March 1, 2012

Genetics of Central Indian tribals

A new study has been published on the genetics (multiple facets) of Madhya Pradesh tribals:


Gunjan Sahrma et al. Genetic Affinities of the Central Indian Tribal Populations. PLoS ONE 2012. Open access.

Abstract


Background

The central Indian state Madhya Pradesh is often called as ‘heart of India’ and has always been an important region functioning as a trinexus belt for three major language families (Indo-European, Dravidian and Austroasiatic). There are less detailed genetic studies on the populations inhabited in this region. Therefore, this study is an attempt for extensive characterization of genetic ancestries of three tribal populations, namely; Bharia, Bhil and Sahariya, inhabiting this region using haploid and diploid DNA markers.

Methodology/Principal Findings

Mitochondrial DNA analysis showed high diversity, including some of the older sublineages of M haplogroup and prominent R lineages in all the three tribes. Y-chromosomal biallelic markers revealed high frequency of Austroasiatic-specific M95-O2a haplogroup in Bharia and Sahariya, M82-H1a in Bhil and M17-R1a in Bhil and Sahariya. The results obtained by haploid as well as diploid genetic markers revealed strong genetic affinity of Bharia (a Dravidian speaking tribe) with the Austroasiatic (Munda) group. The gene flow from Austroasiatic group is further confirmed by their Y-STRs haplotype sharing analysis, where we determined their founder haplotype from the North Munda speaking tribe, while, autosomal analysis was largely in concordant with the haploid DNA results.

Conclusions/Significance

Bhil exhibited largely Indo-European specific ancestry, while Sahariya and Bharia showed admixed genetic package of Indo-European and Austroasiatic populations. Hence, in a landscape like India, linguistic label doesn't unequivocally follow the genetic footprints.

I am not going to discuss it here any further because, not only the abstract itself outlines the main findings but the data seems to contain a number of obvious errors that make it very difficult to evaluate the findings with any security. Barred these (and hoping they will be corrected soon), the paper seems a quite interesting data mine.

Figure 6. Ancestry sharing analysis by STRUCTURE

68 comments:

  1. "the data seems to contain a number of obvious errors that make it very difficult to evaluate the findings with any security".

    Such as? I found the mt-DNA especially interesting. All but 5 of the M haplogroups listed are found exactly where I claimed were specifically India. And those 5 I placed in Northeast India, or, in the case of M31, in the Andamans.

    Also notable is the small number of mt-DNA R haplogroups. R's greatest diversity can hardly be claimed as 'South Asia'.

    Finally I note that the authors separate M66 from M4''67 whereas Phylotree still includes it in the wider haplogroup.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Such as figure 2, listing pooled Indian Indoeuropeans with 5% R1a but 34% O2a (similar for Dravidians), in a most obvious tabulation error.

    Or when in fig. 6, when they say: "Individuals are represented as thin vertical lines"... but there is no individual representation whatsoever.

    It needs a throughout proof-reading and, sincerely, I would not have allowed publication as it is.

    ReplyDelete
  3. "It needs a throughout proof-reading and, sincerely, I would not have allowed publication as it is".

    I've had time to look at the mt-DNA and I see it has misrepresentations in it as well. However it does provide additional information to the earlier paper:

    http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0007447

    Interestingly neither the Sahariya nor the Bharia show M2, a very common and widespread South Asian haplogroup. It is even one of the few 'Central' M haplogroups to have made it into the Northeast Indian tribals.

    The combined papers show that the South Asian haplogroups split fairly closely into 'Central' and 'Northeastern' M haplogroups, with some interesting overlaps. M39 is reasonably common in Central India but especially in Orissa. Its 'sister' haplogroup, M70, is South Chinese. M31 turns up in the Sahariya and some Orissa tribals, and in the Andamans. M53 is present in the Bharia, the Nihal and a couple of Orissa tribals. Its 'sister, M19 popped up in Palawan in the Philippines. As did M24, sister haplogroup to M41. M41 was identified in both the Bhil and the Bharia, as well as some Orissa tribals.

    At the western end it seems that M34'57 has simply split into eastern and central versions: M34 the east central version and m57 the west central version.

    Generally speaking the Central haplogroups have not spread much into the Northeast.

    The 'Central' haplogroups are therefore M2, M3, M4''67, M5, M6, M25, M33, M34'57 and M35. All the other M haplogroups apart from M1'20'51 and M48 are 'Northeastern' haplogroups (or beyond) many of which later moved back westward into India, especially through Orissa.

    ReplyDelete
  4. More than just misrepresentations, what it has is lack of proofreading, what, in a scientific paper that is mostly about the data collected, amounts to information chaos - more than enough to confuse the reader quite a bit.

    Other than that, I see that you're becoming an expert in Indian mtDNA.

    "Generally speaking the Central haplogroups have not spread much into the Northeast".

    That's normal, I guess: NE India is a distinct region on its own right.

    "All the other M haplogroups apart from M1'20'51 and M48 are 'Northeastern' haplogroups"...

    I'd like to read a documented blog post highlighting the data which is allegedly behind this claim, haplogroup by haplogroup, data bit by data bit. I just can't believe that almost all 40+ M subclades are East Asian (or equivalent) and so far haven't seen any such detailed study/exposition (and your claims have been debunked before with just some methodical research, what is a bad precedent).

    However I do find notable that N5 ('sister' of N1) shows up among the Saharia.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Also, after looking at the data with some more care, I see no reason for your arbitrary claim that what is found in tribes like the Saharia or even the Austroasiatic tribals of Orissa/Chattisgarh/Bihar, is necessarily East Asian. Actually, lacking any documented connection with East Asia or at the very least NE India (arguable), you should drop such outlandish claims.

    ReplyDelete
  6. "after looking at the data with some more care, I see no reason for your arbitrary claim that what is found in tribes like the Saharia or even the Austroasiatic tribals of Orissa/Chattisgarh/Bihar, is necessarily East Asian".

    So you maintain that M40'62, M24'41, M31, M39'70, M52'58, and M19'53 are not northeastern haplogroups? Amazing. Proves I was correct about your knowledge of genetics.

    "Other than that, I see that you're becoming an expert in Indian mtDNA".

    No more than you could be if you actually studied the data.

    "That's normal, I guess: NE India is a distinct region on its own right".

    Exactly. And, as I'm trying to point out, it has its own selection of M haplogroups. Many of these appear to have later moved back around the Bay of bengal, exactly as othes studies have suggested.

    "I just can't believe that almost all 40+ M subclades are East Asian"

    I have never claimed they are 'East Asian'. Read again what I said: they are 'Northeast Indian'. Many are found only there, or deeper into East Asia.

    "your claims have been debunked before with just some methodical research"

    When was that?

    ReplyDelete
  7. M40'62 is not documented AFAIK out of India, even if it does look like centered in Arunachal. M31 looks centered around Bengal, mind you. M39 is very scattered through all India. I have not clear where the other haplogroups you mention may exist.

    "Proves I was correct about your knowledge of genetics".

    Are you? Well, you know what you have to do about it, right? What's the point of visiting the blog of an ignorant like me?

    "I said: they are 'Northeast Indian'. Many are found only there, or deeper into East Asia".

    Actually most "NE Indian" clades are, oddly enough found in India only, and not only in NE India.

    This is interesting in itself, suggesting that the East Asian genetic flow was mostly male. A phenomenon we can appreciate in other areas like Uralic Europe and something already proposed in the past for the Austroasiatic tribals of East India.

    ReplyDelete
  8. "However I do find notable that N5 ('sister' of N1) shows up among the Saharia".

    Did you not know already that N5 was the Indian relation of N1?

    "M40'62 is not documented AFAIK out of India, even if it does look like centered in Arunachal".

    But its sister haplogroup M62 is documented out of India:

    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ajpa.21350/abstract

    And:

    http://www.pnas.org/content/106/50/21230

    Seems like Tibet. In the two papers under consideration here M62 is found only in one tribal in Assam. That implies a reasonably northern origin for the combined haplogroup. I have also noted (from somewhere) that M40 is actually found in East Asia as well.

    "Actually most 'NE Indian' clades are, oddly enough found in India only, and not only in NE India".

    Not really true. From the papers it looks as though many mt-DNAs in Northeast India also show up in East Asia. For a start we have the thoroughly East Asian haplogroups D, M8, M9, M10 and M12'G that show up in the Northeast Indian tribals.

    "M39 is very scattered through all India. I have not clear where the other haplogroups you mention may exist".

    M39 seems widespread in India but its sister M70 is South Chinese. M49 is found in the Khasi of Northeast India and south through Bihar and Orissa, but also in South China. Then we have M11 in the Gallong of Assam as well as in East Asia. M61 from M13'46'61, a basically East Asian haplogroup. M50 appears to be both Northeast Indian and Southeast Asian.

    "M31 looks centered around Bengal, mind you".

    Then we arrive at the haplogroups that look to have spread round the Bay of Bengal. M31 may well be 'centred on Bengal', but it is also found in the Andamans. As is M32 whose sister haplogroup M56 was found in one of the Central Indian tribals, the Korku. M53 popped up in several of the tribal groups but its relation M19 is Palawan, in the Philippines. As is M24, whose relation M41 shows up in several Indian tribal groups.

    ReplyDelete
  9. "I'd like to read a documented blog post highlighting the data which is allegedly behind this claim, haplogroup by haplogroup, data bit by data bit. I just can't believe that almost all 40+ M subclades are East Asian (or equivalent)"

    There are only a few mt-DNA Ms to complete the list.

    Two other apparently Northeast Indian haplogroups that are rare in the studies (M52'58 and M60) and one that doesn't appear at all (M48).

    M60 has only been found in the Toto I think:

    http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0007447

    And M58 has only been found in the Munda of Orissa. I don't know about its relation M52 but it is probably Indian.

    M48 is apparently associated with Austro-Asiatic speakers in Northeast India:

    http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0001141

    Continuing east and then south we have M71 and M72 in South China and SE Asia, M47 in 'SE Asia', M23'75 in Madagascar and SE Asia, M77 in Thailand, M21 in the Semang and in Thailand (and in Bangladesh evidently), M22 in Aboriginal Malay and in Vietnam and M26 in Sumatra. Then M73'79 in the Philippines (M73) and South China (M79) and M17 in the Philippines and SE Asia.

    That leaves just the 6 Australian/Melanesian M haplogroups. Most interesting is M42'74. M42 is Australian while M74 is from South China.

    So we have M1 from M1'20'51 west of India, 11 M haplogroups in Central India ( I missed M36 and M44 from my list of a few days ago), and the remaining 36 M haplogroups separated from the Central Indian haplogroups by the Ganges and its delta in Northeast India or beyond.

    ReplyDelete
  10. I thought I posted a reply to your previous post but seems I did not.

    My main contention point is that, in the PNAS paper at least, M62 is not mentioned at all. And if it is, as you say, in Assam that would not make any major difference because we already knew it was in nearby Arunachal Pradesh.

    Also I doubt you can argue that M31 migrated from Andamans (the only SEA area where we know it does exist) to India and Bangladesh.

    You need to be much more methodical before I can trust your claims, most often they are simply wrong. You always seem to be more interested in grasping for straws than in researching the matter dispassionately. You should correct that bad habit.

    ReplyDelete
  11. As for the last post, please draw that in a map or a well organized excel sheet or something because it's a total mess to follow you and your dance of the M sisters, which are so many that without proper methodology my head spins.

    ReplyDelete
  12. A possibility is to dump all the data into the auxiliary wiki I opened a year ago or so.

    ReplyDelete
  13. "My main contention point is that, in the PNAS paper at least, M62 is not mentioned at all".

    But it is mentioned in the other one, where it shows up only in the Dirang Monpa of Assam:

    http://www.plosone.org/article/slideshow.action?uri=info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0007447&imageURI=info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0007447.t001

    "Also I doubt you can argue that M31 migrated from Andamans (the only SEA area where we know it does exist) to India and Bangladesh".

    Of course not. But it must have moved from somewhere definite into one region or the other. A 'coastal migration' is most likely because it is found in Orissa (Pauri Bhuiya and the Munda) and in the Andamans. Which region it originated in is impossible to discern at this distance in time, but the Andamans were almost certainly populated from the mainland coast of Burma. Orissa was quite possibly populated from the same place. The Munda speak a language with unknown connections but it is usually regarded as an offshoot of Austro-Asiatic, almost certainly from east of India.

    "You always seem to be more interested in grasping for straws than in researching the matter dispassionately".

    I have researched this completely dispassionately.

    "it's a total mess to follow you and your dance of the M sisters"

    It should be simple to follow. It starts in Northeast India and follows the Malay Peninsula south all the way to Australia and New Guinea, in order. I'm sure you will be able to place the haplogroups in a map for yourself.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Sorry. I missed the point:

    "My main contention point is that, in the PNAS paper at least, M62 is not mentioned at all".

    But the reference for M62 in Phylotree is the paper entitled, 'Mitochondrial genome evidence reveals successful Late Paleolithic settlement on the Tibetan Plateau'. So it's reasonable to suppose that the haplogroup is found in Tibet. Which would explain its presence in the Dirang Monpa.

    "The Munda speak a language with unknown connections but it is usually regarded as an offshoot of Austro-Asiatic"

    Sorry again. In a hurry. The Munda speak Austro-Asiatic. It's the Nihal who speak an obscure language, possibly Austro-Asiatic. They are the only tribal listed as containing M56, a part of M32'56. M32 is also Andaman, so again we probably have a 'coastal migration'.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Yet again, sorry.

    "So it's reasonable to suppose that the haplogroup is found in Tibet".

    It's actually just M62b that is Tibetan. Zhou calls it 'M16'.

    "Also I doubt you can argue that M31 migrated from Andamans (the only SEA area where we know it does exist) to India and Bangladesh".

    This paper, which I linked to a few days ago, has M11, M13 and M31b all in Tibet.

    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ajpa.21350/abstract

    That's fairly interesting. At least one branch of M31 made it to Tibet as well as the Andamans and East India. In the other two papers we're discussing M11 shows up only in the Wanchoo of Northeast India. The connection is easily explained. M13 is a branch of M13'46'61. Of these M61 shows up only in the Lachung Pa and the Shertukpen of Northeast India. M61 was also shown as present in Laos in an earlier paper. So it is a Northeast India/South China haplogroup.

    ReplyDelete
  16. In truth, Terry: think for ten minutes before you write anything. We have gone in circles from your claims about M62 being in Tibet and "China" (no evidence after all) to your claim of it being in "Assam", being actually Arunachal Pradesh. That's something we knew from the beginning so why this waste of time? My time?!

    "It should be simple to follow"...

    No, it's not without properly sorting each and all clades on a map or at least spreadsheet, bullets' scheme...

    Much less when I have to check and double-check almost each claim you make, as many are simply wrong.

    "But the reference for M62 in Phylotree is the paper entitled, 'Mitochondrial genome evidence reveals successful Late Paleolithic settlement on the Tibetan Plateau'. So it's reasonable to suppose that the haplogroup is found in Tibet".

    While a haplogroup that is found (only as far as we know) in Arunachal Pradesh, right at the border of Tibet, is probably also found across the border, your "reasonable supposition" based only on the title of the paper sucks. They may for example have sampled controls across the border or whatever. Until you know, you don't know: buy the paper, hack Elsevier or beg for it but do not assume anything from the title, please!

    Specially when the PNAS (accessible) paper you mentioned by its side does not support your claim (wild conjecture) at all.

    "This paper, which I linked to a few days ago, has M11, M13 and M31b all in Tibet".

    Care to send me a copy?

    ReplyDelete
  17. You've dug yourself into quite a hole here. Presumably you accept that various M haplogroups are spread through South China, Southeast Asia and out into Australia/New Guinea without having any representatives in India itself. In other words you appear to accept a geographic distribution of M haplogroups. Yet you contrive to create a boundary region in Northeast India that has no M haplogroups native to it. Very strange belief.

    ReplyDelete
  18. "Care to send me a copy?"

    Here it is:

    https://viewer.zoho.com/docs/kbHuq

    Quote:

    "Haplogroup M62 was first reported as a novel haplogroup in northeast India (Chandrasekar et al., 2009).However, recent published 13 complete sequences of M62 from Tibet indicated that it is Tibetan specific"

    The table shows it is quite widespread in the south and east of Tibet. And:

    "Tibetan distinctiveness has also been found in haplogroup M13. This haplogroup is presented in East Asian populations at very low frequency and has been found sporadically in northern Asia"

    M31b appears in figure 5 although it doesn't appear in Table 1. Present in just one individual. Phylotree gives 15676 as the defining mutation for M31b1.

    "Another M* sample (MB1621) from the Monba population belonged sublineage Tibeto-Burman populations from Northeast India"

    Monba is apparently just over the border from India, but it is interesting that M31 is an 'Andaman haplogroup'. And some discussion of the paper at Dienekes:

    http://dienekes.blogspot.co.nz/2010/07/mtdna-of-tibet.html

    I'm sure you will also find the comments concerning haplogroup A interesting.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Ok, thanks for the link.

    "I'm sure you will also find the comments concerning haplogroup A interesting".

    Just Terry being Terry: jumping from anecdote to claim of support of his preconceptions.

    Whatever it is you need to work much harder than just dropping random comments, which lack the necessary coherence and method. I'm bored of you making demands of me knowing what is M13 and why is it relevant for anything: all that may be in your mind but not in mine. Put your thoughts together, explain them to someone who does not know shit about genetics, correct all that he/she has not understood, check again, publish only when your guinea pig/proofreader understands all or almost all at the very least. Use maps and nice schemes...

    Then ring me up.

    ReplyDelete
  20. "Put your thoughts together, explain them to someone who does not know shit about genetics, correct all that he/she has not understood"

    That is exactly what I'm trying to do in your case.

    "Ok, thanks for the link".

    But I note that you are still totally unable to admit that you were wrong concerning M62:

    "While a haplogroup that is found (only as far as we know) in Arunachal Pradesh, right at the border of Tibet, is probably also found across the border, your 'reasonable supposition' based only on the title of the paper sucks. They may for example have sampled controls across the border or whatever".

    Surely you must now be prepared to admit that it is quite reasonable to suppose that a paper dealing with a particular region that is referenced as defining a particular haplogroup is sufficient to allow one to assume that the haplogroup is found in that region. Of course you have made your mind up as to where the various haplogroups originated and no amount of evidence is going to change your view.

    "Just Terry being Terry: jumping from anecdote to claim of support of his preconceptions".

    OK. So where, in any of the papers we have been discussing, is any evidence offered for mt-DNA A having expanded from India?

    "you need to work much harder than just dropping random comments"

    They are certainly not 'random comments'. They are very relevant to understanding the expansion of mt-DNA M. Oh, sorry. I forgot. You are not influenced in the slightest by evidence.

    "I'm bored of you making demands of me knowing what is M13 and why is it relevant for anything"

    M13 is another basal haplogroup found in Tibet. It is part of M13'46'61. M61 is found in Northeast India (according to the 'tribals' paper). M61 is also found in Laos, providing a linking haplogroup between NE India and the mountains of East Asia. Surely that is sufficient to tell you that M13'46'61 did not travel by any 'coastal' migration. The distribution of such haplogroups as M7, M8, M9, M10, M11, M12'G and M76 show that the entry point for those haplogroups into East Asia was via the mountains of South China/Northeast India, not via the coast. And, most interesting of all, we have M1'20'51. M1 in SW Asia, M20 in South China and M51 in Laos. Draw a straight line connecting these haplogroups, something you have often suggested I do when considering haplogroup migration.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Concerning Laos, here is your own link to the relevant paper:

    http://forwhattheywereweare.blogspot.co.nz/2011/02/laotian-genetics-mtdna.html

    I've had a look at my comments there and still hold to them. One I made:

    "All this must mean either that there has been substantial recent migration from India into Laos and Hainan, or that the movement was ancient. My guess is the latter. But the routes to Laos and Hainan must have diverged somewhere in Zomia. The two regions contain basically discrete sets of basal M haplogroups. Another interesting Hainan haplogroup is M74, part of M42'74 which is one mutation from basal M. M42 is Australian".

    ReplyDelete
  22. "you were wrong concerning M62"...

    I was neither right nor wrong: I looked at it and said something like "it's plausible that it's found across the border in Tibet, after all it's only in Arunachal, I just can't find it in your PNAS link".

    If you want to play childish power games ("mine is better" and all that shit) get a psychotherapist.

    "That is exactly what I'm trying to do in your case".

    You can't analyze macro-haplogroup M in the comments box: you need more space and some graphics.

    "Surely you must now be prepared to admit that it is quite reasonable to suppose that a paper dealing with a particular region that is referenced as defining a particular haplogroup is sufficient to allow one to assume that the haplogroup is found in that region".

    Nope: just the title in any case is not enough reference: you should know the details. The "devil" is always in the details.

    You have in the past made claims that do not fit the facts, not just once and you never apologize... just slip out of the hole and launch another charge on some other corner.

    I'm so fucking tired of your uncooperative attitude that I often wish you would not read nor comment in this blog anymore.

    "Of course you have made your mind up as to where the various haplogroups originated"...

    I made my mind by looking at them in full detail, not by looking at some random details of them. Instead you are just parroting some old racialist doctrine from the depths of the 20th century and grasping for straws in order to defend it.

    Do your work, damnit: if you want to discuss macro-haplogroup M: find out the location of each clade (for real, no speculations), do the geometry and see if the result is any different of what I got back in the day. Only that way you can persuade me to change my mind: methodically exposing where each of the 50 or so M subclades are located and then working out the geometry. Whether M62 is this or that alone does not change anything: there are scores of basal haplogroups there!

    Don't take the part for the whole: the whole is the composite of all 49 components. When I did back in the day I researched some 30-40 subhaplogroups of M, now there are some more but they do not look like they are going to radically alter the picture.

    And if they do, demonstrate it methodically and do not just wave some random haplogroup which you may be one of very few people on Earth to have paid any attention to ever.

    So use that knowledge for good and write a thesis or at least a decent blog article instead of making me wish death.

    "So where, in any of the papers we have been discussing, is any evidence offered for mt-DNA A having expanded from India?"

    What?!

    I don't claim that! M expanded from South Asia, not A. A probably expanded from Manchuria or at least North China many many millennia after M did.

    ReplyDelete
  23. "You have in the past made claims that do not fit the facts"

    Such as ...?

    "I'm so fucking tired of your uncooperative attitude"

    Maju. You have never cooperated in any effort to understand and interpret the data.

    "I made my mind by looking at them in full detail"

    Rubbish. For someone who has, in the past, made such dogmatic comments concerning haplogroup M you appear to haver made remarkably little effort to discover the geographic position of the various haplogroups

    "You can't analyze macro-haplogroup M in the comments box: you need more space and some graphics".

    And it can certainly be done without graphics. I can provide a simple list if you wish.

    ReplyDelete
  24. "Do your work, damnit: if you want to discuss macro-haplogroup M: find out the location of each clade (for real, no speculations), do the geometry and see if the result is any different of what I got back in the day. Only that way you can persuade me to change my mind: methodically exposing where each of the 50 or so M subclades are located and then working out the geometry".

    I have, and the distribution does not support the ancient conclusions you came to. Let me know if you find any mistakes:

    M1'20'51: M1 SW Asia and North Africa, M20 South China, M51 Laos (and presumably nearby).

    M2: Central India. 20% of Indian haplogroups belong here. Not present outside India.

    M3: Central India. Not present outside India.

    M4''67: Central India. Widespread. Not present outside India.

    M5: Central India. Widespread. Not present outside India.

    M6: Central India. Not present outside India.

    M7: East Asia.

    M8: East Asia. Includes C/Z. M8 in NE India.

    M9: East Asia and NE India. Includes E, especially present in Taiwan and Borneo.

    M10: East Asia. Supposedly Northeast India. Not present in papers under discussion.

    M11: Tibet and China. Minor presence in India.

    M12'G: East Asia, especially Japan. Both haplogroups minor presence in India.

    M13'46'61: M13 Tibet, M46 East Asia, M61 Laos, NE India (and presumably between).

    M14: Australia.

    M15: Australia.

    M17: Philippines, SE Asia.

    M19'53: M19 Palawan (Philippines), M53 East and Central India.

    M21: Thailand, Bangladesh. Semang tribals. M21d Laos.

    M22: Aboriginal Malays, Vietnam and South China.

    M23'75: Southeast Asia. M23 in Laos and Madagascar.

    M24'41: M24 Palawan (Philippines), M41 Central India.

    M25: East and Central India. Not present outside India.

    M26: Sumatra.

    M27: Melanesia.

    M28: Melanesia.

    M29'Q: Melanesia and New Guinea.

    M31: Andamans, India. M31b Tibet.

    M32'56: M32 Andamans, M56 minor presence in India.

    M33: Central India. Also South China.

    M34'57: M34 Central India, M57 west of M34. Not present outside India.

    M35: Central India. Not present outside India.

    M36: Central India. Minor presence. Not present outside India.

    M39'70: M39 Central India, M70 South China.

    M40'62: M40 Central and East India, M62 East Asia. M62b Tibet.

    M42'74: M42 Australia, M74 South China.

    M44: Central India. Not present outside India.

    M47: Island Southeast Asia (a mystery haplogroup actually).

    M48: Northeast India, supposedly associated with Austro-Asiatic speakers.

    M49: India, especially east and northeast. Supposedly also South China.

    M50: Supposedly NE India, SE Asia and (possibly) China.

    M52'58: India, earliest branches of M58 in northeast. Minor presence in papers under discussion.

    M60: Northeast India.

    M71: Laos, South China, island SE Asia. Diverse in Laos.

    M72: SE Asia, possibly South China.

    M73'79: M73 Philippines and SE Asia, M79 South China.

    M76: South China.

    M77: Thailand.

    M80'D: M80 Palawan (Philippines), D East Asia. D also in NE India.

    ReplyDelete
  25. "Such as ...?"

    Lots, just review our conversations from years ago and recent (it's been getting worse recently).

    As for the list of haplogroups, it looks legit as far as I can tell. Care to input the results in the Wiki (preferably with linked sources), so we can work on the same basic data?

    IF what you say is correct, mtDNA M would now look to have more basal diversity East of India than in South Asia: 27 vs 22. I'm most cautious because most novel haplogroups ended up in SE Asia (incl. South China and such but mostly SE Asia in the restricted sense anyhow), so I'd like to confirm them before I can jump to conclusions (last time I followed your lead in that same direction, with R, I ended up having to correct myself soon after, because some haplogroups were not where you said they were or something like that).

    But IF you'd be correct, it could mean that Toba was in the end very destructive in South Asia (???) and a full fledged recolonization was done from SE Asia, for which we have already found some evidence in N/R and MNOPS. Harder to explain is Y-DNA IJK(xMNOPS) but there's still some F* in East Asia to discern... Maybe...

    We'll see.

    ReplyDelete
  26. By "the wiki" I mean this one: http://ourorigins.wikia.com/wiki/MtDNA_haplogroup_M, not Wikipedia (although feel free).

    ReplyDelete
  27. "Lots, just review our conversations from years ago and recent"

    I see no examples.

    "last time I followed your lead in that same direction, with R, I ended up having to correct myself soon after, because some haplogroups were not where you said they were or something like that"

    I doubt very much that any 'haplogroups were not where you said they were'. To me it looks as though the alternative claim ('something like that') is just an excuse to ignore the implications.

    "Care to input the results in the Wiki (preferably with linked sources), so we can work on the same basic data?"

    When I have time. I'm basically fairly busy.

    "IF what you say is correct, mtDNA M would now look to have more basal diversity East of India than in South Asia: 27 vs 22".

    And of those 22 South Asian haplogroups it appears that only about half of them most are confined to that region. The others are found beyond South Asia as well. But I keep trying to tell you that 'basal diversity' does not equal 'origin'.

    "IF you'd be correct, it could mean that Toba was in the end very destructive in South Asia (???) and a full fledged recolonization was done from SE Asia, for which we have already found some evidence in N/R and MNOPS".

    To me there is a much simpler explanation, which involves no influence from Toba at all. IF the expansion was not coastal but the entry to South Asia was a bit north, via the Khyber Pass for example, the haplogroups confined to 'India' would be a sidebranch that became stuck in South Asia, having moved south through the headwaters of the Ganges and Indus Rivers. That takes care of the haplogroups I have listed as being 'not present outside India' (technically a bit more than just India). The remaining haplogroups moved east between the Ganges and the Himalayas to entere the hill country of Northeast India/South China/Burma, where they diversified considerably.

    That's what I see as the most likely explanation anyway. In other words no 'coastal' migration of any form was involved at any stage. Except later. Around the Bay of Bengal for example, and out to Australia/New Guinea.

    I agree largely with the part of your comment 'some evidence in N/R and MNOPS'. Except you already know the problems I have with an Indian route east (or west) for N. Or Y-DNA C.

    "Harder to explain is Y-DNA IJK(xMNOPS) but there's still some F* in East Asia to discern... Maybe..."

    The presence of F does provide some level of explanation. However I think the problem is most easily solved if we are prepared to accept that IJK had already formed by the time that both F and members of IJK entered South Asia with mt-DNA M. IJ formed from those left behind. HT formed soon after the entry into South Asia, and MNOPS formed in the east.

    ReplyDelete
  28. By the way, I have found some alterations necessary already. You may like to correct any list you wish to keep. For a start I missed C and D in America. It turns out I may be wrong concerning M4''67. Perhaps M45 did make it to South China, although I cannot be certain. M10 is present in the papers under discussion, although far from common. It is listed in the Gallong of Northeast India. M13 is, of course, present in China as well as Tibet, and M46 is more properly a 'Southeast Asian' haplogroup rather than 'East Asian'. Both M49 and M72 are in fact found in South China, not just 'possibly' South China.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Look, Terry, when your claims happen to be wrong, which has been often, you typically just change the focus of the conversation, seldom acknowledging your error at all but insisting once and again on the same direction that you were previously supporting with a false/wrong claim, suddenly forgotten once proven wrong.

    It's been like that for years. I'm sure you know and notice, else talk with your psychiatrist.

    "When I have time. I'm basically fairly busy".

    You are not that busy that you cannot come over here almost every day and "reply". If you don't have time, then shut up: it'll save you some extra time. Either you are discussing seriously or you are casual but you can't be both as you try to do all the time ('my opinion is the correct one but I don't have time to demonstrate it'): either you invest time or you do not.

    "But I keep trying to tell you that 'basal diversity' does not equal 'origin'".

    And I keep telling you that it does. The counter-example of migrants is not relevant because there would still always be more diversity in Europe or all the Old World than anywhere in the New World. Maybe Brazil has more R1b diversity than Portugal but not than Europe or Eurasia for sure.

    Only totally erasing populations could that happen. But populations are practically never erased so much. That's my basic thesis and I challenge you or Dienekes to prove me wrong in that: some evidence almost always remains in the genetic pool.

    Instead you guys seem adamant of perpetual mass genocide to levels that not even Hitler could dream of.

    "IF the expansion was not coastal..."

    Then we would not see all but four clades popping up in the Tropics.

    It's as simple as that.

    "In other words no 'coastal' migration of any form was involved at any stage. Except later. Around the Bay of Bengal for example, and out to Australia/New Guinea".

    There are lineages over Australasia only one mutation apart from M, N and R: not just coastal but open seas navigation of some sort was available since the very beginnings of the Eurasian Expansion.

    "Except you already know the problems I have with an Indian route"...

    Other than being a square-minded fanatic of trekking through the snows while keeping black pigmentation... I do not yet know which are your "problems" with the South Asian route, so well documented in nearly all aspects.

    "Perhaps M45 did make it to South China"...

    That'd be interesting if confirmed, making "the R of M" (M4'67) a bit more like the real R (somewhat pan-Eurasian at least and not just South Asian).

    All the rest, please introduce to the Wiki with due references. Only starting from a good database we can understand the whole picture.

    ReplyDelete
  30. "Look, Terry, when your claims happen to be wrong, which has been often"

    Maju. My claims have not been wrong, ever. It is only your narrow view that has ever maintained them so. The best example is when I first claimed that Y-DNA K had spread from SE Asia, specifically from somewhere near Wallacea. You have subsequently been forced to admit that claim was correct in spite of your originally livid response. Other of my claims are yet to be proved correct in your view, but that is only because you have blindly accepted the 'great southern coastal migration theory' for every single haplogroup. That idea in itself is extremely likely to be incorrect.

    "You are not that busy that you cannot come over here almost every day and 'reply'".

    That doesn't take much time.

    "And I keep telling you that it does".

    There you go with your obstinate denial again. Nobody but you actually believes basal diversity always represents region of origin. There are all sorts of reasons why basal diversity could become limited in a region of origin.

    "Instead you guys seem adamant of perpetual mass genocide to levels that not even Hitler could dream of".

    'Mass genocide' is certainly not required. Continued drift is sufficient.

    "Then we would not see all but four clades popping up in the Tropics. It's as simple as that".

    That statement is ridiculous. The 'tropics' encompasses much more than just the coast. Try looking at a map some time.

    "There are lineages over Australasia only one mutation apart from M, N and R: not just coastal but open seas navigation of some sort was available since the very beginnings of the Eurasian Expansion".

    That in itself is no evidence whatsoever that the Australians traveled all the way from Africa via the coast. At most it is evidence that they developed or adopted a coastal economy some time before they managed to reach Australia. And you're ignoring the 'Bay of Bengal' expansion in which mt-DNA M31 and M32 reached the Andamans. The overwhelming presence of Y-DNA D indicates that the Andaman population came from somewhere near Burma/Northeast Indai, not via the southern Indian coast.

    "Other than being a square-minded fanatic of trekking through the snows while keeping black pigmentation... I do not yet know which are your 'problems' with the South Asian route, so well documented in nearly all aspects".

    'Well documented'? Come off whatever it is you're on. And why is 'trekking through the snows' necessary for any route that isn't coastal?

    "All the rest, please introduce to the Wiki with due references. Only starting from a good database we can understand the whole picture".

    I'm working on the references. And I reaslise the Nepalese haplogroups are very relevant as support for a route north of the Ganges, so I've added them. They include: M4''67 (specifically M30c, M18, M38, M43 and M53), M5 and M35 of the haplogroups that look to be 'Central Indian'. As well we have the Northeast Indian/East Asian haplogroups including C, Z, D4, M9a, G, M21b, M31, M33, M51 and M52. Many are presumably the product of later movement into the region, but others could be remnants of a first wave of migration.

    http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2148/9/154

    ReplyDelete
  31. "My claims have not been wrong, ever".

    Re-read that and either correct or accompany with the topical maniacal laughter.

    I mean your claims about location of clades and such, not even your weird hypothesis about snow-walking proto-Papuans.

    "The best example is when I first claimed that Y-DNA K had spread from SE Asia"...

    K did never do that as far as we can tell. You must mean MNOPS.

    "... you have blindly accepted the 'great southern coastal migration theory' for every single haplogroup".

    Every single haplogroup means two: M and N.

    Blindly means thoughtfully.

    "That [commenting here] doesn't take much time".

    It doesn't if you just reply without chewing on what you're saying. Not thinking is fast indeed: it may take as little as zero nanoseconds.

    "Nobody but you actually believes basal diversity always represents region of origin".

    That's not what I've read in all these many years. While occasionally I come (or more often issue myself) certain criticism that asks for qualification and refinement of that notion, nobody ever (but you?) has ever said otherwise. Would that be the case, we would be unable to infer anything about the origin of any haplogroup because it could well have migrated from the region of less diversity to the one with the greatest (or viceversa or something in between). Prehistorical reconstruction genetics would be dead as a sterile vacuum chamber.

    "The 'tropics' encompasses much more than just the coast".

    In Asia? You can't be serious? Cf. Wikipedia: Tropics, Science Dictionary, Blue Planet Biomes...

    Even the Subtropics don't go too much into Asia, certainly not Siberia.

    "That in itself is no evidence whatsoever that the Australians traveled all the way from Africa via the coast".

    You always change the meaning of what I said. You should re-read our conversations...

    It is evidence (and that's what I said, why do you force me to repeat?) of migration to Australasia being very fast, IMO not more than 5000 years after the coalescence of M, N and R respectively, probably quite less.

    Don't know if you notice but for a reply to a post which did not say "coastal" (or "boating" or anything of the like) anywhere, you have decided that everything meant "coastal" even if it only meant "rapid" in fact.

    You are obsessed: unhealthily so.

    ...

    ReplyDelete
  32. ...

    "And why is 'trekking through the snows' necessary for any route that isn't coastal?"

    For any route that does not go through South Asia. It is: there's winter over there you know: cold, frosty long winters, even now in the Interglacial Period.

    Examples from today's Ataian winters: 1, 2, 3. Or just make a search.

    It was quite harsher in the Ice Age. It definitely requires some specialist adaption (clothes, white skin) and not just a casual trekking.

    Sometimes I feel you think I'm dumb or something.

    ... "a route north of the Ganges"...

    And South of the Hymalayas? That would be a new approach, still archaeology seems rather to support the Narmada route instead, south of the Ganges.

    (Not that they would not have used boats to cross the rivers... but that's another story).

    "Many are presumably the product of later movement into the region, but others could be remnants of a first wave of migration".

    Now we are getting somewhere. Could you have written this first and skipped all the rest of the junk?

    Can you do next time?

    ReplyDelete
  33. "Sometimes I feel you think I'm dumb or something".

    I certainly don't think you are 'dumb'. But I do think you are hampered by your apparent need to place the origin of all three haplogroups together in a single place and at the same time. This need is probably a product of a childhood acceptance of Noah's Ark or the Garden of Eden which you have been unable to escape as you grew up.

    "Don't know if you notice but for a reply to a post which did not say 'coastal' (or 'boating' or anything of the like) anywhere, you have decided that everything meant 'coastal' even if it only meant 'rapid' in fact".

    But you have consistently claimed in the past that such a rapid expansion can only have been coastal. I'm pleased to see that you have changed your mind.

    "It doesn't if you just reply without chewing on what you're saying. Not thinking is fast indeed: it may take as little as zero nanoseconds".

    It is obvious that you do very little thinking before you comment. For the sake of your own sanity you need to open your eyes.

    "And South of the Hymalayas? That would be a new approach, still archaeology seems rather to support the Narmada route instead, south of the Ganges".

    It is impossible to make a believable case for haplogroup M having entered South Asia via the coast before moving up the Narmada though. If such had been the case surely Gujarat should have several specific M haplogroups. But what do we find? The closest we get are M44 and M57. M44 is a minor haplogroup anyway and M57 is the western version of M34'56. Otherwise not a single haplogroup. Even the Central Indian haplogroups M6 and M25 are absent in the western tribals. And M33 is present only in the Dongri Bhill and Kathodi, the two tribal groups closest to Central India. And it is found in Nepal as well. Gujarat is haplogroup deprived.

    "(Not that they would not have used boats to cross the rivers... but that's another story)".

    In which case they should have had no problem crossing the Narmada and following the coast south. So a 'coastal' entry should also have carried haplogroup M south along the west coast beyond the Narmada. But no. The haplogroups that show up in the South Indian tribals are an even more glaring example of a very small subset of the Central Indian haplogroups. Even then just M2 is common to both tribal groups. M3 is present only in the Jenu Kuruba, as are M36, M38 and the eastern haplogroup M8. M6, not found in Gujarat, is present only in the Betta Koruba. As are M35 and M39. That's it! Where is the evidence for any 'coastal' movement of any kind? Or the use of boats?

    ReplyDelete
  34. "K did never do that as far as we can tell. You must mean MNOPS".

    Isn't K part of MNOPS? Or a series of haplogroups within it? Anyway, the point is that you were abusively opposed to such an idea when I first introduced it. You have since been forced to accept I was correct. Which reminds me of your consistent stream of abuse whenever I claimed that a mixing of Papuans and Mongoloids was involved in the origin of the Austronesians. Once more you are shown to be absolutely incorrect:

    http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2012/03/05/1118892109.abstract

    "Would that be the case, we would be unable to infer anything about the origin of any haplogroup because it could well have migrated from the region of less diversity to the one with the greatest (or viceversa or something in between)".

    M actually shows two regions of basal diversity, and so origin. One is in Central India the other in Northeast India/Yunnan. Surely the simplest explanation is that M expanded independently from both regions once it had rapidly reached both three mutations after leaving Africa. Which reminds me:

    "Instead you guys seem adamant of perpetual mass genocide to levels that not even Hitler could dream of".

    That's rich coming from you. You necessarily claim genocide of the several populations that must have existed between L3 and both M and N.

    "In Asia? You can't be serious?"

    Are you claiming that all of India is 'coastal'?

    "I mean your claims about location of clades and such, not even your weird hypothesis about snow-walking proto-Papuans".

    Could you remind me of when that was proved incorrect? And I've never claimed Papuans moved through Central Asia. Just Australians (Y-DNA C and mt-DNA N).

    "It is evidence (and that's what I said, why do you force me to repeat?) of migration to Australasia being very fast, IMO not more than 5000 years after the coalescence of M, N and R respectively, probably quite less".

    I'm pleased to note you no longer insist that the members of all three haplogropups all arrived in Australia together.

    "For any route that does not go through South Asia. It is: there's winter over there you know: cold, frosty long winters, even now in the Interglacial Period".

    Has it never occurred to you that sensible people would do their trekking in the Summer?

    "It was quite harsher in the Ice Age. It definitely requires some specialist adaption (clothes, white skin) and not just a casual trekking".

    Surely if Neanderthals (or something like them) could survive modern humans could too.

    ReplyDelete
  35. "... your apparent need to place the origin of all three haplogroups together in a single place and at the same time".

    M, N and R? Not at all (except for L3). They just happen to converge around Bengal but blame them, not me.

    "This need is probably a product of a childhood acceptance of Noah's Ark or the Garden of Eden which you have been unable to escape as you grew up".

    Keep your sectarian patronizing bullshit where it belongs, which is a deep dark hole up your ass. Haven't you been raised in religious ideas? Or were you one of the few lucky ones having atheist parents?

    No. You will hardly find anyone on Earth more hostile from religion than I am. What about you?

    "But you have consistently claimed in the past that such a rapid expansion can only have been coastal. I'm pleased to see that you have changed your mind".

    Neither one nor the other: I'm trying to avoid being brought to a non-relevant debate by your mischievous drifting mind.

    Focus.

    "It is obvious that you do very little thinking before you comment".

    I write the blog, what needs some more dedication.

    All I ask is that you do a bit of the same, so you can know what the fuck you are talking about.

    That or shut up. Both fit me.

    "If such had been the case surely Gujarat should have several specific M haplogroups. But what do we find?"

    Gujarat and Sindh and Maharastra. While the others have been less surveyed, specially not for majority folks, Maharastra has and it has quite more haplogroups than the ones you say:

    "The closest we get are M44 and M57. M44 is a minor haplogroup anyway and M57 is the western version of M34'56"

    Actually M2, M3, M4'67 (several branches), M5, M35, M33, M40... are also found (and in only two populations of this state). Also subclades of N (N2, N5) and R (HV3, R5, R6, R8, R30, U1, U2, U4, U5, U7).

    One of the problems of Indian genetics is the focus on ethnically segregated populations (castes or, specially, tribes), what necessarily limits the output (you may locate rarer clades but you miss the big picture quite a bit). Then you exaggerate and distort this deformation even more by focusing only on one or two papers focused on tribals.

    You have hence at least 10 (>25%) distinct M basal subclades, probably more, plus 6 R basal subclades and 3 N basal subclades (incl. R).

    "In which case they should have had no problem crossing the Narmada and following the coast south".

    The problem is not obviously crossing the Narmada nor reaching to the Southern Coast, something they did indeed (several Narmada sites are in the southern bank and there are many MP and UP sites all through the coast from Mumbai to Andrah Pradesh following the coast and then the Krishna River route). The problem apparently lies in the Deccan highlands which may have been too arid, acting as a barrier.

    En fin... breakfast Terry's old same debate.

    ReplyDelete
  36. "Isn't K part of MNOPS?"

    No. MNOPS is part of K, then you have LT.

    "Once more you are shown to be absolutely incorrect"...

    If so, why are you still reading this blog?

    "Genetic dating" is meaningless molecular clock speculation. The paper is ppv at the moment but you can't date genetics beyond knowing what goes first and what later.

    "M actually shows two regions of basal diversity, and so origin".

    Said the one who just claimed low Gujarat diversity based only on tribals, who are rare in Gujarat (unlike in Orissa or NE India).

    When you get your facts straight across the board, when you methodically tabulate the genetics of not just tribals but everyone, when you write a comprehensive article, maybe with a nice looking map, then you tell me.

    "You necessarily claim genocide of the several populations that must have existed between L3 and both M and N".

    Small ones, ones that never really expanded (it seems). And not "several": one, two at the most.

    "Are you claiming that all of India is 'coastal'?"

    Are you an idiot or what?!

    "Could you remind me of when that was proved incorrect? And I've never claimed Papuans moved through Central Asia. Just Australians (Y-DNA C and mt-DNA N)".

    It's proven (among other reasons) incorrect by pigmentation: no population would have survived such low solar input without losing black skin color. Once the tropical melanism is gone it does not re-evolve, as you can see in Native Americans, who may still tan but are not naturally black nor close.

    Papuans also have Y-DNA C and mtDNA N (R).

    "Has it never occurred to you that sensible people would do their trekking in the Summer?"

    Do you think they were just trekking as in an excursion or rather that they were living there year after year, century after century millennium after millennium?

    Don't be silly. If you migrate to Altai you do that for living, not to provide a excuse to Terry for elaborate trolling.

    ReplyDelete
  37. "Haven't you been raised in religious ideas? Or were you one of the few lucky ones having atheist parents?"

    I had atheist parents.

    "I write the blog, what needs some more dedication".

    Very true. And an excellent blog it is too. But some of your subsequent comments display lack of consistency.

    "Actually M2, M3, M4'67 (several branches), M5, M35, M33, M40... are also found (and in only two populations of this state)".

    But they are also present, and common, in Central India. It is far more likely that they originated in Central India rather than in Gujarat, Sindh or Maharastra. Haplogroups M44 and M57 are the only ones that could possibly have originated to the west, and even in their case that is unlikely. As I tried to point out, if Gujarat had been on the main route into India we should find some Gujarat-specific haplogroups. We find no such haplogroups.

    "One of the problems of Indian genetics is the focus on ethnically segregated populations (castes or, specially, tribes), what necessarily limits the output (you may locate rarer clades but you miss the big picture quite a bit)".

    It is remotely possible that we have missed the 'big picture', but unlikely. Many haplogroups are widespread through many tribals and so provide a window to the larger picture. And it is unlikely that minor haplogroups are present other than in isolated populations.

    "The problem is not obviously crossing the Narmada nor reaching to the Southern Coast, something they did indeed (several Narmada sites are in the southern bank and there are many MP and UP sites all through the coast from Mumbai to Andrah Pradesh following the coast and then the Krishna River route)".

    But we can discern no possible surviving haplogroups that may have formed during any such movement.

    "The problem apparently lies in the Deccan highlands which may have been too arid, acting as a barrier".

    They should have been no barrier at all to any coastal-based movement.

    ReplyDelete
  38. "MNOPS is part of K, then you have LT".

    And we have K2 in Australia/New Guinea, K3 in Melanesia and K4 in Indonesia. Just K1 in India, with two MNOPS branches in New Guinea/Melanesia. Even considering reservations concerning the diversity = origin theory how do you claim a South Asian coalescence for MNOPS? Surely its origin lies at least as far east as SE Asia, if not further from South Asia. I agree that LT is South Asian, but it separated from the remaining K clades before either K or MNOPS diversified.

    "Said the one who just claimed low Gujarat diversity based only on tribals, who are rare in Gujarat (unlike in Orissa or NE India)".

    Yes. It is very difficult to argue convincingly that any surviving haplogroups coalesced in Gujarat. But it is quite possible to make a valid claim for several having coalesced in Orissa, or having arrived there from further east. It is even very likely that many surviving haplogroups coalesced in NE India.

    "Small ones, ones that never really expanded (it seems)".

    Genocide is genocide, whether of large or small groups.

    "And not 'several': one, two at the most".

    No. Several. I make it two pre-M populations and four pre-N populations. These populations must have existed at some time. In fact you claim they were present in sufficient numbers to move considerable distances from Africa. Yet they left no survivors along the route.

    "no population would have survived such low solar input without losing black skin color".

    Why is it absolutely essential that such a population had to lose its skin colour? Certainly you cannot claim such lack of loss as 'proof'.

    "Do you think they were just trekking as in an excursion or rather that they were living there year after year, century after century millennium after millennium? Don't be silly. If you migrate to Altai you do that for living, not to provide a excuse to Terry for elaborate trolling"

    Any such migration was quite likely very rapid, although obviously some did remain behind. We find A through much of the region, although basically east of Altai. N1, X and N2 are also possible candidates for having remained behind.

    "Papuans also have Y-DNA C and mtDNA N (R)".

    As far as I'm aware the only C Papuans have is C2, almost certainly a later arrival from southern Wallacea. Much of it perhaps even carried in with Austronesians. And most non-M mt-DNA is not basal N. It is P.

    ReplyDelete
  39. If you can properly describe where each haplogroup is found in India, Pakistan, etc. then you might be able to reach to some conclusions in regards to where in South Asia M coalesced.

    In the meantime, leave me alone: just trying to follow your thought is a headache.

    "And we have K2 in Australia/New Guinea, K3 in Melanesia and K4 in Indonesia"...

    These are all now part of MNOPS, which ISOGG calls now K(xLT) but I prefer to keep calling MNOPS because I really hate to describe haplogroups in negative, as if they were paragroups - it gets confusing.

    An alternative nomenclature could be K1 (MNOPS) and K2 (LT), and then the current K1-4 would become K1a-d. That would be nice. But I refuse to use the K(xLT) name because it is a full fledged haplogroup and not any paraphyletic group.

    One would imagine that you had this clear but you seem still confused.

    ...

    (... blah-blah ... whatever... inconsistent or impossible to locate in the context of my last comment)

    ...

    "Why is it absolutely essential that such a population had to lose its skin colour? Certainly you cannot claim such lack of loss as 'proof'".

    I think it is a heavyweight proof. We lost black pigmentation for survival reasons and populations returning to the tropics do not recover it, even in millennia (Tropical America). In fact it's plausible that once the genetics are lost re-adaption would imply novel genetics - even novel function maybe: evolutionary accidents are unique and that's why the dinosaurs or the trilobites did not re-evolve from scratch once and again: new solutions appeared instead.

    "Any such migration was quite likely very rapid"...

    UFO model.

    "... although obviously some did remain behind".

    But we do not see any ramification. For M and N there's just one large basal node, not a sequence of successive branching in small nodes as we see for instance in U or so many other lineages. They had only one instance of expansion and that was in one single spot, if you don't like South Asia, say SE Asia but not all Eurasia at the same time.

    "As far as I'm aware the only C Papuans have is C2".

    C enough to me, just like the C4 of Australian Aborigines. Although not sure what happened with C6, initially also reported in Melanesia.

    "... almost certainly a later arrival from southern Wallacea".

    Speculative. IMO Wallacea, Papua and near Melanesia (islands offshore of Papua but not too far away) are a single genetic province, which we can well call Melanesia.

    Like all archipelagos, it's a set of islands united by what keeps them apart.

    "Much of it perhaps even carried in with Austronesians".

    C2 is Melanesian-Wallacean, not Austronesian0-Taiwanese, not even Austronesian1-Filipino.

    And again I have the impression of having wasted my time...

    ReplyDelete
  40. "One would imagine that you had this clear but you seem still confused".

    No. It is you who is confused. The comments regarding K were in response to:

    "K did never do that as far as we can tell. You must mean MNOPS [my original suggestion that Y-DNA K had spread from SE Asia]".

    Are you still going to claim that K (or K(xLT), or whatever other name you might wish to call it) expanded from somewhere other than SE Asia?

    "If you can properly describe where each haplogroup is found in India, Pakistan, etc. then you might be able to reach to some conclusions in regards to where in South Asia M coalesced".

    I have, above. Why don't you take a look instead of making things up? The source region for M haplogroups looks to be both Central India (between the upper Ganges and Indus Rivers to as far south as Madhya Pradesh) and Northeast of the Ganges Delta (certainly not 'Bengal').

    "We lost black pigmentation for survival reasons"

    After how many generations?

    "For M and N there's just one large basal node, not a sequence of successive branching in small nodes"

    Which is evidence for a rapid expansion, followed by subsequent expansions of individual haplogroups within each major group. Seems obvious to me. Why not to you?

    "as we see for instance in U or so many other lineages".

    Classic example of a subsequent expansion, surely.

    "They had only one instance of expansion and that was in one single spot"

    Exactly. And that single spot is most likely somewhere near Africa, because that is where both M and N emerged from in some form. You cannot have them being spirited some huge distance in some sort of UFO before their expansion from 'one single spot'. But once the basal haplogroup had spread there was then nothing to prevent the haplogroup from then expanding from two (or more) regions within that spread. That appears to have been the case with M.

    "C enough to me"

    C's basal diversity is as great as is F's so if that is the basis of your argumnet why separate C from CT in the first place?

    "IMO Wallacea, Papua and near Melanesia (islands offshore of Papua but not too far away) are a single genetic province"

    It is certainly less of a 'single genetic province' than is 'Europe'. New Guinea, Melanesia (strictly the islands east and north of New Guinea), and the islands of Eastern Indonesia (Southern Wallace) each have a separate suite of haplogroups with minor overlap. and Australia has yet another suite of haplogroups. The prehistory of the region is far from simple.

    "C2 is Melanesian-Wallacean, not Austronesian0-Taiwanese, not even Austronesian1-Filipino".

    Many islands of Eastern Polynesia have C2 almost exclusively. Polynesians are definitely Austronesians. I agree that the haplogroup came originally from southern Wallacea rather than from Taiwan, the Philippines or New Guinea though. From earlier:

    "The problem is not obviously crossing the Narmada nor reaching to the Southern Coast, something they did indeed (several Narmada sites are in the southern bank and there are many MP and UP sites all through the coast from Mumbai to Andrah Pradesh following the coast and then the Krishna River route)".

    What makes you so sure that the population had reached the south bank of the Narmada by crossing it from the north? The presence in the above regions cannot possibly be used as 'proof' of a coastal route. All these sites are south of the Narmada and the most likely entry point would have been from Central India, not from the coast further the north. Especially taking into account the fact that no haplogroups are specific to any region further north along the coast.

    I don't mind if you don't respond. Like you I have the impression of having wasted my time...

    ReplyDelete
  41. "that K (or K(xLT)"

    K is not the same as K(xLT). K equals to [K(xLT) + LT]. K(xLT) is the same as MNOPS.

    "The source region for M haplogroups looks to be both Central India"...

    I can't say: I miss your blog article or otherwise article elaborating on it. Reconstructing your theory from a zillion scattered comments (of which half is plainly wrong) is impossible, much less evaluating it.

    "After how many generations [we lost pigmentation]?"

    IMO very soon, depending on the exact location probably you need depigmentation in the first generation unless you're supplementing your diet. I simply do not believe the "reconstructions" of early Europeans being black: depigmentation must have happened first in AfPak surely.

    Lack of vitamin D in embryos and children causes severe problems. Only a fish-rich diet can make up for the need of depigmentation as soon as we move north of, say 35-40 degrees, where winters become really dark.

    Modernly that's roughly the line where people's skin begins to whiten quite clearly (although other factors like founder effects also apply). Also we have no evidence of H. sapiens living north of those latitudes before the branching towards modern East Asians (first) and West Eurasians (later) happened - an both these populations have important subgroups which are very white, the rest being less dark in any case. This implies in my eyes very early selection, even at the 30-45 degrees zone in favor of depigmentation.

    We must not think however of a ultra-white ultra-blond population, which even today are an exception. Not yet surely. But a beige basic shade with the ability to tan and untan, as most "white" people (including East Asians) do, was probably already the rule. That's the phenotype that arrived to America for example.

    "Which is evidence for a rapid expansion"...

    You admit to it! So M and N basal subclades arrived to Australasia very early in the Eurasian expansion, without many delays to figure out how to navigate, a concept they already knew at least in their basics.

    Both things are intimately related.

    "And that single spot is most likely somewhere near Africa, because that is where both M and N emerged from in some form".

    No. There are enough mutations between the L3 node and the M and N ones to allow for migration, even for relatively slow migration (10-20,000 years is my guess).

    Meanwhile other L3 basal clades were indeed showing signs of expansion in Africa, but not yet M and N, which had to find a niche in Asia first.

    "You cannot have them being spirited some huge distance in some sort of UFO before their expansion from 'one single spot'".

    That's what we see. Replace "UFO" by "fast [semi-]coastal migration" and will probably work.

    Whatever the case, what needs explaining is the "UFO" (the process of migration), not the expansion from a single spot. Some would say fast coastal migration, others Toba catastrophe pruning... but the fact is the same: M and N expanded from a single specific region, not from all over the continent.

    ...

    ReplyDelete
  42. ...

    "C's basal diversity is as great as is F's so if that is the basis of your argumnet why separate C from CT in the first place?"

    First of all I do not use the term "CT" because it is confusing: it is not clear if it means C+D+E+F (which I call CF'DE), C+F (which I call CF) or C+T (which I call nothing because it'd be a paraphyletic group).

    Whatever the case C is different from its "brother" (F) and "cousins" (D and E) since it diverged and must be studied on its own right. C (part of it) is the most important haplogroup in Native Sahul and Wallacea, together with MNOPS (this one not in Australia).

    On a side note, we can easily make a parallel with mtDNA: the "old clades" (M and N) are found where Y-DNA C is found, while the "young clade" (R-derived P) is found where Y-DNA MNOPS is found - and the mtDNA R <=> Y-DNA MNOPS parallel stands also in Eurasia to a very large extent (talk about Y-DNA and mtDNA having no relation at all!)

    "It is certainly less of a 'single genetic province' than is 'Europe'. New Guinea, Melanesia (strictly the islands east and north of New Guinea), and the islands of Eastern Indonesia (Southern Wallace) each have a separate suite of haplogroups with minor overlap. and Australia has yet another suite of haplogroups. The prehistory of the region is far from simple".

    I would not compare with Europe but the relation does exist. Australia is a bit more isolated indeed.

    "What makes you so sure that the population had reached the south bank of the Narmada by crossing it from the north?"

    Never mind: what is obvious to me for you it's a point of contention. Do you know that people drown while crossing by swimming relatively small rivers like the Evros in the Greek-Turkish border or the Grande in the US-Mexican border? People need boats: they have always needed them and they are not dumb animals that cannot conceive them (as so many other solutions to so many other problems).

    Your fundamentalism is so stupid and annoying: what would you have done if you had to cross a river? Sit by watching the food at the opposite bank and die of starvation on your side, just because you are so stubborn that you would not invent a damn raft, something even an Erectus can conceive probably, before the preconception of the mythical Wallacean genius could happen?

    I'm sure you would. But most other humans would not: we would think of something and it may well work.

    ReplyDelete
  43. "First of all I do not use the term "CT" because it is confusing: it is not clear if it means C+D+E+F (which I call CF'DE), C+F (which I call CF) or C+T (which I call nothing because it'd be a paraphyletic group)".

    What point are you trying to make here, or are you simply dodging the issue?

    "K is not the same as K(xLT). K equals to [K(xLT) + LT]. K(xLT) is the same as MNOPS".

    Again, what point are you trying to make here, or are you simply dodging the issue?

    "Reconstructing your theory from a zillion scattered comments (of which half is plainly wrong)"

    The comments are in a single place in the comments here. You have so far not shown a single one to be wrong in the slightest.

    "IMO very soon, depending on the exact location probably you need depigmentation in the first generation unless you're supplementing your diet".

    So why are Indigenous Americans not white? Surely they spent some time moving through Central Asia. Besides which merely moving even as far north as 45 degrees does not lower daylight hours sufficiently to block vitamin D generation.

    "We must not think however of a ultra-white ultra-blond population, which even today are an exception. Not yet surely. But a beige basic shade with the ability to tan and untan, as most 'white' people (including East Asians) do, was probably already the rule. That's the phenotype that arrived to America for example".

    And probably Australia, as opposed to New Guinea. Aborigines (Y-DNA C and mt-DNA N) are generally not as dark as are Papuans, who are mainly South Asian haplogroups mt-DNA M and Y-DNA F (or K).

    "You admit to it!"

    I have never denied it. Only in your imagination. Our disagreement is solely as to the route(s) they took.

    ReplyDelete
  44. "So M and N basal subclades arrived to Australasia very early in the Eurasian expansion, without many delays to figure out how to navigate, a concept they already knew at least in their basics".

    Not 'Australasia', Australia and possibly soon after, New Guinea. Humans did not enter the wider Pacific until relatively recently, after they had been able to further improve their boating technology. We have no evidence at all that humans arrived in SE Asia already possessing boating technology. Such technology is not required for any 'rapid' movement through Eurasia from Africa. And you immediately contradict yourself:

    "There are enough mutations between the L3 node and the M and N ones to allow for migration, even for relatively slow migration (10-20,000 years is my guess)".

    And 10-20,000 years is easily enough time to develop boating techniology in SE Asia. As for the mutations, if they occurred during any sort of migration you are faced with massive genocide, far more extreme than anything you might accuse Dienekes of believing in. Far more likely the mutations occurred as a product of drift in a settled isolated population.

    "Whatever the case, what needs explaining is the 'UFO' (the process of migration)"

    UFO is the only possible explanation for N having miraculously reached SE Asia leaving no trail. Or M having reached South Asia leaving no trail. Genocide of the remnant populations?

    "M and N expanded from a single specific region, not from all over the continent".

    Undifferentiated M and N expanded through much of Eurasia and then subgroups expanded individually. Surely that is simple to understand.

    "the 'old clades' (M and N) are found where Y-DNA C is found, while the "young clade" (R-derived P) is found where Y-DNA MNOPS is found - and the mtDNA R <=> Y-DNA MNOPS parallel stands also in Eurasia to a very large extent"

    You are making up the connection between Y-DNA C and mt-DNA M. C is remarkably rare in South Asia, where M is extremely common. On the other hand Y-hap F in its various forms is a South Asian haplogroup. Just its descendant haplogroup K(xLT) is SE Asian, along with a small sampling of F.

    "Do you know that people drown while crossing by swimming relatively small rivers like the Evros in the Greek-Turkish border or the Grande in the US-Mexican border? People need boats"

    People drown when using boats too.

    ReplyDelete
  45. Oh. One more point:

    "while the 'young clade' (R-derived P) is found where Y-DNA MNOPS is found - and the mtDNA R <=> Y-DNA MNOPS parallel stands also in Eurasia to a very large extent"

    So they originated in the same region? That region can hardly have been South Asia.

    ReplyDelete
  46. What point am I trying to make? That MNOPS is not "K". If that's not enough "point" for you...

    Precision is all, sloppiness is unscientific. Ask your beloved Darwin, a most methodical experimenter who was everything but sloppy.

    Re. CT, my point is that I do not know what CT is. That's my point: that the term is imprecise and confusing.

    "So why are Indigenous Americans not white?"

    They are "white" in comparison to African, South Indian, Negrito, Melanesian or even Australian "blacks".

    My point is that they are white, too white: they tan and untan like most West Eurasians, even if often their skin may be slightly darker as basic color (but that's the East Asian way to depigmentation, which is different to the West Eurasian one).

    "Aborigines (Y-DNA C and mt-DNA N) are generally not as dark as are Papuans"...

    They are usually very dark, even if they may be also blond. Australian Aboriginals never lost their "blackness" either.

    "Such technology is not required for any 'rapid' movement through Eurasia from Africa. And you immediately contradict yourself:

    "There are enough mutations between the L3 node and the M and N ones to allow for migration, even for relatively slow migration (10-20,000 years is my guess)"".

    Such technology is required to cross any river, lake, swamp. Humans are intelligent animals and there's nothing that could stop them from developing boats and rafts as soon as they found a need, what was always. So the only obstacle is cognitive capacity, what means that surely boats or rafts were invented first by Homo erectus/ergaster, as they are roughly intermediate between chimps and us in brain size.

    My sentence does not mean that since the M explosion and Sahul the migration was slow but that PRIOR to that, they could well have been in South Arabia or the Persian Gulf for several millennia. It's not the Eurasian expansion which was slow... it's the hiatus between L3 and M/N what might have taken some time.

    But from India (M explosion) to Papua there was just one mutation, what means fast migration. And, if that's not enough, from Bengal or Indochina (N explosion?) to Australia there was also again one single mutation, what means a fast crossing related to demographic events in the mainland.

    They were not dallying in Sundaland for long wondering how to build a boat: they arrived and crossed almost right away.

    ...

    ReplyDelete
  47. ...

    "And 10-20,000 years is easily enough time to develop boating techniology"...

    There's even more time in 2 million years of Homo prehistory in general.

    Also if the technology was known, as I think it was the case, they still had to develop some confidence and skills for open sea crossings. That part of advanced mariner skills you can attribute to the Indonesian geography probably, as it's not documented anywhere else except the crossing to Crete, which is probably not work of our species'. And again it is in Timor where we do find the first evidence of humans fishing in open waters (it's some time later than the crossing but not much later anyhow).

    One thing is basic boating and another thing is daring to go out to the open seas following the saltwater crocodile (or whatever).

    Just the same that one thing is a sailboat and another is Columbus' voyage.

    "UFO is the only possible explanation for N having miraculously reached SE Asia leaving no trail. Or M having reached South Asia leaving no trail. Genocide of the remnant populations?"

    Drift alone can do that.

    "You are making up the connection between Y-DNA C and mt-DNA M. C is remarkably rare in South Asia"...

    The connection I make is only for Sahul. Maybe it can be extended to East Asia, together with Y-DNA D, but I would totally agree that in South Asia it is not the case at all: there it is F which is apparently coupled with mtDNA M. However the expansion of Y-DNA P (P*, R2, R1a) confuses things in South Asia.

    Whatever the case that two lineages (male and female) appear to go together in an area, does not mean that they must be together everywhere. I think that everybody can understand that: people marries (or equivalent) outside the group, what means that in the long run these couplings will be altered almost unavoidably. For example in West Eurasia we see the incorporation of Y-DNA IJ and G (as well as some minor mtDNA N) to the "R&R clan". That's something we do not see at all in the East and must be caused by particular founder effects of the West Eurasian colonization.

    The exact details have been lost to us.

    "So they originated in the same region?"

    I did not say that. Y-DNA MNOPS appears to have originated in SE Asia, maybe as far South as Sundaland, while mtDNA R appears to be original from around Bengal. That in the Y-DNA side can only be said of Y-DNA P, so there was a westward flow of males and an eastward flow of females somehow. Probably a boater group of clans extending from the Sundarbans to Sundaland at some point.

    ReplyDelete
  48. "That MNOPS is not 'K'. If that's not enough "point" for you...Re. CT, my point is that I do not know what CT is. That's my point: that the term is imprecise and confusing"

    Both points irrelevant to the present discussion about an SE Asian origin for much of the haplogroup K and a separate range for C.

    "They are usually very dark, even if they may be also blond. Australian Aboriginals never lost their 'blackness' either".

    Nowhere near as dark as Papuans. Nor do they have such curly hair.

    "They were not dallying in Sundaland for long wondering how to build a boat: they arrived and crossed almost right away".

    Because they were able to adopt a technology that had already been used to cross to Australia. I note you are now prepared to accept that the molecular clock is unreliable. So you should now be able to accept that N is not necessarily 'younger' than M.

    "That part of advanced mariner skills you can attribute to the Indonesian geography probably, as it's not documented anywhere else except the crossing to Crete, which is probably not work of our species'. And again it is in Timor where we do find the first evidence of humans fishing in open waters (it's some time later than the crossing but not much later anyhow)".

    Now we're getting somewhere.

    "Drift alone can do that".

    Drift can do it only if the population is isolated in a single region for some time, not if a population is on the move. A population on the move will leave sub-populations behind. After all, if people can move through a region they are obvioulsy capable of surviving in it. So, unless the drift occurred in an isolated population, the only explanation possible for the absence of haplogroups between L3 and M or M is genocide.

    "The connection I make is only for Sahul. Maybe it can be extended to East Asia, together with Y-DNA D"

    That is hardly 'proof' that all the haplogroups moved in unison to Sahul.

    "the case that two lineages (male and female) appear to go together in an area, does not mean that they must be together everywhere. I think that everybody can understand that"

    Exactly.

    "while mtDNA R appears to be original from around Bengal".

    I'd hesitate before appearing so confident of that.

    ReplyDelete
  49. "Probably a boater group of clans extending from the Sundarbans to Sundaland at some point".

    Yes, and it should be possible for you to see it from my updated M haplogroup chart, which you have been demanding for some time:

    Mitochondrial DNA haplogroup M, from nearest Africa to most remote from Africa:

    M1'20'51: M1 SW Asia and North Africa, M20 South China, M51 Laos, Nepal.
    Difficult to make a case for a Central Indian origin for this haplogroup.

    M34'57: M34 Central India, M57 west of M34.
    M44: Central India. Minority haplogroup.
    The only haplogroups that might indicate a coastal entry. But M44 is a minor haplogroup and M57 may have moved west from Central India.

    M2: Central and East India. 20% of Indian haplogroups belong here. Minor presence in NE India.
    M3: Central India. Minor presence in E and NE India.
    M5: Central and East India. Widespread, including Nepal. Minor presence in NE India.
    M6: Central and East India. Minor presence in NE India.
    M25: Central India. Minor presence in NE India.
    M35: Central India. Not present outside India.
    M36: Central India. Minor presence.
    These are all almost totally, if not completely, confined to Central India, and almost certainly originated there.

    M4''67: Central India. Widespread, including Nepal. (Possibly M45 in S China).
    Also Central Indian although members spread into NE India, and possibly further.

    M52'58: India, earliest branches of M58 in northeast. M52 in Nepal.
    Central India although the earliest branches are claimed as being in the northeast.

    M60: Northeast India. Minor haplogroup.
    M48: Northeast India, supposedly associated with Austro-Asiatic speakers.
    M33: Central and Northeast India. Nepal. Also South China. Minor presence in East India.
    Centred on Northeast India.

    M39'70: M39 Central and East India. M70 South China?
    M40'62: M40 Central and East India, M62 East Asia. M62b Tibet.
    M49: India, especially east and northeast. Also South China.
    M13'46'61: M13 China, Tibet, M46 Southeast Asia, M61 Laos, NE India (and presumably between).
    M50: Supposedly NE India, SE Asia and (possibly) China.
    Here we have haplogroups in both Northeast India and South China.

    ReplyDelete
  50. M31: Andamans, India. M31b Tibet, Nepal.
    M32'56: M32 Andamans, M56 minor presence in India.
    M19'53: M19 Palawan (Philippines), M53 East and Central India.
    M24'41: M24 Palawan (Philippines), M41 Central India.
    With this group we see the first of the 'boater group of clans extending from the Sundarbans to Sundaland'. These haplogroups look to have spread around the shores of the Bay of Bengal.

    M9: East Asia and NE India, incl. Nepal. Includes E, especially present in Taiwan and Borneo.
    M11: Tibet and China. Minor presence in India.
    M8: East Asia, SE Asia. Includes C/Z. M8 in NE India. C1 in America.
    M10: East Asia. Minor presence in Northeast India.
    All land-based haplogroups. Basically East Asian but also Northeast India, probably through back migration.

    M76: South China.
    M7: East Asia, especially Japan, SE Asia.
    M12'G: East Asia, especially Japan. Both haplogroups minor presence in India. G in Nepal.
    M80'D: M80 Palawan (Philippines), D East Asia, SE Asia. D also in NE India. D1 in America.
    M72: SE Asia, South China.
    M71: Laos, South China, island SE Asia. Diverse in Laos.
    These haplogroups ventured further into East Asia and some are 'boater clans'. Virtually impossible to make a case for them having entered SE Asia via the coast though, as with the previous group.

    M21: Thailand, Bangladesh. Semang tribals. M21b Nepal. M21d Laos.
    M77: Thailand.
    M22: Aboriginal Malays, Vietnam and South China.
    These haplogroups string out along the SE Asian peninsula, especially along the western side of it.

    M23'75: Southeast Asia. M23 in Laos and Madagascar.
    M47: Island Southeast Asia (a mystery haplogroup actually).
    M26: Sumatra.
    M73'79: M73 Philippines and SE Asia, M79 South China.
    M17: Philippines, SE Asia.
    These ventured out into the islands.

    M42'74: M42 Australia, M74 South China.
    An interesting connection between Australia and the mainland.

    M14: Australia.
    M15: Australia.
    M29'Q: Melanesia and New Guinea.
    M27: Melanesia.
    M28: Melanesia.
    The remote islands. The basal haplogroup M28 is especially common in Melanesia, much of which it can only have reached some 4-5000 years ago.

    ReplyDelete
  51. "Both points irrelevant to the present discussion"...

    Irrelevant?! It was you who used and messed the terms, not me.

    Also I do not agree that "the present discussion" is about whatever you wish it to be. The thread is about genetics of Central Indian tribals and you have been wandering off all you wanted and even more.

    "... about an SE Asian origin for much of the haplogroup K"...

    Part: MNOPS, not all.

    "... and a separate range for C".

    I still did not understand that part.

    "Nowhere near as dark as Papuans. Nor do they have such curly hair".

    Who's discussing curly hair? Skin color! Focus!

    dark AAs dancing, dark AA children, many blond like a Swede but black as Congolese as well, black AA playing the dijiridoo, another dark AA with the tube, black AA women, one red-haired.

    Granted that there are some who are lighter/redder, but also Africans vary in such degree. There are no white nor beige (milk coffee) Australian Aborigines. All are darker, just like in Tropical Africa.

    However in other traits they look much like Europeans to me. But not in skin shade (nor nose breadth).

    "I note you are now prepared to accept that the molecular clock is unreliable".

    I've always said so. I always tried to develop my own alternatives.

    "So you should now be able to accept that N is not necessarily 'younger' than M".

    Not necessarily but it's most likely. There's nothing suggesting that N is older than M in any case.

    "Now we're getting somewhere".

    We'll get somewhere when you acknowledge that people were always boating at least to some extent.

    "Drift can do it only if the population is isolated in a single region for some time, not if a population is on the move".

    That's an absurd idea you made up out of the blue. There's nothing backing that.

    "After all, if people can move through a region they are obvioulsy capable of surviving in it".

    You do not understand shit and that's because you don't want to: people may be able to survive in region A and drift there until it eventually fixates in clade A (or clades A1, A2 and A3, whatever), and move to region B and drift there to clade B (or clades B1 and B2). Drift is a pruner and prunes before but also after...

    ...

    ReplyDelete
  52. ...

    "... the only explanation possible for the absence of haplogroups between L3 and M or M is genocide".

    Not at all (although you can never know for sure if localized "genocide" or a hunt accident or whatever else influenced in the result of drift: some survive, some do not, it's quite random in fact). IMO the people(s) who migrated to Arabia had a varied subset of the African gene pool (apparently several L3'4'6 subclades and also some L0 ones). That's logical if you don't get obsessed with imagining peoples as fixated in a single clade all the time, and not just at the end of a long road of quite strict isolation.

    Of these diverse clades some L3 ones (and maybe others but did not survive, it seems) participated in the journey out of Arabia into South Asia (into Tropical Asia if you prefer). The only ones we can attest are M and N, which did not survive the drift test later in more diverse but also less affluent Arabia: only a few (probably L6, some L0, L3 and L4 variants survived).

    We cannot reconstruct the exact details: we are not omniscent so we can't know that when Silvia fell to that lion a once proud lineage went extinct with her... or whatever else happened. We call that "drift". You may want to call that "genocide" but an accidental "genocide" of one or a few or the merely random fact that they ended up (what happens) as mothers of just sons would be demeaning the gravity of the word "genocide" way too much.

    "That is hardly 'proof' that all the haplogroups moved in unison to Sahul".

    I did not say that. I said that right away after the M matriarch lived (in about 2-5 Ka, 10 Ka at most), a descendant was having children in Papua. That right away after the N matriarch lived, a descendant was having children in Australia. That right away after the R matriarch, a descendant was making children in Papua again.

    They did not stop for eras in Sundaland to ponder how to make a boat with bamboo: they knew that already and soon they were fishing and such (because they knew that already as well). At most they perfected the skills a bit before making the crossing.

    "I'd hesitate before appearing so confident of that".

    I wouldn't care what you'd hesitate if you would not repost the same unfounded doubts here once and again. I'm not going to explain it again: I'm not your clown.

    "Mitochondrial DNA haplogroup M, from nearest Africa to most remote from Africa"...

    At your blog or the Wiki (with references if possible). It'd give me a headache otherwise.

    ReplyDelete
  53. "The thread is about genetics of Central Indian tribals and you have been wandering off all you wanted and even more".

    Indian haplogroups, including those of the tribals, is exactly what I have been talking about.

    "Irrelevant?! It was you who used and messed the terms, not me".

    And it was you who split hairs over the nomenclature.

    "Part: MNOPS, not all".

    And three of the four Ks: K2, K3 and K4.

    "However in other traits they [Aborigines] look much like Europeans to me".

    It would be a rare Papuan that you could say that about.

    "I still did not understand that part".

    I find that hard to believe, unless it's deliberate.

    "There's nothing suggesting that N is older than M in any case".

    Mitochondrial DNA haplogroup distribution in the Far East and in Australia suggests N could very well be older than M, in that region at least.

    "That's an absurd idea you made up out of the blue. There's nothing backing that [Drift can do it only if the population is isolated in a single region for some time, not if a population is on the move]".

    I have provided several references that claim exactly that. You have supplied not a single one that suggests any other possibility, let alone likely. Name one geneticist that supports your claim.

    "You do not understand shit and that's because you don't want to"

    The situation is certainly the other way round. You know nothing about practical genetics and consistently show your ignorance of the subject.

    ReplyDelete
  54. "people may be able to survive in region A and drift there until it eventually fixates in clade A (or clades A1, A2 and A3, whatever), and move to region B and drift there to clade B (or clades B1 and B2)".

    My point exactly. That is what both M and N have done. But you're proposing extinction, not survival of clades. Under the senario you propose we find absolutely no examples of any such descendant clades of M and N having survived in any region along any route during their 'giant leap from Africa'. Under the alternative scenario we find a complete trail of descendant haplogroups along the route.

    "Drift is a pruner and prunes before but also after..."

    But you're proposing more than drift after. You're proposing extinction.

    "Not at all [the only explanation possible for the absence of haplogroups between L3 and M or M is genocide]"

    So what explanation do you propose?

    "Of these diverse clades some L3 ones (and maybe others but did not survive, it seems) participated in the journey out of Arabia into South Asia"

    And no members of these ultimately major clades survived along the route? Unlikely.

    "The only ones we can attest are M and N, which did not survive the drift test later in more diverse but also less affluent Arabia: only a few (probably L6, some L0, L3 and L4 variants survived)".

    Surely you must find it very strange that the haplogroups that apparently made up the majority of the migrating population (the ones that made it furthest) were exactly the ones that died out most completely early in the movement. A strange belief system you have.

    "We call that 'drift'. You may want to call that 'genocide' but an accidental 'genocide' of one or a few or the merely random fact that they ended up (what happens) as mothers of just sons would be demeaning the gravity of the word 'genocide' way too much".

    That doesn't make sense. 'Drift' is going to affect minor haplogroups to a greater extent than major ones, yet you're claiming more extreme drift within major haplogroups and survival of the minor ones. And what is the difference between what you're proposing here and what Dienekes is proposing for Europe?

    "At your blog or the Wiki (with references if possible). It'd give me a headache otherwise".

    Instead of just claiming it's wrong (because you don't agree with the implications) why don't you examine and improve it? Feel free to do so.

    ReplyDelete
  55. Being precise instead of sloppy is not "splitting hairs". For example:

    "And three of the four Ks: K2, K3 and K4"

    Actually also K1 but it does not matter because these do not define K. K (as of the current and past nomenclature) is defined by per the mutations M9, P128, P131, P132.

    "You're proposing extinction".

    Nope. Maybe "extinction" (pruning) of haplogroups but not of populations.

    "So what explanation do you propose?" [for lack of branches between the L3 and M nodes]

    The same as for any other long stem: the small size of the population in which the heavily pruned or long stem lineage existed did not allow it to grow branches... until they arrived somewhere that allowed for expansion (migrant long stem) or some other conditions were created out of the blue that allowed for such expansion where it was not possible before (Terry's long stem - not impossible but highly unlikely IMO).

    What I do not understand is why do I have to repeat this once and again. Because I'm sure that, after the convenient circular "reasoning" we will end here again in few days.

    For example:

    "And no members of these ultimately major clades survived along the route? Unlikely".

    You always say that. And what I say is that, if anything survived at all, it was not of those clades but of others like L0, L4, L6 or other L3 (all of which we know exist in Arabia).

    But I already said this in the previous answer: all your questions are answered already. All your objections have been debunked once and again.

    Boring!

    "Surely you must find it very strange that the haplogroups that apparently made up the majority of the migrating population (the ones that made it furthest)"...

    I have absolutely no reason to think that the haplogroups which reached the farthest were majority or dominant in any way. In fact their carriers may have been pushed around by the others, for example, and that's why they were forced to migrate father and farther until they hit the jackpot.

    "... yet you're claiming more extreme drift within major haplogroups and survival of the minor ones".

    We don't know which one was major or minor in Arabia (or Fertile Crescent in your version). The one reaching farthest can well be the push-around or otherwise marginal minority, always forced to look further in search of what the others take for granted.

    Or maybe, without being so dramatic, the most adventurous subpopulation was the one "hitting the jackpot" eventually, while the most conservatives one remained behind. It does not even need to be a matter of confrontation but just of differential sociology/subculture: the subculture of semi-sedentarism and betting safe vs. the subculture of active nomadism and betting somewhat riskier.

    The majority surely stayed behind, the minority took the risk... and won.

    "And what is the difference between what you're proposing here and what Dienekes is proposing for Europe?"

    No idea. Can you clarify.

    "why don't you examine and improve it? Feel free to do so".

    It's a damn commentary. I cannot keep track of commentaries beyond the immediate moment! Locate that list, which you surely invested some effort in, at a safe place where it can be referenced and studied more in the mid-run.

    ReplyDelete
  56. "Actually also K1"

    Wrong. As far as I'm aware K1 is present only in India, Pakistan and Sri Lanka. Not SE Asia.

    "Nope. Maybe 'extinction' (pruning) of haplogroups but not of populations".

    Extinction of major haplogroups is surely extinction of populations.

    "The same as for any other long stem: the small size of the population in which the heavily pruned or long stem lineage existed did not allow it to grow branches... until they arrived somewhere that allowed for expansion (migrant long stem) or some other conditions were created out of the blue that allowed for such expansion where it was not possible before (Terry's long stem - not impossible but highly unlikely IMO)".

    Development of a long stem while on the move (as you propose) requires extinction of a whole suite of populations. 'Pruning' of a population containing particular haplogroups while confined to a single region requires no extinction of any populations.

    "What I do not understand is why do I have to repeat this once and again".

    because you're so completely wrong.

    "You always say that. And what I say is that, if anything survived at all, it was not of those clades but of others like L0, L4, L6 or other L3 (all of which we know exist in Arabia)".

    Those 'other clades' . I'm sure you will find it impossible to explain how the haplogroups that went on to occupy the vast majority of Eurasia failed to leave any descendants immediately outside Africa while what can have been no more than minority haplogroups survived very successfully there, yet failed to move further. To quote from your earlier comment:

    "The only ones we can attest are M and N, which did not survive the drift test later in more diverse but also less affluent Arabia: only a few (probably L6, some L0, L3 and L4 variants survived)".

    You've obviously made up your mind as to what you want the evidence to show and have interpreted it accordingly. Why don't you return and have a look at your own data on haplogroup L? Given the uncertainty of the molecular clock it should be obvious that many of the L haplogroups outside Africa had not even coalesced by the time M and N emerged.

    "I have absolutely no reason to think that the haplogroups which reached the farthest were majority or dominant in any way".

    What a surprising comment! It si very unlikely that they could have survived as minority haplogroups for some time within a mixed population yet go on to dominate the whole ex-Africa population.

    "In fact their carriers may have been pushed around by the others, for example, and that's why they were forced to migrate father and farther until they hit the jackpot".

    Again, extremely unlikely. Usually the first into a region come to form the dominant population unless an later arriving group has some huge survival advantage. And surely once they'd 'hit the jackpot' the majority haplogroups would have pushed tham out of that region as well. They would have been reduced to surviving on the margins, in less desirable habitat.

    "We don't know which one was major or minor in Arabia (or Fertile Crescent in your version)".

    Web can make an incredibly informed guess.

    ReplyDelete
  57. "Locate that list, which you surely invested some effort in, at a safe place where it can be referenced and studied more in the mid-run".

    I'll do that when I sort out the references. Many of them are just notes I've made over the years, not linked on the Internet.

    "The thread is about genetics of Central Indian tribals and you have been wandering off all you wanted and even more".

    The blog is on the paper, 'Genetics of Central Indian tribals'. Several mt-DNA R-derived haplogroups are recorded, and I know you are interested in that haplogroup. The paper expands our knowledge of that haplogroup's distribution, so I'm sure you will find this interesting (if you can bring yourself to actually look through the information):

    Mitochondrial DNA haplogroup R, from nearest Africa to most remote from Africa:

    R0: SW Eurasia, Arabia. Includes H and V. Low presence in India.

    R3: West Eurasia. Armenia, as far as I can discover.

    U: SW Asia, India. Not recorded in the Bhil of the Madhya Pradesh tribals, although U2 and U7 are the most frequent R haplogroups in India and recorded in the other two tribals. Other U haplogroupsare present only at low frequencies in India.

    R1: West Asia, Turkmenistan, Kurds, India.

    R2'JT: West Asia. Low presence in India. Of the Madhya Pradesh tribals R2 is recorded only in the Sahariya, the most northerly of them. R2 claimed as centred north of Afghanistan. Present in Punjab, and the southwest of the Indian peninsula.

    R30: Not listed in Madhya Pradesh tribals but is widespread in India, esp. NW and Central. Uttar Pradesh, Punjab, Rajasthan, Gujarat, Maharashtra, Sri Lanka. Said to be associated with IE-speaking people.

    R31: Of the Madhya Pradesh tribals only recorded in the Bhil, the most westerly. Present in Rajasthan, Southern India and Sri Lanka.

    R5: Right across Central India except SE coast, especially SW coast and Sri Lanka. Said to be more frequent in castes than in tribals. Present only in the most westerly of the Madhya Pradesh tribals, the Bhil.

    R6: Kashmir and SE coast. Present in all three Madhya Pradesh tribals. 1.5-3% over India. Also in Pakistan.

    R8: Present in all regions within the Godavari River catchment: Andhra Pradesh, Orissa, Maharashtra. Not present in the Sahariya, the northernmost of the Madhya Pradesh tribals, but present in the other two. Perhaps associated with Munda-speaking people. Munda is usually considered an Austo-Asiatic language, so perhaps the haplogroup is from somewhere to the east.

    R7: Frequent in Munda-speakers. Centred on NE India, reaching south into Andhra Pradesh. Not present in the most westerly tribal, the Bhil, but present in the other two.

    R9: Includes F within R9c. SE Asia, East Asia, Philippines. Looks to have spread from South China. Present, and diverse, in both Hainan and Laos.

    R11'B6/B4'5/R24: Extremely widespread. East Asia. R11 is recorded in Hainan but not in Laos. R24 is Philippines. Both B4 and B5 are found in both Hainan and Laos, and diverse in both places. B6 is centred on South China, not recorded in Hainan. Could be considered three separate haplogroups according to Maju's reasoning. The three are united by a single control region mutation.

    R23: Bali, Sumba.

    R22: Indonesia, esp. Lesser Sunda Islands.

    R14: New Guinea, Lesser Sunda Islands, Nicobar Islands.

    R12'21: R12 Australia, R21 Malay Negritos.

    P: New Guinea, Melanesia, Australia. Minor in Philippines. Forms two branches. P1 in New Guinea and Melanesia, with a minor presence in Australia. Of the P2''10 branch P2, P3 and P4a are from New Guinea but are not recorded from Melanesia. P4b, P5 and P9 are from Australia. P10 is from the Philippines. P6, P7 and P8 are unknown.

    ReplyDelete
  58. Waste of time #1:

    "Wrong. As far as I'm aware K1 is present only in India, Pakistan and Sri Lanka. Not SE Asia".

    Right you are in this but I was right also because all I said is that K1 is part of MNOPS or K(xLT), which it is (check ISOGG). So wrong to say "wrong" without knowing what you are talking about anymore.

    Waste of time #2:

    "Extinction of major haplogroups is surely extinction of populations".

    Pre-M and pre-N were not "major haplogroups" but "private lineages".

    ...

    "development of a long stem while on the move (as you propose) requires extinction of a whole suite of populations".

    No. Why? It is exactly the same as in situ, just that the population is migrating (maybe intermittently), until it reaches the nice place where to expand and change their humble destiny into one of somewhat greater relevance.

    This is a contention point that you should develop, as you are so obsessed, with graphics and such in your blog or site.

    As for me I see no problem why a population having many lineages, would not produce several populations each with a subset of such lineages, in the long run (after drift and all that).

    "I'm sure you will find it impossible to explain how the haplogroups that went on to occupy the vast majority of Eurasia failed to leave any descendants immediately outside Africa while what can have been no more than minority haplogroups survived very successfully there, yet failed to move further".

    I'm sure that I fail to understand what the hell you mean here. I cannot explain what I don't understand, sorry.

    But what I don't understand is what you have in your mind, your "mental wanking", to use a Spanish slang expression. I don't understand your logic nor what you mean.

    "Given the uncertainty of the molecular clock it should be obvious that many of the L haplogroups outside Africa had not even coalesced by the time M and N emerged".

    This I understand but it's no big deal because their last African ancestors do appear to be older than M and N. So according to YOUR OWN model of in-situ obligatory coalescence, those lineages "must" have coalesced outside of Africa, already in Arabia.

    Of course I'm not that much certain but it's perfectly possible at least for part of each lineage's evolution. Null hypothesis would be a straight line between the ancestor's location (typically in The Horn) and the descendant's location (in South Arabia); this produces a short line with many subsections, one for each mutation. Naturally many of such subsections appear to be already in Arabia.

    Uncertainty is correct however, I admit that much, but, crucially, this common sense uncertainty is radically contradictory with your in-situ obligatory coalescence hypothesis, on which you insist so much and so irrationally.

    You can't have it both ways.

    ...

    ReplyDelete
  59. ...

    "It si very unlikely that they could have survived as minority haplogroups for some time within a mixed population yet go on to dominate the whole ex-Africa population".

    Your sentences claiming something to be "very unlikely" but failing to provide any explanation or evidence of why would it be that way abound too much.

    Waste of time #N, therefore.

    "Again, extremely unlikely".

    Again wasting my time with unfounded opinions and prejudices.

    "Usually the first into a region come to form the dominant population"...

    Do you know more than I do about trans-desert migrations in Middle Paleolithic conditions? Or so you pretend with no grounds.

    Haven't we agreed long ago that in order to reach to South Asia via the coastal route, the migrants needed to cross several hostile very arid regions? Why would the winners be pushed outside the Persian Gulf oasis into the aridity of Balochistan? Sure: the "jackpot" was the other side of the desert but nobody knew it before they hit and for that they had first to accept the extremes of Balochistan arid coasts (and all East Iran is desertic, so it doesn't matter if they were walkers instead of boaters, although GIS simulations force the coastal route at that point without doubt).

    The "winners" generally keep the established wealth, the losers are pushed to the margins, where they typically have much poorer options but sometimes... is not that way. Either they hit the "jackpot" in unexpectedly lush Southern Asia or they carve their own niche at the expense of, say, Neanderthals.

    And so M and H, the largest (by far) star-like nodes in the Human mtDNA tree, coalesced: from almost nothing into big dominant stuff in their new niche.

    "I know you are interested in that haplogroup".

    I'm interested in all haplogroups in principle. But I am most interested when I have the energies and the time, not when you say so. That's why bookmarking and leaving for later is often a good idea. Calm, even a bit of boredom is crucial to initiate new explorations. Stress only pushes me to inactivity and fruitless reactivity.

    "The blog is on the paper, 'Genetics of Central Indian tribals'".

    All the data you have mentioned is not in that paper. That paper only covers some Indian tribals.

    ReplyDelete
  60. "Right you are in this but I was right also because all I said is that K1 is part of MNOPS or K(xLT), which it is"

    Obviously I know that, but that is irrelevant to where K(xLT) originated, which was the original point raised. You became sidetracked through your nit-picking.

    "Your sentences claiming something to be 'very unlikely' but failing to provide any explanation or evidence of why would it be that way abound too much".

    Such aspects are 'very unlikely' because no-one but you has even considered such scenarios to be even remotely 'possible'.

    "Pre-M and pre-N were not 'major haplogroups' but 'private lineages'".

    Maju, don't be ridiculous. They must each have formed part of a population or they wouldn't have survived. And each haplogroup must have formed a majority in each population or they would have been replaced through drift by any other haplogroups that did form a majority within each population.

    "Sure: the 'jackpot' was the other side of the desert but nobody knew it before they hit and for that they had first to accept the extremes of Balochistan arid coasts (and all East Iran is desertic, so it doesn't matter if they were walkers instead of boaters"

    But you're claiming some very unlikely scenario where the jackpot winners were just a small subset of the population who, inexplicably, left no descendants along the way. While the losers left any number of survivors along the supposed route. Strange idea, that.

    "No. Why? It is exactly the same as in situ, just that the population is migrating"

    Rubbish. It is completely different. As any group moves through any habitat in which they can survive they will leave descendants in that habitat, even if that habitat is 'the aridity of Balochistan'. If those descendants later dissappear (which is what you claim for populations formed during the stem formation of M and N) we must postulate genocide, surely. On the other hand if the population is confined to a single region each step in the stem will be replaced by drift within the single population. No genocide.

    "until it reaches the nice place where to expand and change their humble destiny into one of somewhat greater relevance".

    But that expanding population will still have left descendants along the route. You seem to basically understand that, as you wrote the other day:

    "people may be able to survive in region A and drift there until it eventually fixates in clade A (or clades A1, A2 and A3, whatever), and move to region B and drift there to clade B (or clades B1 and B2)".

    That is what I keep trying to point out to you. Notice how both M and R form completely unbroken stretches of derived haplogroups all the way between Africa and Australia. That's because both haplogroups have done exactly what you claim in the above statement. The survivors along the way have formed separate clades. The continuous distribution tells us nothing much about the origin of either haplogroup though. Each one could have coalesced almost anywhere within their current distributions.

    "As for me I see no problem why a population having many lineages, would not produce several populations each with a subset of such lineages, in the long run (after drift and all that)".

    Drift will reduce the diversity of lines in a settled, stable population. But you're presumably talking about a population on ther move. In which case such would usually only develop through founder effect. And founder effect involves a subset of the population. In other words the few haplogroups involved in the founder effect are still present in the parent population. But you're postulating the complete extinction of haplogroups that contributed to derived populations. On what grounds?

    ReplyDelete
  61. "The 'winners' generally keep the established wealth, the losers are pushed to the margins, where they typically have much poorer options"

    So you're now claiming that haplogroups N and M were 'losers'?

    "I'm sure that I fail to understand what the hell you mean here. I cannot explain what I don't understand, sorry. But what I don't understand is what you have in your mind, your 'mental wanking', to use a Spanish slang expression. I don't understand your logic nor what you mean".

    Probably because you don't understand genetics.

    "This is a contention point that you should develop, as you are so obsessed, with graphics and such in your blog or site".

    You would be able to easily understand it without any such extra explanation if you understood genetics. Without such understanding on your part I would be wasting my time anyway.

    "All the data you have mentioned is not in that paper. That paper only covers some Indian tribals".

    Try not to be so stupid. The data in the paper adds considerably to our knowledge of the haplogroup distribution of both M and R. And here I was thinking you were actually interested in the subject, but I was obviously wrong.

    ReplyDelete
  62. "And what I say is that, if anything survived at all, it was not of those clades but of others like L0, L4, L6 or other L3 (all of which we know exist in Arabia)".

    Now I understand what you're getting at. Wonder why it took me so long. It's called 'drafting', and I've done it myself, with sheep. You let the ones with tags in their left ear go straight ahead to one pen and turn the ones with tags in their right ear off into a separate pen. Or the opposite way round, whatever your objective. Obviously someone (presumably God) did it with all these haplogroups. He (presumably God is a 'he') drafted out haplogroups M and N and pushed them on to a new paddock, and turned the other haplogroups back into the old paddock.

    It's obvious now I think about it.

    ReplyDelete
  63. "They must each have formed part of a population or they wouldn't have survived".

    A population maybe with generic L3 or L3, L4, L6 and L0, or...

    "And each haplogroup must have formed a majority in each population or they would have been replaced through drift by any other haplogroups that did form a majority within each population".

    For all we know they were in fact replaced (drifted out) in Arabia eventually. Not a single pre-M nor pre-N lineage has survived in fact.

    But they were not fully displaced before emigrating Eastwards. That we know also.

    "But that expanding population will still have left descendants along the route".

    They were not expanding, just surviving. We know nothing of their hypothetical descendants and in what affects me, a sandstorm ate them accidentally (maybe - who cares? - the thread was so thin that was too easy to break at random).

    "That's because both haplogroups have done exactly what you claim in the above statement".

    I was talking of population not haplogroups. You always change the meaning of everything, bastardizing my own explanations.

    When I wrote: "people may be able to survive in region A and drift there until it eventually fixates in clade A (or clades A1, A2 and A3, whatever), and move to region B and drift there to clade B (or clades B1 and B2)", I was thinking in something like A being, say, L0 and B being L3 (i.e. M and N). Totally different of what you understood.

    The original population would be a mixture of L0 and L3 but eventually drift caused different sublineages (not necessarily just one, maybe several) to become fixated in each of its descendant populations.

    That's how I see it.

    "Drift will reduce the diversity of lines in a settled, stable population".

    That's the tendency in the long run. But in the meantime...

    Also, what if the population has several subpopulations each one with one or several different fixated lineages? Shouldn't all them survive or at least seriously delay the fixation into a single lineage because that same fixation is happening in the various subpopulations into different lineages?

    Get real! A population is something complex and dynamic.

    "And founder effect involves a subset of the population. In other words the few haplogroups involved in the founder effect are still present in the parent population".

    But they may not be there for long, specially if, as you claim in other paragraphs so vehemently, acts against them. What existed in the proto-Eurasian population in 80 Ka BP does not need to have arrived to present day. I'm sure that the survivors have lost a huge deal of diversity in the last 80,000 years.

    "So you're now claiming that haplogroups N and M were 'losers'?"

    I'm suggesting that pre-N and pre-M may well have been "losers" and "pushovers" in their socio-economical context in (probably) Arabia or the Persian Gulf Oasis. It's conjectural but I do not see why not: the winners of any competition would get the best lands, while the losers would be pushed to the deserts and semideserts, risking their overall survival and certainly lowering their quality of life radically. Why else would they migrate to a semidesertic area?

    "Now I understand what you're getting at. Wonder why it took me so long. It's called 'drafting'..."

    Actually it is founder effect and is more or less random: it just happens, just like in this Wikipedia illustration. The result is the same but the only god involved is Chaos.

    ReplyDelete
  64. "So according to YOUR OWN model of in-situ obligatory coalescence, those lineages 'must' have coalesced outside of Africa, already in Arabia".

    Yes, most probably. But the only haplogroups anywhere near any postulated OoA is L4b1. I would assume that members of L4b made it to Yemen where L4b1 coalesced. But ... the haplogroup failed to expand very far, unlike the L3-derived M and N. That suggests strongly that Yemen was a dead endfor any OoA. L3's expansion beyond Africa was unrelated to that of L4b1. All other L haplogroups found outside Africa are either included within an African branch or coalesced much too recently to have been part of any OoA.

    "A population maybe with generic L3 or L3, L4, L6 and L0, or..."

    But, strangely, just L3 expanded very far. Consequently you are reduced to special pleading for the explanation you offer for the expansion of M and N.

    "For all we know they were in fact replaced (drifted out) in Arabia eventually. Not a single pre-M nor pre-N lineage has survived in fact".

    And that fact is very difficult to explain, especially if you're going to claim that M and N made up a minority of that population. Minor haplogroups are the ones most likely to be 'drifted out'.

    "They were not expanding, just surviving".

    If they were capable of surviving they would have been capable (by definition) of leaving descendants. So what happened to those descendants?

    "I was talking of population not haplogroups. You always change the meaning of everything, bastardizing my own explanations".

    If you were talking populations you were talking rubbish then.

    "I was thinking in something like A being, say, L0 and B being L3 (i.e. M and N). Totally different of what you understood".

    I misunderstood it because it's complete nonsense, unless you're talking of unrelated expansions. But you appeared to be talking about linear expansions of populations containing an ever reducing diversity of haplogroups. That scenario is best seen in the Austronesian expansion into the Pacific. The diversity of haplogroups gradually reduces, at different rates, but no new haplogroups suddenly appear out of nowhere.

    ReplyDelete
  65. "The original population would be a mixture of L0 and L3 but eventually drift caused different sublineages (not necessarily just one, maybe several) to become fixated in each of its descendant populations".

    As I've just expalined, that is basically impossible. We would expect the diversity to simply reduce with no L3-derived haplogroup suddenly appearing from nowhere.

    "Also, what if the population has several subpopulations each one with one or several different fixated lineages?"

    Quite a common scenario. We would get different clades coalescing in the different regions even if the 'several subpopulations' originally had the same haplogroup. But if any of those populations were to eventually expand independently we would still see members in the source region. That is exactly the pattern we see in the modern haplogroup distribution.

    "Shouldn't all them survive or at least seriously delay the fixation into a single lineage because that same fixation is happening in the various subpopulations into different lineages?"

    And 'delay' would depend on how large and how isolated the population was.

    "But they may not be there for long, specially if, as you claim in other paragraphs so vehemently, acts against them".

    I think you've left a word out and I don't get what you mean. If the word is 'drift' then obviously drift is not going to cause the extinction of the population unless inbreeding becomes severe.

    "What existed in the proto-Eurasian population in 80 Ka BP does not need to have arrived to present day. I'm sure that the survivors have lost a huge deal of diversity in the last 80,000 years".

    Quite likely, but you specifically excluded the extinction of haplogroups as an explanation for N's disconnected distribution. Yet another example of your selective use of concepts? Besides which diversity in each region within Eurasia has periodically been enhanced with the arrival of haplogroups from other regions. But in all cases we can easily see the region from which those new haplogroups have come.

    "I'm suggesting that pre-N and pre-M may well have been 'losers' and 'pushovers' in their socio-economical context in (probably) Arabia or the Persian Gulf Oasis. It's conjectural but I do not see why not"

    I see lots of reasons 'why not'.

    ReplyDelete
  66. "Actually it is founder effect and is more or less random: it just happens, just like in this Wikipedia illustration. The result is the same but the only god involved is Chaos".

    So what part of that diagram shows a minority haplogroup becoming the sole member in a founder population? What you are proposing is something far more extreme than mere 'founder effect'.

    ReplyDelete
  67. Again you mostly repeat your circular self-complacient logic. So I'll be extremely brief, for whatever is worth:

    "Quite a common scenario. (...) But if any of those populations were to eventually expand independently we would still see members in the source region".

    Not if they, say, died of thirst or were forced by circumstances into another subpopulation and, once there, drifted out. Your assumptions are speculative, always hypothetical, yet you think capriciously that they must be the only possible solution. Your narrow-mindedness is astonishing.

    "So what part of that diagram shows a minority haplogroup becoming the sole member in a founder population?"

    It is a simplified graph with only two clades but I leave to you to estimate which of either clades, red or blue, is "minority". I could not care less.

    ReplyDelete
  68. "Your assumptions are speculative, always hypothetical, yet you think capriciously that they must be the only possible solution. Your narrow-mindedness is astonishing".

    I'll just re-direct this comment at you. Your whole approach shows that it is very obvious that you have decided in advance what it is you want the evidence to show. And when the evidence fails to fit that assumption you have then proceeded to postulate a series of unlikely possibilities to accomodate the contradictions.

    "Your narrow-mindedness is astonishing".

    I agree. Your narrow-mindedness is astonishing.

    "It is a simplified graph with only two clades but I leave to you to estimate which of either clades, red or blue, is 'minority'. I could not care less".

    Nor could I, because neither is a 'minority'. If either were it is unlikely that they would be able to move and form any sort of founder effect. So you're talking rubbish, yet again.

    ReplyDelete

Please, be reasonably respectful when making comments. I do not tolerate in particular sexism, racism nor homophobia. Personal attacks, manipulation and trolling are also very much unwelcome here.The author reserves the right to delete any abusive comment.

Preliminary comment moderation is... OFF (keep it that way, please)