tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post8671641826003208636..comments2024-03-09T15:46:44.638+01:00Comments on For what they were... we are: Many more interesting short newsMajuhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comBlogger107125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post-62393861215351890612011-09-10T12:09:26.325+02:002011-09-10T12:09:26.325+02:00You know perfectly that for me (and often in anthr...You know perfectly that for me (and often in anthropological and prehistory contexts at least South China is SE Asia. <br /><br />But whatever, I'm fucking tired of even having to discuss this. You know what are my terms, you don't debate them every other day. It'd be understandable if you'd be new but you are a very old visitor. <br /><br />You have no excuse. You just play with my mind and I don't have to put up with that. Bye.Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post-9708045379247155082011-09-10T10:41:23.822+02:002011-09-10T10:41:23.822+02:00"You'll make silly and wrong distinctions..."You'll make silly and wrong distinctions like claiming that South China is not SEA when you know perfectly that it is" <br /><br />Rubbish Maju. Southeast Asia is Southeast Asia and South China is South China. If you're going to claim basal diversity within particular regions it is necessary to confine those regions as much as possible otherwise you're claiming that particular regions have greater diversity simply because they are larger. <br /><br />"It's a waste of time debating with you Terry". <br /><br />You've never actually debated. You've always just insisted your hypothesis is correct.terrythttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17327062321100035888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post-4928813736413603872011-09-10T10:37:10.213+02:002011-09-10T10:37:10.213+02:00"I'm tired and I find this a total waste ..."I'm tired and I find this a total waste of time. I won't debate with you further". <br /><br />I understand. You find it unpleasant to have someone point out the weaknesses in your reasoning. <br /><br />"The Garden of Eden is allegedly in Mesopotamia, mind you". <br /><br />It's actually mythical so you can place it where-ever you wish. <br /><br />"L1 (5 mutations, migrated from Upper Nile to Cameroon), L0d (9 mutations, migrated from Tanzania? to South Africa)" <br /><br />I've tried several times, but to no avail, to point out to you that the evidence best fits an origin for L0 along the southern margin of the Congo rainforest and L1 along the northern margin. Under that scenario there is complete continuity in the two populations so the apparent 'problem of the tails' disappears. Again they simply coalesced at opposite geographic extremes within the same region. They certainly didn't move while their tails were forming. The tails formed once they each became isolated. <br /><br />"M8 (4 mutations, migrated from South Asia to NE Asia)" <br /><br />But M8 migrated from Northeast India after the 4 mutation tail was completed, not while the tail was developing. It is very easy to follow M8/CZ's expansion from then on, east and north, and even to America. It left plenty of 'footprints'. <br /><br />"Y2 (5 mutations, migrated it seems from NE Asia to Indonesia)" <br /><br />That migration is relatively late. Possibly even associated with the Neolithic. And, as far as I'm aware it is just one branch of Y2 (Y2a or Y2b, I forget which) and it is not found only in Indonesia. <br /><br />"N (5 mutations, migrated from Ethiopia to SE Asia)" <br /><br />That is precisely where I claim you are mistaken, the point we disagree on. You cannot use that example as 'proof' of your hypothesis. N (as well as M) are simply single clades of L3, the other members of which are found right across Africa. N and M obviously underwent a period of drift before they were able to diversify considerably, presumably because they were eventually able to expand rapidly further into Eurasia from their respective regions of coalescence. <br /><br />"It is not possible for 'undifferentiated N' to have existed in all those different areas at the same time and not have left any more tracks, notably lineages separated by only one or two mutations, as we find in SEA, Sahul, mid-East Asia and South Asia". <br /><br />N did leave tracks. You are forgetting that there was a rather severe ice age that would have considerably restricted population expansion in northern regions. The effect would have been much smaller in SEA, Sahul, mid-East Asia and South Asia. Besides which N1'5 has just one mutation before it separates into N1 and N5. And N5 hardly shows the diversity in South Asia one would expect if it had entered with M. <br /><br />"X and N2 (5 mutations, migrated from SEA to the Levant)". <br /><br />Again that's exactly where we disagree, and is the point you're trying to 'prove', as far as I'm concerned. You are just arguing in circles. <br /><br />"A is not the only anomaly, much less within N: X and N2 are as well. The three have very similar behaviors". <br /><br />My point exactly. And N9.terrythttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17327062321100035888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post-42775054317780352152011-09-10T10:22:34.609+02:002011-09-10T10:22:34.609+02:00I could discuss some points, all points, but it...I could discuss some points, all points, but it's pointless. You'll make silly and wrong distinctions like claiming that South China is not SEA when you know perfectly that it is, and not just for me. <br /><br />It's a waste of time debating with you Terry.Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post-26187566521678732272011-09-10T09:36:42.996+02:002011-09-10T09:36:42.996+02:00"F will necessarily have a much larger tail b..."F will necessarily have a much larger tail because it's a larger haplogroup present in many populations full of genetic researchers finding more and more mutations every other year or even month". <br /><br />True. But the tail still indicates a relativley long period of drift. But, as you point out, a short tail doesn't necessarily represent a short period of drift. <br /><br />"I do? Or it does itself?" <br /><br />Obviously F or its ancestor came from Africa at some time. <br /><br />"And why would F leave a footprint if mtDNA M did not?" <br /><br />M1'20'51? But that haplogroup appears to have originated further east than did the western basal Ns. Again the two haplogroups probably represent separate regions of fixation within a single population. <br /><br />"Second, no idea what footprint do you expect them to leave when they move between adjacent regions". <br /><br />When any population moves it usually leaves members along the way. The population seldom moves as a self-contained unit. As I pointed out yesterday we can follow the route all the mtDNA haplogroups took to Europe, America and Polynesia. All except one, that is. <br /><br />"for me G and IJ never did such a migration, their F and IJK precursors did instead". <br /><br />That's even more jumping around. You now have IJK's ancestor coming from South Asia then K moving east again. <br /><br />"That's mainstream. Do you want me to debate that also? Are you questioning this?" <br /><br />Of course it's mainstream. I was merely pointing out that the migration of J2 to South Asia is the very first time we see any trace of source population under your hypothesis. <br /><br />"N8, N10, N11, N21, N22... and maybe N9 too". <br /><br />N9 is certainly not SE Asian. N10 and N11 aren't either. They are more realistically called 'South Chinese'. That leaves N21 and N22 as 'Southeast Asian'. <br /><br />"Is it? Really?" <br /><br />Yes. Unless you're going to insist on calling several R clades 'basal'. <br /><br />"In any case, longer stems mean longer time as 'private', small lineage" <br /><br />Yes. And such a lineage is extremely unlikely to move very far from its place of origin before it becomes extinct. <br /><br />"Sometimes. Sometimes they are not". <br /><br />And examples of 'Sometimes they are not'? <br /><br />"P is an example of the latter, far away from South Asia (R)" <br /><br />No. P is quite close to its ancestor in SE Asia. <br /><br />"while N is a case like A, far away from Africa (L3)". <br /><br />No. Members of the haplogroup are quite close to its African relations. <br /><br />"the long stem indicates that the lineage did not find room to expand and was 'latent' (and at risk of extinction) in the meanwhile". <br /><br />I agree 100%. But such a lineage is unlikely to be able to expand far unless it emerges into a so far unexploited region or the climate changes dramatically. In which case it can expand widely, but its base will still be somewhere near its origin. <br /><br />Must go.terrythttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17327062321100035888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post-12837704052077502302011-09-09T13:14:07.382+02:002011-09-09T13:14:07.382+02:00Couple of quick comments.
Firstly, of course I me...Couple of quick comments.<br /><br />Firstly, of course I meant back-migrated <i>West</i> - not East - when talking about IJ.<br /><br />Secondly, yes, Terry, if F had split before entry to SA, that would require regions of substantial growth that did not then exist.eurologisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03440019181278830033noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post-89119371016383212952011-09-09T09:28:50.158+02:002011-09-09T09:28:50.158+02:00...
"Find us an example of another haplogrou......<br /><br />"Find us an example of another haplogroup with a long tail that has migrated from somewhere other than within the region where it is now found". <br /><br />L1 (5 mutations, migrated from Upper Nile to Cameroon), L0d (9 mutations, migrated from Tanzania? to South Africa), N (5 mutations, migrated from Ethiopia to SE Asia), M8 (4 mutations, migrated from South Asia to NE Asia), Y2 (5 mutations, migrated it seems from NE Asia to Indonesia), X and N2 (5 mutations, migrated from SEA to the Levant).<br /><br />The real problem is migrating so fast as to no accumulate almost any mutations. It happens too and that's why geneticists sometimes talk of "rapid (coastal) migration". <br /><br />"Again A is the only amomaly".<br /><br />A is not the only anomaly, much less within N: X and N2 are as well. The three have very similar behaviors. <br /><br />But two in West Asia and the other in NE Asia. It is not possible for "undifferentiated N" to have existed in all those different areas at the same time and not have left any more tracks, notably lineages separated by only one or two mutations, as we find in SEA, Sahul, mid-East Asia and South Asia. <br /><br />You take advantage of my good will to waste my time with all that. If the stem is short because it is short, if long because long... all is the same to you as long as the road from Addis Abbaba to Sydney goes through Altai. <br /><br />It does not: nothing matches that idea. It is just an old absurd idea. <br /><br />"Especially if you choose to ignore the two Tibetan/Tatar A haplogroups". <br /><br />Tibetan AND CHINESE, Tatar AND NORTH ASIAN in general. Actually A is most common in NE Asia and has a distribution that is somewhat similar to Y-DNA C3, with the occasional scatter westward, where C3 does exist too. However mtDNA D and CZ match Y-DNA C3 even better. <br /><br />"Because you don't understand population genetics?"<br /><br />Sure, whatever. <br /><br />"Ahaa. The great single migration from the Garden of Eden"...<br /><br />The Garden of Eden is allegedly in Mesopotamia, mind you. <br /><br />I'm tired and I find this a total waste of time. I won't debate with you further. I hope to have more interested and interesting readers. <br /><br />Otherwise, I guess each one gets what he deserves. I can only blame myself for replying to you when you go in nonsense rampage every two posts. <br /><br />And post every day. <br /><br />And it's the same old repetitive debate and you never seem to understand nor acknowledge my viewpoint. <br /><br />Sick. Boring. Useless. <br /><br />But I deserve it for replying to you. <br /><br />C'est fini!Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post-66341069070613545342011-09-09T09:28:42.335+02:002011-09-09T09:28:42.335+02:00"It simply has to consist of a population of ..."It simply has to consist of a population of basal F haplotypes".<br /><br />That does not happen with Y-DNA: the Y chromosome is too large not to mutate at every generation or so. MtDNA is another story, there a mutation can go unchanged for a hundred generations or more. The difference is quite brutal but that's also the difference of length of the respective DNA chains. <br /><br />"F has a considerable tail before it diversifies"...<br /><br />Forget about SNP tails (or heads or whatever) in Y-DNA that only indicates, specially if unqualified, the level of research of each lineage. F will necessarily have a much larger tail because it's a larger haplogroup present in many populations full of genetic researchers finding more and more mutations every other year or even month. <br /><br />"You have F (or CF, or CT) moving east from Africa to South Asia leaving no footprint".<br /><br />I do? Or it does itself? <br /><br />And why would F leave a footprint if mtDNA M did not? Why do you guys insist on debating Y-DNA without paying any attention to mtDNA, when this one is much more likely to have retained most of the information? <br /><br />"Then G and IJ moving west from South Asia to Anatolia/Iran leaving no footprint". <br /><br />First, you make my words dance: for me G and IJ never did such a migration, their F and IJK precursors did instead. Second, no idea what footprint do you expect them to leave when they move between adjacent regions. <br /><br />"Then J2 moving east from Anatolia/Iran to South Asia"...<br /><br />That's mainstream. Do you want me to debate that also? Are you questioning this?<br /><br />"Five? What are they?"<br /><br />N8, N10, N11, N21, N22... and maybe N9 too. <br /><br />"It is simply empty of basal N clades".<br /><br />Is it? Really?<br /><br />"I wonder when they're going to rationalise haplogroup M". <br /><br />Next reincarnation.<br /><br />"And, interestingly, A behaves in exactly the same manner as all other haplogrouops. It is not an anomaly at all. There are numerous examples of haplogroups with a long 'tail' separating them from their 'parent' haplogroup".<br /><br />I know.<br /><br />I was just trying to make you pay attention to the topography of N.<br /><br />In any case, longer stems mean longer time as "private", small lineage (mtDNA only, not extensible to Y-DNA, because the apportion of knowledge is radically different). <br /><br />"And they are all found within the region of their parent's geographic range".<br /><br />Sometimes. Sometimes they are not. And sometimes short stems include lineages very far away from parent. P is an example of the latter, far away from South Asia (R), while N is a case like A, far away from Africa (L3). <br /><br />In any case, the long stem indicates that the lineage did not find room to expand and was "latent" (and at risk of extinction) in the meanwhile. <br /><br />...Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post-5045551741924497072011-09-09T07:56:19.391+02:002011-09-09T07:56:19.391+02:00"I did not use the distinction between elder ..."I did not use the distinction between elder and other N clades to find where N coalesced, just to explain you (quite uselessly, it seems) that these lineages behaved differently at their origins and that must be considered and understood". <br /><br />And, interestingly, A behaves in exactly the same manner as all other haplogrouops. It is not an anomaly at all. There are numerous examples of haplogroups with a long 'tail' separating them from their 'parent' haplogroup. And they are all found within the region of their parent's geographic range. In other words they have undergone drift locally as they became isolated, not as they migrated. You claim that A is an anomaly in this. The only one? Find us an example of another haplogroup with a long tail that has migrated from somewhere other than within the region where it is now found. <br /><br />But there are actually numerous examples of haplogroups having migrated from the region their parent haplogroups occupied: Europe, America and Polynesia for example. Polynesian B is B4a1a1a, obviously derived from B4 which is still found in South China/SE Asia. America too has B, this time B2, a clade within B4b'd'e. America has A2, a clade within A4, as well as specific clades of C, D and X. Europe has specific clades of H and V, both within R0, as well as specific clades of J, T, K and I. In all cases it is very easy to see where their orgin lies. Even U has non-European members. But A appears to have no immediate ancestors, just undifferentiated N. Again A is the only amomaly. This means that any hypothesis other than autochthonous origin must be abandoned. <br /><br />"Where do you find Central Asia?" <br /><br />Right next to 'North Asia, Actic Siberia, North Asia... China/Tibet... America'. <br /><br />"It falls in NE Asia without almost any doubt". <br /><br />Especially if you choose to ignore the two Tibetan/Tatar A haplogroups. <br /><br />"To me that is anything but 'obvious'". <br /><br />Because you don't understand population genetics? <br /><br />"For me, the ancestors of A took part in a more ample migration northwards, involving other lineages (surely its 'elder sister' N9 or its daughters, maybe M8, M9, D, etc. as well)". <br /><br />Ahaa. The great single migration from the Garden of Eden raises its ugly head yet again. <br /><br />"This last phase happens only quite late. Why?" <br /><br />The development or aquisition of some new technology? <br /><br />"IJ and G could not have stayed as bachelors in the West". <br /><br />There is absolutely no need for them to have 'stayed as bachelors in the West'. There was no shortage of females. <br /><br />"... and would they have survived with L3(xM,N) lineages, we'd find them today instead of N-derived ones, right?" <br /><br />Why only L3(xM,N)? Why not N, such as N1'5, X and even N2? <br /><br />"I tend to think that CF is elder to D but not to DE" <br /><br />I suspect all four are about the same age. They just coalesced at different margins of the early H. sapiens geographic distribution. Then headed off in different directions. <br /><br />"I'm glad that someone else beside Terry and I read this". <br /><br />Yes. I was beginning to think I was the only one stupid enough to bother trying to explain anything to you.terrythttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17327062321100035888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post-86853398807492112732011-09-09T06:46:21.375+02:002011-09-09T06:46:21.375+02:00"Occam calls for the simplest possible explan..."Occam calls for the simplest possible explanation but if you prefer the complex-est, up to you". <br /><br />You have F (or CF, or CT) moving east from Africa to South Asia leaving no footprint. Then G and IJ moving west from South Asia to Anatolia/Iran leaving no footprint. Then J2 moving east from Anatolia/Iran to South Asia and, finally we see a footprint. Do you really believe that is a parsimonious solution? <br /><br />"N's greatest basal diversity is in SE Asia, where we find at least five different subclades". <br /><br />Five? What are they? I make it three: N21, N22 and R. Australia wins! <br /><br />"South Asia is just an empty desert... repeat with me..." <br /><br />South Asia is not an empty desert. It is simply empty of basal N clades. M and R seemed to manage there quite well, thanks. <br /><br />"B4'5, defined by transition at loci 8281-8289d". <br /><br />Thanks for that. I wonder when they're going to rationalise haplogroup M. <br /><br />I have to go now, so I'll carry on later.terrythttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17327062321100035888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post-54586008109823038722011-09-09T06:35:21.991+02:002011-09-09T06:35:21.991+02:00Sorry for the double post.
"After ~100,000...Sorry for the double post. <br /><br />"After ~100,000ya, there really wasn't any region between Africa and the Indian subcontinent that would have allowed for any significant population growth, or large intermediate, 'left behind' populations". <br /><br />That would explain why G, IJK and F3 have long 'tails'. They were confined to a small region and subject to drift. <br /><br />" it seems quite likely from the distribution that G derives from a population that was "left behind," likely some place in or close to W Pakistan with very limited pre-neolithic growth opportunity, while other groups marched on and populated S and SE Asia (creating the other F sub groups)". <br /><br />I have been trying to convince Maju of that since we first made contact. <br /><br />"H again tells us nothing except that F evidently underwent explosive population growth (and concomitant splits into subgroups) in the Indian subcontinent". <br /><br />To me that explains the evidence as we know it at present. <br /><br />"I see IJ basically the same way as G - they could have even been collocated for a while, but then back-migrated East on slightly different routes. In other words, IJ is just the portion of IJK that stayed behind". <br /><br />I basically agree, although I see no need to postulate they 'back-migrated East'. They may always have lived somewhere within the region they are found today. <br /><br />"I don't think F split before entry into the subcontinent" <br /><br />It doesn't actually have to 'split' before entering the subcontinent. It simply has to consist of a population of basal F haplotypes. <br /><br />"but where is this area that allowed a lot of population growth and a lot of time before this group (of CF sons) reached the subcontinent?" <br /><br />I don't think we need postulate any period of 'population growth'. F has a considerable tail before it diversifies, presumably the result of a long period of drift while it was confined to a small region. So I would agree with 'a lot of time'.terrythttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17327062321100035888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post-58391032540922376722011-09-08T18:12:54.828+02:002011-09-08T18:12:54.828+02:00@Eurologist: first of all I'm glad that someon...@Eurologist: first of all I'm glad that someone else beside Terry and I read this. At least it has a use (because I despair of opening Terry's mind to the obvious). <br /><br />"I don't like the idea of G being a part of the original migration towards the subcontinent that then went off and tried out hunting grounds farther north in Eastern Iran/Afghanistan - those areas where either extremely inhospitable, or populated by Neanderthals, then".<br /><br />That's where I'd suggest that you look at the matter from the mtDNA side, not for G but in general for the colonization of West Eurasia and Eurasia in general. We see (I see at least):<br /><br />1. A phase of expansion Eastwards from South Asia and, secondarily from SE Asia, reaching Sahul and mid-East Asia. A T shaped pattern with top to the East.<br /><br />2. A lesser phase of backflow to South Asia (mtDNA N leading to R, etc., Y-DNA P). <br /><br />3. A last backflow to East Asia (mtDNA R, leading to R11'F and B). <br /><br />4. Expansion to West Eurasia and NE Asia.<br /><br />This last phase happens only quite late. Why? Because it is a last resort choice: only when there is no more room for expansion, when the flow between SA and SEA (and Sahul) is clearly stopped or reduced to a trickle, only then some populations considered facing the hardest options: Neanderland (West Eurasia) and the Frostlands (NE Asia). <br /><br />So I'd place the expansion of Y-DNA G, IJ, R1(b), T... in this context. Instead of reading Y-DNA alone, what is confusing, I try to read it in relation to the more legible mtDNA flow, and then it makes sense. I finally got them making sense at least. <br /><br />"H again tells us nothing"...<br /><br />If we knew a bit more about the substructure of H it'd tell us something I suspect. But essentially you're right. <br /><br />"I see IJ basically the same way as G"...<br /><br />I do too, with the caveat that IJ seems to have got a more southernly core and expansion zone. But again, I see these along with mtDNA and not as impossible bachelor guys.<br /><br />So they did not "stay behind" but migrated Westwards, as mtDNA so clearly did. <br /><br />"If F split before reaching the subcontinent"...<br /><br />We'd know by now. F is very well researched. Y-DNA mutates to fast to hide such a split. F expanded from SA without doubt and the mtDNA signature reinforces this idea because IJ and G could not have stayed as bachelors in the West.<br /><br />... and would they have survived with L3(xM,N) lineages, we'd find them today instead of N-derived ones, right?<br /><br />As for the timing, I tend to think that CF is elder to D but not to DE (which is why E became dominant in Africa, because E was elder within DE, which was elder within CF'DE). I suspect that DE (leading to D) migrated as lesser lineage with CF, same as mtDNA L3n did with L3m. But eventually mtDNA N was more successful (they are not necessarily coupled anyhow, just both are smaller lineages, which were "drifted out" almost everywhere - almost).Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post-3060792567703369422011-09-08T17:51:28.954+02:002011-09-08T17:51:28.954+02:00"Doesn't the above pattern closely follow..."Doesn't the above pattern closely follow what we expect of an expansion from somewhere in Central Asia?"<br /><br />North Asia, Actic Siberia, North Asia... China/Tibet... America (i.e. Alaska and Chukotka at the origin) <br /><br />Where do you find Central Asia?<br /><br />"It starts between Tibet and Arctic Siberia".<br /><br />Siberia weights 3, China 1 and America (Alaska) 1 (two are undefined "Asian"). It falls in NE Asia without almost any doubt. <br /><br />Just wishing something doesn't make it any more real. You should know at your age.<br /><br />"To me it seems obvious that A is a product of a population that became isolated from other 'N's and subject to a period of drift after N's 'original' expansion". <br /><br />To me that is anything but "obvious". For me, the ancestors of A took part in a more ample migration northwards, involving other lineages (surely its "elder sister" N9 or its daughters, maybe M8, M9, D, etc. as well). <br /><br />A is roughly contemporary (mutation up, mutation down) of N9b and Y1 (and also in the south N9a and Y2). So I think it's easy to conclude that the evolution of A is closely linked to its sister N9's - or more like to the N9 clan's nieces and grand-nieces (in Y).Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post-61062100752010132232011-09-08T17:35:45.438+02:002011-09-08T17:35:45.438+02:00"It is hardly 'parsimonious' to allow..."It is hardly 'parsimonious' to allow all that backwards and forwards". <br /><br />Whatever rocks your boat man. Occam calls for the simplest possible explanation but if you prefer the complex-est, up to you. <br /><br />"N's greatest diversity in Australia".<br /><br />By regions, N's greatest basal diversity is in SE Asia, where we find at least five different subclades. <br /><br />But the other reason, the old one, is geometry. The centroid of all that scatter of N subclades fall where? In SEA. <br /><br />"But N1'5 can hardly be described as 'South Asian', and R doubtfully so".<br /><br />Whatever. South Asia is just an empty desert... repeat with me... <br /><br />Please!<br /><br />"For example, ignoring control region mutations (which you are quite happy to do when considering R's distance from the root N)",<br /><br />... and in general...<br /><br />... "we get the following 'elder lineages' within R, all just one mutation from the R root: R0 (West Eurasia), R2'JT South/SW Asia), R6 (South Asia), R30 (South Asia), R31 (South Asia), P (OZ/NG), R11'B6 East/SE Asia)"...<br /><br /><br />... so far so good...<br /><br />... "R24 (East/SE Asia), B4a (East/SE Asia), B4b'd'e (East/SE Asia), B4c (East/SE Asia), B4f (East/SE Asia), B4g (East/SE Asia), B4h (East/SE Asia) and B5 (East/SE Asia)". <br /><br />All that however is just one single haplogroup per the latest build: B4'5, defined by transition at loci 8281-8289d. <br /><br />Even if that would not be the case, that it is, B4g, B4f, B5... could not be described as "elders", in the sense I did a few comments ago (up to two mutations downstream of the basal node), because they have four mutations downstream of B4'5. They are not "elders" even within B4'5.<br /><br />Quit cheating!<br /><br />"So where is the greatest basal diversity within R?"<br /><br />It's in SA, there's no doubt about it. I did not use the distinction between elder and other N clades to find where N coalesced, just to explain you (quite uselessly, it seems) that these lineages behaved differently at their origins and that must be considered and understood. <br /><br />And regardless, even if we only consider "elder" lineages under R, it's still four in SA, vs 3 in EA+Australasia. <br /><br />So far the evidence indicates that R coalesced in SA, as did M before it. However they both have a very strong presence in the East. This last, together with the location of N (and similar stuff in the Y-DNA side) reinforces the idea that both SE Asia and South Asia played important and dynamic roles in an early "Asia of the H. sapiens" in which they were still very strongly communicating and the flow had not yet fully stopped. But of the two, South Asia is the big one, while SEA played a somewhat second role (but still very important).Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post-14125128391186572612011-09-08T10:54:01.365+02:002011-09-08T10:54:01.365+02:00With regard to the origin and spread of CF (or CTx...With regard to the origin and spread of CF (or CTxED), I think the question of timing is the most important. After ~100,000ya, there really wasn't any region between Africa and the Indian subcontinent that would have allowed for any significant population growth, or large intermediate, "left behind" populations. I think it may well be that ED spread earlier (130,000-100,000ya), but it would be hard to make such a case for CF.<br /><br />F* and F1-5 are pretty meaningless in this context, IMO - they just indicate that in addition to the subgroups that underwent explosive growth, there are still remnants derived from local population niches, which could have survived pretty much anywhere not too far from S and SE Asia, and then spread from there a bit further. It does show, though, that <i>at least</i> the majority of F and its subgroups originated on the subcontinent.<br /><br />As I have written before, it seems quite likely from the distribution that G derives from a population that was "left behind," likely some place in or close to W Pakistan with very limited pre-neolithic growth opportunity, while other groups marched on and populated S and SE Asia (creating the other F sub groups). I don't like the idea of G being a part of the original migration towards the subcontinent that then went off and tried out hunting grounds farther north in Eastern Iran/Afghanistan - those areas where either extremely inhospitable, or populated by Neanderthals, then.<br /><br />H again tells us nothing except that F evidently underwent explosive population growth (and concomitant splits into subgroups) in the Indian subcontinent. As expected from a very early split-off, H is quite widely distributed outside the subcontinent, at very low levels. It would be worthwhile to study its subgroups more carefully to deduce distribution routes and timings.<br /><br />I see IJ basically the same way as G - they could have even been collocated for a while, but then back-migrated East on slightly different routes. In other words, IJ is just the portion of IJK that stayed behind.<br /><br />I don't think F split <i>before</i> entry into the subcontinent, but immediately <i>at</i> entry when areas where found in which AMHs could multiply, into G, IJK, and F(xG,IJK) (the timing of H with respect to this is kind of irrelevant). <br /><br />If F split before reaching the subcontinent, then we must postulate that so did CF (and much, much earlier, at that) - but where is this area that allowed a lot of population growth and a lot of time before this group (of CF sons) reached the subcontinent? I don't think such a place existed, unless one postulates the timing to be during the 130,000-100,000 wet phase. I'd rather leave that to DE. We must then also postulate that C drifted out and vanished, in this region, and so did all of the F* that might have arisen there, then, as well. And we should see structure in these groups that make them look 30,000-50,000 older - I don't see this.eurologisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03440019181278830033noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post-32322114827801363732011-09-08T07:06:08.707+02:002011-09-08T07:06:08.707+02:00(continued)
"Neither one is centered in Cen...(continued) <br /><br />"Neither one is centered in Central Asia. Branches of them (and other lineages like U, H, G, etc.) have extended there but this cannot be considered basal in any sense. X originates in West Asia and A in NE Asia: neither originates in Altai or elsewhere in Central Asia". <br /><br />I wouldn't be too sure of that: <br /><br />"Yes: they are anomalies, not normal". <br /><br />But they are easily explained in fact. Again ignoring control region mutations we get thirteen basal haplogroups within A. First with no further mutations from the A root: A4d and A4c, in 'Northern Asia', and A8 in 'Arctic Siberia' and amoung the Tatars. One more mutation takes us to A11 on the Tibetan Plateau/China and A4a in 'Northern Asia'. Yet another mutation from the N root (7 in total from L3) takes us to A4b in 'Northern Asia' and A5 in China/SE Asia. At eight mutations from N we have A3 and A7 in 'Asia' and A2 in America. With nine mutations we're back in Tibet with the Tatars as A10, in 'East Asia' as A6 and in 'Asia' with A9. These last haplogroups almost certainly represent survivors who had undergone a period of drift once the particular groups had become isolated from other 'A's following the 'original' A expansion. Doesn't the above pattern closely follow what we expect of an expansion from somewhere in Central Asia? It starts between Tibet and Arctic Siberia. <br /><br />"half of those 15 basal sublineages do not show signs of immediate re-expansion but either delayed expansion (A, N2, X) or no expansion at all. The other half do show sings of immediate re-expansion, within one or two CR mutations" <br /><br />So we should take a look at them. After taking the haplogroups just a single mutation from basal N we again find haplogroups that probably became isolated following N's 'original' expansion. They fit within the region haplogroup N covered with the single mutation derivatives. All, that is, except A. To me it seems obvious that A is a product of a population that became isolated from other 'N's and subject to a period of drift after N's 'original' expansion.terrythttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17327062321100035888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post-27859804564932049972011-09-08T07:05:25.767+02:002011-09-08T07:05:25.767+02:00"as F is SA and K is SA, there is no reason t..."as F is SA and K is SA, there is no reason to think that IJK emigrated until after the divergence of the K-leading branch. Parsimony". <br /><br />That's not parsimony at all. We have a basal F in the west (G), and possibly another (F3), so surely it is hardly surprising that a branch of a haplogroup close to basal F (IJ) is also found in the west. It is hardly 'parsimonious' to allow all that backwards and forwards. <br /><br />"Otherwise we'd be proposing an emigration and back-immigration for no reason at all". <br /><br />That is exactly what you are proposing. <br /><br />"We have N9 in NE Asia, N8, N10 and N11 in China, R in South China, N22 in Malaya, N21 in Sumatra, O and S in Australia. That's a fairly continuous line". <br /><br />Sorry. I missed two haplogroups out: N13 and N14. Both from Australia. So that makes N's greatest diversity in Australia. Doesn't that tell us that N's origin must be Australia according to your theory? <br /><br />"The seven 'elder' lineages are found in: East Asia (N9, N10, N11), Sahul (S, O) and South Asia-plus (N1'5, R). The center of gravity from this viewpoint remains being SE Asia, where we find some of the lesser lineages (N21 and N22 if I recall correctly)". <br /><br />As you say the above 'elder' lineages are those with just one mutation for the N root. But N1'5 can hardly be described as 'South Asian', and R doubtfully so. For example, ignoring control region mutations (which you are quite happy to do when considering R's distance from the root N), we get the following 'elder lineages' within R, all just one mutation from the R root: R0 (West Eurasia), R2'JT South/SW Asia), R6 (South Asia), R30 (South Asia), R31 (South Asia), P (OZ/NG), R11'B6 East/SE Asia), R24 (East/SE Asia), B4a (East/SE Asia), B4b'd'e (East/SE Asia), B4c (East/SE Asia), B4f (East/SE Asia), B4g (East/SE Asia), B4h (East/SE Asia) and B5 (East/SE Asia). <br /><br />So where is the greatest basal diversity within R? And when we turn to R haplogroups with two or more mutations we find that all eleven are within the region the above haplogroups with the single mutations already occupied: R12'21, R9, U, R5, R22, R8, R7, R3, R14, R23 and R1. These haplogroups are almost certainly the result of populations that became isolted within the region of the original R expansion before expanding in turn. <br /><br />(continued)terrythttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17327062321100035888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post-52504567921779317492011-09-08T07:02:36.805+02:002011-09-08T07:02:36.805+02:00"as F is SA and K is SA, there is no reason t..."as F is SA and K is SA, there is no reason to think that IJK emigrated until after the divergence of the K-leading branch. Parsimony". <br /><br />That's not parsimony at all. We have a basal F in the west (G), and possibly another (F3), so surely it is hardly surprising that a branch of a haplogroup close to basal F (IJ) is also found in the west. It is hardly 'parsimonious' to allow all that backwards and forwards. <br /><br />"Otherwise we'd be proposing an emigration and back-immigration for no reason at all". <br /><br />That is exactly what you are proposing. <br /><br />"We have N9 in NE Asia, N8, N10 and N11 in China, R in South China, N22 in Malaya, N21 in Sumatra, O and S in Australia. That's a fairly continuous line". <br /><br />Sorry. I missed two haplogroups out: N13 and N14. Both from Australia. So that makes N's greatest diversity in Australia. Doesn't that tell us that N's origin must be Australia according to your theory? <br /><br />"The seven 'elder' lineages are found in: East Asia (N9, N10, N11), Sahul (S, O) and South Asia-plus (N1'5, R). The center of gravity from this viewpoint remains being SE Asia, where we find some of the lesser lineages (N21 and N22 if I recall correctly)". <br /><br />As you say the above 'elder' lineages are those with just one mutation for the N root. But N1'5 can hardly be described as 'South Asian', and R doubtfully so. For example, ignoring control region mutations (which you are quite happy to do when considering R's distance from the root N), we get the following 'elder lineages' within R, all just one mutation from the R root: R0 (West Eurasia), R2'JT South/SW Asia), R6 (South Asia), R30 (South Asia), R31 (South Asia), P (OZ/NG), R11'B6 East/SE Asia), R24 (East/SE Asia), B4a (East/SE Asia), B4b'd'e (East/SE Asia), B4c (East/SE Asia), B4f (East/SE Asia), B4g (East/SE Asia), B4h (East/SE Asia) and B5 (East/SE Asia). <br /><br />So where is the greatest basal diversity within R? And when we turn to R haplogroups with two or more mutations we find that all eleven are within the region the above haplogroups with the single mutations already occupied: R12'21, R9, U, R5, R22, R8, R7, R3, R14, R23 and R1. These haplogroups are almost certainly the result of populations that became isolted within the region of the original R expansion before expanding in turn. <br /><br />(continued)terrythttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17327062321100035888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post-65106338643528721062011-09-07T07:37:53.256+02:002011-09-07T07:37:53.256+02:00I've documented N2a in two Mansis, one Ket, on...I've documented N2a in two Mansis, one Ket, one Iranian, one Armenian, one Turk, one Greek, one Tuscan and one person rooted in South Carolina (possibly of Turkish origins, via Melungeon community?). All the links are at the Wiki:<br /><br />http://ourorigins.wikia.com/wiki/MtDNA_haplogroup_NMajuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post-34493948384927275022011-09-07T07:00:47.642+02:002011-09-07T07:00:47.642+02:00"I agree, they were not numerous but it is fa..."I agree, they were not numerous but it is far more likely to indicate that they underwent a period of drift some time after they arrived in their respective regions, before being able to expand". <br /><br />That could also be a case but here we find them farther away from the estimated origin of N (SEA) than most, if not all, other basal sublineages. So it is in fact more likely that the stem-phase happened on the way from point SEA to points WEA and NEA respectively. <br /><br />Also I tend to understand that they were likely to find room for expansion as soon as they joined previously arrived lineages in WEA (and NEA?) because these were frontier zones where there were opportunities for such expansion (and that's why we're talking of these lineages at all - otherwise they'd be quite irrelevant and rare). <br /><br />Just imagine these being 19th century New York families with no room to expand but which choose to migrate to California, where they thrived. Something like that. <br /><br />"A is fairly 'basal', as is X".<br /><br />Neither one is centered in Central Asia. Branches of them (and other lineages like U, H, G, etc.) have extended there but this cannot be considered basal in any sense. X originates in West Asia and A in NE Asia: neither originates in Altai or elsewhere in Central Asia. <br /><br />This is not just important to debunk your hypothesis but also to establish a time-frame for mtDNA (and Y-DNA possibly too): all those lineages surely existed before c. 40+ Ka ago, when Altai was colonized by H. sapiens with Aurignacoid industries. The colonization of the Fertile Crescent, Europe and Altai, which were Neanderthal territory before c. 50-40 Ka. gives us a calibration point. <br /><br />"All the above suggests a North Asian origin for the haplogroup [A] as a whole".<br /><br />Totally in agreement. I'd say NE Asia, possibly North China or even further North. <br /><br />"It is difficult to make a case for it having come from SE Asia".<br /><br />A did not come from SE Asia. But as N coalesced in SE Asia, pre-A or N*(leading to A) did necessarily. <br /><br />One thing is N (SEA) and another A (NEA), draw a dotted line with an arrow ending towards the North and you'll be happier about it. <br /><br />N ····> A (but from South to North).Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post-19197326354042204012011-09-07T06:41:10.372+02:002011-09-07T06:41:10.372+02:00"They deal totally with the evolution of H. e..."They deal totally with the evolution of H. erectus (...) I use evidence from other species and from modern days to illustrate various facts". <br /><br />All very relevant to our debate (ahem). <br /><br />"So how can you continue to claim IJK is South Asian?"<br /><br />I don't "claim that" but as F is SA and K is SA, there is no reason to think that IJK emigrated until after the divergence of the K-leading branch. Parsimony. <br /><br />Otherwise we'd be proposing an emigration and back-immigration for no reason at all. <br /><br />...<br /><br />Me: "I do not understand how that has anything to do with our discussion in any case".<br /><br />Terry: "You were claiming humans and Neanderthals were completely different species and incapable of mixing, in contrast to my own view". <br /><br />And how does an article on Khoisan genetics has anything to do with Neanderthals.<br /><br />"... it hardly indicates they were obligate sea-food eaters". <br /><br />Not "obligate" of course, just very favored (preferred) or favorable (easy to secure). <br /><br />"You claim M originated right across Southern Asia, from Pakistan to Australia, 'at the same time'".<br /><br />No. Not at all. M coalesced in South Asia, probably in the Sindh-Gujarat-Maharastra arch. It expanded from South Asia into SE Asia, Sahul and even NE Asia. <br /><br />"Like M's diversification, N's diversification is starlike, so it must have expanded rapidly". <br /><br />N did (like M but much less dramatically) experience a moment of rapid expansion judging from the star-like structure, however half of those 15 basal sublineages do not show signs of immediate re-expansion but either delayed expansion (A, N2, X) or no expansion at all. The other half do show sings of immediate re-expansion, within one or two CR mutations and they expanded in East Asia (3), Sahul(2) and South Asia (2, one of them being R), with a probable center in SE Asia (maybe Indochina, maybe South China). <br /><br />"So N1'5, N2 and X are 'isoloated dots'?"<br /><br />If you represent, as I did in my mind (and in previous cases in actual maps) each haplogroup as a dot, yes, they are dots. And they are isolated in time (4-5 mutational steps, instead of the 1-2 to which all the rest belong) and in space: the frontiers of the Eurasian Homo sapiens in that time: the very cold NE Asia and the Neanderthal dominated West and Central Asia (or its South Asian border areas). <br /><br />Yes: they are anomalies, not normal.Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post-68278661252324309132011-09-07T05:41:17.258+02:002011-09-07T05:41:17.258+02:00"no evidence between SEA and WEA/NEA for thes..."no evidence between SEA and WEA/NEA for these lineages, for the 4-5 mutations that separates them from N. That means that they were not numerous (not absent!) in route". <br /><br />I agree, they were not numerous but it is far more likely to indicate that they underwent a period of drift some time after they arrived in their respective regions, before being able to expand. <br /><br />"As happens in other cases, Central Asia is empty of deep lineages and only has derived ones" <br /><br />A is fairly 'basal', as is X. <br /><br />"I am saying that three N-derived lineages left no track (we can find) between N's origin and their respective destinations". <br /><br />And I claim that we can find it I've had a look at mtDNA A at Phylotree. The McDonald map shows A as spread through the Northern Han Chinese from the Uzbeks in the west to the Japanese in the east. And in America of course. It seems there are actually four basal lineages: A5, A8, A10 and 'the rest'. In some ways 'the rest' also constitutes a series of 'basal' lineages as they're combined by a just a single control region mutation. The rest includes A3, A4, A7, A9 and A11. <br /><br />The references in Phylotree seem to indicate that A5 is Northern Asia/Chinese, with A5b reaching SE Asia. A8 and A10 are both present in the 'Volga Tatars', with A8 also in 'Arctic Siberia' and A10 in 'Tibet'. <br /><br />Of 'the rest' I cannot narrow down A3, A7 and A9 any further than 'Asia'. But A11 is found in 'China' and on the 'Tibetan Plateau'. A4 is from 'Northern Asia', A6 is 'East Asia' and A2 is 'America'. <br /><br />All the above suggests a North Asian origin for the haplogroup as a whole. It is difficult to make a case for it having come from SE Asia. And one of the references, qin (2010), has this to say, 'Also, the analysis of one major pre-LGM sublineage A10 showed a strong signal of post-LGM population expansion (about 15,000 years ago) and greater diversity in the southern part of the Tibetan Plateau, indicating the southern plateau as a refuge place when climate dramatically changed during LGM'. <br /><br />http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ajpa.21350/abstractterrythttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17327062321100035888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post-49539047463679667502011-09-07T05:18:26.201+02:002011-09-07T05:18:26.201+02:00"As for your essays, they deal with a lot of ..."As for your essays, they deal with a lot of different things and almost not with the evolution of H. sapiens, much less population genetics". <br /><br />They deal totally with the evolution of H. erectus and population genetics. I use evidence from other species and from modern days to illustrate various facts. <br /><br />"Damnit Terry! I know that IJ is West Eurasian, and you know I do. Why do you accuse me of claiming otherwise?!" <br /><br />So how can you continue to claim IJK is South Asian? <br /><br />"I do not understand how that has anything to do with our discussion in any case". <br /><br />You were claiming humans and Neanderthals were completely different species and incapable of mixing, in contrast to my own view. <br /><br />"And all those shells found all around Africa? Don't they mean seafood? All those coastal sites..." <br /><br />Of course it means 'sea food', but it hardly indicates they were obligate sea-food eaters. <br /><br />"An no N cannot have originated in all Asia at the same time". <br /><br />But you're claiming exactly the same thing for M's expansion. You claim M originated right across Southern Asia, from Pakistan to Australia, 'at the same time'. Like M's diversification, N's diversification is starlike, so it must have expanded rapidly. <br /><br />"They don't they form a line from NEA (thin) to Australia (thicker)" <br /><br />They most definitely do. We have N9 in NE Asia, N8, N10 and N11 in China, R in South China, N22 in Malaya, N21 in Sumatra, O and S in Australia. That's a fairly continuous line. <br /><br />"a few isolated dots in West Asia (and South Asia)". <br /><br />So N1'5, N2 and X are 'isoloated dots'?terrythttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17327062321100035888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post-28108480469567650212011-09-06T07:57:28.264+02:002011-09-06T07:57:28.264+02:00...
So you thought that all K originated in SE As......<br /><br />So you thought that all K originated in SE Asia. Ok. That's not the same as P but whatever. <br /><br />"There is absolutely no evidence that ancient humans have ever had a 'strong preference for' seafood".<br /><br />And all those shells found all around Africa? Don't they mean seafood? All those coastal sites... <br /><br />"You have many times claimed Wiki as a reference with even less credibility". <br /><br />I don't think so. <br /><br />"Seems I'm not alone"...<br /><br />This you mention seems totally irrelevant for the discussion: the link talks about the early divergence of the Khoisanid population and not about lack of differences with Neanderthals, Erectus and such. <br /><br />Anyhow, the fundamental Khoisanid divergence must be older than 110 Ka. (though there's been minor admixture later). Adjusting for the basic error of the Pan-Homo divergence it is min. +33%, what makes it some 146 Ka. (at the least!)<br /><br />It's older than I would have estimated for L0d1'2 but fits well with my corrected estimate for L0 as a whole (c. 157 Ka ago). <br /><br />I do not understand how that has anything to do with our discussion in any case.Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3023805782808412230.post-7974638011475319982011-09-06T07:43:47.781+02:002011-09-06T07:43:47.781+02:00Damnit Terry! I know that IJ is West Eurasian, and...Damnit Terry! I know that IJ is West Eurasian, and you know I do. Why do you accuse me of claiming otherwise?! <br /><br />It's totally unfair and frustrating to discuss with someone so interested in not even really paying any attention to what I say.<br /><br />As for your essays, they deal with a lot of different things and almost not with the evolution of H. sapiens, much less population genetics. You could quote all relevant paragraphs in a Blogger comment without surpassing the character limit.<br /><br />An no N cannot have originated in all Asia at the same time. It's a ridiculous claim. Besides your "evidence" are precisely those sublineages which did not expand rapidly, but more slowly. <br /><br />"... 'absence of evidence is not evidence of absence' yet here you are claiming exactly that".<br /><br />Not at all. I am saying that three N-derived lineages left no track (we can find) between N's origin and their respective destinations. That is absence of evidence, NOT evidence of absence. <br /><br />I'm just stating the obvious: no evidence between SEA and WEA/NEA for these lineages, for the 4-5 mutations that separates them from N. That means that they were not numerous (not absent!) in route. <br /><br />"They [N sublineages] form an almost continuous arc across Eurasia". <br /><br />They don't they form a line from NEA (thin) to Australia (thicker) and a few isolated dots in West Asia (and South Asia). You can also see that as a triangle if you wish but never as an arc, because there's no basal N sublineage centered in Altai or anything of the like. <br /><br />As happens in other cases, Central Asia is empty of deep lineages and only has derived ones, a clear sign of late colonization by our species ("late" here means 40 Ka ago or a bit earlier, at the end of the Eurasian expansion). <br /><br />...Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.com