tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post3213229904262836053..comments2024-01-04T04:11:55.717+02:00Comments on Dienekes’ Anthropology Blog: Reduction of human cranial diversity and distance from AfricaDienekeshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02082684850093948970noreply@blogger.comBlogger143125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-53538785442669725132009-01-31T00:49:00.000+02:002009-01-31T00:49:00.000+02:00So what is Mathilda talking about here? No idea: s...<I>So what is Mathilda talking about here? </I><BR/><BR/>No idea: she says that there is no L3 in India, when in fact it's like 100%. She says that there is no M in India, when in fact it's like 80%. <BR/><BR/>Reminds me of the blind guy and the elephant. <BR/><BR/><I>I see now that you've been labouring under a huge misunderstanding. I have never claimed a Southeast Asian origin for M and N. I have merely claimed the evidence of N's distribution does not support a movement to the east through India.</I><BR/><BR/>You have been claiming that peoples got out of Ethiopia, went to Siberia and then to Australia and that from that area (aka "Wallacea") they expanded to India, more or less. So basically India was the last part of Eurasia to be colonized of all (no matter that everybody understands otherwise) <BR/><BR/>Stop playing with words: that's your model: defend it or shut up. But don't try to confuse me with "I said this and now I say that".<BR/><BR/><I>According to Ian Logan's diagram you so kindly supplied P diverged from the N9 line (or whatever you like to call it) before R had separated from N9.</I><BR/><BR/>The difference between you and me is that I have been painfully reviewing ALL the trees and discussions in that site (relevant to Eurasia), not just that one. <BR/><BR/>So I know what I'm talking about finally and you are still stuck in that confusing anotation. <BR/><BR/><I>Why don't you go back to your diagram of N's distribution and draw a line connecting all six early N haplogroup branches.</I><BR/><BR/>Because that is not the right thing to do, actually it's misleading: showing data about events that happened in totally separated times. <A HREF="http://leherensuge.blogspot.com/2009/01/dance-of-eurasian-haplogroups-mtdna.html" REL="nofollow">I did something much better instead</A>.<BR/><BR/><I>Haplogroups A and KetN* must have eventually expanded from somewhere near where they formed and survived. You can propose any theory you like for where that was but I'd guess it was somewhere near where they're still found.</I><BR/><BR/>A theory: they were in Mars. And I challenge you to disprove it. You can't: there is absolutely no evidence of where these minor lines were expressed between the N node and, in the case of A, the A node and, in the case of Ket N*, the present time. <BR/><BR/>And what "somewhere near where they're still found"? <BR/><BR/>In the case of Ket N* it could be Europe, where a related sequence has been found, or Central Asia, or East Asia or... whatever. <BR/><BR/>In the case of A, I'm betting for the Bahamas in fact. I think it is near to where they are found at the present, right? <BR/><BR/>Of course I'm not being really serious: Mars and the Bahamas are not realistic posibilities and neither is Wallacea nor your early Siberian route. <BR/><BR/>Stick to the facts. Join the dots, ok, but please do not join the Shanghai Tower with the Pyramids and these with Lascaux because then you are mixing apples and oranges. <BR/><BR/>Ket N* is like the Shanghai Tower: it belongs to the present. It may have been there for a while now but we really have no damn idea of where it was in the year 60,000 BCE. "Somewhere in Eurasia" is as close as we can get. <BR/><BR/>And we do not know how many Ket N*-like subclades have existed or where. Probably many but they were drifted out. This also applies to some Australian and Papuan mtDNA clades with very looong roots: they may have been coalescing for long in Sahul... or in Indonesia, or in India... <BR/><BR/>You say it's all the same. I say it's not: that each one belongs to its time and that very long chains of SNPs assembled in a unique but extremely rare lineage do not say anything about the history of that clade, nor give much info either on the ones related to it (in the Oceanian cases, other macro-F and W repsectively). <BR/><BR/>They are just odd survivors. <BR/><BR/><I>You certainly 'believe' that. Others might disagree. Of course it's possible to prove anything if you're prepared to ignore enough evidence.</I><BR/><BR/>You will disagree, I'm sure. Because such rare clades appear to be important in your improbable assmbling of the pieces of the puzzle. <BR/><BR/>Well, get it straight: "Ket N*" is as European as Siberian, so maybe it represents an early remnant of a very early colonization of Europe by H. sapiens, long before Aurignacian. Why not?<BR/><BR/>I chose to call it Ket N* capriciously but Euro-Siberian would be more precise, as two sequences are listed: one Ket and the other European. <BR/><BR/>But it doesn't really matter: it's obviously just an erratic. <BR/><BR/><I>Sorry. One final comment. Mutation 16223 forms the root of the Y complex, or whatever you wish to call it.<BR/><BR/>Then 5417 forms the root of Y Far Eastern N* (including N9), and 12705 forms the root of P, R* and what he calls Asian sequences.<BR/><BR/>Then 15607 separates P from the other two, R* and Asian sequences.<BR/><BR/>Interesting, isn't it. </I><BR/><BR/>In other words: R-N9 splits in:<BR/><BR/>- R (including P and Asian R lineages, as well as European R, as he calls it it that graph)<BR/>- N9 (including Y)<BR/><BR/>That is precisely what I'm saying all the time - at least since I realized that the "Asian sequences" are nothing but Asian-specific R lineages (most of them South Asian). That graph is confuse and confusing and you should look at other graphs in the same site (or elsewhere) and take due notes until you get your facts right.Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-18789294282399450242009-01-30T21:48:00.000+02:002009-01-30T21:48:00.000+02:00Sorry. One final comment. Mutation 16223 forms t...Sorry. One final comment. Mutation 16223 forms the root of the Y complex, or whatever you wish to call it. <BR/><BR/>Then 5417 forms the root of Y Far Eastern N* (including N9), and 12705 forms the root of P, R* and what he calls Asian sequences. <BR/><BR/>Then 15607 separates P from the other two, R* and Asian sequences. <BR/><BR/>Interesting, isn't it.terrythttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17327062321100035888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-84618912758207770562009-01-30T21:33:00.000+02:002009-01-30T21:33:00.000+02:00"Your prejudices, preconceptions, blind your judge..."Your prejudices, preconceptions, blind your judgement". <BR/><BR/>That's, as we say, an example of the pot calling the kettle black. <BR/> <BR/>"What are you talking about? The only ancestral haplogroup to M is L3". <BR/><BR/>So what is Mathilda talking about here? <BR/><BR/>http://mathildasanthropologyblog.wordpress.com/2009/01/28/mtdna-variation-in-the-south-african-kung-and-khwe%e2%80%94and-their-genetic-relationships-to-other-african-populations/#comments<BR/><BR/>"Certainly the ultimate origin of M and N is not well determined and SE Asia could, in principle be an alternative to South Asia". <BR/><BR/>I see now that you've been labouring under a huge misunderstanding. I have never claimed a Southeast Asian origin for M and N. I have merely claimed the evidence of N's distribution does not support a movement to the east through India. <BR/><BR/>"P is a derivate from R and Y from N9". <BR/><BR/>According to Ian Logan's diagram you so kindly supplied P diverged from the N9 line (or whatever you like to call it) before R had separated from N9. Likewise Y, and what he calls Far Eastern N, had separated even earlier. And that's just a single one of the six haplogroups N had split into even before then. How do you explain all that? <BR/><BR/>"I am not ignoring them". <BR/><BR/>You're certainly giving every indication of doing so. <BR/><BR/>"What I do is to place them in their right place". <BR/><BR/>Why don't you go back to your diagram of N's distribution and draw a line connecting all six early N haplogroup branches. By the way, I'd actually put KetN* a little further south than you've placed it but it still works where it is. I agree that it couldn't have lived that far north in very ancient times. <BR/><BR/>"minor erratic clades that took very long in finding an opportunity for expansion". <BR/><BR/>How many times does Dienekes have to point out that the time of a haplogroup's expansion can be long after that haplogroup has formed? Haplogroups A and KetN* must have eventually expanded from somewhere near where they formed and survived. You can propose any theory you like for where that was but I'd guess it was somewhere near where they're still found. <BR/><BR/>"In the case of Ket N* you can surely ignore it alltogether and won't make any difference at all". <BR/><BR/>You certainly 'believe' that. Others might disagree. Of course it's possible to prove anything if you're prepared to ignore enough evidence. <BR/><BR/>"Those islands have no (AFAIK) any particularly ancestral haplogroup of any sort". <BR/><BR/>It's generally accepted that, even though some show signs of early human presence, humans had died out on them by the time of the Austronesian expansion. Their haplogroups are releatively recent arrivals. So we have to look further afield to understand SE Asian haplogroup distribution. This explains what you have called "the many clades shared at some level between South Asia and Sahul". But most of the main ones are not shared. <BR/><BR/>"Haplogroups are not tribes". <BR/><BR/>Exactly. But we can use the distribution of haplogroups to determine the broad sweep of human migration. After all tribes contain haplogroups. <BR/><BR/>I feel we've spent enough time on this subject so I'll let you have the last word. Thanks for the stimulating discussion.terrythttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17327062321100035888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-87002645838733145032009-01-30T11:32:00.000+02:002009-01-30T11:32:00.000+02:00That's a pretty good post you've made at your blog...<I>That's a pretty good post you've made at your blog. I agree with most of it. </I><BR/><BR/>Read (or rather watch) also <A HREF="http://leherensuge.blogspot.com/2009/01/dance-of-eurasian-haplogroups-mtdna.html" REL="nofollow">my last one</A>: a visual essay on a plausible sequence of Eurasian mtDNA diversification/expansion. It has absolutely no conclusions, it's mostly intended for contemplation and meditation. <BR/><BR/>Certainly the ultimate origin of M and N is not well determined and SE Asia could, in principle be an alternative to South Asia because of its central position but South Asia still holds the record of diversity and is a most likely origin for M and R (and therefore probably N too). <BR/><BR/><I>And I'm impressed that you accept at least two migrations into Australia.</I><BR/><BR/>It's a less rotund concept but certainly it does look like South Asians have been pouring to Australia at several times (the opposite does not seem likely). <BR/><BR/>What I think I've found is a rather continuous process of expansion in all the Southern-Eastern Eurasian (and continental Oceanian) "T" but maybe paused at an specific rather short period, pause that is coincident with the formation of R. <BR/><BR/><I>What about P? And Y? Both part of it if you accept six N haplogroups.</I><BR/><BR/>P is a derivate from R and Y from N9 (or N9-Y, or call it "macro-Y" if you hate numbers, though N9 is in fact a more important, more extended and older, clade). They are all part of R-N9 and of its two branches (R and N9).<BR/><BR/><I>But two others that sat around for a while before they were able to expand.</I><BR/><BR/>And maybe a thousand others that never made it to our time or even to birth. <BR/><BR/><I>You cannot ignore them just because it suits your theory.</I><BR/><BR/>I am not ignoring them. I was the first one in this dscussion who ever paid any attention to them. What I do is to place them in their right place: minor erratic clades that took very long in finding an opportunity for expansion, opprotunity that never really came in the case of Ket N* and that arrived pertty late in the case of A. A in practical terms (i.e. finished A and no coalescing proto-A) is more or less contemporary of the expansion of C and Z and the consolidation of Y, and is best called upon when dealing with the colonization of North Asia (and later America too), and not the main "explosion" of early Eurasians.<BR/><BR/>In the case of Ket N* you can surely ignore it alltogether and won't make any difference at all. <BR/><BR/><I>Once you include them you have two ends to the arc.</I><BR/><BR/>No, because we really have not the slightest idea where was proto-A at the time of the main Eurasian demic explosion. It could have been in North Asia but probably not. There were surely many other N* distinct lineages then that never made it. A was "lucky" but that doesn't make it more important before it began expanding. <BR/><BR/><I>Of course not. It's at the Western end. By the way, Wallacea is the generally accepted term for the groups of islands that don't fit with either Sahul or Sunda. They've never been connected to any continent. Such groups as Suluwesi, Philippines, Halmahera etc. </I><BR/><BR/>Thanks for the explanation. Those islands have no (AFAIK) any particularly ancestral haplogroup of any sort. Forget it. <BR/><BR/>Would you be talking about a really relevant place of the kind of Sunda... but still nope. <BR/><BR/><I>"And anyhow there is not enough diversity of R (or M for the case) around Wallace line".<BR/><BR/>No. But the haplogroups are sure split by it. Several are found only East of Wallace's Line and others only immediately west of it.</I><BR/><BR/>Obviously: it is a major barrier. I can't think of any other barrier in Eurasia as important as that one, except for the Himalayas and, arguably, Beringia. <BR/><BR/>When people are separated by a barrier they tend to evolve separately, even if this evolution is mere drift. <BR/><BR/>The surprising thing here is the many clades shared at some level between South Asia and Sahul, not the barrier at Wallace line. <BR/><BR/><I>Not necessarily the best candidate.</I><BR/><BR/>South Asia has several clear things in favor to be considered the urheimat of Eurasian humankind:<BR/><BR/>1. It has the highest M and R diversity (and the N diversity is at least comparable to any other region)<BR/><BR/>2. It is geographically closer to Africa, from where the ancestors had necesarily to come. This advantage is only surpassed by West Asia but there the diversity is much lower.<BR/><BR/>3. It does have archaeological sequences that appear to suggest pre and post Toba continuity, as well as migration routes from West to East.<BR/><BR/>4. It has a mostly tropical climate and c. 60,000 years ago was basically Savannah (the ideal climate for expatriated East Africans)<BR/><BR/>5. It is reasonably well communicated to all other Eurasian regions.<BR/><BR/>The ony serious contender would be SE Asia (maybe expanded to include a big chunk of East Asia) but the only advantage it has is a more central position re. the early expansion. The main disadvantage is the clearly lower diversity, something that kind of yells: "not here!"<BR/><BR/>So it does look like South Asia provided the "manpower", so to say, and SE Asia the "roads". <BR/><BR/><I>After all they didn't simply jump from Africa to India. I'd agree that M reached India reasonably quickly though, even if its immediately ancestral haplogroups are not found there (see Mathilda's Blog).</I><BR/><BR/>What are you talking about? The only ancestral haplogroup to M is L3. <BR/><BR/><I>True. But, apart possibly from America, for most of the examples you give the variety seems to be a product of mixing rather than multiple haplogroups at origin.</I><BR/><BR/>Ambiguous pretext. I don't care here if S and Q arrived (long ago) by different ways to Australia, what matters is that after many tens of thousands of years, they still keep those clades and many others. Hence drift does not drive to single-clade fixation necesarily. In fact it seldom does in all I know of human mtDNA. <BR/><BR/>What is surprising is not that there were two L3 subclades in the early Eurasian population but that there only two mtDNA haplogroups (or so it seems). They must have gone by a quite severe bottleneck and/or a most narrow founder effect. Otherwise I make little sense of it. <BR/><BR/>But, well, the bottleneck/founder effect seems to be something that pops up every time Eurasians are considered in comparison to Africans. <BR/><BR/><I>I hope I've never led you to consider that I believe technology is never shared.</I><BR/><BR/>Uh? Technology is always shared or copied. Pygmies use (European-inspired) crossbows nowadays, Talibans make their own Kalashnikov and Astra guns, gunpowder's, silk's, paper's and porcelain's secrets were all taken out from China. Technology, if useful, is always subject to be copied. <BR/><BR/>I don't know what you 'believe' but I am a quite radical difussionist - not of mere faith but analytical conviction. <BR/><BR/><I>The R mt-hap, along with K Y-hap do seem to have led some sort of expansion but the expansion certainly picked up other people (for example mt-hap W perhaps?). Besides which it seems that Y-hap K was originally associated with mt-hap M but must have picked up mt-hap R somewhere. </I><BR/><BR/>Psah. Haplogroups are not tribes. Tribes (and sometimes nations, which are a derivate of the tribe) have mythical ancestors, haplogroups have real ones. Sometimes they may be coincident but most often they are not. Adoption and alliance pull people together, strife pulls them apart. Clans and tribes have to be reinvented every other day, and meanwhile the real biological lineages sneak their way into all them as long as they are at reach. This is probably even more true for maternal lineages (at least in patrilocal societies). <BR/><BR/>Your prejudices, preconceptions, blind your judgement. <BR/><BR/>By this I don't mean that real biological ancestry may not go in parallel to real cultural advantages, transmitted from parent to child (roughly). But the link is limited and the more that time passes the weaker it should be: cultural difussion should dilute the advantage and biological exchange should make cultural and biological ancestry less and less connected.Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-6093244275249870732009-01-30T10:27:00.000+02:002009-01-30T10:27:00.000+02:00That's a pretty good post you've made at your blog...That's a pretty good post you've made at your blog. I agree with most of it. And I'm impressed that you accept at least two migrations into Australia. But where's Y in your N haplogroup diagram? You wrote in this blog that, "They both share the mutation at 5417 and therefore must be considered a single haplogroup for our purpose". <BR/><BR/>"So R-N9 (or 'macro-R' as I called it before) only has two sublineages: R and N9, the first one centered in South Asia and the latter in East Asia". <BR/><BR/>What about P? And Y? Both part of it if you accept six N haplogroups. <BR/><BR/>"That doesn't make any sense. N has four rapidly expanding subclades, right?" <BR/><BR/>Correct. But two others that sat around for a while before they were able to expand. You cannot ignore them just because it suits your theory. Once you include them you have two ends to the arc. One reaching Northwest India the other reaching East India. Make sense now? You're obsessed with the idea that everything originated in India. <BR/><BR/>"And what then about another comparable node: X-N1-Indian N*? This has absolutely no relationship with 'Wallacea'". <BR/><BR/>Of course not. It's at the Western end. By the way, Wallacea is the generally accepted term for the groups of islands that don't fit with either Sahul or Sunda. They've never been connected to any continent. Such groups as Suluwesi, Philippines, Halmahera etc. The Marianas are not part of Wallacea. <BR/><BR/>"And anyhow there is not enough diversity of R (or M for the case) around Wallace line". <BR/><BR/>No. But the haplogroups are sure split by it. Several are found only East of Wallace's Line and others only immediately west of it. <BR/><BR/>"M and N probably coalesced for a period of intermediate length (4 and 5 SNPs at root respectively) but we do not know where exactly. South Asia is the best candidate". <BR/><BR/>Not necessarily the best candidate. After all they didn't simply jump from Africa to India. I'd agree that M reached India reasonably quickly though, even if its immediately ancestral haplogroups are not found there (see Mathilda's Blog). <BR/><BR/>"drift does not necesarily drives to fixation in a single clade, in fact often it is several clades". <BR/><BR/>True. But, apart possibly from America, for most of the examples you give the variety seems to be a product of mixing rather than multiple haplogroups at origin. <BR/><BR/>"So M and N could perfectly have been shared by a single population between the OOA and the Eurasian expansion". <BR/><BR/>Almost certainly were. But it may not have been India. <BR/><BR/>"You could argue maybe that 'R people' were in posesion of some advantage". <BR/><BR/>I hope I've never led you to consider that I believe technology is never shared. The R mt-hap, along with K Y-hap do seem to have led some sort of expansion but the expansion certainly picked up other people (for example mt-hap W perhaps?). Besides which it seems that Y-hap K was originally associated with mt-hap M but must have picked up mt-hap R somewhere.terrythttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17327062321100035888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-67863174425504459082009-01-30T07:16:00.000+02:002009-01-30T07:16:00.000+02:00Ah. Now we can agree on something else. This appar...<I>Ah. Now we can agree on something else. This apparent young age, or at least diversity, is probably a product of earlir drift and bottlenecks. Ket N* certainly derives from basal N so it must have separated from other N haplogroups long ago and just hung around in a small population.<BR/></I><BR/><BR/>Sure. That seems to be the case. And to a large extent also applies to A (and surely other derived clades of whatever super-lineages here and there). <BR/><BR/><I>If it's only the lack of rapid expansion you're worried about see above. </I><BR/><BR/>I am worried at your lack of acknowledgment of such rapid expansion and its relevance. <BR/><BR/><I>From your own blog, "macro-R: including huge and widespread haplogroup R (South Asian by origin without any serious doubt), some Indian N* and East Asian N9 (that includes Y)".</I><BR/><BR/>In fact I commited an error there, because of the somewhat sloppery nomenclature and confusing graphics. There's probably no Indian N* in that "transitional" macro-haplogroup but actually Logan seems to be refering to Indian R sequences. <BR/><BR/>So R-N9 (or "macro-R" as I called it before) only has two sublineages: R and N9, the first one centered in South Asia and the latter in East Asia. <BR/><BR/>I guess you'd like this better, as it offers more opporunities for speculation about the pre-R period of N. <BR/><BR/><I>This first haplogroup in your list doesn't just 'include' Y. Y is an early branch. You haven't taken this into consideration.</I><BR/><BR/>Y is an early branch within N9 (or "N9-Y" if you wish) but it is not directly related to R. They both share the mutation at 5417 and therefore must be considered a single haplogroup for our purpose.<BR/><BR/><I>"Overall I'd say that N is most diverse in South Asia".<BR/><BR/>Possibly because it came in from two directions, east and west. </I><BR/><BR/>That doesn't make any sense. <BR/><BR/>N has four rapidly expanding subclades, right? One (macro-X-N1) went to West Asia, another (S) to Australia, yet another (macro-W) to all Southern Asia (West, South and SE Asia) and Australia too and then another is found in both East and South Asia. <BR/><BR/>Two directions only? Why not 10?! And from outer space as well, why not?<BR/><BR/>The original geography of N is not totally clear maybe, not like M and R (both neatly South Asian it seems) but you cannot just hang desperately to this ambiguity to defend your pre-concieved theory. You are building the house from the roof down and that is not the proper way to do things, much less in science. <BR/><BR/><I>"The W-Australian N* node is comparable to the R-N9 one and must represent roughly simultaneous events (rings any bell?)".<BR/><BR/>Certainly. Brings to mind my idea of an expansion from Wallacea involving R haplogroups. </I><BR/><BR/>And what then about another comparable node: X-N1-Indian N*? This has absolutely no relationship with "Wallacea" (what a name! I still don't know what it may mean: Indonesia or Sahul or maybe even the Marianas...). <BR/><BR/>And anyhow there is not enough diversity of R (or M for the case) around Wallace line (guess it has something to do with your "Wallacea") to justify that R (or M) sprung from there. And most Eurasian lineages are derived from R or M, not N(xR). <BR/><BR/><I>We still have far fewer haplogroups involved than your postulated exodus from India. M and N are distinct branches of L3 so their split is probably early in the diversification of that haplogroup. For that reason I suspect the two branches of L3 came out of Africa. For this reason I doubt the comment on your blog, "possibly indicating that the N-M split (from L3) happened in relation to events and geography of South Asia".</I><BR/><BR/>M and N are not directly related but L3 has many other subclades (7), all them virtually exclusive of Africa. M and N probably coalesced for a period of intermediate length (4 and 5 SNPs at root respectively) but we do not know where exactly. South Asia is the best candidate and could have harbored both perfectly (it's big enough). They could also have lived together all the time: drift does not necesarily drives to fixation in a single clade, in fact often it is several clades, specially re. mtDNA, which are found in heavily drifted peoples; even Beringians had at least 5 different mtDNA clades (and that was the end of the world, so to say), even Asutralians or Papuans show a an array of different mtDNA clades in spite of heir nealry total isolation, even Bushmen have more than one single mtDNA lineage. I an't in fact think of a single population of the world that has one single mtDNA clade, no matter how isolated it has been through history and prehistory. <BR/><BR/>So M and N could perfectly have been shared by a single population between the OOA and the Eurasian expansion. But M appears to have been dominant and, would not it be for R, it would still be that way. <BR/><BR/><I>"In fact E could be just the product of CT in East Africa, after drift wiped out other variants".<BR/><BR/>Could be. But we require a huge level of drift to achieve that. Anyway, I'm just thinking about it at this stage. </I><BR/><BR/>Y-DNA drifts much more extremely than mtDNA. <BR/><BR/>...<BR/><BR/>Anyhow, back to mtDNA, check <A HREF="http://leherensuge.blogspot.com/2009/01/eurasian-mtdna-and-my-rustic-approach.html" REL="nofollow">my latest post on the issue</A>: it does explore how the three Eurasian macro-haplogroups may have expanded. I have dedicated like three days to analyze the matter and I believe it is pretty transparent:<BR/><BR/>1. First expansion pulse (maybe c. 70,000 BP?): expands M and N. Covers all the Indo-Pacific "T" and also an N "avantguard" to West Asia (macro-X-N1).<BR/><BR/>2. Second expansion pulse (maybe c. 55,000 BP?) expands M and R. It also reaches all the Indo-pacific "T" and (maybe in the aftermath) we can see the bulk of Western clades (R-derived) arriving to West Asia. <BR/><BR/>M6, A and M1 are the main top-level clades that see expansion after these two succesive (maybe even continuous) epysodes. <BR/><BR/>You could argue maybe that "R people" were in posesion of some advantage (unclear, doesn't seem to be boating in any case) and drove the second expansive pulse because of that reason. But this expansion also includes many M subclades, so it would be more like the "R and M people" if anything. And this pulse, maybe even more clearly than the first one, seems centered in South Asia.Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-82121332148835069362009-01-30T06:20:00.000+02:002009-01-30T06:20:00.000+02:00Thanks for that effort Maju. We seem to be moving...Thanks for that effort Maju. We seem to be moving closer together. <BR/><BR/>"I do wonder if they migrated by the steppary corridor instead of doing it by southern Asia and that would be why they show such a reduced population for so long". <BR/><BR/>At least you now accept the possibility. <BR/><BR/>"they remain undivided for a long span (till the present in the case of Ket N*). They must be (in their present definition) rather young haplogroups". <BR/><BR/>Ah. Now we can agree on something else. This apparent young age, or at least diversity, is probably a product of earlir drift and bottlenecks. Ket N* certainly derives from basal N so it must have separated from other N haplogroups long ago and just hung around in a small population. <BR/><BR/>"It cannot apply to the other four clades that show a rapid expansion (branching) right after the N node split". <BR/><BR/>If it's only the lack of rapid expansion you're worried about see above. <BR/><BR/>From your own blog, "macro-R: including huge and widespread haplogroup R (South Asian by origin without any serious doubt), some Indian N* and East Asian N9 (that includes Y)". <BR/><BR/>This first haplogroup in your list doesn't just 'include' Y. Y is an early branch. You haven't taken this into consideration. In the diagram on your blog you have R leading to N9 whereas it's much more likely to be the other way round. This N9 haplogroup has a connection to KetN* otherwise we would most likely find the N haplogroup first splits into two: a western and an eastern version. That's not what we find. <BR/><BR/>"Overall I'd say that N is most diverse in South Asia". <BR/><BR/>Possibly because it came in from two directions, east and west. <BR/><BR/>"migrations are not just picking a couple from place A and moving them to place B on a map, they are many people moving into new lands". <BR/><BR/>Very true. But the haplogroup pattern doesn't allow us to unravel that detail. What it does tell us is the pattern of movement of various single clades long after the event. <BR/><BR/>"The W-Australian N* node is comparable to the R-N9 one and must represent roughly simultaneous events (rings any bell?)". <BR/><BR/>Certainly. Brings to mind my idea of an expansion from Wallacea involving R haplogroups. <BR/><BR/>"Why not just L3 and CT? Or why not M and N (mtDNA) and CF and D (Y-DNA)? Or even C, F and D on the male side?" <BR/><BR/>We still have far fewer haplogroups involved than your postulated exodus from India. M and N are distinct branches of L3 so their split is probably early in the diversification of that haplogroup. For that reason I suspect the two branches of L3 came out of Africa. For this reason I doubt the comment on your blog, "possibly indicating that the N-M split (from L3) happened in relation to events and geography of South Asia". <BR/><BR/>"In fact E could be just the product of CT in East Africa, after drift wiped out other variants". <BR/><BR/>Could be. But we require a huge level of drift to achieve that. Anyway, I'm just thinking about it at this stage.terrythttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17327062321100035888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-47525307596334013432009-01-29T09:49:00.000+02:002009-01-29T09:49:00.000+02:00Of course there's no possibility at all that P and...<I>Of course there's no possibility at all that P and RN9 simply originated on either side of Wallace's Line, is there? </I><BR/><BR/>"Originated" or rather "evolved"? IMO P as such coalesced into its present form in New Guinea but its immdeiate ancestor (R) did not. As is not found elsewhere on Earth, that's about all. <BR/><BR/><I>We now arrive at far Eastern N* and Y.</I><BR/><BR/>I've found places where this clade is just called N9 and therefore I'll use this term hereafter. <BR/><BR/><I>It's obvious to us all that they must have come from India, because they are extremely rare in the subcontinent itself. It must have come from India after R had formed?</I><BR/><BR/>Not necesarily. It may have arrived before R was formed or to be more malabaristic with the words, <B>while R was forming</B> in India and just <B>before or simultaneously</B> with the arrival of the very few R subclades that are common in East Asia, namely B and F. <BR/><BR/>How can this happen "before or simultaneously" or even "before and simultaneously and after too" all at the same time? Because migrations are not just picking a couple from place A and moving them to place B on a map, they are many people moving into new lands, coming maybe back to visit their relatives before a new generation advances even farther (or maybe moves back), etc. There may be a few cases where a migration is a total break in one day or year of all what was behind (relatives, known landscapes from infancy, etc.) but most normally it is not - but rather a gradual process taking many generations. Even the crossing into Sahul has been claimed to have happened that way (after the supposed accidental discovery of Australia by a lost canoe) and not as the product of a mere shipwreck or the accumulated effect of many of them. <BR/><BR/>So when the genetic distance between various clades is small, it is perfectly possible that they all participated in the same migratory phenomenon, either in a simple (mother and daughter) or complex (distant cousins, like members of the same tribe) manner.<BR/><BR/><I>Surprisingly this Far Eastern N*Y sits in the middle of an arc of related, reasonably regionally discrete mt haplogroups. In the west we find a complex group with a single origin: IXIndian N.</I><BR/><BR/>Only in your mind. That arc is a pattern you are drawing and that I do not see (check <A HREF="http://leherensuge.blogspot.com/2009/01/on-macro-haplogroup-n.html" REL="nofollow">my later meditation on macro-haplogroup N</A>). For me "macro-X" (including X, N1 and related Indian N*) is the only clear West Eurasian subclade of N (after I reconsidered "macro-W" as likely South Asian). They have absolutely no relation except by their branches in South Asia. <BR/><BR/>Why all N clades that are not exclusively local (i.e. macro-R, macro-X and macro-W) have one or more South Asian subclades? <BR/><BR/><I>To the east of this IXIndian N haplogroup we find Ket N* and A. Ket N*? What's it doing there?</I><BR/><BR/>This is interesting, yes. But my greatest interest is not because of their geography but because they remain undivided for a long span (till the present in the case of Ket N*). They must be (in their present definition) rather young haplogroups but that have gone, since the N node (i.e. since long ago), by a long intimate (and marginal) history. <BR/><BR/>I do wonder if they migrated by the steppary corridor instead of doing it by southern Asia and that would be why they show such a reduced population for so long. But this is just an speculation so far and a concession I do to your reasoning. <BR/><BR/>It cannot apply to the other four clades that show a rapid expansion (branching) right after the N node split. Hence there could be a "happy trail" along Tropical Asia and a "rough trail" through North Asia for N subclades. But the latter is so far just a mere hypothesis: they could also have migrated via East Asia and the long coalescence be caused by other reasons (there are many other marginal niches besides Ice Age Siberia).<BR/><BR/><I>We'll say that Oz N* and W both came from India and went in opposite directions.</I><BR/><BR/>Most likely correct, even if I have some doubts. W is found in highest percentages in Pakistan and has also sublineages as far east as Thailand. <BR/><BR/><I>But hang on. They separated after the basal N haplogroup had already split into six. Ah. They must have left India at the same time as HV, JT and UK along with the other, more than twenty, haplogroups required to fit the theory.</I><BR/><BR/>Hold your horses, man! HV is about 5 SNPs apart from the N node (maybe older than "evolved" A but hardly comparable with the 4 fast-spreading N subclades), while macro-W is only one. <BR/><BR/>The W-Australian N* node is comparable to the R-N9 one and must represent roughly simultaneous events (rings any bell?). <BR/><BR/>In any case, the impresion is that the expansion between the stages of N node to the best known derived clades of today (such as HV), passing by the R node (and parallel but less influential ones) happened probably in a quite short time span. <BR/><BR/>So you (or rather my own review of the data after you sparked this controversy) is persuading me more and more that the "rapid coastal migration" model (or something very similar) is correct in the end. <BR/><BR/><I>And I'm prepared to bet that just three haplogroups had come out of Africa in the first place: mt-haps M and N and Y-hap CT.</I><BR/><BR/>Why not just L3 and CT? Or why not M and N (mtDNA) and CF and D (Y-DNA)? Or even C, F and D on the male side?<BR/><BR/><I>I'd guess that E moved back into Africa from somewhere in Asia (India? but more likely the Arabian Peninsula) after the eventual diversification. </I><BR/><BR/>Why? Why not D being the one moving into Asia after split from E? E certainly appears totally centered in East Africa and by no means in Asia. In fact E could be just the product of CT in East Africa, after drift wiped out other variants. The date suggested for the expansion of E is certainly much more recent than that for the expansion of the rest of CT, what would suggest a long coalescence in East Africa before it found the occasion to expand.Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-74218471558239882392009-01-29T06:57:00.000+02:002009-01-29T06:57:00.000+02:00"something about it is making me want to look care..."something about it is making me want to look carefully at people in Japan and vicinity". <BR/><BR/>Exactly. You both appear to be unbelievably Eurocentric. So much so that, just because virtually all mt-haps in Europe (HV, JT and UK) originated in India (or nearby), you assume most of the others did too. And they all emerged from there at the same time. <BR/><BR/>We should start with what we all agree on: the above haplogroups originate in or near Northern India. But there is a long history written in the haplogroups. Possibly back to the origin of modern humanity, but not necessarily so. <BR/><BR/>Let's start with the common ancestor of the above haplogroups: R. Its closest relation is Indian N9. So far so good for the expansion from India theory. <BR/><BR/>Its next closest relation, P, is found only in Australia and New Guinea. Strange that no pockets of P managed to survive in India, or further north in Asia, after the migration. Perhaps some official at the start of the mass migration out of India ordered all those with mt-hap P to turn right, jump into dugout canoes and paddle to New Guinea. Of course there's no possibility at all that P and RN9 simply originated on either side of Wallace's Line, is there? <BR/><BR/>So let's look at PRN9's origin. We now arrive at far Eastern N* and Y. It's obvious to us all that they must have come from India, because they are extremely rare in the subcontinent itself. It must have come from India after R had formed? Correct? Perhaps. We know it's impossible that Far Eastern N*Y came across Central Asia. And of course it's completely impossible that the ancestor of PRN9 had actually moved south from the Far East. <BR/><BR/>Surprisingly this Far Eastern N*Y sits in the middle of an arc of related, reasonably regionally discrete mt haplogroups. In the west we find a complex group with a single origin: IXIndian N. Perhaps it is complex mainly because it has been well researched. After all some of the branches are found in Europe and North America. <BR/><BR/>To the east of this IXIndian N haplogroup we find Ket N* and A. Ket N*? What's it doing there? The same official mentioned earlier must have ordered all those with Ket N* to keep moving through 20 metre snow drifts and expansive deserts until they finally reached Central Asia. I mean it's impossible that any early humans could have lived in Central Asia, isn't it? But it certainly looks as though either Ket N* or Far East N*Y must have moved through Central Asia. <BR/><BR/>At the other end of this arc of related, reasonably regionally discrete mt haplogroups we have S, in Australia. <BR/><BR/>Oh. Sorry. we also have the enigmatic Oz N*W. So let's build a whole case on just this single haplogroup and not look for alternative explanations for its distribution. We might just get away with it. We'll have to use huge amounts of random drift, founder effect and bottlenecks to explain away any discrepancies though. We'll say that Oz N* and W both came from India and went in opposite directions. But hang on. They separated after the basal N haplogroup had already split into six. Ah. They must have left India at the same time as HV, JT and UK along with the other, more than twenty, haplogroups required to fit the theory. <BR/><BR/>And I'm prepared to bet that just three haplogroups had come out of Africa in the first place: mt-haps M and N and Y-hap CT. I'd guess that E moved back into Africa from somewhere in Asia (India? but more likely the Arabian Peninsula) after the eventual diversification.terrythttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17327062321100035888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-1141708210402279132009-01-26T18:40:00.000+02:002009-01-26T18:40:00.000+02:00PS - Another possible explanation could be the Tob...PS - Another possible explanation could be the Toba supervolcano but that would mean an even earlier human expansion in Eurasia, i.e. before 74,000 BP, something that cannot be confirmed by any available archaeological data, at least East of India.Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-83998351695626454322009-01-26T18:34:00.000+02:002009-01-26T18:34:00.000+02:00...but I did bother to look at the diagram, and so...<I>...but I did bother to look at the diagram, and something about it is making me want to look carefully at people in Japan and vicinity. </I><BR/><BR/>You may be on something. I have been today reviewing the genealogy of mtDNA M (as it's obvious that we can't look only at N to understand early Eurasian population dynamics) and I've found that, after South Asia, the area of highest top-level dversity for M seems to be East Asia (8 top-level M subclades, South Asia has 11), with many of those clades being most important in Japan (not sure how much of this impression may be due to comparative oversampling though). <BR/><BR/>Whatever the case, if we consider M and pre-R (R plus M9/Y), I do find some parallel in both macrogroups being most diverse in these two regions: South and East Asia (but not SE Asia it seems). N(x pre-R) is different though and does appear more clearly concentrated in the Indian Ocean arch (and I would not totally exclude a West Asian origin, though a South Asian one is also possible). <BR/><BR/>What has me intrigued is the not very apparent role of SE Asia in all these migrations (after reviewing the matter, SE Asia appears to have only 2 high level M subclades, one, M9/E, shared with East Asia and the other, M21, typical of Negritos). Even if we consider later repopulations of the region, we should find higher diversity among Negritos and admixed groups. Maybe it's an issue of undersampling, of lack of sufficient research? Am I missing something important? <BR/><BR/>While it's possible that people may have been migrating between South and East Asia sidelining SE Asia (though I can't imagine why), it's impossible that Paleolithic peoples could have migrated to Sahul without transiting by SE Asia. And yet, this realtive lack of SE Asian mtDNA diversity is puzzling. At the moment I can only think of incomplete data for the region as possible explanation.Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-88287290027010739372009-01-26T13:57:00.000+02:002009-01-26T13:57:00.000+02:00Did either of you people even bother to look at th...<I>Did either of you people even bother to look at the diagram inthe Link Maju provided? It seems to be you two who "just want your dream come true. No proof and data".<BR/></I><BR/><BR/>What's the issue now?<BR/><BR/>The diagram shows 6 branches of N, of which:<BR/><BR/>- 2 (the only ones with an specifically Northern/Eastern distribution) appear to have gone through long and important periods of small population sizes (many many succesive SNPs)<BR/>- 3 are most important east and west of South Asia: in West Eurasia and Australia, with one of them being present in both regions.<BR/>- And then there is pre-R (including N9 and Y), which is widespread and appears to connect specially East and South Asia (main cores for N9/Y and R respectively). <BR/><BR/>It could be used to argue for more important roles in Eurasian genesis for West and East (SE?) Asia, I reckon, but hardly for any "northern corridor".Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-76449748864717505192009-01-26T10:52:00.000+02:002009-01-26T10:52:00.000+02:00terryt said... "Did either of you people even both...terryt said... <BR/>"Did either of you people even bother to look at the diagram inthe Link Maju provided? It seems to be you two who "just want your dream come true. No proof and data"."<BR/><BR/>I don't know about Maju or SCH, but I did bother to look at the diagram, and something about it is making me want to look carefully at people in Japan and vicinity.Ebizurhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16925110639823856429noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-41472149438661295652009-01-26T08:50:00.000+02:002009-01-26T08:50:00.000+02:00Did either of you people even bother to look at th...Did either of you people even bother to look at the diagram inthe Link Maju provided? It seems to be you two who "just want your dream come true. No proof and data".terrythttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17327062321100035888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-91804715978538433682009-01-24T18:58:00.000+02:002009-01-24T18:58:00.000+02:00The route through the steppes has nothing to do wi...<I>The route through the steppes has nothing to do with mt-hap R or Y-hap K's expansion. Itwas some time before that. </I><BR/><BR/>Evidence. Just repeating your pre-concieved idea one and a zillion times wil not give you the reason.<BR/><BR/><I>You can regard this as just an aside but do you believe Y-hap E also originated in India? If not how did D get so far to the East?</I><BR/><BR/>IMO, D (or proto-D) travelled to South Asia and beyond with the other Eurasian Y-DNA clades. It was surely never very numerous anyhow because it's only found in some groups, mostly in East Asia, and specially in random peripheric groups (Andamanese, Tibetan, Ainu/Japanese), where it must have become fixated due to random events (localized founder effects). <BR/><BR/>DE is a sybling clade of the major Eurasian haplogroup, CF. It's no wonder that they traveled together. I'd be more surprised if it was A or B or some other distantly related clade. But, as it is, it fits pretty well with the parallel mtDNA tree and the existence of a, likely single, expansion OOA at the moment of divergence of Y-DNA CT and mtDNA L3.Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-63754897267222400382009-01-24T02:52:00.000+02:002009-01-24T02:52:00.000+02:00again care to write which one? some data about hu...again care to write <BR/>which one? <BR/>some data about humans please.South Central Haplohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00916788636469000041noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-2418685661175059552009-01-24T01:46:00.000+02:002009-01-24T01:46:00.000+02:00"Even if the neighborhood of wallace lane genetics..."Even if the neighborhood of wallace lane genetics is identical to some other geenetics in coastal areas of some other countries you dont agree with that". <BR/><BR/>Except for what can be interpreted as relatively recent movements through the region the genetics either side of Wallace's line is not identical. Of course immediately either side we have the same ones but the line fairly effectively divides the haplogroups.terrythttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17327062321100035888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-62957771266254868602009-01-24T01:38:00.000+02:002009-01-24T01:38:00.000+02:00Thanks for that updated link regarding mt-hap N Ma...Thanks for that updated link regarding mt-hap N Maju. This diagram from it is very interesting: <BR/><BR/>http://www.ianlogan.co.uk/discussion/gifs/N_star_gif.htm<BR/><BR/>A chart of the divergences. It divides into six branches. The three simplest branches lead to A, Ket N* and S. A fourth leads to W and some Australian N*. Indian N is also found on two different branches. One of these became divided into three: X, IN and Indian N*. The sixth branch includes Y and Far East N*. This latter branch divides further into N9, R and P, some of which are also found in India. But as you point out this final branch diverged from the basal haplogroup quite early and is basically a separate haplogroup. It's very widely spread through the Far East and Australia as well as India. <BR/><BR/>"R (pre-RP) and pre-YN9. The latter is limited to East Asia, while the other is widespread". <BR/><BR/>Became widespread later? Of course I'll allow you to interpret this distribution in any manner you wish. <BR/><BR/>"A and "Ket N" appear to have experienced major epysodes of drift". <BR/><BR/>Which is not surprising considering where they are found. <BR/><BR/>"Also what has to do navigation with your alleged route through the steppes?" <BR/><BR/>The route through the steppes has nothing to do with mt-hap R or Y-hap K's expansion. Itwas some time before that. <BR/><BR/>"It could well have been part of a large migration that included undiferentiated M, M33, pre-W, S, proto-A and proto-'Ket N'". <BR/><BR/>You can regard this as just an aside but do you believe Y-hap E also originated in India? If not how did D get so far to the East? And, finally, what Y-haplogroup/s do you "think, ... understand, ... suspect, ... gather.." came out of Africa originally?terrythttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17327062321100035888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-34880924203498500452009-01-23T23:45:00.000+02:002009-01-23T23:45:00.000+02:00Terry wrote:I guess we'll just have to wait, won't...Terry wrote:<BR/><BR/>I guess we'll just have to wait, won't we? <BR/><BR/>SO Terry as usual no hard data. No logical agreement and throwing some ideas and arguing. I was polite in saying that. as usual that is your only chance. .<BR/><BR/>You are waiting for some one like god comes and prove that your argument wins and keep dreaming about that .<BR/><BR/> Even if the neighborhood of wallace lane genetics is identical to some other geenetics in coastal areas of some other countries you dont agree with that.<BR/><BR/>You just want your dream come true. No proof and data.South Central Haplohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00916788636469000041noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-36147123336112796142009-01-23T09:54:00.000+02:002009-01-23T09:54:00.000+02:00"Undifferentiated N and already derived R migrated...<I>"Undifferentiated N and already derived R migrated together (and with mostly undifferentiated M as well)".<BR/><BR/>Very unlikely. N's diversification is earlier than R's. R is a subset of N and its expansions looks unrelated to N's. </I><BR/><BR/>Let's go to the fine detail, check the various philogenetic trees in <A HREF="http://www.ianlogan.co.uk/mtdna.htm" REL="nofollow">Ian Logan's mtDNA site</A> for reference. <BR/><BR/>Branchings of N (ad-hoc nomenclature in [square brackets] for mere reference):<BR/><BR/>1. (1 snp), [pre-RPYN9]includes:<BR/>1.1. (1 snp), [pre-YN9]includes:<BR/>1.1.1. (8 snps): Y<BR/>1.1.2. (1 snp): N9 (divided in N9a and N9b after 2 shared snps)<BR/>1.2. (1 snp), [pre-RP] (known simply as R in other materials) includes: <BR/>1.2.1. (2 snps) R<BR/>1.2.2. (2 snps) N* "Asian sequences" (10 main sub-branches, none of them named, each defined by long series of snps - almost all in South Asia - only one case in China)<BR/>1.2.3. (1 snp) P<BR/>2. (8 snps): A<BR/>3. (1 snp), [pre-IX] includes:<BR/>3.1. (7 snps): X<BR/>3.2. (4 snps): N1 (including I)<BR/>3.3. (18 snps): certain Indian N*<BR/>4. (16 snps): some Ket and European N* [Ket N*]<BR/>5. (1 snp), [pre-W] includes:<BR/>5.1. (10 snps): W<BR/>5.2. (14 snps): some Australian N* sequences<BR/>6. (1 snp): S <BR/><BR/>So R (as described by Logan) is 4 SNPs away from N, while pre-RP (or just R in other nomenclature, like the one used in Wikipedia) is only 2 SNPs away from the N node. Furthermore this pre-RP or R macro-haplogroup belongs to even a larger one with Y and N9, that I called pre-RPYN9, which is only 1 SNP away from the N node. <BR/><BR/>You have five other branches but only 3 of them are comparable in genetic distance measured in SNPs: pre-IX, pre-W and S. Of them, pre-W shows some of the ample geographic spread of N, pre-RPYN9 and R itself (or pre-RP), connceting West Eurasia and Australia, while the other two are consolidated in each of these extremes (West Eurasia and Australia). A and "Ket N" appear to have experienced major epysodes of drift (small populations, no expansion) but A is now relatively common in spite of that.<BR/><BR/>Furthermore, pre-RPYN9 is as widespread as N and R. So the main expansion at least in East Asia must have happened within the process of evolution from N to R, via pre-RPYN9. The other clades seem more localized but must have been involved in some specific epysodes anyhow, either still undifferentiated or already defined. <BR/><BR/>Overall N appears to have spread along the coasts of the Indian Ocean first and foremost. Maybe from South Asia to east (Australia but also East Asia) and west (West Asia). <BR/><BR/>The following genealogical phase would be pre-RPYN9, which has two branches: R (pre-RP) and pre-YN9. The latter is limited to East Asia, while the other is widespread. This may suggest a rather eastern area of coalescence (SE Asia or Eastern South Asia?). If you have any reason in your idea of forth and back movements, this may be your key moment. <BR/><BR/>Then it comes R (pre-RP), which is generally acknowledged as South Asian by origin (highest diversity there both at pre-RP and "R proper" stages). <BR/><BR/>In general a South Asian origin is a safe conclusion. Pre-YN9 could well have migrated to East Asia (along maybe with A and "Ket N", as well as so many M subclades) in an epysode that went only in that direction. It could well have been part of a large migration that included undiferentiated M, M33, pre-W, S, proto-A and proto-"Ket N" (well, "Ket N" can also have some other history, I really don't know). That's like 6 founding mothers (surely more but some lineages went extinct, while others became regional, like S), not very different of what we find in Beringia/America at a later moment. <BR/><BR/>Beyond the safe conclusion of South Asia as likely urheimat, I would like to know more of the role played maybe by areas like the Gulf of Bengal (which seems pivotal for M and maybe for pre-RPYN9) and also about the mystery of the West Asia-Sahul connection, apparent in pre-W. But still all appears to be pivoting around India. Talk maybe of a "Greater Southern Asian" urheimat (with some unclear extensions beyond the borders of modern South Asia) but the Indo-Pacific arch seems very clear in any case also for N and R as migration route. <BR/><BR/><I>"What 'superior' technology?!"<BR/><BR/>I'd guess open water navigation but you obviously believe humans had dugout canoes more than 50,000 years ago. </I><BR/><BR/>Dugout canoes and open water navigation do not mix, at least normally. Canoes are for coastal, lake, swamp and river navigation. <BR/><BR/>Also what has to do navigation with your alleged route through the steppes?Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-25130637634661296082009-01-23T06:11:00.000+02:002009-01-23T06:11:00.000+02:00"I believe southern dispersal theory has scientifi..."I believe southern dispersal theory has scientific proof on its side in the studies 'sofar'. If somebody finds proof of Continental migration than I agree with you". <BR/><BR/>I guess we'll just have to wait, won't we? <BR/><BR/>"Undifferentiated N and already derived R migrated together (and with mostly undifferentiated M as well)". <BR/><BR/>Very unlikely. N's diversification is earlier than R's. R is a subset of N and its expansions looks unrelated to N's. <BR/><BR/>"I like things synthetic and clear". <BR/><BR/>Doesn't really happen like that. It's never simple. <BR/><BR/>"As I have said before it's not the same Y-DNA CT than F or P or R1b1b2a1b4c1. They are all related but they are not the same at all". <BR/><BR/>And their individual distributions are the product of a series of movements. Not just a single one. <BR/><BR/>"What 'superior' technology?!" <BR/><BR/>I'd guess open water navigation but you obviously believe humans had dugout canoes more than 50,000 years ago. <BR/><BR/>"I suspect that you are confused about that: mtDNA Z is also found among East Asians, like Japanese, Chinese and Koryaks". <BR/><BR/>Yes. A bit confused anyway. The information I have is that it's most common in Hazaras and Northern Han Chinese with lesser proportions in Altaians, Kets and Buryats. No mention of Japanese but thanks for the reference.terrythttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17327062321100035888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-13223632202751252842009-01-22T10:40:00.000+02:002009-01-22T10:40:00.000+02:00Btw, Z is not just found among Central/West Eurasi...Btw, Z is not just found among Central/West Eurasians. I suspect that you are confused about that: mtDNA Z is also found among East Asians, like Japanese, Chinese and Koryaks (<A HREF="http://www.ianlogan.co.uk/discussion/hap_Z.htm" REL="nofollow">ref</A>).Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-46511775794934555282009-01-22T10:30:00.000+02:002009-01-22T10:30:00.000+02:00It's absolutely impossible to reconcile the distri...<I>It's absolutely impossible to reconcile the distribution of mt-haps A, X and Y as being the result of a great Exodus from India, coastal or otherwise.</I><BR/><BR/>Why? They are local/regional derivates of N.<BR/><BR/><I>Haplogroups A, X and Y obviously derive from N but, because their distribution is basically regional, they almost certainly evolved in those paricular regions after an expansion of N. There's no way they left any region, let alone India, together already differentiated.</I><BR/><BR/>So? They are local/regional derivates of N: that's obvious. Undifferentiated N and already derived R migrated together (and with mostly undifferentiated M as well). That's the idea. <BR/><BR/><I>There's no earthly reason why it must have come in with people from "Siberia/East Asia".</I><BR/><BR/>If the fact that it's most common among Finnic and Hazaras (both with evident partial ancestry from North/East Asia) is not sufficient to you...<BR/><BR/><I>Anyway it seems you accept that C and Z were basically simply separated by geography. Why are you so vehemently opposed to the same idea when applied to the distribution of deeper haplogroup divisions?</I><BR/><BR/>Neither I do believe specifically that C and Z got separated by anything in particular (Z is just one among several subclades of C and anyhow I have not researched this haplogroup in any particular depth), nor I oppose that geography can be a involved in haplogroup diversification - not at all. <BR/><BR/><I>But many of your comments reveal you have a very poor understanding of the mechanism of evolution. Sure, my essays use the perspective of explaining evolution to non-believers but by the time I get to the essay you mention I have provided a huge range of evidence supporting the position I take.</I><BR/><BR/>Neither I accept that I could have a poorer understanding of evolution than you nor I'm willing to read all that. I like things synthetic and clear.<BR/><BR/><I>Do you really believe that there have been no other haplogroup expansions since some mythical one out of India? I'm sure I've read comments of yours where you appear to accept secondary expansions.</I><BR/><BR/>I don't believe anything. I think, I understand, I suspect, I gather..<BR/><BR/>Your question anyhow is too generical to be relevant. Ask me about particular haplogroups and not "haplogroups" in general. As I have said before it's not the same Y-DNA CT than F or P or R1b1b2a1b4c1. They are all related but they are not the same at all. <BR/><BR/><I>"You seem to believe that these clades represent somehow a 'superior' subset of humankind".<BR/><BR/>How on earth do you come to that conclusion?</I><BR/><BR/>Youa argued quite clearly before that the expansion of K must have been related to some superior tehnology, society and maybe even human type. <BR/><BR/>I say: BS.<BR/><BR/><I>Surely possession of different technology doesn't at all indicate genetic superiority.<BR/></I><BR/><BR/>What "superior" technology?! If even the technological differences between AMHs and Neanderthals are extremely unclear, what the heck of "superior" technology are you talking about? Toothpicks maybe?<BR/><BR/>Explain yourself. Point in the archaeological record what evidence exists of that "superior" technology?<BR/><BR/>...<BR/><BR/>And I totally agree with South Central Haplo that you have provided no viable or logical alternative model. You should do your homework first of all.Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-31795871911633436122009-01-22T03:40:00.000+02:002009-01-22T03:40:00.000+02:00Terry:we are watching your postings for the last 1...Terry:<BR/><BR/>we are watching your postings for the last 18 months or so. <BR/>You wrote being not familiar with Y haplo F also on the same Dienekes forum.<BR/>So far not a single writing made sense. <BR/>You keep on writing against Southern dispersal theory. You seems like India hater guy or some thing. I am not India lover either. <BR/><BR/>I believe southern dispersal theory has scientific proof on its side in the studies "sofar". If somebody finds proof of Continental migration than I agree with you. <BR/><BR/>Just show a single Y haplo or Mt Haplo of Melanesia or Papua NG or Aborigine Australia in East Asia with same diversity. At least show the groups.<BR/><BR/>Just give some examples.South Central Haplohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00916788636469000041noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-15587386243814488682009-01-22T01:30:00.000+02:002009-01-22T01:30:00.000+02:00"I read in that 'rapid coastal migration', ahem". ..."I read in that 'rapid coastal migration', ahem". <BR/><BR/>It's absolutely impossible to reconcile the distribution of mt-haps A, X and Y as being the result of a great Exodus from India, coastal or otherwise. Unless you're "twisting genetic data to fit your preconcieved idea (probably on good faith but it doesn't really matter)". Haplogroups A, X and Y obviously derive from N but, because their distribution is basically regional, they almost certainly evolved in those paricular regions after an expansion of N. There's no way they left any region, let alone India, together already differentiated. <BR/><BR/>"AFAIK, the term 'australoid' has been used rather arbitrarily to describe very different sets of populations that have nothing in common". <BR/><BR/>It should have been obvious I don't have such a view of Australoid. I pointed out to you long ago exactly what you've just claimed for yourself. As for references, any half-pie decent account of Australian prehistory covers the connections. And even the more general Stringer and McKie 1996 book "African Exodus" covers it. The first Australians are not actually "Australoid". <BR/><BR/>"Z is ... the clade with a more clearly western distribution within CZ, being found among Uralic Europeans". <BR/><BR/>There's no earthly reason why it must have come in with people from "Siberia/East Asia". There are any number of other genetic connections to account for the phenotypic similarity. Anyway it seems you accept that C and Z were basically simply separated by geography. Why are you so vehemently opposed to the same idea when applied to the distribution of deeper haplogroup divisions? <BR/><BR/>"A laudable attempt but not something I need to read". <BR/><BR/>But many of your comments reveal you have a very poor understanding of the mechanism of evolution. Sure, my essays use the perspective of explaining evolution to non-believers but by the time I get to the essay you mention I have provided a huge range of evidence supporting the position I take. <BR/><BR/>"You seem to need a secondary expansion to explain the distribution of haplogroups like Y-DNA K and mtDNA R (possibly even others)". <BR/><BR/>Do you really believe that there have been no other haplogroup expansions since some mythical one out of India? I'm sure I've read comments of yours where you appear to accept secondary expansions. <BR/><BR/>"You seem to believe that these clades represent somehow a 'superior' subset of humankind". <BR/><BR/>How on earth do you come to that conclusion? I'd bet a huge amount of money that you are simply interpreting what I say through the prism of your own prejudices. Surely possession of different technology doesn't at all indicate genetic superiority. <BR/><BR/>"if there is something I'm good at is at making criticisms, normally good ones". <BR/><BR/>And I greatly appreciate your input. Very useful. But everything you've said concerning an India Exodus lacks "any evidence for all those claims other than patterns created in your own mind, other than your own subjectivity".terrythttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17327062321100035888noreply@blogger.com