tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post8370932783240493582..comments2024-03-09T15:46:44.638+01:00Comments on For what they were... we are: Genetics of Central Indian tribalsMajuhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comBlogger69125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post-88608509398652926372018-03-25T19:07:28.460+02:002018-03-25T19:07:28.460+02:00The last paragraph is what I agree upon. The T2b6...The last paragraph is what I agree upon. The T2b6b subclade (Prior to Coppernican) did not yield the "subclade ethnic nor regional" distribution. However, it retains the M13'46'61 cluster in T2b. It is a solid lead in the J2a variety of Shugnan Pamirs group, but hey... Tibet is old enough for consideration, being M7 (J1c 3394) as misleading with U1a (3394) being replaced to 1811A (Coppernican). Interestingly, M46 yields its regional place within Thailand - Andamans - Malaysian Penninsular. The Passport which is key, as a material entertainment, is Singapore through Central America. So, the M13'46'61 is novel in that it wasn't previously removable. What is most problematic for them is 153?Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13231852443904268484noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post-17692701095839990672012-03-29T02:55:28.577+02:002012-03-29T02:55:28.577+02:00"Your assumptions are speculative, always hyp..."Your assumptions are speculative, always hypothetical, yet you think capriciously that they must be the only possible solution. Your narrow-mindedness is astonishing". <br /><br />I'll just re-direct this comment at you. Your whole approach shows that it is very obvious that you have decided in advance what it is you want the evidence to show. And when the evidence fails to fit that assumption you have then proceeded to postulate a series of unlikely possibilities to accomodate the contradictions. <br /><br />"Your narrow-mindedness is astonishing". <br /><br />I agree. Your narrow-mindedness is astonishing. <br /><br />"It is a simplified graph with only two clades but I leave to you to estimate which of either clades, red or blue, is 'minority'. I could not care less". <br /><br />Nor could I, because neither is a 'minority'. If either were it is unlikely that they would be able to move and form any sort of founder effect. So you're talking rubbish, yet again.terrythttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17327062321100035888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post-60167117193977701762012-03-28T05:13:54.827+02:002012-03-28T05:13:54.827+02:00Again you mostly repeat your circular self-complac...Again you mostly repeat your circular self-complacient logic. So I'll be extremely brief, for whatever is worth:<br /><br />"Quite a common scenario. (...) But if any of those populations were to eventually expand independently we would still see members in the source region". <br /><br />Not if they, say, died of thirst or were forced by circumstances into another subpopulation and, once there, drifted out. Your assumptions are speculative, always hypothetical, yet you think capriciously that they must be the only possible solution. Your narrow-mindedness is astonishing. <br /><br />"So what part of that diagram shows a minority haplogroup becoming the sole member in a founder population?"<br /><br />It is a simplified graph with only two clades but I leave to you to estimate which of either clades, red or blue, is "minority". I could not care less.Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post-41006656231364728982012-03-28T04:22:57.090+02:002012-03-28T04:22:57.090+02:00"Actually it is founder effect and is more or..."Actually it is founder effect and is more or less random: it just happens, just like in this Wikipedia illustration. The result is the same but the only god involved is Chaos". <br /><br />So what part of that diagram shows a minority haplogroup becoming the sole member in a founder population? What you are proposing is something far more extreme than mere 'founder effect'.terrythttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17327062321100035888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post-81148272075610333712012-03-28T04:18:46.632+02:002012-03-28T04:18:46.632+02:00"The original population would be a mixture o..."The original population would be a mixture of L0 and L3 but eventually drift caused different sublineages (not necessarily just one, maybe several) to become fixated in each of its descendant populations". <br /><br />As I've just expalined, that is basically impossible. We would expect the diversity to simply reduce with no L3-derived haplogroup suddenly appearing from nowhere. <br /><br />"Also, what if the population has several subpopulations each one with one or several different fixated lineages?" <br /><br />Quite a common scenario. We would get different clades coalescing in the different regions even if the 'several subpopulations' originally had the same haplogroup. But if any of those populations were to eventually expand independently we would still see members in the source region. That is exactly the pattern we see in the modern haplogroup distribution. <br /><br />"Shouldn't all them survive or at least seriously delay the fixation into a single lineage because that same fixation is happening in the various subpopulations into different lineages?" <br /><br />And 'delay' would depend on how large and how isolated the population was. <br /><br />"But they may not be there for long, specially if, as you claim in other paragraphs so vehemently, acts against them". <br /><br />I think you've left a word out and I don't get what you mean. If the word is 'drift' then obviously drift is not going to cause the extinction of the population unless inbreeding becomes severe. <br /><br />"What existed in the proto-Eurasian population in 80 Ka BP does not need to have arrived to present day. I'm sure that the survivors have lost a huge deal of diversity in the last 80,000 years". <br /><br />Quite likely, but you specifically excluded the extinction of haplogroups as an explanation for N's disconnected distribution. Yet another example of your selective use of concepts? Besides which diversity in each region within Eurasia has periodically been enhanced with the arrival of haplogroups from other regions. But in all cases we can easily see the region from which those new haplogroups have come. <br /><br />"I'm suggesting that pre-N and pre-M may well have been 'losers' and 'pushovers' in their socio-economical context in (probably) Arabia or the Persian Gulf Oasis. It's conjectural but I do not see why not" <br /><br />I see lots of reasons 'why not'.terrythttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17327062321100035888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post-66308238479929861412012-03-28T04:16:55.336+02:002012-03-28T04:16:55.336+02:00"So according to YOUR OWN model of in-situ ob..."So according to YOUR OWN model of in-situ obligatory coalescence, those lineages 'must' have coalesced outside of Africa, already in Arabia". <br /><br />Yes, most probably. But the only haplogroups anywhere near any postulated OoA is L4b1. I would assume that members of L4b made it to Yemen where L4b1 coalesced. But ... the haplogroup failed to expand very far, unlike the L3-derived M and N. That suggests strongly that Yemen was a dead endfor any OoA. L3's expansion beyond Africa was unrelated to that of L4b1. All other L haplogroups found outside Africa are either included within an African branch or coalesced much too recently to have been part of any OoA. <br /><br />"A population maybe with generic L3 or L3, L4, L6 and L0, or..." <br /><br />But, strangely, just L3 expanded very far. Consequently you are reduced to special pleading for the explanation you offer for the expansion of M and N. <br /><br />"For all we know they were in fact replaced (drifted out) in Arabia eventually. Not a single pre-M nor pre-N lineage has survived in fact". <br /><br />And that fact is very difficult to explain, especially if you're going to claim that M and N made up a minority of that population. Minor haplogroups are the ones most likely to be 'drifted out'. <br /><br />"They were not expanding, just surviving". <br /><br />If they were capable of surviving they would have been capable (by definition) of leaving descendants. So what happened to those descendants? <br /><br />"I was talking of population not haplogroups. You always change the meaning of everything, bastardizing my own explanations". <br /><br />If you were talking populations you were talking rubbish then. <br /><br />"I was thinking in something like A being, say, L0 and B being L3 (i.e. M and N). Totally different of what you understood". <br /><br />I misunderstood it because it's complete nonsense, unless you're talking of unrelated expansions. But you appeared to be talking about linear expansions of populations containing an ever reducing diversity of haplogroups. That scenario is best seen in the Austronesian expansion into the Pacific. The diversity of haplogroups gradually reduces, at different rates, but no new haplogroups suddenly appear out of nowhere.terrythttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17327062321100035888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post-59788167981099976222012-03-27T07:45:00.980+02:002012-03-27T07:45:00.980+02:00"They must each have formed part of a populat..."They must each have formed part of a population or they wouldn't have survived".<br /><br />A population maybe with generic L3 or L3, L4, L6 and L0, or...<br /><br />"And each haplogroup must have formed a majority in each population or they would have been replaced through drift by any other haplogroups that did form a majority within each population". <br /><br />For all we know they were in fact replaced (drifted out) in Arabia eventually. Not a single pre-M nor pre-N lineage has survived in fact. <br /><br />But they were not fully displaced before emigrating Eastwards. That we know also.<br /><br />"But that expanding population will still have left descendants along the route".<br /><br />They were not expanding, just surviving. We know nothing of their hypothetical descendants and in what affects me, a sandstorm ate them accidentally (maybe - who cares? - the thread was so thin that was too easy to break at random). <br /><br />"That's because both haplogroups have done exactly what you claim in the above statement".<br /><br />I was talking of population not haplogroups. You always change the meaning of everything, bastardizing my own explanations. <br /><br />When I wrote: "people may be able to survive in region A and drift there until it eventually fixates in clade A (or clades A1, A2 and A3, whatever), and move to region B and drift there to clade B (or clades B1 and B2)", I was thinking in something like A being, say, L0 and B being L3 (i.e. M and N). Totally different of what you understood.<br /><br />The original population would be a mixture of L0 and L3 but eventually drift caused different sublineages (not necessarily just one, maybe several) to become fixated in each of its descendant populations. <br /><br />That's how I see it.<br /><br />"Drift will reduce the diversity of lines in a settled, stable population".<br /><br />That's the tendency in the long run. But in the meantime...<br /><br />Also, what if the population has several subpopulations each one with one or several different fixated lineages? Shouldn't all them survive or at least seriously delay the fixation into a single lineage because that same fixation is happening in the various subpopulations into different lineages? <br /><br />Get real! A population is something complex and dynamic. <br /><br />"And founder effect involves a subset of the population. In other words the few haplogroups involved in the founder effect are still present in the parent population".<br /><br />But they may not be there for long, specially if, as you claim in other paragraphs so vehemently, acts against them. What existed in the proto-Eurasian population in 80 Ka BP does not need to have arrived to present day. I'm sure that the survivors have lost a huge deal of diversity in the last 80,000 years.<br /><br />"So you're now claiming that haplogroups N and M were 'losers'?"<br /><br />I'm suggesting that pre-N and pre-M may well have been "losers" and "pushovers" in their socio-economical context in (probably) Arabia or the Persian Gulf Oasis. It's conjectural but I do not see why not: the winners of any competition would get the best lands, while the losers would be pushed to the deserts and semideserts, risking their overall survival and certainly lowering their quality of life radically. Why else would they migrate to a semidesertic area?<br /><br />"Now I understand what you're getting at. Wonder why it took me so long. It's called 'drafting'..."<br /><br />Actually it is founder effect and is more or less random: it just happens, just like in <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Founder_effect.png" rel="nofollow">this Wikipedia illustration</a>. The result is the same but the only god involved is Chaos.Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post-89252572446417004012012-03-27T06:50:52.032+02:002012-03-27T06:50:52.032+02:00"And what I say is that, if anything survived..."And what I say is that, if anything survived at all, it was not of those clades but of others like L0, L4, L6 or other L3 (all of which we know exist in Arabia)". <br /><br />Now I understand what you're getting at. Wonder why it took me so long. It's called 'drafting', and I've done it myself, with sheep. You let the ones with tags in their left ear go straight ahead to one pen and turn the ones with tags in their right ear off into a separate pen. Or the opposite way round, whatever your objective. Obviously someone (presumably God) did it with all these haplogroups. He (presumably God is a 'he') drafted out haplogroups M and N and pushed them on to a new paddock, and turned the other haplogroups back into the old paddock. <br /><br />It's obvious now I think about it.terrythttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17327062321100035888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post-26483941185829876202012-03-27T05:34:00.473+02:002012-03-27T05:34:00.473+02:00"The 'winners' generally keep the est..."The 'winners' generally keep the established wealth, the losers are pushed to the margins, where they typically have much poorer options" <br /><br />So you're now claiming that haplogroups N and M were 'losers'? <br /><br />"I'm sure that I fail to understand what the hell you mean here. I cannot explain what I don't understand, sorry. But what I don't understand is what you have in your mind, your 'mental wanking', to use a Spanish slang expression. I don't understand your logic nor what you mean". <br /><br />Probably because you don't understand genetics. <br /><br />"This is a contention point that you should develop, as you are so obsessed, with graphics and such in your blog or site". <br /><br />You would be able to easily understand it without any such extra explanation if you understood genetics. Without such understanding on your part I would be wasting my time anyway. <br /><br />"All the data you have mentioned is not in that paper. That paper only covers some Indian tribals". <br /><br />Try not to be so stupid. The data in the paper adds considerably to our knowledge of the haplogroup distribution of both M and R. And here I was thinking you were actually interested in the subject, but I was obviously wrong.terrythttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17327062321100035888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post-79527042391245564052012-03-27T05:32:30.442+02:002012-03-27T05:32:30.442+02:00"Right you are in this but I was right also b..."Right you are in this but I was right also because all I said is that K1 is part of MNOPS or K(xLT), which it is" <br /><br />Obviously I know that, but that is irrelevant to where K(xLT) originated, which was the original point raised. You became sidetracked through your nit-picking. <br /><br />"Your sentences claiming something to be 'very unlikely' but failing to provide any explanation or evidence of why would it be that way abound too much". <br /><br />Such aspects are 'very unlikely' because no-one but you has even considered such scenarios to be even remotely 'possible'. <br /><br />"Pre-M and pre-N were not 'major haplogroups' but 'private lineages'". <br /><br />Maju, don't be ridiculous. They must each have formed part of a population or they wouldn't have survived. And each haplogroup must have formed a majority in each population or they would have been replaced through drift by any other haplogroups that did form a majority within each population. <br /><br />"Sure: the 'jackpot' was the other side of the desert but nobody knew it before they hit and for that they had first to accept the extremes of Balochistan arid coasts (and all East Iran is desertic, so it doesn't matter if they were walkers instead of boaters" <br /><br />But you're claiming some very unlikely scenario where the jackpot winners were just a small subset of the population who, inexplicably, left no descendants along the way. While the losers left any number of survivors along the supposed route. Strange idea, that. <br /><br />"No. Why? It is exactly the same as in situ, just that the population is migrating" <br /><br />Rubbish. It is completely different. As any group moves through any habitat in which they can survive they will leave descendants in that habitat, even if that habitat is 'the aridity of Balochistan'. If those descendants later dissappear (which is what you claim for populations formed during the stem formation of M and N) we must postulate genocide, surely. On the other hand if the population is confined to a single region each step in the stem will be replaced by drift within the single population. No genocide. <br /><br />"until it reaches the nice place where to expand and change their humble destiny into one of somewhat greater relevance". <br /><br />But that expanding population will still have left descendants along the route. You seem to basically understand that, as you wrote the other day: <br /><br />"people may be able to survive in region A and drift there until it eventually fixates in clade A (or clades A1, A2 and A3, whatever), and move to region B and drift there to clade B (or clades B1 and B2)". <br /><br />That is what I keep trying to point out to you. Notice how both M and R form completely unbroken stretches of derived haplogroups all the way between Africa and Australia. That's because both haplogroups have done exactly what you claim in the above statement. The survivors along the way have formed separate clades. The continuous distribution tells us nothing much about the origin of either haplogroup though. Each one could have coalesced almost anywhere within their current distributions. <br /><br />"As for me I see no problem why a population having many lineages, would not produce several populations each with a subset of such lineages, in the long run (after drift and all that)". <br /><br />Drift will reduce the diversity of lines in a settled, stable population. But you're presumably talking about a population on ther move. In which case such would usually only develop through founder effect. And founder effect involves a subset of the population. In other words the few haplogroups involved in the founder effect are still present in the parent population. But you're postulating the complete extinction of haplogroups that contributed to derived populations. On what grounds?terrythttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17327062321100035888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post-22109589979218629452012-03-26T05:13:12.633+02:002012-03-26T05:13:12.633+02:00...
"It si very unlikely that they could hav......<br /><br />"It si very unlikely that they could have survived as minority haplogroups for some time within a mixed population yet go on to dominate the whole ex-Africa population".<br /><br />Your sentences claiming something to be "very unlikely" but failing to provide any explanation or evidence of why would it be that way abound too much. <br /><br />Waste of time #N, therefore.<br /><br />"Again, extremely unlikely".<br /><br />Again wasting my time with unfounded opinions and prejudices.<br /><br />"Usually the first into a region come to form the dominant population"...<br /><br />Do you know more than I do about trans-desert migrations in Middle Paleolithic conditions? Or so you pretend with no grounds. <br /><br />Haven't we agreed long ago that in order to reach to South Asia via the coastal route, the migrants needed to cross several hostile very arid regions? Why would the winners be pushed outside the Persian Gulf oasis into the aridity of Balochistan? Sure: the "jackpot" was the other side of the desert but nobody knew it before they hit and for that they had first to accept the extremes of Balochistan arid coasts (and all East Iran is desertic, so it doesn't matter if they were walkers instead of boaters, although GIS simulations force the coastal route at that point without doubt). <br /><br />The "winners" generally keep the established wealth, the losers are pushed to the margins, where they typically have much poorer options but sometimes... is not that way. Either they hit the "jackpot" in unexpectedly lush Southern Asia or they carve their own niche at the expense of, say, Neanderthals. <br /><br />And so M and H, the largest (by far) star-like nodes in the Human mtDNA tree, coalesced: from almost nothing into big dominant stuff in their new niche.<br /><br />"I know you are interested in that haplogroup".<br /><br />I'm interested in all haplogroups in principle. But I am most interested when I have the energies and the time, not when you say so. That's why bookmarking and leaving for later is often a good idea. Calm, even a bit of boredom is crucial to initiate new explorations. Stress only pushes me to inactivity and fruitless reactivity. <br /><br />"The blog is on the paper, 'Genetics of Central Indian tribals'".<br /><br />All the data you have mentioned is not in that paper. That paper only covers some Indian tribals.Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post-22693814513822242502012-03-26T05:12:58.274+02:002012-03-26T05:12:58.274+02:00Waste of time #1:
"Wrong. As far as I'm ...Waste of time #1:<br /><br />"Wrong. As far as I'm aware K1 is present only in India, Pakistan and Sri Lanka. Not SE Asia". <br /><br />Right you are in this but I was right also because all I said is that <b>K1 is part of MNOPS or K(xLT)</b>, which it is (check ISOGG). So wrong to say "wrong" without knowing what you are talking about anymore. <br /><br />Waste of time #2:<br /><br />"Extinction of major haplogroups is surely extinction of populations".<br /><br />Pre-M and pre-N were not "major haplogroups" but "private lineages".<br /><br />...<br /><br />"development of a long stem while on the move (as you propose) requires extinction of a whole suite of populations".<br /><br />No. Why? It is exactly the same as in situ, just that the population is migrating (maybe intermittently), until it reaches the nice place where to expand and change their humble destiny into one of somewhat greater relevance.<br /><br />This is a contention point that you should develop, as you are so obsessed, with graphics and such in your blog or site. <br /><br />As for me I see no problem why a population having many lineages, would not produce several populations each with a subset of such lineages, in the long run (after drift and all that).<br /><br />"I'm sure you will find it impossible to explain how the haplogroups that went on to occupy the vast majority of Eurasia failed to leave any descendants immediately outside Africa while what can have been no more than minority haplogroups survived very successfully there, yet failed to move further".<br /><br />I'm sure that I fail to understand what the hell you mean here. I cannot explain what I don't understand, sorry.<br /><br />But what I don't understand is what you have in your mind, your "mental wanking", to use a Spanish slang expression. I don't understand your logic nor what you mean. <br /><br />"Given the uncertainty of the molecular clock it should be obvious that many of the L haplogroups outside Africa had not even coalesced by the time M and N emerged". <br /><br />This I understand but it's no big deal because their last African ancestors do appear to be older than M and N. So according to YOUR OWN model of in-situ obligatory coalescence, those lineages "must" have coalesced outside of Africa, already in Arabia. <br /><br />Of course I'm not that much certain but it's perfectly possible at least for part of each lineage's evolution. Null hypothesis would be a straight line between the ancestor's location (typically in The Horn) and the descendant's location (in South Arabia); this produces a short line with many subsections, one for each mutation. Naturally many of such subsections appear to be already in Arabia. <br /><br />Uncertainty is correct however, I admit that much, but, crucially, this common sense uncertainty is radically contradictory with your in-situ obligatory coalescence hypothesis, on which you insist so much and so irrationally. <br /><br />You can't have it both ways. <br /><br />...Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post-36706796954641484702012-03-26T02:51:59.742+02:002012-03-26T02:51:59.742+02:00"Locate that list, which you surely invested ..."Locate that list, which you surely invested some effort in, at a safe place where it can be referenced and studied more in the mid-run". <br /><br />I'll do that when I sort out the references. Many of them are just notes I've made over the years, not linked on the Internet. <br /><br />"The thread is about genetics of Central Indian tribals and you have been wandering off all you wanted and even more". <br /><br />The blog is on the paper, 'Genetics of Central Indian tribals'. Several mt-DNA R-derived haplogroups are recorded, and I know you are interested in that haplogroup. The paper expands our knowledge of that haplogroup's distribution, so I'm sure you will find this interesting (if you can bring yourself to actually look through the information): <br /><br />Mitochondrial DNA haplogroup R, from nearest Africa to most remote from Africa: <br /><br />R0: SW Eurasia, Arabia. Includes H and V. Low presence in India. <br /><br />R3: West Eurasia. Armenia, as far as I can discover. <br /><br />U: SW Asia, India. Not recorded in the Bhil of the Madhya Pradesh tribals, although U2 and U7 are the most frequent R haplogroups in India and recorded in the other two tribals. Other U haplogroupsare present only at low frequencies in India. <br /><br />R1: West Asia, Turkmenistan, Kurds, India. <br /><br />R2'JT: West Asia. Low presence in India. Of the Madhya Pradesh tribals R2 is recorded only in the Sahariya, the most northerly of them. R2 claimed as centred north of Afghanistan. Present in Punjab, and the southwest of the Indian peninsula. <br /><br />R30: Not listed in Madhya Pradesh tribals but is widespread in India, esp. NW and Central. Uttar Pradesh, Punjab, Rajasthan, Gujarat, Maharashtra, Sri Lanka. Said to be associated with IE-speaking people. <br /><br />R31: Of the Madhya Pradesh tribals only recorded in the Bhil, the most westerly. Present in Rajasthan, Southern India and Sri Lanka. <br /><br />R5: Right across Central India except SE coast, especially SW coast and Sri Lanka. Said to be more frequent in castes than in tribals. Present only in the most westerly of the Madhya Pradesh tribals, the Bhil. <br /><br />R6: Kashmir and SE coast. Present in all three Madhya Pradesh tribals. 1.5-3% over India. Also in Pakistan. <br /><br />R8: Present in all regions within the Godavari River catchment: Andhra Pradesh, Orissa, Maharashtra. Not present in the Sahariya, the northernmost of the Madhya Pradesh tribals, but present in the other two. Perhaps associated with Munda-speaking people. Munda is usually considered an Austo-Asiatic language, so perhaps the haplogroup is from somewhere to the east. <br /><br />R7: Frequent in Munda-speakers. Centred on NE India, reaching south into Andhra Pradesh. Not present in the most westerly tribal, the Bhil, but present in the other two. <br /><br />R9: Includes F within R9c. SE Asia, East Asia, Philippines. Looks to have spread from South China. Present, and diverse, in both Hainan and Laos. <br /><br />R11'B6/B4'5/R24: Extremely widespread. East Asia. R11 is recorded in Hainan but not in Laos. R24 is Philippines. Both B4 and B5 are found in both Hainan and Laos, and diverse in both places. B6 is centred on South China, not recorded in Hainan. Could be considered three separate haplogroups according to Maju's reasoning. The three are united by a single control region mutation. <br /><br />R23: Bali, Sumba. <br /><br />R22: Indonesia, esp. Lesser Sunda Islands. <br /><br />R14: New Guinea, Lesser Sunda Islands, Nicobar Islands. <br /><br />R12'21: R12 Australia, R21 Malay Negritos. <br /><br />P: New Guinea, Melanesia, Australia. Minor in Philippines. Forms two branches. P1 in New Guinea and Melanesia, with a minor presence in Australia. Of the P2''10 branch P2, P3 and P4a are from New Guinea but are not recorded from Melanesia. P4b, P5 and P9 are from Australia. P10 is from the Philippines. P6, P7 and P8 are unknown.terrythttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17327062321100035888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post-27990669528218153122012-03-26T02:41:28.914+02:002012-03-26T02:41:28.914+02:00"Actually also K1"
Wrong. As far as ..."Actually also K1" <br /><br />Wrong. As far as I'm aware K1 is present only in India, Pakistan and Sri Lanka. Not SE Asia. <br /><br />"Nope. Maybe 'extinction' (pruning) of haplogroups but not of populations". <br /><br />Extinction of major haplogroups is surely extinction of populations. <br /><br />"The same as for any other long stem: the small size of the population in which the heavily pruned or long stem lineage existed did not allow it to grow branches... until they arrived somewhere that allowed for expansion (migrant long stem) or some other conditions were created out of the blue that allowed for such expansion where it was not possible before (Terry's long stem - not impossible but highly unlikely IMO)". <br /><br />Development of a long stem while on the move (as you propose) requires extinction of a whole suite of populations. 'Pruning' of a population containing particular haplogroups while confined to a single region requires no extinction of any populations. <br /><br />"What I do not understand is why do I have to repeat this once and again". <br /><br />because you're so completely wrong. <br /><br />"You always say that. And what I say is that, if anything survived at all, it was not of those clades but of others like L0, L4, L6 or other L3 (all of which we know exist in Arabia)". <br /><br />Those 'other clades' . I'm sure you will find it impossible to explain how the haplogroups that went on to occupy the vast majority of Eurasia failed to leave any descendants immediately outside Africa while what can have been no more than minority haplogroups survived very successfully there, yet failed to move further. To quote from your earlier comment: <br /><br />"The only ones we can attest are M and N, which did not survive the drift test later in more diverse but also less affluent Arabia: only a few (probably L6, some L0, L3 and L4 variants survived)". <br /><br />You've obviously made up your mind as to what you want the evidence to show and have interpreted it accordingly. Why don't you return and have a look at your own data on haplogroup L? Given the uncertainty of the molecular clock it should be obvious that many of the L haplogroups outside Africa had not even coalesced by the time M and N emerged. <br /><br />"I have absolutely no reason to think that the haplogroups which reached the farthest were majority or dominant in any way". <br /><br />What a surprising comment! It si very unlikely that they could have survived as minority haplogroups for some time within a mixed population yet go on to dominate the whole ex-Africa population. <br /><br />"In fact their carriers may have been pushed around by the others, for example, and that's why they were forced to migrate father and farther until they hit the jackpot". <br /><br />Again, extremely unlikely. Usually the first into a region come to form the dominant population unless an later arriving group has some huge survival advantage. And surely once they'd 'hit the jackpot' the majority haplogroups would have pushed tham out of that region as well. They would have been reduced to surviving on the margins, in less desirable habitat. <br /><br />"We don't know which one was major or minor in Arabia (or Fertile Crescent in your version)". <br /><br />Web can make an incredibly informed guess.terrythttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17327062321100035888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post-26824558583418287962012-03-25T05:09:59.510+02:002012-03-25T05:09:59.510+02:00Being precise instead of sloppy is not "split...Being precise instead of sloppy is not "splitting hairs". For example:<br /><br />"And three of the four Ks: K2, K3 and K4"<br /><br />Actually also K1 but it does not matter because these do not define K. K (as of the current and past nomenclature) is defined by per the mutations M9, P128, P131, P132. <br /><br />"You're proposing extinction". <br /><br />Nope. Maybe "extinction" (pruning) of haplogroups but not of populations.<br /><br />"So what explanation do you propose?" [for lack of branches between the L3 and M nodes]<br /><br />The same as for any other long stem: the small size of the population in which the heavily pruned or long stem lineage existed did not allow it to grow branches... until they arrived somewhere that allowed for expansion (migrant long stem) or some other conditions were created out of the blue that allowed for such expansion where it was not possible before (Terry's long stem - not impossible but highly unlikely IMO).<br /><br />What I do not understand is why do I have to repeat this once and again. Because I'm sure that, after the convenient circular "reasoning" we will end here again in few days. <br /><br />For example:<br /><br />"And no members of these ultimately major clades survived along the route? Unlikely". <br /><br />You always say that. And what I say is that, if anything survived at all, it was not of those clades but of others like L0, L4, L6 or other L3 (all of which we know exist in Arabia).<br /><br />But I already said this in the previous answer: all your questions are answered already. All your objections have been debunked once and again. <br /><br />Boring!<br /><br />"Surely you must find it very strange that the haplogroups that apparently made up the majority of the migrating population (the ones that made it furthest)"...<br /><br />I have absolutely no reason to think that the haplogroups which reached the farthest were majority or dominant in any way. In fact their carriers may have been pushed around by the others, for example, and that's why they were forced to migrate father and farther until they hit the jackpot. <br /><br />"... yet you're claiming more extreme drift within major haplogroups and survival of the minor ones".<br /><br />We don't know which one was major or minor in Arabia (or Fertile Crescent in your version). The one reaching farthest can well be the push-around or otherwise marginal minority, always forced to look further in search of what the others take for granted. <br /><br />Or maybe, without being so dramatic, the most adventurous subpopulation was the one "hitting the jackpot" eventually, while the most conservatives one remained behind. It does not even need to be a matter of confrontation but just of differential sociology/subculture: the subculture of semi-sedentarism and betting safe vs. the subculture of active nomadism and betting somewhat riskier. <br /><br />The majority surely stayed behind, the minority took the risk... and won. <br /><br />"And what is the difference between what you're proposing here and what Dienekes is proposing for Europe?"<br /><br />No idea. Can you clarify.<br /><br />"why don't you examine and improve it? Feel free to do so".<br /><br />It's a damn commentary. I cannot keep track of commentaries beyond the immediate moment! Locate that list, which you surely invested some effort in, at a safe place where it can be referenced and studied more in the mid-run.Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post-61410345448648340042012-03-25T04:16:59.889+02:002012-03-25T04:16:59.889+02:00"people may be able to survive in region A an..."people may be able to survive in region A and drift there until it eventually fixates in clade A (or clades A1, A2 and A3, whatever), and move to region B and drift there to clade B (or clades B1 and B2)". <br /><br />My point exactly. That is what both M and N have done. But you're proposing extinction, not survival of clades. Under the senario you propose we find absolutely no examples of any such descendant clades of M and N having survived in any region along any route during their 'giant leap from Africa'. Under the alternative scenario we find a complete trail of descendant haplogroups along the route. <br /><br />"Drift is a pruner and prunes before but also after..." <br /><br />But you're proposing more than drift after. You're proposing extinction. <br /><br />"Not at all [the only explanation possible for the absence of haplogroups between L3 and M or M is genocide]" <br /><br />So what explanation do you propose? <br /><br />"Of these diverse clades some L3 ones (and maybe others but did not survive, it seems) participated in the journey out of Arabia into South Asia" <br /><br />And no members of these ultimately major clades survived along the route? Unlikely. <br /><br />"The only ones we can attest are M and N, which did not survive the drift test later in more diverse but also less affluent Arabia: only a few (probably L6, some L0, L3 and L4 variants survived)". <br /><br />Surely you must find it very strange that the haplogroups that apparently made up the majority of the migrating population (the ones that made it furthest) were exactly the ones that died out most completely early in the movement. A strange belief system you have. <br /><br />"We call that 'drift'. You may want to call that 'genocide' but an accidental 'genocide' of one or a few or the merely random fact that they ended up (what happens) as mothers of just sons would be demeaning the gravity of the word 'genocide' way too much". <br /><br />That doesn't make sense. 'Drift' is going to affect minor haplogroups to a greater extent than major ones, yet you're claiming more extreme drift within major haplogroups and survival of the minor ones. And what is the difference between what you're proposing here and what Dienekes is proposing for Europe? <br /><br />"At your blog or the Wiki (with references if possible). It'd give me a headache otherwise". <br /><br />Instead of just claiming it's wrong (because you don't agree with the implications) why don't you examine and improve it? Feel free to do so.terrythttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17327062321100035888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post-640578311207022002012-03-25T04:13:34.347+02:002012-03-25T04:13:34.347+02:00"The thread is about genetics of Central Indi..."The thread is about genetics of Central Indian tribals and you have been wandering off all you wanted and even more". <br /><br />Indian haplogroups, including those of the tribals, is exactly what I have been talking about. <br /><br />"Irrelevant?! It was you who used and messed the terms, not me". <br /><br />And it was you who split hairs over the nomenclature. <br /><br />"Part: MNOPS, not all". <br /><br />And three of the four Ks: K2, K3 and K4. <br /><br />"However in other traits they [Aborigines] look much like Europeans to me". <br /><br />It would be a rare Papuan that you could say that about. <br /><br />"I still did not understand that part". <br /><br />I find that hard to believe, unless it's deliberate. <br /><br />"There's nothing suggesting that N is older than M in any case". <br /><br />Mitochondrial DNA haplogroup distribution in the Far East and in Australia suggests N could very well be older than M, in that region at least. <br /><br />"That's an absurd idea you made up out of the blue. There's nothing backing that [Drift can do it only if the population is isolated in a single region for some time, not if a population is on the move]". <br /><br />I have provided several references that claim exactly that. You have supplied not a single one that suggests any other possibility, let alone likely. Name one geneticist that supports your claim. <br /><br />"You do not understand shit and that's because you don't want to" <br /><br />The situation is certainly the other way round. You know nothing about practical genetics and consistently show your ignorance of the subject.terrythttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17327062321100035888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post-9097370473766089792012-03-22T02:57:28.271+01:002012-03-22T02:57:28.271+01:00...
"... the only explanation possible for t......<br /><br />"... the only explanation possible for the absence of haplogroups between L3 and M or M is genocide". <br /><br />Not at all (although you can never know for sure if localized "genocide" or a hunt accident or whatever else influenced in the result of drift: some survive, some do not, it's quite random in fact). IMO the people(s) who migrated to Arabia had a varied subset of the African gene pool (apparently several L3'4'6 subclades and also some L0 ones). That's logical if you don't get obsessed with imagining peoples as fixated in a single clade all the time, and not just at the end of a long road of quite strict isolation. <br /><br />Of these diverse clades some L3 ones (and maybe others but did not survive, it seems) participated in the journey out of Arabia into South Asia (into Tropical Asia if you prefer). The only ones we can attest are M and N, which did not survive the drift test later in more diverse but also less affluent Arabia: only a few (probably L6, some L0, L3 and L4 variants survived). <br /><br />We cannot reconstruct the exact details: we are not omniscent so we can't know that when Silvia fell to that lion a once proud lineage went extinct with her... or whatever else happened. We call that "drift". You may want to call that "genocide" but an accidental "genocide" of one or a few or the merely random fact that they ended up (what happens) as mothers of just sons would be demeaning the gravity of the word "genocide" way too much. <br /><br />"That is hardly 'proof' that all the haplogroups moved in unison to Sahul". <br /><br />I did not say that. I said that right away after the M matriarch lived (in about 2-5 Ka, 10 Ka at most), a descendant was having children in Papua. That right away after the N matriarch lived, a descendant was having children in Australia. That right away after the R matriarch, a descendant was making children in Papua again. <br /><br />They did not stop for eras in Sundaland to ponder how to make a boat with bamboo: they knew that already and soon they were fishing and such (because they knew that already as well). At most they perfected the skills a bit before making the crossing. <br /><br />"I'd hesitate before appearing so confident of that". <br /><br />I wouldn't care what you'd hesitate if you would not repost the same unfounded doubts here once and again. I'm not going to explain it again: I'm not your clown. <br /><br />"Mitochondrial DNA haplogroup M, from nearest Africa to most remote from Africa"...<br /><br />At your blog or the Wiki (with references if possible). It'd give me a headache otherwise.Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post-16102149296867786932012-03-22T02:57:11.576+01:002012-03-22T02:57:11.576+01:00"Both points irrelevant to the present discus..."Both points irrelevant to the present discussion"...<br /><br />Irrelevant?! It was you who used and messed the terms, not me. <br /><br />Also I do not agree that "the present discussion" is about whatever you wish it to be. The thread is about genetics of Central Indian tribals and you have been wandering off all you wanted and even more. <br /><br />"... about an SE Asian origin for much of the haplogroup K"...<br /><br />Part: MNOPS, not all. <br /><br />"... and a separate range for C".<br /><br />I still did not understand that part. <br /><br />"Nowhere near as dark as Papuans. Nor do they have such curly hair".<br /><br />Who's discussing curly hair? Skin color! Focus!<br /><br /><a href="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/bc/1981_event_Australian_aboriginals.jpg" rel="nofollow">dark AAs dancing</a>, <a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-bHfZjDrqUUk/TgmkoHrYA8I/AAAAAAAAd5k/j9GEBH5cn3o/s1600/Australian%2BAboriginals%2B4.jpg" rel="nofollow">dark AA children, many blond like a Swede but black as Congolese as well</a>, <a href="http://thumbs.dreamstime.com/thumblarge_379/1238032531cDxu5Y.jpg" rel="nofollow">black AA playing the dijiridoo</a>, <a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_NHmGTuCTevI/S8wbLIEgDvI/AAAAAAAAATg/3gJ0tEJt2z8/s1600/Aborigine.jpg" rel="nofollow">another dark AA with the tube</a>, <a href="http://i.images.cdn.fotopedia.com/flickr-3825073020-image/People_around_the_World/Oceania/Australia/Australian_Aborigines/Australian_Aborigines-image-4.jpg" rel="nofollow">black AA women, one red-haired</a>. <br /><br />Granted that there are some who are lighter/redder, but also Africans vary in such degree. There are no white nor beige (milk coffee) Australian Aborigines. All are darker, just like in Tropical Africa. <br /><br />However in other traits they look much like Europeans to me. But not in skin shade (nor nose breadth). <br /><br />"I note you are now prepared to accept that the molecular clock is unreliable".<br /><br />I've always said so. I always tried to develop my own alternatives.<br /><br />"So you should now be able to accept that N is not necessarily 'younger' than M".<br /><br />Not necessarily but it's most likely. There's nothing suggesting that N is older than M in any case.<br /><br />"Now we're getting somewhere". <br /><br />We'll get somewhere when you acknowledge that people were always boating at least to some extent. <br /><br />"Drift can do it only if the population is isolated in a single region for some time, not if a population is on the move".<br /><br />That's an absurd idea you made up out of the blue. There's nothing backing that. <br /><br />"After all, if people can move through a region they are obvioulsy capable of surviving in it".<br /><br />You do not understand shit and that's because you don't want to: people may be able to survive in region A and drift there until it eventually fixates in clade A (or clades A1, A2 and A3, whatever), and move to region B and drift there to clade B (or clades B1 and B2). Drift is a pruner and prunes before but also after...<br /><br />...Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post-75970864281970980702012-03-22T01:37:40.962+01:002012-03-22T01:37:40.962+01:00M31: Andamans, India. M31b Tibet, Nepal.
M32...M31: Andamans, India. M31b Tibet, Nepal. <br />M32'56: M32 Andamans, M56 minor presence in India. <br />M19'53: M19 Palawan (Philippines), M53 East and Central India. <br />M24'41: M24 Palawan (Philippines), M41 Central India. <br />With this group we see the first of the 'boater group of clans extending from the Sundarbans to Sundaland'. These haplogroups look to have spread around the shores of the Bay of Bengal. <br /><br />M9: East Asia and NE India, incl. Nepal. Includes E, especially present in Taiwan and Borneo. <br />M11: Tibet and China. Minor presence in India. <br />M8: East Asia, SE Asia. Includes C/Z. M8 in NE India. C1 in America. <br />M10: East Asia. Minor presence in Northeast India. <br />All land-based haplogroups. Basically East Asian but also Northeast India, probably through back migration. <br /><br />M76: South China. <br />M7: East Asia, especially Japan, SE Asia. <br />M12'G: East Asia, especially Japan. Both haplogroups minor presence in India. G in Nepal. <br />M80'D: M80 Palawan (Philippines), D East Asia, SE Asia. D also in NE India. D1 in America. <br />M72: SE Asia, South China. <br />M71: Laos, South China, island SE Asia. Diverse in Laos. <br />These haplogroups ventured further into East Asia and some are 'boater clans'. Virtually impossible to make a case for them having entered SE Asia via the coast though, as with the previous group. <br /><br />M21: Thailand, Bangladesh. Semang tribals. M21b Nepal. M21d Laos. <br />M77: Thailand. <br />M22: Aboriginal Malays, Vietnam and South China. <br />These haplogroups string out along the SE Asian peninsula, especially along the western side of it. <br /><br />M23'75: Southeast Asia. M23 in Laos and Madagascar. <br />M47: Island Southeast Asia (a mystery haplogroup actually). <br />M26: Sumatra. <br />M73'79: M73 Philippines and SE Asia, M79 South China. <br />M17: Philippines, SE Asia. <br />These ventured out into the islands. <br /><br />M42'74: M42 Australia, M74 South China. <br />An interesting connection between Australia and the mainland. <br /><br />M14: Australia. <br />M15: Australia. <br />M29'Q: Melanesia and New Guinea. <br />M27: Melanesia. <br />M28: Melanesia. <br />The remote islands. The basal haplogroup M28 is especially common in Melanesia, much of which it can only have reached some 4-5000 years ago.terrythttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17327062321100035888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post-3355811384443356852012-03-22T01:36:06.630+01:002012-03-22T01:36:06.630+01:00"Probably a boater group of clans extending f..."Probably a boater group of clans extending from the Sundarbans to Sundaland at some point". <br /><br />Yes, and it should be possible for you to see it from my updated M haplogroup chart, which you have been demanding for some time: <br /><br />Mitochondrial DNA haplogroup M, from nearest Africa to most remote from Africa: <br /><br />M1'20'51: M1 SW Asia and North Africa, M20 South China, M51 Laos, Nepal. <br />Difficult to make a case for a Central Indian origin for this haplogroup. <br /><br />M34'57: M34 Central India, M57 west of M34. <br />M44: Central India. Minority haplogroup. <br />The only haplogroups that might indicate a coastal entry. But M44 is a minor haplogroup and M57 may have moved west from Central India. <br /><br />M2: Central and East India. 20% of Indian haplogroups belong here. Minor presence in NE India. <br />M3: Central India. Minor presence in E and NE India. <br />M5: Central and East India. Widespread, including Nepal. Minor presence in NE India. <br />M6: Central and East India. Minor presence in NE India. <br />M25: Central India. Minor presence in NE India. <br />M35: Central India. Not present outside India. <br />M36: Central India. Minor presence. <br />These are all almost totally, if not completely, confined to Central India, and almost certainly originated there. <br /><br />M4''67: Central India. Widespread, including Nepal. (Possibly M45 in S China). <br />Also Central Indian although members spread into NE India, and possibly further. <br /><br />M52'58: India, earliest branches of M58 in northeast. M52 in Nepal. <br />Central India although the earliest branches are claimed as being in the northeast. <br /><br />M60: Northeast India. Minor haplogroup. <br />M48: Northeast India, supposedly associated with Austro-Asiatic speakers. <br />M33: Central and Northeast India. Nepal. Also South China. Minor presence in East India. <br />Centred on Northeast India. <br /><br />M39'70: M39 Central and East India. M70 South China? <br />M40'62: M40 Central and East India, M62 East Asia. M62b Tibet. <br />M49: India, especially east and northeast. Also South China. <br />M13'46'61: M13 China, Tibet, M46 Southeast Asia, M61 Laos, NE India (and presumably between). <br />M50: Supposedly NE India, SE Asia and (possibly) China. <br />Here we have haplogroups in both Northeast India and South China.terrythttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17327062321100035888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post-80155001498671215802012-03-22T01:25:43.473+01:002012-03-22T01:25:43.473+01:00"That MNOPS is not 'K'. If that's..."That MNOPS is not 'K'. If that's not enough "point" for you...Re. CT, my point is that I do not know what CT is. That's my point: that the term is imprecise and confusing" <br /><br />Both points irrelevant to the present discussion about an SE Asian origin for much of the haplogroup K and a separate range for C. <br /><br />"They are usually very dark, even if they may be also blond. Australian Aboriginals never lost their 'blackness' either". <br /><br />Nowhere near as dark as Papuans. Nor do they have such curly hair. <br /><br />"They were not dallying in Sundaland for long wondering how to build a boat: they arrived and crossed almost right away". <br /><br />Because they were able to adopt a technology that had already been used to cross to Australia. I note you are now prepared to accept that the molecular clock is unreliable. So you should now be able to accept that N is not necessarily 'younger' than M. <br /><br />"That part of advanced mariner skills you can attribute to the Indonesian geography probably, as it's not documented anywhere else except the crossing to Crete, which is probably not work of our species'. And again it is in Timor where we do find the first evidence of humans fishing in open waters (it's some time later than the crossing but not much later anyhow)". <br /><br />Now we're getting somewhere. <br /><br />"Drift alone can do that". <br /><br />Drift can do it only if the population is isolated in a single region for some time, not if a population is on the move. A population on the move will leave sub-populations behind. After all, if people can move through a region they are obvioulsy capable of surviving in it. So, unless the drift occurred in an isolated population, the only explanation possible for the absence of haplogroups between L3 and M or M is genocide. <br /><br />"The connection I make is only for Sahul. Maybe it can be extended to East Asia, together with Y-DNA D" <br /><br />That is hardly 'proof' that all the haplogroups moved in unison to Sahul. <br /><br />"the case that two lineages (male and female) appear to go together in an area, does not mean that they must be together everywhere. I think that everybody can understand that" <br /><br />Exactly. <br /><br />"while mtDNA R appears to be original from around Bengal". <br /><br />I'd hesitate before appearing so confident of that.terrythttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17327062321100035888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post-1881297462311012482012-03-21T11:53:24.193+01:002012-03-21T11:53:24.193+01:00...
"And 10-20,000 years is easily enough ti......<br /><br />"And 10-20,000 years is easily enough time to develop boating techniology"...<br /><br />There's even more time in 2 million years of Homo prehistory in general. <br /><br />Also if the technology was known, as I think it was the case, they still had to develop some confidence and skills for open sea crossings. That part of advanced mariner skills you can attribute to the Indonesian geography probably, as it's not documented anywhere else except the crossing to Crete, which is probably not work of our species'. And again it is in Timor where we do find the first evidence of humans fishing in open waters (it's some time later than the crossing but not much later anyhow). <br /><br />One thing is basic boating and another thing is daring to go out to the open seas following the saltwater crocodile (or whatever). <br /><br />Just the same that one thing is a sailboat and another is Columbus' voyage. <br /><br />"UFO is the only possible explanation for N having miraculously reached SE Asia leaving no trail. Or M having reached South Asia leaving no trail. Genocide of the remnant populations?"<br /><br />Drift alone can do that. <br /><br />"You are making up the connection between Y-DNA C and mt-DNA M. C is remarkably rare in South Asia"...<br /><br />The connection I make is only for Sahul. Maybe it can be extended to East Asia, together with Y-DNA D, but I would totally agree that in South Asia it is not the case at all: there it is F which is apparently coupled with mtDNA M. However the expansion of Y-DNA P (P*, R2, R1a) confuses things in South Asia. <br /><br />Whatever the case that two lineages (male and female) appear to go together in an area, does not mean that they must be together everywhere. I think that everybody can understand that: people marries (or equivalent) outside the group, what means that in the long run these couplings will be altered almost unavoidably. For example in West Eurasia we see the incorporation of Y-DNA IJ and G (as well as some minor mtDNA N) to the "R&R clan". That's something we do not see at all in the East and must be caused by particular founder effects of the West Eurasian colonization.<br /><br />The exact details have been lost to us. <br /><br />"So they originated in the same region?"<br /><br />I did not say that. Y-DNA MNOPS appears to have originated in SE Asia, maybe as far South as Sundaland, while mtDNA R appears to be original from around Bengal. That in the Y-DNA side can only be said of Y-DNA P, so there was a westward flow of males and an eastward flow of females somehow. Probably a boater group of clans extending from the Sundarbans to Sundaland at some point.Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post-48023078239783586952012-03-21T11:53:12.520+01:002012-03-21T11:53:12.520+01:00What point am I trying to make? That MNOPS is not ...What point am I trying to make? That MNOPS is not "K". If that's not enough "point" for you... <br /><br />Precision is all, sloppiness is unscientific. Ask your beloved Darwin, a most methodical experimenter who was everything but sloppy. <br /><br />Re. CT, my point is that I do not know what CT is. That's my point: that the term is imprecise and confusing.<br /><br />"So why are Indigenous Americans not white?"<br /><br />They are "white" in comparison to African, South Indian, Negrito, Melanesian or even Australian "blacks". <br /><br />My point is that they are white, too white: they tan and untan like most West Eurasians, even if often their skin may be slightly darker as basic color (but that's the East Asian way to depigmentation, which is different to the West Eurasian one). <br /><br />"Aborigines (Y-DNA C and mt-DNA N) are generally not as dark as are Papuans"...<br /><br />They are usually very dark, even if they may be also blond. Australian Aboriginals never lost their "blackness" either. <br /><br />"Such technology is not required for any 'rapid' movement through Eurasia from Africa. And you immediately contradict yourself:<br /><br />"There are enough mutations between the L3 node and the M and N ones to allow for migration, even for relatively slow migration (10-20,000 years is my guess)"". <br /><br />Such technology is required to cross any river, lake, swamp. Humans are intelligent animals and there's nothing that could stop them from developing boats and rafts as soon as they found a need, what was always. So the only obstacle is cognitive capacity, what means that surely boats or rafts were invented first by Homo erectus/ergaster, as they are roughly intermediate between chimps and us in brain size. <br /><br />My sentence does not mean that since the M explosion and Sahul the migration was slow but that PRIOR to that, they could well have been in South Arabia or the Persian Gulf for several millennia. It's not the Eurasian expansion which was slow... it's the hiatus between L3 and M/N what might have taken some time.<br /><br />But from India (M explosion) to Papua there was just one mutation, what means fast migration. And, if that's not enough, from Bengal or Indochina (N explosion?) to Australia there was also again one single mutation, what means a fast crossing related to demographic events in the mainland. <br /><br />They were not dallying in Sundaland for long wondering how to build a boat: they arrived and crossed almost right away. <br /><br />...Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post-40953224389693105032012-03-21T04:27:10.214+01:002012-03-21T04:27:10.214+01:00Oh. One more point:
"while the 'young ...Oh. One more point: <br /><br />"while the 'young clade' (R-derived P) is found where Y-DNA MNOPS is found - and the mtDNA R <=> Y-DNA MNOPS parallel stands also in Eurasia to a very large extent" <br /><br />So they originated in the same region? That region can hardly have been South Asia.terrythttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17327062321100035888noreply@blogger.com