tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post776041453372684861..comments2024-03-09T15:46:44.638+01:00Comments on For what they were... we are: On the origin of mitochondrial macro-haplogroup NMajuhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comBlogger54125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post-44655900599086206732013-11-19T16:00:57.923+01:002013-11-19T16:00:57.923+01:00PS- The up-to-date mtDNA and Y-DNA trees can be fo...PS- The up-to-date mtDNA and Y-DNA trees can be found in the following reference sites:<br /><br />→ mtDNA: http://www.phylotree.org/<br />→ Y-DNA: http://www.isogg.org/tree/<br /><br />For more details I would suggest to begin your search in Wikipedia for example, although the articles are never good enough they may be a good starting point for a basic understanding in most cases. <br /><br />See also the "links" page:<br />→ http://forwhattheywereweare.blogspot.com/p/links.html<br /><br />And feel free to drop a question if in doubt, sure.Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post-9365657979940035292013-11-19T15:52:04.168+01:002013-11-19T15:52:04.168+01:00They are mtDNA and never became Y-DNA. I'm not...They are mtDNA and never became Y-DNA. I'm not sure which is the source of your confusion but I never said nor implied what you seem to have (mis-)understood. <br /><br />Just to be completely clear: Y-DNA and mtDNA are completely different "animals": Y-DNA is the one in the Y-chromosome, transmitted from father to son (women are XX, so they do not carry it); mtDNA is the relatively short chain found in the mitochondria, cell organelles of probable bacterian origin, which are passed from mother to daughter and son (sperm does not carry any mitochondria, only the ovule does). They do not mix, much less transform in each other. <br /><br />I wonder if the source of your confusion is that some lineage names are similar in both cases. That's just because they use letters and numbers but they have no relation whatsoever. For example mtDNA N is a major non-African macro-haplogroup including about half of Humankind and ancestral to many others, while Y-DNA N is a not-so-important East and North Eurasian lineage (typical of Buryats or Finns for example). Similarly mtDNA L1 is an African lineage typical of Pygmies and some other West-Central Africans (the Fulani for example) while Y-DNA L1 is typical of Pakistan instead. They just share name by mere chance.Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post-61235234399301289112013-11-19T06:26:49.485+01:002013-11-19T06:26:49.485+01:00I am a social scientist interested in creating a l...I am a social scientist interested in creating a layman's narrative to the map provided by one of the genetic laboratories that illustrates the migration and mitochondrial DNA haplogroup of my ancestors. Can you explain, in layman's terms, how MtDNA L3, N) became YDNA? Before starting the research I ad assumed that they were all MtDNA. Community Bulletinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06482956646955589019noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post-66029144806641219032011-12-25T23:42:37.460+01:002011-12-25T23:42:37.460+01:00Well. You just keep on believing that humans can ...Well. You just keep on believing that humans can move long distances while undergoing drift, and you will keep on being mystified as to the spread of haplogroups around the earth's surface. And you will continue to be forced to make things up to explain what you see as anomalies.terrythttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17327062321100035888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post-49180342068416617282011-12-24T11:35:19.097+01:002011-12-24T11:35:19.097+01:00"You may not want it, but I think you need it..."You may not want it, but I think you need it".<br /><br />That sums it up. I'm not reading much less replying anymore to your replies until you cease and desist with that psychotic stalker attitude.Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post-74274521425903284262011-12-23T23:22:11.219+01:002011-12-23T23:22:11.219+01:00"Your mental wall is not evidence of anything..."Your mental wall is not evidence of anything: look at the damn fucking facts!" <br /><br />OK. Here we go. You brought up the subject of N2 and its stem. That encouraged me to go back and have a closer look at it. <br /><br />As you will already be aware N2 really consists of two haplogroups: N2a and W. N2a, with a stem of 7 mutations, has not formed any recognised subclades but W, also with a stem of 7 mutations, has diversified into a multitude of subclades. So N2's expansion is really W's expansion. <br /><br />In the McDonald map W is shown as being most common amoung the Kurds. Wikipedia claims its highest concentration is in North Pakistan. From Phylotree we see that W's spread is almost instantaneous at 7 mutations from N2. N2 in turn is 4 mutations from N. And N is 5 mutations from L3. <br /><br />Using your hypothesis that a long stem indicates a period spent moving through a huge variety of habitats allows us to claim that L3 had left africa and moved to SE Asia. Along the route generations of women accumulated those 5 mutations in N's stem, but they left no descendants along the way. Next, women carrying N left SE Asia and moved into South Asia. Along the route generations of women accumulated those 4 mutations in N2's stem. Then women carrying N2 moved out of India to SW Asia. Along the route more generations of women accumulated those 7 mutations in W's stem, as well as the 7 mutations in N2a's stem. Some W clades are found in South Asia, which you claim is evidence in support of your hypothesis. <br /><br />Examining the data using the hypothesis that a long stem indicates a period spent isolated in a particular habitat allows us to construct a different, and simplrer, story. <br /><br />Haplogroups W and N2a endured a period of drift 7 mutations long in separate, but presumably neighbouring, regions. Perhaps at opposite ends of the region in which N2 had spread through at some time. These two regions must have been close to where the two haplogroups had first coalesced from N2. N2 is 4 mutations removed from N, so that region would also be close to where N2 had first coalesced from N. N has a stem of 5 mutations from L3 so the region would also be close to where N had first coalesced from L3. That region would appear to be somewhere between Kurdistan and Northern Pakistan. <br /><br />All the N haplogroups are the product of a group of N-carrying women who escaped from that region at the 5 mutation level. Haplogroups N2a and W developed from those women who remained behind, and were only able to escape 11 mutations later. When we turn to N in the east we find that no N haplogroups with long stems diversified once they had arrived. They arrived as N and have remained isolated.terrythttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17327062321100035888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post-75629350886332536992011-12-23T23:21:35.973+01:002011-12-23T23:21:35.973+01:00"I don't need your 'help', I don&..."I don't need your 'help', I don't want your 'help' and I' <br /><br />You may not want it, but I think you need it. <br /><br />"The centroid says quite unmistakably that N coalesced in or near SE Asia, so it must have back-migrated to the West". <br /><br />Centroids are almost certainly very unreliable in indicating source. <br /><br />"As most Western subclades are long-stemmed" <br /><br />As are many eastern and Australian ones. <br /><br />"In many cases they do correlate with quite clear long migrations in fact, in others maybe not". <br /><br />I can see no examples of where they need 'correlate with quite clear long migrations'. Surely we should first examine all haplogroups from the same perspective before adaopting any other stance. <br /><br />"But in all cases something must have changed from a period when expansion was not possible (stem) to one when expansion did happen. Just staying put is not a way to change: either climate or geography (or both) changed and the easiest way to achieve that is via migration to a better land" <br /><br />But we see quite clearly the periods of expansion and diversification. To me it is obvious that long stems are exactly the result of 'Just staying put'. <br /><br />"Much of our continuous misunderstanding is that you insist in reinterpreting what I say according to what you think I might have meant, what is almost always wrong". <br /><br />I think I now get what you believe. I'll cover it next.terrythttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17327062321100035888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post-57433148919462928792011-12-23T08:05:53.475+01:002011-12-23T08:05:53.475+01:00...
"In fact usually not, as all the example......<br /><br />"In fact usually not, as all the examples of non-N haplogroups with long stems demonstrate".<br /><br />I'll have to counter-demonstrate this "demonstration" of yours (where is it? just some appeals, no graphs not schemes, no counts, no anything). See how you make me waste my time?! <br /><br />"But you insist on claiming N as a special case".<br /><br />Not at all. <br /><br />"I find it impossible to believe that either M or N moved very far from the other L3s before eventually being able to undergo their own independent expansions".<br /><br />Well, the facts deny your "finding" because it's obvious that neither M nor N coalesced in Africa. <br /><br />Your mental wall is not evidence of anything: look at the damn fucking facts!<br /><br />"Surely even you accept that [Asian L3*] became M and N". <br /><br />Indeed but that implies that there was one population (or two at the most) which migrated in small numbers into Asia before they found an occasion to expand, quite apparently in Southern Asia (with or without SE Asia), carrying the L3m and L3n haplotypes (and maybe others that went extinct or stayed put near the Red Sea). Otherwise you can't explain the relative lack of L3 in Asia, where M and N coalesced without doubt. <br /><br />This is a narrative, a reconstruction of prehistory, that can't be successfully challenged unless you measure reason with the ruler of madness. <br /><br />And you do just that: insist in nonsense beliefs of you, by which humankind would have never moved from certain river bank of East Africa... One wonders what the explorers and migrants of all times would think about that static apple nonsense. <br /><br />If, say, you have 4 mutations and each mutation corresponds with, say, 300 generations and if each generation moves 100 km (70 miles), in a "short stem" of just one mutation you can have a migration of 30,000 kilometers, somewhat less than the circumference of Earth by the Equator line (40,000 km). So in order to migrate from Addis Ababa to Dacca (less than 6000 km), we only need 60 generations that migrate 100km each or 300 generations (one notch) migrating some 20 km each (a local distance). <br /><br />We have five times that time in the case of N, so plenty for all kind of pauses and what not. <br /><br />"Turns out I was wrong. N21 may have originated in Thailand/Cambodia".<br /><br />See how splitting hairs bring us nowhere? There's plenty of small-size data in less well studied regions. You can't expect me to know every detail about each lineage but roughly enough to get a more than decent approximate result indeed. <br /><br />It is a very interesting paper that I did not know about either, thanks again.Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post-47969887047970174852011-12-23T08:05:45.642+01:002011-12-23T08:05:45.642+01:00"You are not prepared to look at the raw data..."You are not prepared to look at the raw data and interpret it in a consistent manner". <br /><br />You have the arrogance and lack of self-criticism of saying THAT. "Mirror, mirror..."<br /><br />"I'm still prepared to help you discard your stupid theories".<br /><br />I don't need your "help", I don't want your "help" and I <br /><br />"How can you possibly insist that S arrived in Australia a little before O"...<br /><br />I dare you to find a quote by me saying that. Much of our continuous misunderstanding is that you insist in reinterpreting what I say according to what you think I might have meant, what is almost always wrong. <br /><br />"'Small migration'? From Africa to SE Asia?"<br /><br />From Africa to South Asia. The N phenomenon surely happened under the ominous clout of much larger M (and maybe relates with Toba somehow, but I can't say exactly how) and it probably happened in a context of *rapid* and maybe also *coastal* migration by which some peoples were highly nomadic, easily marching to yet another undiscovered beach, jungle or whatever, almost every new generation. Not all were so dynamic (the peoples of mtDNA M and Y-DNA F(xMNOPS) appear to have lived more relaxed lives). <br /><br />You say they migrated through freezing Altai and not the coast... I dare you to prove it somehow. Not a single piece of genetic evidence, not a single piece of archaeological one... instead presumably unfriendly hominins with Mousterian lived there. <br /><br />"Why do you insist on a 'back migration' to SW Asia?"<br /><br />The centroid says quite unmistakably that N coalesced in or near SE Asia, so it must have back-migrated to the West. As most Western subclades are long-stemmed, this should pose no problem (there is time, marked in the phylogeny as notches). The exceptions are R and N1'5, which appear to have back-migrated via South Asia. <br /><br />That's why. <br /><br />"A 'long stem' does not automatically mean a 'long migration'". <br /><br />It does not preclude it either. In many cases they do correlate with quite clear long migrations in fact, in others maybe not. But in all cases something must have changed from a period when expansion was not possible (stem) to one when expansion did happen. Just staying put is not a way to change: either climate or geography (or both) changed and the easiest way to achieve that is via migration to a better land (but I don't say it is always the case, just quite common). <br /><br />...Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post-6660513761217234502011-12-22T23:11:23.287+01:002011-12-22T23:11:23.287+01:00At the site of our other prolonged argument you su...At the site of our other prolonged argument you suggested 'Burma, Cambodia...' as a possible site for N's coalescence. I said the that as far as I was aware no N was present in either place. Turns out I was wrong. N21 may have originated in Thailand/Cambodia. Until now I thought that N21 was Sumatran. You may find the following link interesting for other reasons as well: <br /><br />http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/27/10/2417.full#F2terrythttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17327062321100035888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post-64124579563960002162011-12-22T22:19:29.787+01:002011-12-22T22:19:29.787+01:00"Your 'diffuseness' hypothesis requir..."Your 'diffuseness' hypothesis requires massive culling everywhere all the same and not just loss to drift locally in harsh conditions". <br /><br />I don't see how you conclude that. In fact it is your hypothesis that 'requires massive culling everywhere all the same and not just loss to drift locally in harsh conditions' in the case of haplogroup N through India. Very difficult to come up with any possible explanation for such loss. <br /><br />"Because the migrations were 'private' and the stem-pruning drift happened locally before the expansion of the derived haplogroup". <br /><br />Yes. The drift happened locally, not during any migration to or from anywhere. <br /><br />"However I think that all long-stemmed lineages which show signs of notable expansion share one thing: they all expanded in frontier areas" <br /><br />Agreed. But they arrived at those frontier areas' as part of an earlier expansion from an earlier frontier area. They were prevented from immediate expansion by the same factors that had prevented their 'ancestor' haplogroup from further expansion. Their eventual expansion was made possible by changing climatic conditions or improved technology. Surely it is simple to understand. <br /><br />"often far away from their ancestors". <br /><br />I can't see how you can believe that at all. Surely their ancestors must have arrived at the point of the derived haplogroup's eventual departure. <br /><br />"it does work for all I can think of right now: M and N in relation with L3 and X, N2 and A in relation with N". <br /><br />I can see how if those four are the only haplogroups you've checked you could maintain that belief. But surely it is unlikely thay would be the only haplogroups that fit such a scenario. <br /><br />"we have excellent examples of haplogroups which must have migrated in the 'long stem' phase in M and N themselves". <br /><br />Those two haplogroups, along with A and N2, are the only possibilities. And they are only 'possibilities' because your pre-existing belief demands they must have done so. If they in fact did migrate 'in the long stem phase' they would be absolute exceptions. I found not a single example of any haplogroup having 'migrated in the 'long stem' phase ' in the list I provided. Perhaps you may be able to find some other examples that support your belief. I'm sure the only ones you can come up with are A, M, N and N2, the very ones that your pre-existing belief demands must have done so. And N2 is hardly a good example. N1'5 is nearby so N2 most probably arrived with it. <br /><br />It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that you use the 'long stem' explanation for those haplogroups because any other conclusion would fail to fit your pre-existing belief.terrythttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17327062321100035888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post-81822765828027316622011-12-22T22:18:50.369+01:002011-12-22T22:18:50.369+01:00"Man, it's been months, or rather years o..."Man, it's been months, or rather years of this endless discussion in circles, almost every day". <br /><br />Because you decided long ago what you wanted the data to reveal and you keep twisting your interpreatation to support that belief. You are not prepared to look at the raw data and interpret it in a consistent manner. <br /><br />"In any case, I have already wasted too much time here today". <br /><br />I'm still prepared to help you discard your stupid theories. <br /><br />"About 80% of our discussions are like that". <br /><br />I agree. As shown by this stupid comment: <br /><br />"I repeat: 'when more than one mutation exists in a stem' and 'maybe' (which is different from 'must' and is used to indicate uncertain territory)". <br /><br />How can you possibly insist that S arrived in Australia a little before O (with two mutations), in turn both had been there for some time before N13 (6 mutations) arrived, followed some time later by N14 (10 mutations). Doesn't make sense. Surely it's time for you to alter your hypothesis. <br /><br />"an explosion from a shared center after a 'private level' (small) migration". <br /><br />'Small migration'? From Africa to SE Asia? Come on now. <br /><br />"Do you want for N to migrate back to West Asia via Altai" <br /><br />Why do you insist on a 'back migration' to SW Asia? There is absolutely no evidence for such a migration, except in your imagination. A 'long stem' does not automatically mean a 'long migration'. In fact usually not, as all the examples of non-N haplogroups with long stems demonstrate. But you insist on claiming N as a special case. The reason being that it fails to fit your belief unless you claim it as such. <br /><br />"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". <br /><br />Exactly. And that's why I find it impossible to believe that either M or N moved very far from the other L3s before eventually being able to undergo their own independent expansions. <br /><br />"Not even you would claim they coalesced in Africa or that L3 was diffusely extended all the way to East before equally diffuse N and M (and R) could coalesce in geographies so indeterminate that seem to belong to quantum mechanics". <br /><br />I most certainly do not claim that either M or N coalesced anywhere in 'the East'. It is you who are claiming that. However it is obvious both haplogroups reached far to the east before their subclades coalesced, many undergoing secondary expansions of their own. And M and N almost certainly expanded eastward independently. Their distributions are quite different from each other. They did not expand together from some Paleolithic garden of Eden. <br /><br />"Where is all the L3* in Asia?" <br /><br />Surely even you accept that it became M and N. The long stems in both haplogroups indicates a period of drift, during which L3* became extinct in SW Asia.terrythttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17327062321100035888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post-84418669722050492792011-12-21T07:07:05.465+01:002011-12-21T07:07:05.465+01:00...
So the discussion is pointless and all what y......<br /><br />So the discussion is pointless and all what you say here is nagging self-contradictorily about nothing of substance. Example:<br /><br /><i>"Not as finished haplogroups but maybe as intermediate stages (when more than one mutation exists in a stem)".<br /><br />Ridiculous. S cannot have migrated as an intermediate stage</i>.<br /><br />I repeat: "when more than one mutation exists in a stem" and "maybe" (which is different from "must" and is used to indicate uncertain territory). <br /><br />About 80% of our discussions are like that. You must understand that I'm uninterested. <br /><br />"You are being deliberately stupid here".<br /><br />I'm tired of trying to unravel your logic behind every sentence of esoteric meaning. <br /><br />"I used all the M, N and R haplogroups with long tails".<br /><br />You should explain yourself better and that's why you probably want to write longer, more elaborate and better thought articles at your own blog.<br /><br />Anyhow, your insistence on the "tails" is pointless, we have excellent examples of haplogroups which must have migrated in the "long stem" phase in M and N themselves. Not even you would claim they coalesced in Africa or that L3 was diffusely extended all the way to East before equally diffuse N and M (and R) could coalesce in geographies so indeterminate that seem to belong to quantum mechanics.<br /><br />And yet you insist:<br /><br />"Surely the fact is that no haplogroup with a long tail can be shown to have moved anywhere from where its undifferentiated ancestor haplogroup arrived". <br /><br />Where is all the L3* in Asia? Either you are very wrong or you explain yourself extremely poorly. Or, most likely, both.<br /><br />Your "diffuseness" hypothesis requires massive culling everywhere all the same and not just loss to drift locally in harsh conditions. Why don't we have 20 or 200 lineages basally derived from L3 (or any other widespread macro-lineage)?<br /><br />Because the migrations were 'private' and the stem-pruning drift happened locally before the expansion of the derived haplogroup. Whether they traveled a lot or remaining static is rather pointless and in the second case we get stuff like R (in my model at least) or M4'67 but in the first case we get M and N themselves. <br /><br />However I think that all long-stemmed lineages which show signs of notable expansion share one thing: they all expanded in frontier areas, often far away from their ancestors. Not checked for every lineage but it does work for all I can think of right now: M and N in relation with L3 and X, N2 and A in relation with N. So they should have followed similar processes of migration-and-expansion (pre-node-post).<br /><br />In any case, I have already wasted too much time here today.Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post-37368326923936475442011-12-21T07:06:57.577+01:002011-12-21T07:06:57.577+01:00Man, it's been months, or rather years of this...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. <br /><br />...Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post-63925885113837145292011-12-21T01:40:41.601+01:002011-12-21T01:40:41.601+01:00"Write a book and leave me alone".
Yo..."Write a book and leave me alone". <br /><br />You have claimed to be interesated in studying our prehistory and I'm taking you at your word. I am trying to point out your faulty reasoning, but you are stunningly defensive. <br /><br />"Not as finished haplogroups but maybe as intermediate stages (when more than one mutation exists in a stem)". <br /><br />Ridiculous. S cannot have migrated as an intermediate stage. S is just one mutation from N. If S reached Australia as N it is almost a certainty that N13, N14 and O di so as well. You even have a post that claims as much: <br /><br />http://forwhattheywereweare.blogspot.com/2011/02/laotian-genetics-mtdna.html<br /><br />Quote: <br /><br />"the novel basal M haplogroups found in high diversity in the Laos sample and surrounding populations support the fast migration and in situ differentiation model" <br /><br />Do you really believe that an insitu model is applicable only to haplogroup M? <br /><br />"I have no idea why you are using M above: it has way too many haplogroups to consider as you do, listing just some (not too clear which is the criterion either)" <br /><br />You are being deliberately stupid here. At least I hope it's deliberate. I used all the M, N and R haplogroups with long tails. Surely you're not going to claim that what holds true for one haplogroup cannot possibly hold true for other two. Unless you've already decided what it is you wish to see and are wishing to use different criteria when considering the data. <br /><br />"And there is where you arrive after all that esoteric rambling: to a pointless fictitious conclusion about long-stemmed haplogroups". <br /><br />Fictitious? Surely the fact is that no haplogroup with a long tail can be shown to have moved anywhere from where its undifferentiated ancestor haplogroup arrived. <br /><br />In fact I have actually found several cases where members of the same haplogroup, or closely related haplogroups, are separated geographically. This is the situation you claim for M and N in relation to L3, and for the western N haplogroups. They are mostly M, with just one R: <br /><br />1) R14, in New Guinea and the Nicobar islands. A gap through SE Asia. <br /><br />2) M31, in the Andamans and Northeast India. A gap through Burma. <br /><br />3) M42'74, M42 in Australia and M74 in China. A gap through SE Asia. <br /><br />4) M32'56, M32 in the Andamans and M56 in Central India. <br /><br />Unfortunately no N haplogroups fall into this category and so presumably you going to indulge in your usual special pleading. But note that the gaps between the haplogroup branches all involve a water crossing, missing coastal regions and islands along any possible route. <br /><br />So there you have it: haplogroups can move quite long distances without leaving descendants along the way. But such journeys always involve crossing bodies of water, and you have claimed that expansion through islands is not comparable in any way with expansion over land.terrythttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17327062321100035888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post-8641642014909050882011-12-19T08:33:08.807+01:002011-12-19T08:33:08.807+01:00"But they migrated as undifferentiated N, not..."But they migrated as undifferentiated N, not individual haplogroups S, N1'5, N14"...<br /><br />Not as finished haplogroups but maybe as intermediate stages (when more than one mutation exists in a stem). We cannot say anything about N14 for sure, other than it looks a direct matrilineal distinct descendant of "granny N". You insist in our ignorance meaning anything: it does not.Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post-47398607424704875992011-12-19T08:23:01.376+01:002011-12-19T08:23:01.376+01:00I have no idea why you are using M above: it has w...I have no idea why you are using M above: it has way too many haplogroups to consider as you do, listing just some (not too clear which is the criterion either). Also the rambling is totally impossible to understand...<br /><br />"So, no M haplogroups with long tails moved very far from where their undifferentiated M ancestor dropped them off".<br /><br />And there is where you arrive after all that esoteric rambling: to a pointless fictitious conclusion about long-stemmed haplogroups.<br /><br />So then we should conclude that wherever N coalesced (even you agree it was in Asia), it was so because L3 dropped it there, right? <br /><br />I can't follow your "logic". Write a book and leave me alone.Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post-10377851701505053152011-12-19T02:49:37.031+01:002011-12-19T02:49:37.031+01:00So, with M and R we have precisely no haplogroups ...So, with M and R we have precisely no haplogroups that can be shown to have moved at all after their undifferentiated haplogroup ancestor dropped them off. <br /><br />"Yes they MUST. N was once a single woman and all those haplogroups are their matrilineal descendants: they MUST have migrated (through the generations) from where the N granny lived". <br /><br />But they migrated as undifferentiated N, not individual haplogroups S, N1'5, N14 etc.), no matter how incipiently formed. And we still have five N haplogroups to go: N8, N13, N14, N21 and A. The first is South China, where you claim the original N woman lived. So you'd agree that undifferentiated N was definitely present in the region. <br /><br />The next two are Australian. Undifferentiated N reached there because S diversified there just one mutation removed from undifferentiated N. N21 is from Sumatra. Can you seriously claim that undifferentiated N spread from South China to australia dropping no-one off along the way? and we can be sure that undifferentiated N reached SW Asia. We have N1'5 there, just one mutation from undifferentiated N. And N2, two mutations, and X, four mutations. <br /><br />"that dynasty of women migrated East well into Asia, maybe to the very shores of the Pacific Ocean, and then they migrated back". <br /><br />That is a most unlikely scenario. Surely there is absolutely no reason why X, along with N1'5 and N2, cannot each have been dropped off during undifferentiated N's expansion. <br /><br />That leaves just A. Isn't it a case of 'special pleading' to claim its presence needs a different explanatioj from that applicable to all the other haplogroups?terrythttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17327062321100035888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post-78947127570318387472011-12-19T02:49:04.450+01:002011-12-19T02:49:04.450+01:00"Make it coalesce after the migration or, mos..."Make it coalesce after the migration or, most likely, along the migration. The latter is the simplest logical solution" <br /><br />No it's not. <br /><br />"Don't change the context. Evidence has been 'erased' in every single case where a long stem exists: every unbranched mutation is evidence that was lost (probably to drift)". <br /><br />We seem to agree that a haplogroup will diversify rapidly when it enters a new environment or is able to exploit the old environment in a substantially new way. But the lost branches do not become lost while a haplogroup is migrating. If drift is that severe the haplogroup will become extinct. <br /><br />"Do you prefer an N-R origin in Burma? It's ok with me, in the Narmada valley? Fine too. In Cambodia? Less likely I'd say but I can concede". <br /><br />What we disagree on is whether any haplogroup able to participate in such an expansion had previously been able to move any distance at all from where a previous migration had dropped them off. <br /><br />"Because I made my homework in phylo-geometry, unlike you". <br /><br />As evidence in support of your own hypothesis you raise the examples of M, N and A. So let's examine this 'phylo-geometry'. To come to any sort of valid conclusion as to the normal state of affairs we need to look at all haplogrousp with tails of five or more mutations, not just at the above three: <br /><br />We have 9 M mt-DNAs in that situation: M10, M11, M41, M53, M15, M28, M76, M77 and M26. We can eliminate the the first four as having traveled anywhere outside the region that undifferentiated M had dropped them off in. All four are found in India, and we agree that the original M woman lived somewhere near the subcontinent. M15 and M28 are found in Australia and Melanesia respectively. because we have Q in New Guinea with one mutation from undifferentiated M, and M14 in australai with two we can be reasonably sure that undifferentiated M reached that region. The remaining M haplogroups with long tails are scattered between India and australia,: M76 and M77 in South China and M26 in Sumatra. So, no M haplogroups with long tails moved very far from where their undifferentiated M ancestor dropped them off. <br /><br />"I am not 'cherry-picking' R: R cherry-picks itself: it is anomalous and everybody knows that". <br /><br />It is only 'anomalous' for you. You cannot make it fit your belief. So what about R? We have seven approriate haplogroups with long tails: R1, R3, R7, R8, R14, R22 and R23. We can eliminate R1, R7 and R8. These haplogroups are found where you claim the original R woman appeared: India. Norhtwest of India we have just R3. As near as I can tell this haplogroup is found in Armenia. But it looks very much as though undifferentiated R managed to reach that region. The nearby R0 and R2'JT haplogroups are just one mutaion away from undifferentiated N. The remaining three R haplogroups with substantial tails are scattered from Indonesia to New Guinea. But again we have P, one mutation from undifferentiated R, in New Guinea, the Philippines and Australia. So no R haplogroups moved anywhere once their ancestor undifferentiated R dropped them off.terrythttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17327062321100035888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post-38133220358632307412011-12-18T07:12:23.651+01:002011-12-18T07:12:23.651+01:00...
"What I have difficulty with is the idea......<br /><br />"What I have difficulty with is the idea that [X] coalesced later [than "sister" haplogroups] and then moved all the way from SE Asia".<br /><br />Make it coalesce after the migration or, most likely, along the migration. The latter is the simplest logical solution: c. 5500 km make it an average of some 1400 km per mutational step (or 2000-5000 est. years). 1400 km is like migrating from Madrid to Paris every many many centuries or going from London to Edinburgh and back. It's no such a big deal, right? <br /><br />"How come there are no basal N haplogroups anywhere in India"...<br /><br />There are: N1'5, N2 and R. All them are documented in abundance and diversity in Palanichamy 2004. Only X is lacking among the Western lineages (M1 is also part of an Indian-based higher-tier lineage). You can build all your conjecture on the exceptionality of X or you can accept that it is just an exception and not any rule. <br /><br />"You certainly believe the evidence has been erased in India".<br /><br />Don't change the context. Evidence has been "erased" in every single case where a long stem exists: every unbranched mutation is evidence that was lost (probably to drift). <br /><br />"However you now have 8 haplogroups in SE Asia and further east (from the east: P, R22, R24, R23, R14, R12'21, B4'5, R11'b6 and R9), 6 in India (R6, R8, R7, R5, R30, R31, with a further 2, U and R2'JT, shared with SW Asia)"...<br /><br />I count: R3, R5, R6, R7, R8, R30, R31, plus several shared with West Asia: R1, R2'JT and U, i.e. all the Western R-derived haplogroups except R0. <br /><br />You make a distinction between West and South Asia anyhow that is quite misleading in any case. Both regions share a lot of genetics (in opposition to East Asia and Australasia) and both regions pull in the same Western direction when considering the phylo-geometry of macro-haplogroups like R. <br /><br />Time for you to get a ruler and make some geometry maybe? <br /><br />Whatever the case it's intuitively clear: 9 sublineages east of Assam, 11 lineages west of it, so the barycenter should fall to the west, even if only slightly. <br /><br />But I can't care much on whether the exact geographic origin of N and R falls west or east of Assam, that is not that important. You just like to split hairs and make issues of things that are mostly irrelevant and won't change anything regarding the big picture. Do you prefer an N-R origin in Burma? It's ok with me, in the Narmada valley? Fine too. In Cambodia? Less likely I'd say but I can concede. <br /><br />But you will never get to Altai or Palestine that way. And there's where you want to go and will never arrive, no matter how many hairs you split nor how much you move the N-R centroid between India and Cambodia.Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post-35763919056745137872011-12-18T07:12:16.064+01:002011-12-18T07:12:16.064+01:00"The women were immigrants to the region?&quo..."The women were immigrants to the region?"<br /><br />It'd seem so as Druze are extremely endogamous, not even normally mixing among themselves beyond the local community. I find the insistence on using Druze, and Palestine Druze in particular, rather disturbing and useless.<br /><br />"How come you are so certain of that?"<br /><br />Because I made my homework in phylo-geometry, unlike you. <br /><br />"And surely you can't cherry pick R"...<br /><br />I am not "cherry-picking" R: R cherry-picks itself: it is anomalous and everybody knows that. <br /><br />In any case, it is trivial, not affecting the calculations for the origin of N. R is treated in that context exactly like any other basal subclade, just like X or N14. <br /><br />... "and [pre-X] probably survived as a small remnant of the OoA somewhere in SW Asia".<br /><br />Just because you wish so? Nope. <br /><br />Before pre-X there was N and N was then not in West Asia but SE Asia or Bengal. That's the only "pre-X" we know anything about between L3 and fully formed X, so that dynasty of women migrated East well into Asia, maybe to the very shores of the Pacific Ocean, and then they migrated back. <br /><br />How exactly? Abducting flying saucers if you wish but that's the basics: <b>L3 > N > X</b> and <b>not</b> L3 > X > N. <br /><br />There are enough mutations between each of the known nodes (5 and 4) to have no reasonable doubt in this case about any overlapping of any sort. <br /><br />"But each of those haplogroups did not migrate singly from N's region of origin".<br /><br />Yes they MUST. N was once a single woman and all those haplogroups are their matrilineal descendants: they MUST have migrated (through the generations) from where the N granny lived. <br /><br />I don't care if they first accumulated the mutations and then migrated or if they first migrated and then mutated (or if, most likely, mutated on the march): they migrated from N's urheimat NECESSARILY.<br /><br />"West Asia must have come before Se Asia, unless they flew across India". <br /><br />Arabia only but that belongs to an early pre-N stage surely. Same for India: more advanced pre-N stage but still private until arrival to wherever the haplogroup coalesced (Bengal? Narmada? Burma? Cambodia? - depending on the correction we choose, which is indeed arguable). <br /><br />What you are claiming (or actually what you would be claiming if you could at least acknowledge the coastal route) is that the directional correction should be extreme, more than 1/2 of the L3-N raw distance. It would still fall in Arabia, so you have to decree it impossible and force the line via Egypt and Palestine, etc.<br /><br />I don't think that a directionality correction of more than 1/3 (Narmada) is acceptable in any case, much less with such a long stem as N has (5 mutations), which allows for so many events and travels... <br /><br />...Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post-21702282167585372572011-12-18T06:00:52.262+01:002011-12-18T06:00:52.262+01:00"Sadly the reference paper is PPV, so I can&#..."Sadly the reference paper is PPV, so I can't consider the data you mention but it should not make any big difference in any case (splitting hairs is not going to save your doctrine)". <br /><br />The data on A8 and A10 is basically from these papers, linked from Phylotree: <br /><br />http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2427195/<br /><br />Although I don't see any reference to either A8 or A10 it is given as a reference for thise haplogroups in Phylotree. Quote: <br /><br />"This study further confirms that (1) Alaska seems to be the ancestral homeland of haplogroup A2 originating in situ approximately 16.0 thousand years ago (kya)" <br /><br />Tending to confirm its movement into virgin territory at that time. <br /><br />And: <br /><br />http://malyarchuk-bor.narod2.ru/MBE_10.pdf<br /><br />Quote: <br /><br />"It was found that mitochondrial gene pool of the Volga Tatars consists of two parts, but western Eurasian component prevails considerably (84% on average) over eastern Asian one (16%). Eastern Asian mtDNAs detected in Tatars belonged to a heterogeneous set of haplogroups (A, C, D, G, M7, M10, N9a, Y, and Z), although only haplogroups A and D were revealed simultaneously in both populations". <br /><br />The Volga is a long way from Northeast Asia.terrythttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17327062321100035888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post-71634666209988915002011-12-18T04:52:10.107+01:002011-12-18T04:52:10.107+01:00Sorry for the following one-liners, but I can'...Sorry for the following one-liners, but I can't resist. <br /><br />"I can't believe you are using the Druze, a recently formed religious sect (1000 years according to their traditions: 'In 1017, Hamza officially revealed the Druze faith and began to preach the Unitarian doctrine')" <br /><br />The women were immigrants to the region? <br /><br />"X did coalesce in West Asia with all likelihood (by 'phylo-geometry') but that is not a signature of the OoA but a signature of the colonization of West Asia from further East" <br /><br />How come you are so certain of that? <br /><br />"where N coalesced". <br /><br />Again that is simply your belief. The data actually fails to support such a belief if you're prepared to look carefully, as I pointed out elsewhere. <br /><br />"You can't cherry-pick X. You MUST look at N as a whole if discussing the OoA". <br /><br />And surely you can't cherry pick R and alter your interpretation to fit what you want to believe. We will not arrive at the truth unless were use the same criteria consistently. 'X' may well be 'not older than 50 Ka' but pre-X is almost certainly older, and probably survived as a small remnant of the OoA somewhere in SW Asia. There is not the slightest evidence that any of its ancestors were ever in South Asia. <br /><br />"yet you insist in considering X the root of all N... somehow". <br /><br />Nonsense. I consider N the root of all N haplogroups. But each of those haplogroups did not migrate singly from N's region of origin. N expanded than the descendant haplogroups coalesced somewhere within the region they are now individually found. To me no other explanation makes the slightest sense. <br /><br />"Just because it fits with your preconception of West Asia coming first and not last". <br /><br />West Asia must have come before Se Asia, unless they flew across India. <br /><br />"You may of course want to ignore all sense of mutational timing for this purpose because only that way X can coalesce before S or N9 or..." <br /><br />I have no problem with 'X' coalescing later than several other N haplogroups. What I have difficulty with is the idea that it coalesced later and then moved all the way from SE Asia. <br /><br />"You also choose to ignore the geographic scatter and concentration and appeal to unproven conjectures (=desertization) to argue your point". <br /><br />It is you who are ignoring 'the geographic scatter' and appealing to 'unproven [and very unlikely] conjectures ... to argue your point'. How come there are no basal N haplogroups anywhere in India, yet no shortage of R haplogroups? Your explanation just doesn't make any sense. <br /><br />"we can't understand because all the evidence has been erased somehow..." <br /><br />You certainly believe the evidence has been erased in India. So what's the difference between the two of you? <br /><br />"R11'B6 is defined by a transition at 12950, but B4'5 is defined by a a multiple transition at 8281-8289d, while R24 has a longer sequence". <br /><br />Thanks for clearing that up. However you now have 8 haplogroups in SE Asia and further east (from the east: P, R22, R24, R23, R14, R12'21, B4'5, R11'b6 and R9), 6 in India (R6, R8, R7, R5, R30, R31, with a further 2, U and R2'JT, shared with SW Asia) and 3 in SW Asia (R1, R3 and R0). Time to rethink your hypothesis? <br /><br />"Regarding A, at most it would be pushed southwards a bit to the Beijing/Yellow River area" <br /><br />No. It would be pushed southwest. The haplogroup containing all A haplogroups except A5, A8 and A10 (your A1 and A2) looks to be a rapid expansion into a virgin region, so did not originate in that region. Much the same applies to A5, again an expansion into a virgin region, this time East and SE Asia.terrythttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17327062321100035888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post-81605725797461059962011-12-16T06:46:25.012+01:002011-12-16T06:46:25.012+01:00"I sent a reply to your comment regarding A b..."I sent a reply to your comment regarding A but it seems to have dissappeared". <br /><br />Probably that horrible Google spam filter that makes just random deletions without any method (I'm flippant it has not yet been removed/modified - it's about a year of useless annoyance now).<br /><br />It is in my mail, so I'll reply now and will make it appear as soon as I finish.<br /><br />...<br /><br />Regarding A, at most it would be pushed southwards a bit to the Beijing/Yellow River area, again nothing that fundamentally changes anything (move N9 a bit to the North, A a bit to the South, would that make you happy? No). Sadly the reference paper is PPV, so I can't consider the data you mention but it should not make any big difference in any case (splitting hairs is not going to save your doctrine).Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post-3920028637223610312011-12-16T06:36:10.348+01:002011-12-16T06:36:10.348+01:00I can't believe you are using the Druze, a rec...I can't believe you are using the Druze, a recently formed religious sect (1000 years according to their traditions: "In 1017, Hamza officially revealed the Druze faith and began to preach the Unitarian doctrine") as example of anything. It is true that X probably coalesced in West Asia but that the two lineages are found in modern Druzes has nothing to do with it (specially as a branch is original from Egypt, according to their own traditions, what may explain the X1). Besides, most Druzes live in Lebanon, not Palestine. <br /><br />Regardless: X did coalesce in West Asia with all likelihood (by "phylo-geometry") but that is not a signature of the OoA but a signature of the colonization of West Asia from further East, where N coalesced. This means that X (as well as the other West Eurasian lineages) is probably not older than 50 Ka, because we have no evidence of AMH colonization of this area before c. 48 Ka BP (besides of the Skhul/Qahfez exception, too old and too "African" to be N or M).<br /><br />You can't cherry-pick X. You MUST look at N as a whole if discussing the OoA. When you understand N, you will understand X as 1/15 of it (and nothing more). <br /><br />Otherwise it's like the proverbial blind man who grabs the trunk of the elephant and claims it is a snake... you must understand the whole elephant N, not just a small part. <br /><br />"On the other hand it does seem possible that Y-DNA G and IJ may be from inland Anatolia".<br /><br />No. G and IJ are F-derived, so they are back-migrations from South Asia. Again, you must consider the whole elephant, F in this case, and not cherry-pick its parts. <br /><br />"Except when considering R11'B6/[B]4'5. Where you obstinately include [the control region mutations]". <br /><br />I do not: I consider each haplogroup here as a separate entity. Why do you even insist, when it's so obviously false?<br /><br />"I'm not even considering the clock, just phylogeny".<br /><br />I'm not even sure what you are considering. Obviously N does not descend from X but the other way around, yet you insist in considering X the root of all N... somehow. Just because it fits with your preconception of West Asia coming first and not last.<br /><br />You may of course want to ignore all sense of mutational timing for this purpose because only that way X can coalesce before S or N9 or...<br /><br />But that's pseudoscience.<br /><br />You also choose to ignore the geographic scatter and concentration and appeal to unproven conjectures (=desertization) to argue your point. In fact it's the kind of argument that someone we know would use to defend the origin of humankind in America: we can't understand because all the evidence has been erased somehow... you know. XD<br /><br />"If you're going to be consistent and exclude control region mutations you have no mutation between basal R and R11'B6, R4'5 and R24".<br /><br />You are not that dumb that you don't understand that I consider for all statistical purposes these three haplogroups as different, are you? R11'B6 is defined by a transition at 12950, but B4'5 is defined by a a multiple transition at 8281-8289d, while R24 has a longer sequence.<br /><br />So R11'B6 and B4'5 are in the "one mutation" or "elder" category (under R) and are represented as such in map 3. <br /><br />You are being trollish with this issue, because it is clear and is not important at all (unless you can argue that the ignored HVS-I mutations have any importance, what I'm sure you can't). <br /><br />"But N almost certainly coalesced in the region where pre-N was found".<br /><br />There is no pre-N because we are not our ancestors, we can't know where pre-N was anymore. We can infer however where "finished" N coalesced with some certainty, using as reference its descendants (and for the correction also its ancestor L3). And that is what I do in this entry.Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.com