posted
^ The relevant issue is that there is no African M1 in India, and therefore no support for your false claim that Dravidians originate in Africa.
As for M3 and M6 they are rare in Africa, more common among Arabs, and often found in the same populations that have some paternal Arabian J, which could be post Islamic, so what is your point?
Finding M1 or a lineage ancestral to M1 in India, could help to explain the presence of M1 in Africa as a result of a back migration from India. Yet, to date this has not been achieved, therefore, one cannot rule out the still most parsimonious scenario that haplogroup M arose in East Africa.
^ No M1 in India - directly contradicting you. No wonder then, that you post a graph but supplied no link to the study.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
LOL Again for the hundredth time Winters rises up only to be hit down again.
Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
M1 is found in India. In addition to Kivisild et al 1999 who found 26 Indians carrying M1, Gonzalez et al (2007) also report in Appendix 1, M1 found in India and Iran.
. We also find African M1 in Iran and throughout Arabia, in addition to Indian M haplogroups, especially M3.
The absence of ancient M lineages among Dravidian speakers and presence of African M1 from East Africa to Iran and India along with Indian hg M3 (found along the same path), which has the closest affinity to M1 ,support a recent migration of Dravidian speakers to India, as witnessed by the anthropological, linguistic and archaeological evidence.
The central HVSI haplotype (1612916189162231624916311) has been found *only once* in northwestern India [27- Quintana-Murci 2004]. Another possible Indian M1 candidate is the derived sequence: 160861612916223162491625916311 [28]. However, in two recent studies in which 24 [24] and 56 [25 - Chang Sun, 2005 ] Indian M complete sequences were analyzed no ancestral M1 lineages have been found.
Gonzalez does not claim that M1 is found in India.
She actually does claim that M originates in Asia - and so would not even agree that M1 represented African ancestry in India even if she had found it, which she hasn't.
Your appendex spreadsheet is a compilation of all these studies, and the -one possible candidate- mentioned, is from and earlier Quintana-Murci study, which was later rejected as and M1 candidate by Chang 2005.
This is what you are mistakenly referencing.
This is why Gonzalez states that no ancestral M1 lineages have been found in India.
You have MIS-cited Kivisild, Chang and Gonzalez, and they all agree that there is no M1 in India.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by rasol: ^ Another boring far fetched claim.
Here is what gonzelez et al 2007 actually says:
The central HVSI haplotype (1612916189162231624916311) has been found *only once* in northwestern India [27]. Another possible Indian M1 candidate is the derived sequence: 160861612916223162491625916311 [28]. However, in two recent studies in which 24 [24] and 56 [25] Indian M complete sequences were analyzed no ancestral M1 lineages have been found.
Gonzalez does not claim that M1 is found in India.
He actually does claim that M originates in Asia - and so he would not even agree that M1 represented African ancestry in India even if he had found it, which he hasn't.
Your appendex spreadsheet is a compilation of all these studies, and the -one possible candidate- mentioned, is from and earlier study, which was later rejected as and M1 candidate by Chang 2007.
This is what you are mistakenly referencing.
This is why Gonzalez states that no ancestral M1 lineages have been found in India.
You are again mistaken Dr. Winters.
You have MIS-cited Kivisild, Chang and Gonzalez, and they all agree that there is no M1 in India.
You are full of it as usual the Gonzalez et al article was published 2 years after (Chang) Sun et al.. I have published Appendix 1, which documents M1 in India.
You can put any spend you which on the evidence of M1 in India. The finding of M1 by two different authors support its existence in India no matter what you want to believe personally.
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: M1 is found in India. In addition to Kivisild et al 1999 who found 26 Indians carrying M1, Gonzalez et al (2007) also report in Appendix 1, M1 found in India and Iran.
. We also find African M1 in Iran and throughout Arabia, in addition to Indian M haplogroups, especially M3.
The absence of ancient M lineages among Dravidian speakers and presence of African M1 from East Africa to Iran and India along with Indian hg M3 (found along the same path), which has the closest affinity to M1 ,support a recent migration of Dravidian speakers to India, as witnessed by the anthropological, linguistic and archaeological evidence.
.
You can keep repeating your erroneous claim that Kivisild found M1 in India forever and it will not make it true. I have pointed out that your claim is not true. Rasol and others have also pointed this out to no avail. Will Kivisild himself telling you that his 1999 M1 is not the African M1 make you stop?
Here is Kivisild's reply to your unrefereed comment to his paper.
Gyaneshwer Chaubey, Mait Metspalu, Richard Villems, Toomas Kivisild. 2007. Reply to Winters BioEssays 29(5): 499
Published Online: 20 Apr 2007 DOI: 10.1002/bies.20574
Reply to Winters Dear Sir, The origins of Dravidian speaking populations of South Asia have been a matter of scientific debate over many decades. In our recent review on the genetic affinities of Indian tribal and caste populations,(1) we concluded that both Indo- European- and Dravidian-speaking populations of India share largely the same pool of mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) lineages that has evolved in situ in South Asia since the Out-of-Africa migration of anatomically modern humans (AMH) some 5070 KYA. Dr. Clyde Winters in his correspondence(2) to our paper disagrees with this view and argues instead that there are linguistic, archaeological as well as genetic evidences for a relatively recent African origin of Dravidian populations. For a recent discussion on the origin of Dravidian languages, the reader is referred to a monograph by B. Krishnamurti.(3) MtDNA-based genetic arguments provided by Dr. Winters in favor of gene flow from Africa to Dravidian-speaking Indians are, however, entirely erroneous. The author has been, unfortunately, confused by overlooking changes in mtDNA haplogroup (hg) nomenclature. Namely hg, M1 in Kivisild et al.(4) has been later changed to hg M3, in order to avoid parallel nomenclatures.(5) Furthermore, a recent dedicated paper on phylogeography of mtDNA hg M1(6) as well as an extensive comparative mapping of autosomal genetic markers among many Indian populations relative to global populations elsewhere, including Africans,(7) do not provide any clues for a putative recent gene flow, from Africa, to Dravidian-speaking populations in South Asia. References 1. Chaubey G, Metspalu M, Kivisild T, Villems, R. 2007. Peopling of South Asia: investigating the caste-tribe continuum in India. Bioessays 29:91100. 2. Winters C. 2007. BioEssays 29:497498. 3. Krishnamurti B. 2003. The Dravidian Languages 1-574: Cambridge University Press 4. Kivisild T, Kaldma K, Metspalu M, Parik J, Papiha S, Villems R. 1999. The place of the Indian mtDNA variants in the global network of maternal lineages and the peopling of the Old World. In Deka R, Papiha SS. eds Genomic Diversity Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers New York p 135 152. 5. Quintana-Murci L, Semino O, Bandelt H-J., Passarino G, McElreavey K, Santachiara-Benerecetti AS. 1999. Genetic evidence of an early exit of Homo sapiens sapiens from Africa through eastern Africa. Nat Genet 23: 437441. 6. Olivieri A, Achilli A, Pala M, Battaglia V, Fornarino S. et al. 2006. The mtDNA legacy of the Levantine early Upper Palaeolithic in Africa. Science 314:17671770. 7. Rosenberg NA, Mahajan S, Gonzalez-Quevedo C, Blum MGB, Nino- Rosales L. et al. 2007. Low Levels of Genetic Divergence across Geographically and Linguistically Diverse Populations from India. PloS Genet 2:e215. Gyaneshwer Chaubey* Mait Metspalu Richard Villems Department of Evolutionary Biology Institute of Molecular and Cell Biology University of Tartu and Estonian Biocentre Tartu, Estonia Toomas Kivisild Leverhulme Centre of Human Evolutionary Studies The Henry Wellcome Building University of Cambridge Fitzwilliam Street Cambridge. UK CB21QH DOI 10.1002/bies.20574 Published online in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com).
Posts: 833 | From: Austin, TX | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: We also find African M1 in Iran and throughout Arabia, in addition to Indian M haplogroups, especially M3.
Eurasian and African mitochondrial DNA influences in the Saudi Arabian population Khaled K. Abu-Amero, Ana M Gonzαlez, Jose M. Larruga, Thomas M. Bosley and Vicente M. Cabrera
BMC Evolutionary Biology; March, 2007, 7:32
Excerpt:
The Saudi Arabian group showed greatest similarity to other Arabian Peninsula populations (Bedouin from the Negev desert and Yemeni) and to Levantine populations. Nearly all the main western Asia haplogroups were detected in the Saudi sample, including the rare U9 clade. Saudi Arabs had only a minority sub-Saharan Africa component (7% L0 and L2 haplogroups), similar to the specific North-African contribution (5%). In addition, a small Indian influence (3%) was also detected.
The Arabian Peninsula is a region through which numerous migrations between Africa and Asia took place since ancient times. Anthropological, archaeological, and genetic evidence has given support to the hypothesis that modern humans may have dispersed out of Africa, following a southern route through the Arabian Peninsula before they pursued a Levantine route.
Influences from the African side were also present as Pharanoiac Egypt and the Sudanese Meroitic and Abyssinian Askumite kingdoms extended their borders well inside Arabia. Arabian Nabatean and Sabean cultures exerted their influence in turn on the Levant and Ethiopia, although to a lesser degree.
MtDNA genetic analysis of this Saudi Arabian group revealed almost exclusively contributions from Africa and the Near East. All Saudi L, M and N lineages were derived from clades with roots in Africa and west and south Asia. The L4, L5, and L6 haplogroups recently found in Ethiopia and/or Yemen were not detected in the Saudi population. Half of the sub-Saharan African Saudi lineages had exact matches in Ethiopians and/or Yemeni, pointing to these areas as the most likely source. The other half belonged to haplogroups with an East Africa origin or that reached the Red Sea in their eastern radiation. The Arab slave trade and the expansion of empires from the Sudan and Ethiopia could explain this moderate sub-Saharan Africa maternal contribution to the present Saudi Arabian gene pool.
The majority of M1 lineages in Saudi Arabia belonged to the eastern Africa M1a sub-clade that is particularly frequent and diverse in Ethiopia. Ethiopia was again the most likely source. However, the sole M1b1 Saudi sequence probably reached the Arabian Peninsula from northwest Africa through the Levantine corridor because this sequence has been reported repeatedly in west Africa, the Iberian Peninsula, and Jordan, but not yet in Ethiopia. Based on Y-chromosome studies, this northern route was proposed as an important path for bidirectional human migration between north Africa and the Levant. The remaining M lineages detected in Saudi Arabs had a clear Indian provenance. The basic Saudi M3 lineage out of India was shared by Yemenis and Iranians. Relatively recent contacts between India and the Arabian Peninsula by continental routes through Iran or by Indian Ocean maritime routes could be responsible of this Indian gene flow. [Online Source]
This photograph of Sa'ad Al-Saud taken in 1911 with his hair in ringlets which were called "Dalik" and holding a string of prayer beads. Brother of Ibn Saud, also known as King Abdul Aziz, was the tribal and Muslim religious leader who formed the modern state of Saudi Arabia and initiated the exploitation of oil.
.
Posts: 1549 | From: California, USA | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:You are full of it as usual the Gonzalez et al article was published 2 years after (Chang) Sun et
You are funny when you get angry because you aren't making any sense and you know it.
Try to keep up please....
1) Yes, Gonzalez was published *after* Chang Sun, as I noted - otherwise how could she quote him, as I explained to you?
2) Gonzalez acknowledges that M1 is not found in India, thus *her own* comment: " in two recent studies in which 24 [24] and 56 [25 - Chang Sun, 2005 ] Indian M complete sequences were analyzed no ancestral M1 lineages have been found".
3) The single possible sample, that you reference as your "evidence" [sad], is not from Gonzales, but from Quintana-Murci 2004, which is what Gonzales 2007 is referencing as having been rejected, via Chang Sun 2005.
Niether Gonzales, nor Sun, nor Kivisild supports your claims of M1 in India.
quote:We also find African M1 in Iran and throughout Arabia
^ This is because, unlike Dravidian, Arab -INDISPUTABLY have African ancestry.
^ In fact, M1 is most common in Ethiopia, and found in Arabia and Iran, but not in India, [pause while Winters fumes], and this is one of the main reasons why M1 is still considered to be most likely of African origin to begin with.
It should be noted that there are also African M lineages found in Tanzania and Senegal which are also possible M1 ancestor candidates but unfortunately Africa is not being studied as *frantically* as India is for a possible origin source.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:You are full of it as usual the Gonzalez et al article was published 2 years after (Chang) Sun et
You are funny when you get angry because you aren't making any sense and you know it.
Try to following along please....
1) Yes, Gonzalez was published *after* Chang, otherwise how could he quote him, as I explained to you?
2) Gonzalez acknowledges that M1 is not found in India, this his his comment: " in two recent studies in which 24 [24] and 56 [25 - Chang Sun, 2005 ] Indian M complete sequences were analyzed no ancestral M1 lineages have been found
3) The one possible candidate, that you referenc as your "evidence" [sad], is from Quintana-Murci 2004, which is what Gonzales 2007 is referencing as having been rejected, via Chang 2005.
Niether Gonzales, nor Chang, nor Kivisild supports your claims of M1 in India.
You follow now?
I have published Appendix 1, which documents M1 in India.
This is my last comment on this issue. Gonzalez et al., would not have published the data if she did not believe it is authentic. Anyway , it doesn't matter what you think it was published in a peer reviewed journal, so we know it is true. And when this information is cited in future articles it will be accepted as valid, once a fact/citation check is done and it is found in Appendix 1.
quote: have published Appendix 1, which documents M1 in India.
Gonzalez et al(2007) Appendix 1
It does not, as you have been shown.
quote:Gonzalez et al., would not have published the data
It's not -her- data, but rather a collection of data from populations all over the world.
The referenced sources are listed in the study itself, you may want to actually read it, and not just cite the appendix...and odd scholarship method to be sure.
quote:if she did not believe it is authentic.
Gonzales herself says M1 isn't found in India.
She would not have said this if she wanted to assert that it was.
quote:once a fact/citation check is done and it is found in Appendix 1.
Too bad I've read the full study and most of the studies referenced and not just and appendix, which is useless without the study.
Winters method of learning -> don't read the study - just read the appendix.
This is why you never get anywhere. And your grin " " is especially embarrassing to you, because it suggests you are winking at me in explaining how you intend to use this appendix to lie in the future.
Your students who read this reply will likely lose whatever respect they had for you.
quote:[Winters]: You can keep repeating your erroneous claim that Kivisild found M1 in India forever and it will not make it true. I have pointed out that your claim is not true. Rasol and others have also pointed this out to no avail. Will Kivisild himself telling you that his 1999 M1 is not the African M1 make you stop?
^ A person interested in truth will correct themselves when obviously in error. {Kivisild}
A propagandist is not interested in truth but rather in deception.
They stop only when they realise that their lies are so obvious that the damage to their credibility outweighs the possibility of deceiving others, which depends upon sustaining illusion of credibility.
Actually Winters *is* at that point - but, does he realise it? Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
This Figure from the Kivisild et al paper proves that M1 existed in India.
quote:Originally posted by rasol:
quote:[Winters]: You can keep repeating your erroneous claim that Kivisild found M1 in India forever and it will not make it true. I have pointed out that your claim is not true. Rasol and others have also pointed this out to no avail. Will Kivisild himself telling you that his 1999 M1 is not the African M1 make you stop?
^ A person interested in truth will correct themselves when obviously in error. {Kivisild}
A propagandist is not interested in truth but rather in deception.
They stop only when they realise that their lies are so obvious that the damage to their credibility outweighs the possibility of deceiving others, which depends upon sustaining illusion of credibility.
Actually Winters *is* at that point - but, does he realise it?
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: [QB] This Figure from the Kivisild et al paper proves that M1 existed in India.
]
Clyde, you have been told countless times that the M1 in this 1999 paper IS NOT the M1 that is found in Africa because Kivisild was using his own system of nomenclature. Either, you refuse to acknowledge that you are wrong because of you have a cognitive deficiency or you are just blatantly dishonest. Here is Kivisild, himself, telling you that you read his paper wrong-- are you claiming that you somehow know better than the author of the paper you cite what the paper says?
quote:Reply to Winters
Dear Sir, The origins of Dravidian speaking populations of South Asia have been a matter of scientific debate over many decades. In our recent review on the genetic affinities of Indian tribal and caste populations,(1) we concluded that both Indo- European- and Dravidian-speaking populations of India share largely the same pool of mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) lineages that has evolved in situ in South Asia since the Out-of-Africa migration of anatomically modern humans (AMH) some 5070 KYA.
Dr. Clyde Winters in his correspondence(2) to our paper disagrees with this view and argues instead that there are linguistic, archaeological as well as genetic evidences for a relatively recent African origin of Dravidian populations. For a recent discussion on the origin of Dravidian languages, the reader is referred to a monograph by B. Krishnamurti.(3)
MtDNA-based genetic arguments provided by Dr. Winters in favor of gene flow from Africa to Dravidian-speaking Indians are, however, entirely erroneous. The author has been, unfortunately, confused by overlooking changes in mtDNA haplogroup (hg) nomenclature. Namely hg, M1 in Kivisild et al.(4) has been later changed to hg M3, in order to avoid parallel nomenclatures.(5) Furthermore, a recent dedicated paper on phylogeography of mtDNA hg M1(6) as well as an extensive comparative mapping of autosomal genetic markers among many Indian populations relative to global populations elsewhere, including Africans,(7) do not provide any clues for a putative recent gene flow, from Africa, to Dravidian-speaking populations in South Asia.
References
1. Chaubey G, Metspalu M, Kivisild T, Villems, R. 2007. Peopling of South Asia: investigating the caste-tribe continuum in India. Bioessays 29:91100.
2. Winters C. 2007. BioEssays 29:497498.
3. Krishnamurti B. 2003. The Dravidian Languages 1-574: Cambridge University Press
4.Kivisild T, Kaldma K, Metspalu M, Parik J, Papiha S, Villems R. 1999. The place of the Indian mtDNA variants in the global network of maternal lineages and the peopling of the Old World. In Deka R, Papiha SS. Eds Genomic Diversity Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers New York p 135152.
5. Quintana-Murci L, Semino O, Bandelt H-J., Passarino G, McElreavey K,Santachiara-Benerecetti AS. 1999. Genetic evidence of an early exit ofHomo sapiens sapiens from Africa through eastern Africa. Nat Genet 23: 437441.
6. Olivieri A, Achilli A, Pala M, Battaglia V, Fornarino S. et al. 2006. The mtDNA legacy of the Levantine early Upper Palaeolithic in Africa. Science 314:17671770.
7. Rosenberg NA, Mahajan S, Gonzalez-Quevedo C, Blum MGB, Nino-Rosales L. et al. 2007. Low Levels of Genetic Divergence across Geographically and Linguistically Diverse Populations from India. PloS Genet 2:e215.
Gyaneshwer Chaubey* Mait Metspalu Richard Villems Department of Evolutionary Biology Institute of Molecular and Cell Biology University of Tartu and Estonian Biocentre Tartu, Estonia
Toomas Kivisild Leverhulme Centre of Human Evolutionary Studies The Henry Wellcome Building University of Cambridge Fitzwilliam Street Cambridge. UK CB21QH DOI 10.1002/bies.20574 Published online in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com).
posted
No I don't claim to know more than the author. I am just holding the researchers to the findings they published in 1999.
Kivisild et al. claim they changed hg M1 into M3, but as clearly demonstrated in the figure above they already had an M3. This shows the double speech evident in the Kivisild response to my letter.
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: No I don't claim to know more than the author. I am just holding the researchers to the findings they published in 1999.
Kivisild et al. claim they changed hg M1 into M3, but as clearly demonstrated in the figure above they already had an M3. This shows the double speech evident in the Kivisild response to my letter. .
Again, you are showing willful ignorance or blatant misstaments. Rasol and I, as well as Kivisild himself in his published rebuttal of your comment, have told you that the Kivisild 1999 paper used an idiosyncratic classification of M-haplogroups that does not conform to the now official nomenclature. It is probably hopeless to expect that you will admit your error- you never do-- but for the benefit of others.
What you did not point out, but is easily verifiable by anybody, is to look at the mutations that define the haplogroups. Expand the figure and look at the connecting lines between M+ and the various haplogroups (you must add 16000 to get the correct number). 1999 is a long time in genetics and the characterizations of haplogroups today use a bigger number of mutations whereas Kivisild 1999 uses one.
If you look at the numbers in the figure in Kivisild 1999, you get the following:
(Kivisild) M1 characterized by 16126, K (M3) characterized by 16231 K (M4) characterized by 16129
However, African M1 officially classified -- see Gonzalez et al. 2006 BMC Genomics 8:223 or any other recent publication like Olivieri et al.
M1 characterized by 16129, 16189,16249, 16311 see there is no 16126 or 16344 so that this is NOT (Kivisild 1999)M1 and no one (except Winters) says that the real African M1 exists in India.
If we look at the haplogroup classification in a later Kivisild paper such as Metspalu et al. BMC Genetics 5:25 or Sun et al. 2006 Mol. Biol Evol. 23(30: 683-690 you see:
(Kivisild 1999) M1 characteristic 16126 is actually M3 in the official nomenclature today
(Kivisild 1999) M3 characteristic 16231 is actually M6 in the official nomenclature today
and (Kivisild 1999) M4 characteristic 16129 is actually M5 in the official nomenclature today.
Winters' argument above is designed to impress the genetically naive reader, but it does not withstand a minimum of checking.
Posts: 833 | From: Austin, TX | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Quetzalcoatl why are you lying. You have already explained to the forum that you must add 16000 to get the correct number. If you look at Kivisild et al 1999, you will note Ethiopian M1 transitions e.g., (16)311, (16)129, (16)189 in the subcluster he labled M1.Most of these nps were found in Uttar Pradesh.
If you can't make out the numbers from this illustration you may go to the article and enlarge the numbers to clearly see the same.
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: No I don't claim to know more than the author. I am just holding the researchers to the findings they published in 1999.
Kivisild et al. claim they changed hg M1 into M3, but as clearly demonstrated in the figure above they already had an M3. This shows the double speech evident in the Kivisild response to my letter. .
Again, you are showing willful ignorance or blatant misstaments. Rasol and I, as well as Kivisild himself in his published rebuttal of your comment, have told you that the Kivisild 1999 paper used an idiosyncratic classification of M-haplogroups that does not conform to the now official nomenclature. It is probably hopeless to expect that you will admit your error- you never do-- but for the benefit of others.
What you did not point out, but is easily verifiable by anybody, is to look at the mutations that define the haplogroups. Expand the figure and look at the connecting lines between M+ and the various haplogroups (you must add 16000 to get the correct number). 1999 is a long time in genetics and the characterizations of haplogroups today use a bigger number of mutations whereas Kivisild 1999 uses one.
If you look at the numbers in the figure in Kivisild 1999, you get the following:
(Kivisild) M1 characterized by 16126, K (M3) characterized by 16231 K (M4) characterized by 16129
However, African M1 officially classified -- see Gonzalez et al. 2006 BMC Genomics 8:223 or any other recent publication like Olivieri et al.
M1 characterized by 16129, 16189,16249, 16311 see there is no 16126 or 16344 so that this is NOT (Kivisild 1999)M1 and no one (except Winters) says that the real African M1 exists in India.
If we look at the haplogroup classification in a later Kivisild paper such as Metspalu et al. BMC Genetics 5:25 or Sun et al. 2006 Mol. Biol Evol. 23(30: 683-690 you see:
(Kivisild 1999) M1 characteristic 16126 is actually M3 in the official nomenclature today
(Kivisild 1999) M3 characteristic 16231 is actually M6 in the official nomenclature today
and (Kivisild 1999) M4 characteristic 16129 is actually M5 in the official nomenclature today.
Winters' argument above is designed to impress the genetically naive reader, but it does not withstand a minimum of checking.
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: Quetzalcoatl why are you lying. You have already explained to the forum that you must add 16000 to get the correct number. If you look at Kivisild et al 1999, you will note Ethiopian M1 transitions e.g., (16)311, (16)129, (16)189 in the subcluster he labled M1.Most of these nps were found in Uttar Pradesh.
If you can't make out the numbers from this illustration you may go to the article and enlarge the numbers to clearly see the same.
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: No I don't claim to know more than the author. I am just holding the researchers to the findings they published in 1999.
Kivisild et al. claim they changed hg M1 into M3, but as clearly demonstrated in the figure above they already had an M3. This shows the double speech evident in the Kivisild response to my letter. .
Again, you are showing willful ignorance or blatant misstaments. Rasol and I, as well as Kivisild himself in his published rebuttal of your comment, have told you that the Kivisild 1999 paper used an idiosyncratic classification of M-haplogroups that does not conform to the now official nomenclature. It is probably hopeless to expect that you will admit your error- you never do-- but for the benefit of others.
What you did not point out, but is easily verifiable by anybody, is to look at the mutations that define the haplogroups. Expand the figure and look at the connecting lines between M+ and the various haplogroups (you must add 16000 to get the correct number). 1999 is a long time in genetics and the characterizations of haplogroups today use a bigger number of mutations whereas Kivisild 1999 uses one.
If you look at the numbers in the figure in Kivisild 1999, you get the following:
(Kivisild) M1 characterized by 16126, K (M3) characterized by 16231 K (M4) characterized by 16129
However, African M1 officially classified -- see Gonzalez et al. 2006 BMC Genomics 8:223 or any other recent publication like Olivieri et al.
M1 characterized by 16129, 16189,16249, 16311 see there is no 16126 or 16344 so that this is NOT (Kivisild 1999)M1 and no one (except Winters) says that the real African M1 exists in India.
If we look at the haplogroup classification in a later Kivisild paper such as Metspalu et al. BMC Genetics 5:25 or Sun et al. 2006 Mol. Biol Evol. 23(30: 683-690 you see:
(Kivisild 1999) M1 characteristic 16126 is actually M3 in the official nomenclature today
(Kivisild 1999) M3 characteristic 16231 is actually M6 in the official nomenclature today
and (Kivisild 1999) M4 characteristic 16129 is actually M5 in the official nomenclature today.
Winters' argument above is designed to impress the genetically naive reader, but it does not withstand a minimum of checking.
It is not
quote:lying
when you know how to read a genetics paper correctly . The numbers on the line connecting M+ and the named haplotypes are identifying mutations mutations occurring in other places are not identifying and it happens that some of these repeat (which is why often additional mutations are used to characterize a particular haplotype. For example in Gonzalez 07 and Olivieri the following are used to identify African M1: 195,6446,6680,1240312950C,14110 in addition to 16129,16189,16249 and 16311. (I'll use KM? to name the erroneously identified haplotypes in the Kivisild 1999 paper, and no K when using the accepted nomeclature).
For example mutation 16189 is found in Kivisild's node diagram at KM2a,Km2b,KM3,KM5,KM4 as well as in KM1 (really M3) so that it is meaningless as an identifying mutation.
mutation 16311 is found at KM5a, and KM4 as well as KM1(really M3).
If you read the paper correctly the following are the identifying mutations used by Kivisild (i.e.. the mutations on the lines between M+)
posted
I repeat Quetzalcoatl why are you lying. You have already explained to the forum that you must add 16000 to get the correct number. If you look at Kivisild et al 1999, you will note Ethiopian M1 transitions e.g., (16)311, (16)129, (16)189 in the subcluster he labled M1.Most of these nps were found in Uttar Pradesh.
If you can't make out the numbers from this illustration you may go to the article and enlarge the numbers to clearly see the same.
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: I repeat Quetzalcoatl why are you lying. You have already explained to the forum that you must add 16000 to get the correct number. If you look at Kivisild et al 1999, you will note Ethiopian M1 transitions e.g., (16)311, (16)129, (16)189 in the subcluster he labled M1.Most of these nps were found in Uttar Pradesh.
If you can't make out the numbers from this illustration you may go to the article and enlarge the numbers to clearly see the same.
You continue to expose your weak grip on genetics and the way papers are written. It is a general convention among scholars, who really publish refereed papers, in this area that you can write shorthand mutations like: 311, 129, 189 etc. for mutations 16311,16129,16189. and that the reader has to add 16000 in order to compare other papers that are not using the shorthand. I made the comment for people, like you and others, who may not be familiar with this convention.
You can spin like a dervish, you can repeat the same point over and over again but readers of this thread can verify my statements and why you are wrong for themselves.
I invite you to verify that mutation 16311 is found at KM5a, and KM4 as well as KM1(really M3) but that the only time this mutation counts as an identifier is when it is between M+ and (Kivisild)M3. You can also check in Sun et al. 2006 and verify that mutation 16311 is a marker for M4.
Posts: 833 | From: Austin, TX | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't have to show anything the evidence is in the Kivisild paper below. If you look at Kivisild et al 1999, you will note Ethiopian M1 transitions e.g., (16)311, (16)129, (16)189 in the subcluster he labled M1.Most of these nps were found in Uttar Pradesh.
If you can't make out the numbers from this illustration you may go to the article and enlarge the numbers to clearly see the same.
posted
^ Peudoscholar Clyde Winters - and his pathetic obsession with claiming Dravidians as Africans, so he can in turn claim that the Meroitic script was created by Indo-Europeans whilst escaping the apparent contradiction to his *afrocentric* philosophy.
Winters is crippled by and egomaniacal inability to admit when he is obviously wrong.
He has contributed to the death of Egyptsearch.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by rasol: ^ Peudoscholar Clyde Winters - and his pathetic obsession with claiming Dravidians as Africans, so he can in turn claim that the Meroitic script was created by Indo-Europeans whilst escaping the apparent contradiction to his *afrocentric* philosophy.
Winters is crippled by and egomaniacal inability to admit when he is obviously wrong.
He has contributed to the death of Egyptsearch.
Awww come on man. The DEATH of Egyptsearch? That's kind of harsh don't you think? Posts: 343 | Registered: Feb 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
There are genetic markers which point to a relationship between the people of India and Africans. In Cordaux et al.,Mitochodrial DNA analysis reveals diverse tribal histories of tribal populations from India, Eur. J Hum Genet (2003)11(2):253-264, in figure 2 notes that Clusters X, X1,X11,X1V are found in Africa and India.
.
European Journal of Human Genetics (2003) 11, 253264. doi:10.1038/sj.ejhg.5200949
Mitochondrial DNA analysis reveals diverse histories of tribal populations from India Richard Cordaux1, Nilmani Saha2, Gillian R Bentley3, Robert Aunger4, S M Sirajuddin5 and Mark Stoneking1
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic