tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post5101487738578003681..comments2024-03-09T15:46:44.638+01:00Comments on For what they were... we are: More evidence supporting very old colonization of Asia by H. sapiensMajuhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comBlogger46125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post-75925882647516560722015-10-23T12:23:49.600+02:002015-10-23T12:23:49.600+02:00There's no gap that I know of in the Indian oc...There's no gap that I know of in the Indian occupation. Anyhow, how do you envision people migrating to India and not to SE Asia, considering that:<br /><br />1. There is no barrier, no deserts, no impassable mountain barriers, no oceans!<br />2. The basal genetic pool of Eurasians is similarly split between the two regions (what long ago inspired the coastal migration theory, which, right or wrong, attempted to explain a very fast expansion not just in India but also in SE Asia). <br />3. If anything we see a backflow from SE Asia (probably after Toba but not necessarily right after it) and not any second immigration from Africa or the expansion of a reserve from West Asia. <br /><br />Basically I think that the people who are "skeptic" is being just molecular-clock dogmatic, fanatics in denial of actual evidence, just like a creationist before the skull of a T-rex. Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post-72268804753582851882015-10-23T05:05:32.397+02:002015-10-23T05:05:32.397+02:00I also suspect that the 80,000-120,000 years ago e...I also suspect that the 80,000-120,000 years ago estimate is really 100,000 years ago +/- 20,000 years with 20,000 years representing one standard deviation. Thus, a 60,000-70,000 year age for the remains might be 1.5-2 standard deviations from the mean estimate value, which is not that remarkable a difference from the mean estimate.andrewhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08172964121659914379noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post-22085392618273007382015-10-23T00:12:59.246+02:002015-10-23T00:12:59.246+02:00I have very little doubt that modern humans reache...I have very little doubt that modern humans reached India significantly before Toba, where archaeological remains are abundant and there is a clear departure from Neanderthal associated tool kits as you indicate. But, the pre-Toba archaeology stops in India and never picks up again. There is also a significant ill understood gap in the Homo Erectus record of tools and remains which stops about 100kya with nothing replacing it for tens of thousands of years. The fact that modern humans left such clear remains in tropical and subtropical India, makes the absence of comparable relics in SE Asia and Southern East Asia all the more striking.<br /><br />There are two older and questionable indications from South China of human remains pre-Toba (i.e. 75kya), and now this third instance and a lot less questionable, but not beyond question either. Those three sets of human remains are the entire hominin archaeological record from 100kya to 70kya from Burma to the Pacific. How can any early modern human population have left so few traces?<br /><br />I certainly don't doubt that these are very old hominin remains and that they are very likely Homo Sapiens. Odds on, the dating of the material they dated was also right. If there was a dating issue, I'd suspect it to be some circumstance that caused the teeth to end up physically in the vicinity of older materials for some reason, of which many are possible. I don't think that the scientists on this find are being dishonest, but thinking like a Baysean, there is good reason to suspect that the straightforward and naive interpretation is not the most likely to be correct, just as you'd immediately doubt the accuracy of an indirect date of jewelry with a classical Greek era design found in Peru in a 2000 BCE dated stratum.<br /><br />But, reassessments of initial dating not done with the remains themselves are not all that unprecedented. Lots of European Neanderthal and Cro-Magnon sites have been reassessed in that way and so have a couple of the leading sites in Indonesia. Those reassessments, in each case, were in the direction suggested by the overall paradigm. <br /><br />Post-Toba, there is a set of remains ca. 65kya in mainland SE Asia, and of course, lots of stuff in and around Australia by the time you get to 50kya (with some Australian remains arguably 60-65kya).<br /><br />Like you, I'm not terribly impressed by molecular clock estimates, although I do put much more weight in phylogeny determinations which can sometimes be calibrated with ancient DNA, and I do put much more weight on linkage disequilibrium methods where the dating is much more reliable.<br /><br />Even the Denisovan and Neanderthal remains found in the Denisovan cave had a lot of archaeological relics other than remains associated with them, and lots of other Nenderthal traces nearby. These seem to be just teeth. If there's more corroboration, I'm happy to hear it and reassess. But, it seems pretty spare to me.andrewhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08172964121659914379noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post-70381730787427410382015-10-22T23:17:15.261+02:002015-10-22T23:17:15.261+02:00Systematic skepticism is not a good idea. Reasoned...Systematic skepticism is not a good idea. Reasoned, healthy skepticism needs good reasons (and I see none). I haven't yet got a copy of the paper but for what I've been told the site is unquestionably dated on unquestionable geological grounds: the 80 Ka BP is a minimum ante quem date and the 120 Ka BP is a maximum post quem one. So the average date is rather 100 Ka BP but researchers are being "conservative" in their phrasing. <br /><br />You won't find in East Asia any kind of tools that can be considered "unmistakably modern" before a very late "mode 4" that arrived via Siberia. That's a characteristic of East Asian "modernity": a persistent "mode 3" flake industry, with almost no specific traits, that offers almost no clues. There's also no rock art. So following your (knee-jerk) logic, Andrew, there were no H. sapiens in North China until 30 Ka BP, and in SE Asia until almost the Neolithic. That obviously makes no sense whatsoever. <br /><br />However you are denying the most clear evidence of all: human remains, which are piling up. I presume that in the case of South Asia you'll do the opposite: there are unmistakably "modern" (African-like) toolkits, yet no skulls nor bones, so from your knee-jerk "skepticism" you will argue, I presume, that without bones those toolkits could have made by Denisovans or Neanderthals, right?<br /><br />Whatever it takes to keep worshiping the pseudo-scientific molecular-clock waste of time. <br /><br />There are three different pre-80 Ka modern human findings in South China, contemporary African-like tools in India in two different sites. Clear precursors in Arabia and Palestine. An ideal climatic window. What else can you need? <br /><br />There's also people who similarly claim that the world is 4 Ka years old and even that the Earth is flat. I'd rather not be compared with them, will you?<br />Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post-63619596704218290872015-10-22T22:36:34.361+02:002015-10-22T22:36:34.361+02:00The find is paradigm changing if the date is corre...The find is paradigm changing if the date is correct. But, there is very good reason to be skeptical despite any really obvious methodological flaws. Separate and apart from the arguments from big picture that has emerged from ancient DNA, there is the complete absence of an hominin archaeological record (H. Erectus, H. Sapiens, or otherwise) at about 80kya, to corroborate a human presence then. A date of 60kya or even 70kya, in contrast, would be just on the cusp of the modern human archaeological record in SE Asia/E Asia, and that discrepancy between the indirectly determined date and the actual age could arise in all sorts of subtle ways. <br /><br />It is almost always the case that relics of tools, fires, garbage piles, mud encrusted footprint fossils, intentional marking on cave walls, etc. greatly outnumber the quantity of human remains found at the same age, so finding human remains tens of thousands of years before any of the earliest modern human type archaeological relics known in a region from Burma to the Pacific Coast of China from the Arctic to the Antarctic is quite problematic.<br /><br />As Maju notes, a complete extinction of first wave modern humans can be pretty problematic too. What would do it? Not Toba way to the east in China. And, it is hard to imagine a population too thin to be sustainable making it so far east of Africa. Settlements would have been established all along the route and even if lots of them were fragile, it is hard to see why they all die off.<br /><br />Without some corroboration, it is very hard to accept this as authentic. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.andrewhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08172964121659914379noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post-65354343205937366272015-10-22T04:04:55.571+02:002015-10-22T04:04:55.571+02:00Sorry, I obviously meant P, which is derived from ...Sorry, I obviously meant P, which is derived from R, not Q.Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post-9823670181584262072015-10-22T01:02:44.332+02:002015-10-22T01:02:44.332+02:00Of course the SNP counting method, being so recent...Of course the SNP counting method, being so recent, still has to be perfected, because we can't as of yet be certain about the exact patterns of the mutations and whether they may be influenced by other factors, Just like why Y-STRs estimates were proven to be ineffective, but in truth, that's more because people, the scientists included, misunderstood them and failed to see that different markers behave differently and are more likely to mutate as the repeats increase, making some haplogroups more diverse because they'd be modal for a higher value at a certain marker. Because of that, the community wasn't able to establish adequate mutation rates. All of this thus resulted in a distorsion of reality especially when the number of markers is small, which is what we usually encounter in most studies with their miserbable reduced sets. So yeah, eventhough I wouldn't expect SNPs to be as complex as STRs, I'm still prepared to further changes as time passes. For the moment, we have an overwiew of the ancientness of haplogroups which helps us locating in time the various expansions.<br /><br />And Q, descendant of M29'Q, did not arrive in Melanesia, it rather coalesced there as shown by the presence of M29 only in island Melanesia with only a marginal presence in the very east of ''mainland'' Papua New Guinea which could represent a back-migration from nearby New Britain. As M29 is one codR mutation away from M, it appears to be extremely ancient and thus can't be linked with K2'expansion, although Y-DNA M could have later expanded with a subset of Q. M29, as well as M27 and M28, probably enterred New Guinea from northern Wallacea and moved quickly along the coast till they've reached Island Melanesia, and the Y-DNA counterpart of such migration is C*. Don't forget that the mountainous belt of New Guinea would have act as a somewhat strong barrier that prevented people enterring into Australia and that could explain why many uniparental lineages observed in Melanesia aren't found in Australia. Migrations that enterred New Guinea from southern Wallecea didn't encounter these geographical restrictions and were thus able to reach Australia. As for the initial australian migration represented by Y-DNA C1b2b (C4) and mostly mtDNA N, it probably never landed in New Guinea but crossed directly from Nusa Tenggara as shown by otherwise austalian mtDNA O's presence in Flores. Squadhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03381626840707688081noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post-60770638524746948612015-10-21T13:01:04.298+02:002015-10-21T13:01:04.298+02:00Erratum: "They make 1/3 of all basal N sublin...Erratum: "They make 1/3 of all basal N sublineages", should be 1/4. Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post-36433440397043405222015-10-21T12:58:14.609+02:002015-10-21T12:58:14.609+02:00"Most haplogroup R lines expanded really fast..."Most haplogroup R lines expanded really fast and were very successful just like HIJK, but this wasn't necessarily the case for basal N lines, thus they're more likely to carry longer tails".<br /><br />There are four N subclades that seem to be as old as R, i.e. they do have very short stems. They make 1/3 of all basal N sublineages. It's true that R sublineages do show a stronger dynamism but some of it was clearly also present in N already, after all N and R stars are of about the same size, regardless of what their derived lineages did afterwards. The N node is still one of the most clear signals of expansion in the human mitogenome, after those of M and H (really huge stars) and about the same size as that of R. <br /><br />In a simplified reconstructive narrative, Sykes style, N sent 16 (or 17 if we accept the proposed N14) daughters around the world. Some went West, following the trail their ancestors had taken to the East along the great river, some went North following the coasts and some went south to the new lands that the great crocodile had lead some people to. A few remained in the homeland of their mother. <br /><br />Naturally some were more successful than the others, and obviously R and her own "daughters" were the most successful ones. They didn't only head West, as their mother did but many headed back to the rising sun, to their grandmother's homeland, where they succeeded (R is much more common than N(xR) in SE Asia) and joined their aunts in their various routes north and south. <br /><br />Obviously this is even more easily explained if N and R had approximately the same homeland in fact and R was the oldest of all N sublineages (even if we can't confirm that from the mutation rate, just a hunch).<br /><br />...<br /><br />"Also, mtDNA M32, like I was saying, would represent the first migration to the Islands, as it is only one codR mutation away from M"<br /><br />Problem is that M32 is not the Andamanese line, it is M32a. M32c is only found in Madagascar AFAIK but it is not particularly likely that the Austronesian migrants who carried it picked it in the Andamans (not impossible but as likely as any other origin, be it in Indonesia or even in India). And M32 is not one but five mutations downstream of M. That's why I did not put any red dot on the Andamans in my latest version of the reconstructed Eurasian expansion based on mtDNA. Instead I assume a geographically ill defined M32'56 in the India-Indonesia arch (maybe in coastal Myanmar, which has a very large M diversity) and then subsequent migrations in various directions, only one of them being the Andamans:<br />→ M56 to India in step M+2 (~75 Ka BP)<br />→ M32a to Andaman in step M+5 (~45 Ka BP)<br />→ M32c to maybe Indonesia in step M+12 (or surely earlier, because this is the Malagasy lineage in fact) <br /><br />"And don't bring on M1 as it's not western eurasian but rather african"...<br /><br />Actually it is West Eurasian and there is no doubt that it expanded from Arabia, probably in association with Y-DNA T primarily. The West Eurasian expansion had very direct African offshoots, most notable of which are the African branches of M1 (not the whole lineage), the African branch of X (X1, primarily Egyptian) and U6 (primarily NW African). These African offshoots were quite probably related to the early LSA (African version of the UP). Similarly I think that not just Y-DNA T is related to this African extension of the West Eurasian colonization but also Y-DNA J1, which is highly diverse in NE (but not NW) Africa. Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post-19913561556469670062015-10-21T12:23:19.217+02:002015-10-21T12:23:19.217+02:00"... tell we which mtDNA line would you assoc..."... tell we which mtDNA line would you associate with C-V20".<br /><br />That's the kind of question I would never make. Why? Because it is clearly a minor lineage in spite of its fluke finding in the La Braña bros. This oddball Western C should obviously be considered a minor lineage (along with some other oddballs like H2) within a migration best described by other much larger ones, notably P1, IJ, G and T. The main mtDNA lineages associated with them are R0, JT, U, N1, N2, X and M1. <br /><br />You see the difference, right? I don't imagine pairs of lineages but complex and realistic populations with arrays of various Y-DNA and mtDNA lineages. Naturally these populations would have subpopulations, in which some of the implicated lineages would become more or less successful, or even not be present at all. One of these subpopulations could be more pioneering, another maybe more coy (later roles could be reversed maybe), one could expand more dynamically in certain region, a second one in another region, a third one maybe got stuck in a valley with limited expansion options, etc. It's people and not lineages who "write history", even if it is unwritten paleohistory, only recorded in stones, bones and aminoacids. <br /><br />"... how come no M lines survive in the west"...<br /><br />And M1? M1 is a fully fledged Western lineage and seems quite approximately associated with Y-DNA T in their Western expansion. <br /><br />But you do have a point because it seems quite apparent that the girls were somehow keeping the group together, allowing for some notable patrilineages to join the population but much more rarely matrilineages. A simple explanation would be matrilocality (alias uxorilocality), in which the father's role is adopted by the maternal uncle (what would make cultural transmission pretty much associated to matrilineages and not Y-DNA). I can't be sure this was the case but it's a possible scenario. Let's not forget that these peoples were the ones soon after engraving and sculpting all those famous "venus" icons, which must have got some sort of maternal symbolism. A key part of that female-centered cultural transmission would have been the needle and the art of sewing multi-layered clothes, almost necessary to conquer the cold north.Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post-74995389810231802012015-10-21T11:54:09.701+02:002015-10-21T11:54:09.701+02:00Hold on, I have theorized (not strictly "clai...Hold on, I have theorized (not strictly "claimed") that the expansion of mtDNA N could have been soon after Toba, i.e. c. 70 Ka BP. The expansion of mtDNA R (and therefore of Y-DNA K2) seems a bit more recent, maybe c. 60 Ka BP. My lowest limit would be c. 55 Ka BP because in that time we already see presumably R-carrying (R0?) people with UP tech in West Asia and soon after (49-47 Ka BP) in Europe and Altai. <br /><br />I'm not going to get right now dampened into Y-DNA MC calculations, partly because I'm with a bad cold, and partly because it needs plenty of time and good data, but I must emphasize that one of the problems is that there is no alignment with a "present" of the drift of the various branches, as we can see for example <a href="http://pereformat.ru/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/ust-ishim.jpg" rel="nofollow">in the original UI Y-DNA tree</a>, so effectively the MC ticks are partly random. And this randomness can make present day lineages to have "ticked" at totally different rates: one branch being 50% longer than another in many cases. <br /><br />As for Papua, I can only presume that the colonization of the highlands took place some time after the colonization of the lowlands (those peoples arrived from the sea after all) so the date you mention is at best a terminus ante quem. But anyhow my educated guess or estimate is that the arrival of M27 could be around 65 Ka BP and that of Q c. 55 Ka BP. But remember that it is just an educated guess, just like any other estimate. Y-DNA K2b1 should have arrived with mtDNA Q but I haven't studied the case of C1b2, so I no idea if it should be considered an "allied lineage" (they traveled together) or an older one (traveled with Melanesian M27?) Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post-72087713483599185362015-10-21T10:26:22.090+02:002015-10-21T10:26:22.090+02:00So then, tell we which mtDNA line would you associ...So then, tell we which mtDNA line would you associate with C-V20. Due to the fact that mtDNA mutates slowly, we can't really say how much time passed between the few codR mutations that separate each line from the N node. We can have somewhat of an overview but it's not perfect and the fact that, just like C-V20, some lines were bottlenecked doesn't help. Most haplogroup R lines expanded really fast and were very successful just like HIJK, but this wasn't necessarily the case for basal N lines, thus they're more likely to carry longer tails. Also, JT has 4 codR mutations from N and HV has much more. Plus the PhyloTree didn't receive any update since 2 years...<br /><br />About the Anadmans again, daic D* is the oldest split within D, which is in turn possibly the earliest split of all non-african clades. Again one of the reasons for which I firmly believe in this older eastern NRY D- and mt M-bearing layer. Also, mtDNA M32, like I was saying, would represent the first migration to the Islands, as it is only one codR mutation away from M (split between M32 and M32 was really fast, just like, for example, Y-DNA K2 clades separated almost immediately from each other).<br /><br />Don't forget to answer my initial question and also how come no M lines survive in the west, again in perfect harmony with Y-DNA D. And don't bring on M1 as it's not western eurasian but rather african and, above all, it is not basal and has clear ties with the far east.Squadhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03381626840707688081noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post-38768974311474000012015-10-21T09:55:50.406+02:002015-10-21T09:55:50.406+02:00''So a 50-60 Ka age for K2 is reasonable w...''So a 50-60 Ka age for K2 is reasonable when you calibrate using UI.''<br /><br />Thus refuting your own claim of K2 expanding soon after Toba...<br /><br />I'd personally estimate K2 to be 55kya based on the first attested human presence in New Guinea Highlands, which thought to be of about 50kya. For this estimation to be correct, we have to assume that the C1b2 migration hadn't reached the Highlands so early, due to its coastal current distribution. If we stick to the idea that K2b1 made the first move into the Highlands, then we can easily come up with a 55kya approximation for K2.Squadhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03381626840707688081noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post-83475118639814111792015-10-20T22:51:54.165+02:002015-10-20T22:51:54.165+02:00Must be reasonably older: just take any of those t...Must be reasonably older: just take any of those trees, measure the distance between UI and present, then the distance between UI and the K2 node, apportion and add to 45 Ka, that's roughly how old K2 is. <br /><br />UI is not the way you describe it something extremely close to the root of K2, it is clearly drifted downstream of it. So a 50-60 Ka age for K2 is reasonable when you calibrate using UI. <br /><br />... "the authors realize this as well."<br /><br />Not the one you quoted, quite apparently. The confidence interval does not fix that slip 48 Ka for K2 is still too young. The problem is that your reference author does not want to assume the implications of UI's actual age for the overall tree. <br /><br />And it's not just "slightly".Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post-20829399918449463022015-10-20T21:58:27.804+02:002015-10-20T21:58:27.804+02:00K2 can't be that much older than UI. UI has 6 ...K2 can't be that much older than UI. UI has 6 private mutations (1/47 shared with NO, apparently); this means he can't be very removed from the K2 ancestor. Y-DNA mutates every few hundred years. Even if you favor a slower mutation rate for whatever reason, he is very few mutations removed from the root, so it doesn't add up to much. We're talking thousands of years, rather than tens of thousands. 50-55 kya is not too crazy, but 60 kya is basically impossible. <br /><br />Of course K2 is (slightly) older than UI, the authors realize this as well. He just happens to be so close to the root that the confidence intervals include the time before he lived.Lankhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09164328821211694856noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post-65271000938566583052015-10-20T20:07:35.186+02:002015-10-20T20:07:35.186+02:00Well, it's apparent that you can't use a s...Well, it's apparent that you can't use a single rate, when this one contradicts the facts. You have to use diverse rates that do fit the facts. You can't posit a theoretical model that clashes with reality. Age(K2) is necessarily much older than age(UI), so its average just cannot be more recent - and you don't fix that with the CI, because it's still age(K2) and not age(UI). <br /><br />The question is not to save and rescue a fixed mutation rate, whichever it is, but to produce models that make good matches with reality, with observed facts. Otherwise is like the obsession with circular orbits that dampened astronomy until Kepler. Sometimes just a minor adjustment, like Kepler's circle → ellipse "reform" solves everything. <br /><br />Like Mandelbrot said: clouds are not spheres, mountains are not cones, coasts are not circles and bark is not smooth, nor does lighting travel in straight line. Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post-81494897928609180462015-10-20T17:40:41.629+02:002015-10-20T17:40:41.629+02:00They are using the mutation rate of 0.82 x10^-9 mu...They are using the mutation rate of 0.82 x10^-9 mutations/site/year which comes from modern pedigree studies. <br /><br />Any given node or sample will randomly deviate from the expected number of mutations by some amount - 5% of samples will fall completely outside of the 95% confidence interval, of course. So although we are pretty sure that the true date of the NO node really is more than 45 kya (radiocarbon also has a confidence interval, nevermind uncertainty of the calibration curve) that doesn't matter, with a CI of 42-48 kya half the time the true date will be older than 45 kya. So this actually makes sense.<br /><br />From the paper:<br />"We also calculated that Ust’-Ishim’s Y-DNA haplogroup had 352 and 335 fewer private SNPs relative to what was expected for a modern-day individual (based on QR and NO clade individuals respectively). This provides two independent estimates of 41,100 years (95% CI: 37,100-45,000 years) and 39,200 years (95% CI: 35,600-42,900) for Ust’-Ishim’s age." <br /><br />Ust'-Ishim's age from radiocarbon was 46,880–43,210 cal BP, so the high end of the CI for the mutation rate they are using overlaps the radiocarbon CI - barely.<br /><br />Using just the fossil aDNA data you get a slower mutation rate which makes the ages about 10% older. Personally, I prefer the slower rate, but it could be wrong. It could be that Ust'-Ishim man and Anzick-1 happen to randomly have not quite as many mutations as expected. capra internetensishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15951755327460295070noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post-29455534183304686312015-10-20T13:14:40.577+02:002015-10-20T13:14:40.577+02:00One mutation downstream K2 is the one shared with ...One mutation downstream K2 is the one shared with NO, but then there are other mutations donwstream in the UI specific line that nobody can ignore. And they do add up in the chronology. <br /><br />I was very shocked by the claim of "NO-QR split" (K2 node) being "45 kya; 95% CI: 42-48 kya". That's totally absurd, the minimal 100% CI is some time before 45 Ka and it is very curious that in fig. 4a, UI, unlike other calibration points is displaced towards the present by almost 10% against the precision of his dating, argued above by yourself. 45 Ka is a terminus ante quem, there's 100%, thanks to UI that the K2 node is significantly older than 45 Ka BP. Whether it is 50 or 60 or whatever is I guess debatable but necessarily some time older than 45 Ka BP. <br /><br />They are cheating again.Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post-90779158873345874102015-10-19T18:30:23.843+02:002015-10-19T18:30:23.843+02:00But of course, when it's just one mutation and...But of course, when it's just one mutation and he's so close to the K2 root, he could just be called K2* so as not to mislead people into thinking that his Y-DNA has a close evolutionary relationship with NO.Lankhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09164328821211694856noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post-84247921561151770202015-10-19T18:26:38.028+02:002015-10-19T18:26:38.028+02:00The new Siberian paper explains the details on UI&...The new <a href="http://biorxiv.org/content/early/2015/10/18/029421" rel="nofollow">Siberian paper</a> explains the details on UI's paternal lineage. He shares just one mutation with NO. So he's pre-NO, not NO*, which may not even have existed yet.<br /><br /><i>"Ancient Siberian Ust’-Ishim is thought to belong to K2 Y-DNA clade. We observed that all 16 K2 – specific SNPs were present in Ust’-Ishim. However, Ust’-Ishim also shares <b>one out of 47 derived alleles specific to NO branch</b> (hg19 coordinate ChrY 7690182; Supp. Fig. 12). Therefore, Ust’-Ishim’s haplogroup most likely belongs to NO clade that diverged shortly after NO-QR split (45 kya; 95% CI: 42-48 kya), but before N-O split (38 kya; 95% CI: 35-41)."</i>Lankhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09164328821211694856noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post-60220789504087646682015-10-19T13:30:04.979+02:002015-10-19T13:30:04.979+02:00Naively, using the latest (16th) PhyloTree build, ...Naively, using the latest (16th) PhyloTree build, coding region mutations from N to Western lineage:<br /><br />N1: 3 (incl. I)<br />N2: 4 (incl. W)<br />X: 4<br />R0: 2<br />R2'JT: 2<br />U: 4<br /><br />So it seems apparent that the oldest Western haplogroups (should add M1 but would not change anything) are R0 (exclusively West Eurasian) and R2'JT (shared West Eurasian and South Asian). Luckily the latest builds have not changed anything substantial in this aspect and <a href="http://forwhattheywereweare.blogspot.com/p/continuing-with-joint-series-in-spanish.html" rel="nofollow">my reconstruction</a> still stands. U, X and N2 seem to have expanded later (maybe much later, Gravettian era looks like a good time-frame) and N1 seems to sit between these two. <br /><br />So I see no reason to think that Western N subclades were all the time sitting in the Persian Gulf but rather that they arrived in the same general migration Westward which brought R subclades to the West. Actually N looks totally SE Asian, so they should in any case have migrated from there to here somehow, even if they left only a weak legacy in India (N2a, W and N5, which is sister of N1). But actually they are not that important in West Eurasia either: the three R subclades clearly dominate the landscape everywhere. <br /><br />"For the Andamans, who cares about the relationship with India?"<br /><br />Well, first of all in order to be precise, second to underline that there are complex South-SE Asia relations in those early times, third to balance the SE Asianness of Y-DNA D*. <br /><br />"And it was Y-DNA D with mtDNA M."<br /><br />While y-D is clearly only associated to some mt-M subclades, making a simple pairing of ALL mt-M with y-D makes no sense whatsoever. <br /><br />"D in India was wiped out entirely, which is not surprising"...<br /><br />It was probably a minor lineage. That's the most likely reason of its extinction in South Asia: drift. Toba may have helped but the case is that D was almost certainly from the beginning the young cousin that the CF bros brought along, much as pre-N was relative to big sis M. Smaller lineages are more likely to vanish... unless they stop being small via founder effect. It's plausible that there were some other lineages in the migration that were not so lucky, we just can't get our hands on them. <br /><br />"Ah, and aren't you aware of the two alleged DE cases in India?"<br /><br />Vaguely but AFAIK they were not tested for the marker of E, so everybody imagined they'd be E1b migrants from Arabia or something like that. <br /><br />"Furthermore, they don't look (in terms of Y-STRs) like any D or E I know, so they're most likely some yet unclassified D clade that may or may not be directly related to the andamanese one".<br /><br />That's interesting. I'll take your word on that. <br /><br />Anyhow the Andamanese D* hang directly from Daic D* → <a href="http://www.biomedcentral.com/1741-7007/6/45" rel="nofollow">Hong Shi 2008</a>, fig. 3. <br /><br />Re. y-C and mt-N, there are some other instances of clear pairing, notably Australia. But there's always also M subclades implicated. You can't disentangle N and M, except maybe in West Eurasia and even here there is M1. And even less you can disentangle N(xR) and R, except in Australia. It's a mess, although it can be understood as such "mess", where lineages exist in real, complex populations and not populations in simple lineages that never mix nor change allegiance. Some lineages are bigger since early on and hence more resilient, some are smaller and therefore more fragile... but a few of these smaller lineages get lucky and become big and resilient. The histories of matrilineages and patrilineages can sometimes be paired (are clearly parallel) but obviously people is not all the time marrying their cousins, so these allegiances appear and disappear. Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post-87696044270552698052015-10-19T05:49:48.908+02:002015-10-19T05:49:48.908+02:00N was in West Eurasia before P1 or would you argue...N was in West Eurasia before P1 or would you argue that basal N1, clearly associated with early western Y-DNA F lines such as G, is SE asian? P1's migration almost certainly happened by following the southern edge of the Himalayas, thus they ended up in Central Asia. mtDNA N1's distribution is definitely not like that, as only highly derived N1a has some presence in Central Asia/Southern Siberia. The rest are overwhelmingly western and they're certainly linked with G/H2 (previous F3), two very early splits within F. <br /><br />For the Andamans, who cares about the relationship with India? That's exactly one of the reasons why I have speculated about a very ancient population roaming in this entire region. But what is certain is that they (the first Andamanese) came via Burma and not India, that's too far. And it was Y-DNA D with mtDNA M. D in India was wiped out entirely, which is not surprising like I already said quite a few times now, while it survived in the Andamans due to strong isolation. Ah, and aren't you aware of the two alleged DE cases in India? I've checked their haplotypes before and they're the same, which indicates that they're not misclassified, unless their YAP+ state is a parallel mutation but the chance for the YAP mutation to happen twice is extremely reduced, voire practically impossible. Furthermore, they don't look (in terms of Y-STRs) like any D or E I know, so they're most likely some yet unclassified D clade that may or may not be directly related to the andamanese one.<br /><br />mtDNA N(xR) is the one I'm talking about when dealing with Y-DNA C/C1. And its not very common either in Europe, and we know mtDNA survies better than Y-DNA so its not surpising that mtDNA X or whatever would be more sucessful than C-V20. But in any case, C-V20, a clade as old as K itself(!), is exclusively european and didn't move with mtDNA M. And C1b2 does ''equal'' N, Australia nails the coffin here. I know my paragraphs are sometimes overwhelming but I reckon they're worth reading...<br /><br />I actually meant how come we seemingly have mtDNA N(xR) in every place where very early CFs are found (Europe-C1a2, Australia-C1b2a, West Asia-G), but no M, apart from Australia but according to me it's because before ending up there, they (C1b2 males) have absorbed some M lines somewhere in Southeast Asia (probably north of Sundaland). But the problem is that you argue that CF and D were part of the same initial move, while I suggest they weren't,... For K2, it expanded after C, that's for sure, and it expanded with some R clades, of which the expansion is distinct from that of earlier N(xR). Squadhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03381626840707688081noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post-26690239115653739282015-10-19T02:22:33.711+02:002015-10-19T02:22:33.711+02:00I think Y-DNA G was a private (F*) lineage that ju...I think Y-DNA G was a private (F*) lineage that just happened to get lucky in the West Eurasian colonization. Much of the same can be said of IJ, although it is further downstream and their role seems bigger. I don't think there was any mtDNA N in West Eurasia before the P1 wave brought it from SE Asia, along with the more obvious R. The only clearly "western" (South Asian) matrilineage involved was M1. <br /><br />Re. Andaman Islands, both mtDNA lineages are shared with India (from my wiki-notes):<br />→ M31 (in Andaman Islands, Bengal, Munda, Orissa, Saharia)<br />→ M32'56<br />→→ M32 (M32a in Andaman Islands, M32c in Madagascar)<br />→→ M56 (in South Asia) <br /><br />Y-DNA D* seems of course most related to SE Asia.<br /><br />Re. Australasia: I'd also think of two (or maybe even more) waves.<br /><br />"C1b2 = N, C1a2(C-V20) = N"<br /><br />Obviously mtDNA N is much more common than Y-DNA C1, so nope.<br /><br />"How on earth would mtDNA N be present with the earliest CF movements but not M?"<br /><br />That's not at all what I'm saying. When CF (and the minor lineage D) first expanded, it did so with mtDNA M. However there were obviously some other minor L3-derived lineages, at the very least pre-N (if there were others, they vanished). At some point this lineage had a major lucky strike and, associated with Y-DNA C and K2 expanded almost worldwide. That lucky strike could well be associated with the Toba event. Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post-52069240624367653312015-10-19T01:14:26.629+02:002015-10-19T01:14:26.629+02:00What's up with me, I meant ''...F = ...What's up with me, I meant ''...F = M...'' and not NSquadhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03381626840707688081noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post-57118026880505673192015-10-19T01:13:05.197+02:002015-10-19T01:13:05.197+02:00In the very last line of my first post, I said:
&#...In the very last line of my first post, I said:<br />''So really, it's only India that is still making people believe that F = N...''<br /><br />I obviously meant ''So really, it's only India that is still making people believe that F = N...'' and not N...Squadhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03381626840707688081noreply@blogger.com