tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post2642119605701270637..comments2024-03-09T15:46:44.638+01:00Comments on For what they were... we are: 'Denisovan' admixture widespread beyond Wallace Line, non-existant elsewhereMajuhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comBlogger93125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post-72330077698470648732011-11-02T04:29:02.944+01:002011-11-02T04:29:02.944+01:00The only reason why I do not accept that argument ...The only reason why I do not accept that argument is that it makes no sense whatsoever that some 10-20% of O1a* has just vanished "by drift" AFTER the Austronesian emigration from Taiwan. It's totally against Occam's Razor and demands lots of FAITH to believe such nonsense. It's not much more credible than the 12 plagues and such.Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post-48393683553102126632011-11-02T03:15:22.535+01:002011-11-02T03:15:22.535+01:00'We need better resolution".
Yes we do...'We need better resolution". <br /><br />Yes we do. But until such time as we have better resolution it is still unlikely that multiple O3a2-P201 lines made it beyond Western Indonesia while such a limited number of other O haplogroups even made it that far. <br /><br />"I don't accept that argument. I've also said that before". <br /><br />And the only reason you don't accept it is because it doesn't fit your pre-conceived ideas.terrythttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17327062321100035888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post-6488879472788631602011-10-31T04:08:03.478+01:002011-10-31T04:08:03.478+01:00"But in the case of a migration from Taiwan I..."But in the case of a migration from Taiwan I would expect one particular region within the island to be involved more than would be the island as a whole". <br /><br />Maybe but that makes it even harder that such a tiny source could replace all the ancestral inhabitants of Sundaland/Philippines. <br /><br />And, anyhow, they are still lacking O1a*. <br /><br />And, anyhow, IF they are +/- the same as the rest of Taiwan when colonizing Nias or Java (at 10% dilution in this case), why would they'd be different for the rest of islands? <br /><br />No reason.<br /><br />So assuming a source population like average Taiwan Aboriginals is most reasonable. And no matter what acrobatics you make, it does NOT fit with the end result.<br /><br />"The problem for you is that the 'big flashing exclamation mark' includes Tonga".<br /><br />No problem, as Tonga is in my scheme derive from derived from the Malay Archipelago. It's trivial: a founder effect accident in a small remote island group, not any problem.<br /><br />"There are any number of O3a2 haplogroups in China, and even in Japan and Tibet". <br /><br />We need better resolution.<br /><br />"Migration to Taiwan from the mainland was certainly not just confined to the period of the Kuomintang". <br /><br />What the heck?! "Non-Taiwanese" or "in Taiwan" in the context of this discussion refer ONLY to Taiwanese aboriginals, whose Y-DNA gene pool is very specific. Why do you AGAIN try to confuse things instead of just facing the facts?<br /><br />"Indonesians and Filipinos look very much like slightly smaller versions of Polynesians"...<br /><br />Like the motherland of Polynesia in fact. <br /><br />"I've mentioned before that the absence of O1a*-M119 on Taiwan could be explained as a result of drift". <br /><br />I don't accept that argument. I've also said that before.Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post-83588914680544050022011-10-31T02:11:57.151+01:002011-10-31T02:11:57.151+01:00"Maybe but, still, IS the distortion of overa..."Maybe but, still, IS the distortion of overall British lineages for that reason extreme or just mild?" <br /><br />Reasonably mild would be my guess. But in the case of a migration from Taiwan I would expect one particular region within the island to be involved more than would be the island as a whole. Perhaps the part of Taiwan nearest the Philippines. I seem to remember that the Malayo-Polynesian language family is most closely related to a southern Taiwanese language, as in this link: <br /><br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malayo-Polynesian_languages<br /><br />Quote: <br /><br />"The Malayo-Polynesian languages share several phonological and lexical innovations with the eastern Formosan languages" <br /><br />"It's obvious: there is a lot of unresolved O3a2* in Indonesia and NOT in China. That is a big flashing exclamation mark on Indonesia that you should be able to see - so it's only your dark glasses". <br /><br />The problem for you is that the 'big flashing exclamation mark' includes Tonga. That remote island is extremely unlikely to contain a wide variety of O3 haplogroups. Consequently it is reasonable to assume that the Indonesian O3a2* is actually just a single haplogroup within O3a2. There are any number of O3a2 haplogroups in China, and even in Japan and Tibet. <br /><br />"There are barriers that she dares to cross and others that she does not". <br /><br />Changed you mind, have you? <br /><br />"most Austronesian-speakers in fact look strikingly non-Taiwanese from a genetic viewpoint, notably Y-DNA". <br /><br />Migration to Taiwan from the mainland was certainly not just confined to the period of the Kuomintang. <br /><br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuomintang<br /><br />"the Mentawai have lots O1a*-M119, which is totally absent in Taiwan. For that reason they look as mostly pre-Austronesians (Y-DNA-wise), as do other Indonesians, Filipino, etc". <br /><br />Indonesians and Filipinos look very much like slightly smaller versions of Polynesians, a people who are certainly not 'pre-Austronesians'. And 'Austronesian Y-DNA' is a mix of O1, O3 and C2, not just one particular haplogroup. I've mentioned before that the absence of O1a*-M119 on Taiwan could be explained as a result of drift. <br /><br />"I do not know how the paper you linked could explain the peculiar Taiwan affinity of Nias" <br /><br />I linked to it to explain the difference between that island and Mentawai. The paper is also very relevant regarding particulars within the Austronesian expansion.terrythttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17327062321100035888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post-20015838625930907152011-10-30T05:17:04.598+01:002011-10-30T05:17:04.598+01:00Erratum:
"Maybe but still the distortion of ...Erratum:<br /><br />"Maybe but still the distortion of overall British lineages for that reason is extreme or just mild".<br /><br />... should be read as a question:<br /><br />"Maybe but, still, IS the distortion of overall British lineages for that reason extreme or just mild?"<br /><br />Sorry.Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post-61155719111614839322011-10-30T05:13:10.417+01:002011-10-30T05:13:10.417+01:00"Southern England, lowland Scotland and North..."Southern England, lowland Scotland and Northern Ireland are over-represented". <br /><br />Maybe but still the distortion of overall British lineages for that reason is extreme or just mild. I'm sure it's quite mild and that you don't get 90% R1a anywhere in New Zealand, not even 90% R1b, even if the starting gene pool is at least 50% for this lineage. <br /><br />"I see no reason at all why you insist on the possibility that O3a2 did not coalesce there".<br /><br />It's obvious: there is a lot of unresolved O3a2* in Indonesia and NOT in China. That is a big flashing exclamation mark on Indonesia that you should be able to see - so it's only your dark glasses. <br /><br />"Even Karafet takes as assumed that the original O Y-haps in SE Asia are immigrants".<br /><br />There are barriers that she dares to cross and others that she does not. An opinion is not important unless you found yours on what others think and not the data. I may do that on matters I do not know much about, like football, but not on matters I have a keen interest in. <br /><br />"The main difference appears to be that Mentawai has Y-hap C"...<br /><br />No, that was not what I meant: the Mentawai have lots O1a*-M119, which is totally absent in Taiwan. For that reason they look as mostly pre-Austronesians (Y-DNA-wise), as do other Indonesians, Filipino, etc. (most Austronesian-speakers in fact look strikingly non-Taiwanese from a genetic viewpoint, notably Y-DNA). <br /><br />I do not know how the paper you linked could explain the peculiar Taiwan affinity of Nias (can you explain with your own words?) but it is indeed interesting in a very general sense.Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post-87851430431243621032011-10-30T04:14:15.367+01:002011-10-30T04:14:15.367+01:00'Because if one people (which according to you...'Because if one people (which according to you is the only source of those haplogroups) emigrates and colonizes other areas, chances are that the proportion of the ancestral lineages are roughly retained". <br /><br />Migration is extremely unlikely to consist of a representative sample of the source population. <br /><br />"Just compare Y-DNA in New Zealand with Y-DNA in the British Islands: the proportions should be roughly the same" <br /><br />Not so. Southern England, lowland Scotland and Northern Ireland are over-represented. <br /><br />"IF O3a2 is original from the South, at least O3a2b is not and must have coalesced in China. But at the O3a2 level we just do not know and the situation is very balanced so taking sides for a China origin is a subjective choice and not an objective one". <br /><br />That is a very big assumption with your 'IF'. I agree that O3a2b must have coalesced in China, but I see no reason at all why you insist on the possibility that O3a2 did not coalesce there. Perhaps it would pay you to check up on what various authors mean by 'South Chinese'. Usually they mean 'south of the Tsin Ling Mountains' and that includes virtually all of the Yangtze valley. It does not mean just the mountainous region in Southern China. <br /><br />"so taking sides for a China origin is a subjective choice and not an objective one". <br /><br />Even Karafet takes as assumed that the original O Y-haps in SE Asia are immigrants. She actually provides a wide window for their arrival: 19-8 ka. Presumably she places their origin in China somewhere. <br /><br />"Also culturally, the people of Nias seem somewhat 'more civilized' than the Mentawai, who could well represent an older layer". <br /><br />This link may explain why that is: <br /><br />http://www.rogerblench.info/Archaeology%20data/SE%20Asia/Berlin%202010/Nias%20Euraseaa%20paper%20final.pdf<br /><br />"Nias looks like it is the case but the Mentawai have a distinct, local, Y-DNA composition that does not necessarily or even likely fit with that idea". <br /><br />The main difference appears to be that Mentawai has Y-hap C, presumably C2. How does that difference make it unlikely that Mentawai was uninhabited before the Austronesians arrived? C2 is certainly associated with Austronesians to the east, and looks very likely to have originated in Southern Wallacea. And even though the Nias link suggests people were in Nias by 12,000 years ago they stress that those people died out, either before or after the Austronesians arrived.terrythttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17327062321100035888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post-84005078213578510322011-10-28T10:03:24.504+02:002011-10-28T10:03:24.504+02:00"... but that tells us nothing about basal O1..."... but that tells us nothing about basal O1".<br /><br />I am not aware of O1(xO1a) anywhere. It probably does exist but at very low frequencies. I don't know of any study that has identified it clearly. <br /><br />Whatever the case I was talking of O1a all the time (because I can't judge the upstream node without data). It was you who assumed that the conclusions extended to all O1. I have never said that however (although it is possible for what I know). <br /><br />"Mentawai and Nias, at least, were probably completely uninhabited until Austronesian-speaking people arrived".<br /><br />That's just a guess. Nias looks like it is the case but the Mentawai have a distinct, local, Y-DNA composition that does not necessarily or even likely fit with that idea. Also culturally, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Tari_Perang_Nias.jpg" rel="nofollow">the people of Nias</a> seem somewhat "more civilized" than <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Mentawai_men.jpg" rel="nofollow">the Mentawai</a>, who could well represent an older layer. <br /><br />"Why would you expect the retention of proportion?"<br /><br />Because if one people (which according to you is the only source of those haplogroups) emigrates and colonizes other areas, chances are that the proportion of the ancestral lineages are roughly retained. Just compare Y-DNA in New Zealand with Y-DNA in the British Islands: the proportions should be roughly the same, specially for larger categories as haplogroups of the level of O1a2 and O1a1 (i.e. we are not looking at hyper-specific family-lineage level but whole haplogroups). <br /><br />"It is extremely unlikely that O3a2a, O3a2b and O3a2c have all moved north into China from Sundaland".<br /><br />I did not say that. IF O3a2 is original from the South, at least O3a2b is not and must have coalesced in China. But at the O3a2 level we just do not know and the situation is very balanced so taking sides for a China origin is a subjective choice and not an objective one. <br /><br />I'm not willing to discuss your subjectivity. You just assume that your fantasies equal to "high likelhood" and that is not that way in reality. <br /><br />Reality check, Terry.Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post-28610411712071275152011-10-28T05:24:19.312+02:002011-10-28T05:24:19.312+02:00"Still almost all O3a2 in China is O3a2c, wha..."Still almost all O3a2 in China is O3a2c, what is consistent with my narrative so far. O3a2*, O3a2a and O3a2b are found only in small numbers and, exception O3a2b (more common around Shanghai), all are more common to the South (O3a2a is only found over there)". <br /><br />Yes. The derived haplogroups have become much more common than are their ancestral haplogroups. In a sense derived haplogroups have replaced basal haplogroups, but this is much more likely to be a product of later expansion of population numbers rather than direct 'replacement'. <br /><br />"Also that table provides info on O2(xO2a,O2b) which is not that rare, reaching highest concentrations around Shanghai (6%)". <br /><br />Which is exactly where I've long maintained both O2a and O2b started from, i.e. The mouth of the Yangtze. <br /><br />"We should not forget about Indochina, after all it's the region in between and the research is poor". <br /><br />I remember an excellent paper on Laos mtDNA, which I think you blogged about. The haplogroups 'missing' in Laos are as interesting as those present. It tends to support an mtDNA M entry into East Asia via Northeast India and Southwest China, rather than via the coast. <br /><br />"I for one do not believe in Sino-Tibetan too much. I treat Tibeto-Burman and Sinitic as two distinct language families. They may still be related but that's an open matter". <br /><br />Most linguists assume they are related. And Tibeto-Burman is also part of the mix. I tend to accept the linguistic connection as it fits what little we know about the prehistory of the region. <br /><br />"Also I do not think that the people who moved northwards (or southwards or whatever) some 40 or 30 Ka can be described as speaking anything that we can describe other than as 'some language(s)'". <br /><br />Unlikely to leave even the slightest trace of common origin at that age though. <br /><br />"But indeed the people moved North first and later they moved Southwards with smaller impact (and maybe again northwards and southwards and that is what we are trying to discern)". <br /><br />I agree. and the fact that we have surviving 'Negrito' groups suggests very strongly that there has been a relatively recent movement into the region from elsewhere. And let's not forget that it was probably NO that moved north, not O and N separately. <br /><br />By the way. Your consistent arguing against my position has helped me considerably in my efforts to trace the ancient origin of the Polynesians. Thanks.terrythttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17327062321100035888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post-58601728156324151712011-10-28T05:23:26.768+02:002011-10-28T05:23:26.768+02:00At the obvious risk of completely wasting my time:...At the obvious risk of completely wasting my time: <br /><br />"But IF your know something that I do not, please do not hesitate and illustrate me and whichever reader who is still able to follow this endless circular chatter". <br /><br />I have provided endless links. You simply claim they are wrong, mainly because they don't fit your pre-conceived beliefs. <br /><br />"I fail to see any logic in all your rant up to this sentence. Each new post it's more difficult to make sense of what you say". <br /><br />It is apparent that just one O3 haplogroup makes it further out into the islands than Flores, Western Indonesia. This shows that, in spite of what you claim, basal O3 is very unlikely to be ancient in Western Indonesia. The maps in the Karafet paper show that O3-M122 and O3a-P197 are mainland China, with a very strange outpost in Polynesia. <br /><br />"You are denying the data for the case of O1, or at least O1a-M119". <br /><br />I can accept O1a, perhaps, but that tells us nothing about basal O1. <br /><br />"This lineage in Sundaland reaches 10% in some cases (Sumatra and Bali, and even more among the Mentawai, expanding also to Sulawesi and Sumba in Wallacea). To me it looks like a Sumatran lineage with some scatter to the East (specially)". <br /><br />It is much more likely to indicate an arrival in a previously sparsely inhabited region, in which they were able to expand rapidly. <br /><br />"So their Y-DNA patterns look from a time when fixation by founder effect and drift was still possible: the Paleolithic or at most the very first Neolithic, such as the Hoabinhian-Toalean maybe". <br /><br />No. Mentawai and Nias, at least, were probably completely uninhabited until Austronesian-speaking people arrived. The Hoabinhian-Toalean population may not have been particularly large over most of its spread either, although evidence for reasonable population size exists on Vietnam, Sumatra and Sulawesi. <br /><br />"I just fail to see any sort of retainment of the 1-4 proportion that the O1a2 and O1a1 have in Taiwan (and South China)". <br /><br />Why would you expect the retention of proportion? We know that the Austronesian languages outside Taiwan are hardly a representative sample. <br /><br />"I do not know but I don't suppose so. But that does not preclude at all that O3a2*-P201 in Philippines (the likely origin) is actually polyphyletic". <br /><br />It doesn't 'preclude' the possibility, but it makes it extremely unlikely. <br /><br />"I'd say that the origin of O3a2 remains open with Sundaland being a candidate (the other being South China, where all clades are found, unlike the other regions). The handicap for Sundaland is the lack of O3a2b-M7 but the extremely high amounts of O3a2*-P201 could well compensate it. It all depends on the internal structure of the 'asterisk' paragroup". <br /><br />And a huge 'handicap' it is. It is extremely unlikely that O3a2a, O3a2b and O3a2c have all moved north into China from Sundaland. It is far more likely that a lone O3a haplogroup left Southern China at some time and moved through the Malay Peninsula and out into the Pacific. O3a2-P201 appears 'everywhere' and O3a2*, at least beyond Western Indonesia, is almost certainly just a single haplogroup. The internal structure is yet to be worked out but it is extremely likely that the defining mutation is as yet undiscovered.terrythttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17327062321100035888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post-34327454724024633312011-10-26T04:43:06.105+02:002011-10-26T04:43:06.105+02:00...
"There is no way any of the three O hapl......<br /><br />"There is no way any of the three O haplogroups originated in island SE Asia, or Sundaland".<br /><br />You are denying the data for the case of O1, or at least O1a-M119. <br /><br />This lineage in Sundaland reaches 10% in some cases (Sumatra and Bali, and even more among the Mentawai, expanding also to Sulawesi and Sumba in Wallacea). To me it looks like a Sumatran lineage with some scatter to the East (specially).<br /><br />Instead in the mainland, following Shi Yan, it reaches only 1.4% (all three regions are similar). Shi Yang however is interesting re. the coalescence of the main Taiwan-Austronesian lineage: O1a1-P203, which reaches quite high frequencies towards East-South China, suggesting the possible intermediate step in the scatter of O1a before arrival to Taiwan. <br /><br />However the area lacks O1a2, with partial exception in the South (3%), so it is still likely that the clade originated in Sundaland, migrated northwards (coasting?) and then maybe back-migrated southwards with the famed Austronesians. Greater resolution of the internal structure of O1a and specially O1a1 and their geographical scatter could clarify the matter. <br /><br />I just fail to see any sort of retainment of <b>the 1-4 proportion</b> that the O1a2 and O1a1 have in Taiwan (and South China). The closest is Nias (1-7, making 100%) and Java (1-7, making 10% - but also 3% O1a*) but then it just goes nuts:<br /><br />Philippines: 4-1 (inverted!) <br />Malaysia: no O1a2, residual O1a1 <br />Bali: 1-15 [9% O1a*]<br />Sumatra: no O1a2, residual O1a1 [11% O1a*]<br />Borneo 3-1 (inverted!)<br />Mentawai: 1-21 [57% O1a*]<br />Flores: no O1a2, 9% O1a1<br />Sulawesi: no O1a1, 7% O1a2 [13% O1a1]<br />Sumba: 7-1 (inverted!) [5% O1a1]<br />etc.<br /><br />You could force-feed Bali and maybe argue for recent founder effects in beyond Wallace Line but most of Sundaland and Philippines just do not fit with any colonization from Taiwan (nor mainland China, nor Indochina). So their Y-DNA patterns look from a time when fixation by founder effect and drift was still possible: the Paleolithic or at most the very first Neolithic, such as the Hoabinhian-Toalean maybe.Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post-38623145387488448532011-10-26T04:42:59.102+02:002011-10-26T04:42:59.102+02:00..."which islands make up Western Indonesia?&......"which islands make up Western Indonesia?"<br /><br />Not Flores if that is what you ask. <br /><br />I fail to see any logic in all your rant up to this sentence. Each new post it's more difficult to make sense of what you say.<br /><br />... "you obviously know nothing about SE Asian pre-history". <br /><br />I think that roughly the same as you. But IF your know something that I do not, please do not hesitate and illustrate me and whichever reader who is still able to follow this endless circular chatter. <br /><br />"The paper on the updated phylogeny of O (which you blogged about some time back) claims O3a3*-P201 is 1.8% East China, 0.8% North China and 3.1% South China".<br /><br />Excellent finding (I had totally forgotten about this), now you are being useful.<br /><br />Still almost all O3a2 in China is O3a2c, what is consistent with my narrative so far. O3a2*, O3a2a and O3a2b are found only in small numbers and, exception O3a2b (more common around Shanghai), all are more common to the South (O3a2a is only found over there). <br /><br />Also that table provides info on O2(xO2a,O2b) which is not that rare, reaching highest concentrations around Shanghai (6%). <br /><br />I'd say that the origin of O3a2 remains open with Sundaland being a candidate (the other being South China, where all clades are found, unlike the other regions). The handicap for Sundaland is the lack of O3a2b-M7 but the extremely high amounts of O3a2*-P201 could well compensate it. It all depends on the internal structure of the "asterisk" paragroup. <br /><br />We should not forget about Indochina, after all it's the region in between and the research is poor. <br /><br />"I suppose you're going to claim that the O3 haplogroup that made it to Tonga is polyphyletic".<br /><br />I do not know but I don't suppose so. But that does not preclude at all that O3a2*-P201 in Philippines (the likely origin) is actually polyphyletic. <br /><br />"Perhaps the Sino-Tibetan speaking people originated in SE Asia, moved way north, and then moved way south again".<br /><br />I for one do not believe in Sino-Tibetan too much. I treat Tibeto-Burman and Sinitic as two distinct language families. They may still be related but that's an open matter. <br /><br />Also I do not think that the people who moved northwards (or southwards or whatever) some 40 or 30 Ka can be described as speaking anything that we can describe other than as "some language(s)". <br /><br />But indeed the people moved North first and later they moved Southwards with smaller impact (and maybe again northwards and southwards and that is what we are trying to discern). <br /><br />...Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post-14304582559689520452011-10-26T03:40:48.248+02:002011-10-26T03:40:48.248+02:00"Also your geographical associations are slop..."Also your geographical associations are sloppy again and not worth even discussing". <br /><br />Well. How about this: <br /><br />"And as I corrected you it is also in ISEA: Java, Bali, Borneo". <br /><br />Here it is you whose 'geographical associations are sloppy again'. You have failed to read Karafet. She said that although O3a1c, O3a2b and O3a2c1 had reached Western Indonesia they were basically not found beyond Flores. Now, tell me, which islands make up Western Indonesia? <br /><br />"Why? ['The results also suggest that relatives of present-day East Asians were not in Southeast Asia when the gene flow occurred, rather they descended from later migrations']". <br /><br />Presumably because the authors, along with everybody else except you, considers that to be the case. It's not my quote. <br /><br />"I lack the barrier so I can't see the 'logic' at all". <br /><br />No. You have a huge barrier because you obviously know nothing about SE Asian pre-history. <br /><br />"Reading the supplemental material of Karafet'2010 ['O3a2*-P201 are almost only found in Sundaland]?" <br /><br />Well, you obviously should read a little more widely. The paper on the updated phylogeny of O (which you blogged about some time back) claims O3a3*-P201 is 1.8% East China, 0.8% North China and 3.1% South China. The reason for the low percentages is the preponderance of other O haplogroups, mainly derived from O3a2-P201. <br /><br />"Of three tabbed categories within O3a2, two are present in West Indonesia in strong numbers. One of them is the 'asterisk' category which is almost exclusive of Sundaland". <br /><br />I suppose you're going to claim that the O3 haplogroup that made it to Tonga is polyphyletic. Most unlikely to be so. A map I have shows the Tongan haplogroup to be O-M324, although the Karafet paper narrows that down to a subclade of O3a-P201. But the map excludes most O3a2 clades, such as O3a2a-M159, O3a2b-M7 and O3a2c1-M134. That doesn't leave a lot. Perhaps the Sino-Tibetan speaking people originated in SE Asia, moved way north, and then moved way south again. Unlikely. <br /><br />"I can try to help you understand things but I'm not going to fight pointless battles on issues on which you once and again insist on such clear errors of basic data itself". <br /><br />Thank you for the reminder. I will give up trying top make you see sense reagrding SE Asia. Keep hold of your dreams. There is no way any of the three O haplogroups originated in island SE Asia, or Sundaland.terrythttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17327062321100035888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post-72039716442010693972011-10-25T08:04:37.215+02:002011-10-25T08:04:37.215+02:00"The results also suggest that relatives of p..."The results also suggest that relatives of present-day East Asians were not in Southeast Asia when the gene flow occurred, rather they descended from later migrations". <br /><br />Why?<br /><br />The results DO NOT suggest that as far as I can see, that is just an interpretation of someone with a mental barrier. <br /><br />It's not the results but the mental barrier which suggest such thing. I lack the barrier so I can't see the "logic" at all. <br /><br />"Sundaland had already broken into individual islands". <br /><br />How do you know: luckily there is no molecular clock, so you can't know. <br /><br />Considering that since people migrated out of Africa and today Sundaland has existed most of the time, chances are that you're wrong. <br /><br />"Where did you get the information that 'O3a2*-P201 (brothers of M7) are almost only found in Sundaland'?"<br /><br />Reading the supplemental material of Karafet'2010. <br /><br />"Only paragroup O-P201* has a wide geographic distribution and is found in all geographic regions surveyed". <br /><br />Considering that 4 of the 5 regions of Karafet are insular and that it's indeed found among the South Han and that Philippines, where it is also found, is in the Mainland Asia region... <br /><br />Read the data, words are confusing (and sometimes confused). Look at the data and chew on it with your own brain. <br /><br />"'South China' (...) It's certainly not 'Southeast Asia'". <br /><br />In anthropological contexts South China is almost invariable considered SE Asia. This is logical because there are strong links, cultural and genetic, to Indochina and ISEA and striking differences with NE Asia (including North China, Korea and Japan lus the empty expanses of the Far NE). <br /><br />"Hardly representative of South China, especially not Han". <br /><br />They are South Han, overall they represent reasonably well the diversity of South China: 3 Hmong-Mien (She, Miao, Yao), 2 Sino-Tibetan (Tujia and South Han). Only Daic peoples are absent. <br /><br />"Unlikely to be 'only' so, as they tested very little in China". <br /><br />Excuses, burning nails for your preconceptions. <br /><br />"Where is O3a2a-M159 found? Not SE Asia".<br /><br />Do you know it for a fact (if so, reference please) or are you ranting wildly again? <br /><br />"And as I pointed out above O3a2b is mainly South China"...<br /><br />And as I corrected you it is also in ISEA: Java, Bali, Borneo. <br /><br />Please: read Karafet's supplement, get your data straight and then find an appropriate thread to discuss whatever is left to discuss. I can try to help you understand things but I'm not going to fight pointless battles on issues on which you once and again insist on such clear errors of basic data itself. <br /><br />Document your case and then come back to court. Or give up. <br /><br />"But Karafet said"...<br /><br />In what regards to me Karafet only "said" what she or her aides tabbed in the tables. Words are empty if contradicted by facts.<br /><br />"... and possibly only one haplogroup within that clade"...<br /><br />Your imagination. Of three tabbed categories within O3a2, two are present in West Indonesia in strong numbers. One of them is the "asterisk" category which is almost exclusive of Sundaland. <br /><br />"As usual you cherry pick the information you agree with and ignore the inconvenient bits". <br /><br />Fuck you! 10-20% in two of the major islands of West Indonesia is not "cherry picking" my info. It's showing you how wrong your fucking thoughtless claims built on nothing but wishful thinking (and no real thinking at all) are. <br /><br />Shut up if you have nothing good to say, please. You are getting me really angry with your insistence on beating a dead and rotting horse as is the case.Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post-68953666003230760892011-10-25T06:11:18.018+02:002011-10-25T06:11:18.018+02:00"Remember that this debate is about 'Deni..."Remember that this debate is about 'Denisovan' admixture". <br /><br />Try this, via Dienekes: <br /><br />http://www.ashg.org/pdf/pr_ichg_evoandpopulationgenetics.pdf<br /><br />Quote: <br /><br />"The results also suggest that relatives of present-day East Asians were not in Southeast Asia when the gene flow occurred, rather they descended from later migrations". <br /><br />What haplogroups may be represented in these 'later migration'? <br /><br />"it's not just that O3a2b-M7 is present in Sundaland" <br /><br />But it is apparent that O3a2b-M7 was not present when the region was actually 'Sundaland'. Sundaland had already broken into individual islands. <br /><br />"but also that paragroup O3a2*-P201 (brothers of M7) are almost only found in Sundaland, suggesting that this lineage is original from that region". <br /><br />Where did you get the information that 'O3a2*-P201 (brothers of M7) are almost only found in Sundaland'? Quote from Karafet: <br /><br />"Only paragroup O-P201* has a wide geographic distribution and is found in all geographic regions surveyed". <br /><br />Including China. Certainly its descendant O3a2b-M7 is widespread in China: <br /><br />"The derived O-M134, O-M7, and O-JST002611 subhaplogroups are absent or found at very low frequencies in Indonesia but are prevalent in different ethnic groups in China and SEA". <br /><br />From other sources I note that o3a2b-M7 is prevalent amoung Daxi, Hmong-Mien and Mon-Kmer. Hardly support for an island SE Asia origin. <br /><br />"SE Asian ethnicities within the artificial and imposed borders of China, do in some cases have greater frequencies than Javanese or Borneans (0.20) but that's NOT 'China'. Not for me at least" <br /><br />Only as far as you're concerned. Everyone else considers 'South China' to be 'China'. It's certainly not 'Southeast Asia'. <br /><br />"Can you read? Read the Karafet'10 supplement!" <br /><br />From within China Karafet et al sampled just: <br /><br />"HAN, Han Chinese; TUJ, Tujia; MIA, Miao; YAO, Yao; SHE, She" <br /><br />Hardly representative of South China, especially not Han. <br /><br />"So sorry but it's your fault". <br /><br />It was you who made the claim they'd tested very few O3 haplogroups. <br /><br />"that tells us nothing about O3a2c* (not tested) which can well be part of that O3a2*-P201 that is almost only found in Sundaland and Philippines". <br /><br />Unlikely to be 'only' so, as they tested very little in China. Where is O3a2a-M159 found? Not SE Asia. And as I pointed out above O3a2b is mainly South China, not island SE Asia. And the derived O3a2c1 is also hardly 'SE Asian'. That takes care of the three derived clades within O3a2. It is therefore extremely unlikely that O2a2 coalesced in SE Asia. <br /><br />"I think that O3a2*-P201 is the key, all the rest are localized founder effects of downstream clades". <br /><br />But Karafet said only members of O3a2 haplogroup (and possibly only one haplogroup within that clade) are found beyond Indonesia, and even then just a few are found outside China. Hardly convincing evidence for an origin outside China. <br /><br />"10-20% is not 'low', so I have good reason to disagree". <br /><br />As usual you cherry pick the information you agree with and ignore the inconvenient bits.terrythttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17327062321100035888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post-8262479767874675522011-10-25T05:18:23.274+02:002011-10-25T05:18:23.274+02:00You're not paying attention to what I say: it&...You're not paying attention to what I say: it's not just that O3a2b-M7 is present in Sundaland but also that paragroup O3a2*-P201 (brothers of M7) are almost only found in Sundaland, suggesting that this lineage is original from that region. <br /><br />It is NOT M7 the most important thing here but P201. Got it?<br /><br />"Sounds like a single haplogroup all through there". <br /><br />Highly conjectural. And even if it is "a single haplogroup", there's still more diversity (2) in Sundaland and Philippines than anywhere in the mainland (1), with the only and very partial exception of Southern Han (but Austronesians are not Chinese, are they?)<br /><br />The issue is open but a southern (Sundaland) origin of this lineage is very possible. <br /><br />"O3a2b is much higher in China compared to SE Asia, especially island SE Asia"...<br /><br />Can you read? Read the Karafet'10 supplement!<br /><br />Can you divide? Divide the data in there:<br />China (Han): 3/165=0.02<br />Java: 7/61=0.11<br /><br />0.11 > 0.02<br /><br />SE Asian ethnicities within the artificial and imposed borders of China, do in some cases have greater frequencies than Javanese or Borneans (0.20) but that's NOT "China". Not for me at least: China=Han Country. <br /><br />"Both haplogroups are specifically mentioned in the paper as being low in Indonesia (island SE Asia) although you disagree".<br /><br />10-20% is not "low", so I have good reason to disagree. <br /><br />"However some haplogroup within it does seem to have been picked up by Austronesians and carried out into the Pacific".<br /><br />Filipinos (25% O-P201) are surely the source of that.<br /><br />"They tested O3a2c1-M134, a downstream clade within O3a2c"...<br /><br />I'm getting messed up: I was thinking of O-JST002611, which is O3a1c. Why? Because you said so:<br /><br />"and O-JST002611 is O3a1c".<br /><br />So sorry but it's your fault. Where's the sloppiness? In this kind of stuff. <br /><br />You are right however for O3a2c1-M134 (it was tested for and it is not present in the islands) but that tells us nothing about O3a2c* (not tested) which can well be part of that O3a2*-P201 that is almost only found in Sundaland and Philippines. <br /><br />I think that O3a2*-P201 is the key, all the rest are localized founder effects of downstream clades. <br /><br />There's too much unknown left in this testing strategy:<br />(1) "true" O3a2* (i.e. not yet classified) <br />(2) O3a2a<br />(3) O3a2c(xO3a2c1)<br /><br />All that shows up only as O3a2-P201 and that only shows up in Sundaland-Philippines (plus Austronesian scatter) and among the South Han. <br /><br />"Extremely unlikely that 'more research' will reveal it as having coalesced in 'Sundaland'".<br /><br />Extremely likely that it will be much more productive and revealing than this circular discussion.Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post-57531156112362659842011-10-25T05:10:16.385+02:002011-10-25T05:10:16.385+02:00"(1) pre-Austronesian languages expanded to T..."(1) pre-Austronesian languages expanded to Taiwan from ISEA <br />(2) Malay-Polynesian (and only this branch!) expanded from Luzon. This may be justified to some extent by the fact that Filipino genetic pool seems to have made much more of an impact into the Austronesian-speaking areas than anything from Taiwan". <br /><br />That is probably correct, but not quite how you envisage it. The Karafet paper expands on, and re-inforces' what I claimed way back in my essay on the subject: <br /><br />http://humanevolutionontrial.blogspot.com/2009/06/human-evolution-on-trial-polynesian.html<br /><br />Quote: <br /><br />"The diagram of the diversification of the languages [Language Families] shows the Austronesian languages in Taiwan appear on two different branches. This suggests a ripple of movement, and probably transmission of technology, north from the Philippine Islands to Taiwan. The development of the improved boating technology in Island Southeast Asia was probably the result of a complicated series of population movements in the region". <br /><br />The paper indicates that the gap between Taiwan and the Philippines was not first crossed from north to south, but north from the Philippines. By O1a1. Just one of the Taiwanese Austronesian languages derives from the Philippines, but Autronesian as a whole derives from Taiwan. The language must have traveled along the mainland coast and down the Malay Peninsula before moving through Western Indonesia and back east to the Philippies. Where it completed the circle. <br /><br />"Since Neolithic? No way!" <br /><br />How can you be so definite about that? The Taiwanese Aborigines have been under population pressure for some time now. You even quote some figures, 'today holds 23 million people (500,000 Taiwan Aborigines)'. <br /><br />"You must be kidding. It ranks 38th among the islands of the World, being about half the size of Sri Lanka or Ireland". <br /><br />According to my Pear's Cyclopedia it's a little more than half the size of Sri Lanka and a little less than half the size of all Ireland. It's just over a quarter of the size of the North Island of New Zealand, with basically ten times the population. <br /><br />"I forgot. And I do not feel like reviewing all the thread". <br /><br />When I first left university my job was making maps. And I have visited many continents. I understand geography, presumably much better than you do.terrythttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17327062321100035888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post-70928898984630901652011-10-25T04:47:07.255+02:002011-10-25T04:47:07.255+02:00"O3a2b-M7 is not absent and, furthermore, it ..."O3a2b-M7 is not absent and, furthermore, it is very strong in Borneo (17/86) and Java (7/61). It also seems important among Malays (4/32), Miao (21/58), She (29/51) and Yao (29/60)". <br /><br />The last three are mainland, and even Malays are presumably mostly so. Borneo and Java O3a2b-M7 are probably post-Neolithic arrivals from the mainland. <br /><br />"However it is true that the paragroup O3a2*-P201 (probably more than just one sibling haplogroup in relation to O3a2b-M7) is the most important clade in the islands (within the O3 haplogroup), being very strong in Sumatra, Borneo, Philippines and Malaysia and quite rare in the mainland instead". <br /><br />Probably not 'more than just one sibling haplogroup'. The authors specifically state, 'The divergence between Filipinos/Taiwanese aboriginals and Indonesians was insignificant and 10-fold less than that between Southeast Asians and Indonesians (0.027, P = 0.11 vs. 0.349, P = 0.00). Genetic distances between Oceania and Philippines/Taiwanese aboriginals were even lower (0.007, P = 0.35)'. Sounds like a single haplogroup all through there. <br /><br />"While other O3 is rare, O3a2 is not just common enough but probably highly diverse to be (at least tentatively) considered of ISEA origin". <br /><br />Doubtful. I don't know about O3a2a but O3a2b is much higher in China compared to SE Asia, especially island SE Asia, and O3a2c is especially common amoung Sino-Tibetan speakers in western and Southern China. Both haplogroups are specifically mentioned in the paper as being low in Indonesia (island SE Asia) although you disagree. <br /><br />"Definitely not Taiwan-Austronesian in any case". <br /><br />I agree. However some haplogroup within it does seem to have been picked up by Austronesians and carried out into the Pacific. <br /><br />"For a moment I thought I had committed an error (crazy nomenclature) but nope: this is within the other O3a subclade: O3a1, which I do not doubt is from the mainland". <br /><br />Your original comment was, 'There's no O3a2c tested for in Karafet'10, it's O3a2-P201 and O3a2b-M7. And both are present in the islands I say'. They tested O3a2c1-M134, a downstream clade within O3a2c, and they state it is very rare in the islands whereas it is high in China, from Tibet to Japan. That leaves just the basal O3a2c-P164. It is doubtful that O3a2c coalesced in island SE Asia. <br /><br />"All I say is that O3a2 looks a lot like original from Sundaland or maybe Philippines. But more research is needed in any case to be safe". <br /><br />Extremely unlikely that 'more research' will reveal it as having coalesced in 'Sundaland'.terrythttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17327062321100035888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post-5202262075369252602011-10-22T07:08:43.758+02:002011-10-22T07:08:43.758+02:00"There is no question that the Austronesian l..."There is no question that the Austronesian language spread from Taiwan".<br /><br />I also think that's probably right. However there is another possibility: <br /><br />(1) pre-Austronesian languages expanded to Taiwan from ISEA<br /><br />(2) Malay-Polynesian (and only this branch!) expanded from Luzon. This may be justified to some extent by the fact that Filipino genetic pool seems to have made much more of an impact into the Austronesian-speaking areas than anything from Taiwan. <br /><br />Just food for thought. After all we are finding here that there's nothing particularly "Taiwanese" in the Malay Archipelago (excepting Nias) but there is a lot "Malay" among Taiwan aborigines. <br /><br />"It's quite possible that O1 may have been drifted out on the island".<br /><br />Since Neolithic? No way!<br /><br />"It's a fairly small island after all".<br /><br />You must be kidding. It ranks 38th among the islands of the World, being about half the size of Sri Lanka or Ireland. It's larger than any single Mediterranean island (Sicily is the largest one) and today holds 23 million people (500,000 Taiwan Aborigines), having a very favorable climate (mildly tropical, similar to Canary Islands but wetter) - except for the danger of cyclones.<br /><br />It's logically impossible that any meaningful drift has happened since the onset of agriculture. <br /><br />"O1a may have 'coalesced' in Sundaland, but it arrived there from elsewhere".<br /><br />If it "coalesced" there, then it was formed there and did not arrive from anywhere else. Look up the word "coalesce" in your dictionary. <br /><br />"Even Karafet doesn't claim what you're claiming".<br /><br />I've never pretended that. In fact I do not care much about what scholars claim or don't claim: I'm only interested in the raw data, not their secondary opinions, which may be correct or (way too often) are not. <br /><br />"Where are they 'sloppy'?"<br /><br />I forgot. And I do not feel like reviewing all the thread. <br /><br />Remember that this debate is about "Denisovan" admixture.Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post-76167245699834131062011-10-22T06:45:58.050+02:002011-10-22T06:45:58.050+02:00"The Karafet paper claims,
"The derived..."The Karafet paper claims,<br /><br />"The derived O-M134, O-M7, and O-JST002611 subhaplogroups are absent or found at very low frequencies in Indonesia but are prevalent in different ethnic groups in China and SEA"". <br /><br />That is not fully correct following their own data in the supplement, which I beg you check. <br /><br />O3a2b-M7 is not absent and, furthermore, it is very strong in Borneo (17/86) and Java (7/61). It also seems important among Malays (4/32), Miao (21/58), She (29/51) and Yao (29/60). <br /><br />However it is true that the paragroup O3a2*-P201 (probably more than just one sibling haplogroup in relation to O3a2b-M7) is the most important clade in the islands (within the O3 haplogroup), being very strong in Sumatra, Borneo, Philippines and Malaysia and quite rare in the mainland instead. <br /><br />While other O3 is rare, O3a2 is not just common enough but probably highly diverse to be (at least tentatively) considered of ISEA origin. As I said before the paragroup O3a2*-P201 should be researched in greater depth to be safe on this matter but the evidence is at least suggestive of a Sundaland origin for the clade. <br /><br />Definitely not Taiwan-Austronesian in any case. <br /><br />"Wrong. See above. O3a2c1 is one of the haplogroups that is very low frequency in Indonesia"...<br /><br />It's O3a1c-IMS-JST002611!!!<br /><br />For a moment I thought I had committed an error (crazy nomenclature) but nope: this is within the other O3a subclade: O3a1, which I do not doubt is from the mainland. <br /><br />All I say is that O3a2 looks a lot like original from Sundaland or maybe Philippines. But more research is needed in any case to be safe.Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post-3306372854828944602011-10-22T06:28:55.670+02:002011-10-22T06:28:55.670+02:00"Only like E1b1b1 is associated with Arabic: ..."Only like E1b1b1 is associated with Arabic: by historical accident. Unless you want to make Austronesian languages original from West Indonesia and Philippines and not Taiwan" <br /><br />We can be sure that humans didn't spread through the SE Asian islands like ink through blotting paper. The distribution of the O haplogroups may tell us a little about its spread. If you're prepared to look you can see that most movements into the islands have spread from the Malay Peninsula, not straight across the water. <br /><br />There is no question that the Austronesian language spread from Taiwan. It's quite possible that O1 may have been drifted out on the island. It's a fairly small island after all. O1 looks to have followed the Asian coastline (via Vietnam presumably) before following the Malay Peninsula out into the islands off Sumatra, where it formed O1a2. O1a1 then spread east through the islands to the Philippines and back to Taiwan, possibly along with some haplogroup within O3a2. The last haplogroup carried on east into the Pacific. But before O1 had left Taiwan O2 had already spread with the Hoabinhian from Vietnam out into some SE Asian islands, notably Bali and Sulawesi. <br /><br />"The only possible origin for O1a is Sundaland, where all three clades are found and in substantial frequencies". <br /><br />Rubbish. O1a may have 'coalesced' in Sundaland, but it arrived there from elsewhere. Even Karafet doesn't claim what you're claiming: <br /><br />"The current results reveal that while the 'ancestral' O-M119* lineage is virtually absent in mainland Southeast Asia, the derived O-P203 subclade is frequent there, as well as in western Indonesia" <br /><br />Nothing about the lineage ancestral to O-P203 (O1-MSY2.2). <br /><br />"Also your geographical associations are sloppy again and not worth even discussing". <br /><br />Where are they 'sloppy'?terrythttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17327062321100035888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post-47315661512320828752011-10-22T06:10:52.007+02:002011-10-22T06:10:52.007+02:00"What can I say? Fuck you! You make me check ..."What can I say? Fuck you! You make me check all that damn fucking data, with all the complication of the different nomenclatures and island detail and then you're talking of something else?!" <br /><br />Apologies for my stuff-up. <br /><br />"[Just a single O3 haplogroup is found through the whole region] Absolutely unintelligible. :(" <br /><br />Why is that? The Karafet paper claims, <br /><br />"The derived O-M134, O-M7, and O-JST002611 subhaplogroups are absent or found at very low frequencies in Indonesia but are prevalent in different ethnic groups in China and SEA". <br /><br />Two are subcaldes of O3a2. O-M134 is O3a2c1, O-M7 is O3a2b and O-JST002611 is O3a1c. So that actually takes care of most of the possible O3 haplogroups. <br /><br />"That's false. There's no O3a2c tested for in Karafet'10, it's O3a2-P201 and O3a2b-M7. And both are present in 'the islands I say'". <br /><br />Wrong. See above. O3a2c1 is one of the haplogroups that is very low frequency in Indonesia, and spreads very little beyond it. Karafet again: <br /><br />"Only paragroup O-P201* has a wide geographic distribution and is found in all geographic regions surveyed". <br /><br />But within that O3a2 there is no O3a2c1 nor O3a2b. That doesn't leave a lot. <br /><br />"More notable are the results of typing the novel marker P201, which has the effect of converting almost all chromosomes outside of mainland Asia that were previously identified as O-M122* to O-P201*. Given this widespread pattern, it may be that O-M122 chromosomes previously found at high frequency on many Pacific Islands (Kayser et al. 2006) are actually O-P201*" <br /><br />And: <br /><br />"despite its relatively low frequency on Taiwan (∼6%), genetic distances based on STR variation associated with P201 chromosomes reveal a much closer relationship among Taiwanese aboriginals/Filipinos, Indonesians, and Oceanians than between any of these groups and mainland Southeast Asians (supplementary table S4, Supplementary Material online). Therefore, we hypothesize that this new marker traces the large population expansion associated with the spread of Austronesian languages and culture". <br /><br />It's recent, and a single haplogroup within O3a2.terrythttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17327062321100035888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post-13711623509251864552011-10-21T06:17:22.490+02:002011-10-21T06:17:22.490+02:00"Sorry. I meant O2a1".
What can I say?..."Sorry. I meant O2a1". <br /><br />What can I say? Fuck you! You make me check all that damn fucking data, with all the complication of the different nomenclatures and island detail and then you're talking of something else?!<br /><br />Do not waste my time, seriously. Nobody is even arguing for the origin of O2 in ISEA. <br /><br />O2a1 (M95) is trivial: it's obvious from the mainland. Or do you want to also argue that as well?<br /><br />"I'm not talking 'proportion', I'm talking actual 'haplogroup'. Just a single O3 haplogroup is found through the whole region".<br /><br />Absolutely unintelligible. :(<br /><br />"It turns out that Austronesian O3 is not basal at all". <br /><br />Who said it was. I was talking of O3a2. <br /><br />"Just O3a2c makes it to the islands you list".<br /><br />That's false. There's no O3a2c tested for in Karafet'10, it's O3a2-P201 and O3a2b-M7. And both are present in "the islands I say".<br /><br />You are going to drive me crazy with your come-and-go and nomenclature sloppiness. Why don't you sit down for a week and chew on it and then write a nice opinion entry at your blog taking care of the details? <br /><br />"The founder effect in Nias involves O1a2-M110, not O3-P201".<br /><br />Sure, there's almost no O3 among Taiwan Aborigines, mind you. <br /><br />So what does this mean other than trying to mind-boggle me? Noise, junk and wasting my time. <br /><br />"We can be reasonably sure that O1 is associated with the Austronesian languages".<br /><br />Only like E1b1b1 is associated with Arabic: by historical accident. Unless you want to make Austronesian languages original from West Indonesia and Philippines and not Taiwan (which would be a destination, oddly enough). <br /><br />"Turns out that O1a also breaks into two: O1a2 in Western Indonesia (especially the islands off Sumatra) and Taiwan, with O1a1 making up the majority of Taiwanese Aboriginals and spreading through the Philippines and eastern Indonesia out into the Pacific". <br /><br />I know that it's divided not in two but in at least three (don't forget the numerous O1a*, all concentrated in the Malay Archipelago and ABSENT among Taiwan Aboriginals). Also your geographical associations are sloppy again and not worth even discussing. <br /><br />The only possible origin for O1a is Sundaland, where all three clades are found and in substantial frequencies.<br /><br />"The authors of this paper"...<br /><br />I don't care: it's pay per view, so I'm not discussing it unless you send me a free copy.<br /><br />"... have no reluctance in placing O3 throughout much of China".<br /><br />What's the mystery about that?<br /><br />"O1a may coalesced in Sundaland, but O1 cannot possibly be originally from there. It is far maore likely it is from the mainland between Vietnam and the mouth of the Yangtze". <br /><br />Why? Do you know anything that I do not know? Otherwise: Sundaland.Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post-47207279153371519902011-10-21T05:27:54.436+02:002011-10-21T05:27:54.436+02:00"IF O3a2 migrated from North to South into IS..."IF O3a2 migrated from North to South into ISEA (what is possible considering the overall origin of O3 in southernmost China) it must have done when it could still make a huge founder effect, as observed" <br /><br />Its founder effect in parts of SE Asia is a result of it being one of the first onto particular islands. <br /><br />"You mention Austroasiatic and Hmong-Mien, which Karafet did not sample. They may well be the substrate source of 'Han-plus' O3a2 and we'd still be talking at most of a Paleolithic flow" <br /><br />The authors of this paper have no reluctance in placing O3 throughout much of China: <br /><br />http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21505448<br /><br />"It's possible however that O2b1b-L682 is a backflow from the North. What do we know about the 'asterisk' paragroups?" <br /><br />Nothing, as far as I'm aware. However the Karafet paper does tell us something. O2a is widespread through South China and Vietnam, and O2a1 made it into Indonesia as far east as Bali, with an outcrop on Sulawesi. There is disagreement as to whether the Hoabinhian reached New Guinea, but it probably reached Sulawesi. So O2a is most likely tied up in some way with the Hoabinhian, but almost certainly didn't invent it. O2a1a made it as far west as the Pashtuns. O2a's age in SE Asia is probably no more than 10-12,000 years, but it looks to have been the first O haplogroup to enter any offshore islands. Followed by O1 at the beginning of the Austronesian expansion, perhaps 7000 years ago. Wiki yet again, quoting Karafet concerning O1a: <br /><br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_O1_(Y-DNA)<br /><br />Quote: <br /><br />"Approximately 5000 BCE, Haplogroup O1 coalesced at Sundaland and migrated northwards to as far as Taiwan", <br /><br />And lastly O3a2's expansion around 4000 years ago. <br /><br />"O1 is from Sundaland, as I have more than reasonably demonstrated in previous comments" <br /><br />No O haplogroups look remotely Paleolithic anywhere near the region. O1a may coalesced in Sundaland, but O1 cannot possibly be originally from there. It is far maore likely it is from the mainland between Vietnam and the mouth of the Yangtze.terrythttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17327062321100035888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post-9826116309233706742011-10-21T05:27:17.571+02:002011-10-21T05:27:17.571+02:00"It's [O1a1-P203] 19% in Flores for examp..."It's [O1a1-P203] 19% in Flores for example but otherwise it's indeed rare in East Indonesia. It's NOT higher in Bali (9% as well) or Java (10%), while Sumatra or Borneo have almost nothing of it. <br /><br />Sorry. I meant O2a1. <br /><br />"It's [O3a2-P201] much more common in Sumatra, (Borneo) and Philippines than anywhere else, incl. Taiwan". <br /><br />I'm not talking 'proportion', I'm talking actual 'haplogroup'. Just a single O3 haplogroup is found through the whole region. <br /><br />"But we'd need to know about it's substructure to discuss it further". <br /><br />Turns out that going back to the Karafet paper does tell us a great deal about the substructure. <br /><br />"We do not know but as anecdote. Which are the subclades actually present in Philippines, Sumatra and such (Taiwan as well)? That's what we'd need to know". <br /><br />It turns out that Austronesian O3 is not basal at all. The paper tells us that virtually all O3 outside mainland Asia is O3a2-P201, and not many clades within that haplogroup reach even as far as Western Indonesia. Just O3a2c makes it to the islands you list. But O3a2 is really widespread from Tibet to Japan, and occurrs as a trickle down into SE Asia and Indonesia. It's certainly no Paleolithic arrival in SE Asia. <br /><br />"Frequency may be misleading but founder effects should keep, more or less, the apportions of the homeland (Taiwan) and that only happens in Nias of all places". <br /><br />The founder effect in Nias involves O1a2-M110, not O3-P201. We can be reasonably sure that O1 is associated with the Austronesian languages. The extra-Taiwan Austronesian languages (Malayo-Polynesian) are often classified into eastern and western versions. Turns out that O1a also breaks into two: O1a2 in Western Indonesia (especially the islands off Sumatra) and Taiwan, with O1a1 making up the majority of Taiwanese Aboriginals and spreading through the Philippines and eastern Indonesia out into the Pacific.terrythttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17327062321100035888noreply@blogger.com