RSS

Major upheaval of human Y-DNA phylogeny: we are all ‘A’ now

20 May
Fascinating: reality never stops surprising us. All the basal phylogeny of human Y-DNA has been revised quite radically.

Now super-haplogroup BT, Y(xA) or (my personal favored name) B’CDEF is just a branch, a sublineage of A. And not just of A but of a fraction of a fraction of it:

Fig. 1
To the left we have the new basal phylogeny of the human Y-DNA. Please ignore the “time” axis. I’ll get to that later.
We can well ignore the proposed nomenclature and begin talking of A as the pan-human lineage or “Y-DNA Adam”. This primeval lineage split then into A1b (found at 8.3% among Bakola Pygmies and 1.5% among Mozabites) and A1a-T (or  Y(xA1b) or A1a’2’B’CDEF, using mtDNA’s “superglue” nomenclature’s fix-it-all method), which includes all the rest of the World’s population. 
Don’t worry too much about the nomenclature because it will obviously cause an upheaval in the naming conventions of at least A. All these names are surely just provisional.
Anyhow, this second lineage is yet split between A1a and A2’3’B’CDEF (A2-T in the graph). A1a is found mostly in Niger: among the Fulbe (14.9%) and their Tuareg neighbors (4.5%), as well as among Middle Atlas Berbers of NE Morocco (2.9%).  
Importantly Sudan and other large areas of Africa SE Africa, much of Middle Africa, were not sampled. But I’d say that this distribution is suggestive of an origin near Chad Lake in relation with the expansion of mtDNA L1. But I’d wait until we have results from Sudan because Sudan, notably the South, hosts huge Y-DNA diversity and a lot of Y-DNA A, so it cannot be ignored so easily. 
Using Wikipedia as quick reference, we can see that Y-DNA A1a has also been reported among several peoples of Guinea-Bissau (2.8-5.1%), notably the Mankanha speakers (7.8%). Also 5% of Mandinka from Senegal and Gambia, 2% of Dogon from Mali, 3% of Moroccan Berbers and 2% of unspecified Malians. Basically we can say that A1a is somewhat common (always at low frequencies) through West Africa. 

Frequency of Y-DNA A per Chiaroni 2009
However no further data on the crucially basal A1b lineage is found in this article at least. Anyone?
Besides, the next division is between A2, A3 and the remainder: B’CDEF (or Y(xA) or B-T). A2 is exclusively a Khoisan lineage, while A3 is split between Khoisans and the peoples of the Upper Nile (Sudan, Ethiopia…), having greater basal diversity in this last region (A3a and A3b2 are both Sudanese/Ethiopian, while only A3b1 is a Khoisan lineage).
In any case, the pattern found now in Y-DNA seems to suggest a flow from West or Central Africa to East Africa and then to Southern Africa (Khoisan peoples). This is somewhat contradictory with the pattern revealed by mtDNA (suggesting an origin in East Africa around where the oldest fossil H. sapiens are known to have existed, by the Omo river) or the pattern suggested by some autosomal diversity measures performed recently that proposed Southern or Central-SW Africa instead.
Typically they forget to (or could not) take samples in crucial areas like Angola (other than Khoisans), Mozambique, Tanzania (not even the Haza and Sandawe) or Sudan:

Fig. S1 (see: supp. materials).  
Red: A1b, green: A1a, black asterisks locations of A1a from other papers.

The technical differences between the old phylogeny and the new one are explained in detail and best perceived in fig. 2 (below). Besides of finding a large list of new SNPs, Cruciani et al. suggest that M91 is an unstable (and hence unreliable) location, while P108 and P97 are stable but were interpreted wrongly when first described, being the polymorphisms the ancestral ones, i.e. those identical to what is found among Chimpanzees. 
Fig. 2
Time-line absurdities
The authors propose a time-line for the human Y-DNA that makes no sense. Notably CDEF (CT) is proposed to have only 39 Ka, being more recent even that Aurignacian and several findings of Eurasian remains of H. sapiens (not even considering Skhul and Qahfez). It is also contradictory with so many proposals of Y-DNA timelines that suggest a CDEF age of c. 70 or 80 Ka. (Karafet 2008 for example), which I still consider a bit too recent – mind you. 
At the moment there two possible archaeologically consistent scenarios for the Out of Africa migration, one would have happened c. 90 Ka ago, reaching South Asia by c. 80 Ka (Petraglia 2010). The other one, proposed by Armitage this year (discussed here, see also here), would have the coastal migration by South Arabia happening c. 125 Ka ago and could have reached South Asia soon after. There could even have been two successive migrations.
As Y-DNA CDEF is central to the Out of Africa migration, it must have coalesced before this one happened. Unless one would argue for a back-migration of DE into Africa, what I find hard to sustain. Even if you’d do that, CDEF would have need to be consolidated c. 80 Ka ago at the latest.
That is double than suggested in this paper. It could be triple or even more. That would make “Y-DNA Adam” (everything else equal) at least as old as 285 Ka, surely more.
Of course, I am not believing a word on Y-DNA age estimates, because the hunches are so wildly different and so poorly argued (not to mention that no scientific proof was ever provided supporting such statistical methods) that it’s a total waste of time.
The phylogeny however stands and is an invaluable piece of information.

Important update (May 27): Other possible populations with A1b

Argiedude believes that he had identified A1b lineages in a number of populations (based on other studies and using mostly STR haplotype sequences). He included this spreadsheet (should be available for a year) where the likely A1b individuals were identified by him as “A4”. See the commentaries for further details.

The populations with possible A1b are therefore expanded from just two (Bakola Pygmies and Mozabites) to several, with a peak of frequency in Southern Ghana. Also in Gabon, SE Nigeria and Cameroon, and as isolated individuals in Zambia, Ivory Coast, Burkina Faso  (and then, of course, across the Atlantic in America).

Advertisements
 

128 responses to “Major upheaval of human Y-DNA phylogeny: we are all ‘A’ now

  1. carpetanuiq

    May 20, 2011 at 10:58 pm

    It is not that I like easy triumphalism (this was already hidden in the data), but this result matches exactly my prediction (except maybe time-line which I agree seems odd).Now the hard nut to crack is the CT haplogroups biogeography, how and when they did disperse. The hypothesis of an alternative dispersion route West asia–>East asia–>SEA–>Oceania–>SA–>CA–>Europe/CA–>America, in the opposite direction of the "mainstream southern route OOA", that I saw also hidden in the data when I studied this matter in deep, is still alive (I have to update my mental database with the new findings since last year, but I do not remember having seeing anything that falsifies it). See you, Maju, as soon as research advances eventually confirm this hypothesis.Aupa Kortatu !

     
  2. Maju

    May 20, 2011 at 11:08 pm

    Where was your "prediction" written down? I do not remember that "prediction"… but maybe is just my bad memory. "Now the hard nut to crack is the CT haplogroups biogeography"…What about this? I think I have that part pretty much "tamed", so to say and fitting with mtDNA patterns almost 100%. Of course there may always be a new "upheaval" and we need to rethink it all, but MNOPS was handy indeed. …"SEA–>Oceania–>SA–>CA–>Europe/CA–>America"…Something like that but skip Oceania: those who crossed Wallace Line surely remained there.

     
  3. terryt

    May 22, 2011 at 5:25 am

    "The technical differences between the old phylogeny and the new one are explained in detail and best perceived in fig. 2 (below)". Thanks Maju. Brilliant. However, like Carpetanuiq, I agree it is not entirely unexpected. "Something like that but skip Oceania: those who crossed Wallace Line surely remained there". I agree. However I'd place the back-migration of Y-haps P and O, and mtDNA R to somewhere near Wallace's Line. "Notably CDEF (CT) is proposed to have only 39 Ka, being more recent even that Aurignacian and several findings of Eurasian remains of H. sapiens" I agree that seems problematic. But note that the B/CT split is about 75,000 years ago. So the 7 mutations at the base of CT could have happened outside Africa. A situation I have long considered a possibility. It just means that E or DE have moved back into Africa. Where does DE fit in the diagram? "a CDEF age of c. 70 or 80 Ka. (Karafet 2008 for example), which I still consider a bit too recent – mind you". That fits the B/CT split very well though. "the pattern found now in Y-DNA seems to suggest a flow from West or Central Africa to East Africa and then to Southern Africa (Khoisan peoples). This is somewhat contradictory with the pattern revealed by mtDNA" But I keep telling you that there is no reason why mtDNA should correlate closely with Y-hap. In the pacific we see haplogroup swapping. So why not elsewhere?

     
  4. Maju

    May 22, 2011 at 10:31 am

    "I'd place the back-migration of Y-haps P and O, and mtDNA R to somewhere near Wallace's Line".Do you mean MNOPS(xM,S)? IDK, Sundaland is indeed a favorite spot for the coalescence of MNOPS as such but Indochina would do (specially if M and S happen to be "brother" haplogroups, what I'm almost sure will be found eventually to be the case). But notice that this, in any case, would place the origin of NO, i.e. MNOPS after detaching from M and S (heading to Melanesia) and P (heading to Bengal and further West) in SE Asia. Which is what I have been arguing for all the time. But never mind… it'd be an off-topic matter. Just warning you about what your own thread may bring you to. "So the 7 mutations at the base of CT could have happened outside Africa".We still need all Australian and Melanesian haplogroups ready between 60 and 50 Ka., all European lineages ready by 48 or 40 Ka…Not to mention the much older colonized areas of South and East Asia. "Where does DE fit in the diagram?"After some thinking, I understand it's part of CT (= from C to T in alphabetical order), aka CF (current ISOGG nomenclature), aka CDEF or CF'DE (my favorites), aka Y(xA,B). "It just means that E or DE have moved back into Africa".I do not swallow that. "That fits the B/CT split very well though"That is also a problem because the B/CDEF split should be at least somewhat older than the OoA. Afer all most Africans who remained are CDEF (DE). In order to think otherwise, you'd have to get DE back-migrating into Africa… but with no women!!! In fact with Africa retaining huge female lineage diversity, not just in a small region but all across the continent. It's so weird that it is not acceptable. "I keep telling you that there is no reason why mtDNA should correlate closely with Y-hap".I think they should in most cases at least. And in fact I have been able to get them (before this revision at least) to match each other to some extent. What once was an impossible puzzle has become a reasonably easy one for me now. I have yet to ponder in detail how they can correlate after this revision but I already noticed a correlation of the oldest basal branchings with mtDNA L1, which is quite interesting.

     
  5. terryt

    May 23, 2011 at 3:10 am

    "Do you mean MNOPS(xM,S)?" Yes. "We still need all Australian and Melanesian haplogroups ready between 60 and 50 Ka." Yes. That is a huge problem for the datring. Unless … C and K repalced earlier haplogroups in the region, which I think is unlikely. "all European lineages ready by 48 or 40 Ka…" I don't see that as such a huge problem. Perhaps R-derived haplogroups were the first modern haplogroups into Europe. Previous ones died out. But again that seems unlikely. "That is also a problem because the B/CDEF split should be at least somewhat older than the OoA". Not necessarily so. Perhaps mtDNA M and N moved out of Africa with Y-hap CT. That fits your old diagram of African mtDNAs. L3 (including mtDNAs M and N) expanded with Y-hap BT at the 23 mutation mtDNA level, perhaps 75,000 years ago. If that is the case then earlier mtDNA L expansions are associated with the four previous Y-hap A expansions: A1b, A1a, A2 and A3. "And in fact I have been able to get them (before this revision at least) to match each other to some extent. What once was an impossible puzzle has become a reasonably easy one for me now". I'll even help you on the way: "I have yet to ponder in detail how they can correlate after this revision but I already noticed a correlation of the oldest basal branchings with mtDNA L1, which is quite interesting". Specifically the L1b, L1c and L2''6 separations at 9 mutations would be my guess. As you say in your original post: "A2 is exclusively a Khoisan lineage" Presumably associated with the original L0/L1''6 split in some way. "A3 is split between Khoisans and the peoples of the Upper Nile (Sudan, Ethiopia…), having greater basal diversity in this last region (A3a and A3b2 are both Sudanese/Ethiopian, while only A3b1 is a Khoisan lineage)". Presumably associated with mtDNAs L5, L2, L6 and L3'4 around the 13-16 mutation level. Then L3 moved around and out of Africa with Y-hap BT. "In order to think otherwise, you'd have to get DE back-migrating into Africa… but with no women!!!" Surely not all African women would have left with Y-hap CT. I'd guess there were plenty of women still there. You even suggest that to be the case: "with Africa retaining huge female lineage diversity, not just in a small region but all across the continent".

     
  6. Maju

    May 23, 2011 at 5:13 am

    "That is a huge problem for the datring. Unless …"Unless we ignore the tentative, speculative and unscientific dating for good. You are trying to place a non-zero value to the weight of TRMCA as evidence, actually a 10/10 somehow, miraculously. I totally discard it from the beginning. I can only accept date estimates that are based on serious data, like archaeological checks, realistic Homo-Pan divergence ages, etc. Your usual TRMCA are more like the jokes we made about economics in the faculty:There's a physicist, an engineer and an economist and they are in the middle of nowhere with a can of beans. The physicist proposes to open the beans applying certain funny laws of physics, the engineer does something of the like too and the economist then approaches the problem as taught in university: "let's suppose we have a can opener"…Similarly, the molecular clock statistician makes a lot of assumptions, suppositions and wild speculations and then reaches to a random (or pre-fabricated) conclusion that is absolutely trivial, except for the confusion it generates.

     
  7. Maju

    May 23, 2011 at 5:19 am

    As for the A lineages, the problem now is precisely that A1b and A1a diverge before A2 and A3, while L0 diverges before L1 does. That's something that needs some meditation and I do not think that your vague discursive zig-zags point to anything of use: do they? As for DE back-migrating to Africa, there are two problems: 1. Sure that there remained women in Africa but also men and that I do not see in the data. 2. The diversity of DE is probably higher in Africa than in Eurasia and certainly than in West Eurasia, where the backmigration would have begun presumably. There's no particular indication of any backmigration into Africa south of the Sahara either, neither archaeological nor genetic.

     
  8. eurologist

    May 23, 2011 at 6:54 am

    "That is double than suggested in this paper. It could be triple or even more. That would make "Y-DNA Adam" (everything else equal) at least as old as 285 Ka, surely more."Thanks for reminding me about that, Maju. That's a really important point. A time of ~300,000 – 400,000 years is exactly the time when Neanderthals started to become isolated and gene flow between Europe/West Asia and Africa became severely limited, and also agrees with the recently published autosomal DNA time of last "point of contact."

     
  9. Maju

    May 23, 2011 at 2:30 pm

    In truth, we can't say that either because, in truth we do not know if the "age estimates" keep any proportion (what happened to different population sizes, etc.?)And anyhow I do not agree with placing the Sapiens-Neanderthal divergence so late in time at all. IMO it's from 1 million years or more. H. sapiens is NOT H. heidelbergensis but probably H. rhodesiensis, which may have began its divergence in Southern Africa, from H. ergaster – mind you. See here, among other entries.

     
  10. Maju

    May 23, 2011 at 2:34 pm

    AFAIK, gene flow between Europe and Africa has always been limited, even in recent times. If you follow the maps link: you do not see any appearance of contact between H. heidelbergensis and H. rhodesiensis. This is coincident with the latest (pre-OoA) archaeologically certain flow being with Acheulean, c. 900,000 years ago.That's, I understand the real divergence between our two species.

     
  11. eurologist

    May 24, 2011 at 9:02 am

    Maju,There are always two dates: one signifies when groups or sub-species became somewhat separated, the other is when they became virtually isolated. I agree with you that separation started early, likely at the beginning of heidelbergensis or just before. However, initially the Central European climate was a very mild, humid, sub-tropical one, which would have made both geographic gene exchange as well as compatibility easy. It is only much later that severe climate both separated the areas with cold, dry wasteland and drove evolution in different directions.

     
  12. Maju

    May 24, 2011 at 5:40 pm

    I am talking of c. 1 Ma for isolation: then is when we see the first transitional types in Europe (H. antecessor) and the first Acheulean out of Africa.And then is the good date for all corrections I need to apply with the Pan-Homo divergence in mind (often 50-100% more) for your usual TRMCA hunches to make any sense. I imagine that with the Sahara and then the Mediterranean in between isolation and beginning of serious divergence were about the same process. Of course, there can always have been some minor introgression after that but it's quite irrelevant. I do not think climate is that important in this process of divergence as totally different geographies, separated by seas and deserts. We are talking for example of many hundred of thousands of years of divergent coalescence in SW Europe and Southern Africa… only for the H. rhodesiensis and H. heidelbergensis to be perceived as such. After that both species begin expanding and eventually reach each other at the evolutionary level of Neanderthal-Sapiens – or similar (meanwhile there were many H. ergaster in between). but that is already at the OoA stage, some 100 Ka ago (grosso modo). All the rest is wild speculation and nefarious influences by that aged and stubborn Louisianan paleoanthropologist whose name can't recall right now.

     
  13. terryt

    May 25, 2011 at 4:57 am

    "But notice that this, in any case, would place the origin of NO, i.e. MNOPS after detaching from M and S (heading to Melanesia) and P (heading to Bengal and further West) in SE Asia. Which is what I have been arguing for all the time". 'Which is what I have been arguing for all the time'? You certainly have a very selective short-term memory. I remember the abusive comments you made when I first suggested that some K-derived Y-haps had moved back west from near Wallacea. The same reaction when I had the audacity to suggest the same for mtDNA R. You were absolutely certain in those days that virtually everything had moved from India in a series of unidirectional movements. And you still seem reluctant to accept anything other than unidirectional movenments, as demonstrated by your recent outburst concerning a back-movement by Y-hap M2a in the Pacific. I am certain that our whole evolution has been driven by movement back and forward of various human groups. And the scattered and sparse distribution of Y-hap A1b argues that it has been replaced through much of its original distribution by the back-migration of another haplogroup. I wonder what on earth that other haplogroup could be?

     
  14. Maju

    May 25, 2011 at 1:52 pm

    "I remember the abusive comments you made when I first suggested that some K-derived Y-haps had moved back west from near Wallacea".You do have a selective memory, I believe. Please quote or retrieve your accusations. I think that I explained to you that I had already considered that option (back-migration from Melanesia) myself but that I had discarded it for reasons of parsimony. That I suspected that most or all of that K in Melanesia was part of a single haplogroup (now known to be MNOPS). There could well be even less basal diversity in that part of the world that is apparent now but it's not a too researched area, so it may take many years before we know. "I am certain that our whole evolution has been driven by movement back and forward of various human groups".Well, I am certain that you are mostly wrong in your certainty. Mind you. "And the scattered and sparse distribution of Y-hap A1b argues that it has been replaced through much of its original distribution by the back-migration of another haplogroup".It does not need to be "migration", drift alone does that. We are talking of most of humankind's history: hundreds of thousands of years! A brutal time span… and it is still there!That's the amazing thing: how a lineage that should have been erased once and again if we are to hear to the population replacement mongers like you and so many others, is still there at very small levels, surviving migrations and even drift! An not in one population but at least two, two very different ones!People (and their lineages) seem to persist way more than you, Dienekes and others like to believe.

     
  15. terryt

    May 26, 2011 at 3:02 am

    "You do have a selective memory, I believe. Please quote or retrieve your accusations". Your comments were made in response to this essay: http://humanevolutionontrial.blogspot.com/2009/06/human-evolution-on-trial-mitochondrial.htmlYour comments were deleted when Tim reposted the collection of essays. "It does not need to be 'migration', drift alone does that". Not an adequate explanation in This case. 'Drift' would hardly occur in a population with just one haplogroup, A1b in this case. "how a lineage that should have been erased once and again if we are to hear to the population replacement mongers like you and so many others" I have never claimed 'population replacement'. On the other hand I'm sure we can talk about 'population enhancement'. "People (and their lineages) seem to persist way more than you, Dienekes and others like to believe". They 'persist' but often at a reduced proportion. "Well, I am certain that you are mostly wrong in your certainty. Mind you". So how would you explain our evolution? A sweries of expansions of groups in which every single member has simultaneously undergone the same mutations?

     
  16. Maju

    May 26, 2011 at 4:40 am

    Then you do have at least a long-lasting memory. Because that was many years ago. "'Drift' would hardly occur in a population with just one haplogroup, A1b in this case".Who said it was that way? You are the one associating single haplogroups with single populations, not me. I do not see that Western Pygmies have a single haplogroup: in fact they are dominated by lineages of the B clade, if my memory is correct. As mtDNA is usually more informative (and mtDNA suggests a Westward flow), I'd assume that the population first migrating Westward retained a Y-DNA diversity then lost in the East. But whatever, it's not like we're going to solve the problems of the world by clarifying this matter. "we can talk about 'population enhancement'". Uh?"They 'persist' but often at a reduced proportion".If they can persist from such deep levels in Africa, I see no reason why they should not persist in Eurasia, where they are bound to be of much more recent age in all cases. "So how would you explain our evolution?"IDK: but as we are a different species from all other known Homo ones, I presume that isolation and "luck" played a huge role. At least isolation at the level of Africa South of the Sahara, maybe (even if less intensely so?) at a regional level within Africa itself. Hard to tell but very possible. For me anyhow the people at Omo 190 Ka ago are already fully evolved modern Homo sapiens. So there is where maybe all began for us."A sweries of expansions of groups in which every single member has simultaneously undergone the same mutations?"What?! If a population is small enough for a long enough time: all will have almost the same alleles because of inbreeding. It's inbreeding what creates new species but in huge swathes of time only. Admixture does not reinforce the formation of new species but actually dilutes and counters that process. Admixture is the anti-speciation process. If H. sapiens would have remained isolated in diverse populations for a million years or so, then each "race" would have coalesced into a new species eventually, just as Neanderthals did. But as the opposite is happening, H. sapiens will remain a single global species until extinction arrives (when and how: that's another debate).

     
  17. argiedude

    May 27, 2011 at 3:01 am

    "However no further data on the crucially basal A1b lineage is found in this article at least. Anyone?"It happens I totally identified this clade back in January, when I was looking in depth into y-dna A and B, precisely to uncover stuff like this. I wrote about this new clade in rootsweb:http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/read/GENEALOGY-DNA/2011-01/1294013598But the file included there, with a map of the distribution of A1b, has run out of time in that site, so here it is again, reuploaded:A y-dna (2010 update).xlsThere's a map in this file showing A1b's distribution. The clade is called A4, since at the time I didn't know anything about its SNPs.I have more to say, but for now, I'm just hoping this lengthy post will make it through. I still haven't read everything you wrote, nor the comments.

     
  18. argiedude

    May 27, 2011 at 3:06 am

    A1b is not particularly associated with Pygmies. Here's a frequency table I constructed the other day.Frequency of A1b:5/242 2,0% Ghana, south4/1184 0,3% Nigeria, southeast1/266 0,4% Cameroon, southwest6/795 0,8% Gabon2/330 0,6% Baka Pygmies (Gabon, Cameroon, C.A.R.)N/A 0,5%? African Americans (USA, Brazil, etc.) [European y-dna excluded]2/1450 0,1% African Americans (USA only) [European y-dna excluded]Also, A1b couldn't be present in Bantus because of absorption via Pygmies, because in such case Bantus would have had to absorb 50 B2b lineages for every single A1b lineage they received from the Pygmies, but in fact, Bantus in west and central Africa have about 0,3% to 0,5% of either A1b and B2b.By the way, I would presume that before rearraning the entire naming system, they would invent a name such as pre-A, right?

     
  19. Maju

    May 27, 2011 at 3:17 am

    How is it that you did not know about its SNP? I mean, you should have identified it as A1, right? Because P108 stands, only that the direction of the phylogeny is reversed. "Also, A1b couldn't be present in Bantus because of absorption via Pygmies, because in such case Bantus would have had to absorb 50 B2b lineages for every single A1b lineage they received from the Pygmies"…That's correct. It is very interesting anyhow. I would just make sure that you identified the clade correctly: how did you do that?

     
  20. argiedude

    May 27, 2011 at 3:19 am

    With A1b being, frankly, more associated with West African Bantus than with anyone else, plus the new hierarchy now establishing A1 as more basal than A2 and A3, and A1 is also unquestionably West African Bantu, well, how about that? The oldest clades of y-dna are found in West African Bantus, not the Khoisan, Pygmies, or East Africans.

     
  21. Maju

    May 27, 2011 at 3:22 am

    There are not "West African Bantus", they'd be Niger-Congo (of which Bantu is a branch).

     
  22. argiedude

    May 27, 2011 at 3:24 am

    Maju, I identified the clade based on haplotypes, many of the samples weren't SNP-tested. From the few that were, I could tell that the clade was A+, A1-, and A3-. I wasn't sure about A2, but the haplotype modals were so bizarre that I thought for sure it must be a whole new clade of A, that's why I called it A4 in the xls file.

     
  23. argiedude

    May 27, 2011 at 3:31 am

    Errata:plus the new hierarchy now establishing A1 as more basalI meant to say A1a, not A1. My point was that A1b and A1a are [b]both[/b] associated with West African "Bantus" (Niger-Congo, as Maju clarified above), so this is pretty interesting, in light of the constant talk of the Khoisan and East Africans, and even Pygmies being a sort of cradle of mankind with the most basal lineages (which may well still be the case for mtdna, sure, but not in the y-dna, anymore!).

     
  24. argiedude

    May 27, 2011 at 3:43 am

    Regarding how I idnetified the clade, I forgot to add that last April, just 3 months after I wrote about "A4", a huge new study came out by Batini in which he tested hundreds of A and B samples, the most complete study of y-dna A and B yet. 2 of these samples were SNP-tested as A1b, and effectively, they belonged to the clade I identified in January, specifically to A4c. Bringing up another point about A1b ot being particularly associated with Pygmies. A1b can be clearly divided into 3 subclusters, and Pygmies, despite 330 samples, belong to just 1, as I noted above, but West African "Bantus" belong to all 3.

     
  25. terryt

    May 27, 2011 at 3:49 am

    "You are the one associating single haplogroups with single populations, not me" But A1b is the oldest African clade, so what happened to A1b before any other mutation appeared? Presumably A1b made up the whole population unless it replaced some older clade. But, of course, you don't accept that clades can be 'drifted out' through the arrival of newer clades. "I'd assume that the population first migrating Westward retained a Y-DNA diversity then lost in the East". How can you say it was 'lost in the East' when you've just complained, 'how a lineage that should have been erased once and again if we are to hear to the population replacement mongers like you and so many others'. Are you arguing 'population replacement' in this case simply because once more it suits your belief? "As mtDNA is usually more informative (and mtDNA suggests a Westward flow)" Surely once you accept haplogroup replacement there is no need at all to see the basal Y-hap as coinciding with basal mtDNA. So it becomes quite possible to have a westward-moving mtDNA followed by an eastward-moving y-hap. "I presume that isolation and 'luck' played a huge role". Really? "For me anyhow the people at Omo 190 Ka ago are already fully evolved modern Homo sapiens. So there is where maybe all began for us" But they must have sprung from somewhere. It's surely unlikely they sprand from a population that had been isolated in Omo since H. erectus first evolved. You're even aware of the difficulty with such a belief because you wrote: "If a population is small enough for a long enough time: all will have almost the same alleles because of inbreeding". So it cannot be as simple as: "It's inbreeding what creates new species but in huge swathes of time only". New genes have to be introduced periodically, at which time selection acts on any new combinations available. "Admixture is the anti-speciation process". It is a necessary part of speciation. "If H. sapiens would have remained isolated in diverse populations for a million years or so, then each 'race' would have coalesced into a new species eventually" Obviously it hasn't remained isolated long enough to have become separate species. And it is most unlikely that any species since H. erectus has done so either. The regional variations of ancient human species presumably has much the same cause as the regional variation we see today. It's just that today: "the opposite is happening, H. sapiens will remain a single global species until extinction arrives" "A1b couldn't be present in Bantus because of absorption via Pygmies" Yes. It is much more likely that A1b entered Pygmies from West Africans rather than the other way round.

     
  26. terryt

    May 27, 2011 at 4:16 am

    "(which may well still be the case for mtdna, sure, but not in the y-dna, anymore!)". I don't think you'll get Maju to agree with that. He is very much opposed to the idea of independence of mtDNA and Y-hap.

     
  27. Maju

    May 27, 2011 at 10:16 am

    I'll see to upload the file as appendix to this entry with due warnings and explanations. "A1b can be clearly divided into 3 subclusters, and Pygmies, despite 330 samples, belong to just 1, as I noted above, but West African "Bantus" belong to all 3". Alright. That would make sense.I must insist into not calling West African "Bantus", because that's like calling Arab to Hebrews, Semitic to Cushitic and Berber peoples, Latin to Germanics, etc. While the Bantu subfamily of languages has a relatively recent origin (a few thousand years – comparable to Germanic or Romance languages maybe), Niger-Congo hosts A LOT more diversity, including families that may not be Niger-Congo at all in the end, as it's the case of the Mande and Ubangi linguistic families. In any case, they are not "Bantu", just like Greeks are not Latin nor Slavic. There are no Bantu languages West (nor North) of Southern Cameroon and there are not even Bantoid languages West of Eastern Nigeria.

     
  28. Maju

    May 27, 2011 at 11:04 am

    "But A1b is the oldest African clade"…That's a fundamental misunderstanding: A1b and Y(xA1b) are exactly as old. A1b is only the oldest divergent (or minority) branch. But in any fork, both branches stem from the same point of divergence. Furthermore, this is not truly valid because the Y chromosome is never so completely explored, but just count the known mutations to A1b and A1a-T. The branch leading to A1b appears to be more than four times longer than the one leading A1a-T. This is not conclusive in any way but it's easy to think that A1a-T is in fact quite older than A1b (as we know it, not pre-A1b). I'd suggest to consider the alternative chronology of:1. A1a-T2. A2-T3. BT4. CTThe others can't be measured because they do not include internal forks but they look all more recent than CT on first sight. It may be misleading but it is a possible interpretation that we should not discard. Seriously. Similarly, in the much more clear case of mtDNA, L1"6 is quite clearly older than L0, regardless than L0 is the first divergent lineage, much as A1b is in Y-DNA. "How can you say it was 'lost in the East' when you've just complained, 'how a lineage that should have been erased once and again if we are to hear to the population replacement mongers like you and so many others'".Please, drift! We are talking of the very beginnings of Humankind as we know it: population densities were surely very low and drift had a lot of time to act. "Are you arguing 'population replacement'"…?I am NOT arguing "population replacement". "… it becomes quite possible to have a westward-moving mtDNA followed by an eastward-moving y-hap".It does not make sense to me at all. First I cannot easily conceive female- only (or actually even male-only) migrant groups. But specially, I can hardly conceive "two Humankinds" at the beginning of all.It is much simpler when you realize that the first diverging branch is not "the oldest lineage". Often (but not necessarily) the larger lineage is the oldest one. That can be tested in the case of mtDNA with great accuracy: L1"6 is clearly older than L0, for example. However M is not older than the African L3 subclades most likely (it's not a rule, just a possibility that often happens).It looks like an interesting playground for puzzle-solving Me. I'll surely post on that eventually, when I have dedicated the matter enough time. "It's surely unlikely they sprand from a population that had been isolated in Omo since H. erectus first evolved".In Omo only not, but in a relatively limited East African area maybe yes. "You're even aware of the difficulty with such a belief because you wrote:"If a population is small enough for a long enough time: all will have almost the same alleles because of inbreeding"".And that is what we find in Homo sapiens, yes or yes? To me at least it looks as a rather homogeneous initial population that diverged (how many times have we read the word "bottleneck" regarding human initial history?). We cannot of course ignore the possibility that it interacted with other African "archaic Homo" but we know nothing about it at this point. I'll leave that open (because "la vida te da sorpresas") but for me it all begins at Omo (very roughly) with a high probability….

     
  29. Maju

    May 27, 2011 at 11:04 am

    …"New genes have to be introduced periodically"…Not necessarily, they do not have to. A relatively small population can have enough diversity. Unless you systematically breed with your cousins, generation after generation, inbreeding depression does not happen. A population of a few thousands should be perfectly viable on its own. Also H. sapiens has some unique traits that are difficult to explain if the proto-species systematically outbred. For example, admixture with other H. rhodesiensis/ergaster would have tended to reduce cranial capacity (quite obviously), so it was surely selected against (up to a point, I imagine). But most likely, from a given moment on, there was a whole region that only us inhabited, so outbreeding was not possible anymore but at the edges. That region was first a large chunk of East Africa and then all Africa south of the Sahara (and eventually the whole planet). Much is very speculative I reckon, but you are pushing me to speculate. "[Admixture] is a necessary part of speciation". No. I do not see it that way: reproductive isolation is what creates new species. New species aren't but forks of the old ones. Some admixture (introgression) may be unavoidable because the process of isolation is typically imperfect but that is not central to the process. At "best" accessory, at "worst" counter-productive (stops the process of speciation, of forking, reinstating the single original species). "It is much more likely that A1b entered Pygmies from West Africans rather than the other way round".Neither. Both retain some of the ancestral diversity and both derive to some extent from the same fork in early human history, as is apparent by the presence in both groups of Y-DNA B, mtDNA L1, etc. Just that while West Africans seem to have incorporated other lineages (second wave?), Pygmies did not (remained isolated). "He is very much opposed to the idea of independence of mtDNA and Y-hap".I am opposed to the idea of wandering amazon and male-only tribes, indeed. But there are even better reasons, with enough care and intelligence, both tend to converge from that apparent divergence and that is quite satisfying for those like me who expect men and women normally migrating together – even if also intermarrying with other groups, what makes the lineages' pairings change along time in a manner that can be confusing.

     
  30. Maju

    May 27, 2011 at 11:28 am

    Argiedude: I'm thinking you may want to write the authors of this or the other paper with your finding. It looks important enough and you may at least get some credit for the discovery.

     
  31. argiedude

    May 27, 2011 at 10:46 pm

    Argiedude: I'm thinking you may want to write the authors of thisThat's a thought. I think I will.or the other paper with your finding.The Batini study? I wish I could've been able to give them a few personal opinions before they started the tests. The most interesting thing I found of y-dna B is the existence of a cluster with a very distinctive haplotype, namely the presence of 392=13, almost unheard of outside of y-dna P (Q, R1a, R1b, etc.). And this cluster is located geographically almost on the northern half of the Sahara, including Morocco and Egypt. But incredibly, despite finding 2 dozen samples, not one of them had tested any downstream SNPs, just B. when the Batini study came out, I thought for sure the mystery would be settled, but they found just a single sample from this cluster… and they didn't test it (for downstream SNPs)!

     
  32. terryt

    May 28, 2011 at 8:10 am

    "This is not conclusive in any way but it's easy to think that A1a-T is in fact quite older than A1b (as we know it, not pre-A1b)". A very good explanation. "First I cannot easily conceive female- only (or actually even male-only) migrant groups". No need to conceive of female- only migrant groups at all. But male-only migrant groups are by no means impossible. In fact at the margin of an expanding population we would expect the males to move beyond the originally correlated females. "I can hardly conceive 'two Humankinds' at the beginning of all". We seem to have at least three: African, Denisovan and Neanderthal. "L1"6 is clearly older than L0, for example". We have no way of knowing if it was 'older'. L0's expansion is more recent however. "However M is not older than the African L3 subclades most likely (it's not a rule, just a possibility that often happens)". And CT is not older than any Bs. In fact I would not be surprised if it's eventually shown that CT is just one B haplogroup, in the same way that mtDNAs M and N are just two L3 haplogroups. And in the same way that Y-hap E1b1b1b is no older than other E1b1b1s.

     
  33. terryt

    May 28, 2011 at 8:35 am

    "And that is what we find in Homo sapiens, yes or yes?" Almost certainly no. "To me at least it looks as a rather homogeneous initial population that diverged" But if that population had been confined 'in a relatively limited East African area' for any length of time it would have become too inbred to have been robust enough to have expanded. I'll concede the 'initial population' may have only recently become isolated within a relatively limited area. But before than it would have been receiving genes from a number of sources. "Not necessarily, they do not have to. A relatively small population can have enough diversity". Only if it has just recently become 'relatively small'. I know that you are fully aware that single 'genes' do not act on their own. It is combinations of genes that are responsible for any character. One main product of hybridisation is that it gives rise to new combinations of genes. It may be mainly this fact that leads to hybrid vigour. "Unless you systematically breed with your cousins, generation after generation, inbreeding depression does not happen". Any population of any limited size will undergo inbreeding depression. In fact my old textbook claims that any population not infinitely large will undergo inbreeding, i.e. all species. In fact that's why individual species look much the same as each other. "Also H. sapiens has some unique traits that are difficult to explain if the proto-species systematically outbred. For example, admixture with other H. rhodesiensis/ergaster would have tended to reduce cranial capacity (quite obviously), so it was surely selected against (up to a point, I imagine)". Selection would eliminate any hybrids with reduced cranial capacity even after a hybridisation event. But such an event is quite possibly responsible for introducing other advantageous qualities to the admixed population. Hybrid vigour if nothing else. "No. I do not see it that way: reproductive isolation is what creates new species. New species aren't but forks of the old ones". That is very much 19th century, 'survival of the fittest', ideology. The idea was that some vastly superior population (in Victorian times obviously Europeans, especially European men) gave rise to new, superior species. In contrast, you have even blogged that evolution is no simple process.

     
  34. terryt

    May 28, 2011 at 8:46 am

    "Then you do have at least a long-lasting memory. Because that was many years ago". But surely you remember when you finally had to admit that mtDNA R had also started out from SE Asia, after a long period of abusive, arrogant and wildly speculative denial of the possibility. On that occasion too you suggested I'd made a 'lucky guess'. So just have another read of the comment you made elsewhere: "My ignorance is parsimonious and conservative however, while yours is arrogant and wildly speculative. I'm likely to be right".

     
  35. Maju

    May 29, 2011 at 9:17 am

    "Almost certainly no".Aren't we a single species? Aren't we very much homogeneous? Yes we are, indeed. That's because almost all of our genes are the same. And that's why I gain almost as much with the survival of a random Bushman than with that of my niece: their genomes are almost the same and almost the same as mine as well. "… it would have become too inbred to have been robust enough to have expanded".Mere breeder's theory. What happened to that finding that marrying your fourth cousin was somehow "ideal"? What happened to outbreeding depression? Also there may have been punctual introgressions of key genes while the rest remained "inbred". That is very typical in wild species – that's what the original meaning of the term "introgression" is in fact: species remain neatly apart but they exchange some key highly adaptive genes via short-lived, small, hybrid populations."Only if it has just recently become 'relatively small'".Uh? I think the Onge look a very healthy people. They have been isolated for many many millennia. They are surely more extreme than the original "Humankind" (which was no doubt larger and more extended, as even a tiny fraction of Africa is a lot larger than the Onge island) but they clearly show that a tiny isolated population can be perfectly healthy (assumed no bacterial shock or genocide from cousins). "Selection would eliminate any hybrids with reduced cranial capacity even after a hybridisation event"?Why?Selection is something highly imperfect: whatever that doesn't kill you, is more or less viable. A smaller head is clearly viable, specially in cooperative species like ours, it even seems that brains have decreased somewhat since farming began. Obviously people with mediocre intelligences are highly fit while some geniuses are probably not so good for survival. Intelligence alone does not give you the edge. In fact selecting for a single trait such as a big brain is the same as inbreeding for such group of alleles, as all the "hybrid vigor" from smaller brain type genes is blocked. Each time that speciation selects one gene or set of genes it creates a genetic zone of "extreme inbreeding", where only one kind of allele exists. But it works. "That is very much 19th century, 'survival of the fittest', ideology".Not at all. It is the survival (as distinct species) of the different and isolated and (as ample but single species) of the indistinct and interbreeding. Humans were once the first category (speciation) but are now the latter (anti-speciation trend)."… you finally had to admit that mtDNA R had also started out from SE Asia, after a long period of abusive, arrogant and wildly speculative denial of the possibility".It all depends on what the evidence says. Once said A and then new evidence appeared and said B. I am scientific and flexible enough as to have said A when the evidence said A and B when the evidence said B. But you are stubborn enough as to have said B without any reason when the evidence clearly said A, and then, when it changed (expanded) and said B, you rubbed and still rub it once and again on my face with that "I told you" crap, not even realizing that it is precisely that "I told you" what makes you to be wrong because you followed your own unfounded opinion instead of the objective data. You were lucky enough to have reality side with your unfounded opinion but there's also that story about a donkey who accidentally played a flute, you probably know it, right?

     
  36. argiedude

    May 29, 2011 at 4:57 pm

    Maju, was the article open access? Cause it isn't anymore, not even the supplements.Also, thanks for the clarifying comments regarding P97 and P108 (about them being originally misread). When the Batini study came out, the first thing I did was search for samples belonging to the "A4" cluster I observed before, expecting it to be a whole new lineage, and was disappointed when I saw it labeled as A1b. So it turns out it was a mistake and it really was a whole new lineage, hell of a whole new lineage, in fact.

     
  37. Maju

    May 29, 2011 at 5:15 pm

    I could access it freely then, now I get a message of "technical difficulties". I could not see anywhere it being "open access" (hence the unusual "freely accessible" tag) and I do not think I downloaded the paper (so I can't share a copy). It may have been a pre-pub free access period? Maybe. At the moment I thought it was too short (letter format) for to be closed. Anyhow AJHG (and PNAS) papers are accessible after 6 months of publication. As for the mutations, indeed: only one mutation (M91) was revised as unreliable. The other two were found to have been interpreted wrongly in the construction of the phylogeny, to be the Chimpanzee variant in A and A1 respectively. Then they also find new mutations defining A1a-T and A2-T.

     
  38. carpetanuiq

    May 29, 2011 at 7:12 pm

    "Where was your "prediction" written down?"In your blog (and maybe also in Dieneke´s). I´m quiet new in commenting in these biogeography issues and not very prolific so I´m sure you can find it. May I suggest you to use google ?""Now the hard nut to crack is the CT haplogroups biogeography"…What about this?"Not that I have read the whole discussion thread in deep (137 comments !), but I think that TerryT does a good job demolishing the purported evidences you bring up to this discussion thread in order to show the validity of the southern route. By the way I´ve seen that Terry was claiming a northern route hypothesis before me, and I want to aknowledge it here, if I may. I wonder if he still sticks to this hypothesis or not.

     
  39. argiedude

    May 29, 2011 at 7:16 pm

    So they first found M91, and being an STR-like unreliable marker, they happened to get it wrong. Then they found the reliable marker P97, but interpreted it according to its alignment with M91, which was wrong, so they interpreted P97 also in an erroneous manner.

     
  40. Maju

    May 29, 2011 at 8:19 pm

    "May I suggest you to use google ?"I doubt Google will find it: comments do not show up in their searches I believe. It's you who makes the claim anyhow, so it's your job to document such claims, not mine. "… I think that TerryT does a good job demolishing the purported evidences you bring up to this discussion thread in order to show the validity of the southern route".I do not think so but whatever rocks your boat – for every light there must be a shadow, I guess. I understand that the Southern Route is absolutely clear in the patterns of both mtDNA and Y-DNA and Terry is just being obsessive-compulsive about a fetish conjecture for which he has no evidence whatsoever.However, as it's a matter of belief, it seems… there's a point beyond which we can't debate anymore: I demonstrate once and again the Southern Route but for some the Northern Route is a matter of faith, as it is not of fact at all. "I´ve seen that Terry was claiming a northern route hypothesis before me"…There will be more people for sure, the northern route has been hanging around for long but never had any good logic behind: why would people adventure first to Siberia when they could stay in the Tropics? It's just weird! They began heading to Siberia when there was no more room in the Tropics, it seems very clear to me from mtDNA.

     
  41. terryt

    May 30, 2011 at 2:15 am

    "Aren't we a single species? Aren't we very much homogeneous? Yes we are, indeed. That's because almost all of our genes are the same". And the vast majority of those genes are exactly the same as most of our predecessors. "Mere breeder's theory". Not so. Breeders practice. "What happened to that finding that marrying your fourth cousin was somehow 'ideal'?" Called 'line breeding' when done with domestic animals. "Uh? I think the Onge look a very healthy people. They have been isolated for many many millennia". And could you tell us where exactly have they expanded to? "Why?" Because that is what you claimed to be so: "admixture with other H. rhodesiensis/ergaster would have tended to reduce cranial capacity (quite obviously), so it was surely selected against" "Not at all. It is the survival (as distinct species) of the different and isolated and (as ample but single species) of the indistinct and interbreeding". Again that's a 19th century belief in the immutability of species. "But you are stubborn enough as to have said B without any reason when the evidence clearly said A". The evidence did not clearly say A. You simply refused to consider that it might say anything else. I agree that new evidence proved B, but the evidence was sufficient to prove B long before the decisive evidence was discovered. It's just that you could only see A because refused to consider any other possibility. "you rubbed and still rub it once and again on my face with that 'I told you' crap" Because you have learned nothing since then, as shown by: "You were lucky enough to have reality side with your unfounded opinion" As I pointed out above it was not an 'unfounded opinion'. You were simply too arrogant to see what the evidence actually showed. You were blinded by your belief. "that story about a donkey who accidentally played a flute, you probably know it, right?" No, I don't, but presumably it's totally irrelevant. "I understand that the Southern Route is absolutely clear in the patterns of both mtDNA and Y-DNA and Terry is just being obsessive-compulsive about a fetish conjecture for which he has no evidence whatsoever". There you go again. You cannot see the evidence because you refuse to see it. Time for me to provide a proverb: There are none so blind as those who refuse to see. "By the way I´ve seen that Terry was claiming a northern route hypothesis before me, and I want to aknowledge it here, if I may. I wonder if he still sticks to this hypothesis or not". Thank you. I have never doubted that Y-hap F and mtDNA M moved east via the 'southern route', but I still claim a northern route for Y-hap C and mtDNA N. But Maju's belief prevents him from seeing the evidence for it. So, like mtDNA R and Y-hap MNOPS, we will just have to wait until the evidence becomes blindingly obvious.

     
  42. Maju

    May 30, 2011 at 2:58 am

    I thought it was a more universal story but it seems it's a Spanish one, written by a Basque (Tomás de Iriarte). It's a poem but also moralist fable and it's in all school curricula over here. A boy forgets a flute and the donkey smells it, accidentally producing some sounds by mere breathing. The donkey then begins: "How good I am at playing the flute. Donkey music is not that bad".You know.

     
  43. Maju

    May 30, 2011 at 4:31 am

    In other words: Reality (defined by the facts we know) is the score to play. If you can only play do (C), you will always be wrong except when is time to play do. Occasionally Reality, the score, and your insistent monotonous sound will be in agreement but that is a mere fluke. Yet you, like Iriarte's donkey, pride on the fluke and claim merit that you totally lack for that. I thought you were smarter and I think that on occasion you do show hints of such intelligence but then you just overdo yourself again. Often it is smarter to shut up and meditate. And it is certainly not valid in any case to claim "merit" for a fluke and try to use that self-attributed "merit" to make yourself the infallible measure of all things prehistoric and genetic. That way you only make a fool of yourself. And it's sad. And it pains me to be forced to clarify this issue in such blunt terms. Yet I cannot leave it standing either.

     
  44. carpetanuiq

    May 30, 2011 at 11:27 pm

    @Maju: "why would people adventure first to Siberia when they could stay in the Tropics?"Who said Siberia ? It could be Siberia, steppe or silk road route. It depends on the climate at these times. The minimum energy principle suggests that the rule is as follows: once in Levant, when possible, expand over the most similar ecosystem. I do not buy the "scatter in all directions rule" unless all directions are symmetric. That´s not the case in Eurasia: tundra, taiga, steppes, deciduous forest and deserts. The colder the climate, the northern this latitudinal pattern and viceversa. ¿ O es que la flauta solo suena dónde hay madera, por ejemplo en Siberia ?@TerryT: We differ. I do not see any reason why C (the haplogroup, not the note) should had followed northern and F southern. Think about a C small population (the low mutation rate) through the northern route, then still small accross the coast with scattering through Oceania, until they reach India where the population explodes, higher mutation rates and therefore new haplogroups. That still makes compatible a northern route with F and derived Haplos originating in India. Is there some data I ignore that makes this scenario impossible ?

     
  45. Maju

    May 31, 2011 at 12:03 am

    Must be Siberia (Altai). The Silk Road as historically famed goes further south but needs camels. (Steppe is an ambiguous term). Altai is the only known crossroads between West and East Eurasia north of the Himalayas. "… once in Levant, when possible, expand over the most similar ecosystem".The origin is East Africa, and the most similar ecosystem then was India (then largely savanna too). We do not even know with any certainty if the went to India through Levant, even if an expansion to (but not necessarily through) Palestine is part of the process. "I do not buy the "scatter in all directions rule" unless all directions are symmetric".I can agree with this: the most appropriate direction is therefore following the tropical ecosystem. Notice that South Asia (and also SE Asia to some extent at least) holds many commonalities with African ecosystems, first of all their tropical nature. In South Asia there are even lions and elephants, just like in Africa!

     
  46. terryt

    May 31, 2011 at 3:57 am

    "Yet you, like Iriarte's donkey, pride on the fluke and claim merit that you totally lack for that". If that's what you believe, then so be it. I'm getting sick of pointing out how blind you are. "And it is certainly not valid in any case to claim 'merit' for a fluke" Maju, it was no 'fluke'. And are you claiming I managed a fluke twice? And I notice you've gone very quiet concerning Y-hap E1b1b. Another fluke on my part? Those flukes are becoming regular. "the most appropriate direction is therefore following the tropical ecosystem". Unlikely to be 'tropical' if, by that, you mean jungle. I'd agree with 'savannah' including scattered clumps of trees. "It depends on the climate at these times". Exactly. "We do not even know with any certainty if the went to India through Levant, even if an expansion to (but not necessarily through) Palestine is part of the process". But you did blog a recent paper regarding a moister period in the Arabian Peninsular. Such a moister period would surely make parts of the Iranian Plateau more habitable too. "In South Asia there are even lions and elephants, just like in Africa!" And until recently lions and elephants were widesprad through Asia and even in Europe. "Think about a C small population (the low mutation rate) through the northern route, then still small accross the coast with scattering through Oceania, until they reach India where the population explodes" I don't think you could make a case that Y-hap C has ever exploded in India. And C certainly reached Oceania only in the last few thousand years. However it has presumably been present in Australia and around Wallacea for 50,000 years or so. "That still makes compatible a northern route with F and derived Haplos originating in India. Is there some data I ignore that makes this scenario impossible ?" I suppose it is possible that F followed a 'northern route', but unlikely. We have basal F haplogroups such as G and IJin Southwest Asia. To me it seems likely that they survive there from F's original movement through the region.

     
  47. terryt

    May 31, 2011 at 4:16 am

    Oh. And back to an earlier comment: "Uh? I think the Onge look a very healthy people. They have been isolated for many many millennia". Like most people around the planet their haplogroups show they were originally a mixed people. Their mtDNA is basically Indian in origin (M) and their Y-hap is East Asian (D). The same holds true for most other surviving populations in regions marginal to human geographic expansion. Indigenous Americans y-haps are Central Asian (Q) and their mtDNA is East Asian (A,B, C and D). Polynesian Y-haps are mainly South Wallacean (C2) and mtDNA Southeast or East Asian (B). In fact modern haplogroup distribution shows most populations are a mix of populations. They have haplogroups with origins in several different regions. In other words a mix of populations who have undergone a period of 'reproductive isolation'.

     
  48. Maju

    May 31, 2011 at 5:21 am

    "it was no 'fluke'".Then how did you "know"? You make so many claims with mere stubbornness and no evidence! This was one of them: the evidence pointed elsewhere (South Asia) but you insisted… until the evidence changed like a roulette and pointed to where you were playing. And you dare to claim "merit" for that?!"And are you claiming I managed a fluke twice?"I am not but that would be perfectly possible: you make a zillion claims, some must be right at some point, of course. The issue is not whether you get it right a posteriori by mere chance or divine revelation, I do not care if you are a visionary but whether you can get right according to the available evidence at any given moment, if you can be scientific. And that you don't seem able to. You lacked the evidence and yet you claimed that anyhow: you were wrong (according to available evidence back then) and that is what matters.Evidence, material info, rational expositions, logical conclusions! That is what we need not divine inspiration… or flukes.

     
  49. Maju

    May 31, 2011 at 5:31 am

    "Unlikely to be 'tropical' if, by that, you mean jungle".I do not mean jungle, or not only that: I mean hot and without winters: the perpetual summer of the tropics that allows us to go naked all year round, the reason of our hairless and sweaty evolution. "Such a moister period would surely make parts of the Iranian Plateau more habitable too".I do not know and does it matter at all anyhow? Hypothesis is not evidence. Where are the likely H. sapiens tools? Bones? In India, in Arabia… but not in Altai until much later. "Like most people around the planet their haplogroups show [that the Onge] were originally a mixed people".Not true but it doesn't matter because they'd be just themselves in isolation for maybe 60 thousand years!!! The example stands no matter what. And there are a zillion of small island populations in other species that are perfectly healthy, totally dismissing the "inbreeding" theory.

     
  50. carpetanuiq

    May 31, 2011 at 11:46 am

    @Maju:"Must be Siberia (Altai).etc…"Is it correct to extrapolate the situation of these areas during the last 2000 years to the last, let´s say, 60.000 years ? Do we have already complete and accurate paleoclimate data in these euroasiatic areas ? I doubt it. Same regarding the archeology and paleoanthropology of these areas."The origin is East Africa, and the most similar ecosystem then was India (then largely savanna too)etc…." and "the most appropriate direction is therefore following the tropical ecosystem". The origin in East Africa hypothesis has been shattered by last findings. North africa is as well possible. Similar ecosystems in Africa and India is not enough: you still have to proove continuity (or at least not big discontinuity) of ecosystem from Africa to India, or could our ancestors fly ? @Terryt:"However it has presumably been present in Australia and around Wallacea for 50,000 years or so". This is a key data. "We have basal F haplogroups such as G and IJ in Southwest Asia"What do you mean by southwest asia ? could you please be more specific, i.e. quote countries. Are you referring to Anatolia and Levant and are you implying that F was present there before going into India letting populations that derived into G and IJ ?Again old presence of IJ and G in theses areas is perfectly compatible with my hypothesis. After havong crossed the northern route, SEA, Australia (this is what I referred to whan speaing about Oceania) and reaching India, some went to central asia splitting there in several branches: GIJ, MNOPS…. @both: easy guys, let´s keep this interesting discussion within scientific parameters: hypothesis, evidences and arguments.

     

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

 
%d bloggers like this: