tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post9043219626951593629..comments2024-01-04T04:11:55.717+02:00Comments on Dienekes’ Anthropology Blog: High coverage genome from 45,000-year old Siberian (Ust'-Ishim)Dienekeshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02082684850093948970noreply@blogger.comBlogger138125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-44485025339060861622015-10-30T04:15:31.106+02:002015-10-30T04:15:31.106+02:00Further to what I see as your reluctance to accept...Further to what I see as your reluctance to accept multiple, serial human expansions during our evolution: <br /><br />Haplogroup phylogeny itself indicates multiple serial expansions, not simple expansions from a single point. We see various haplotype expansions, followed by geographic haplotype diversity, followed by the expansion of a limited sample of haplotypes that have developed within that geographic diversity. K2 provides a perfect example. <br /><br />In spite of what many such as Maju seem to believe it is extremely unlikely that the five K2 branches had individually formed at the time K2 expanded its geographic range. It is almost certainly so that the individual branches formed within discrete regions some time after K2 had expanded widely. Subsequently just two sub-branches within that diversity were able to spread again independently. Several conclusions are obvious from the K2 phylogeny as we currently understand it. <br /><br />Firstly, that the string of islands between China and New Guinea were deeply involved in K2's formation. <br /><br />Secondly, that the expansion occurred at a time when the majority of those islands were connected to the mainland. <br /><br />Thirdly, that subsequent geographic isolation through rising sea level led to the formation of K2a, K2b, K2c, K2d and K2e. <br /><br />Fourthly, just as only two sub-branches of the five K2 haplotypes were able to expand into northern Eurasia we find just one sub-branch was able to expand beyond Wallace's Line. K2b1 had certainly developed efficient boats. <br /><br />Fifthly, the other K2 haplotypes probably hadn't. K2c remained stranded just west of Wallace's Line, in Bali. K2d on the next island to the west, Java. K2* survives on the next island to the west, Sumatra, and on the Malay Peninsula. K2e survives yet further west, in India, presumably having developed at the eastern margin of K2's expansion. Almost certainly originally geographic neighbours to the previous three haplotypes. K2a is today widespread in eastern Eurasia but presumably developed on the northern geographic margin of K2's expansion. Again in close proximity to the other four branches of K2. <br /><br />Sixthly, we can see that K2a and K2b are the only branches to have spread widely from their region of origin. And K2b has spread far more widely than has K2a. K2b1 spread right through the island east of Wallace's Line, including Australia, although it seems Y-DNA C1b2 had beaten K2b1 across the Line to the Lesser Sunda Islands and to Australia. My bet is that it was with the help of C1b2 that K2b1 was able to improve the boating technology. <br /><br />What about K2b2? Did they have these more efficient boats? Perhaps it is Wallace's Line that separated K2b1 and K2b2? Such a technology would have allowed K2b2 to move west from Wallacea as rapidly as had K2b1 moved east from the same region. Or even faster, as the region west of Wallacea was already inhabited. The Ganges and Indus Rivers would have provided a rapid entry into SW Asia, from where K2b2 would have been able to enter a largely unpopulated Central Asia. Earlier an extreme northern branch of K2a had reached Ust-Ishim but had become extinct. Expand an diversify yet again. terrythttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17327062321100035888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-4874398349936192922015-10-28T06:02:22.230+02:002015-10-28T06:02:22.230+02:00You seem to have misunderstood much of what I have...You seem to have misunderstood much of what I have said. For example: <br /><br />"But still uncommon and so they are not likely to be a place of its origin" <br /><br />I have never claimed America, India or northern Europe to be the place of origin of the EDAR 370A mutation. All the evidence points to northern China or Inner Mongolia to be the region of origin. Its presence elsewhere is the result of movement from that region. <br /><br />"Amerinds are at most diluted Mongoloid" <br /><br />All the evidence suggests they are a mix of Mongoloid and Central Asian. <br /><br />"K2c and K2d are not East Asian" <br /><br />They are certainly not Siberian. SE Asia is just the most southerly portion of East Asia, and the two regions have probably been genetically connected in many ways since the time of Homo erectus. <br /><br />"Why do you think it does not fit the migration of F's descendents but does fit the migration of C, D and N". <br /><br />Because almost all basal F is South Asian or SW Asian, as well some SE Asian. The only exceptions are just two branches: K2a (a little north of the majority of the other Ks), and K2b2. Do you believe in some sort of single expansion from a single small region? The evidence is pointing more and more to the development of Homo sapiens is the result of a very complex series of events, not simply the expansion of a single, suddenly superior population. <br /><br />"Your theory has several problems. It postulates unnecessarily long migration routes" <br /><br />I see no problem. Humans have obviously been travelling huge distances as they expanded around the world since H. erectus times. <br /><br />"its has difficulty in accounting for the formation of the Mongoloid phenotype" <br /><br />You may not be aware that northern China and Inner Mongolia are both cold and of reasonably high altitude. <br /><br />"it posulates a northern migration from Southeast Asia to East Asia" <br /><br />You see a problem with that? The great southern coastal migration, fashionable for a number of years, certainly required that to be so. <br /><br />"all migrations known from history and archeology have been from East Asia to Southeast Asia". <br /><br />On what grounds do you assume every series of migrations has been unidirectional? The 'migrations known from history and archeology' are all post the development of agriculture in the Yangtze Valley. terrythttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17327062321100035888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-82568176158320205932015-10-24T05:32:08.865+03:002015-10-24T05:32:08.865+03:00I said: "The longer the route the greater the...I said: "The longer the route the greater the chances of dying out".<br /> Terry replied: "The chances of dying out would depend entirely on the suitability of the route, no matter how long it was."<br /> I reply: Certainly not. All else being equal, there is a greater chance of them dying out on a long route than short.<br /><br />I said: "Which does not change the fact that the Gobi does not rule out migration to N and E Asia"<br /> Terry replied:" I think that round the Gobi is the best explanation for Y-DNA C and D's presence in the east. along with mt-DNA N. But it doesn't fit F's migration east. I'm still unsure about mt-DNA M."<br /> I reply: Why do you think it does not fit the migration of F's descendents but does fit the migration of C, D and N.<br /><br /> Terry said: Who do you suggest was in SE Asia before O then? <br />I said: "C and D". <br /> Terry replied: Perhaps. But just C1(xC2) and just D2 and possibly the mysterious D* in the Andaman Islands. As well as K2*, K2b, K2c and K2d. I'm not so sure about D though. I suspect its southward movement is related to that of O. <br />I replied: "How is that relevant to my comment?"<br /> Terry said: "You consistently ignore relationships between haplotypes and their individual distributions. As a result your claims lead to all sorts of inconsistencies."<br /> I reply: Name one.<br /><br />Terry said: You assume 'cold' is the explanation for the Mongoloid phenotype. The evidence for its region of origin, or at least a substantial portion of the phenotype is here: <br />http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2013/02/is-girls-generation-the-outcome-of-the-pleistocene-mind/<br /> Check out diagram B. <br />I said: "EDAR is shown as uncommon in Siberia, where the Mongoloid type is strongest". <br /> Terry replied: ….It is very common in America and even present in India and northern Europe. <br />I replied: The Mongoloid type is uncommon in the latter 2 areas, and Amerinds are at most diluted Mongoloid, except for Eskimos and Aleuts, and some near-Mongoloids among the Nadene and smaller groups. <br /> Terry replied: But definitely present. <br />"I said: But still uncommon and so they are not likely to be a place of its origin".<br /> Terry replied: "If you think I somehow suggest the Mongoloid phenotype 'originated in either of those two regions you need to have your eyes checked.<br />I reply: You brought them up in a discussion of the region of origin of the Mongoloid phenotype.<br /><br />I said: "Read Imbelloni's article written against the assumption that they are simply Mongoloid".<br /> Terry said: Where did I say they were 'simply Mongoloid'? <br />I reply: When I said: "Amerinds are at most diluted Mongoloid... “ you said you disagreed, implying that they are undiluted Mongoloid. <br /><br /> Terry said: K2a is primarily an East Asian clade as well, <br />I reply: As well? K2c and K2d are not East Asian <br /> "I replied: There is no sign of them in E Asia and so they cannot be counted as E Asian to make your point".<br /> Terry said: And there's no sign of them in Central Asia and so they cannot be counted as C Asian to make your point.<br /> I reply: I do not need to suppose them in Central Asia. I merely need to suppose that their ancestors were in SW Asia at some point (which, as a believer in Out of Africa, you must concede).<br /><br />I say: <br />Your theory has several problems. It postulates unnecessarily long migration routes, its has difficulty in accounting for the formation of the Mongoloid phenotype, it leads you into misreading the zoogeographic maps and to arguing in a circle, and it posulates a northern migration from Southeast Asia to East Asia when all migrations known from history and archeology have been from East Asia to Southeast Asia. (Yes, you think the migration north occurred long before these migrations South, but the theory that they moved north has all of the above problems.)Gregory76https://www.blogger.com/profile/16796327568266234469noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-90503316959787494932015-03-25T23:51:44.920+02:002015-03-25T23:51:44.920+02:00"I reply: The longer the route the greater th..."I reply: The longer the route the greater the chances of dying out". <br /><br />That's a ridiculous comment. The chances of dying out would depend entirely on the suitability of the route, no matter how long it was. <br /><br />"I reply: Which does not change the fact that the Gobi does not rule out migration to N and E Asia" <br /><br />I think that round the Gobi is the best explanation for Y-DNA C and D's presence in the east. along with mt-DNA N. But it doesn't fit F's migration east. I'm still unsure about mt-DNA M. <br /><br />"I reply: How is that relevant to my comment?" <br /><br />You consistently ignore relationships between haplotypes and their individual distributions. As a result your claims lead to all sorts of inconsistencies. <br /><br />"I said: But still uncommon and so they are not likely to be a place of its origin". <br /><br />We're currently having a by-election locally and you sound like a politician. Making claims that are a complete fabrication. If you think I somehow suggest the Mongoloid phenotype 'originated in either of those two regions you need to have your eyes checked. <br /><br />"Read Imbelloni's article written against the assumption that they are simply Mongoloid". <br /><br />Again the politician talks. Where did I say they were 'simply Mongoloid'? Surely everyone now accepts they were an admixed population before they even entered America. <br /><br />"I reply: There is no sign of them in E Asia and so they cannot be counted as E Asian to make your point". <br /><br />And there's no sign of them in Central Asia and so they cannot be counted as C Asian to make your point. terrythttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17327062321100035888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-45934105799983068022015-03-21T18:54:41.691+02:002015-03-21T18:54:41.691+02:00I said: "It is still a shorter route".
...I said: "It is still a shorter route". <br />Terry replied: You seem obsessed by this 'shorter route' theory of yours. Easiest route is far more likely...<br />I reply: The longer the route the greater the chances of dying out.<br /><br />I said:"There are many ways there that avoid the Gobi". <br />Terry replied: And there are many ways through South Asia that avoid the Thar and the Ganges Delta. <br />I reply: Which does not change the fact that the Gobi does not rule out migration to N and E Asia<br /><br />I said: "It's hardly 'my theory'; it is that of most physical anthropologists in the recent past. It is an application of Bergmann's rule (or a modified version of it, emphasizing size relative to surface area) and Allens' rule". <br />Terry replied: I agree that those two rules apply to physical size but that does not explain the majority aspects of the Mongoloid phenotype. <br />I reply: They explain heaviness of build relative to height, proportions of the limbs, extremities and digits to length, facial shape, head shape (to a lesser extent), and flatness of face (including high cheekbones and fatty cheeks). Straight, thick hair is an adaptation to cold.<br />Terry continues: The rules only apply to those in the very far north. Most people of Mongoloid phenotype are no different in size to any other population. <br />I reply: the so-called “Classic Mongoloid” type is that of north and central Asia. Even in SE Asia Mongoloids come closer to this than Veddoids and Negritoes.<br /><br />I said: "And Central Asia [K2's closest relation, K1 or LT]". <br />Terry replied: Not so. Only at the very far western end of it, <br />I reply: Which is still in C Asia.<br />Terry continues: where their presence is easily explained as later exit from S Asia. <br />I reply: We can easily explain their presence in SW and S Asia by migration from C Asia.<br /><br />I said: "C and D". <br />Terry replied: Perhaps. But just C1(xC2) and just D2 and possibly the mysterious D* in the Andaman Islands. As well as K2*, K2b, K2c and K2d. I'm not so sure about D though. I suspect its southward movement is related to that of O. <br />I reply: How is that relevant to my comment?<br /><br />I said: "The Mongoloid type is uncommon in the latter 2 areas" <br />Terry replied: But definitely present. <br />I said: But still uncommon and so they are not likely to be a place of its origin.<br /><br />I said: "Amerinds are at most diluted Mongoloid... <br />Terry replied: I disagree. How many Amerindians have you met? <br />I reply: I don't base these on my personal acquaintance. Read Imbelloni's article written against the assumption that they are simply Mongoloid.<br /><br />I reply: "My beliefs are the beliefs of most physical anthropologists before the coming of modern genetics". <br />Terry replied: The coming of modern genetics has overturned many early beliefs.<br />I reply: But not all. And it could not overturn the facts about what phenotypes are selected for by various environments.<br /><br />I said: "(1) a society including K2, K2b, and perhaps others (such as K2b1) migrated to the region, where K2 give rise to K2c, K2d and the K2* samples, and K2b give rise to K2b1" <br />Terry replied: And K2b2. But all the way from Central Asia as an isolated breeding unit? <br />I reply: From C or SW Asia, yes. C and D would be there only predecessor.<br /><br />I said: "C and D had already migrated there independently of them and probably each other". <br />I replied: Any C2 in SE Asia probably came with O and it is extremely unlikely C1 and D2 entered the region together. D is not present in Australia at all. D appears to have moved into the region considerably after C1 did. <br />I reply: What is your point?<br /><br />I said: " K2c and K2d are not East Asian". <br />Terry replied: So you believe SE Asia is separated from East Asia by a minefield and barbed wire? <br />I reply: There is no sign of them in E Asia and so they cannot be counted as E Asian to make your point.Gregory76https://www.blogger.com/profile/16796327568266234469noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-33718829306935140162015-03-14T21:58:33.765+02:002015-03-14T21:58:33.765+02:00"It is still a shorter route".
You se..."It is still a shorter route". <br /><br />You seem obsessed by this 'shorter route' theory of yours. Easiest route is far more likely to have been a necessity than mere distance. Remember that any early migration would not have a clue about what lay ahead. They would not have set out with a destination in mind. They would have spread through the easiest sections. <br /><br />"There are many ways there that avoid the Gobi". <br /><br />And there are many ways through South Asia that avoid the Thar and the Ganges Delta. <br /><br />"It's hardly 'my theory'; it is that of most physical anthropologists in the recent past. It is an application of Bergmann's rule (or a modified version of it, emphasizing size relative to surface area) and Allens' rule". <br /><br />I agree that those two rules apply to physical size but that does not explain the majority aspects of the Mongoloid phenotype. The rules only apply to those in the very far north. Most people of Mongoloid phenotype are no different in size to any other population. <br /><br />"And Central Asia [K2's closest relation, K1 or LT]". <br /><br />Not so. Only at the very far western end of it, where their presence is easily explained as later exit from S Asia. <br /><br />"C and D". <br /><br />Perhaps. But just C1(xC2) and just D2 and possibly the mysterious D* in the Andaman Islands. As well as K2*, K2b, K2c and K2d. I'm not so sure about D though. I suspect its southward movement is related to that of O. <br /><br />"The Mongoloid type is uncommon in the latter 2 areas" <br /><br />But definitely present. <br /><br />"Amerinds are at most diluted Mongoloid, except for Eskimos and Aleuts, and some near-Mongoloids among the Nadene and smaller groups". <br /><br />I disagree. How many Amerindians have you met? Many are at least as Mongoloid as are SE Asians. <br /><br />"My beliefs are the beliefs of most physical anthropologists before the coming of modern genetics". <br /><br />The coming of modern genetics has overturned many early beliefs, even among physical anthropologists. But no for you apparently. <br /><br />"(1) a society including K2, K2b, and perhaps others (such as K2b1) migrated to the region, where K2 give rise to K2c, K2d and the K2* samples, and K2b give rise to K2b1" <br /><br />And K2b2. But all the way from Central Asia as an isolated breeding unit? No wonder you have difficulty seeing possibilities for long term movement. It is far more likely that K2 migrated into the region from somewhere very nearby. <br /><br />"K2 and K2b1 migrated the region independently" <br /><br />So unlikely as to be unbelievable. K2b2 cannot have formed until after K2b had formed. And by that time K2a, K2c and K2c had also formed. You're postulating that God was in control of some drafting gate, as though humans were sheep after shearing. <br /><br />"C and D had already migrated there independently of them and probably each other". <br /><br />Any C2 in SE Asia probably came with O and it is extremely unlikely C1 and D2 entered the region together. D is not present in Australia at all. D appears to have moved into the region considerably after C1 did. <br /><br />" K2c and K2d are not East Asian". <br /><br />So you believe SE Asia is separated from East Asia by a minefield and barbed wire? terrythttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17327062321100035888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-40481271339203488742015-03-13T22:34:38.990+02:002015-03-13T22:34:38.990+02:00I asked: "Are you claiming that a route throu...I asked: "Are you claiming that a route through S Asia and SE Asia goes through more desirable regions than one through C Asia?" <br />Terry replied: Certainly warmer. <br /><br />I said: "And ideal conditions are rare". <br />Terry replied: Especially so through Central Asia, although I do agree it has often provided a route. The route through South Asia certainly would not have included the whole subcontinent. Jungle, desert and the Ganges/Brahmaputra Delta would have restricted the available route. <br />I reply: That's right: still more disadvantages to your route.<br /><br />I said: "It is a shorter route to Europe and western Siberia" <br />Terry replied: Yes, but SE Asia, including Australia, was settled some time before Europe was. <br />I reply: It is still a shorter route.<br /><br />I said: "to a lesser extent, to eastern Siberia and E Asia". <br />Terry said: Much lesser extent. Remember the Gobi Desert. <br />I reply: There are many ways there that avoid the Gobi.<br /><br />I said: "It says that it had to go through a cold region". <br />Terry replied: Probably, although I don't think you've in any way proved your theory about 'cold' being sufficient. <br />I reply: It's hardly “my theory”; it is that of most physical anthropologists in the recent past. It is an application of Bergmann's rule (or a modified version of it, emphasizing size relative to surface area) and Allens' rule.<br /><br />I said: "It is possible that they arose from K2 after K2 had migrated to SE Asia". <br />Terry replied: I agree. But no basal K2 is found anywhere other than in and near SE Asia. And its closest relation, K1 or LT, is present in South Asia. <br />I reply: And Central Asia.<br /><br />Terry said: Who do you suggest was in SE Asia before O then? <br />I reply: C and D.<br /><br />I said: "EDAR is shown as uncommon in Siberia, where the Mongoloid type is strongest". <br />Terry replied: ….It is very common in America and even present in India and northern Europe. <br />I reply: The Mongoloid type is uncommon in the latter 2 areas, and Amerinds are at most diluted Mongoloid, except for Eskimos and Aleuts, and some near-Mongoloids among the Nadene and smaller groups.<br /><br />I said: "Too much distance and too much effort required". <br />Terry replied: There is plenty of time available though. <br />I said: Which does not remove the need for great efforts necessary to cover the great distances.<br /><br />I said: "It is what most physical anthropologists would have said before the deliverances of modern genetics in the last three decades" <br />Terry replied: So you're prepared to dismiss modern genetics simply because it doesn't fit what you want to believe? <br />I reply: My beliefs are the beliefs of most physical anthropologists before the coming of modern genetics. And I have never dismissed modern genetics. But you are dismissing the conclusions of physical anthropologists in the past. We should abandon those conclusions when modern genetics provides compelling reason to do so, but they have not, in this case.<br /><br />Terry continued: ....That [the distribution of K2c, K2D and K2*] is a very narrow geographic spread....we find K2b1 immediately across Wallace's line. Is that merely a coincidence? <br />I reply: It is probably 1 of 2 things: (1) a society including K2, K2b, and perhaps others (such as K2b1) migrated to the region, where K2 give rise to K2c, K2d and the K2* samples, and K2b give rise to K2b1; or (2) K2 and K2b1 migrated the region independently: after all, C and D had already migrated there independently of them and probably each other.<br /><br />Terry said: K2a is primarily an East Asian clade as well, <br />I reply: As well? K2c and K2d are not East Asian.<br />Terry continues: ….separated from the other basal K2 groups by the extremely narrow Malay isthmus and the swampy region of Cambodia/Thailand. <br />I reply: More facts that count against your theory<br /><br /><br />Gregory76https://www.blogger.com/profile/16796327568266234469noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-82467383767638462772015-03-13T05:04:53.895+02:002015-03-13T05:04:53.895+02:00A little more while I think of it.
A further co...A little more while I think of it. <br /><br />A further consideration is that individuals belonging to K2b-P331 but not carrying mutations defining either K2b1-P397 or K2b2-P295 have been recorded in Sumba, Timor, Sulawesi and the Philippines. All of these islands lie east of Wallace's Line, although I'll concede it's arguable as to whether the Philippines lie east or west of the line. <br /><br />In any case K2b's phylogeny suggests the haplotype reached those islands by sea from Timor/Sumba rather than over land via Borneo. K2b1c-P378 presumably formed from K2b1 in the Philippines as it has been found in the Aeta. Likewise K2b1b-P336 is found in Borneo but is more widespread through eastern Indonesia. M is the most widespread of the K2b1 clades, spread from Malaysia, through eastern Indonesia to Melanesia and New Guinea. It is most probable that the haplogroup's presence at the western end is the product of back movement from at least as far east as Timor, if not further though. <br /><br />That leaves K2b1a-P405. Individuals lacking the mutations defining any of the several downstream clades have been found in Sumba, in eastern Indonesia. The downstream clades are all centred on New Guinea with P79 also present also in Timor, P60 also present in Australia and S-M230 also present in the Philippines as well as in eastern Indonesia. <br /><br />To me that all provides strong evidence that K2b2-P295 must have formed somewhere within that geographic spread. K2b1 certainly did, as did K2b. terrythttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17327062321100035888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-64742589516817494502015-03-09T05:00:17.001+02:002015-03-09T05:00:17.001+02:00A further point:
"It is possible that they ...A further point: <br /><br />"It is possible that they arose from K2 after K2 had migrated to SE Asia". <br /><br />And of course it is just as possible that not just K2c and K2d 'arose from K2 after K2 had migrated to SE Asia'. In fact it is extremely likely. Especially when we consider that Wallace's Line lies immediately east of Bali, and in Bali we have K2c. Java lies immediately west of Bali, and in Java we find K2d. And Sumatra lies immediately west of Java, and in Sumatra we find K*. That is a very narrow geographic spread. Further east we find K2b1 immediately across Wallace's line. Is that merely a coincidence? To me it provides considerable evidence for K2b having arisen near Wallace's Line also. K2b is the outsider. Even more so when we consider that K2a is primarily an East Asian clade as well, separated from the other basal K2 groups by the extremely narrow Malay isthmus and the swampy region of Cambodia/Thailand. To me it is quite reasonable to assume that earlier K2 haplogroups regionally intermediate between K2a and the other K2 branches in SE Asia have been replaced by the subsequent expansion of the three O branches. terrythttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17327062321100035888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-15103565389853092602015-03-07T04:51:57.925+02:002015-03-07T04:51:57.925+02:00"Are you claiming that a route through S Asia..."Are you claiming that a route through S Asia and SE Asia goes through more desirable regions than one through C Asia?" <br /><br />Certainly warmer. <br /><br />"And ideal conditions are rare". <br /><br />Especially so through Central Asia, although I do agree it has often provided a route. The route through South Asia certainly would not have included the whole subcontinent. Jungle, desert and the Ganges/Brahmaputra Delta would have restricted the available route. <br /><br />"It is a shorter route to Europe and western Siberia" <br /><br />Yes, but SE Asia, including Australia, was settled some time before Europe was. Not so certain about western Siberia though. <br /><br />"to a lesser extent, to eastern Siberia and E Asia". <br /><br />Much lesser extent. Remember the Gobi Desert. <br /><br />"It says that it had to go through a cold region". <br /><br />Probably, although I don't think you've in any way proved your theory about 'cold' being sufficient. <br /><br />"It is possible that they arose from K2 after K2 had migrated to SE Asia". <br /><br />I agree. But no basal K2 is found anywhere other than in and near SE Asia. And its closest relation, K1 or LT, is present in South Asia. <br /><br />"Why would you think that? [your theory makes it impossible for anyone to have been in SE Asia before the O haplogroups moved south]". <br /><br />Who do you suggest was in SE Asia before O then? <br /><br />"EDAR is shown as uncommon in Siberia, where the Mongoloid type is strongest". <br /><br />Really? Take a look at the wider distribution. It is very common in America and even present in India and northern Europe. <br /><br />"Too much distance and too much effort required". <br /><br />There is plenty of time available though. <br /><br />"It is what most physical anthropologists would have said before the deliverances of modern genetics in the last three decades" <br /><br />So you're prepared to dismiss modern genetics simply because it doesn't fit what you want to believe? terrythttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17327062321100035888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-14746604434392666132015-03-05T08:22:42.525+02:002015-03-05T08:22:42.525+02:00I said: "You have to admit, and did admit ear...I said: "You have to admit, and did admit earlier, that haplotypes came out of Africa by way of SW Asia". <br />Terry replied: Everyone agrees on that. But....[humans] would have moved through the most desirable regions first, which may have taken them long distances along narrow migration routes. <br />I reply: Yes. Are you claiming that a route through S Asia and SE Asia goes through more desirable regions than one through C Asia?<br /><br />I said: "Certainly not. Migration, and most aspects of survival, were arduous for most people" <br />Terry replied: Yes. That's why conditions had to be ideal for them to go ahead. <br />I reply: And ideal conditions are rare.<br /><br />Terry said: The shorter path is not necessarily the easiest though. <br />I reply: What makes you think the path in your theory is the easier one?<br /><br />Terry said: A route through Central Asia is hardly 'shorter' that one through South Asia. <br />I reply: It is a shorter route to Europe and western Siberia, and, to a lesser extent, to eastern Siberia and E Asia.<br /><br />Tery said: And the Mongoloid phenotype evolved some time after humans had reached East Asia and so says nothing about a route to that region. <br />I reply: It says that it had to go through a cold region.<br /><br />Terry said: And why do you find it necessary to minimise retrograde motion? <br />I replied: Because it longer and because it is more arduous.<br /><br />Terry said: The huge assumption you are making is that K2c and K2d both originated in SW Asia, <br />I reply: No. It is possible that they arose from K2 after K2 had migrated to SE Asia.<br /><br />Terry said: ...your theory makes it impossible for anyone to have been in SE Asia before the O haplogroups moved south. <br />I said: Why would you think that?<br /><br />Terry said: You assume 'cold' is the explanation for the Mongoloid phenotype. <br />I reply: Not an assumption. It is based on that fact that the closer a body shape is to a sphere the less it tends to lose heat. So cold regions select for short, heavyset bodies; short, heavy limbs, extremities and digits; round heads; round faces; high cheekbones; and small, concave noses, all of which characterize the Mongoloid phenotype. <br /><br />Terry says: The evidence for its region of origin, or at least a substantial portion of the phenotype is here: http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2013/02/is-girls-generation-the-outcome-of-the-pleistocene-mind/ Check out diagram B. <br />I reply: EDAR is shown as uncommon in Siberia, where the Mongoloid type is strongest. <br /><br />I said: "If the Mongoloid phenotype originated in Tibet, then how does its dilution by later mixture in S China account for the Tibetans being less Mongoloid than northern Mongoloids?" <br />Terry replied: I didn't say it originated 'in' Tibet. I said...near the 'Tibet/Mongolia/China border region'. <br />I reply: That is even less likely: China is warmer than Tibet.<br /><br />I said: "So you postulate the lineage running from the earliest K2a to the modern inhabitants of SE Asia as migrating from SE Asia to E Asia and later migrating back to SE Asia" <br />Terry replied: Yes. What do you see as the problem? <br />I reply: Too much distance and too much effort required.<br /><br />I reply: "whereas I postulate a migration from N or C Asia through E Asia to SE Asia without a reversal of direction". <br />Terry replied: Which does not fit archaeology, anthropology or genetics. <br />I reply: It is what most physical anthropologists would have said before the deliverances of modern genetics in the last three decades, and those deliverances do not compel its abandonment.<br /><br />Gregory76https://www.blogger.com/profile/16796327568266234469noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-3370186407702706262015-03-02T04:51:35.504+02:002015-03-02T04:51:35.504+02:00I think we're wasting time here if you're ...I think we're wasting time here if you're going to just refuse to consider phylogeny. <br /><br />"See my above remark about phylogeny v. phylogeny+assumptions". <br /><br />The huge assumption you are making is that K2c and K2d both originated in SW Asia, and then migrated all the way through Central Asia to take up separate residency in two separate islands in SE Asia. That is so unlikely as to be not even worth consideration. You are only able to make that assumption by completely ignoring the basal position ofthose two haplogroups. <br /><br />"I am not supposing that the movement was as old as the alleged movement from SE Asia to E Asia is supposed by your theory to be". <br /><br />But your theory makes it impossible for anyone to have been in SE Asia before the O haplogroups moved south. <br /><br />"What evidence do you have for that? As I said before, the area does not seem to be cold enough". <br /><br />Another assumption on your part. You assume 'cold' is the explanation for the Mongoloid phenotype. The evidence for its region of origin, or at least a substantial portion of the phenotype is here: <br /><br />http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2013/02/is-girls-generation-the-outcome-of-the-pleistocene-mind/<br /><br />Check out diagram B. <br /><br />"If the Mongoloid phenotype originated in Tibet, then how does its dilution by later mixture in S China account for the Tibetans being less Mongoloid than northern Mongoloids?" <br /><br />I didn't say it originated 'in' Tibet. I said (and you actually quoted it) near the 'Tibet/Mongolia/China border region'. We know from phylogenies (note) that much of the Tibetan gene pool entered that country from the southeast. You obviously know very little indeed about East and Se Asian prehistory. <br /><br />"So you postulate the lineage running from the earliest K2a to the modern inhabitants of SE Asia as migrating from SE Asia to E Asia and later migrating back to SE Asia" <br /><br />Yes. What do you see as the problem? <br /><br />"whereas I postulate a migration from N or C Asia through E Asia to SE Asia without a reversal of direction". <br /><br />Which does not fit archaeology, anthropology or genetics. You are just making it up. terrythttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17327062321100035888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-30853379342598872522015-02-28T23:31:19.336+02:002015-02-28T23:31:19.336+02:00"All of the y haplotypes except A are 'de..."All of the y haplotypes except A are 'derived' from other haplotypes. 'Derived' is a matter of degree, as is 'early'" <br /><br />Well of course you are free to call R1b1a2a1a1 'early' if you insist but it obviously arose considerably later than A. <br /><br />"You have interpreted 'early' too narrowly. I was counting all of the K2 haplotypes under discussion as early, except O in SE Asia". <br /><br />On what grounds did you not consider O? After all you seem to include N. And R is certainly no 'earlier' than either of those haplogroups. Your counting system is wrong anyway. There are actually only four 'early' K2 Y-DNAs: K2a, K2b, K2c and K2d. All the other ones you insist on including are derived from one or other of these, and therefore can only be 'later'. It is an open question yet as to how much later of course but two are confined to what is now island SE Asia and the other two have connection there or very nearby. Both X and Ust'-Ishm K, as well as N and O, derive from K2a and Q'R derives from K2b. <br /><br />"You have to admit, and did admit earlier, that haplotypes came out of Africa by way of SW Asia". <br /><br />Everyone agrees on that. But migration after leaving Africa would hardly have been a simple process with humans filling up the whole of the earth. They would have moved through the most desirable regions first, which may have taken them long distances along narrow migration routes. We know they reached SE Asia and even Australia reasonably soon after leaving Africa (given a date for that leaving of 55,000 years that many accept). That's a pretty long leap and proves such leaps were far from impossible 'early' on. <br /><br />"Certainly not. Migration, and most aspects of survival, were arduous for most people" <br /><br />Yes. That's why conditions had to be ideal for them to go ahead. <br /><br />"The shorter path is simpler, and the simpler theory, all else being equal, is more likely to be true, by Ockham's Razor". <br /><br />The shorter path is not necessarily the easiest though. <br /><br />"the shorter migration paths in my theory, the minimizing of retrograde motion, its better fitting with the correction explanation of the original of the Mongoloid phenotype, and considerations of zoogeography". <br /><br />A route through Central Asia is hardly 'shorter' that one through South Asia. And the Mongoloid phenotype evolved some time after humans had reached East Asia and so says nothing about a route to that region. And why do you find it necessary to minimise retrograde motion? We know humans have moved backwards and forwards through Central Asia and South Asia many times. <br /><br />"the long path requires more effort, time and resources, and the effort was considerable". <br /><br />Quite. Although in fact I think Y-DNA C took a Central Asian route east. And probably arrived in Australia before K did. But that's another subject. terrythttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17327062321100035888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-85195410779474561702015-02-28T20:14:22.065+02:002015-02-28T20:14:22.065+02:00said earlier: "R reaching western Eurasia, N ... said earlier: "R reaching western Eurasia, N reaching N Asia, and X reaching S Asia, all by way of SE Asia, when they could be all explained by shorter routes from SW Asia". <br />Terry replied: Except that explanation doesn't fit the phylogeny. <br />I reply: It does. See my above remark about phylogeny v. phylogeny+assumptions.<br /><br />Terry continued: And of those haplogroups only X could be said to have moved directly from SE Asia...into the far northeastern region of South Asia. <br />I reply: No matter how short the migration from S Asia to SE Asia, the migration from SW Asia to S Asia will be shorter than a one from SW Asia through S Asia to SE Asia and back to S Asia.<br /><br />Terry continued: Some basal P is evidently found in SE Asia after all, and it is probable QR's ancestor moved through South Asia, quite close to SE Asia, surprisingly. <br />I reply: You assume that basal lineages never move with their descendents.<br /><br />I said earlier: "which would require some earlier group to be the first Mongoloids" <br />Terry replied: My bet is that the Mongoloid phenotype introgressed into the modern humans from an ancient population somewhere near the Tibet/Mongolia/China border region. <br />I reply: Saying that it originated with a pre-AMH population does solve the problem.<br />Terry continues: In any case that is where it seems to have first entered the modern human gene pool. <br />I reply: What evidence do you have for that? As I said before, the area does not seem to be cold enough.<br /><br />Terry continues: And we don't know that cold alone is responsible for the phenotype anyway. My guess is it is the result of a highly reflective environment. After all semi-desert dwelling Khoisan have a fairly distinct eye-fold. <br />I reply: That may work for the eyefold (although I think high winds is a more likely explanation), but not most other Mongoloid features, since the Khoisan phenotype is far from Mongoloid.<br /><br />I said earlier: "the current inhabitants not being as Mongoloid in their features as more northern areas" <br />Terry replied: Almost certainly because the Mongoloid phenotype is mixed with a pre-Mongoloid phenotype in southern China. <br />I reply: If the Mongoloid phenotype originated in Tibet, then how does its dilution by later mixture in S China account for the Tibetans being less Mongoloid than northern Mongoloids? <br /><br />I said earlier: "That's just what I said: the ancestors of those two groups from north from SE Asia. Read more carefully". <br />Terry replied: You should read more carefully yourself. I said the ancestors of those groups moved north from near SE Asia, not the groups themselves. <br />I reply: I did read carefully and you did not: I said “So you must postulate that the ancestors of the Tai and the Austronesian,...moved north from SE Asia into China”, and you replied “I postulate no such thing....However their 'ancestors', in the form of K2a, had much earlier moved north from SE Asia.”, and that is what I said: the ancestors of those 2 groups moved north.<br /><br />Terry said: Austro-Asiatic is closely associated with Y-DNA O2, Austronesian with O1 and Sino-Tibetan with O3. Those connections would not exist if the movement was at all as ancient as you are trying to suggest. <br />I reply: I am not supposing that the movement was as old as the alleged movement from SE Asia to E Asia is supposed by your theory to be.<br /><br />I said earlier: "That is still two migrations in that lineage". <br />Terry replied: It is actually only one migration for each lineage. <br />I reply: I said “lineage”, not “haplotype”. By 'lineage', I mean a line of descent, such as could be traced by any human to the first human. Every time a new haplotype mutation occurs in the lineage, we have a new haplotype, but still the same lineage. So you postulate the lineage running from the earliest K2a to the modern inhabitants of SE Asia as migrating from SE Asia to E Asia and later migrating back to SE Asia, whereas I postulate a migration from N or C Asia through E Asia to SE Asia without a reversal of direction.<br /><br />Gregory76https://www.blogger.com/profile/16796327568266234469noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-88755689147545890102015-02-28T19:54:56.683+02:002015-02-28T19:54:56.683+02:00I said earlier:
“And a shorter path, all else bein...I said earlier:<br />“And a shorter path, all else being equal, is more likely". <br />Terry replied:<br />Only if you're committed to and fixated on a Noah's Ark perspective on human evolution and expansion. Everything moving in one direction from a single place. <br />I reply:<br />No, whether I am commited to such a view or not, and I am not (as I said earlier), it is still the case that the shorter path, all else being equal, is more likely. The shorter path is simpler, and the simpler theory, all else being equal, is more likely to be true, by Ockham's Razor. Furthermore, the long path requires more effort, time and resources, and the effort was considerable.<br /><br />I said earlier:<br />"I believe we should not postulate an unnecessary amount migrations, not only from consideration not only of Ockham's Razor but also of the fact that back then survival during migration was arduous". <br />Terry replied:<br />We should not postulate 'no migration' when phylogenies indicate otherwise. <br />I reply:<br />Phylogenies alone do not. Phylogenies plus the assumptions of your theory about where some branches on the tree lived at a given time may indicate additional migrations, but that theory needs to be proven, not assumed in the process of trying to prove it.<br />Terry continued: <br />And I think we can assume that migrations occurred when conditions were favourable. It was only during periods of climate change or extinction of resources that survival became 'arduous'. <br />I reply:<br />Certainly not. Migration, and most aspects of survival, were arduous for most people, down to at least the Industrial Revolution.<br />Terry continued: <br />Multiple haplogroups, both mt- and Y-, indicate a period of expansion followed by a period of consolidation far from where the haplotype almost certainly originated. <br />I reply:<br />Yes, and sometimes it was during the consolidation in the new home that many of the younger haplotypes originated.<br /><br />I said earlier:<br />"My theory is that K2 originated in and began diversifying in SW Asia or C Asia, and reached SE Asia only trough C Asia and E Asia". <br />Terry replied:<br />I see no evidence at all for such a theory. <br />I reply:<br />I have given evidence several times, including the shorter migration paths in my theory, the minimizing of retrograde motion, its better fitting with the correction explanation of the original of the Mongoloid phenotype, and considerations of zoogeography.<br /><br />Terry continued: <br />The only K2 haplogroup anywhere near SW Asia is the very derived R. <br />I reply:<br />You have to admit, and did admit earlier, that haplotypes came out of Africa by way of SW Asia.<br /><br />I said earlier:<br />"So early haplotypes in SE Asia count against it, but those in E Asia or S Asia easily fit with my theory" <br />Terry replied:<br />Except there are no 'early' K2 haplotypes anywhere other than SE Asia apart from the widespread K2a, which is found very near SE Asia. <br />I reply:<br />You have interpreted 'early' too narrowly. I was counting all of the K2 haplotypes under discussion as early, except O in SE Asia. So K2c and K2d count against my theory, but not the others, because they are present in places that can be accomodated by my theory.<br /><br />Terry continued:<br />I've tried to point out on numerous occasions the only K2 haplogroups outside SE Asia are derived ones but you are unable to see that for some reason. <br />I reply:<br />All of the y haplotypes except A are 'derived' from other haplotypes. 'Derived' is a matter of degree, as is 'early'.<br /><br />Gregory76https://www.blogger.com/profile/16796327568266234469noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-31374565445280540092015-02-27T23:27:41.231+02:002015-02-27T23:27:41.231+02:00Sorry. Correction:
"Sino-Tibetan with O3&q...Sorry. Correction: <br /><br />"Sino-Tibetan with O3" <br /><br />Actually Sino-Tibetan is associated specifically with O3a2c. The related O3a2b is associated with the Hmong-Mien. But Hmong-Mien looks to have accumulated O2a somewhere along the line. Almost certainly through the O3a2b population's mixing with earlier inhabitants as the language and genes expanded. In other words O2a's expansion was earlier than that of O3a2b's. <br /><br />By the way, under your scenario there are no 'earlier' inhabitants in SE Asia for your postulated southward moving haplogroups to mix with. Have you not considered that problem? terrythttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17327062321100035888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-62429056885091045302015-02-27T00:41:34.184+02:002015-02-27T00:41:34.184+02:00"which would require some earlier group to be..."which would require some earlier group to be the first Mongoloids" <br /><br />My bet is that the Mongoloid phenotype introgressed into the modern humans from an ancient population somewhere near the Tibet/Mongolia/China border region. In any case that is where it seems to have first entered the modern human gene pool. And we don't know that cold alone is responsible for the phenotype anyway. My guess is it is the result of a highly reflective environment. After all semi-desert dwelling Khoisan have a fairly distinct eye-fold. <br /><br />"the current inhabitants not being as Mongoloid in their features as more northern areas" <br /><br />Almost certainly because the Mongoloid phenotype is mixed with a pre-Mongoloid phenotype in southern China. <br /><br />"I was talking about the later, Mongoloid migrations, involving descendents of K2" <br /><br />The vast majority of populations carrying K2 haplogroups are not Mongoloid in any way. Such are confined to the downstream haplogroups Q, N, O1, O2, and O3. These obviously picked up, or developed, the Mongoloid phenotype after their ancestors had moved north. And the non-K2 haplogroup C2 is closely associated with the phenotype. I agree O1, O2, O3 and C2 are all later southward moving haplogroups. <br /><br />"That's just what I said: the ancestors of those two groups from north from SE Asia. Read more carefully". <br /><br />You should read more carefully yourself. I said the ancestors of those groups moved north from near SE Asia, not the groups themselves. The haplogroups O1, O2 and O3 were not the haplogroups that moved north. They are the ones that moved back south (probably with the expansion of the Chinese Neolithic) after developing somewhere in northern or central China, from the K2a that had much earlier moved north from near SE Asia. <br /><br />"Read more carefully: I said 'Austroasiatic', nor 'Austronesian'". <br /><br />Sorry. I did mistake that one. However Austroasiatic does appear to have moved south over land from the central Yangtze River region. Austro-Asiatic is closely associated with Y-DNA O2, Austronesian with O1 and Sino-Tibetan with O3. Those connections would not exist if the movement was at all as ancient as you are trying to suggest. <br /><br />"That is still two migrations in that lineage". <br /><br />It is actually only one migration for each lineage. K2a moved north, where NO developed somewhere in the region that the Chinese Neolithic later developed. Then O1, O2 and O3 moved south independently of each other and N moved north. I would have thought it was simplicity itself. terrythttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17327062321100035888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-70408659465502291392015-02-27T00:40:49.894+02:002015-02-27T00:40:49.894+02:00"And a shorter path, all else being equal, is..."And a shorter path, all else being equal, is more likely". <br /><br />Only if you're committed to and fixated on a Noah's Ark perspective on human evolution and expansion. Everything moving in one direction from a single place. <br /><br />"I believe we should not postulate an unnecessary amount migrations, not only from consideration not only of Ockham's Razor but also of the fact that back then survival during migration was arduous". <br /><br />We should not postulate 'no migration' when phylogenies indicate otherwise. And I think we can assume that migrations occurred when conditions were favourable. It was only during periods of climate change or extinction of resources that survival became 'arduous'. Multiple haplogroups, both mt- and Y-, indicate a period of expansion followed by a period of consolidation far from where the haplotype almost certainly originated. <br /><br />"My theory is that K2 originated in and began diversifying in SW Asia or C Asia, and reached SE Asia only trough C Asia and E Asia". <br /><br />I see no evidence at all for such a theory. You seem to be completely ignoring the actual phylogeny of K. The only K2 haplogroup anywhere near SW Asia is the very derived R, a member of K2b. It is extremely unlikely K2b itself originated in SW Asia, although it's quite possible R did so. <br /><br />"So early haplotypes in SE Asia count against it, but those in E Asia or S Asia easily fit with my theory" <br /><br />Except there are no 'early' K2 haplotypes anywhere other than SE Asia apart from the widespread K2a, which is found very near SE Asia. I've tried to point out on numerous occasions the only K2 haplogroups outside SE Asia are derived ones but you are unable to see that for some reason. <br /><br />"R reaching western Eurasia, N reaching N Asia, and X reaching S Asia, all by way of SE Asia, when they could be all explained by shorter routes from SW Asia". <br /><br />Except that explanation doesn't fit the phylogeny. And of those haplogroups only X could be said to have moved directly from SE Asia anyway, involving a very short jump into the far northeastern region of South Asia. Some basal P is evidently found in SE Asia after all, and it is probable QR's ancestor moved through South Asia, quite close to SE Asia, surprisingly. But R itself certainly did not originate in SE Asia. Neither did N. N moved into northern Asia from East Asia where NO had become well established long before N or O even developed. <br />terrythttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17327062321100035888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-86035460110302877542015-02-26T02:53:41.937+02:002015-02-26T02:53:41.937+02:00I said earlier: "You are again counting East ...I said earlier: "You are again counting East Asia and South Asia with Southeast Asia: SE Asia counts against my theory, but E Asia and S Asia are compatible with my theory". <br />Terry replied: Do you believe there is some impassable barrier between SE Asia and the two neighboring regions? <br />I reply: No. My theory is that K2 originated in and began diversifying in SW Asia or C Asia, and reached SE Asia only trough C Asia and E Asia. So early haplotypes in SE Asia count against it, but those in E Asia or S Asia easily fit with my theory<br /><br />I said earlier: "Your theory has problems in addition to its postulating unnecessarily long migration routes" <br />Terry replied: Which 'unnecessarily long migration routes'. <br />I reply: R reaching western Eurasia, N reaching N Asia, and X reaching S Asia, all by way of SE Asia, when they could be all explained by shorter routes from SW Asia.<br /><br />I said earlier: "its difficulty in accounting for the formation of the Mongoloid phenotype" <br />Terry replied: The development of the Mongoloid phenotype is an independent development and confined to somewhere near northern China. <br />I reply: Again, read my earlier objections regarding Tibet (let alone N China or S China) not being cold enough, and the current inhabitants not being as Mongoloid in their features as more northern areas, which would require some earlier group to be the first Mongoloids, yet yourself pointed out that Tibet was only settled relatively recently.<br /><br />I said earlier: "all migrations known from history and archeology have been from East Asia to Southeast Asia". <br />Terry replied:<br />It is obvious that several South Asian haplogroups entered Burma and Thailand during prehistory and the Australian Aborigine phenotype has often been compared to that of South Asian tribals. <br />I reply: I was talking about the later, Mongoloid migrations, involving descendents of K2 <br /><br />I said earlier:<br />"I find it odd that, while all of those groups saw fit to move south, your theory postulates an additional, earlier migration north". <br />Terry replied: So you believe all human migrations have always been in the same direction? <br />I reply: No, but I believe we should not postulate an unnecessary amount migrations, not only from consideration not only of Ockham's Razor but also of the fact that back then survival during migration was arduous. <br /><br />I said earlier: "So you must postulate that the ancestors of the Tai and the Austronesian...moved north from SE Asia into China" <br />Terry replied: I postulate no such thing. They did not move 'north' from anywhere. However their 'ancestors', in the form of K2a, had much earlier moved north from SE Asia. <br />I reply: That's just what I said: the ancestors of those two groups from north from SE Asia. Read more carefully.<br /><br />I said earlier:"And if you admit that Austroasiatics moved south from China at some time then you must postulate two migrations for them, too". <br />Terry replied: Why? The two groups are separated by the fact one moved by land (Tai) and the other by sea (Austronesian). <br />I reply: Read more carefully: I said “Austroasiatic”, nor “Austronesian”.<br /><br />I said earlier: "This theory is implausibly complex". <br />Terry replied:<br />….The 'southward' movement involved derived haplogroups. The 'original' movement north had involved the basal K2a. <br />I reply: <br />That is still two migrations in that lineage. It doesn't matter how many haplotype mutations occurred on the route from Africa to the current residence of a given lineage: it is still the same path. And a shorter path, all else being equal, is more likely.Gregory76https://www.blogger.com/profile/16796327568266234469noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-51620754593339779982015-02-25T05:35:55.963+02:002015-02-25T05:35:55.963+02:00"I find it odd that, while all of those group..."I find it odd that, while all of those groups saw fit to move south, your theory postulates an additional, earlier migration north". <br /><br />So you believe all human migrations have always been in the same direction? <br /><br />"Now you might try to say that it was not 4 (or 3) independent migrations: that the Chinese pushed these people south. But you cannot say that about the Tibeto-Burmans" <br /><br />Why not? The Tibeto-Burman language is basically a branch of Sino-Tibetan. Speakers of Tibeto-Burman also display a level of Mongoloid phenotype and so presumably came from the north somewhere. <br /><br />"So you must postulate that the ancestors of the Tai and the Austronesian, as one group in one migration or two groups in two migrations, moved north from SE Asia into China" <br /><br />I postulate no such thing. They did not move 'north' from anywhere. However their 'ancestors', in the form of K2a, had much earlier moved north from SE Asia. Tai and Austronesian are a later movement of two closely related languages, probably an early Neolithic movement originally associated with Y-DNA O1. During the Early Neolithic O1 formed a majority of Y-DNA around the mouth of the Yantze and so quite probably expanded south into SE Asia from there. <br /><br />"you can hardly say that the migration from Taiwan was the direct result of Chinese pressure". <br /><br />Agreed. It was the direct result of improved boating and trading around the South China Sea which ultimately allowed movement direct from Taiwan to the Philippines. And rapidly beyond. <br /><br />"And if you admit that Austroasiatics moved south from China at some time then you must postulate two migrations for them, too". <br /><br />Why? The two groups are separated by the fact one moved by land (Tai) and the other by sea (Austronesian). <br /><br />"if suppose that the mass of the Sino-Tibetans, being O, also moved north from SE Asia, then you have 2 migrations for them, since the Tibeto-Burmans and Chinese both moved south. This theory is implausibly complex". <br /><br />'Complex' because what you believe is preventing you from seeing the simplicity. The 'southward' movement involved derived haplogroups. The 'original' movement north had involved the basal K2a. I've asked before but on what grounds do you believe that human migration has always been unidirectional? terrythttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17327062321100035888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-72299089829051759402015-02-25T05:34:56.588+02:002015-02-25T05:34:56.588+02:00"You are again counting East Asia and South A..."You are again counting East Asia and South Asia with Southeast Asia: SE Asia counts against my theory, but E Asia and S Asia are compatible with my theory". <br /><br />Your imagination is running wild here. Do you believe there is some impassable barrier between SE Asia and the two neighboring regions? East and South Asia share a single branch of K2 in the form of K2a. NO in East Asia and X in South Asia. Surely we should expect some leakage from SE Asia. <br /><br />"Your theory has problems in addition to its postulating unnecessarily long migration routes" <br /><br />Which 'unnecessarily long migration routes'. K is sufficiently later than CT to have moved almost everywhere accessible by the time K2 first formed. <br /><br />"its difficulty in accounting for the formation of the Mongoloid phenotype" <br /><br />The development of the Mongoloid phenotype is an independent development and confined to somewhere near northern China. It is certainly not confined to a single Y-DNA either. <br /><br />"all migrations known from history and archeology have been from East Asia to Southeast Asia". <br /><br />Stated with such confidence. It is obvious that several South Asian haplogroups entered Burma and Thailand during prehistory and the Australian Aborigine phenotype has often been compared to that of South Asian tribals. Both groups lack the Mongoloid phenotype and so any movement from Australia to South Asia must predate its development. Prehistory was far more complicated than a simple human expansion like ink through a blotter. <br /><br />"Tai peoples moved south from China a few centuries ago, Austronesians spread from Taiwan to Southeast Asia, Tibeto-Burmans moved south from Tibet and SE China into India and Burma, and I think Austroasiatics also moved from E Asia southward" <br /><br />Those migrations are all post Paleolithic, probably within the last 10,000 years. <br /><br />terrythttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17327062321100035888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-70451701473046362642015-02-24T04:23:02.619+02:002015-02-24T04:23:02.619+02:00Terry,
You are again counting East Asia and South ...Terry,<br />You are again counting East Asia and South Asia with Southeast Asia: SE Asia counts against my theory, but E Asia and S Asia are compatible with my theory.<br />Your theory has problems in addition to its postulating unnecessarily long migration routes, its difficulty in accounting for the formation of the Mongoloid phenotype, and its leading you into misreading the zoogeographic maps and to arguing in a circle.<br />It posulates a northern migration from Southeast Asia to East Asia when all migrations known from history and archeology have been from East Asia to Southeast Asia. Tai peoples moved south from China a few centuries ago, Austronesians spread from Taiwan to Southeast Asia, Tibeto-Burmans moved south from Tibet and SE China into India and Burma, and I think Austroasiatics also moved from E Asia southward, though might disagree on that. I find it odd that, while all of those groups saw fit to move south, your theory postulates an additional, earlier migration north. Now you might try to say that it was not 4 (or 3) independent migrations: that the Chinese pushed these people south. But you cannot say that about the Tibeto-Burmans, nor about the Austroasiatics, if you say that they were never in E Asia. And while the Tai and Austronesian may have been one group broken apart by one southern migration of the Chinese, with the Tai in the east and Austronesian heading to Taiwan, you can hardly say that the migration from Taiwan was the direct result of Chinese pressure. So you must postulate that the ancestors of the Tai and the Austronesian, as one group in one migration or two groups in two migrations, moved north from SE Asia into China, and their descendents later migrated in the reverse direction. And if you admit that Austroasiatics moved south from China at some time then you must postulate two migrations for them, too. Indeed, if suppose that the mass of the Sino-Tibetans, being O, also moved north from SE Asia, then you have 2 migrations for them, since the Tibeto-Burmans and Chinese both moved south. This theory is implausibly complex.Gregory76https://www.blogger.com/profile/16796327568266234469noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-78145365961033306172015-02-16T23:25:35.394+02:002015-02-16T23:25:35.394+02:00@German:
Quite the opposite.
Is there empiricial ...@German:<br /><i>Quite the opposite.</i><br /><br />Is there empiricial data that shows a "hike" between K14 and MA-1... or did you just make it up?<br /><br /><i>That's how it was established that Ust-Ishim is Neandertal admixed.</i><br /><br />No, "To determine whether the Ust’-Ishim individual has archaic admixture we used the D statistic" (SI16). It's these D-stats that show CHB is the "most Neanderthal" of modern pops.<br /><br /><i>They didn't come to it independently</i><br /><br />Who's "they"? I said the fields both lead us there independently - archaeology places the earliest modern humans in Africa, genetics places the MCRA of modern humans in Africa. Both of these conclusions are drawn independently from different sets of data, neither is "forced" into that position by the other.<br /><br /><i>No, I'm a professional with two doctorates. You are a Gospel-reading freak. </i><br /><br />If you honestly think I'm a "Gospel-reading freak" then you are an idiot, two doctorates or twenty.<br />Tobushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05529220083970625733noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-1151657332630752842015-02-16T07:26:37.356+02:002015-02-16T07:26:37.356+02:00@Tobus
"The point is that these drops actual...@Tobus<br /><br />"The point is that these drops actually exist, the ones you made up don't."<br /><br />Quite the opposite. You made your drops up as part of your biblical story of descent from the Garden of Eden. The hikes in fact are supported by ancient DNA data.<br /><br />"We were talking about genetic affinity, not length of chunks."<br /><br />That's affinity, my creationist friend! That's how it was established that Ust-Ishim is Neandertal admixed. The Amerindian connection is abundantly supported by other data.<br /><br />"I disagree, it's universally accepted because it's the best fit for both the genetic *and* archaeological data. Both fields lead us independently to the same conclusion, there's no forcing needed."<br /><br />They didn't come to it independently. You think geneticists just walked into human prehistory without consulting with archaeologists and paleobiologists? Typical creationist ignorance of how science works.<br /><br />"Ha! You're an idiot."<br /><br />No, I'm a professional with two doctorates. You are a Gospel-reading freak. There are a bunch of those out there. German Dziebelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10703679732205862495noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-76637978501020083322015-02-16T07:26:36.619+02:002015-02-16T07:26:36.619+02:00@Tobus
"The point is that these drops actual...@Tobus<br /><br />"The point is that these drops actually exist, the ones you made up don't."<br /><br />Quite the opposite. You made your drops up as part of your biblical story of descent from the Garden of Eden. The hikes in fact are supported by ancient DNA data.<br /><br />"We were talking about genetic affinity, not length of chunks."<br /><br />That's affinity, my creationist friend! That's how it was established that Ust-Ishim is Neandertal admixed. The Amerindian connection is abundantly supported by other data.<br /><br />"I disagree, it's universally accepted because it's the best fit for both the genetic *and* archaeological data. Both fields lead us independently to the same conclusion, there's no forcing needed."<br /><br />They didn't come to it independently. You think geneticists just walked into human prehistory without consulting with archaeologists and paleobiologists? Typical creationist ignorance of how science works.<br /><br />"Ha! You're an idiot."<br /><br />No, I'm a professional with two doctorates. You are a Gospel-reading freak. There are a bunch of those out there. German Dziebelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10703679732205862495noreply@blogger.com