quote:Originally posted by e3b1c1: so wahta a european army came to souther africa in in ancient time and fucked the local girls
This is your illogical misinterpretation, you're the only one saying this, but if you understood genetics, and understood the study in question, you wouldn't have this problem, understand that this derived allele is present in these populations through admixture with Europeans.
Since you ignored the first question let's see if you'll avoid another..
Do you understand the highlighted following or not?
The *derived allele* at TYR, 192*A (previously linked with lighter pigmentation [Shriver et al. 2003]), has a frequency of 38% among European populations but a frequency of only 14% among non-Europeans. The differences between Europeans and non-Europeans for the MATP 374*G and SLC24A5 111*A alleles (both derived alleles associated with lighter pigmentation) were even more striking (MATP European 5 87%; MATP non-European 5 17%; SLC24A5 European 5 100%; SLC24A5 non-European 5 46%). The frequency of the SLC24A5 111*A allele outside of Europe is largely accounted for by high frequencies in geographically proximate populations in northern Africa, the Middle East, and Pakistan (ranging from 62% to 100%).Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by osirion: Andaman Islanders? Come on, they are clearly Black African in appearance. Even if DE is Asian we are talking about Melanesian people and not the illusive East African Caucasian.
You have a good point, even if Haplogroup E is of Asian origin, the people who carried it could still have retained ancestral tropical adaptations.
A good point indeed. A similar scenario appears with older Europeans, who retain tropical characteristics and are more related to Africans than modern Europeans. The dodge of Madilda and her ilk is to claim that any European matches equals a match with today's "white" people. But the bogus claim falls flat when we realize that OLDER Euros, mesolithics, neolithics and such resemble Africans. So they are making comparisons between dark-skinned people with tropical char- acteristics who happen to be living in Europe, with dark-skinned, tropically adapted African peoples living in Africa. Either way you slice it the people look like Africans. Brace's 2005 study showed this. And it undermines the claims of Madilda and co.
hanihara (1996) notes that early West Asians looked like Africans, so if someone is using old/early Indian populations, the people there already looked like Africans. So any comparisons are almost Africans to Africans.
Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: You've been shown accordingly in my blog link, which you obviously read but was too airtight & technical for you to do anything about. That Underhill piece, while not necessary, only reaffirms this merciless refutation of Chandrasekar.
Translation: You can't show me any study that addresses and refutes Chandrasekar.
Posts: 128 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by rasol: The logical implication is that the Greeks are mixed with Black Africans.
Then so are the Japanese, right? Or maybe you'd like to rethink your whole "argument".
More strawman arguments from Evil Euro because you're addressing a position thats not being taken.
Posts: 2595 | From: Vicksburg | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: You've been shown accordingly in my blog link, which you obviously read but was too airtight & technical for you to do anything about. That Underhill piece, while not necessary, only reaffirms this merciless refutation of Chandrasekar.
Translation: You can't show me any study that addresses and refutes Chandrasekar.
Translation, you haven't shown any evidence that Chandrasekar proved haplogroup E is no longer African and now Asian.
Posts: 2595 | From: Vicksburg | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
Indeed as Explorer's blog notes. And 'E" makes up 70% of the Y-chromosone diversity on the continent, more than any other. It is most definitely associated with the African environment, unpalatable as this may be to many.
Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: You've been shown accordingly in my blog link, which you obviously read but was too airtight & technical for you to do anything about. That Underhill piece, while not necessary, only reaffirms this merciless refutation of Chandrasekar.
Translation: You can't show me any study that addresses and refutes Chandrasekar.
You are forgiven for mistranslating posts communicated in a language you don't understand -- English.
That said, I'm fairly certain that you've read my blog posting, and came out of reading it virtually disarmed, because you didn't really challenge anything, SAVE for making yourself *emotionally* heard about the audacity of instilling in you a self-consciousness, that you are one of those cult members being referred to...
Remember this?...
Only from the blog:
But this excitement is emotionally driven, and just that. As such, intellectual engagement gives way to religious cultism as the medium of self-expression.
Debunked reacts:
Nah, emotionally driven religious cultism is an Afrocentrist thing. I go by what the studies say. The more recent the better.
Again, taken from the blog:
DE* is a descendant clade of M168. M168 is undoubtedly African; this fact alone makes it more than probable that this place [Africa] is also likely where DE* emerged.
Debunked's best response to this was:
M168 is African, but CF, C, F and D are all Asian, which makes it more than probable that DE and E are also Asian. That's the most parsimonious explanation, and it's one of Chandrasekar's main points.
The obvious follow up to this, and my response was:
You offer emotionalism in lieu of material to these claims. No evidence on your part that Hgs DE* and E are Asian - zip.
If you did, you would have answered the relevant points I've made in that link, instead of being more concerned about being called a sect member, no?
Ps - Also, where has CF been located in Asia?
^Furthermore, evidence that debunked is all emotional, no intellect, requires looking no further than this; I wrote:
This is case in point, that you offer only emotionalism. M168 being African and being the *ancestor*, makes it more than probable that its decendants would immediately derive from it, in Africa as well.
Saying that descendant clades like C, F, and D are Asian, so therefore DE and E must be Asian, is moronic jibberish that makes no sense.
Debunked's outdated "referential-encyclopedia" of mainly outdated and phased-out [aka his "OP" post] material has been easily thrashed into pieces in my blog, and his only reactions, ignoring all this thrashing:
"why do you call me a cult?"
"DE and E must be Asian, because M168's descendant clades like C, F, D are purportedly Asian. I consider this senseless gibberish the most parsimonious explanation."
Furthermore...
"I throw in baseless personal-opinions about clades like CF, or F, just to look artificially intelligent, without actually being intelligent, hoping any person with little sense won't call me out"
LOL.
Simply devastating. Debunked, you have not even touched my arguments; remember, it is okay to admit being defeated, which is by now obvious to all but you. Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm still waiting to see a study that addresses and refutes Chandrasekar the way he addressed and refuted Underhill.
Posts: 128 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Debunker: I'm still waiting to see a study that addresses and refutes Chandrasekar the way he addressed and refuted Underhill.
He didn't address nor refute Underhill, he simply quoted Hammer et al studies from 11 and 12 years ago, way to go to be a coward and avoid addressing studies you don't understand and making up lies as you go.
Posts: 2595 | From: Vicksburg | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Studies are refuted by other studies -- preferably that address those they're refuting -- not by opinions posted on a blog. Hence, the Chandrasekar study still stands unrefuted, and it's the Afrocentrists who have admitted defeat.
Posts: 128 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Debunker: Studies are refuted by other studies -- preferably that address those they're refuting -- not by opinions posted on a blog. Hence, the Chandrasekar study still stands unrefuted, and it's the Afrocentrists who have admitted defeat.
BS, where did Chandrasekar refute Underhill? Good luck finding that because he doesn't even address his position head on, stop trolling. Admit your defeat because Chandrasekar merely cited Hammer from 12 years ago.
Posts: 2595 | From: Vicksburg | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
Studies are refuted by other studies -- preferably that address those they're refuting -- not by opinions posted on a blog.
Thanks for the tacit compliment, because for simple opinions on a blog, as you cowardly call them, they sure have you in a tight leash running around in circles like a broken record with that single one-liner above. Question is: why have these basic "opinions" rendered you so intellectually under-powered? You should be refuting them, without delay, not running away from them.
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:*Person A is an authority on subject S. *Person A makes claim C about subject S. *Therefore, C is true.
^Debunked has regressed to a classic case of an appeal to authority fallacy where a claim is presumed true based on nothing more than said authority's positive assertion (no matter how counter intuitive). The guy is so defeated that his arguments are now non-existent, either suggesting that he doesn't even understand the work of the person he cites, or he understands that this person's position is simply too weak to defend. Either way the poor guy lost a long time ago. Posts: 4021 | From: Bay Area, CA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
And I doubt it, but maybe this paper will satisfy his appeals to novelty as well:
...................
Y chromosome evidence of earliest modern human settlement in East Asia and multiple origins of Tibetan and Japanese populations Hong Shi et al. BMC Biology, 2008
The Y chromosome Alu polymorphism (YAP, also called M1) defines the deep-rooted haplogroup D/E of the global Y-chromosome phylogeny. This D/E haplogroup is further branched into three sub-haplogroups DE*, D and E (Figure 1). The distribution of the D/E haplogroup is highly regional, and the three subgroups are geographically restricted to certain areas, therefore informative in tracing human prehistory (Table 1). The sub-haplogroup DE*, presumably the most ancient lineage of the D/E haplogroup was only found in Africans from Nigeria, supporting the "Out of Africa" hypothesis about modern human origin. The sub-haplogroup E (E-M40), defined by M40/SRY4064 and M96, was **also** suggested originated in Africa, and later dispersed to Middle East and Europe about 20,000 years ago. Interestingly, the sub-haplogroup D defined by M174 (D-M174) is East Asian specific with abundant appearance in Tibetan and Japanese (30–40%), but rare in most of other East Asian populations and populations from regions bordering East Asia (Central Asia, North Asia and Middle East) (usually less than 5%). Under D-M174, Japanese belongs to a separate sub-lineage defined by several mutations (e.g. M55, M57 and M64 etc.), which is different from those in Tibetans implicating relatively deep divergence between them. The fragmented distribution of D-M174 in East Asia seems not consistent with the pattern of other East Asian specific lineages, i.e. O3-M122, O1-M119 and O2-M95 under haplogroup O.
^The entire paper is based on the above premise. Anyways, more here:
Now according to the same logic, Chandrasekar et al. has been superseded while Shi et al. has yet to be refuted. Posts: 4021 | From: Bay Area, CA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: Thanks for the tacit compliment, because for simple opinions on a blog, as you cowardly call them, they sure have you in a tight leash running around in circles like a broken record with that single one-liner above. Question is: why have these basic "opinions" rendered you so intellectually under-powered? You should be refuting them, without delay, not running away from them.
There's nothing to refute. People propound their opinions when they don't have any evidence. So the real question is: Where's your evidence?Posts: 128 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Sundjata: Now according to the same logic, Chandrasekar et al. has been superseded while Shi et al. has yet to be refuted.
Um, Shi et al. is the paper I cited earlier as showing for the first time the presence of DE* outside of Africa:
"In surprise, we observed two DE* in the Tibetan samples, which was previously only observed in Africa (Nigerians), but not in other world populations."
You're quoting the Introduction, which is simply recapping the evidence up to that point.
If anything, Shi et al.'s discovery strengthens the Asian-origin hypothesis advanced by Chandrasekar, at least according to Underhill:
"Altheide and Hammer (34) have suggested that haplotypes defined by the presence of the YAP insertion originated in Asia and spread back to Africa. One prediction of this model is that the ancestral state of this lineage, which would be YAP(+) but ancestral for both the eastern (M174C) and western (M96C) sublineages (8), should be found in the Asian population(s) where the insertion originally occurred. We do not find any such ancestral chromosomes in our study. Although we cannot rule out the possibility that an ancestral YAP(+) chromosome will be found as more samples are analyzed, the current survey of ≈2,000 men does not support an Asian origin for the YAP(+) lineage, consistent with the results of Underhill et al."
posted
^Stop selective reading. It doesn't matter because Shi et al. obviously doesn't make the same arguments that you do. They first of all, clearly identify E as an African haplogroup. Secondly, they attribute the presence of DE* to early settlement.
quote:The finding of two DE* in Tibet, which was only observed in Africa, supports the antiquity of D-M174 and suggests that the D-M174 lineage is among the earliest modern human settlers in East Asia.
They go on and on after this about dates and when said East African migrants would have arrived. Again, your logic is flawed. You ignored the logical rebuttal against Chandrasekar so why should anyone listen to your illogical retort of Shi, who hasn't been refuted by a NEWER study (which according to you, is the only thing that matters)..
Selective quoting of other papers (how you just selectively quoted Shi et al.) will not change much of anything since they don't jump to your far off conclusions. "Shi study stands unrefuted". Posts: 4021 | From: Bay Area, CA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Notice how Evil Euro forgot this part when he selectively quoted Shi et al:
We do not find any such ancestral chromosomes in our study. Although we cannot rule out the possibility that an ancestral YAP(+) chromosome will be found as more samples are analyzed, the current survey of ≈2,000 men does not support an Asian origin for the YAP(+) lineage, consistent with the results of Underhill et al."
Evil Euro's entire argument has been deep sixed
Posts: 2595 | From: Vicksburg | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
There's nothing to refute. People propound their opinions when they don't have any evidence. So the real question is: Where's your evidence?
Debunked, when you are ready to confront what the blog educates you on, and not repeatedly waving a white flag, keep me posted.
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
Might as well close this thread and wait since clearly Shi Et Al supports Underhill.
-------------------- Across the sea of time, there can only be one of you. Make you the best one you can be. Posts: 4028 | From: NW USA | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Must like being debunked even uses the handle.
-------------------- Across the sea of time, there can only be one of you. Make you the best one you can be. Posts: 4028 | From: NW USA | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Sundjata: ^Stop selective reading. It doesn't matter because Shi et al. obviously doesn't make the same arguments that you do. They first of all, clearly identify E as an African haplogroup. Secondly, they attribute the presence of DE* to early settlement.
Shi et al. make no claim concerning the origin of haplogroup E. They simply state in their Introduction that E "was also suggested originated in Africa" in previous studies. No mention is made of its origin in the body of the paper. Likewise with DE*. The only thing in their study that's relevant to this discussion is the discovery of DE* in Asia for the first time, which Underhill said was a necessary condition for an Asian origin. Apart from that, it's all about D-M174. The fact that they don't address the other points does not constitute a refutation of Chandrasekar. You're the one whose logic is flawed.
Posts: 128 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Charlie Bass.: Notice how Evil Euro forgot this part when he selectively quoted Shi et al:
We do not find any such ancestral chromosomes in our study. Although we cannot rule out the possibility that an ancestral YAP(+) chromosome will be found as more samples are analyzed, the current survey of ≈2,000 men does not support an Asian origin for the YAP(+) lineage, consistent with the results of Underhill et al."
Evil Euro's entire argument has been deep sixed
That quote is NOT from Shi et al., you illiterate imbecile. It's Underhill and Wells from eight years ago saying that their "current survey" doesn't support an Asian origin because DE* was only found in Africa. Shi et al. are the ones challenging that with their recent discovery of DE* in Asia. Damn you're stupid.
Posts: 128 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: Debunked, when you are ready to confront what the blog educates you on, and not repeatedly waving a white flag, keep me posted.
Just as soon as "the blog" contains something other than your opinions, like say, a study that addresses Chandrasekar.
Posts: 128 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Sundjata: ^Stop selective reading. It doesn't matter because Shi et al. obviously doesn't make the same arguments that you do. They first of all, clearly identify E as an African haplogroup. Secondly, they attribute the presence of DE* to early settlement.
Shi et al. make no claim concerning the origin of haplogroup E. They simply state in their Introduction that E "was also suggested originated in Africa" in previous studies. No mention is made of its origin in the body of the paper. Likewise with DE*. The only thing in their study that's relevant to this discussion is the discovery of DE* in Asia for the first time, which Underhill said was a necessary condition for an Asian origin. Apart from that, it's all about D-M174. The fact that they don't address the other points does not constitute a refutation of Chandrasekar. You're the one whose logic is flawed.
SMH @ this pathetic attempt at spin. Their premise was based on said previous work which is why they worked with in a framework that took such data for granted (and which is why they didn't cite Hammer). DE* in Tibet was attributed to early colonization as shown to you, and in said intro they state that E was "also" said to have originated in Africa, also implicating DE*, further citing that E only reached Europe and Asia 20,000 ybp. They cite former work (one of which was Cruciani et al.-2007 who you cite haphazardly in another thread) no differently than Chandrasekar (2007) cites Hammer and takes it for granted. These are by YOUR standards so playing dumb won't help you.
Posts: 4021 | From: Bay Area, CA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
By the way.. What does Hammer mean when he says[?]:
"The major lineages within the most common African haplogroup, E, are now all sorted out, with the topology providing new interpretations on the geographical origin of ancient sub-clades"
and:
"The age of [haplogroup] DE is about 65,000 years, just a bit younger than the **other major lineage to leave Africa**, which is assumed to be about 70,000 years old"
posted
The sub-haplogroup DE*, presumably the most ancient lineage of the D/E haplogroup was only found in Africans from Nigeria, supporting the "Out of Africa" hypothesis about modern human origin. The sub-haplogroup E (E-M40), defined by M40/SRY4064 and M96, was **also** suggested originated in Africa, and later dispersed to Middle East and Europe about 20,000 years ago.
We do not find any such ancestral chromosomes in our study. Although we cannot rule out the possibility that an ancestral YAP(+) chromosome will be found as more samples are analyzed, the current survey of ≈2,000 men does not support an Asian origin for the YAP(+) lineage, consistent with the results of Underhill et al."
-----------------------
I am confused, what is there to debate? Seems to me that the research findings of Shi Et al came to the above conclusions supporting Underhill and a Out of Africa migration of DE/E. Are the above excerpts not from Shi Et al? I would read this crap but really I have more important things to do.
-------------------- Across the sea of time, there can only be one of you. Make you the best one you can be. Posts: 4028 | From: NW USA | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ It does matter. I need to have clarity and I don't think we are going to get much.
This keeps going back and forth on the E and M origin questions.
quote: We do not find any such ancestral chromosomes in our study.
Also didn't find in WMDs in Iraq.
Does the body of evidence continue to mount in a OUT of Africa direction? Or are Black Africans super-tropically adapted Asians?
Is a study of 2000 men sufficient to make a conclusion?
-------------------- Across the sea of time, there can only be one of you. Make you the best one you can be. Posts: 4028 | From: NW USA | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Repeat: Shi et al. do not discuss the origins of DE* or E. Their study is primarily about D, but it also happened to find DE* in Asia for the first time, which is relevant in light of what Wells and Underhill said. On the other hand, Chandrasekar et al. is primarily about YAP and it specifically discusses its origin as well as that of E.
Posts: 128 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ Actually Debunker has been rather civil so give her a break. I still think this is Anthrofan and/or Mahilda.
quote:We do not find any such ancestral chromosomes in our study. Although we cannot rule out the possibility that an ancestral YAP(+) chromosome will be found as more samples are analyzed, the current survey of ≈2,000 men does not support an Asian origin for the YAP(+) lineage, consistent with the results of Underhill et al."
Please someone tell me if the above does not come from Shi et al? If it does then clearly the author is saying that their results conform with Underhill et al. If so then there is more research supporting the Out of Africa model than not.
DE* found in Asia. Not sure how that refutes the fact that is also found in Nigeria.
I think both the Eurocentric and the Afrocentric need to be open minded to change in their understanding of this data.
None of what I have read in this thread changes anything. Clearly the people of the Andamanes have an African phenotype. So if DE is Asian it would only mean it is derived from a person similar to the Andamanes people which is still Black.
As for the Japanese being Black because they have Haplogroup D and DE is arguably Black?
Black Japanese? You simply cannot define race based on haplogroup and phenotype. Pick one or the other people. But do Oriental people have similar features to Africans? Certainly I have thought so. Especially since prognathism is very common among Orientals as well as a low nasal root.
Hell with the crap I hear about Ethiopians being White why the hell not have Black Orientals?
It seems to me that Japanese actually do appear to be very similar to East African people in appearance.
Admiral Yamamoto
-------------------- Across the sea of time, there can only be one of you. Make you the best one you can be. Posts: 4028 | From: NW USA | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Please someone tell me if the above does not come from Shi et al? If it does then clearly the author is saying that their results conform with Underhill et al. If so then there is more research supporting the Out of Africa model than not.
Osirion, jeeze, just read the paper and stop speculating. I posted the link above and it doesn't matter because newer data as reported in the above press release, contradicts the former's wishful thinking.
Posts: 4021 | From: Bay Area, CA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Please someone tell me if the above does not come from Shi et al? If it does then clearly the author is saying that their results conform with Underhill et al. If so then there is more research supporting the Out of Africa model than not.
Osirion, jeeze, just read the paper and stop speculating. I posted the link above and it doesn't matter because newer data as reported in the above press release, contradicts the former's wishful thinking.
^ Okay but I don't have much time.
Posts: 4028 | From: NW USA | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Okay I just finish reading Shi et al. I somewhat agree with Debunker that Shi et al does not directly relate to the question of origin for E or DE but rather simply cites research from previous work.
This is a long way from agreeing with Debunker that E or DE is non-African when the vast majority of the evidence supports an African origin.
More research is needed though I think DE* in Tibet is very interesting but how it can be reconciled to Nigerian evidence remains to be seen.
-------------------- Across the sea of time, there can only be one of you. Make you the best one you can be. Posts: 4028 | From: NW USA | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by osirion: Okay I just finish reading Shi et al. I somewhat agree with Debunker that Shi et al does not directly relate to the question of origin for E or DE but rather simply cites research from previous work.
..funny, since that's exactly what Chandrasekar (2007) does when he cites Hammer et al.
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
Just as soon as "the blog" contains something other than your opinions, like say, a study that addresses Chandrasekar.
I'm sure if or whenever you graduate to pre-molecular genetics 101 level and get material, these opinions will instantly become apparent as common sense. Advice: Don't continue to let common sense confuse you.
quote:Originally posted by osirion:
I think DE* in Tibet is very interesting but how it can be reconciled to Nigerian evidence remains to be seen.
This is how:
* DE* is a descendant clade of M168. M168 is undoubtedly African; this fact alone makes it more than probable that this place [Africa] is also likely where DE* emerged.
* DE* is more common in Africa than outside of it -
It has been identified in African samples in more than one accasion in separately-conducted studies, having been identified in 5 Nigerian sampling candidates in one study, and 1 Guinean individual in another. On the other hand, it had purportedly been identified in only 2 Tibetan sampling candidates. So we have 6 African cases vs. 2 Asian cases.
* DE*'s internal phylogeny is more diverse and widely distributed in Africa -
Considering the greater internal phylogenetic branching of haplogroup E vs haplogroup D, it can be suggestive of either 1) longer time-depth for haplogroup E explosion/expansion, and hence, implicating DE* being around longer in Africa, as the homeland of haplogroup E ...
Or
2) that the haplogroup E lineage experienced an explosion that the D counterparts did not achieve in more or less the same time depth. The question becomes: What could account for this?
Either way, with fact being that African Hg E internal phylogeny is more elaborate than Hg D, the end result suggests that the intensity of such intra-E phylogenetic explosion seems to have had some level of erasing effect on DE* distribution. Given the greater pressure, due to greater demic explosion brought to bear on preexisting DE* in Africa — mainly by its own sub-phylogeny — than that which would have been the case in Asia by the YAP+ counterpart sub-phylogeny there, it's amazing that DE* is relentlessly visible enough in the African gene pool, as demonstrated by its greater chance detectability here than elsewhere, including Asia. This suggests that DE* would have been more widely distributed in Africa than in Asia, having been able to withstand greater pressure from greater subsequent demic expansion of Hg E phylogeny than that involving Hg D phylogeny, respectively in Africa and Asia.
The distribution and internal branching of Hg D suggests, on the other hand, that it involved lower scale dispersal of Hg D*, which were relatively more controlled in their subsequent expansion. The distribution pattern for instance, shows that the major subclades of D in different territories are highly differentiated and generally sharply geographically-structured, being confined to territorial spheres. At least that is the image reflected, if one goes by what's professed in the ISOGG.org website, whatever may be said of the credibility:
"Sub-group D1 (D-M15) is seen in Tibet, Mongolia, Central Asia, and Southeast Asia, and the sub-groups D* (D-M174) and D3 (D-P47) are seen in Central Asia. The sub-group D2 (D-M55) is seen almost exclusively in Japan." - ISOGG.org
Hg D* is presumably also identified in the Andaman Islands.
* A hypothetical Hg DE* back-to-Africa migration seems to have been elusive in leaving genetic tracks behind, presumably from south Asia to Africa -
The supposed back-migrants would seem to have left no genetic tracks behind in a hypothetical destination from southern Asia via the Arabian peninsula, eastern Africa through to African interior, in a hypothetical back-to-Africa migration scenario. If they did, then it had been thoroughly erased by multiple demographic shifts. Hg D's distribution in south Asia, with rare to no presence in territories between that region and Africa, is however explained by founder effect of OOA migrants, already carrying Hg DE* amongst them.
Chandrasekar's speculation is highly questionable for the same reasons just stated above; see:
"Some of the YAP insertion chromosomes without the M174 mutation reached the Mediterranean via Central Asia and gave rise to the E lineage with mutations at M40 and M96 (~31 000 years ago; Hammer et al. 1998). This E lineage back-migrated to Africa through the Levant as hypothesized by Hammer et al. (1997) and Altheide and Hammer (1997)." - Chandrasekar et al.
Hg D is rare to absent in the Levant, and conversely, Hg E is virtually rare to absent in populations that do carry Hg D.
Furthermore, Hg E's presence in the so-called Near East, including the Levant and Europe, serves as gene flow from Africa, because Africa is where the entire Hg E phylogeny occurs, not the Levant. All upstream Hg E markers are exclusively found in Africa, and essentially none in the Levant.
The so-called Near East has far much lower frequencies of Hg E than in mainland Africa, and all of these happen to be subclades of African counterparts. Much of these subclades are relegated to the P2 (PN2) phylogeny. Upstream PN2 clades as generally known, only occur in Africa.
Revisiting Chandrasekar's post again,...
"Some of the YAP insertion chromosomes without the M174 mutation reached the Mediterranean via Central Asia and gave rise to the E lineage with mutations at M40 and M96 (~31 000 years ago; Hammer et al. 1998)." - Chandrasekar et al.
It is also of note that Chandrasekar conveniently ignores that DE* has been found in Africa as well, but in even greater frequencies than his personal favored region [aka second point above], i.e. Asia, not to mention that it is essentially non-existent in the so-called Mediterranean or the Levant. With DE* being in Africa, it is not necessary for Hg E to have come from the Levant, for reasons just mentioned and the ones immediately above this last Chandrasekar citation. Instead, Chandrasekar relies heavily on outdated studies, when Hg E phylogeny, as with many others, were in their early stages of being resolved.
His statement above, about "some of the YAP insertion chromosomes without the M174 mutation" has also implications that Chandrasekar seems to have overlooked:
* Common sense intimates that any hypothetical DE* back-to-Africa migration — and it would have to have been major enough — would have been pooled from a newly situated migrant group. The keywords here: "newly situated".
Recalling Weale et al....
"the presence of the DE* haplogroup has the effect of forcing an earlier date for the most recent common ancestor of all African YAP chromosomes. This reduces the possible time window within which a back-migration to Africa could have occurred under the scenario of an Asian origin for YAP. - Weale et al. 2003, Rare Deep-Rooting Y Chromosome Lineages in Humans." - Weale et al.
Indeed! The presence of DE* in Africa suggests that this lineage was in place very shortly after its emergence. The OOA migrants had just recently left Africa for a reason; what on earth would these folks, who had just arrived, go back to Africa for, and at such a gruesomely long distance from a south Asian refuge? Pending tangible evidence of a compelling motive, it makes little sense.
And even if one were to take a hypothetical Asian origin of DE* for granted, based on skin pigmentation allele examinations, the original carriers of these markers would have closely resembled contemporary "black Africans", and even then, Hg E would still not be Asian [considering points above].
Let's face it; it's really not all that complicated: It just so happens that Hg D exists in Asia, while Hg E plays a dominating role in Africa, well, because DE* markers were present in both. Simple enough, isn't it?!
Neither territory has the other respective sub-clade lineage, because these emerged after OOA migrations, understandably.
Not sure why finding DE* therefore, surprises anyone. It's the only way D could have arrived in south Asia sans E; thus, DE* chromosomes brought in from Africa would have to have been around, in order for D to emerge, there is no other way around it. It is also the reason one finds DE* in both Africa, the origin point of destination, and Asia, the destination. However, instead of looking at it that way, some complicate things for themselves, and say that in order for DE* to be in Asia, it surely must have emerged there, and that there is no other way around that.
The most parsimonious explanation generally tends to reduce the number of questions for each answer that it provides than the alternative. In this case, an African origin entailing DE* dispersal in a OOA migration event, paving way for a founder effect situation in southern Asia is the most parsimonious.
quote:Originally posted by osirion: Okay I just finish reading Shi et al. I somewhat agree with Debunker that Shi et al does not directly relate to the question of origin for E or DE but rather simply cites research from previous work.
..funny, since that's exactly what Chandrasekar (2007) does when he cites Hammer et al.
Incorrect.
"Our findings of the presence of the YAP insertion in northeast Indian tribes and Andaman islanders with haplogroup D indicate that some of the M168 chromosomes have given rise to the YAP insertion and M174 mutation in south Asia."
-- Chandrasekar et al. 2007
Posts: 128 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: I'm sure if or whenever you graduate to pre-molecular genetics 101 level and get material, these opinions will instantly become apparent as common sense. Advice: Don't continue to let common sense confuse you.
Science is not based on the "opinions" and "common sense" of amateur Afronut bloggers. It's based on evidence published in peer-reviewed studies. Advice: Get some evidence.
Posts: 128 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: I'm sure if or whenever you graduate to pre-molecular genetics 101 level and get material, these opinions will instantly become apparent as common sense. Advice: Don't continue to let common sense confuse you.
Science is not based on the "opinions" and "common sense" of amateur Afronut bloggers. It's based on evidence published in peer-reviewed studies. Advice: Get some evidence.
As with many such things in a nascent field, this is far from conclusive.
Your thread makes it sound as if this debate is over.
I think not.
There is still more DE* in Africa than not. I haven't heard anything from you that changes this fact.
Posts: 4028 | From: NW USA | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by argyle104: Debunker wrote: ----------------- -----------------
ha ha ha ha ha heeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee
The northern Africans were selling European men and women as slaves left and right, not to mention the colonial rebelions.
This fool still thinks someone buys into his caucasoid nonsense.
Not sure, I haven't heard this person claim DE* to be Caucasoid. There appears to be Niger/Congo type Natufians so I could see how E came from back migration from Canaan into Africa. And the Andamanese are clearly not Caucasoid.
This person seems to just want to enjoy a good fight with Afronuts.
I find it amusing.
Posts: 4028 | From: NW USA | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
I think with 5 Nigerians against 2 Tibetians I say Afronuts are in the lead.
-------------------- Across the sea of time, there can only be one of you. Make you the best one you can be. Posts: 4028 | From: NW USA | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic