree these days, skipping the control area (because it's hypervariable and its mutations should have evolved in much shorter periods of time) and I get that R0 would be even older than N1 in West Asia. The overall scenario doesn't change substantially but some lineages are more or less altered. But by no means R lineages seem to have arrived later than N ones to the West. <br /><br />In fact, one of the things that appear slightly changed with this new revision is that M and N are somewhat more separated and instead N and R are more tightly together, becoming a single phenomenon or almost. <br /><br />But well... I have my reasons to think as I do, which are your reasons apart of Indophobia?<br /><br /><i>Isn't pre-G some sort of F*? What evidence do you have that this pre-G had come from India and that Indian F* isn't just part of this pre-G/F* migration into India?</i> -<br /><br />As simple as this: pre-F cannot produce pre-G (nor F*). Only F can. <br /><br />And F (the F node, the F event, the F mini-explosion) seems to have happened in South Asia by all accounts. <br /><br /><i>"It's my reconstruction and is discussed elsewhere on this blog, as you know".<br /><br />You constantly demand evidence from others, but not when it's you making the claim obviously</i>.<br /><br />I have explained why often to you. Specifically to you. One gets tired of being asked to repeat once and again. <br /><br /><i>I don't have any prejudice against south Asia. I just don't believe it explains everything. The story is not as simple as you portray it</i>.<br /><br />*Shrug*Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3563811638411839784.post-39934992900570799952009-06-29T10:16:20.595+02:002009-06-29T10:16:20.595+02:00Obviously it's time to stop this but I'll ...Obviously it's time to stop this but I'll make a few comments and then leave. <br /><br />"According to YOU the female companions of the Y-DNA G and IJ guys". <br /><br />It's you who claims they've disappeared. I claim the female companions are still there in the form of mtDNA N1 and N2. <br /><br />"No member of haplogroup G did such thing. Pre-G did". <br /><br />Isn't pre-G some sort of F*? What evidence do you have that this pre-G had come from India and that Indian F* isn't just part of this pre-G/F* migration into India? <br /><br />"It's my reconstruction and is discussed elsewhere on this blog, as you know". <br /><br />You constantly demand evidence from others, but not when it's you making the claim obviously. <br /><br />"You have some prejudice against South Asia". <br /><br />I don't have any prejudice against south Asia. I just don't believe it explains everything. The story is not as simple as you portray it.terrythttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17327062321100035888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3563811638411839784.post-84806767106529545402009-06-28T08:16:14.532+02:002009-06-28T08:16:14.532+02:00They didn't go anywhere. Their descendants are...<i>They didn't go anywhere. Their descendants are still there, you idiot</i>.<br /><br />Where?<br /><br /><i>What people have vanished without leaving any trace?</i> -<br /><br />According to YOU the female companions of the Y-DNA G and IJ guys. <br /><br /><i>... Apart from all the members of haplogroup G who moved from India? </i>-<br /><br />No member of haplogroup G did such thing. Pre-G did. <br /><br />Get that straight, please. <br /><br /><i>"All those but N1 arrived after R sublineages, and W much later in fact".<br /><br />What evidence do you have for that?</i>-<br /><br />It's my reconstruction and is discussed elsewhere on this blog, as you know. <br /><br />Whatever the case, all Western mtDNA N(xR) is a tiny fraction in comparison to a huge fraction of Y-DNA of F(xK), which is even clearly dominant in West Asia. <br /><br />Everywhere else it may happen that Y-DNA new arrivals partly or maybe even totally displace the older layer, leaving the mtDNA more or less intact. But the opposite happens nowhere. <br /><br />So Y-DNA F(xK), G and IJ, must have arrived with mtDNA R as main companion. <br /><br /><i>"Would stop repeating claims that have been discussed (and refuted) elsewhere".<br /><br />You haven't actually successfully refuted any of my claims</i>.<br /><br />I believe I have. And I also believe you have not even bothered discussing my refutations in their own terms but just leave the issue hanging without really advancing rationally in the dialectics of that discussion and, then, you come back weeks later on a totally disconnected thread and jump again with the same discussion even if way off topic from the very beginning. <br /><br />It's tiresome for me. <br /><br /><i>You can obviously see that it's impossible to tell which direction members of a haplogroup have moved by simply looking at its modern distribution but you still refuse to see that the spread doesn't involve an already diversified haplogroup. Diversification happens once the earlier haplogroup has spread</i>.<br /><br />I think it is possible within reasonable limits. Everything leaves a trace. The traces are there for us to reconstruct the scenario. <br /><br />If you think it is impossible to reconstruct why do you even bother dicussing it at all? <br /><br /><i>"Well that is it: F expanded and overflew SA. F2 and G are the sole products of that overflow".<br /><br />You're obviously going (as we say here) off your rocker</i>.<br /><br />No. It's the only logical explanation. There is just no other possible explanation for F's diversity. <br /><br />You have some prejudice against South Asia. Well, it's your problem. No need to bring it here, thanks.Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3563811638411839784.post-6440018879911427432009-06-28T03:13:17.340+02:002009-06-28T03:13:17.340+02:00"What I say is that where did those go?"..."What I say is that where did those go?" <br /><br />They didn't go anywhere. Their descendants are still there, you idiot. <br /><br />"What I don't accept is that people vanish without leaving any trace". <br /><br />What people have vanished without leaving any trace? Apart from all the members of haplogroup G who moved from India? <br /><br />"All those but N1 arrived after R sublineages, and W much later in fact". <br /><br />What evidence do you have for that? <br /><br />"Would stop repeating claims that have been discussed (and refuted) elsewhere". <br /><br />You haven't actually successfully refuted any of my claims. <br /><br />"Or vice versa". <br /><br />You can obviously see that it's impossible to tell which direction members of a haplogroup have moved by simply looking at its modern distribution but you still refuse to see that the spread doesn't involve an already diversified haplogroup. Diversification happens once the earlier haplogroup has spread. <br /><br />"Well that is it: F expanded and overflew SA. F2 and G are the sole products of that overflow". <br /><br />You're obviously going (as we say here) off your rocker.terrythttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17327062321100035888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3563811638411839784.post-91840102898532857612009-06-28T00:40:10.248+02:002009-06-28T00:40:10.248+02:00So you believe, 'once together, always togethe...<i>So you believe, 'once together, always together'. No divorce. A product of you Catholic upbringing?</i>.<br /><br />Fuck off!<br /><br />What I say is that where did those go? What I say is that they cannot vanish in the sands like Lilith. <br /><br />This is about real people, having real children in real life. So where did the women and their offspring go?<br /><br />What I don't accept is that people vanish without leaving any trace, much less female lineages... just because it is convenient to your theories.<br /><br /><i>Male-only mechanics are quite easy to explain, if through regions where humans are already present. Female-only is more difficult to explain but not impossible</i>. <br /><br />Both are very difficult to believe before the metal ages, or at least Neolithic, IMO. And notably I find impossible to believe in female-only layers on btop of male only ones. <br /><br />Making yIJK and mtR associated solves this problem quite well. <br /><br /><i>But K's migration eastward could well have taken place after it had separated from IJ. And perhaps it left (what later became) T behind</i>.<br /><br />No basal haplohroups that explode in many lineages as yK don't work that way: going here and leaving one lineage and then there and leaving another like a butterfly. <br /><br />They expand at a single location and then the derived lineages, in stem phase, migrate around. <br /><br />Western T but also L and R need a better expalnation than that shit you claim. <br /><br /><i>Obviously they had women with them. How about N2/W, X and N1?</i>.<br /><br />All those but N1 arrived after R sublineages, and W much later in fact. Also, they are minor even in West Asia, they are simply just not comparable to the dominance of IJ in West Asia, North Africa and possibly Europe itself before R1 arrived.<br /><br /><i>I totally agree that R0, U and even JT 'shows clear signs of South Asian origin', but I wouldn't be so sure of N1</i>. <br /><br />Look N1'5 up. It's a very clear sign and also, if N expanded in SEA (as you agree as likely) then they must have crossed SA again in order to arrive to WA. <br /><br /><i>Not so. I agree we are arguing in circles here, and I'm sure that I hate is as much as you do. But a number of factors can be responsible for a delayed diversity</i>.<br /><br />There are not. And also we would not discuss in circles if you:<br /><br />1. Would stop repeating claims that have been discussed (and refuted) elsewhere. <br /><br />2. Would stop rejecting the obvious without even proposing an alternative model of their own. <br /><br />I really think that people who are not upfront and prefer to try to make some sort of guerrilla against others ideals without really proposing alternatives not even making consistent criticisms, who do that once and again and again and again... <br /><br />Those are intellectually dishonest: mere cheaters of dialectics. A waste arguing with. <br /><br />So if you have a model, put it forward and defend it. <br /><br />But if you have a weak, battered model, model, don't put it forward nor defend it... put it down! Be honest with yourself and admit it's mere junk and based on preconceptions.<br /><br />Take a short vacation and start all over from zero then. <br /><br />(Of course, if you prefer intellectual dishonesty, then join Ren's forums). <br /><br /><i>F2's ancestor obviously passed through India but G need not have</i>. <br /><br />Or vice versa. <br /><br />I don't even bother building a theory on Y-DNA alone anymore. I build on mtDNA and then make Y-DNA fit with it. <br /><br /><i>And neither F2 nor G left any trace behind, or of their passing? Doesn't that raise difficulties for your theory? It is much more likely that the basal F had spread before its subgroups differentiated.</i>-<br /><br />Well that is it: F expanded and overflew SA. F2 and G are the sole products of that overflow. <br /><br />How many times do I have to repeat the same thing?, how many times do we have to discuss the obvious?, how many times do you have to understand what happens between a basal node (F) and a derived one (G or whatever)? Is this blog the primary school of genetics? <br /><br />No. Come here with your homework done, please!Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3563811638411839784.post-77622310118765864262009-06-27T23:08:23.919+02:002009-06-27T23:08:23.919+02:00"I don't see it".
So you believe,..."I don't see it". <br /><br />So you believe, 'once together, always together'. No divorce. A product of you Catholic upbringing? <br /><br />"the case remains weak for North Africa and East Asia/Native America". <br /><br />In the latter case surely the A, C and D mtDNAs were simply picked up along the way, as probably was B because it's an eastern haplogroup. <br /><br />"we would still need of some complex male-only mechanics to explain K and NOP". <br /><br />Male-only mechanics are quite easy to explain, if through regions where humans are already present. Female-only is more difficult to explain but not impossible. <br /><br />"K had to migrate eastward somehow and SA is not just the shortest route but the only one with some archaeology for the MP". <br /><br />But K's migration eastward could well have taken place after it had separated from IJ. And perhaps it left (what later became) T behind. After all T is an African/Southwest Asian haplogroup, not Indian. <br /><br />"It makes no sense to me that IJ (and G) males in West Asia had no women with them:. <br /><br />Obviously they had women with them. How about N2/W, X and N1? I totally agree that R0, U and even JT 'shows clear signs of South Asian origin', but I wouldn't be so sure of N1. <br /><br />"SA is the most likely candidate for the homeland of Y-DNA F". <br /><br />Not so. I agree we are arguing in circles here, and I'm sure that I hate is as much as you do. But a number of factors can be responsible for a delayed diversity. <br /><br />"And all basal sublineages must have spawned in a short period of time". <br /><br />Yes. But G and IJK could easily have formed during a rapid expansion of some sort of basal F before it had reached India. F2 is simply the eastern end of the resulting distribution, and G the western. F2's ancestor obviously passed through India but G need not have. Just because a particular haplogroup's own expansion comes later than that of its related haplogroups doesn't mean at all that it had just recently arrived in the particular region of its expansion. New technology, either invented or introduced, can easily explain an expansion. As can arrival in a so far unoccupied region as the small founding population spreads out. <br /><br />"A couple of F sublineages (namely F2 and G) migrated out of India before their own expansion at a later moment but that says nothing against F having expanded in SA". <br /><br />And yet all these F-derived haplogroups separated at approximately the same time? And neither F2 nor G left any trace behind, or of their passing? Doesn't that raise difficulties for your theory? It is much more likely that the basal F had spread before its subgroups differentiated. You are obsessed with an Indian Garden of Eden for some reason or other.terrythttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17327062321100035888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3563811638411839784.post-6651913927880261142009-06-26T19:01:58.102+02:002009-06-26T19:01:58.102+02:00Lombos cave and a few other places in S Africa are...<i>Lombos cave and a few other places in S Africa are considered evidence for early modern human coastal economy</i>. <br /><br /><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blombos_cave" rel="nofollow">Blombos cave</a>. Wikipedia mentions that shells increase with time and climatic warming, being rare in the early phase, increased in the second (when the coast was at some 5 km only) and highest in the third one (when sea levels were similar to those of today). <br /><br />Anyhow, there's plenty of evidence in India for all the modelled migration routes, except in the purely coastal route by the southern tip. Even if you want to argue that this precludes the "coastal migration" you are wrong, because the "coastal migration" may well have followed <b>interior</b> routes as well, such as the very well documented Narmada-Son-Ganges one (which approaches pretty well the straight line between Mumbay and Calcutta). There is also evidence for coastal settlement in the West Indian coast as far south as Kerala and in the East coast too at the Andrah Pradesh/Tamilnadu border. <br /><br /><i>Same along the southern coast of Arabia and Baluchistan. You can't argue submerged continental platform along that coast</i>. <br /><br />You can argue lack of archaeological research certainly. There are very few Paleolithic sites known in the Muslim World and most of them were found in the colonial period. Until recently there was also lack of genetic research in Arabia peninsula as well.<br /><br /><i>There's no reason why it has to have ever been in South Asia</i>. <br /><br />Well two reasons I can think of:<br /><br />1. K had to migrate eastward somehow and SA is not just the shortest route but the only one with some archaeology for the MP. <br /><br />2. It makes no sense to me that IJ (and G) males in West Asia had no women with them or that they replaced them altogether. And all West Eurasian mtDNA, notably the one we can think of as of early arrival (N1, R0, U and even JT) shows clear signs of South Asian origin. So for me the ancestors of IJ and G migrated from South Asia together with the female ancestors of N1, R0 several U lineages (if not all U) and JT. <br /><br /><i>And K is not a first tier F-derivative</i>.<br /><br />Who said it is?<br /><br /><i>But the basal diversity includes G</i>.<br /><br />And? <br /><br />1/7 < 4/7; ergo: the greatest basal for F diversity is in SA by far; ergo: SA is the most likely candidate for the homeland of Y-DNA F. <br /><br />I hate arguing in circles. I can be patient but your insistence in already discussed points without adding anything new is exasperating. <br /><br /><i>But that doesn't mean at all that F originated there, just that it had a major expansion there. Probably because it was the first modern human Y-chromosome to enter India, but that doesn't mean it magically appeared there</i>.<br /><br />F appears when it branches out, not before (that could be called pre-F or whatever but has left no traces I know of). And all basal sublineages must have spawned in a short period of time. Most of them are in SA (and the rest around it), so SA is where F expanded. A couple of F sublineages (namely F2 and G) migrated out of India before their own expansion at a later moment but that says nothing against F having expanded in SA. <br /><br />Please!Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3563811638411839784.post-6927436539437635332009-06-26T18:17:41.085+02:002009-06-26T18:17:41.085+02:00To me the connection between Y-hap NOP (just a sub...<i>To me the connection between Y-hap NOP (just a subset of K) and mtDNA R seems pretty clear</i>. <br /><br />I don't see it. In North Africa and West Asia mtR is dominant and not just yNOP but also yK is minor. In South and East Asia, as well as Native America, yNOP is largely dominant and mtR is minor.<br /><br />The only places where such equation works is in Europe. We can add Papua here if we consider all yK and not just NOP and we could add West Asia too if we considered all yIJK and not just K. <br /><br />But even stretching it so much, the case remains weak for North Africa and East Asia/Native America. In the first case we can conclude easily that some ancestral IJK was largely replaced by E1b1b in a second migration (Capsian) but there's no explanation in the latter, unless you replace mtR by some other clades, at least partly. <br /><br />In fact this part of the discussion is quite interesting because I'm starting to think that it was IJK and not K (nor NOP) which participated in the mtR explosion. Though then we would still need of some complex male-only mechanics to explain K and NOP. <br /><br />This, if real, would imply some qualitative change in UP "demographic politics", so to say: from a first phase in which males and females migrated together (let's say egalitarian demographics) to a second phase in which males migrated at last partly alone (machista demographics).<br /><br />Of course, the other possibility is that males and females just mated with some deal of randomness in general, so each micro-phase must be considered on its own light and we cannot say much on that at continental levels. This is the generally accepted approach. <br /><br />Now, what Y-DNA lineages would I expect having migrated westward with the earliest mtDNA lineages: N1, R0, U and JT? I'd say that G and IJ are the most likely candidates. The case for R1 or R1b participating in early West Eurasian colonization is weak.Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3563811638411839784.post-18889315731671768452009-06-26T07:53:05.091+02:002009-06-26T07:53:05.091+02:00"And even more if I can find any connection b..."And even more if I can find any connection between Y-DNA K and mtDNA R, which so far is quite elusive". <br /><br />To me the connection between Y-hap NOP (just a subset of K) and mtDNA R seems pretty clear. <br /><br />"Not sure what you mean here: AFAIK all archaic human findings from SA are from Transvaal. But I may be wrong". <br /><br />Lombos cave and a few other places in S Africa are considered evidence for early modern human coastal economy. <br /><br />"different coasts have different continental platforms. For instance here you are at 100m depth in no time". <br /><br />Same along the southern coast of Arabia and Baluchistan. You can't argue submerged continental platform along that coast. <br /><br />"It is pre-IJ (IJK*, leading to IJ) which was probably at some time in South Asia". <br /><br />There's no reason why it has to have ever been in South Asia. <br /><br />"M1, M2 and M3 are not 1st tier K-derivates, the same that P or NO aren't". <br /><br />And K is not a first tier F-derivative. <br /><br />"Yes: basal diversity". <br /><br />But the basal diversity includes G. <br /><br />"I mean that the majority of 1st tier F sublineages are concentrated in South Asia". <br /><br />But that doesn't mean at all that F originated there, just that it had a major expansion there. Probably because it was the first modern human Y-chromosome to enter India, but that doesn't mean it magically appeared there.terrythttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17327062321100035888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3563811638411839784.post-76498219698407644352009-06-25T06:53:17.940+02:002009-06-25T06:53:17.940+02:00(continuation)
But there is actually no reason wh...(continuation)<br /><br /><i>But there is actually no reason why they should be all that closely connected anyway. That's what so surprised me when I mixed them in my diagram. They often are connected. But just as often they're not, unless they're moving into previously unoccupied territory</i>.<br /><br />I'll be happy if I can conclude that the Y-DNA F/D explosion is the same as the mtDNA M/N one. And even more if I can find any connection between Y-DNA K and mtDNA R, which so far is quite elusive. <br /><br />But what I meant is that I first look at mtDNA and then look at the Y-DNA and not vice versa. That's because I think that mtDNA is a lot more stable and gives much more clear signals. Poeple emphasizes Y-DNA because we live in a Patriarchal culture but mtDNA actually speaks much more clear.<br /><br /><i>And therefore mtDNA probably reveals a deeper, slower, and possibly older, pattern of population movements</i>. <br /><br />MtDNA reveals the bulk of the movements. Y-DNA can sweep on "random" events easily according to many. When you look at phenotype, for example, it often has no relation with Y-DNA but has instead with mtDNA. MtDNA is distributed much more like autosomal DNA and reflects much better the bulk of the ancestry than Y-DNA.<br /><br />For example, Greeks and Albanians are high in E1b1b1b but this is because of some founder effect, not because it reflects some migration from Egypt or whatever. Unless you want to call "migration" to a randomly transmitted haplogroup at individual level... what I find ridiculous. <br /><br />This kind of random accidents are much less likely to happen with mtDNA, and when they happened, they needed a lot more time and very low population levels for all that time.Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3563811638411839784.post-89644499545165706282009-06-25T06:53:07.854+02:002009-06-25T06:53:07.854+02:00Lack of archaeological findings (partial anyhow) o...Lack of archaeological findings (partial anyhow) only means (IMO) that we should make more archaeology, focusing in that time window and those relevant areas: NE Africa, Arabia and India.<br /><br />It is the default route anyhow: the simplest one, the most parsimonious one. <br /><br /><i>And ancient coastal sites are relatively common in Southern Africa</i>.<br /><br />Not sure what you mean here: AFAIK all archaic human findings from SA are from Transvaal. But I may be wrong.<br /><br /><i>It's difficult to argue differing degrees of sea level change in different regions without invoking tectonic movements</i>.<br /><br />Not sure if it's relevant but different coasts have different continental platforms. For instance here you are at 100m depth in no time, while in other places the continental platform has a length of several thousand kilometers.<br /><br /><i>But surely you can see that it or its ancestor was almost certainly an immigrant there</i>.<br /><br />Obviously: pre-F diverged in Africa surely. <br /><br /><i>I'm prepared to agree that several branches of F expanded in SA, but not necessarily all of them</i>.<br /><br />The F node!!! This has nothing to do with derived branches that belong to more recent time necessarily. <br /><br /><i>That means that someone carrying the IJ mutation must have emerged from India, and some time later members of haplogroup J returned. But IJ's ancestors need never have entered India in the first place</i>.<br /><br />No. IJ coalesced in West Asia with all likelihood. It is pre-IJ (IJK*, leading to IJ) which was probably at some time in South Asia, at the F expansion at least and the IJK secondary expansion probably too. <br /><br /><i>Hang on. That was in relation to K1, K2, K3, K4, T, L, NOP, S, M1, M2 and M3. Is there any reason why F would automatically be different?</i>-<br /><br />F and K are similar in structure. And that is precisely what I say. <br /><br />Caveat to your statement: M1, M2 and M3 are not 1st tier K-derivates, the same that P or NO aren't. M is instead. <br /><br /><i>"G, H and IJK (the basal derivates from F) are overall concentrated in South Asia of all places".<br /><br />G? Concentrated in South Asia?</i><br /><br />Don't misinterpretate me, please. I mean that the majority of 1st tier F sublineages are concentrated in South Asia. Please...<br /><br /><i>There is actually no reason at all why South Asia should be the only option</i>.<br /><br />Yes: basal diversity: I repeat:<br /><br />F derived lineages:<br /><br />In South Asia: F1, F3, F4, H (total=4)<br />In East Asia: F2 (total=1)<br />In West Asia: G (total=1)<br />Scattered through all Eurasia: IJK (total=1)<br /><br />Anyone (but you) will agree that SA is the clear homeland of F on this light. <br /><br /><i>And K need not have entered India until after the IJ/K separation</i>. <br /><br />Yes, there's no evidence of the contrary. But no evidence in favor of this explanation either.Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3563811638411839784.post-12845745167717630662009-06-25T05:19:06.033+02:002009-06-25T05:19:06.033+02:00"Your diagram is hypersimplistic".
Han..."Your diagram is hypersimplistic". <br /><br />Hang on. Your concept is even simpler. I'll try to sum it up: <br /><br />'Several haplogroups emerged together from Africa and arrived in India by UFO. Next, from there suddenly large groups containing a representative sample of multiple haplogroups all expanded, in all directions'. <br /><br />Surely we'd still expect to find some evidence for the route F or its ancestors took between Africa and India, somewhere. Covered by rising sea level? Simply an excuse for the lack of evidence. And ancient coastal sites are relatively common in Southern Africa. It's difficult to argue differing degrees of sea level change in different regions without invoking tectonic movements. For which we have evidence in many places, but not for the region in question. <br /><br />"I think that F originated in India". <br /><br />But surely you can see that it or its ancestor was almost certainly an immigrant there. <br /><br />"So F expanded in SA with all likelihood". <br /><br />I'm prepared to agree that several branches of F expanded in SA, but not necessarily all of them. <br /><br />"In the case of IJ and J I do suspect it coalesced in West Asia, of course". <br /><br />That means that someone carrying the IJ mutation must have emerged from India, and some time later members of haplogroup J returned. But IJ's ancestors need never have entered India in the first place. <br /><br />"G is comparable with F1, F2, F3, F4, H and IJK. Those are the known F basal sublineages". <br /><br />Yes. We've already agreed on just such a widespread geographical Y-hap diversification elsewhere. Hang on. That was in relation to K1, K2, K3, K4, T, L, NOP, S, M1, M2 and M3. Is there any reason why F would automatically be different? <br /><br />"G, H and IJK (the basal derivates from F) are overall concentrated in South Asia of all places". <br /><br />G? Concentrated in South Asia? Only if we include everything between Africa and India south of 45 degrees north. I'd agree with you then. <br /><br />"Another thng would be JK, which connects too many lineages from West and East Eurasia to be thought as original from anywhere but South Asia (again)". <br /><br />There is actually no reason at all why South Asia should be the only option. <br /><br />"J is not basal F-derived. JK is instead (and from JK: IJ)". <br /><br />And K need not have entered India until after the IJ/K separation. <br /><br />"I'll try to fit Y-DNA to the mtDNA structure and not viceversa". <br /><br />Surely both are needed to reveal the overall structure. But there is actually no reason why they should be all that closely connected anyway. That's what so surprised me when I mixed them in my diagram. They often are connected. But just as often they're not, unless they're moving into previously unoccupied territory. <br /><br />"I am basing my work hypothesis almost only on mtDNA, whose real structure is much better known for all Humankind and would not be subject to sudden sweeps of the male-only lineages". <br /><br />And therefore mtDNA probably reveals a deeper, slower, and possibly older, pattern of population movements.terrythttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17327062321100035888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3563811638411839784.post-83470835279853672212009-06-23T15:29:20.705+02:002009-06-23T15:29:20.705+02:00@Terry:
Don't you claim that all F-derived ha...@Terry:<br /><br /><i>Don't you claim that all F-derived haplogroups originated in India?</i>.<br /><br />Not at all. I think that F originated in India. The individual derived haplogroups must be considred on individual basis. In the case of IJ and J I do suspect it coalesced in West Asia, of course. Another thng would be JK, which connects too many lineages from West and East Eurasia to be thought as original from anywhere but South Asia (again). <br /><br /><i>Perhaps a few of the basal F-derived haplogroups descend from an ancient F* that had dropped by the wayside during the advance from Africa. G, J, I, and perhaps H may have replaced the dead ancestral F</i>.<br /><br />First, J is not basal F-derived. JK is instead (and from JK: IJ). <br /><br />Second, unless some new evidence comes to light (what may perfectly happen within the Y-DNA context, so badly explored out of some privileged ethnicities), the state of the art is that F1, F2, F3, F4, G, H and IJK (the basal derivates from F) are overall concentrated in South Asia of all places. <br /><br />Third, I am basing my work hypothesis almost only on mtDNA, whose real structure is much better known for all Humankind and would not be subject to sudden sweeps of the male-only lineages. I'll try to fit Y-DNA to the mtDNA structure and not viceversa. <br /><br /><i>In the diagram I've already put up at remotecentral I have J1 in Arabia, J2 in the Zagros, G in the Caucasus and I in Central Eurasia</i>.<br /><br />Your diagram is hypersimplistic. <br /><br />And here you are mixing apples (F 1st tier sublineages like G) with oranges (2nd and 3rd tier sublineages: all the others). <br /><br />G is comparable with F1, F2, F3, F4, H and IJK. Those are the known F basal sublineages. We can argue about IJK origins all night, but, excepting G (WEA) and F2 (EA), all the rest are SA. So F expanded in SA with all likelihood.Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3563811638411839784.post-85443610086680183902009-06-23T14:59:45.667+02:002009-06-23T14:59:45.667+02:00I know which paper you are talking about (Soares e...<i>I know which paper you are talking about (Soares et al. 2009), however the younger age of SA M haplogroups was calculated in that paper too. The multiple nodes of N, M and was reflective of the pooled variance of each macro-haplogroup for its particular region. The lower age of M in South Asia is equivalent to lower variance (rho value) of SA M brought about by later expansion times. The same goes for other macro-haplogroups in different regions</i>.<br /><br />I see now what it means and thanks for the clarification. <br /><br />I think it is misleading. Any place that has the largest number of subclades for any haplogroup should give a <b>pooled</b> more recent dates for the set of all those subclades taken togeter. <br /><br />You should not pool the haplogroups. You should consider them on individual basis one by one, as I have tried to do (with whatever shortcomings) <a href="http://leherensuge.blogspot.com/2009/04/mtdna-tree-version-11.html" rel="nofollow">here</a> and <a rel="nofollow">here</a>. <br /><br />When you do that you get a sufficient number of M subclades that appear to expand at the very first moment after the "M Bang", namely: M4'18'30'37'38'43'45, M6'16'17, M22'25, M33 and M31'32 (which is not Andamnese-only anymore). <br /><br />There are also 4 M sub lineages that seem to expand in Eastern Asia in this first moment. <br /><br />When you go to the second moment (2 mutations downsteam of M, though I haven't yet refined it for the coding/control mutation distinction), you get 3 new secondary M expansions in SA, 3 in EA and 1 in Melanesia.<br /><br />Etc. <br /><br />So while the <b>average</b> SA M sublineages may appear to be younger than those elsewhere, this is surely only because at later moments new expansive processes elsewhere were starred by other lineages (N and specially R derived), while in SA it was largely (even if not exclusively) the M pool still expnanding instead (this also applies to West Eurasian and African M lineages that appear rather "young"). <br /><br />Thanks for the links anyhow. When I read the word "pooled" I understood the matter instantly.Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3563811638411839784.post-69172798767509260362009-06-23T07:37:13.612+02:002009-06-23T07:37:13.612+02:00"The ancestor haplogroup is dead!"
Qu..."The ancestor haplogroup is dead!" <br /><br />Quite. So you won't disagree with me in what follows, although I remember you disagreeing earlier. Back to Metspalu '06: <br /><br />"The frequency and subgroup variation of J in West Asia, in the context of the complete absence of J1 and most J2 subgroups within the Indian sample, is consistent with an influx of a subset of J2 lineages to India from the Near East, followed by their subsequent diffusion from India's northwest toward the south and east". <br /><br />Don't you claim that all F-derived haplogroups originated in India? The authors certainly appear to be definite about J in India being the result of immigration into the subcontinent. But as you've often pointed out: its ancestor, some sort of F*, is commonest in India. So what's J doing outside India? It must have come from, or at least through, Iran and perhaps Afghanistan. <br /><br />Perhaps a few of the basal F-derived haplogroups descend from an ancient F* that had dropped by the wayside during the advance from Africa. G, J, I, and perhaps H may have replaced the dead ancestral F. Maybe from that we can discern the pattern of F's, and so modern human, route. <br /><br />In the diagram I've already put up at remotecentral I have J1 in Arabia, J2 in the Zagros, G in the Caucasus and I in Central Eurasia. Therefore F's route seems to have been across the Arabian Peninsular through the region of savannah (perhaps just the Levant coast) and then through the Zagros into similar habitat to their north. Not along the coast. <br /><br />Only after that was F able to enter India. In fact the only Y-haplogroups that we can be fairly certain actually arose in India are F1, F4, L, and perhaps R, H and K1. The presence of all other Y-haps in India is most parsimoniously explained as by immigration from elsewhere. And, of course, even the ones that arose in India arose from haplogroups who had themselves been immigrants, ultimately from Africa.terrythttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17327062321100035888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3563811638411839784.post-91615029476937184532009-06-23T07:01:43.473+02:002009-06-23T07:01:43.473+02:00“Cannot access link but anyhow I think I read the ...“Cannot access link but anyhow I think I read the abstract already and explained nothing. Maybe the haplogroups are younger on average but the depiction on the graph was made to look like if there was a different M node for South Asia, what is plainly wrong and misleading (IMO).”<br /><br />I know which paper you are talking about (Soares et al. 2009), however the younger age of SA M haplogroups was calculated in that paper too. The multiple nodes of N, M and was reflective of the pooled variance of each macro-haplogroup for its particular region. The lower age of M in South Asia is equivalent to lower variance (rho value) of SA M brought about by later expansion times. The same goes for other macro-haplogroups in different regions. <br /><br />“I can't access the first link (not even logged in) and the second one is a long list that looks too complicated to browse.”<br /><br />Ok I’ll give the abstracts directly:<br /><br />http://tiny.cc/k76Do<br />http://tiny.cc/SBBq9<br />http://tiny.cc/UjXcKIbrahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16843572398734196571noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3563811638411839784.post-68880219300988769792009-06-23T05:17:22.781+02:002009-06-23T05:17:22.781+02:00Hmmm...
I can't access the first link (not ev...Hmmm...<br /><br />I can't access the first link (not even logged in) and the second one is a long list that looks too complicated to browse. <br /><br /><i>3. South Asian M haplogroups tend to be 10kyr younger than in most regions (abstract explains why)</i><br /><br />Why? Cannot access link but anyhow I think I read the abstract already and explained nothing. Maybe the haplogroups are younger on average but the depiction on the graph was made to look like if there was a different M node for South Asia, what is plainly wrong and misleading (IMO). All M first degree sublineages must be about as old as the others at the stem stage (and that applies to any other haplogroup) the difference may be at their respective subhaplogroup defining nodes, at the moment of their expansion and formation as separate haplogroups (and not anymore just private lineages). <br /><br /><i>I tend to agree that H and M (SA) are very similar in terms of the sheer number of lineages produced. The same can be said for D4. 39,33,16 respectively</i>.<br /><br />D4 has 16 sublineages (including D1). This is more in the line of N (12) or R (15), I believe: a major starlike explosion of lineages indeed but not as brutal as M (35 sublineages plus the new ones) or H (31 plus all those private H* sublineages still around).It is still a lot for a Siberian-American lineage. Is it the main D subclade among Native Americans? That would explain it (explosion at the expansion into a virgin land).Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3563811638411839784.post-73819147989306323082009-06-23T03:37:39.618+02:002009-06-23T03:37:39.618+02:00“I wonder if this connects with the Australian N* ...“I wonder if this connects with the Australian N* or is just another newly discovered pre-W South Asian lineage.”<br /><br />Speaking of that, there are some abstracts online that modify our understanding of haplogroups:<br /><br />1. The connection between some Indian M types and Austrian M42 and possibly East Asian M10. <br /><br />2. There are at least 13 new SA M haplogroups (M51-63)<br /><br />3. South Asian M haplogroups tend to be 10kyr younger than in most regions (abstract explains why)<br /><br />http://s6.zetaboards.com/man/topic/527761/1/<br /><br />http://hgm2008.hugo-international.org/Abstracts/Publish/WorkshopPosters/#3<br /><br />I tend to agree that H and M (SA) are very similar in terms of the number of lineages produced and population growth. The same can be said for D4. 39,33,16 respectively.Ibrahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16843572398734196571noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3563811638411839784.post-19221650419790809372009-06-23T03:23:06.235+02:002009-06-23T03:23:06.235+02:00This comment has been removed by the author.Ibrahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16843572398734196571noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3563811638411839784.post-26629258461404687902009-06-22T18:13:38.354+02:002009-06-22T18:13:38.354+02:00I'm more than happy to accept migrations from ...<i>I'm more than happy to accept migrations from SE Asia to South Asia. All the migrations we can actually find evidence for have been in that direction. Migrations the other way are at best hypothetical, although I'd concede mtDNA M and Y-haps F and K probably moved in that direction</i><br /><br />You are entrenched in your "Siberian" pre-conceptions. If mt-M and ychr-F, the two most important Eurasian haplogroups, moved in that direction the rest could perfectly do too. <br /><br />And you have R as well, as the East Asian R lineages also did that W-E migration. <br /><br />You argue: if there is strong evidence that they went through South Asia, I concede reluctantly, but if the evidence is even slightly weak, then they used a UFO instead (oops, I mean the "Siberian route"). <br /><br />Well, I contend that the Siberian route is not acceptable unless you can prove it. So, please: start your own blog and prove it if you can. <br /><br />This arguing in circles can be very annoying, really. <br /><br /><i>And that 'immense number of individuals' may not have moved far from where their ancestor with the mutation first appeared. Just a slow expansion, especially so in the case of mtDNA</i><br /><br />Pure convenient speculation. The more the number of individuals involved the greater the chances of improbable things to happen.<br /><br />And we're talking of Paleolithic seminomads anyhow.<br /><br /><i>A downstream mutation must happen to an individual with the ancestral haplogroup, and this individual must live within the region the ancestral haplogroup occupies. In many cases the derived haplogroup seems to have then spread much further than its ancestor haplogroup. Of course often members having the ancestral haplogroup would take part in the derived haplogroup's expansion. But it is obvious that in many cases the derived haplogroup has completely replaced the ancestral haplogroup. Survivors with the ancestral haplogroup cannot be found</i>.<br /><br />The ancestor haplogroup is dead! Eventually all lines mutate. Nobody carries pure ancestral N or even H. The may carry private lineaages that do not relate with any of the major sublineages but it is distinct from "the ancestral lineage" which is as dead as Jesus. <br /><br /><i>Possibly. But any connection tells us nothing about which direction it moved</i>. <br /><br />Like R and like everything else: from India to West Asia.Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3563811638411839784.post-72527907111507081782009-06-22T10:50:38.584+02:002009-06-22T10:50:38.584+02:00Thanks for the Metspalu '06 link. Their map o...Thanks for the Metspalu '06 link. Their map of R1a is interesting. Spreads particularly along the Ganges and Indus valleys. <br /><br />This part is also interesting: <br /><br />"The O lineages fall out with C* and D (the latter tending to derive from Sino-Tibetan speakers)". <br /><br />The authors later mention that the O lineages too are associated with both Sino-Tibetan and Austro-Asiatic languages, and came from the east. The authors neglect to mention that Y-hap C* is relatively common around the South China Sea, as well as being found in India.terrythttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17327062321100035888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3563811638411839784.post-13098551504664883302009-06-22T10:25:02.203+02:002009-06-22T10:25:02.203+02:00"You are the one who reapeatedly rejects migr..."You are the one who reapeatedly rejects migrations between South and SE Asia". <br /><br />I'm more than happy to accept migrations from SE Asia to South Asia. All the migrations we can actually find evidence for have been in that direction. Migrations the other way are at best hypothetical, although I'd concede mtDNA M and Y-haps F and K probably moved in that direction. <br /><br />"If this is correct, the lineage could have been carried by an immense number of individuals before any downstream mutation happened". <br /><br />And that 'immense number of individuals' may not have moved far from where their ancestor with the mutation first appeared. Just a slow expansion, especially so in the case of mtDNA. <br /><br />"There is no such thing as 'the geographic distribution of its ancestor hapolgroup' that is distinct from the the geographic distribution of the derived haplogroups". <br /><br />A downstream mutation must happen to an individual with the ancestral haplogroup, and this individual must live within the region the ancestral haplogroup occupies. In many cases the derived haplogroup seems to have then spread much further than its ancestor haplogroup. Of course often members having the ancestral haplogroup would take part in the derived haplogroup's expansion. But it is obvious that in many cases the derived haplogroup has completely replaced the ancestral haplogroup. Survivors with the ancestral haplogroup cannot be found. <br /><br />"Wikipedia mentions an N2a proposed clade that would include W. I wonder if this connects with the Australian N*". <br /><br />Possibly. But any connection tells us nothing about which direction it moved.terrythttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17327062321100035888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3563811638411839784.post-82238982334737412672009-06-22T03:17:12.938+02:002009-06-22T03:17:12.938+02:00Excellent observation, Ibra, thanks. And welcome, ...Excellent observation, Ibra, thanks. And welcome, btw. <br /><br />I was assuming that N2b was the same as the Asutralian N* reported by Ian Logan at <a href="http://www.ianlogan.co.uk/discussion/gifs/N_star_gif.htm" rel="nofollow">this graph</a>, which allegedly shares a basal SNP at locus 5460 with W. <br /><br />But seems I was wrong. N2a is actually referenced <a href="http://www.phylotree.org/tree/subtree_N.htm" rel="nofollow">at PhyloTree</a> to <a href="http://www.pnas.org/content/103/4/843.long" rel="nofollow">Metspalu'06</a>, which only deals with South Asia. So it must be a South Asian lineage and actually reinforces the likely origin of N2 and possibly W too in South Asia. <br /><br />Nevertheless I noticed that Wikipedia mentions an N2a proposed clade that would include W. I wonder if this connects with the Australian N* or is just another newly discovered pre-W South Asian lineage.Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3563811638411839784.post-49319768234817052592009-06-21T11:14:51.734+02:002009-06-21T11:14:51.734+02:00"We'd have to check diversity anyhow to b..."We'd have to check diversity anyhow to be reasonably sure but the link to Australian N2a of this clade also suggests a southern connection."<br /><br />Hi Maju, nice blog :-) N2a in Australia? Is there a reference to that?Ibrahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16843572398734196571noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3563811638411839784.post-76828457313867185912009-06-21T05:53:40.415+02:002009-06-21T05:53:40.415+02:00No, or very little, N(xR) (and what there is looks...<i>No, or very little, N(xR) (and what there is looks as though it is almost certainly a later immigrant) and the Indian-specific nature of the haplogroups in no way argues definitively for an Indian origin</i>.<br /><br />Yah, it looks like N would be original from further east but R seems South Asian by origin instead (the main Indian branch of N). I think that W could have South Asian origin anyhow because it's most concentrated in the Afghan-Pakistani border anywhere in the World. We'd have to check diversity anyhow to be reasonably sure but the link to Australian N2a of this clade also suggests a southern connection. <br /><br />N1 is also derived from N1'5, whose N5 branch is South Asian. The only WEA case the would need any explanation is X, if anything. <br /><br />Notice that the author mentions that he thinks that only c. 2.5% of the Indian mtDNA diversity has been sampled so far and that he still expects important findings. <br /><br />As for B and F, they are located in Gujarat and other western locations. Not sure what to do with that but I feel it's meaningful of the expansion of R within South Asia first and foremost. <br /><br /><i>Yet you seem to be arguing against such a back and forth process operating outside Africa in older times, excepting the R expansion. Surely we should expect just such a flow in Eurasia as well</i>.<br /><br />Through India (logically because of climatic conditionants first of all). You are the one who reapeatedly rejects migrations between South and SE Asia (unless massive evidence is brought forward and even then...)<br /><br /><i>Of course we can't link each haplogroup with a specific tribe but what we do know is that each mutation must have first occurred in a single individual. That individual may have moved greatly during his or her lifetime but generally I would think only a little way</i>.<br /><br />But it was then inherited by other individuals and many generations may have happened between one mutation and the rest. My rough estimate for mtDNA SNPs is (from memory, would have to re-analyze to be safe) of some 4 thousand years each on average, what means some 200 generations. If this is correct, the lineage could have been carried by an immense number of individuals before any downstream mutation happened. <br /><br />In cases like your pet lineage of mtDNA A that would mean something like 32 thousand years and 1600 generations. Enough time for anything to happen. Refine these estimates all you wish but even if you go radical and divide them by four you still would get some 8000 years and the corresponding 400 generations. <br /><br /><i>So from haplogroup distributions we can gain some idea of where a mutation is most likely to have first occurred. Of course it can only have occurred somewhere within the geographic distribution of its ancestor hapolgroup. So if it now appears in a region its ancestor haplogroup is unlikely to have occupied the mutated haplogroup is very likely to be an immigrant</i>.<br /><br />I don't think I agree with this. There is no such thing as "the geographic distribution of its ancestor hapolgroup" that is distinct from the the geographic distribution of the derived haplogroups.<br /><br />Anyhow, even if we can pinpoint with great accuracy the original area of a ancestral node as N, between it and the closest derived lineage (say: S, N9 or N1'5) there's a lapse of some 4000 years (from the early Hittites or Bell Beaker apogee to us, if you need a comparison) and the corresponding 200 or so generations. Even in such closely derived lineages, we cannot trace the events better one node and the next one, between underived N and S for example.Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.com