tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post3143113173768406107..comments2024-03-09T15:46:44.638+01:00Comments on For what they were... we are: The Nubian techno-complex of Dhofar: yet another evidence for an early migration out-of-Africa via ArabiaMajuhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comBlogger62125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post-2968432792371411772012-01-11T18:37:30.546+01:002012-01-11T18:37:30.546+01:00Those with marked interest for the techno-cultural...Those with marked interest for the techno-cultural aspects of this culture and facies may want to check the update, which is a link to an (unpublished??) related paper on nearby Hadramaut findings. It's very technical and inconclusive but you may learn a bit on the different types of Levallois debitage and what not.Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post-22496005475916668492011-12-23T23:50:17.064+01:002011-12-23T23:50:17.064+01:00Sorry. I missed the earlier comment.
"Not...Sorry. I missed the earlier comment. <br /><br />"Notably we do not know enough about the basal diversity of N2 and N1'5 in South Asia" <br /><br />We know the two haplogroups are fairly much confined to the northwest, no matter how diversified. I've put up a comment regarding N2 at another of your posts. It certainly looks far from 'South Asia'. Perhaps 'North Pakistan' at most, but probably west of even that region. <br /><br />"It's impossible to know anything for sure about what happened in the long stem state, we can maybe infer from each particular context" <br /><br />Why do we need to have different interpretations for 'each particular context'? Surely one thing we do know is that the haplogroup has undergone a period of drift. Drift usually occurrs in a population of limited size, which usually correlates with a population of limited geographic extent. We can easily see periods of migration and expansion in the haplogroup phylogenies. Long stems almost certainly represent periods spent at the opposite extreme: complete lack of migration and expansion. <br /><br />"This I describe as the UFO model: between the L3 node and the N node and between the N node and the, say, A node, the carriers were abducted by ETs (for all practical purposes they were 'nowhere')". <br /><br />Yes. That describes your belief concerning those haplogroups completely. L3 or N were 'abducted by ETs' and carried to SE Asia. As a result they were unable to leave any descendants behind. Then A took a UFO from SE Asia leaving no evidence of its passing. <br /><br />"those clades in the intermediate class of 4 mutations (X, N2 and A) appear to have expanded upon arrival to some sort of land of opportunities, so they surely did not coalesce in situ (what would imply a super-abnormal kind of evolution) but at least some hundred kilometers away". <br /><br />Im completely disagree. The 'intermediate class of 4 mutations (X, N2 and A)' all arrived as part of N's expansion. In fact they did 'coalesce in situ'. Presumably a deterioration in climate held their subsequent exansion, but 4 mutations later an improvement in climate or technology allowed a second expansion.terrythttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17327062321100035888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post-8040548598197878532011-12-23T23:31:11.170+01:002011-12-23T23:31:11.170+01:00"I trust (?) that you will surprise us with s..."I trust (?) that you will surprise us with such a detailed map in your blog". <br /><br />I actually sent you a copy of the M haplogroups' distribution. Not much has changed except for the addition of some newly discovered haplogroups. <br /><br />"Do you know of any good study on Indochina at all? All the info I have is scattered and extrapolations (not necessarily correct but not necessarily wrong either) from South China and Malaysia/Indonesia" <br /><br />I'm in much the same position, with the possible advantage that I have been studying the topic more closely and for much longer than you have. No single study, or at least one that would include modern genetic studies. I have worked out distributions from a number of studies. Some haplogroups I have not been able to find anything about. But feel free to ask about anything. I'll tell you what I know.terrythttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17327062321100035888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post-46052070123706874612011-12-23T07:18:05.414+01:002011-12-23T07:18:05.414+01:00"To make up for my troubling you so consisten..."To make up for my troubling you so consistently you may find this interesting:<br /><br />http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2148/8/227<br /><br />Deals specifically with R7"...<br /><br />Thanks.Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post-21811202105341262852011-12-23T07:15:56.091+01:002011-12-23T07:15:56.091+01:00...
"How do you explain those haplogroups......<br /><br />"How do you explain those haplogroups' long stems?"<br /><br />I haven't considered but I imagine that at least some were constrained by larger local clades that impeded their growth. In some other cases they may have made remote valleys as their homes as well. <br /><br />Each case should be considered on its own merit. Sadly it's difficult for me to evaluate the genetic geography of South Asia in the detailed manner it deserves, no doubt. <br /><br />I trust (?) that you will surprise us with such a detailed map in your blog.<br /><br />"As far as I'm aware no basal N haplogroups are found in either place".<br /><br />Certainly there's N* in Indonesia, as well as M*. Whatever it is, I can't say. Burma has not been sampled (the rare sample is probably from refugees, the state keeps totalitarian control on everything that happens inside its borders). Do you know of any good study on Indochina at all? All the info I have is scattered and extrapolations (not necessarily correct but not necessarily wrong either) from South China and Malaysia/Indonesia.<br /><br />What is indubitable is that it is Indochina what falls in the middle of the N explosion, and also of that of Y-DNA C (approx.) being also attributed (though maybe it's more like Yunnan) with being the homeland of Y-DNA D, while MNOPS may have coalesced in Indonesia. Obviously the region can't be a mere passage from the "demographic pump" of Altai (sarcasm intended) but rather the other way around: Altai would be if anything a mere passage for the demographic pump of SE Asia. Even if, IMO, that happened only after SE Asians migrated back westwards through South Asia, this is less important: what matters is where the origin lies and what must be therefore interpreted as destinations. <br /><br />This is where we deeply disagree and no rants about long, short or mid-sized stems will change a comma about this.Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post-78079741063015690472011-12-23T07:15:46.851+01:002011-12-23T07:15:46.851+01:00"I'm trying to help you by pointing out w..."I'm trying to help you by pointing out where your reasoning is incorrect"...<br /><br />I wish. You point out how its should be "corrected" in order to fit with your fantasy. <br /><br />"South Asia, including Northeast India, has been well sampled."<br /><br />You are referring to a very recent study (a year old?). Most such studies acknowledge once and again that they are surprised of the diversity found. It can't be compared with the simplicity and relatively throughout certainty we find in Europe in any case, where sampling is indeed very extensive and detailed. <br /><br />Notably we do not know enough about the basal diversity of N2 and N1'5 in South Asia, which seems to be quite more than just a rare erratic in any case, according to Palanichamy. <br /><br />But let's assume for a moment that you'd be right re. South Asia... that would only (very potentially) transfer the centrality towards SE Asia, "next best" in basal diversity, yet you insist in making it West Asian and Altaian! That's what I cannot accept. <br /><br />"Surely you cannot still believe that a 'long stem' equates with 'recent arrival'".<br /><br />At this moment sentences like the above one can only irritate me the outmost, notably your insistence on manipulating the objective notion of stem length. <br /><br />I DO NOT "BELIEVE" IN ANY KIND OF NECESSARY CORRELATION BETWEEN STEM LENGTH AND "ARRIVAL" TIME. It's impossible to know anything for sure about what happened in the long stem state, we can maybe infer from each particular context but as itself it only indicates a relatively long period of low numbers - wherever. This I describe as the UFO model: between the L3 node and the N node and between the N node and the, say, A node, the carriers were abducted by ETs (for all practical purposes they were "nowhere"). <br /><br />In real terms? Did they stay put, did they move, did they form a separate but tiny population or were part of a larger one... all that belongs to the realm of conjecture and speculation. Feel free to "believe" what you wish, I choose to remain skeptic unless contextual evidence is rather clear and that only applies in a case by case basis. <br /><br />In general though, at last for the relatively simple case of N, where all subclades belong to three basic evolutionary groups, those clades in the intermediate class of 4 mutations (X, N2 and A) appear to have expanded upon arrival to some sort of land of opportunities, so they surely did not coalesce in situ (what would imply a super-abnormal kind of evolution) but at least some hundred kilometers away. <br /><br />...Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post-30548237587729740442011-12-22T22:37:29.567+01:002011-12-22T22:37:29.567+01:00"South Asia as a whole! It has improved thoug..."South Asia as a whole! It has improved though but every other semester something new is found, so there is a lot of top-level genetic diversity there". <br /><br />To make up for my troubling you so consistently you may find this interesting: <br /><br />http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2148/8/227<br /><br />Deals specifically with R7 but: <br /><br />"The inclusion of our 35 novel sequences (Table 1) into the phylogeny of haplogroup R allows the recognition of eight new subclades within six haplogroup R branches unique to the Indian subcontinent (Fig. 1, [see Additional file 1]). We refine here the internal topology of haplogroups R5, R6 and R8, and describe two novel sub-clades of hg R7, to be discussed below in detail. Subclade R5a is defined by a deletion at nucleotide positions (np) 522–523 and one control region mutation at np16266. R6a is defined by two control region substitutions (at sites 16129 and 16266). In haplogroup R7, two new subclades R7a and R7b can be identified (for details see further down). A new subclade of R8, called R8a, is defined by a single coding region substitution at np 5510. Haplogroup R30 splits into two subclades R30a and R30b, the former supported by ten coding region substitutions and the latter by 24 coding and control region mutations. Similarly, in haplogroup R31 a new subclade R31a can be distinguished by 17 control and coding region mutations. Coalescent estimates suggest an ancient branching pattern in hgs R30 and R31, dating back almost to the earliest diversification of the superhaplogroup R itself. This most probably occurred soon after the out of Africa dispersals into the Indian subcontinent"terrythttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17327062321100035888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post-63018267725118430382011-12-22T21:22:41.444+01:002011-12-22T21:22:41.444+01:00"I know that you are bent onto torturing me a..."I know that you are bent onto torturing me and making me waste my time but I can only beg you to desist for the sake of not making me go moderator-bersek". <br /><br />I'm trying to help you by pointing out where your reasoning is incorrect so you can cease talking nonsense. <br /><br />"Another annoying misinterpretation: South Asia as a whole! It has improved though but every other semester something new is found, so there is a lot of top-level genetic diversity there". <br /><br />South Asia, including Northeast India, has been well sampled. Nearly 50 basal M haplogroups have been defined and about one third of them are found only in India. Something like 12 basal M haplogroups are found primarily in, or confined to, Northeast India. If any N haplogroups were present there someone would have found them. So stop making things up. <br /><br />"Never mind that the two lineages have 'long' stems and hence belong to a period quite late in relation to the main N expansion". <br /><br />Surely you cannot still believe that a 'long stem' equates with 'recent arrival'. Both haplogroups arrived within the region where they are now found with the original N expansion. <br /><br />"They suffered drift BEFORE arrival to their destinations". <br /><br />No. They suffered drift before they were able to expand from their region of coalescence. <br /><br />"M did not suffer almost any drift once it arrived to South Asia, but a massive explosion instead (all drift happened in Arabia" <br /><br />Well, if you ignore haplogroups M10, M11, M41, M53 and, to a lesser extent, M6 and M31 you could believe that. How do you explain those haplogroups' long stems? <br /><br />"Burma, Cambodia..." <br /><br />Also unlikely. As far as I'm aware no basal N haplogroups are found in either place. Just some derived clades and representatives of R. <br /><br />"she must have lived somewhere, even if she was a great sturdy walker, she surely only moved traveled a few hundred kilometers between first and last pregnancy". <br /><br />You're being deliberately idiotic again, and again I hope it doesn't represent your natural state. 'Haplogroup N' was not a single woman, although obviously the final mutation occurred in a single woman in a single place. Her descendants, still 'N', spread from there. They remained 'N' for something like 2500 years by your own reckoning. So no need to postulate a single woman walking all the way from Africa to Australia (or from India to both Australia and Africa, as you would have us believe).terrythttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17327062321100035888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post-24536749654999686632011-12-21T07:22:30.633+01:002011-12-21T07:22:30.633+01:00I repeat here what I said in the other post which ...I repeat here what I said in the other post which you hijacked with debate on N even after I posted this entry for the purpose:<br /><br /><i>Man, it's been months, or rather years of this endless discussion in circles, almost every day. Even if now and then you make a criticism worth considering or introduce some information I may have missed, most of what you say is waste of letters. Mind you: reading your one-liners and finding the context and trying to understand and, normally, debunk them takes much of my time - too much. It's a discussion for the sake of discussion, which you may be fond of but I can only find tiresome and pointless.<br /><br />I know your hypothesis (even if you have bothered explaining it formally nowhere) and I know that it does not hold at all. There is no "bread crumbs" trail from the origin of L3 but actually an explosion from a shared center after a "private level" (small) migration.<br /><br />You may still disagree but you cannot persuade me unless you'd find more, many more, basal N subhaplogroups in West Eurasia and Africa. Considering that there are 11 of those along the Pacific Ocean, such a turnover is effectively impossible.<br /><br />Do you want for N to migrate back to West Asia via Altai (the only possible alternative route to South Asia)? That might be a reasonable claim where we could disagree very reasonably and gentlemanly... but you want to revert the arrow of that flow, and that is extremely unreasonable, considering the evidence and the fundamental logic of the "apples" (with long legs) that requires that most lineages remain as close as possible to where the real origin (the "tree") was</i>. <br /><br />I know that you are bent onto torturing me and making me waste my time but I can only beg you to desist for the sake of not making me go moderator-bersek. <br /><br />Thanks.Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post-5079137484359562562011-12-21T07:19:59.075+01:002011-12-21T07:19:59.075+01:00"Northeast India is 'poorly sampled'?..."Northeast India is 'poorly sampled'?"<br /><br />Another annoying misinterpretation: South Asia as a whole! It has improved though but every other semester something new is found, so there is a lot of top-level genetic diversity there. <br /><br />"A and X are reasonable possibilities [for coalescence in Siberia]"<br /><br />They are not. If you locate their basal descendants and estimate the phylogenetic centroid on the map, they belong to NE Asia and SW Asia respectively, and very clearly so. <br /><br />Even if there would be two such lineages (which they are not), they could hardly compare with Australia or East Asia and hence the resulting centroid would always fall towards SE Asia. Never mind that the two lineages have "long" stems and hence belong to a period quite late in relation to the main N expansion. <br /><br />"Both M and N themselves have relatively long tails indicating the suffered a period of drift before their respective expansions. Surely we would half expect any members of either haplogroup who remained behind to continue suffering a similar level of drift". <br /><br />They suffered drift BEFORE arrival to their destinations. M did not suffer almost any drift once it arrived to South Asia, but a massive explosion instead (all drift happened in Arabia, where other "African" clades apparently survived instead). Your ideas hold no ground and make no sense. <br /><br />"Unlikely to be Bengal".<br /><br />Burma, Cambodia...<br /><br />"Besides which the haplogroup could have expanded from either end. It need not have expanded from the middle". <br /><br />"Granny N" was a normal human being not an all-pervading divine force: she must have lived somewhere, even if she was a great sturdy walker, she surely only moved traveled a few hundred kilometers between first and last pregnancy. Most likely she lived all her live in a very specific area we can't actually name out of uncertainty. <br /><br />But well...Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post-66887747554315474572011-12-21T01:54:48.524+01:002011-12-21T01:54:48.524+01:00"the alleged lack of data (the region is poor..."the alleged lack of data (the region is poorly sampled)" <br /><br />Northeast India is 'poorly sampled'? You've got to be kidding! Countless numbers of M haplogroups are confined to the region. <br /><br />"There is not a single haplogroup, at the basal levels we are dealing with here, which shows any sign of coalescence in Altai or Siberia". <br /><br />A and X are reasonable possibilities. One to the west and one to the east. <br /><br />"we'd expect most N subclades, notably the short-stemmed ones to be in the areas closest to the alleged origin" <br /><br />Why would we expect that? I strongly suspect the opposite. Both M and N themselves have relatively long tails indicating the suffered a period of drift before their respective expansions. Surely we would half expect any members of either haplogroup who remained behind to continue suffering a similar level of drift. The ones who moved would be the ones who expanded and diversified. <br /><br />"look at the fact dispassionately if you can". <br /><br />You are certainly not looking at the facts 'dispassionately'. You have made up your mind in advance what you want the 'facts' to show and you are very determined that they will show it. To achieve that you have to use different spectacles to examine each individual morsel of data. <br /><br />"And that's exactly why the origin of N MUST be between them and N9 (as they are extreme in the scatter for such short stems)". <br /><br />But where 'between them' is the question. Unlikely to be Bengal. Besides which the haplogroup could have expanded from either end. It need not have expanded from the middle. <br /><br />"I've never criticized a properly estimated centroid" <br /><br />A 'properly estimated centroid' is easily defined. It is one that you agree with.terrythttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17327062321100035888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post-17924650648281056122011-12-19T08:06:52.772+01:002011-12-19T08:06:52.772+01:00"... a whole swag of special pleading". ..."... a whole swag of special pleading". <br /><br />Quite "literating" and look at the matter for what it is, look at the fact dispassionately if you can. <br /><br />"S has a long tail? And at the opposite end, N1'5 has a long tail?"<br /><br />No! And that's exactly why the origin of N MUST be between them and N9 (as they are extreme in the scatter for such short stems). <br /><br />... "wallows in special pleading". <br /><br />For all the "literating" slang, you got redundant, ahem. <br /><br />"I am quite happy to use centroids. In fact I have referenced them occasionally when the evidence fails to fit your belief. At such times you criticise centroids as being of little use".<br /><br />I've never criticized a properly estimated centroid, i.e. one based on phylogenetic diversity and not mere amorphous numbers. Emphasizing population (trivial) and ignoring diversity (crucial) is the error of all shallow analysis.<br /><br />You know that (or should) so this is just another diversion.Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post-39762646047853764872011-12-19T07:47:31.841+01:002011-12-19T07:47:31.841+01:00"You face a yawning chasm when it comes to da..."You face a yawning chasm when it comes to data for Eastern India, yet you vehemently insist that you can see a pattern that relies on migration through that region". <br /><br />I love the expression "yawning chasm" but the alleged lack of data (the region is poorly sampled) is not by any means worse than that the effective presence of negative data when it comes to your pet corridor of Altai. There is not a single haplogroup, at the basal levels we are dealing with here, which shows any sign of coalescence in Altai or Siberia. And almost not one nearby either. By the "apple tree" logic we'd expect most N subclades, notably the short-stemmed ones to be in the areas closest to the alleged origin, yet there's almost nothing at all.Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post-91182147931404845432011-12-19T03:22:57.436+01:002011-12-19T03:22:57.436+01:00"You have gone in crusader-berseker mode agai..."You have gone in crusader-berseker mode against the coastal migra theory just because you have a priori decided that boats were invented only and never before in Wallacea". <br /><br />I have gone on a 'crusader-berseker mode against the coastal migra theory' because it cannot stand any examination, and there has never been any evidence for it. Just wishful thinking. And a whole raft of weaknesses anyway. I didn't decide 'a priori' 'that boats were invented only and never before in Wallacea'. Just that such an hypothesis might explain the sudden expansion from SE Asia. An expansion, incidently, which you have recently begun to agree with in spite of your bitter opposition to the idea originally. <br /><br />"The centroid still falls roughly on that area" <br /><br />The 'centroid still falls roughly on that area' simply because it is weighted in favour of the more recent expansion eastward of haplogroup A5 and whatever you like to call the haplogroup that gave rise to American/Beringian A. A's dot should certainly be shifted further south that you have it. It is extremely unlikely it coalesced so far north. <br /><br />"They are totally synonymous. Show me any evidence that says otherwise". <br /><br />Any realistic OoA date predates the Upper Paleolithic by many thousands of years, perhaps by 50,000 years. I thought you already accepted that. <br /><br />"After arriving to Altai from West Asia (where most internal diversity is), some men with Y-DNA Q migrated to northeasternmost Asia, to Beringia, getting some East Asian mtDNA lineages (i.e. real women in practical terms). MtDNA X2 in America is residue of the West Asian origin of this flow, while Y-DNA C3 attests to the NE Asian incorporation also on the Y-DNA side". <br /><br />That is pretty much exactly what I said. And Y-DNA Q (or C3) also picked up D and B from East asia. But Q didn't go via South China to collect them. So what do you mean by: <br /><br />"You completely misunderstand and mercilessly twist everything, just like the Russian guy of the 'out of America' madness"?terrythttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17327062321100035888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post-79529312279986553742011-12-19T03:22:27.895+01:002011-12-19T03:22:27.895+01:00"It's N2a".
Thanks.
"that..."It's N2a". <br /><br />Thanks. <br /><br />"that I have drawn their estimated centroids in the AfPak area is not the same as they being lacking in India republic" <br /><br />Just because they are 'found' there today doesn't mean they 'coalesced' there. <br /><br />"Wrong: N5, N1 (N1d, N1a, I1), W (W1c, W3 and W*) and N2* (N2a?) do exist in India, according to the data of Palanichamy 2004, never mind Pakistan (which is part of broader subcontinental India). The only 'Western N' that is not found in the Republic of India is X". <br /><br />And no N haplogroups are found in Eastern India, particularly in Bengal. <br /><br />"Yet you insist on arguing about this void of data" <br /><br />Maju. You face a yawning chasm when it comes to data for Eastern India, yet you vehemently insist that you can see a pattern that relies on migration through that region. <br /><br />"Exactly my point and the whole point of the other article on the origin of N, which you insist to contest without any ground". <br /><br />Yet you insist that many N haplogroups moved huge distances from their ancestral haplogroup's homeland. Surely it was the ancestral haplogroup that moved, not the derived form. The derived form coalesced through drift in the parent population's geographic extent. <br /><br />"In a sense I have demonstrated it for N long-stemmed subclades" <br /><br />You have only done so in your imagination. Your demonstration involves a whole swag of special pleading. <br /><br />"incidentally, those which are farther from the inferred 'tree' have relatively long stems, indicating that some greater time (and hence more events, such as migratory episodes) must have happened in between the parent 'tree' and the new 'tree' that signals where once an 'apple' germinated". <br /><br />What a lot of rubbish. S has a long tail? And at the opposite end, N1'5 has a long tail? Your statement wallows in special pleading. <br /><br />"The problem is that you do not use centroids". <br /><br />I am quite happy to use centroids. In fact I have referenced them occasionally when the evidence fails to fit your belief. At such times you criticise centroids as being of little use. Make up your mind whether you are going to examine all the evidence in a consitent manner instead of altering your point of view depending on what you wish to 'prove'.terrythttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17327062321100035888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post-71871991427995236572011-12-18T06:04:26.928+01:002011-12-18T06:04:26.928+01:00...
"I drew my version od history using what......<br /><br />"I drew my version od history using what I already knew about Polynesian origins"...<br /><br />Polynesians are trivial in regards to Paleolithic. Whatever the case, looking only at them has obviously given you an extremely narrow idea. <br /><br />... "along with the data provided in the 2005 McDonald maps".<br /><br />We have all used those maps as reference and, curiously, joining the dots on those maps once and again brought me to India, so often that I had problems to write down the letters on that corner of Asia. <br /><br />The problem is that you do not use centroids. And also that you have come to such rigid conclusions that you can't change your mind even if drowning in the piles of evidence that contradicts them. You have gone in crusader-berseker mode against the coastal migra theory just because you have a priori decided that boats were invented only and never before in Wallacea. <br /><br />Bullshit!, I say. That's such a low quality manure that is not even worth to use for fertilizer.<br /><br />"I was not diverted by any imaginary 'great southern coastal migration theory'". <br /><br />You were indeed, just that by taking a stand of denial, of fundamentalist, extremist, irreducible opposition to this idea. Of course you have been diverted... a lot! You have been diverted to the point of making extremely irrational claims such as people having to climb mountains only to wade a river and such. <br /><br />Nothing but a pile of manure!<br /><br />Not significantly better than "out of America". <br /><br />And you have chosen my blog to defend that idiocy. Day after day, for years! Shut up!<br /><br />"You are standing on shaky ground when you insist on claiming an Indian origin for R".<br /><br />You don't even say why you'd claim that. Bengal is more or less the centroid produced by the geometry of R basal subclades. Have you even bothered to estimate it? Nope. <br /><br />"I keep reading about some sort of mysterious 'Ket' N".<br /><br />It's N2a.<br /><br />"And members of haplogroup A are certainly spread through much of Central Asia, not just NE Asia as you have it in your map". <br /><br />The centroid still falls roughly on that area, there's no particular tendency towards Central Asia other than the general trend of scatter of NE Asian lineages under the recent Turco-Mongol expansion (even if it'd be older, A's diversity is still centered far away from Central Asia. <br /><br />But you are splitting hairs anyhow, moving A's dot (which is not correct) would not change anything: it's just 1/15 of weight!<br /><br />"On what grounds do you insist on associating the Upper Paleolithic expansion with the fist modern human expansion?"<br /><br />In West Eurasia (incl. Central Asia but excluding Arabia/Palestine)? They are totally synonymous. Show me any evidence that says otherwise. <br /><br />"But that migration picked up members of other haplogroups already there, such as A, C and D, and perhaps B, and carried them to Siberia and America too". <br /><br />You completely misunderstand and mercilessly twist everything, just like the Russian guy of the "out of America" madness. After arriving to Altai from West Asia (where most internal diversity is), some men with Y-DNA Q migrated to northeasternmost Asia, to Beringia, getting some East Asian mtDNA lineages (i.e. real women in practical terms). MtDNA X2 in America is residue of the West Asian origin of this flow, while Y-DNA C3 attests to the NE Asian incorporation also on the Y-DNA side.Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post-2065771586205607782011-12-18T06:04:18.518+01:002011-12-18T06:04:18.518+01:00N1'5 (N5) is found in India, as is N2 (W), tha...N1'5 (N5) is found in India, as is N2 (W), that I have drawn their estimated centroids in the AfPak area is not the same as they being lacking in India republic, much less as I have not even applied the 1/4 (?) directionality correction, which would in any case push them towards Bengal, i.e. they are drawn as raw uncorrected centroids (always estimated). <br /><br />"the surprising diversity of M haplogroups in New Guinea"...<br /><br />It is much lower than in South or East Asia, so no idea why you talk of "surprising diversity". What we find is not "surprising" for me at all.<br /><br />"I do agree [the expansion happening upon arrival to a new 'virgin' land] that those haplogroups developed their long stems before they expanded, but they developed them somewhere within the region they are now found"...<br /><br />This sentence is a total oxymoron the first part and the last part are totally contradictory. <br /><br />"... not in Bengal/SE Asia"...<br /><br />I did never claim so. I suggested "on the road", i.e. in between origin and destination, loosely. <br /><br />And as I always say, one could well argue for "flying saucer abductions" as well because we can't discuss what we have no data about. Yet you insist on arguing about this void of data, probably because you can somehow use it as pseudo-evidence by imagining what might have happened - instead of acknowledging that we do not know. <br /><br />"apples never fall far from the tree".<br /><br />That's similar to what I said about fleas, however, unlike apples and trees, people do move. <br /><br />"Descendant haplogroups are very likely to be found near their ancestors".<br /><br />Exactly my point and the whole point of <a href="http://forwhattheywereweare.blogspot.com/2011/12/on-origin-of-mitochondrial-macro.html" rel="nofollow">the other article</a> on the origin of N, which you insist to contest without any ground.<br /><br />But people do move and they in more they have greater chances to move farther and to accumulate more mutations, so, if any, short-stemmed haplogroups weight more. Although I made all basal haplogroups to weight exactly the same, we get effectively the same results if we only weight the short-stemmed "elder" subhaplogroups. <br /><br />"You cannot demonstrate a single instance where we can be sure that a haplogroup's long tail developed while it was on the move".<br /><br />In a sense I have demonstrated it for N long-stemmed subclades, by following your "apples never fall far from the tree" logic: most "apples" (by large) are around SE Asia, not West Asia. And, incidentally, those which are farther from the inferred "tree" have relatively long stems, indicating that some greater time (and hence more events, such as migratory episodes) must have happened in between the parent "tree" and the new "tree" that signals where once an "apple" germinated. These "apples" have legs anyhow, mind you. <br /><br />So it looks a lot like these mutations evolved "on the move". Positive "sigma 5" demonstration is extremely hard to do but it's a quite solid inference that you cannot prove false either. <br /><br />"You can provide no evidence at all from haplogroup distribution in support of your ideas".<br /><br />I contend that haplogroup distribution is the only evidence we have; your fantasies are not evidence. <br /><br />"No N(xR) in India"<br /><br />Wrong: N5, N1 (N1d, N1a, I1), W (W1c, W3 and W*) and N2* (N2a?) do exist in India, according to the data of <a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1182158/" rel="nofollow">Palanichamy 2004</a>, never mind Pakistan (which is part of broader subcontinental India). The only "Western N" that is not found in the Republic of India is X.<br /><br />...Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post-6655859713398972702011-12-18T04:23:39.422+01:002011-12-18T04:23:39.422+01:00"You are just stating once and again your ide..."You are just stating once and again your ideas but NEVER providing any evidence that supports them" <br /><br />You can provide no evidence at all from haplogroup distribution in support of your ideas. No N(xR) in India, and any sort of analysis of the haplogroup data shows that the migration from India to SE Asia cannot have been coastal. South China and Laos share many M haplogroups with Northeast India. And Vietnam, through which we would expect any such migration to have passed, has no basal N or M haplogroups. What it does have is plenty of R haplogroups. <br /><br />"you drew your version of prehistory with your imagination and NOT with the scientific method". <br /><br />Incorrect. I drew my version od history using what I already knew about Polynesian origins along with the data provided in the 2005 McDonald maps. I was not diverted by any imaginary 'great southern coastal migration theory'. <br /><br />"it's always the same song: no evidence, no method, it just 'must' be the way you imagined it". <br /><br />I see no need to alter my song. It still fits the data perfectly. You, on the other hand, are forced to conjure up disappearing lineages across huge swathes of the earth's surface. <br /><br />"Those are probably not "later migrations" but lesser lineages in the same migration" <br /><br />That's exactly what I have claimed all along. It is just that you see R and N as having migrated together whereas I don't see their respective migrations coinciding at all. Especially through India, the region you claim as an origin for both haplogroups. <br /><br />"I see no need to move R to anywhere else and I don't see how the exact location matters at all". <br /><br />You are standing on shaky ground when you insist on claiming an Indian origin for R. Shifting its centre and that of A would alter your map considerably. <br /><br />"If you'd be correct about this, what is not the case (Altai should have its own signature and has none)" <br /><br />I keep reading about some sort of mysterious 'Ket' N. And members of haplogroup A are certainly spread through much of Central Asia, not just NE Asia as you have it in your map. <br /><br />"considering that we know pretty well that Altai UP is derived from further South/SW" <br /><br />On what grounds do you insist on associating the Upper Paleolithic expansion with the fist modern human expansion? most scientists are more than happy to separate them. <br /><br />"Y-DNA-wise we also see P migrating through South Asia into West Asia (Q) and then Altai, which must be at the origin of the West Eurasian lineages (Y-DNA Q and mtDNA X2) we find in Siberia and America". <br /><br />Yes. But that migration picked up members of other haplogroups already there, such as A, C and D, and perhaps B, and carried them to Siberia and America too.terrythttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17327062321100035888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post-21840447133600712682011-12-18T04:22:34.980+01:002011-12-18T04:22:34.980+01:00"It applies to all the nonsense you were argu..."It applies to all the nonsense you were arguing about short-stemmed clades like S". <br /><br />Exactly. That's why we see some of S's close relations in Australia too, and why we see others of its relations scattered through Indonesia, Malaysia and South China. But, ominously for your belief, we see no N(xR) haplogroups in India. 0nly R-derived haplogroups. The nearest are N1'5 in Pakistan and N8, N10 and N11 in South China. Surely, if N had moved through India at any time we should expect to see at least one N haplogroup. Especially as around 8 or 9 R haplogroups are present in the subcontinent and so that haplogroup had no trouble surviving. <br /><br />"What happens with private lineages and long stems in general is that they are constrained and can't expand. Why? Mostly because they are under pressure from their companion lineages" <br /><br />Possibly. Occasionally. But far more likely is that thye become isolated within a relatively small region and drift leads to the long-term survival of just on haplogroup. The number of haplogroups within any population of fixed size will reduce over time. If a migrating population consists of several haplogroups of varying proportions those with a smaller proportion will usually die out along any route they may take. <br /><br />"Many, as you say, don't survive, but some do". <br /><br />There is a saying here, and I presume you have similar ones there, 'apples never fall far from the tree'. Descendant haplogroups are very likely tro be found near their ancestors. You cannot demonstrate a single instance where we can be sure that a haplogroup's long tail developed while it was on the move. <br /><br />"This pressure can happen "on the road" through a landscape that does not allow for meaningful expansion or in a constrained eco-social niche (your typical remote New Guinea valley, for instance)" <br /><br />And that is presumably the reason for the surprising diversity of M haplogroups in New Guinea. The Australian?New Guinea haplogroups with long tails did not develop them on the route to Sahul. They developed them once they reached there. <br /><br />"You should also agree for all populations showing signs of expansion after similarly rather long stems, such as A, X, N2..." <br /><br />I do agree [the expansion happening upon arrival to a new 'virgin' land] that those haplogroups developed their long stems before they expanded, but they developed them somewhere within the region they are now found, not in Bengal/SE Asia, especially so as no N(xR) haplogroups are found anywhere near Bengal. And R's expansion certainly looks as though it is through 'a new 'virgin' land' for some aspect of its ecology. Which suggests further that it is an immigrant both through India and along the East Eurasian coastline.terrythttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17327062321100035888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post-32781149882562458372011-12-16T07:24:22.342+01:002011-12-16T07:24:22.342+01:00"Far more likely to coalesce in situ. Most pr..."Far more likely to coalesce in situ. Most private lineages would rapidly become extinct if they moved at all far". <br /><br />There's no difference: it goes with a private (thin) line of mother-daughter and it makes no difference if some of these migrate or not. What happens with private lineages and long stems in general is that they are constrained and can't expand. Why? Mostly because they are under pressure from their companion lineages, which typically began with greater numbers and hence tend to win the "drift race" once and again. Many, as you say, don't survive, but some do. <br /><br />This pressure can happen "on the road" through a landscape that does not allow for meaningful expansion or in a constrained eco-social niche (your typical remote New Guinea valley, for instance) but it's almost invariably because of others' pressure. Physical islands are not the rule in the realm of humans but an exception: impossibility of expansion is caused mostly by competition with peers.<br /><br />"I agree in the case of M"...<br /><br />You should also agree for all populations showing signs of expansion after similarly rather long stems, such as A, X, N2...<br /><br />"M and N did not expand together, so N was not 'constrained by M' at all".<br /><br />Then by whom? Homo erectus? <br /><br />You are just stating once and again your ideas but NEVER providing any evidence that supports them: you drew your version of prehistory with your imagination and NOT with the scientific method. And now you try to bend reality to fit with your story but it does not fit no matter what you do. <br /><br />A normal person would surrender but you charge once and again, yet it's always the same song: no evidence, no method, it just "must" be the way you imagined it. <br /><br />"But you see a very strange pattern, one that doesn't make sense. You have a series of migrations, depending on the number mutational steps, all starting from a single point. But often later migrations finish up in a region already occupied by a related haplogroup".<br /><br />Those are probably not "later migrations" but lesser lineages in the same migration, which had enough surviving their peers' competence. <br /><br />Some lesser lineages did not survive in those areas but, before totally dying off, managed to expand in new frontiers, outside the primary "cloud". Others did not survive at all but these left no evidence. <br /><br />"Have another look at your own map, especially if you've shifted A and R to their more likely coalescence sites. You don't see 'concentric circles' at all".<br /><br />I see no need to move R to anywhere else and I don't see how the exact location matters at all. You want to think that the origin of N and R is in Burma instead of Bengal? I don't care: it makes no practical difference, and it would make no big difference either if in Cambodia. <br /><br />"What you see is a narrow line from Australia to Palestine, missing India completely until R sets out on its migration". <br /><br />If you'd be correct about this, what is not the case (Altai should have its own signature and has none), it'd be, if anything, a migration from SE Asia to West Asia via Altai and not vice versa. <br /><br />But, considering that we know pretty well that Altai UP is derived from further South/SW and inserted in a process initiated in South Asia, we cannot make any sort of East-to-West connection via the steppe (nor vice versa either, mind you). Y-DNA-wise we also see P migrating through South Asia into West Asia (Q) and then Altai, which must be at the origin of the West Eurasian lineages (Y-DNA Q and mtDNA X2) we find in Siberia and America. <br /><br />You know all that, why do you insist in confusing what is obvious? Beats me.<br /><br />"Yopur comparison is irelevant anyway. H20a can hardly be said to have a 'long tail'. It's only one control region mutation from H20".<br /><br />It applies to all the nonsense you were arguing about short-stemmed clades like S.Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post-61490989630164709912011-12-16T04:16:48.627+01:002011-12-16T04:16:48.627+01:00"Whether it entered by boat is trivial, my wh..."Whether it entered by boat is trivial, my whole point is that there can be such coalescences 'on route', even if the route is relatively short, and that we can't discern what happens between the ancestral and descendant nodes if no branchings exist". <br /><br />Yopur comparison is irelevant anyway. H20a can hardly be said to have a 'long tail'. It's only one control region mutation from H20.terrythttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17327062321100035888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post-18112305477496099872011-12-16T03:21:32.081+01:002011-12-16T03:21:32.081+01:00"I must look at other patterns such as the fa..."I must look at other patterns such as the fact that M expanded initially much more strongly (huge star-like structure) than N, what suggests that N was much constrained by M, which must have therefore expanded first". <br /><br />There is another, and more obvious, conclusion but you are determined to dismiss it because it conflicts with your version of reality. M and N did not expand together, so N was not 'constrained by M' at all. They didn't cross paths until R had formed from N in SE Asia. <br /><br />"Hence if we have 7 N subclades at mutational steps (MS) numbers 1 and 2, then a gap at MS 3 and then three scattered subhaplogroups at MS 4, I see a pattern". <br /><br />But you see a very strange pattern, one that doesn't make sense. You have a series of migrations, depending on the number mutational steps, all starting from a single point. But often later migrations finish up in a region already occupied by a related haplogroup. Surely it's far more likely that these differing mutational steps tell us nothing about timing of migration. Just the timing of eventual expansion, if applicable. <br /><br />"I see a pattern. More so when this pattern shows a 'concentric circles' structure from the purported origin of N". <br /><br />Have another look at your own map, especially if you've shifted A and R to their more likely coalescence sites. You don't see 'concentric circles' at all. What you see is a narrow line from Australia to Palestine, missing India completely until R sets out on its migration. <br /><br />"I'm sure that R11'B6 and R4'5 are being considered by me as they deserve and they count not just as one but as two haplogroups". <br /><br />Three actually. Don't forget about R24 in the Philippines.terrythttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17327062321100035888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post-42692911337832250462011-12-16T03:21:07.504+01:002011-12-16T03:21:07.504+01:00"my whole point is that there can be such coa..."my whole point is that there can be such coalescences 'on route', even if the route is relatively short" <br /><br />and we can easily follow the trail, and perhaps even discern whereabouts along that trail that the haplogroup coalesced. In this case H20a seems most likely to have colalesced in the Balkans, from an incoming U20. The route to Polynesia is full of such coalescences along the way. In all cases we can easily discern where the particular subclade coalesced. The same cannot be said for haplogroup N if you insist on moving it through India. Twice. <br /><br />"It can (the stem) coalesce in situ (because of pressure by other clades) or it can coalesce prior to migration" <br /><br />Far more likely to coalesce in situ. Most private lineages would rapidly become extinct if they moved at all far. <br /><br />"the expansion happening upon arrival to a new 'virgin' land, which is the case of M and probably also A, X" <br /><br />I agree in the case of M, but it was probably part of a population spread originally from somewhere between Africa and the Iranian Plateau. But both A and X coalesced from basal N somewhere within the region they are now found. They would not have migrated far as 'haplogroup A' or 'haplogroup X'. <br /><br />"Yes but only X clearly coalesced in West Asia 'sensu stricto' of all the three. N2, with it's Siberian and Pakistani presence, looks more like Central Asian ('Afghan', even if some W, and even N2, is also found in West Eurasia proper)" <br /><br />Thank you. <br /><br />"while N1'5 is so 50-50 that we must also declare it 'AfPak'. <br /><br />And certainly neither pre-N1'5 nor pre-N2 ever moved through 'India'. They coalesced from N somewhere within the region they are now found. As you say, 'they did arrive at West Asia 'senso stricto', most probably, as N* (pre-X), N1'5 (pre-N1), N2a and W'. But where is the evidence for an SE Asian origin for them? Let alone a migration through India from SE Asia. <br /><br />"But they did arrive to South Asia as N*, very possibly as minor private lineages within the "Western R" migration". <br /><br />As I pointed out elsewhere, there are no N haplogroups shared between SE or East asia and India. So how do you reach that conclusion?terrythttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17327062321100035888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post-6758021469501437812011-12-15T02:09:06.838+01:002011-12-15T02:09:06.838+01:00"H20 most likely entered Iberia by boat throu..."H20 most likely entered Iberia by boat through the Mediterranean"...<br /><br />Whether it entered by boat is trivial, my whole point is that there can be such coalescences "on route", even if the route is relatively short, and that we can't discern what happens between the ancestral and descendant nodes if no branchings exist. <br /><br />Why do you keep misunderstanding everything?<br /><br />"but you insist that these haplogroups with longer stems somehow behaved differently from those with short stems".<br /><br />A long stem is an state of uncertainty: it is NO evidence of anything. It can (the stem) coalesce in situ (because of pressure by other clades) or it can coalesce prior to migration (the expansion happening upon arrival to a new "virgin" land, which is the case of M and probably also A, X and others) or it can never coalesce as true finished haplogroup, remaining as private, tiny, lineage (what is the case of those Australian lineages you brandish), which is the less informative of all cases and says nothing about themselves after the N node at all. <br /><br />"The same goes for N1'5, N2 and X. They were undifferentiated N-root haplotype when they arrived in SW Asia".<br /><br />Yes but only X clearly coalesced in West Asia 'sensu stricto' of all the three. N2, with it's Siberian and Pakistani presence, looks more like Central Asian ("Afghan", even if some W, and even N2, is also found in West Eurasia proper), while N1'5 is so 50-50 that we must also declare it "AfPak". <br /><br />So they did arrive at West Asia 'senso stricto', most probably, as N* (pre-X), N1'5 (pre-N1), N2a and W. <br /><br />But they did arrive to South Asia as N*, very possibly as minor private lineages within the "Western R" migration. <br /><br />"And you consistently use mutation number to indicate timing"...<br /><br />Not so consistently! If you'd argue that N and M are simultaneous I cannot discuss it only based on mutational stems, because these are uncertain enough to be inconclusive. I must look at other patterns such as the fact that M expanded initially much more strongly (huge star-like structure) than N, what suggests that N was much constrained by M, which must have therefore expanded first.<br /><br />But there are quite striking <b>patterns</b>, affecting not one but several clades, that are almost compulsory to accept as indicative of <b>a geographic-chronological sequence</b>. Hence if we have 7 N subclades at mutational steps (MS) numbers 1 and 2, then a gap at MS 3 and then three scattered subhaplogroups at MS 4, I see a pattern. More so when this pattern shows a "concentric circles" structure from the purported origin of N. <br /><br />And this pattern is as close as we can get to evidence within the mtDNA phylogeny (other types of genetic data have other problems and are not better anyhow). <br /><br />"... the lack of any sort of stem within the R11'B6/R4'5 clade".<br /><br />I'm not sure what you have in mind here other than nagging but I'm sure that R11'B6 and R4'5 are being considered by me as they deserve and they count not just as one but as two haplogroups. They still can't outweigh the other 17.Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post-34764510184879019472011-12-14T22:29:29.680+01:002011-12-14T22:29:29.680+01:00"while its predecessor H20(pre-a) (in this ca..."while its predecessor H20(pre-a) (in this case clearly the root, as it's lacking one mutation) is in West Asia. This means that the H20a 'grandmother' either" <br /><br />Surely there is no problem here. H is spread widely through the whole region and H20 most likely entered Iberia by boat through the Mediterranean. The example is completely different from what you're claiming for N. <br /><br />"S evolved (possibly) only once in Australia but the 100-300 N-root (pre-S) women still had to travel the journey between Bengal/Cambodia and Australia". <br /><br />So did O, N13 and N14 but you insist that these haplogroups with longer stems somehow behaved differently from those with short stems. On what grounds to you claim this to be so? <br /><br />"they could well also be "pre-O" or whatever because we are talking of undifferentiated N-root haplotype here". <br /><br />That's exactly what I said yesterday. The same goes for N1'5, N2 and X. They were undifferentiated N-root haplotype when they arrived in SW Asia. They would not have moved all the way from Bengal/Cambodia already differentiated. In fact it's most unlikely that their ancestors were ever anywhere near Bengal/Cambodia. <br /><br />"Similarly we can imagine, as something plausible but indemonstrable, a shared 'grandmother' (descendant of the N matriarch and with the same haplotype) for other regional groupings, even if there is no genetic marking". <br /><br />I'm sure that will turn out to be the case for M at least. I suspect that just a limited number of M haplogroups made it beyond Assam/Burma/South China for example. And possibly even into South India. <br /><br />"You are not interested in understanding my logic, because it is much richer and somewhat more complex than what you are willing to consider". <br /><br />I cannot understand your logic because it is confused. <br /><br />"Mutation number tells of probability of timing but probability is not fact". <br /><br />And you consistently use mutation number to indicate timing when it suits your purpose and consistently ignore it when it doesn't suit your purpose. <br /><br />"Even if my low estimate average of 125 generations is correct (what I'm not even really sure about), the actual span of each single mutation may vary a lot". <br /><br />I agree, but I don't shift position depending on what I'm claiming. <br /><br />"I'm pondering that N may compare better with M+1 than with the M+2 position it mathematically falls in". <br /><br />To me it is easier to explain an arrival in Australia that misses New Guinea than it is to explain the opposite. That would mean that N arrived in island SE Asia before M did. However if M is land-based and N coastal-based we can still have N younger than M if N bypassed M. However we cannot have N coastal-based along India. Doesn't fit. <br /><br />"More puzzling is the role and status of R within the N expansion". <br /><br />You're making the unjustified assumption that R is embedded in the R expansion. Try separating them, and then examine the haplogroup structure. <br /><br />"in the R case there are other factors that matter, specially the geographical scatter and relevance". <br /><br />Especially the lack of any sort of stem within the R11'B6/R4'5 clade. But you're very unwilling to apply your own method in regard to that problem. <br /><br />"I addressed yesterday the matter of the origin of N here (you may have missed it)". <br /><br />I had missed it when I commented here yesterday but obviously I have since seen it.terrythttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17327062321100035888noreply@blogger.com