posted
From Explorer's/MysterySolver's blog....M1 as possible back migration refuted;
*First, a quick synopsis of the samplings, with regards to where the n=261 M1 bearing samples come from, aside from the 588 participants mentioned in one of the tables [table 2] in the study:
From my assessment of the table, it comes from the following numbers:
A total of 50 Europeans detected for M1. A total of 154 for Africans. A total of 28 Asians, barring 8 unknown Arabian haplotypes. And a total of 29 Jews, who were lumped together from the various continents. The sum of the above totals, amount to 261 "known" M1 lineages.
*With regards to the authors claim about M1 or its ancestor, having “had an Asiatic origin”, the following comes to mind:
The authors of the study at hand, themselves admit that they haven't come across M1 ancestor in either south Asia or southwest Asia. They also take note of its highest diversity in Ethiopia and east Africa. Yet through the shaky premise of their M1c expansion time frame estimations, they build a conclusion around it, by tying it to a dispersal(s) "parallel" to that of U6 - another African marker whose immediate common recent ancestor, namely proto-U6, appears to be elusive thus far.
Well, they wouldn’t be the only ones who have failed to come across any proto-M1 ancestor in southwest and south Asia [Indian Subcontinent mainly]:
Based on the high frequency and diversity of haplogroup M in India and elsewhere in Asia, some authors have suggested (versus [3]) that M may have arisen in Southwest Asia [16,17,31]. 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 [15], this study). Therefore, one cannot rule out the still most parsimonious scenario that haplogroup M arose in East Africa [3]. Furthermore, the lack of L3 lineages other than M and N (indeed, L3M and L3N) in India is more consistent with the African launch of haplogroup M. On the other hand, one also observes that: i) M1 is the only variant of haplogroup M found in Africa; ii) M1 has a fairly restricted phylogeography in Africa, barely penetrating into sub-Saharan populations, being found predominantly in association with the Afro-Asiatic linguistic phylum – a finding that appears to be inconsistent with the distribution of sub-clades of haplogroups L3 and L2 that have similar time depths. — Mait Metspalu et al.
So, while they acknowledge the highest "frequencies and diversities" of M1 particularly in Ethiopia, and generally in East Africa [see below for reference], the authors base their claims about ’origins’ on their expansion estimations of M1c derivatives, presumably predominant in northwest Africa rather than east Africa, and its relative sporadic distribution in 'Europe' and 'Southwest' Asia. They attempt to buttress this, by invoking an initial parallel expansion of M1 and U6 "ancestor" lineages into north Africa via the Nile Valley [from "southwest Asia"], then an expansion from northwest Africa this time around, of U6 and M1 derivatives northward into Europe and then eastward into "southwest" Asia via the Nile Valley corridor in the Sinai peninsula, presumably with a few derivatives making their way into sub-Saharan east Africa, where they then underwent some expansion, to give rise to yet another, but later, dispersal from there into "southwest Asia" and hence, accounting for the 'majority' of M1 lineages in "southwest Asia" being east African derivatives than the north African [M1c] counterparts.
In Africa, haplogroup M1 has supra-equatorial distribution (see additional files 1 and 2). As previously reported its highest frequencies and diversities (Table 2) are found in Ethiopia in particular and in East Africa in general. Two appreciable gradients exist. Frequencies significantly diminished from East to West and also going South to sub-Saharan areas. M1 is not uncommon in the Mediterranean basin showing a peak in the Iberian Peninsula. However, it is rare in continental Europe. Although in low frequencies, its presence in the Middle East has been well established from the South of the Arabian Peninsula to Anatolia and from the Levant to Iran. - Gonzalez et al. 2007
*Furthermore,
The authors gather that their observations correlate with that of other researchers, namely Olivieri et al. (2006). To this extent, they put forth that Olivieri et al.’s M1b corresponds to their M1c, the former’s M1a2 corresponds to their M1b, and the former’s M1a1 corresponds to their M1a. They go onto to add that the coalescence ages arrived by the two research group [that of Olivieri et al. and that of the present authors] also correlate. The present authors note that their coalescence time for M1c (25.7 +/- 6.6 ky) overlaps with Olivieri et al.’s coalescence time for M1b (23.4 +/- 5.6). Similarly, they note that their coalescence age for M1a (22.6 +/- 8.1ky) falls within that of Olivieri et al.’s age for M1a1 at 20.6 +/- 3.4ky. However, this makes way for great discrepancy between the said authors and Olivieri et al., whereby their coalescence age for M1b at 13.7 +/- 4.8ky falls quite short of the latter’s age for M1a2 at 24 +/- 5.7ky. Not only are the subgroup nomenclatures distinct, but this latter discrepancy makes an unsubtle difference, so as to no longer render M1c to be older than M1b [in examining from the ongoing juxtapositioning, utilizing Olivieri et al.'s standpoint], but rather, either place M1c (Olivieri et al.'s M1b) at an age a bit younger or on par with the latter, which should be otherwise according to the present study. Though, by their own admission, the present authors favor Olivieri et al.’s methods over their own:
As our calculations are based only on three lineages and that of Olivieri et al on six, we think that their coalescence time estimation should be more accurate than ours. In fact, when time estimation is based on the eight different lineages (AFR-K143 is common to both sets) a coalescence age of 20.6 +/- ky is obtained.
*But if there is any indication about the tenuous nature of the above thesis, without going into other known details about M1, it would be this alternative viewpoint they came up with:
The alternative idea entertained by the authors, is one where M1 could actually be an autochthonous northwest African lineage, which spread northward into Europe and eastward to "Southwest Asia" and east Africa. Again, to be followed by a yet later dispersal from east Africa, likely sub-Saharan east Africa, particularly the Ethiopian populations.
*We've already seen the subjective nature of the present authors' age estimations, naturally attributable to biases underlying sampling procedures to some degree or another, as demonstrated above with the juxtapositioning of the findings of the present authors to those of Olivieri et al. (2006). Furthermore, erratic mutation rates would have undoubtedly affected the age estimation regime applied by the authors, however they may have downplayed the fact, as demonstrated by their observations surrounding the M1a2 subgroup, leading them to omit said subgroup in their lineage coalescence analysis. What makes this interesting, is that both group of authors sought to build their argument around parallel demic diffusion scenarios of U6 and M1, which has little in way of supporting material to stand on, notwithstanding the passionate efforts to push forward with argument; for instance in Olivieri et al.'s case, they say:
The hypothesis of a back-migration from Asia to Africa is also strongly supported by the current phylogeography of the Y chromosome variation, because haplogroup K2 and paragroup R1b*, both belonging to the otherwise Asiatic macrohaplogroup K, have been observed at high frequencies only in Africa (15, 16). However, because of the relatively low molecular resolution of the Y chromosome phylogeny as compared to that of the mtDNA, it was impossible to come to a firm conclusion about the precise timing of this dispersal (15, 16). - Olivieri et al. (2006)
One can almost sense Olivieri et al.'s venting their frustrations from not getting the "desired" results out on the supposed "relatively low molecular resolution of Y DNA", but indeed, as noted here earlier:
Previous genetic research work made very enthusiastic attempts to correlate the likes of U6 and possible "Eurasian"-tagged mtDNA with R1*-M173, supposedly as an attempt to buttress a possible back-migration into Africa; all but failed, with results showing considerable African mtDNA gene pool instead, for populations bearing these chromosomes.
Gonzalez et al. (2008) also fall into that trap; guess where they look towards, to make a connection between an M1 dispersal [supposedly parallel to a U6 one] and a "Middle Eastern" origin part of their argument? Interestingly, it happens to be from the same Dead Sea sample which was implicated in a clear genetic link with sub-Saharan and Eastern African groups. This is the same Dead Sea sample set that shared R1*-M173 with northern Cameroonian sample set, other African groups with these markers. This is also the same Dead Sea sample set with African G6PD-A alleles that were rare to absent in neighbouring groups. And Gonzalez et al. (2008) tell us, that this is also the same sample set which is again distinguished from those of neighbouring group in its higher "south of the Sahara" mtDNA markers:
Statistical analysis revealed that, whereas the sample from Amman did not significantly differ from their Levantine neighbours, the Dead Sea sample clearly behaved as a genetic outlier in the region. Its outstanding Eurasian haplogroup U3 frequency (39%) and its south-Saharan Africa lineages (19%) are the highest in the Middle East. On the contrary, the lack ((preHV)1) or comparatively low frequency (J and T) of Neolithic lineages is also striking. Although strong drift by geographic isolation could explain the anomalous mtDNA pool of the Dead Sea sample, the fact that its mtDNA lineage composition mirrors, in geographic origin and haplogroup frequencies, its Y-chromosome pool, points to founder effect as the main cause. - Gonzalez et al. (2008)
They acknowledge above that the "anamolous" character of the Dead Sea sample's Y-DNA pool "mirrors" its mtDNA gene pool, which too is replete with markers mostly found in Africa, including the aforementioned rare paraphyletic R1*-M173. However, something interesting happens, with regards to this Dead Sea sample of an "isolated" group:
Ancestral M1 lineages detected in Jordan that have affinities with those recently found in Northwest but not East Africa question the African origin of the M1 haplogroup.
Interesting, because these the same M1c chromosomes being referred to here, and whose specifics have been dealt with. Despite the apparent post-OOA emigration ties between the African groups and the Dead Sea community, reflected in not only both Y-DNA and mtDNA, but also in the X chrosome markers, Gonzalez et al. (2008) still come to the odd conclusion that its presence in the Dead Sea sample set somehow offers some sort of a challenge on the African origin of M1. The notion itself becomes quite comical, when one considers the fact that they just mentioned in the same breath, the presence of these same M1 clusters in Northwestern Africa, which happened to be their alternative hypothetical point of origin [Gonzalez et al. (2007)], as already noted. As they themselves acknowledge, that's where (northwestern Africa) said M1 clusters are widely distributed, and rather rare in the so-called "Middle East", save for this genetically "anamolous" [the authors' own words] and relatively isolated Dead Sea community, notable for its clear "past ties to sub-Saharan and eastern Africa", to put in Flores et al.'s (2005) words, a team that Gonzalez herself was a part of. "Anamolous", because to put it in the authors' own words, the considerably high post-OOA African ties of the Dead Sea sample dataset sets it appart from many other "Middle Eastern" groups, including its neighbours. So, how M1c clusters (which Gonzalez et al. (2007) dub "ancestral" based on their subjective age estimations) — that are very rare even in the "Middle East" (save for the 'anamolous' Dead Sea dataset) in contrast to their wide distribution in northwestern Africa — suddenly puts a question mark on the African origin of M1, is beyond comprehension.
Not only is there lack of apparent parallelism between R1* paragroup distribution and those aforemention markers of U6 and "Eurasian"-tagged mtDNA markers in Africa itself, as the authors (like Olivieri et al. & Gonzalez et al.) seem to be so desperately yearning for, but also the paragroup is essentially absent in all Afrasan speaking groups but those in the Northeast African corner. The marker is even rarer in so-called Southwest Asia than it is in Africa. This naturally contradicts Olivieri et al.'s acknowledgement in the following...
Indeed, M1 and U6 in Africa are mostly restricted to Afro-Asiatic–speaking areas.
Where did this "Afro-Asiatic" phylum originate? Well, look no further than to Gonzalez et al., whom as we've seen, are energetic about this idea of M1 and U6 "parallelism", not unlike Olivieri et al. (2006); they too, clearly in a way that simulteneously soothens or seeks to explain away a bit of disappoint in the course of the study, say:
The anomalous evolution of M1a2 lineages left the coalescence ages of the eastern Africa M1a expansion uncertain, but as suggested for the sister U6a1 radiation; these movements could be correlated in time with an African origin and expansion of Afroasiatic languages.
There you have it, folks, the answer to that simple question. And as if to defy the two groups of aforementioned research teams above, with regards to the proposed M1 and U6 "parallelism" in a demic expansion scenario, a newer study that came along in December 2008, points this out [a finding that appears to have been reproduced in several other studies]:
Our results highlighted a clear genetic differentiation between Berbers from the Maghreb and Egyptian Berbers. The first seems to be more related to European populations as shown by haplogroup H1 and V frequencies, whereas the latter share more affinities with East African and Nile Valley populations as indicated by the high frequency of M1 and the presence of L0a1, L3i, L4∗, and L4b2 lineages. Moreover, haplogroup U6 was not observed in Siwa. Probably, such a maternal diversity between North African Berbers would have been the result of a conjunction of several geographical, prehistoric, and historic factors which guided contacts (and thus exchanges) between local populations and migrating groups. First, in addition to the geographical distance, which certainly increases the genetic distance, the geographical location of Berber populations is very peculiar: the Berbers from the Maghreb are at the end of a long migration route, whereas Berbers from Siwa are rather in a crossroads between the Middle East, East Africa, sub-Saharan areas and the North African corridor. Therefore, meetings and exchanges between local and migrating populations were not identical in North West and North East Africa. - C. Coudray et al., The Complex and Diversified Mitochondrial Gene Pool of Berber Populations
We are told above, that M1 is substantial in the Siwa group, but no U6 was observed! Furthermore, it would make sense for the Siwa group to be a pristine representative of the aforementioned U6/M1 "parallelism" scenario, given that they are even closer to the so-called "Near East" than the northwestern African "Berbers", would it not? Perhaps it wouldn't be as funny, if Anna Olivieri herself was not a participant of this Coudray et al. study! Speaking of the so-called "Near East", the following claim is interesting, when one takes into account that this area was singled out as one of Gonzalez et al.'s proposed areas of M1 origin, because while looking at it from the alternative proposed origin, presumably the northwestern African one, we are told in a passing that...
That M1 is an autochthonous North African clade that had its earliest spread in northwestern areas marginally reaching the Near East and beyond. This would explain the shortage of basic M1 lineages in the Near East but would leave the Asiatic origin of the M1 ancestor undetermined.
...interesting.
*Another thing that hasn't been relayed through the present study, are details that follow:
The coding regions transitions are likely to change relatively slower than those of hypervariable segments, and hence, likely to remain intact within a clade. To assist in determining which clade to place a monophyletic unit, key coding region transitions have to be identified. In the case of M1, we were told:
We found 489C (Table 3) in all Indian and eastern-African haplogroup M mtDNAs analysed, but not in the non-M haplogroup controls, including 20 Africans representing all African main lineages (6 L1, 4 L2, 10 L3) and 11 Asians.
These findings, and the lack of positive evidence (given the RFLP status) that the 10400 C->T transition defining M has happened more than once, suggest that it has a single common origin, but do not resolve its geographic origin. Analysis of position 10873 (the MnlI RFLP) revealed that all the M molecules (eastern African, Asian and those sporadically found in our population surveys) were 10873C (Table 3). As for the non-M mtDNAs, the ancient L1 and the L2 African-specific lineages5, as well as most L3 African mtDNAs, also carry 10873C.
Conversely, all non-M mtDNAs of non-African origin analysed so far carry 10873T. These data indicate that the **transition 10400 C-->T, which defines haplogroup M**, arose on an African background characterized by the ancestral state 10873C, which is also present in four primate (common and pygmy chimps, gorilla and orangutan) mtDNA sequences. — Semino et al.
...which is significant, as other M lineages are devoid of M1 coding region motifs, not to mention the M1 HVS-I package. The above does demonstrate, how M lineages likely arose on an African 'background' by single-event substitutions in the designated African ancestral counterparts. The ancestral transition of 10873C is substituted by 10873T in non-African non-M haplogroups, while the 10400C transition was substituted in M lineages by 10400T; that ancestral state of 10873C remains at large in the M macrohaplogroup, unlike the so-called non-African & non-M haplogroup counterparts.
Furthermore,...
The 489C transition, as noted above and can be seen from the diagram, is peculiar to the M macrohaplogroup, again suggestive of unique event mutations characterizing the family:
The phylogenetic location of the mutations at nt 489 and 10,873 (arrow) was predicted by our analysis. The seemingly shared mutation at nt 16,129 (by G, Z and M1) is very likely an accidental parallelism. The ancestral states 10400C, 10810C and 10873C are fixed in L1 (as analysed so far) and are present in the ape sequences.
The 16129 sharing across the M1 haplogroups, seems to be one of those instances of random parallel mutation, recalling Chang Sun et al.'s observations of random parallel mutations of certain transitions across the M macrohaplogroup.
We also know that "southwest Asian" and "European" M1 lineages are derivatives of African counterparts, and the same is true for southwest Asian non-M1 affiliated M lineages from south Asia:
Compared to India, haplogroup M frequency in Iran is marginally low (5.3%) and there are no distinguished Iranian-specific sub-clades of haplogroup M. All Iranian haplogroup M lineages can be seen as derived from other regional variants of the haplogroup: eleven show affiliation to haplogroup M lineages found in India, twelve in East and Central Asia (D, G, and M8 ) and one in northeast Africa (M1)…
Indian-specific (R5 and Indian-specific M and U2 variants) and East Asian-specific (A, B and East Asian-specific M subgroups) mtDNAs, both, make up less than 4% of the Iranian mtDNA pool. We used Turkey (88.8 ± 4.0%) as the third parental population for evaluating the relative proportions of admixture from India (2.2 ± 1.7%) and China (9.1 ± 4.1%) into Iran. Therefore we can conclude that historic gene flow from India to Iran has been very limited. — Mait Metspalu et al.
With that said, Semino et al.'s older study still remains strong, the way I see it:
haplogroup M originated in eastern Africa approximately 60,000 years ago and was carried toward Asia. This agrees with the proposed date of an out-of-Africa expansion approximately 65,000 years ago10. After its arrival in Asia, the haplogroup M founder group went through a demographic and geographic expansion. The remaining M haplogroup in eastern Africa did not spread, but remained localized up to approximately 10,000-20,000 years ago, after which it started to expand. — Semino et al.
Elsewhere, I've also talked about some 'basal' M-like lineages in Africa; for instance, at least one of such was identified in the Senegalese sample.
Am. J. Hum. Genet., 66:1362-1383, 2000
mtDNA Variation in the South African Kung and Khwe and Their Genetic Relationships to Other African Populations
"The Asian mtDNA phylogeny is subdivided into two macrohaplogroups, one of which is M. M is delineated by a DdeI site at np 10394 and an AluI site of np 10397. The only African mtDNA found to have both of these sites is the Senegalese haplotype AF24. This haplotype branches off African subhaplogroup L3a (figs.2 and3), suggesting that haplogroup M mtDNAs might have been derived from this African mtDNA lineage..."
The relevant representation in this recap diagram: - Image source: Link
^The 10397 transition is shown in the L3-M linkage, while 10394, which should show up as positive (as exemplified in the above extract) in the M macrohaplogroup, shows up negative in the linkage between L3 and non-M affiliated lineages.
What does all this talk of specific transitions or nucleotide sequences tell us?
Well, to put the above compilation into perspective, and keep it simple, the point is this:
Semino et al.'s demonstration of certain characteristic basic coding transitions of the M super-haplogroup [not including the key coding region motifs unique to the M1 family], springing directly from African ancestral motifs don't require that M1 has to have a proto "non-African" M1, because all the necessary basic nucleotide sequences have been identified in the autochthonous African gene pool [findings which have been buttressed by later studies, of basic motifs in rare "M-characteristic" basic (African L3) clades], enough to explain the proposed African origin for the M lineage in general, including M1; whereas an Asian origin of M1 would necessitate an Asian "proto-M1" lineage that would explain the relatively young expansion ages of M1 and lack of descendancy from pre-existing Asian M lineages. This hasn't been achieved either by the present study or ones prior to it.
Getting to the gist:
Basal M mtDNA ~ between c. 60 - 80 ky ago
And then, M1 ~ between ~ c. 10 - 30 ky ago
The studies I posted, suggest that the basal motifs characteristic of the M macrohaplogroup arose in Africa, anywhere between 60 - 80 ky ago [since they would have likely been in the continent by the time of the 60 ky ago or so OOA migrations] . Sometime between 60 ky and 50 ky ago [some sources place it between 75 - 60 ky ago], these L3 offshoots were carried outside of Africa, amongst early successful a.m.h migrations, which resulted in the populations now living in the Indian-subcontinent, Melanesia and Australia who have these lineages. Not all the basal African L3M lineages, as Semino et al. convincingly put it, left the continent, as indicated by the basal L3a-M motif detected in Senegal, M1 diversity in Africa, particularly East Africa, possibly the dectection of M1 and other M lineages in tandem within a Tanzanian sample (Gonder et al. 2006), and the apparent lack of descendancy of M1 from older-coalescent Asian macrohaplogroup. Rather, it appears that the basal L3M lineages which remained in Africa, underwent a relatively limited demographic intra-African expansion until relatively recently, i.e. between 10 - 30 ky ago, compared to the Asian L3M derivatives, which underwent major expansions, naturally within the quantitatively smaller founder immigrant groups, i.e. the founder effect.
M1 is likely the culmination of relatively more recent demographic expansions of basal L3M lineages in the African continent, with M1 derivative being a successful candidate, in what could have possibly involved other derivatives which might not have expanded to the same level intra-continentally, and subsequently, extra-continentally as well.
M1 has strongly been correlated with the upper Paleolithic expansion of proto-Afrasan groups across the Sahara to coastal north Africa, and further eastward via the Sinai peninsula.
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
R1* is found mostly in Central Africa, NorthEast Africa and to a lesser to degree, the Levantine.
There is no R1* in northern Europe. Europeans have only later derived R1b and R1a... not R1*. There is no R1a or R1b in Africa hence there is no Eurasian admixture!
"...M173 chromosomes (group R) are observed in the Bantu of southern Cameroon (14.3%), Oman (10.7%), Egypt (6.8%), and the Hutu (1.4%). Whereas the R1*-M173 undifferentiated lineage is present in all four populations, the two downstream mutations, M17 and M269, are confined to Egypt and Oman."
Note the following!
quote:Originally posted by Explorateur: Two possibilities to deduce from R1*-M173 distribution pattern...
Possibility #1
— Originated in central Sahara or northeast Africa amongst a nomadic lifestyle oriented group and spread thereof to the Levant through the Sinai corridor, during the Upper Paleolithic.
— The remnants in Africa trekked down to Cameroonian region and the lower vestiges of West Africa as a place of refuge, with the coming of the Ogolian aridity [ca. between 23 ky ago and 18ky ago]. Sometime between 19ky ago and 15ky ago, some E-M35 bearing nomads would move into the Levant via northeast Africa, perhaps due to growing pressures of progressive Saharan aridity. This may explain R1*-M173 carriers in tandem with E-M34 carriers in places like the Dead Sea, whereas R1*-M173 is absent in sub-Saharan East Africa [but not in northeastern Africa] - the African Horn region - where E-M34 chromosomes are prevalent. It may also explain why the Dead Sea R1*-M173 bearing population also happens to standout from their high-frequency J1 carrying Levantine Bedouin brethren in sporting high prevalence of the African-specific G6PD-A locus on the X chromosome. The presence of both E-M34 and E-M78 derivatives in the so-called Near East make it clear that E-M35 chromosomes did not spill outside of the continent in single demographic event or even time frame. On the other hand, E-M34 is absent in West and Central Africa where R1*-M173 chromosomes are most prevalent.
— Upon finding a refuge to escape intense aridified condition of the Sahara, sections [meaning not all] of the previously largely nomadic R1*-M173 carriers began to settle in their new found refugia. The small communities of R1*-M173 would eventually expand, but they would have been overwhelmed by the faster expanding newly arrived PN2 carriers, especially with the receding of the Ogolian aridity. Those who retained their nomadic lifestyle, trekked back and forth the western[mainly] Sahel and the lower geographical vestiges of West Africa, where some of the settled brethren located themselves. These nomad traditionalists would adopt a pastoralist lifestyle [see: the theme centered on the *divergent* C-13.9kbT allele patterns in R1*-M173 carriers], which would modify their diet.
Sticking point(s) for possibility #1:
The only or main one so-offered for this possibility from those publications which propose otherwise, is the relative greater diversity of the overall K-M9 family outside of Africa, as opposed to that located within continent, even though the presence of Hg K itself [particularly in East Africa] in the continent have been noted; however, even if one were to look at it from that angle, it doesn't necessarily negate a possible African origin for R1*-M173, as its supposed predecessor P-M45 — in particular the elusive undifferentiated P-M45 — is just as rare in Asia.
Possibility #2
- Originated in the Sinai or the Levantine or northern regions of the Arabian desert, amongst a very small community nomads of that region. Those that trekked between North Africa and the so-called Near East through the Sinai corridor, when give rise to a subset that decided to stay put in North Africa and lead their nomadic lifestyle there. Others went even further north; they went as far as Europe, wherein they'd become ancestors of R1b bearers. While the demograhic shifts brought upon later by greater expanding groups, like say Hg J carriers, probably urged some remnants of R1*-M173 to spread eastward, central Asia, wherein they'd give rise to R1a carriers, sometime after the LGM. The small group of R1*-M173 bearers who moved into Europe would likely have met relatively modest competition, due to smaller isolated groups in the region, as compared to elsewhere in Asia and in Africa.
- With the coming of the LGM, the R1 carriers in Europe would find refugia in southwestern Europe and certain regions in the so-called Near East. This would have coincided with the aridification of the Sahara, wherein R1* bearers there, as I have noted above, would have migrated southward, out of the region of the intense aridification of the Sahara. However, when the LGM came to a conclusion, the R1 carriers in Europe, who sought refuge in southern Europe and parts of the so-called Near East, would start repopulating the more northerly regions of Europe, and the subsequent expansion, especially with the advent of farming from the so-called Near East, out of which R1b would overwhelm any remaining original R1b-predecessor R1* group. In otherwords, negative genetic drift essentially drifted out the original R1 carriers. Although R1b itself seems to have come to being before the LGM, its numbers likely became much greater after the LGM. As noted above, small group of R1 carriers who populated Europe, were likely fortunate enough to have not met the same competition from non-R1 bearing groups, as they might have been exposed to in Africa and the so-called Near East.
Sticking point(s) for possibility #2:
Naturally with possibility #2, one would have to explain away why the only one of the two places outside of Africa where the rare unidifferentiated R1*-M173 marker is present, and where it has been the most substantial [after Africa], that this marker appears to be in a population that stands out in its low Hg J [ 9% J1 in the Dead Sea compared with 63% J1 (Semino et al. 2004) of their Bedouin neighbors , per reference by Flores et al. 2005], while it bears 31% E-M34 compared to the only 7% of Bedouin (Cruciani et al. 2004)[See: Flores et al.2005], and last but not least — it has a lower number of different G6PD locus variants and a higher incidence of the African G6PD-A allele (Karadsheh, personal communication) than the Bedouin, when the molecular heterogeneity of the G6PD locus was compared between the Amman and the Dead Sea samples [Flores et al. 2005]. And even Oman, wherein R1*-M173 markers had been located in low frequency, cannot be ruled out as a recipient of these chromosomes through gene flow from Africa, because it isn't too far from northeast Africa, wherein these R1* chromosomes appear, not to mention the fact that other African ancestry therein [like variant E-M35 lineages and E3a chromosomes] make it clear that Oman has definitely been a recipient of genetic introgression from Africa via multiple and distinct demographic events.
Neutrals...
In either cases of possibility #1 and possibility #2, downstream R1 derivatives are relatively less to absent in the regions that harbor R1* undifferentiated chromosomes. Yet, the regions that do have the downstream R1 chromosomes, R1* undifferentiated chromosomes are virtually absent. This is simply testament to the possibility that in regions wherein the original R1 carriers [who were likely small to begin with, in terms of effective population size] appear to have expanded the most, the original R1* chromosomes were eventually drifted out by the more downstream R1 carriers.
One thing both possibility #1 and possibility #2 converge on, is this: R1*-M173 in Cameroon are very ancient, and did not come from populations characterizing downstream mutations, like say Europe.
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
Hopefully Dirk reads this and find his answer about M1.
Dirk needs to understand that he can't refute African genes in Egypt by claiming that all Africans with Fine Features and wavy hair is because of Eurasian Genes. It is just foolish thinking.
Peace
Posts: 9651 | From: Reace and Love City. | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ Unfortunately King, the problem is Dirk and others like him are IDIOTS. No matter how much evidence you throw to their faces, they will keep denying it as they do reality itself! Racism is a mental disorder, and Dirk and his ilk are just deranged individuals.
Getting back to the topic...
in regards to maternal lineages like M1 and U6, it reminds me of the 2004 study from Metspalu and Kivisild et. ales: Most of the extant mtDNA boundaries in South and Southwest Asia were likely shaped during the initial settlement of Eurasia by anatomically modern humans (from AFRICA)-- the rest of the title should say. The study further says the M clade of Eurasia and its phylogeny are largely confined to the Indian subcontinent and adjacent areas. As such, how could the M1 of Africa be Eurasian when there is not only is that particular haplogroup not found in any significant frequencies in Asia, but there is no pattern to connect the M1 of East Africa to other M groups in India let alone the rest of Eurasia??
Posts: 26239 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Here's my take in a nutshell, in keeping with changing and emerging revelations in published journals: Of the mentioned clades, M1, U6 and E are unequivocally African in origin. As I noted elsewhere (click here), perhaps the jury is still out on R1*, BUT there is a VERY strong case for an African origin of this clade, and it is one of the two most probable geographic considerations for this origin. This is accessed not only from R1* distribution pattern in the continent, but also from closer examination of the rather unique Hg R family of clades that pervades the continent; if there is any evidence of this, then look no further than to the contradicting reports between Berniell-Lee et al.'s (2009) paper and those of Hassan et al.(2008) and Woods et al. (2005). The reports from the latter two confirm that R1* paragroup finds in earlier journals from the likes of Cruciani et al. (2002) were in fact not a matter of the retrospective state of development of sequencing resolution. This is necessary to note, because cases have been made about the need for not reading too much into the earlier R1* reports of Cruciani et al. (2002), or say Luis et al. (2004), on the premise that these involved insufficient sequencing resolution. Out of comparing these journals, and QUITE importantly, being mindful of their respective sequencing resolution pros and cons, the emerging picture of the African Hg R family of clades is one of a varied and a unique co-existence of paraphyletic clades that has thus far not been seen anywhere else. Where Africa falls short in relative diversity as it pertains to downstream Hg R clades, parts of Asia [including Europe] appears to make up for that. Between the so-called "Near East" and Africa, preponderance of DNA-evidence goes to the latter—i.e. African origin. A case for the so-called "Near East" on the other hand, so says the leading proponents thereof—is trumped by finds in southern Asia, the Indian sub-continent in particular, where diversity of the most upstream examples of Hg R clades are concerned. The so-called "Near East" clearly lacks this feature; this issue however, doesn't crop up when it comes to Africa. The only reservations its dissidents continue to hold against the African origin, boils down to the diversity of the downstream clades, if not reduced to merely wondering how Africa could be a reservoir to unique upstream paraphyletic clades, presumably of "all places".
-------------------- The Complete Picture of the Past tells Us what Not to Repeat Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
There is no R1a or R1b in Africa hence there is no Eurasian admixture!
I wouldn't say there is no R1b in Africa, but it is rather rare, in so far as the European examples are concerned. One would expect it to be considerably represented on coastal northern African areas, given the proximity, but that doesn't bear out in study after study. There are low frequencies of the R1b in northeastern Africa, and randomly scattered across parts of the Sahara and Sahel, but interestingly, drops fairly sharply in the coastal northwestern Africa areas to almost negligible frequencies, where maternal markers closer to the European examples appear most prevalently. In fact, if the aforementioned Berniell-Lee et al. are anything to go by, Africa [by way of central African samples] seems to be unique with its upstream R1b1 family of paraphyletic clades. What about R1a? From what I can tell at this point, it is even rarer on the continent than R1b. I am sure there are Indian communities in Africa where R1a dominates, but African ethnic groups themselves, not much revelation here -- when it comes to R1a.
Ps - Look in here. R1b has been founded in a number of Sudanese communities, generally in low frequencies, but one interesting standout from the bunch, is the elevated frequency amongst the Hausa sample. Though considerably lower than that of the Hausa (~ 41%), the Meseria appears to be next in line in exhibiting noticeable frequencies of the marker (~25%).
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
^^&If you had to boil in down to a nutshell, what are typical DNA patterns found in:
-- Europe:
-- Middle East: Iran/Turkey/Arab lands
It seems that everyone and his brother has a "true negro" marker for Africans. But let's play this even, steven, for a moment. If you or others were running the model in reverse, what would be the stereotypical "true" markers for:
--Europeans
--Middle Easterners
-------------------- Note: I am not an "Egyptologist" as claimed by some still bitter, defeated, trolls creating fake profiles and posts elsewhere. Hapless losers, you still fail. My output of hard data debunking racist nonsense has actually INCREASED since you began.. Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Y-DNA markers considered "typical" of the whole of Europe are downstream clades of Hg R [Rlb in the western part of the European subcontinent and R1a in the more eastern areas] and Hg I. Hgs E and J, and perhaps G, generally serving as "supplementary" clades as opposed "primary" types, are more prevalent in areas nearer to Africa and the so-called "Near East".
In the so-called "Near East", it is more varied. Markers generally considered "typical" of the region, are Hgs J, G, and T. This is supplemented by Hgs E and R [R1a starts to elevate in the vicinity of Iran].
Ps - Goes without saying, "stereotyping" these markers says little about their actual origins; actual examination of circumstances revolving around molecular, frequency and distribution patterns is more substantive in that regard.
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
No harm done. Refresher in the midst of the bunch of topics that dominates this section.
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Racism depends on lies and deception in order to maintain itself. Therefore racist posters will follow a pattern of lies and deception in order to push their own agenda.
They aren't confused. And they aren't trying to LEARN anything from anyone.
F*ck them.
Dealing with racists is not about 'high minded' philosophy.
Posts: 8890 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: No harm done. Refresher in the midst of the bunch of topics that dominates this section.
Indeed refreshers in the midst of all the nonsense here are warranted...
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Racism depends on lies and deception in order to maintain itself. Therefore racist posters will follow a pattern of lies and deception in order to push their own agenda.
They aren't confused. And they aren't trying to LEARN anything from anyone.
F*ck them.
Dealing with racists is not about 'high minded' philosophy.
Indeed. I don't know which are worse-- the openly overt racists like 'Afronut-slayer', 'Rushton', and Dirty8 a.k.a. Abozo of many aliases, OR the covert in the closet (sexual as well) racists like Bogledassopen and his boyfriend Argay from Europe??
Posts: 26239 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Racism depends on lies and deception in order to maintain itself. Therefore racist posters will follow a pattern of lies and deception in order to push their own agenda.
They aren't confused. And they aren't trying to LEARN anything from anyone.
F*ck them.
Dealing with racists is not about 'high minded' philosophy.
Then i guess we could rule out you being a "high minded" philosopher considering your atleast half a decade whining and naging about those evil racists who have occupied your mind most of your time while awake. You've made it clear ages ago that your mission in life is not to belittle and oppress racists but rather whine, complain and empower them by giving them almost divine like responsibility on all events that take place across the globe. Very flattering for a racist.
All problems are the evil mighty racists fault, eh Doug?
Posts: 1554 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Historical fact makes it clear that the growth and expansion of white European civilization world wide depends on and is predicated upon the destruction of non white peoples and cultures. From America to Australia to Africa and everywhere else Europeans have spread, this is an observable fact. Therefore, their nationalism is implicitly built on destroying other people. For those "other people" not to understand this or to believe that they are "part of the klan" is the ultimate distortion of logic and common sense.
SOME people believe that this is all about philosophical debate and argument, when it isn't. It is about the hard core gritty day to day reality of power and control and nothing else. And those currently IN POWER did not get there by philosophy, they got there through brute force, murder, deception and oppression and that is how they STAY there.
So unless you are an absolute imbecile and don't mind dying off and sacrificing yourself to the rise of someone ELSE, you will have to stand up for your OWN identity, your OWN future, past and present. NOBODY else will do it for you.
There is no reason in this day and age for any African or non European in this day and age to be confused about who they are or what they SHOULD be about.
However, Europeans have also created a mystique and mystery about themselves and the "death cult" against Africans that they worship, creating FOOLS who blindly accept the ruse of propaganda that the system produces. Those people are lost and cannot see the light even if it was directly in their face. For them, their is no truth other than their own insane delusions and no facts other than their own lies. They participate in the bloody dismemberment of the African body politic blind to the orgy of violence being practiced against their OWN, which is ultimately to their own detriment. But such FOOLS wallow in the folly of their own ignorance and stay blind to that truth and try to woo others into their fold.
Posts: 8890 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Is there a "bibliography" so to speak of the peer reviewed reports on M1, R1*, E, and U6 and the discussion here at ES that propose their African lineage?
I mean which threads go into depth on each and a list of the reports in those threads.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Historical fact makes it clear that the growth and expansion of white European civilization world wide depends on and is predicated upon the destruction of non white peoples and cultures. From America to Australia to Africa and everywhere else Europeans have spread, this is an observable fact. Therefore, their nationalism is implicitly built on destroying other people. For those "other people" not to understand this or to believe that they are "part of the klan" is the ultimate distortion of logic and common sense.
SOME people believe that this is all about philosophical debate and argument, when it isn't. It is about the hard core gritty day to day reality of power and control and nothing else. And those currently IN POWER did not get there by philosophy, they got there through brute force, murder, deception and oppression and that is how they STAY there.
So unless you are an absolute imbecile and don't mind dying off and sacrificing yourself to the rise of someone ELSE, you will have to stand up for your OWN identity, your OWN future, past and present. NOBODY else will do it for you.
There is no reason in this day and age for any African or non European in this day and age to be confused about who they are or what they SHOULD be about.
However, Europeans have also created a mystique and mystery about themselves and the "death cult" against Africans that they worship, creating FOOLS who blindly accept the ruse of propaganda that the system produces. Those people are lost and cannot see the light even if it was directly in their face. For them, their is no truth other than their own insane delusions and no facts other than their own lies. They participate in the bloody dismemberment of the African body politic blind to the orgy of violence being practiced against their OWN, which is ultimately to their own detriment. But such FOOLS wallow in the folly of their own ignorance and stay blind to that truth and try to woo others into their fold.
Posts: 3423 | From: the jungle - when y'all stop playing games, call me. | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Doug M: SOME people believe that this is all about philosophical debate and argument, when it isn't. It is about the hard core gritty day to day reality of power and control and nothing else.
The fact is most people are ethnocentric and tend to be prejudice against groups that are percieved as being distinct, be it difference in cultural practices, mentality, physical makeup, diety etc. It's not an exclusive European behaviour, and don't even attempt to act that you yourself don't utilize your capacity when an opportunity emerges for personal elevation. Suspicion against out-groups and exercise of brutality is probably the most primitive survival mechanism on all humans. Has been natural since time immemorial. Hope you are not seriously insinuating that no other group of people other than your whity's have taken advantage of opportunity gaps to advance themselves as a group at others disadvantage? Or Perhaps you think that your "Whiteys" are such superior beings that special rules of engagement should be applied on them?
quote:And those currently IN POWER did not get there by philosophy, they got there through brute force, murder, deception and oppression and that is how they STAY there.
Is that wrong? Should they perhaps have passed over the position of "POWER" for the sake of those others and maybe hoped and prayed they would be treated equally when similar situation unfolds for the other groups? I think you have a childish and unrealistic faith on human kindness.
You hypocracy also shows when you yourself have obviously programmed your mind into thinking of groups as polarised, natural competing entities who you've long time ago categorised, identified and also stated your mission against your enemies, granted positioning yourself as a victim/underdog and your golden strategy ofcourse being whining and pleading for morality that will secure you victory.
quote:So unless you are an absolute imbecile and don't mind dying off and sacrificing yourself to the rise of someone ELSE, you will have to stand up for your OWN identity, your OWN future, past and present. NOBODY else will do it for you.
LOL Yep, and i guess strongly empowering your adversaries by completly ascribing them all responsibilities is the ultimate way to stand up for yourself. I think the fool is the person who thinks by complaining he/she will convince someone to degrade his/her position. You're such a fierce and painfull enemy Doug, may no one ever experience the horror and destruction of colliding with you and crossing your path.
quote:However, Europeans have also created a mystique and mystery about themselves and the "death cult" against Africans that they worship, creating FOOLS who blindly accept the ruse of propaganda that the system produces.
A mystique that apparently has been succesfull in penetrating you concious and stolen a great chunk of the best years of your life by forcing you to obsessivley fight these demons and yet you are by the looks of it far from recovery.
quote:Those people are lost and cannot see the light even if it was directly in their face. For them, their is no truth other than their own insane delusions and no facts other than their own lies. They participate in the bloody dismemberment of the African body politic blind to the orgy of violence being practiced against their OWN, which is ultimately to their own detriment. But such FOOLS wallow in the folly of their own ignorance and stay blind to that truth and try to woo others into their fold.
I beleive most sensibel Africans know that all domestic problems are self-inflicted regardless of the amount of meddling and foreign interests being involved. No matter how much conspirancy crafted by others it's ultimatley the local leaders (be they puppets or nationalists) and the people who are to blame for allowing it to happen at the first place.
Posts: 1554 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
shut the **** up and go back in the soup line you somalid refugee. lol
I'm born in the west just like your schizo Afro bookshop cleric ass, i guess the only difference between us two is that my parents had a choice unlike your ancestors.
None of us are refugees though, nothing wrong with being one!
Posts: 1554 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Bogledass: shut the **** up and go back in the soup line you somalid refugee. lol
Better a soup line than a c**k-sucking line in a bathroom stall, eh you white euro sleeze. LOLPosts: 26239 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: Is there a "bibliography" so to speak of the peer reviewed reports on M1, R1*, E, and U6 and the discussion here at ES that propose their African lineage?
I mean which threads go into depth on each and a list of the reports in those threads.
Thanks.
The intro threads are earlier notes that I've made elsewhere, based on material gathered from published journals. All the necessary sources are cited within the body of these notes, for those who have bothered to carefully read them. I am of course open to revisiting those areas where I may have gone wrong, ONCE they have been specifically identified and explained thereof by the dissenting party, about how they fail to meet the proposed conclusions, along with the set of counter evidential material that rectify the errors in question.
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
You need to stop searching for enemies and spoiling for a fight.
I asked for a one stop reference guide for postings to these forums dealing with the subject lineages. That's all.
There's a lot of good independent think displayed in these page with yours and Thought/Evergreen being the tops when it comes to population genetics. It'd sure be nice to be able to get the numerous posts by you Evergreen, Rasol, and the Bass on these topics without having to always fish around for them everytime one wants to reference them.
The "biliography" could be stickied for easy access since there's no search function always available.
I think it a good idea that we reference each other's secondary work on the primary sources. It's the closest we're ever goning to get to a ES A&E book with chapters by each of us.
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Yonis2: my parents had a choice unlike your ancestors
You call being chased out of a wasteland a "choice"? You stupid existentialist! LOL
quote:You need to stop searching for enemies and spoiling for a fight.
One would have thought you knew the mentality of your own tribe by now. Jewboy has to be pushy and aggressive, Jews are.
Posts: 4254 | From: dasein | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged |
You need to stop searching for enemies and spoiling for a fight.
I think this advice better fits you than it does me, as it is you who made the above assumption from my comment, when nothing is to be found therein to warrant that assumption. I was quite measured and respectful in my reply to your post.
quote:
I asked for a one stop reference guide for postings to these forums dealing with the subject lineages. That's all.
There's a lot of good independent think displayed in these page with yours and Thought/Evergreen being the tops when it comes to population genetics. It'd sure be nice to be able to get the numerous posts by you Evergreen, Rasol, and the Bass on these topics without having to always fish around for them everytime one wants to reference them.
The "biliography" could be stickied for easy access since there's no search function always available.
I think it a good idea that we reference each other's secondary work on the primary sources. It's the closest we're ever goning to get to a ES A&E book with chapters by each of us.
See; wasn't hard, was it? If you feel that I might have misunderstood you in any shape or form, all you needed to simply do, is to clarify your position, as you had just done. No need to jump to conclusions that need not be communicated in what you are reacting to.
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Explorer wrote: --------------------------- ---------------------------
Folks isn't it shocking how silent The Explorer is when the white racists are running rampant throughout this forum? No harsh words, no threats, no insults.
I mean compared to how he has attacked Africans, his non-response to the white racists demonstrates a profound tepidness and docility.
Why are you afraid of the white racists Explorer?
Posts: 3085 | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
^Ok, I'll take the bait this one instance; Answer:
...because what you mindlessly perceive as being "afraid" is really a smart approach to dealing with unimportant "have-all-the time-in-the-world/do-nothing" creeps that creep up on this section of ES, and that are far intellectually beneath me to be noticed, not unlike yourself. It is a time-tested approach that some like to just constantly advice [others] or rather, nag on about here, while others actually do the walk; it is not a mystery that I happen to fall into the latter camp. Now do the *important* folks a favor: Don't let sunlight and honest day's hard work punish you -- crawl right back to that cockroach hole and have a good day.
Ps - re: "far intellectually beneath me to be noticed". Case in point: After years of hard troll work, you still scratch your head about how to quote people. Funny, you are, I tell ya.
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Bettyboo: The 'M' genetic pattern is Asian in origin.
M hasn't been found in Asia. Instead India has the highest diversity of M haplogroups. However M1 is largely confined to Africa and the parent of M, L3, is African in origin.
This is a rather controversial haplogroup. One thing that could be said is that M1 wasn't brought into Africa (if that's the case) by pale skinned people. South Asians are tropically adapted, and at that time of the back migration were more-or-less identical to Africans.
Posts: 1080 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Jew boy after all your years of hard work you figured out how many Jews died in the holocaust?
Posts: 4254 | From: dasein | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Bogle: Jew boy after all your years of hard work you figured out how many Jews died in the holocaust?
Huh? I'm Jewish. I'll keep it simple. I view Israel as a state that is just as legitimate as the United States.
That is, US is a criminal state since its founding. The state was "founded" by elite, land owning criminals who opposed another similarly oppressive state called Great Britain. The United States have exceeded its parent and now is wrecking havoc worldwide.
9/11, not to mention subway attacks in London, was in reaction to the imperialist policies held by the West.
So you see, I place Israel at that level. Uncle Sam's child and one that is following his footsteps.
Posts: 1080 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: Is there a "bibliography" so to speak of the peer reviewed reports on M1, R1*, E, and U6 and the discussion here at ES that propose their African lineage?
I mean which threads go into depth on each and a list of the reports in those threads.
Thanks.
I agree. Such a bibliography needs to be established. I'll try looking for papers. May have them around.
It'd be easy to get the ones above if I could get the actual citation. I have a poor habit of not organizing my downloads.
Posts: 1080 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Bettyboo: The 'M' genetic pattern is Asian in origin.
M hasn't been found in Asia. Instead India has the highest diversity of M haplogroups. However M1 is largely confined to Africa and the parent of M, L3, is African in origin.
This is a rather controversial haplogroup. One thing that could be said is that M1 wasn't brought into Africa (if that's the case) by pale skinned people. South Asians are tropically adapted, and at that time of the back migration were more-or-less identical to Africans.
M is found throughout Asia. M1 is a subgroup of the M haplogroup and it is only found in East Africa mainly to those of Cushitic origins. M1 was brought into Africa by 100% black indigenous Asians. It is a controversial haplogroup because eurocentrics and afrocentrics want to believe that mankind made some journey out of Africa and populated the whole world which isn't true to biblical teachings. God separated and scattered man from BABEL which would be present day Asia. The M haplogroup is indeed Asian in origin and M1 is just a subgroup of M. West Africans and Southern Africans were already in Africa but was scattered and separated but never left Africa. They were just scattered throughout Africa. In the beginning "Asia" and "Africa" was one land and people lived on both.
Posts: 2088 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Bettyboo: that mankind made some journey out of Africa and populated the whole world which isn't true to biblical teachings. God separated and scattered man from BABEL which would be present day Asia.
Based on the high frequency and diversity of haplogroup M in India and elsewhere in Asia, some authors have suggested (versus [3]) that M may have arisen in Southwest Asia [16,17,31]. 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 [15], this study). Therefore, one cannot rule out the still most parsimonious scenario that haplogroup M arose in East Africa [3]. Furthermore, the lack of L3 lineages other than M and N (indeed, L3M and L3N) in India is more consistent with the African launch of haplogroup M. On the other hand, one also observes that: i) M1 is the only variant of haplogroup M found in Africa; ii) M1 has a fairly restricted phylogeography in Africa, barely penetrating into sub-Saharan populations, being found predominantly in association with the Afro-Asiatic linguistic phylum – a finding that appears to be inconsistent with the distribution of sub-clades of haplogroups L3 and L2 that have similar time depths. — Mait Metspalu et al.Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Bettyboo: which isn't true to biblical teachings. God separated and scattered man from BABEL which would be present day Asia.
Based on the high frequency and diversity of haplogroup M in India and elsewhere in Asia, some authors have suggested (versus [3]) that M may have arisen in Southwest Asia [16,17,31]. 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 [15], this study). Therefore, one cannot rule out the still most parsimonious scenario that haplogroup M arose in East Africa [3]. Furthermore, the lack of L3 lineages other than M and N (indeed, L3M and L3N) in India is more consistent with the African launch of haplogroup M. On the other hand, one also observes that: i) M1 is the only variant of haplogroup M found in Africa; ii) M1 has a fairly restricted phylogeography in Africa, barely penetrating into sub-Saharan populations, being found predominantly in association with the Afro-Asiatic linguistic phylum – a finding that appears to be inconsistent with the distribution of sub-clades of haplogroups L3 and L2 that have similar time depths. — Mait Metspalu et al.
You can roll your eyes all you want. You are an African and African people don't believe anything biblical and that is why you people will continue to suffer. M haplogroup is indeed Asian in origin and M1 is a subgroup of the "M" haplogroup.
Posts: 2088 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Bettyboo: You can roll your eyes all you want. You are an African and African people don't believe anything biblical and that is why you people will continue to suffer.
Lol you're delusional.
quote:Originally posted by Bettyboo: M haplogroup is indeed Asian in origin and M1 is a subgroup of the "M" haplogroup.
Can you read?
Well here's the dilemma....
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 [15], this study)......Furthermore, the lack of L3 lineages other than M and N (indeed, L3M and L3N) in India is more consistent with the African launch of haplogroup M. Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Bettyboo: You can roll your eyes all you want. You are an African and African people don't believe anything biblical and that is why you people will continue to suffer.
Lol you're delusional.
quote:Originally posted by Bettyboo: M haplogroup is indeed Asian in origin and M1 is a subgroup of the "M" haplogroup.
Can you read?
Well here's the dilemma....
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 [15], this study)......Furthermore, the lack of L3 lineages other than M and N (indeed, L3M and L3N) in India is more consistent with the African launch of haplogroup M.
#1. You are delusional #2. I didn't say anything about India #3. Who said M1 came from India? #4. I said haplogroup M is Asian in origin #5. Africa never launch a haplogroup M. #6. Haplogroup M1 is a subgroup not the parent haplogroup #7. M1 is mainly found in only Cushitic groups. There is a reason for that. #8. God separated and scatterd man from BABEL not from Africa. #9. India got their M haplogroup/s from Asia most likely from the family branches that broked off from BABEL #10.East Africans (cushitic)got their M1/M haplogroup from Asia most likely from family branches that separated from BABEL #11.Other Africans don't carry any M haplogroup because they are not part of any family that branched off from BABEL. They were already in Africa and separated from there but stayed within Africa.
Posts: 2088 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Bettyboo: The 'M' genetic pattern is Asian in origin.
M hasn't been found in Asia. Instead India has the highest diversity of M haplogroups. However M1 is largely confined to Africa and the parent of M, L3, is African in origin.
This is a rather controversial haplogroup. One thing that could be said is that M1 wasn't brought into Africa (if that's the case) by pale skinned people. South Asians are tropically adapted, and at that time of the back migration were more-or-less identical to Africans.
M is found throughout Asia. M1 is a subgroup of the M haplogroup and it is only found in East Africa mainly to those of Cushitic origins. M1 was brought into Africa by 100% black indigenous Asians. It is a controversial haplogroup because eurocentrics and afrocentrics want to believe that mankind made some journey out of Africa and populated the whole world which isn't true to biblical teachings. God separated and scattered man from BABEL which would be present day Asia. The M haplogroup is indeed Asian in origin and M1 is just a subgroup of M. West Africans and Southern Africans were already in Africa but was scattered and separated but never left Africa. They were just scattered throughout Africa. In the beginning "Asia" and "Africa" was one land and people lived on both.
You need to provide a study for that. Most derivatives of M is found in South Asia. However the underived M variant has NOT been found in Asia.
Just look above, I got sources on my side. On the other hand, you don't. The presence of SISTER mutations in Asia does not mean that its mother, the underived variant, has a South Asian origin.
That is why assumptions, at this point, is a very immature position. The origin of the M underived haplogroup has not been agreed upon and is thus controversial.
Saying that, the Asiatic base of this haplogroup are most common amongst black-skinned populations within Asia. In addition, M1 is largely restricted to East Africa and not found within the assumed base region.
Posts: 1080 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Bettyboo: You can roll your eyes all you want. You are an African and African people don't believe anything biblical and that is why you people will continue to suffer.
Lol you're delusional.
quote:Originally posted by Bettyboo: M haplogroup is indeed Asian in origin and M1 is a subgroup of the "M" haplogroup.
Can you read?
Well here's the dilemma....
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 [15], this study)......Furthermore, the lack of L3 lineages other than M and N (indeed, L3M and L3N) in India is more consistent with the African launch of haplogroup M.
#1. You are delusional
#4. I said haplogroup M is Asian in origin
Are you another obsolete art or business student? Get rid of the degree and consider heading back to school.
As I said, you are WRONG. The origin of the UNDERIVED variant is either African or Asian in origin. Asia has the highest M haplogroup diversity.
However, it would be foolish to assume that the origin is Asiatic. That is because underived M parent is L3, which is African in origin. Humans originated in Africa, so it wouldn't be a parsimonious answer.
M1, nor its supposed parent, M, is found within Asia. Let us spoon-feed the excerpt once again:
quote: 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 [15], this study)......Furthermore, the lack of L3 lineages other than M and N (indeed, L3M and L3N) in India is more consistent with the African launch of haplogroup M.
That lineage ancestral to M1 would be M. In other words, those M derivatives found in Asia are NOT ancestral to the African M1.
Posts: 1080 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
God, another arts and craft moron. Introducing biblical myths into reality. Humans, including the M mtdna haplogroup ultimately originated within Africa.
Genetic diversity outside of Africa is just a small segment of the gene pool present within the continent. Don't let the phylogenetic identifiers mislead you.
One could call M: L3-M. It probably should be called that, because amateurs attempt to isolate regions. The modern Asiatic form is a very recent development. Humans, throughout the world, looked identical to Africans for most of human history.
Posts: 1080 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Bettyboo: The 'M' genetic pattern is Asian in origin.
M hasn't been found in Asia. Instead India has the highest diversity of M haplogroups. However M1 is largely confined to Africa and the parent of M, L3, is African in origin.
This is a rather controversial haplogroup. One thing that could be said is that M1 wasn't brought into Africa (if that's the case) by pale skinned people. South Asians are tropically adapted, and at that time of the back migration were more-or-less identical to Africans.
M is found throughout Asia. M1 is a subgroup of the M haplogroup and it is only found in East Africa mainly to those of Cushitic origins. M1 was brought into Africa by 100% black indigenous Asians. It is a controversial haplogroup because eurocentrics and afrocentrics want to believe that mankind made some journey out of Africa and populated the whole world which isn't true to biblical teachings. God separated and scattered man from BABEL which would be present day Asia. The M haplogroup is indeed Asian in origin and M1 is just a subgroup of M. West Africans and Southern Africans were already in Africa but was scattered and separated but never left Africa. They were just scattered throughout Africa. In the beginning "Asia" and "Africa" was one land and people lived on both.
You need to provide a study for that. Most derivatives of M is found in South Asia. However the underived M variant has NOT been found in Asia.
Just look above, I got sources on my side. On the other hand, you don't. The presence of SISTER mutations in Asia does not mean that its mother, the underived variant, has a South Asian origin.
That is why assumptions, at this point, is a very immature position. The origin of the M underived haplogroup has not been agreed upon and is thus controversial.
Saying that, the Asiatic base of this haplogroup are most common amongst black-skinned populations within Asia. In addition, M1 is largely restricted to East Africa and not found within the assumed base region.
Bob you are such a fvcking idiot and I don't know what you are babbling about. What is this M underived haplogroup? The M haplogroup is Asian in origin and doesn't come from Africa. M1 is a subgroup of the M parent haplogroup. It only causes controversy because Afrocentrics and Eurocentrics want to believe in a "out-of-Africa" theory which never happened. If the bible teaches that God separated man from BABEL to all corners of the earth each by family then that is what happened. Man did not populate the world by gradually leaving Africa with time. It was never a journey out of Africa by some groups here and some groups there as scientist and anti-God believers want to believe. It never happened.
Posts: 2088 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Bettyboo: You can roll your eyes all you want. You are an African and African people don't believe anything biblical and that is why you people will continue to suffer.
Lol you're delusional.
quote:Originally posted by Bettyboo: M haplogroup is indeed Asian in origin and M1 is a subgroup of the "M" haplogroup.
Can you read?
Well here's the dilemma....
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 [15], this study)......Furthermore, the lack of L3 lineages other than M and N (indeed, L3M and L3N) in India is more consistent with the African launch of haplogroup M.
#1. You are delusional
#4. I said haplogroup M is Asian in origin
Are you another obsolete art or business student? Get rid of the degree and consider heading back to school.
As I said, you are WRONG. The origin of the UNDERIVED variant is either African or Asian in origin. Asia has the highest M haplogroup diversity.
However, it would be foolish to assume that the origin is Asiatic. That is because underived M parent is L3, which is African in origin. Humans originated in Africa, so it wouldn't be a parsimonious answer.
M1, nor its supposed parent, M, is found within Asia. Let us spoon-feed the excerpt once again:
quote: 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 [15], this study)......Furthermore, the lack of L3 lineages other than M and N (indeed, L3M and L3N) in India is more consistent with the African launch of haplogroup M.
That lineage ancestral to M1 would be M. In other words, those M derivatives found in Asia are NOT ancestral to the African M1.
Bob you are so stupid and you don't sound smart. Reread your post above and see where you went wrong. People were created. Humans existence lies in the origins of creation and God planted them in the Garden of Eden which is believed to be not in Africa. I don't know why people keep bringing up India and a back migration. This just further proves that Afrocentrists are confused about the M haplogroup so desperately wanting it to be of African origin when it is not. The M haplogroup is Asian in origin. What is this M underived haplogroup? M1 is a subgroup of the M parent haplogroup that is why it is found in East Africa mainly amongst 'Cushitic' groups. There weren't no back migration.
Posts: 2088 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Bob_01: God, another arts and craft moron. Introducing biblical myths into reality. Humans, including the M mtdna haplogroup ultimately originated within Africa.
Genetic diversity outside of Africa is just a small segment of the gene pool present within the continent. Don't let the phylogenetic identifiers mislead you.
One could call M: L3-M. It probably should be called that, because amateurs attempt to isolate regions. The modern Asiatic form is a very recent development. Humans, throughout the world, looked identical to Africans for most of human history.
You must be an African or a firm believer in science. It is only those kinds that are anti-God. You claim "amateurs" like to isolate regions and you are basically doing the same thing by claiminng M haplogroups as African in origin when it is actually Asian in origin. There is no modern Asiatic form because Asians in general are an old people more likely just as old as Africans or older. Of course I'm talking about the black indigenous groups and not recent migration. I don't know what you are talking when said "genetic diversity outside of Africa" is a small segment. There are genetic diversity outside Africa that Africans don't carry or doesn't have any nexxus to and there are genetic diversity within Africa that outsiders don't have or don't have any link to. Africa isn't as diverse as you afrocentrics want to believe. You find more diverse people in Asia than you do in Africa.
Posts: 2088 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Bogle: [QUOTE]Originally posted by Yonis2: [qb]my parents had a choice unlike your ancestors
You call being chased out of a wasteland a "choice"? You stupid existentialist! LOL
quote:You need to stop searching for enemies and spoiling for a fight.
LOL..For Real and its funny his Somali ass sure loves Sweden...Why not go back to that Sh@t hole of a Non existant History, Illiterate backwater Somalia and go an kiss his Arab Prophet's(Piss be Upon Him)Ass..
Last I checked getting chopped and shot to death to the point where you have to flee to White civilization is a "Choice"...LOL. Our Forefathers came when the Americas were nothing but colonies and We helped build it into the Empire it is now...Our Forefathers paved the way so these Illiterate, no history having ass kissing Somalis sould "CHOOSE" to run their asses to White Civilizations..LOL
Posts: 8804 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic