tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post7978877187370931733..comments2024-03-09T15:46:44.638+01:00Comments on For what they were... we are: Explaining 'Denisovan' and also 'Neanderthal' admixture: the simplest scenarioMajuhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comBlogger110125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post-12293638764823198042013-11-24T08:17:16.439+01:002013-11-24T08:17:16.439+01:00Probably the most important issue in your quite co...Probably the most important issue in your quite complex question is understanding the issue of pigmentation in humans. Originally we were all "black" because our origin in Tropical Africa requires that we protect not just our skin but possibly other stuff inside it (keeping folate, vit. B9, in good shape under the UV rays' "aggression" has been proposed as yet another reason for dark skin, which is anyhow common among our closest non-human relatives). But our skin also performs another crucial role: synthesizing vitamin D, which is not just essential for bone development but may most importantly for BRAIN development, especially in childhood. <br /><br />The only alternative source of vitamin D are fish and that was not always available to our ancestors. So, when people began moving outside the tropics, they needed to lighten their skin in order to keep their young healthier (and therefore fitter). We can already see some of that even among Bushmen (San) who have lived for more than 100,000 years in subtropical areas of Africa but the really dramatic change began when people moved into Central and Northern China (what began some 100 Ka ago as well) and later when other group of people began colonizing West and Central Eurasia (since >50 Ka ago). Both groups decreased their levels of pigmentation, sometimes quite dramatically, although they did in a differential manner (each population followed their own adaptive path to "whiteness"). <br /><br />So the ancestors of the Japanese, Ainu, Tibetans (etcetera, it's not just about hg D) were subject to increased adaptive pressure to lose pigmentation. The same happened later (but with an even more dramatic effect at the extreme) in Western Eurasia. Both populations were subject to very intense evolutive pressures to lose or at the very least loosen their originally "black" (brown) pigmentation. The Andamanese, who remained in the Tropics, did not suffer that pressure instead (but the opposite if anything), so they retain the dark color. <br /><br />We must understand that the color of skin is, in humans, the trait that has suffered the greatest evolutionary pressure by far: survival and health of the new generations (adults are relatively impervious) was at the stake. We must also understand that there are dozens of millennia of evolution behind it and that there are at least two different evolutionary paths to lighter skin colors (oriental and occidental), with different mutations implicated (but producing similar results: convergent evolution). <br /><br />If you are interesting in more details, I'd suggest to look at the categories "pigmentation" and "vitamin D" in this blog and its predecessor:<br /><br />→ http://leherensuge.blogspot.com/search/label/human%20pigmentation<br />→ http://leherensuge.blogspot.com/search/label/vitamin%20D<br />→ http://forwhattheywereweare.blogspot.com/search/label/pigmentation<br />Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post-70970496217744360252013-11-24T07:52:24.265+01:002013-11-24T07:52:24.265+01:00Pigmentation is NOT related to patrilineages. Peop...Pigmentation is NOT related to patrilineages. People in Tropical Africa and Europe share patrilineages like R1b or E1b and they show no particular resemblance, certainly not in pigmentation. <br /><br />One reason is that DNA overall comes from many ancestors and NOT only the father. In fact, the further back you go in time the less that the patrilineage can explain in terms of personal ancestry. In a couple of centuries or so the proportion of ancestry related to the Y-DNA becomes less than 1%: truly irrelevant. <br /><br />So maybe I had a blacksmith patrilineal ancestor 180 years ago when the Carlist Wars but of all his DNA I only retain a 2% or so (roughly the same as from Neanderthals). The alleged 18th century corsair that family tradition tells of as an even older patrilineal ancestor only gave me <1% DNA. <br /><br />Of course there is an statistical "redundancy" effect within populations, so the DNA inside such groups is slightly more similar than when compared to outside groups but, even that it's pretty much irrelevant because most of the variance is at individual level and NOT among groups, not even among "continental" groups or "races". <br /><br />Even the most endogamous group keeps a lot of internal diversity and even the most distant humans are pretty much the same thing. <br /><br />These macro-lineages only indicate a common patrilineal ancestor many many millennia ago, maybe 20-30,000 years (or whatever) for the Euro-African example very possibly a much greater figure for your haplogroup D example (not less than 60 Ka IMO, probably more). Notice that Y-DNA D is not an "Ainu" trait but actually an all Japanese trait, and also an all Tibetan one (the lineage seems to come from the near-Tibet area, maybe Yunnan). Half Japanese (who would never consider themselves to be Ainu) carry lineage D, a similar frequency happens with Tibetans (but different subclades).<br /><br />(continues with the issue of phenotypes)Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post-52023142652561593562013-11-23T16:16:39.410+01:002013-11-23T16:16:39.410+01:00"So the ancestors of Melanesians and other ve..."So the ancestors of Melanesians and other very dark tropical Asians have definitively not lived in Siberia at any time. Besides, it is totally non-parsimonious in what regards to modern human mtDNA and Y-DNA spread, the tropical route is much more logical and natural."<br /><br />How can you explain why majority of Ainu of Siberia and some Japanese and Ryukyuans (due to Siberian Jomon admixture) share Y-DNA haplogroup D (also shared by Andamanese people, who are australoid) on the paternal side, but common siberian haplogroups on the mother side ? Is it possible that partly depigmented australoids reached Japanese archipelago and, furthermore, siberia ? gummibear03https://www.blogger.com/profile/05569417401282568853noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post-22184711952019595892013-11-23T16:11:52.484+01:002013-11-23T16:11:52.484+01:00"So the ancestors of Melanesians and other ve..."So the ancestors of Melanesians and other very dark tropical Asians have definitively not lived in Siberia at any time. Besides, it is totally non-parsimonious in what regards to modern human mtDNA and Y-DNA spread, the tropical route is much more logical and natural."<br />=> How do you explain why majoritary of Ainu, an ethnic group of Siberia, as well as Japanese and Ryukyans, belong to the andamanese haplogroup D ? gummibear03https://www.blogger.com/profile/05569417401282568853noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post-38742163139155475792011-11-16T09:34:36.289+01:002011-11-16T09:34:36.289+01:00Anton: that is not what we get from mtDNA nor from...Anton: that is not what we get from mtDNA nor from archaeology as far as I know (unless you talk of H. erectus senso lato and not senso stricto). <br /><br />Archaeology supports a second Out-of-Africa wave after that of Georgicus/Erectus with Olduwayan: one of H. ergaster with Acheulean. There is some consensus, at least in Spain, around this: Neanderthal appears to have evolved from this second OoA. No other clear OoA happened until that of H. sapiens, which would be the third one of the genus Homo. <br /><br />Neanderthal autosomal genetics does not seem to support any strong admixture with third species. In fact, depending on whom you read, the divergence between our sibling species would have happened even much later than the c. million years required with the "Atapuerca model" (just made up the name). This other model is either based on some peculiar anthropometric interpretations (Trinkaus) or some slippery DNA 'molecular clock' hunches with a clearly wrong Homo-Pan divergence age (Paabo, Green, etc.) I disregard these models because of obvious inconsistencies but still they evidence that there is NO support for Neanderthal showing any marked hybridization with any third species like H. erectus. This, if anything, would have placed them further from us in the reconstructed (ML, NJ) phylogeny.<br /><br />The only ex-nihilo ('out of the blue' for those who know no Latin) creation here is "Denisovan". Before these DNA findings there was no any such hominin taxon. So attempting to fit them within the known ones only makes total sense.<br /><br />...<br /><br />As for Inuits, they do not have anything like Tropical (black) pigmentation. They have very typical East Asian depigmented skins. East Asian depigmentation patterns are genetically and phenotypically different from those of West Eurasians and are comparatively ill understood... but they are not black in any case. <br /><br />This loss of pigmentation is even more obvious in Tropical Native Americans, who have not been able in many thousand years to regain anything like the Tropical dark skin we find in the Old World Tropics. <br /><br />Still the pattern of depigmentation is not just driven by latitude but also by two other quite factors: (1) cloudiness (clearly a major factor in West Europe) and (2) population density (again a major factor in Europe: no other region worldwide is so northernly warm, except a narrow coastal strip in NW America).Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post-85508373642976627652011-11-16T04:32:57.199+01:002011-11-16T04:32:57.199+01:00Nothing else does. Hence the Denisovan mtDNA, foun...<b>Nothing else does. Hence the Denisovan mtDNA, found in two different individuals (a finger and a tooth actually) must be that of Asian H. erectus.<br /><br />However the Denisovan nuclear DNA is not so distant from Neanderthals. What does it mean?</b><br /><br />That H. neanderthalensis is just an European variation of H. erectus.<br /><br />It's impressive how in these discussion there's always this "essentialist" typology ghost, a somewhat unconscious assumption of a nearly ex-nihilo creation of these types.<br /><br /><br /><br /><b>if the ancestors of these peoples would have been in Siberia for any extended period, they would have lost their tropical pigmentation for sure because otherwise they would not be getting enough vitamin D and their children would be extremely unfit for that reason (retarded, schizophrenic, rickety, etc.)</b><br /><br />Ummm. This fact does not support the hypothetical existence of eskimos. All theories that assume the existence of eskimos must be reviewed. Or perhaps these theories on eskimo existence may be saved by the ad hoc assumption that they would be all retarded or very unfit, if they exist at all.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post-40568759892640214692011-05-23T06:43:38.624+02:002011-05-23T06:43:38.624+02:00Indeed, Adriá. We still have to know with more det...Indeed, Adriá. We still have to know with more detail how Neanderthal genes are distributed through humankind. Only a few individuals have been compared in fact. <br /><br />But I guess that we can think that there was a lot of founder effects and some drift too in all this, so some variance is just naturally random.<br /><br />...<br /><br />I think that the persistence of dark ("black") skin colors in several tropical populations is only natural. What it would support is my idea that they did not directly mix with "Denisovans" (living in Siberia, they would have need to achieve whiter skin, and, once achieved, it's not easy to regain black color, as Native Americans demonstrate) but with a tropical relative, possibly H. erectus soloensis.Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post-64456156313772617482011-05-22T23:44:44.210+02:002011-05-22T23:44:44.210+02:00Ooke! Great! Thanks for all the information! I did...Ooke! Great! Thanks for all the information! I didn't know about B006! If it was neanderthal it's a paradox that karitiana had such a small amount of archaic DNA! <br /><br />I was thinking today that if "denisovians" ( H. erecrus soloensis) was living in the tropic for a long time sure they had pigmented skin, maybe melanesians could get that fenotyp from the hybridization! In this way the coastal migration wouldn't be necessary!!!<br /><br />But I guess that if that was the reason we could see it in the skin color haplotyps ( if they were diferent from the african ones). Moreover now I'm thinking that in India also there is very dark people!Adriàhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07391708736934920316noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post-82575776057051197142011-05-21T15:28:58.189+02:002011-05-21T15:28:58.189+02:00...
"If I remember well your point was that ......<br /><br />"If I remember well your point was that the cultural barrier was the most important barrier to hybridization, so what made the difference with the indian hominids?"<br /><br />Not exact, I'd say. It is living together or not. If there are no "multi-species" communities of some sort, hybridization can hardly happen in amounts that we might notice. Unless it happened accidentally (random encounter) when the population was extremely low (80 effective unmixed people: 1 effective 50% hybrid). <br /><br />I suspect that these tiny numbers are not sustainable, that the Eurasian population must have been at all times at least several hundreds, what means more than just one initial hybrid. So we need a better scenario that accounts for that. <br /><br />"If the sunda land was emerged for longer how could be different populations between the continent and the Sunda "peninsula"?"<br /><br />I don't think this is a problem: even today we have different populations: there are no residual Negritos North of the Kraa isthmus, even if the isthmus was a lot thicker in the past. Indochina and Sundaland were surely distinct provinces to some extent, enough to allow for a window of differentiation. <br /><br />However the admixture may have happened even farther East, in Flores or elsewhere in Wallacea... We do not know enough to say with any certainty. <br /><br />"About the Karitiana people, I don't understand which is the matter. I thinky is likely a random factor"...<br /><br />Probably it is but I want to know more anyhow: I want more and more genomes compared with Neanderthals and Denisovans so we can know better if there are regional or individual differences and how do they scatter. Native Americans anyhow have the largest levels of <a rel="nofollow">X-DNA haplotype B006</a> which has very good chances of being Neanderthal. So it must be some other kind of randomness surely.Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post-41162332597416455992011-05-21T15:28:50.006+02:002011-05-21T15:28:50.006+02:00I'm not saying that anything must have happene...I'm not saying that anything must have happened the way I suggest here. It is just an speculation: an alternative model to the simplistic Neanderthal/Denisova inflows taken senso stricto. What I'm saying is that they might be just proxies for relatives, that we need to open our minds in that aspect. <br /><br />"... how do you explain that there was an interbreeding in south asia with neanderthal close relatives but there wasn't more in the middle east, in Europe or in the reast of Asia"...<br /><br />According to the "coastal" (Tropical, not strictly coastal but near the Indian Ocean anyhow) migration model, the first destination of the proto-Eurasian branch of Humankind was Arabia (arid) and then South Asia, where they began expanding. It fits best with the mtDNA, though there's always someone who reads it differently. <br /><br />This model also fits well with the most recent archaeological findings (<a href="http://www.scribd.com/doc/31573883/Out-of-Africa-to-India-1" rel="nofollow">Petraglia 2010</a>, etc.), which would place the migration c. 90 Ka (or even as early as c. 125 Ka per Armitage 2011)<br /><br />So I just tried to fit the new genetic admixture knowledge with the overall expansion paradigm. <br /><br />West Eurasia excepting the habitable parts of Arabia/Persian Gulf) were only colonized later, c. 48 Ka. onwards, from South Asia (though some lineages may have reached as far as SE Asia and "bounced" back there). <br /><br />There were no Neanderthals in East Asia nor South Asia, not even West and Central Asia before some date probably - a date that is maybe later than the crossing of proto-Eurasian H. sapiens through the area. We know that there was a big-headed hominin (Hathnora) in South Asia, which IMO was a close relative of Neanderthals but not quite (no Mousterian). We know that there were H. erectus in East Asia and that at least in Java they lasted until our species passed by. <br /><br />So it's just joining the dots, I'd say, with an open mind. I have proposed other simpler (and more strictly "Neanderthal") models earlier but the Denisova finding forced me to think beyond that simple scheme of admixture in a West Asia that was for our ancestors little more than a corridor they crossed in fast pace (and where there might not even have been Neanderthals in that time yet anyhow). <br /><br />This is option B. Whatever one may think about Hathnora, I'm 100% sure that proto-Melanesians did not admix with Denisovans in Altai. That's obvious when you look at their skin color (there are other reasons but that one is striking): because living in Altai or similarly high latitudes for many generations demands either vitamin supplements or a biological adaption (light skin) that once happens does not go back (see how Native Americans have never recovered the "black" skin color and remain just more or less "brown" or even white-ish in many cases). <br /><br />So they must have got that admixture in the Tropics and one possible interpretation is H. erectus soloensis in Sundaland, where they must have been living in their way to Papua and the smaller Melanesian islands. <br /><br />...Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post-42471113609398462692011-05-21T11:09:45.459+02:002011-05-21T11:09:45.459+02:00Hi Maju,
Congratulations! And excuse me if I didn...Hi Maju,<br /><br />Congratulations! And excuse me if I didn't read all the comments ( I have problems to move the cursor, it drives me crazy), but I have some questions.<br /><br />First I'd like to ask you how do you explain that there was an interbreeding in south asia with neanderthal close relatives but there wasn't more in the middle east, in Europe or in the reast of Asia. If I remember well your point was that the cultural barrier was the most important barrier to hybridization, so what made the difference with the indian hominids? <br /><br />And about the population of Homo erectus soloensis, is it possible that the population was isolated in Java when the first hybridizations happened in south Asia and the land bridge didn't appeared again until the time of the Melanasians ancestors? If the sunda land was emerged for longer how could be different populations between the continent and the Sunda "peninsula"?<br /><br />About the Karitiana people, I don't understand which is the matter. I thinky is likely a random factor, I red somewhere that probably America was colonized by an small group of people. Such an small group could have had randomly and specially low level of Neanderthal DNA. You speak about the karitiana because is the only native group of america studied or because they have a different frequency in respect to other groups?Adriàhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07391708736934920316noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post-4892441847550336802011-01-23T07:55:13.344+01:002011-01-23T07:55:13.344+01:00"Tribals, because of their low numbers, are p..."Tribals, because of their low numbers, are particularly prone to stochastic drift effects, so their frequencies can well be product of a recent accident". <br /><br />True, but we have to narrow down the search somehow. The Chandrasekar paper is entitled 'Updating Phylogeny of Mitochondrial DNA Macrohaplogroup M in India: Dispersal of Modern Human in South Asian Corridor' after all. So the authors must have considered the excercise useful for elucidating that problem. <br /><br />"we'd need clear understanding of the phylogenetic structure, as happens in other cases". <br /><br />Which we largely have for M, although I'm sure that not all basal connections have been uncovered yet. I'd hazard a guess at this stage and say scientists will discover a split between M1'51 and the rest. Then a two-way split between the Central Indian and East Asian/Northeast Indian haplogroups, with the offshore haplogroups being part of the latter grouping. <br /><br />"In the papers where tribals have been compared with other peoples, they often do not share frequencies and geography at all" <br /><br />But so to a very limited extent in the Chandrsekar paper. Several haplogroups were present in just one of the tribals. M64 in the Nihal, M63 in the Madia (both tribes from Central India), M10 in the Gallong of NE India although the haplogroup is basically East Asia so that's no surprise. Two other haplogroups that a subclades of wider groups are M62 (part of M40'62) found only in the Dirang of Assam and M56 (part of M32'56) found only in the Korku of Central India. Seven haplogroups were observed in just two, usually neighbouring, tribes and a further nine haplogroups were observed in three tribes, again usually from the same or neighbouring regions. <br /><br />"I'd say Bengal and Bihar probably have some diversity of their own. Certainly Bengal looked important in the case of M6 (but along the SE and Kashmir)". <br /><br />I agree that M6 is widespread so it's difficult to come to definite conclusions. However the only haplogroups I can see that may have originated in the Bengal/Bihar/Orissa region are M41and M53, and possibly the M4''64-derived haplogroup M18'38. In all three cases the evidence is weak and they are more likely to have entered the region from outside it. I'll send you my up-dated version of haplogroup distribution if you're interested.terrythttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17327062321100035888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post-86227958034120802412011-01-22T06:18:52.839+01:002011-01-22T06:18:52.839+01:00I disagree that tribals are at all more informativ...I disagree that tribals are at all more informative than common people. <br /><br />And I disagree that mere frequencies can help untangle that structure: we'd need clear understanding of the phylogenetic structure, as happens in other cases. <br /><br />Tribals, because of their low numbers, are particularly prone to stochastic drift effects, so their frequencies can well be product of a recent accident. <br /><br />In the papers where tribals have been compared with other peoples, they often do not share frequencies and geography at all, suggesting either recent migrations by the tribals (often seminomadic) or similarly recent stochastic alterations in their genetic makeup. <br /><br />"You wouldn't come to the conclusions you suggest because other evidence argues against those conclusions".<br /><br />Exactly as in India. <br /><br />"But very few (if any) haplogroups seem indigenous to those states"...<br /><br />I'd say Bengal and Bihar probably have some diversity of their own. Certainly Bengal looked important in the case of M6 (but along the SE and Kashmir).Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post-41872372097240272852011-01-21T22:53:25.009+01:002011-01-21T22:53:25.009+01:00"I could never manage to get clear regional d..."I could never manage to get clear regional differences (I wish it'd be so easy). Most lineages are fairly scattered through the continent". <br /><br />That's why it's necessary to start with the tribals. They are less likely to be heavily influenced by those lineages scattered across the continent. Presumably that's why Chandrasekar et. al. chose tribals for their study. <br /><br />"you miss some of this reality of great homogeneity through the subcontinent - with some differences but differences of detail and degree not at all the absolute stuff you want to make up". <br /><br />But surely that homogeneity is a product of later mixing. From the Paper: <br /><br />"The current Indian mtDNA gene pool was shaped by the initial settlers and was galvanized by minor events of gene flow from the east and west to the restricted zones". <br /><br />To understand the migration route(s) through India it is necessary to untangle that homogeneity. besides which the authors mention that: <br /><br />"Northeast Indian mtDNA pool harbors region specific lineages, other Indian lineages and East Asian lineages'. <br /><br />So it's not as homogenous as you claim. <br /><br />"It's like if you'd looked at European 'tribals' and decided: H is Basque, V is Saami, U5 is (say) Bashkir". <br /><br />But even those tribals do help expose the migration patterns into Europe. You wouldn't come to the conclusions you suggest because other evidence argues against those conclusions. The same as the Indian tribals do not provide the sole evidence for my conclusions. It's just that, for some reason, you seem very afraid of what those conclusions about South and SE Asia are saying. <br /><br />OK. Extract West Bengal, Bihar and Orissa from Northeast India then. The conclusion will be much the same. Tribals in those states are a mixture of the Northeast Indian haplogroups and the Central ones anyway. <br /><br />"Bengal and Orissa are within 'East India', along with Bihar and Jharkhand". <br /><br />The solution is simple. I'll make a fifth category. But very few (if any) haplogroups seem indigenous to those states, so it seems a bit pointless to do so.terrythttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17327062321100035888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post-25496693409748114812011-01-21T07:36:37.726+01:002011-01-21T07:36:37.726+01:00"What I'm trying to do, and you seem very..."What I'm trying to do, and you seem very afraid of the possible result for some reason, is to narrow down the various regions within India where the individual M haplogroups coalesced".<br /><br />You are not using the proper population samples: only tribals.<br /><br />"You seem bent on lumping all the Indian haplogroup Ms into one huge region: India".<br /><br />I could never manage to get clear regional differences (I wish it'd be so easy). Most lineages are fairly scattered through the continent. By only looking at one paper on tribals you miss some of this reality of great homogeneity through the subcontinent - with some differences but differences of detail and degree not at all the absolute stuff you want to make up. <br /><br />It's like if you'd looked at European "tribals" and decided: H is Basque, V is Saami, U5 is (say) Bashkir. Well, you'd just got everything messed up. For example, V is most likely from SW Europe and certainly not original from the Saami. H surely spread from Central Europe instead, as probably did U5...<br /><br />"(1) Northeast India as far west as Bihar and Orissa"<br /><br />That's not standard at all. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North-East_India" rel="nofollow">NE India</a> is always said to the states east of Bengal and only them. The Bengal/NEI distinction is very very marked in the ethnological aspect so please keep the usual NEI distinction, thanks. <br /><br />Bengal and Orissa are within "<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_India" rel="nofollow">East India</a>", along with Bihar and Jharkhand. <br /><br />The other standard regions are <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_India" rel="nofollow">North</a> (North and North-Central), <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_India" rel="nofollow">West</a> and <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_India" rel="nofollow">South</a>.Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post-11335722925382451322011-01-21T05:17:33.093+01:002011-01-21T05:17:33.093+01:00"They are both the same historical country: B..."They are both the same historical country: Bengal and they speak the same language: Bengali. I would not expect major differences between both provinces" <br /><br />Exactly. They are both well within the northeastern quarter of the Indian subcontinent. <br /><br />"they are in what I and everyone calls South Asia. SEA begins East of Bengal". <br /><br />Of course SE Asia begins east of Bengal. In fact east of Assam. I've certainly never claimed otherwise although you seem unable to discern the difference between NE India and SE Asia. <br /><br />"No, because these AA peoples have South Asian mtDNA lineages, we have discussed that above. They are not even in NE India anyhow but West of Bengal". <br /><br />What I'm trying to do, and you seem very afraid of the possible result for some reason, is to narrow down the various regions within India where the individual M haplogroups coalesced. You seem bent on lumping all the Indian haplogroup Ms into one huge region: India. Is that to avoid considering the consequences of regional variation? <br /><br />"East India as in Orissa or Bengal maybe but not as in NE India or Assam, right?" <br /><br />OK. India seems to divide easily into the following regions: (1) Northeast India as far west as Bihar and Orissa, (2) Central India including Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra and Uttar Pradesh, (3) South India including Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka, Kerala and Tamil Nadu, (4) Northwest India and Pakistan including Gujarat, Rajastan, Punjab and Sindh. Try sorting the M haplogroups into those regions. They separate relatively distinctly. <br /><br />"Shit, I forgot the link!" <br /><br />And some interesting comments in that link: <br /><br />"Our recent study on Andaman and Nicobar islanders identified two more mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) lineage groups, M31 and M32, present in Andaman islanders and absent in 6500 samples from the Indian subcontinent" <br /><br />Of course connections to the India subcontinent have been since found for both haplogroups. <br /><br />"This is still consistent with the ancient isolation of these gene pools, albeit not as early as the initial phase of human migration out of Africa". <br /><br />But they admit that 'the settlement of the Andaman islanders by a population carrying M31 and M32 founders could have happened any time after the out-of-Africa migration of modern humans'. It's just that they seem desperate to hang onto the rapid southern coastal migration theory. There is certainly no reason to believe M reached the Andamans before it had reached Melanesia.terrythttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17327062321100035888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post-40829958161760038252011-01-20T06:23:13.812+01:002011-01-20T06:23:13.812+01:00"You certainly give the impression of believi..."You certainly give the impression of believing there are two centres of M haplogroups (South Asian and East Asian) with nothing in between".<br /><br />Your impression is wrong. I'm just trying to quantify what is SA and what EA and what is truly "intermediate" with some solid criterion and logical methodology. <br /><br />"Have you seen those 'hills' of the borderland region? 'Mountains' would be a better description. And steep ones at that".<br /><br />Humans are climbers and certainly hikers, unlike elephants. That's not more complicated that highland New Guine, for where there is evidence of habitation since 50 Ka. ago. <br /><br />The Hymalaya is a barrier not because of steepness but because of extreme alpine climate.<br /><br />Anyhow, if the mountains are barriers (what they are not, not in any absolute sense), then only the coastal route would remain. So can you make up your mind. <br /><br />For your reference: <a href="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ef/Burma_topo_en.jpg" rel="nofollow">orography of Burma</a>.<br /><br />"And the evidence is fairly overwhelming that the Ganges Delta (and the hills to the east) was a 'choking point' for the expansion of the M clade".<br /><br />That I do not see clear. The choking point does not seem to have worked well until population densities grew. <br /><br />"West Bengal is very close to Bangla Desh".<br /><br />They are both the same historical country: Bengal and they speak the same language: Bengali. I would not expect major differences between both provinces, they are in what I and everyone calls South Asia. SEA begins East of Bengal.<br /><br />Shit, I forgot <a href="http://www.sciencemag.org/content/311/5760/470.2.full" rel="nofollow">the link</a>! <br /><br />"And, in the Chandraseker paper, M31 is only listed as being present in the Munda of neighbouring Bihar and in the Pauri Bhuiya of Orissa".<br /><br />No, because these AA peoples have South Asian mtDNA lineages, we have discussed that above. They are not even in NE India anyhow but West of Bengal. <br /><br />"So it's eastern presence in India probably indicates an east Indian origin".<br /><br />East India as in Orissa or Bengal maybe but not as in NE India or Assam, right?Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post-27798949527558367262011-01-19T22:49:45.730+01:002011-01-19T22:49:45.730+01:00"Where do I say that. All I say is that we mu..."Where do I say that. All I say is that we must be careful and strict in our discernment". <br /><br />You certainly give the impression of believing there are two centres of M haplogroups (South Asian and East Asian) with nothing in between. <br /><br />"The Himalaya is a barrier, Wallace line is a barrier, the Sahara is a barrier... but some hills are not at all" <br /><br />Have you seen those 'hills' of the borderland region? 'Mountains' would be a better description. And steep ones at that. <br /><br />"This is not because of absolute barriers but rather because of choking points at the Ganges Delta and Altai". <br /><br />And the evidence is fairly overwhelming that the Ganges Delta (and the hills to the east) was a 'choking point' for the expansion of the M clade. <br /><br />"Such a rich mixed alluvial swampland may have hosted lots of people since the beginning". <br /><br />I doubt that very much. It's only once the vegetation had been cleared for agriculture that it would have been very useful as human habitat. <br /><br />"West Bengal, see here". <br /><br />West Bengal is very close to Bangla Desh, the Ganges/Brahmaputra Delta. And, in the Chandraseker paper, M31 is only listed as being present in the Munda of neighbouring Bihar and in the Pauri Bhuiya of Orissa. So it's eastern presence in India probably indicates an east Indian origin.terrythttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17327062321100035888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post-44039658687642707492011-01-19T07:40:29.380+01:002011-01-19T07:40:29.380+01:00"Do you really believe that there were two co..."Do you really believe that there were two completely separate populations of haplogroup M: South and East Asian?"<br /><br />Where do I say that. All I say is that we must be careful and strict in our discernment. <br /><br />"Hills and jungle are no barrier?"<br /><br />They are not. You admitted so once at least but I have always said so. The Himalaya is a barrier, Wallace line is a barrier, the Sahara is a barrier... but some hills are not at all: they are inhabitable and transitable country for our species.<br /><br />"The Movius Line shows"...<br /><br />That "line" is a construct, not any evidence in itself. Please!<br /><br />It indicates that the West/South and East regions of Eurasia are relatively distinct, what is self-obvious. This is not because of absolute barriers but rather because of choking points at the Ganges Delta and Altai. <br /><br />"with the development of agriculture Bangla Desh has become one of the most densely populated regions in the world".<br /><br />It does not mean it was not earlier also. Such a rich mixed alluvial swampland may have hosted lots of people since the beginning. It's much like your dreamland Wallacea: islands and waterbodies of all kinds, but less extremely challenging for crossings, much less. <br /><br />"It's hardly 'arbitrarily' Maju. Do your own research".<br /><br />I will, I'm on it. But do not expect results in less than weeks or months. <br /><br />"M31 is certainly found in NE India, and in the Andamans. It is quite possibly also found in NW India but did it originate there?"<br /><br />West Bengal, see <a href="http://www.sciencemag.org/content/311/5760/470.2.full" rel="nofollow">here</a>.Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post-55901521532821164982011-01-19T00:56:41.404+01:002011-01-19T00:56:41.404+01:00"Insisting in the 'borderlands' witho..."Insisting in the 'borderlands' without finely discarding all that belongs elsewhere amounts to what we can call intellectual terrorism bordering pseudoscience". <br /><br />You have a very strange idea of geography. Do you really believe that there were two completely separate populations of haplogroup M: South and East Asian? And that any haplogroups in any intermediate region must come from one or other of these two regions? Surely we should expect a cline across South Asia, through the borderlands to SE Asia and East Asia. <br /><br />"There's no 'formidable barrier'. Just some hills and jungle" <br /><br />Hills and jungle are no barrier? Don't be an idiot. The Movius Line shows that the region has been a barrier for much of human history. <br /><br />"what really makes it act as a buffer is the lower population densities than neighbours by either side, helped only up to some point by the geography". <br /><br />Maju. with the development of agriculture Bangla Desh has become one of the most densely populated regions in the world. <br /><br />"category 'NE India', where you arbitrarily placed nothing less than 12 basal lineages" <br /><br />It's hardly 'arbitrarily' Maju. Do your own research. <br /><br />"Based on a paper that does not even study SE Asia at all (Chandrasekar'09)". <br /><br />So? The fact that M40 is found in East Asia is obviously not from the Chandraseker paper. I can't remember which one now, but I'm sure if you bothered to look you'd soon find that M40 is found in East Asia as well as in Northeast India. <br /><br />"Other errors are M31 (never located in NE India but in West Bengal)" <br /><br />M31 is certainly found in NE India, and in the Andamans. It is quite possibly also found in NW India but did it originate there? <br /><br />"M11 an East Asian clade..." <br /><br />Found in NE Indian tribals as well. Perhaps it is an East Asian clade, but I was giving the benefit of the doubt to an Indian origin for the bulk of haplogropup M. <br /><br />"Probably we'll be able to clarify these matters in the near future and will not turn out to be anything near what you say". <br /><br />It will almost certainly turn out to be exactly as I say.terrythttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17327062321100035888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post-86701898680269376092011-01-15T05:00:44.136+01:002011-01-15T05:00:44.136+01:00"that same formidable barrier"
There..."that same formidable barrier"<br /><br />There's no "formidable barrier". Just some hills and jungle (no ice, no deserts, no impassable mountains, no ocean). The real barrier is surely one of lower demographic capacity, what really makes it act as a buffer is the lower population densities than neighbours by either side, helped only up to some point by the geography.<br /><br />It's really ridiculous how you build up such fantasy products with zero support, just because. <br /><br />"it's reasonable to assume that the individual haplogroups coalesced in separate regions within South Asia, just as individual haplogroups have coalesced in separate regions within Europe or SE Asia".<br /><br />It's possible but we cannot often discern such subtleties. Certainly not without the most comprehensive sampling and phylogenetic resolution, still to be done in most cases. <br /><br />"The Chandraseka paper shows M6 as being most common in the Northeast India tribals, the Sonowai Kachari. Take from that whatever you wish".<br /><br />M6 is widespread through India, why would a small isolated tribe matter at all? I cannot take you seriously if you do that. Frequency (specially in a drift-prone tribal population) is less relevant (it's almost irrelevant in fact). <br /><br />By such measures, H would have originated in Araba (where it's more than 80%) but this area was only colonized in the Epipaleolithic and lacks the diversity; V would have coalesced in Lapland and so on. Nonsense!<br /><br />"Have I contradicted that?"<br /><br />Yes, you said (in category "NE India", where you arbitrarily placed nothing less than 12 basal lineages:<br /><br />"M40’62* M40 in East Asia also (1)"<br /><br />Based on a paper that does not even study SE Asia at all (Chandrasekar'09). You are taking the part for the whole, without any confirmation and clearly brushing towards your side, and that's a very bad dynamics for honest scientific debate. <br /><br />Other errors are M31 (never located in NE India but in West Bengal), M11 an East Asian clade... I have not much idea yet on the minor clades but I'm sure that your NEI cluster is at least 1/3 smaller if not totally from just external sources.Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post-86501769551771266202011-01-15T04:42:15.202+01:002011-01-15T04:42:15.202+01:00"M's diversity in the 'borderland'..."M's diversity in the 'borderland' is almost certainly a reflection"....<br /><br />It is not demonstrated. See my latest blog entry: SA Austroasiatics are South Asian by mtDNA, while the Khasi (Tibeto-Burman) are instead SEA. Insisting in the "borderlands" without finely discarding all that belongs elsewhere amounts to what we can call intellectual terrorism bordering pseudoscience. Probably we'll be able to clarify these matters in the near future and will not turn out to be anything near what you say.Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post-17857021480020362632011-01-14T22:35:25.471+01:002011-01-14T22:35:25.471+01:00"At first of all? No. However soon after that..."At first of all? No. However soon after that, it did and part of it overflowed to the East". <br /><br />See previous post. <br /><br />"South Asia is much smaller than Asia, right? It's roughly comparable to Europe or SE Asia in extent or people it could harbor". <br /><br />True. But it's reasonable to assume that the individual haplogroups coalesced in separate regions within South Asia, just as individual haplogroups have coalesced in separate regions within Europe or SE Asia. <br /><br />"Maybe but that is not the case of M6 nor you have bothered checking in other cases". <br /><br />We're arguing in circles here. The Chandraseka paper shows M6 as being most common in the Northeast India tribals, the Sonowai Kachari. Take from that whatever you wish. <br /><br />"Thangaraj 2006 is a paper on South Asia, where M40 (and others) is listed as autochtonous Indian haplogroup". <br /><br />Have I contradicted that? Have another look at my list. <br /><br />"These lineages were in that day: M2, M3, M5, M6, M25, M31, M32, M33, M34, M35, M36, M39, M40, M41 and the major sublineage now known as M4"64 but then as M4"30" <br /><br />If you'd bothered reading what I sent you you would have seen that I placed all those haplogroups in India. So what's your problem? <br /><br />"I'd suggest you to read the classics on them: they are East Asian by Y-DNA and South Asian by mtDNA, or so was claimed back in the day". <br /><br />And I agree with that. Again, what's your problem? I have not place any Indian Austro-Asiatic-speaking mtDNA Haplogroups outside India.terrythttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17327062321100035888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post-83226229638473692782011-01-14T22:22:09.452+01:002011-01-14T22:22:09.452+01:00"Of course. That's why I'm puzzled an..."Of course. That's why I'm puzzled and tempted to go back to my old model in which lineages flowed through all Tropical Asia with ease for a while" <br /><br />You will find that a useful excercise. <br /><br />Of course it's fairly unlikely that M actually originally coalesced in the borderland. Just as it's fairly unlikely that N coalesced in SE Asia, although it's very likely that R did so. Haplogroups M and N are both L3, so presumably they coalesced somewhere near Africa. M1'51 is probably today found in the same region where it always has been. Same with haplogroups X, N1'5 and N2/W. <br /><br />M's diversity in the 'borderland' is almost certainly a reflection of the formidable geographic boundary that it came up against in the form of the region's mountains and jungle. In other words the expansion east from there was hardly 'rapid'. However that idea eliminates the 'coastal' part of the 'great southern coastal migration'. Yhe only times haplogroup M was involved with the sea was when it crossed Wallacea to reach Australia/Melanesia/New Guinea and when it crossed to the Andamans. The presence of Haplogroup M in the Andamans is not evidence of a remnant of the original rapid movement from Africa to Australia. It's an independent movement from the mainland. <br /><br />Likewise for haplogroup N. The question is: 'Did N also cross that same formidable barrier in Noretheast India/South China/Mainland SE Asia in its original move east?'terrythttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17327062321100035888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post-62756587238998876852011-01-14T06:28:04.450+01:002011-01-14T06:28:04.450+01:00"Whereas you seem to be arguing that haplogro..."Whereas you seem to be arguing that haplogroup M formed a huge cloud covering the whole of India".<br /><br />At first of all? No. However soon after that, it did and part of it overflowed to the East. At least that used to be my model. <br /><br />It is anyhow a lot different to cover a homogeneous smaller region (or large parts of it) than the vastness of Eurasia... plus Oceania. South Asia is much smaller than Asia, right? It's roughly comparable to Europe or SE Asia in extent or people it could harbor. <br /><br />"And M's greatest basal diversity, and point of dispersal, appears to lie in the Northeast India/South China region".<br /><br />That's what I want to clarify with patience and in due time. Not now. <br /><br />"Obviously tribals can absorb haplogroups from the wider population"...<br /><br />The wider population were also tribals some 6000 years ago... or less. <br /><br />"if a haplogroup is found only, or mainly, in tribals within a defined region then it is surely likely the haplogroup has been in that region for some time".<br /><br />Maybe but that is not the case of M6 nor you have bothered checking in other cases. <br /><br />"Obviously I didn't rely on the Chandraseker paper alone, but if I'd listed all the references it would be a very long list. I think the East Asian reference is from the Sun 2006 or Thangaraj 2006 papers".<br /><br />That's what I am interesting in discerning clearly. Did Tangaraj ever authored a paper a paper on SEA anyhow?<br /><br /><a href="http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2164/7/151" rel="nofollow">Thangaraj 2006</a> is a paper on South Asia, where M40 (and others) is listed as autochtonous Indian haplogroup. These lineages were in that day: M2, M3, M5, M6, M25, M31, M32, M33, M34, M35, M36, M39, M40, M41 and the major sublineage now known as M4"64 but then as M4"30 (I'd say to call this super-haplogroup M0). There were 15 already then, even if two are shared between Andaman and the subcontinent (<a href="http://www.sciencemag.org/content/311/5760/470.2.full" rel="nofollow">M35</a> is partly continental too). <br /><br />"And probably many mtDNA haplogroups" (of Austroasiatic tribals are immigrant). <br /><br />I'd suggest you to read the classics on them: they are East Asian by Y-DNA and South Asian by mtDNA, or so was claimed back in the day. <br /><br />"It will certainly not have any fewer than the 20 haplogroups found east of India that I have in my list". <br /><br />Of course. That's why I'm puzzled and tempted to go back to my old model in which lineages flowed through all Tropical Asia with ease for a while, or even adopting the Toba catastrophe model.Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.com