quote:Originally posted by Mystery Solver: More back-to-back posts:
With respect to M lineages, recalling from a previous discussion,...
In the case of M1, we were told:
…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.
Thus, from the coding region, we were able to determine that M1 likely belongs to the M macrohaplogroup via identification of key transitions, namely transitions designated by 10400 C->T [defining the M macrohaplogroup] and 10873C, and it is explained why both was needed. Hence, these indicators implicate M1 being related to M macrohaplogroup, which “arose on an African background characterized by the ancestral state 10873C”, whereby the root of M* stems from that of L3. It is understandable, since M clade is associated with being amongst earliest out-of-Africa migrations. This is why Semino et al. hypothesized that:
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.
However, in the case of M1, we are informed about other coding region transitions which suggest that it is a distinctive clade of its own. Again,
From Chang Sun et al....
Indeed, the reconstructed ancestral motifs of all Indian M haplogroups turned out to be devoid of those variations that characterized M1, i.e., 6446, 6680, 12403, and 14110 (Maca-Meyer et al. 2001; Herrnstadt et al. 2002).
Putting the claims from the two studies together, it paints a picture of a situation whereby M1 and Asian M macro-haplogroup come from common origins, but that the remaining bio-history of these lineages were independent from one another; hence, M1 developed from the ancestral L3 derived lineages that expanded out of Africa to give rise to M macrohaplogroup - it developed from the ones that remained.
^Clyde may feel obliged to refute this.
Yes I think I will.
Ok. Let’s explore…
quote:Clyde:
Roychoudhury et al (2001) noted nucleolides shared by East African M1, and Indian M haplogroups include HG M4 at 16311 ; HG M5 at 16,129; and HG M34 at 16,249 Kivisild et al (1999) identifies a number of transitions for Indian M1 at 16,311,16,129 and 16,189 , that correspond to Ethiopian M1. Other Indian nodes that agree with East African M1, observed by Kivisild et al , include: HG M5a 16,311;HG M5 16,189; and HG M2a 16,189.
Elaborate on how this random hodge podge you put together, which you don‘t understand yourself, refutes the citation you are replying to. What does it refute in my post?
quote:Clyde:
The research of Roychoudhury et al (2001) is supported by Metspalu et al (2005) web page.
These authors noted that " Another Indian-specific M clade supported by HVS-I variation as well as coding region markers, is M6 [15]. Haplogroups M3, M4 and M5 have been discriminated preliminarily by their characteristic HVS-I mutations [19], but since their defining positions, 16126, 16311, and 16129, respectively, are phylogenetically unstable".
Produce "all" the coding region motifs of M1, and then those for the above, i.e. M3, M4 and M5. Are they the same? Also tell me which Indian sub-continent groups have all the coding region motifs on the east African M1, along with source of claim.
quote:Clyde:
As stated above 16311 and 16129 are chracteristic transitions of African M1. This refutes your hypothesis that the Indian M haplogroups are not related to the African M1.
I'll ask again a request you avoided:
Show me another non-M1 lineage M sub-haplogroup which shares the exact same HVS-I pattern as M1.
On another note:
You do know what the hyper-variable region of the mtDNA is, right? You also know the significance of this, right. What does this tell us about the "random" commonalities seen across M and perhaps even some non-M lineages in the hyper-variable region? Elaborate.
You still feel that you've accomplished your task: refutation? Simple then: please demonstrate what you've refuted, point by point in correlation to my post. Thanx.
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: Originally posted by Clyde Winters: In research there is no such thing as a fact. Theory can progress to a law, if the theory is continuously supported/confirmed by the evidence--but a theory can never become a fact.Facts exist only in a court of Law and are found as such by a judge.
Karl Popper observed that:
Clyde Winters, I believe Karl Popper's 1919-20 observations are flawed and need serious updating.
Posts: 179 | From: United States | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by rasol: ^ I just did. Please read it.
Please cite the specific location of discussion of Dravidian linguistics in the article cited above.
Also please cite passages from the forementioned article where the authors claim the Dravidian languages are not related to African languages and the examples they present to support such a view.
.
The scientists in the cited study conclude that Indians are descendant from paleolithic Asians and not Neolithic Africans.
This refutes your claims.
Your questions are non-sequitur and irrelevant to this.
I think you've been taking debating lessons from your boy Salassin -
- ask non-sequitur questions based on spurious assumptions and or circular reasoning.
- ignore any answers that you don't like.
- refuse to answer the questions others ask.
- when faced with evidence you can't refute - play dumb, ignore the evidnce, and then request more evidence.
- refuse to ever acknowledge evidence presented....just keep requesting more.
- never present relevant evidence - especially when you don't have any.
- use silly emoticons in hopes of annoying, destracting and/or making people forget all of the aforementioned.
quote: Originally posted by Clyde Winters: In research there is no such thing as a fact. Theory can progress to a law, if the theory is continuously supported/confirmed by the evidence--but a theory can never become a fact.Facts exist only in a court of Law and are found as such by a judge.
Karl Popper observed that:
Clyde Winters, I believe Karl Popper's 1919-20 observations are flawed and need serious updating.
Sorry to hear you feel this way. Your answer makes it clear that you have never completed a graduate program. If you had you would know that falsification is the basis of contemporary research.
posted
^ False statement as that does not address the distinct HVS-I pattern of M1, or don't you understand the question that Supercar is asking?
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
The research of Roychoudhury et al (2001) is supported by Metspalu et al (2005) web page.
These authors noted that " Another Indian-specific M clade supported by HVS-I variation as well as coding region markers, is M6 [15]. Haplogroups M3, M4 and M5 have been discriminated preliminarily by their characteristic HVS-I mutations [19], but since their defining positions, 16126, 16311, and 16129, respectively, are phylogenetically unstable". --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Produce "all" the coding region motifs of M1, and then those for the above, i.e. M3, M4 and M5. Are they the same? Also tell me which Indian sub-continent groups have all the coding region motifs on the east African M1, along with source of claim.
It is clear, you can't read. This was made clear in the quotation above.
Clyde
quote: ]Yes I think I will.
Lluís Quintana-Murci et al (1999) web page noted that:
"The eastern-African group, named M1, is characterized within M by a consensus HVS-I motif defined by four transitions at nt 16,129, 16,189, 16,249 and 16,311. "
Roychoudhury et al (2001) noted nucleolides shared by East African M1, and Indian M haplogroups include HG M4 at 16311 ; HG M5 at 16,129; and HG M34 at 16,249 Kivisild et al (1999) identifies a number of transitions for Indian M1 at 16,311,16,129 and 16,189 , that correspond to Ethiopian M1. Other Indian nodes that agree with East African M1, observed by Kivisild et al , include: HG M5a 16,311;HG M5 16,189; and HG M2a 16,189.
The research of Roychoudhury et al (2001) is supported by Metspalu et al (2005) web page.
These authors noted that " Another Indian-specific M clade supported by HVS-I variation as well as coding region markers, is M6 [15]. Haplogroups M3, M4 and M5 have been discriminated preliminarily by their characteristic HVS-I mutations [19], but since their defining positions, 16126, 16311, and 16129, respectively, are phylogenetically unstable".
As stated above 16311 and 16129 are the defining/ chracteristic positions of African M1. This refutes your hypothesis that the Indian M haplogroups are not related to the African M1.
The research of Roychoudhury et al (2001) is supported by Metspalu et al (2005) web page.
These authors noted that " Another Indian-specific M clade supported by HVS-I variation as well as coding region markers, is M6 [15]. Haplogroups M3, M4 and M5 have been discriminated preliminarily by their characteristic HVS-I mutations [19], but since their defining positions, 16126, 16311, and 16129, respectively, are phylogenetically unstable".
Produce "all" the coding region motifs of M1, and then those for the above, i.e. M3, M4 and M5. Are they the same? Also tell me which Indian sub-continent groups have all the coding region motifs on the east African M1, along with source of claim.
It is clear, you can't read.
We'll find out if you are the illiterate or I am...
quote:Clyde: This was made clear in the quotation above.
So you are on the record saying that the above citation answers your obligation to produce all the 'coding region motifs' of the above lineages, and to demonstrate that they are the same in the above lineages, and that all the M1 coding region motifs are found in the Indian sub-continent, even though Roychoudhury et al (2001) are referencing motifs of HVS region?
If yes, please tell us since when some isolated random HVS motifs became synonymous for any, much less "all" coding region motifs.
If no, then doesn't this not only underly that you are illiterate, but also stupid?
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by rasol: ^ False statement as that does not address the distinct HVS-I pattern of M1, or don't you understand the question that Supercar is asking?
Yes I do. This pattern is addressed by Lluís Quintana-Murci et al (1999) web page. They noted that:
"The eastern-African group, named M1, is characterized within M by a consensus HVS-I motif defined by four transitions at nt 16,129, 16,189, 16,249 and 16,311. "
Are you claiming that Lluís Quintana-Murci et al (1999) statement that the consensus HVS-I motif of African M1 is defined by the four transitions at nt 16,129, 16,189, 16,249 and 16,311 is false? If so please present evidence disputing this fact. This article is the most cited article in papers on the M haplogroups.
Roychoudhury et al (2001) noted nucleolides shared by East African M1, and Indian M haplogroups include HG M4 at 16311 ; HG M5 at 16,129; and HG M34 at 16,249 Kivisild et al (1999) identifies a number of transitions for Indian M1 at 16,311,16,129 and 16,189 , that correspond to Ethiopian M1. Other Indian nodes that agree with East African M1, observed by Kivisild et al , include: HG M5a 16,311;HG M5 16,189; and HG M2a 16,189.
The research of Roychoudhury et al (2001) is supported by Metspalu et al (2005) web page.
These authors noted that " Another Indian-specific M clade supported by HVS-I variation as well as coding region markers, is M6 [15]. Haplogroups M3, M4 and M5 have been discriminated preliminarily by their characteristic HVS-I mutations [19], but since their defining positions, 16126, 16311, and 16129, respectively, are phylogenetically unstable".
As stated above consensus HVS-I motif for African M1 is defined by four transitions at nt 16,129, 16,189, 16,249 and 16,311. These transitions are also found in Indian M haplogroups. This refutes Supercars hypothesis that the Indian M haplogroups are not related to the African M1.
. [/QB][/QUOTE]
Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
^Absolutely, and this is clear from another yet back-to-back post:
The eastern-African group, named M1, is characterized within M by a consensus HVS-I motif defined by four transitions at nt 16,129, 16,189, 16,249 and 16,311. This HVS-I signature motif is not found either in our or other Indian samples, whereas it characterizes most of the M types sporadically observed in the Mediterranean area and 7% of Nile Valley sequences. - Semino et al.
The research of Roychoudhury et al (2001) is supported by Metspalu et al (2005) web page.
These authors noted that " Another Indian-specific M clade supported by HVS-I variation as well as coding region markers, is M6 [15]. Haplogroups M3, M4 and M5 have been discriminated preliminarily by their characteristic HVS-I mutations [19], but since their defining positions, 16126, 16311, and 16129, respectively, are phylogenetically unstable".
Produce "all" the coding region motifs of M1, and then those for the above, i.e. M3, M4 and M5. Are they the same? Also tell me which Indian sub-continent groups have all the coding region motifs on the east African M1, along with source of claim.
It is clear, you can't read.
We'll find out if you are the illiterate or I am...
quote:Clyde: This was made clear in the quotation above.
So you are on the record saying that the above citation answers your obligation to produce all the 'coding region motifs' of the above lineages, and to demonstrate that they are the same in the above lineages, and that all the M1 coding region motifs are found in the Indian sub-continent, even though Roychoudhury et al (2001) are referencing motifs of HVS region?
If yes, please tell us since when some isolated random HVS motifs became synonymous for any, much less "all" coding region motifs.
If no, then doesn't this not only underly that you are illiterate, but also stupid?
Supercar you must be referring to your Mama. She's a stupid illiterate fool like her son .
Supercar I thought you were intelligent but if you are disputing Lluís Quintana-Murci et al (1999) you surely are lame in addition to not being able to read.
quote:This refutes Supercars hypothesis that the Indian M haplogroups are not related to the African M1.
^ this statement is also a lie.
Supercar has no such 'hypothesis'.
What you are running away from is in fact the findings of the Geneticist Chang Sun, as shown below....
A particular case in question is the origin of haplogroup M1, which is mainly found in Northeast Africa and the Near East (Quintana-Murci et al. 1999).
Due to the fact that M1 bears variant nucleotides, for example, at site 16311 in common with haplogroup M4, at 16129 with M5, and at 16249 with haplogroup M34, it has been proposed that M1 might have some affinity with Indian M haplogroups (Roychoudhury et al. 2001).
This inference, however, could not receive support from our complete sequencing information.
Indeed, the reconstructed ancestral motifs of all Indian M haplogroups turned out to be devoid of those variations that characterized M1, i.e., 6446, 6680, 12403, and 14110 (Maca-Meyer et al. 2001; Herrnstadt et al. 2002). Therefore, those common mutations in the control region rather reflect random parallel mutations. http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/msj078v1.pdf
^ Now that we've clarified what you are attempting to refute...please procede to *disconfirm* the work of Chang Sun.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mystery Solver: ^Absolutely, and this is clear from another yet back-to-back post:
The eastern-African group, named M1, is characterized within M by a consensus HVS-I motif defined by four transitions at nt 16,129, 16,189, 16,249 and 16,311. This HVS-I signature motif is not found either in our or other Indian samples, whereas it characterizes most of the M types sporadically observed in the Mediterranean area and 7% of Nile Valley sequences. - Semino et al.
If you could read you could answer the question yourself. I will repeat the information again since you are surely a lame.
Roychoudhury et al (2001) noted nucleolides shared by East African M1, and Indian M haplogroups include HG M4 at 16311 ; HG M5 at 16,129; and HG M34 at 16,249 Kivisild et al (1999) identifies a number of transitions for Indian M1 at 16,311,16,129 and 16,189 , that correspond to Ethiopian M1. Other Indian nodes that agree with East African M1, observed by Kivisild et al , include: HG M5a 16,311;HG M5 16,189; and HG M2a 16,189.
The research of Roychoudhury et al (2001) is supported by Metspalu et al (2005) web page.
These authors noted that " Another Indian-specific M clade supported by HVS-I variation as well as coding region markers, is M6 [15]. Haplogroups M3, M4 and M5 have been discriminated preliminarily by their characteristic HVS-I mutations [19], but since their defining positions, 16126, 16311, and 16129, respectively, are phylogenetically unstable".
As stated above consensus HVS-I motif for African M1 is defined by four transitions at nt 16,129, 16,189, 16,249 and 16,311. These transitions are also found in Indian M haplogroups. This refutes Supercars hypothesis that the Indian M haplogroups are not related to the African M1.
Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
Where; are you saying that you believe you are my Mama, because I was referencing you. Is it because you don't show any difference between yourself and females down there, you know, your gender?
quote:Clyde: She's a stupid illiterate fool like her son .
At least it's not as low as yours: You take after your mama, as a cheap retarded ho.
quote:Clyde:
Supercar I thought you were intelligent but if you are disputing Lluís Quintana-Murci et al (1999) you surely are lame in addition to not being able to read.
Disputing what of Lluís Quintana-Murci et al (1999), and how - please cite me wherein this occurred.
I warned you to not continue with name-calling, but you persist. Do continue - the further you go down the pits, the further I will.
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:This refutes Supercars hypothesis that the Indian M haplogroups are not related to the African M1.
^ this statement is also a lie.
Supercar has no such 'hypothesis'
...and wouldn't know this, because he is either illiterate or stupid. I think it is a symptom of both.
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
quote:Originally posted by Mystery Solver:
^Absolutely, and this is clear from another yet back-to-back post:
The eastern-African group, named M1, is characterized within M by a consensus HVS-I motif defined by four transitions at nt 16,129, 16,189, 16,249 and 16,311. This HVS-I signature motif is not found either in our or other Indian samples, whereas it characterizes most of the M types sporadically observed in the Mediterranean area and 7% of Nile Valley sequences. - Semino et al.
If you could read you could answer the question yourself. I will repeat the information again since you are surely a lame.
Roychoudhury et al (2001) noted nucleolides shared by East African M1, and Indian M haplogroups include HG M4 at 16311 ; HG M5 at 16,129; and HG M34 at 16,249 Kivisild et al (1999) identifies a number of transitions for Indian M1 at 16,311,16,129 and 16,189 , that correspond to Ethiopian M1. Other Indian nodes that agree with East African M1, observed by Kivisild et al , include: HG M5a 16,311;HG M5 16,189; and HG M2a 16,189.
The research of Roychoudhury et al (2001) is supported by Metspalu et al (2005) web page.
These authors noted that " Another Indian-specific M clade supported by HVS-I variation as well as coding region markers, is M6 [15]. Haplogroups M3, M4 and M5 have been discriminated preliminarily by their characteristic HVS-I mutations [19], but since their defining positions, 16126, 16311, and 16129, respectively, are phylogenetically unstable".
As stated above consensus HVS-I motif for African M1 is defined by four transitions at nt 16,129, 16,189, 16,249 and 16,311. These transitions are also found in Indian M haplogroups. This refutes Supercars hypothesis that the Indian M haplogroups are not related to the African M1.
I've read Roychoudhury et al (2001) and Metspalu et al (2005): no where do they say any thing about the distinctive M1 HVS-I pattern being found in any other M sub-haplogroup. So, I take it that you are saying that Semino et al. is lying, basing it on supposedly the aforementioned authors, even though they don't say what you are saying. In other words, you are blowing hot air out of your rear end.
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mystery Solver: ^Absolutely, and this is clear from another yet back-to-back post:
The eastern-African group, named M1, is characterized within M by a consensus HVS-I motif defined by four transitions at nt 16,129, 16,189, 16,249 and 16,311. This HVS-I signature motif is not found either in our or other Indian samples, whereas it characterizes most of the M types sporadically observed in the Mediterranean area and 7% of Nile Valley sequences. - Semino et al.
Clyde's answer, is as I noted earlier ... to play dumb, to pretend that the M1 signature motif is really found in India, and simply ignore Semino, and Chang, and Kivisild, et. al since they are telling him something he doesn't want to hear.
For Winters, information that he doesn't like, doesn't matter.
I am actually enjoying this conversation.
It makes a splendid study of the processes of rationalisation and denial.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
Note: Clyde is trying to divert attention from a legitimate discussion and from his utter incompetence by instigating a mudslinging match which he will have no chance of winning, only to proclaim "victim" later on, even though he has been warned repetitively on my part, with great self-restraint might I add, to avoid bringing the discourse down to such utter juvenile level.
quote:This refutes Supercars hypothesis that the Indian M haplogroups are not related to the African M1.
^ this statement is also a lie.
Supercar has no such 'hypothesis'.
What you are running away from is in fact the findings of the Geneticist Chang Sun, as shown below....
A particular case in question is the origin of haplogroup M1, which is mainly found in Northeast Africa and the Near East (Quintana-Murci et al. 1999).
Due to the fact that M1 bears variant nucleotides, for example, at site 16311 in common with haplogroup M4, at 16129 with M5, and at 16249 with haplogroup M34, it has been proposed that M1 might have some affinity with Indian M haplogroups (Roychoudhury et al. 2001).
This inference, however, could not receive support from our complete sequencing information.
Indeed, the reconstructed ancestral motifs of all Indian M haplogroups turned out to be devoid of those variations that characterized M1, i.e., 6446, 6680, 12403, and 14110 (Maca-Meyer et al. 2001; Herrnstadt et al. 2002). Therefore, those common mutations in the control region rather reflect random parallel mutations. http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/msj078v1.pdf
^ Now that we've clarified what you are attempting to refute...please procede to *disconfirm* the work of Chang Sun.
Why???. Chang et al's research supports my findings. Eventhough Semino claimed that" The eastern-African group, named M1, is characterized within M by a consensus HVS-I motif defined by four transitions at nt 16,129, 16,189, 16,249 and 16,311. This HVS-I signature motif is not found either in our or other Indian samples, whereas it characterizes most of the M types sporadically observed in the Mediterranean area and 7% of Nile Valley sequences".
Semino et al was wrong. 16189,16249, 16129 and 16,311 are found in Indian M haplogroups. On page 24 in the Chang et al paper [URL= http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/msj078v1.pdf ]web page[/URL] where the researchers discuss Figure 1 which details the phylogenetic tree of the 66 Indian mtDNAs, they note that the "highly recurrent mutations" in the Indian M haplogroups were in fact 16129,16189 and 16311.
This is exactly what I have been saying. The existence of these " highly recurrent mutations" confirms my theory that Indian M haplogroups are related to African M1, and was probably carried to India during the neolithic by Dravidian speakers who originally lived in Africa.
quote:Originally posted by Mystery Solver: ^Absolutely, and this is clear from another yet back-to-back post:
The eastern-African group, named M1, is characterized within M by a consensus HVS-I motif defined by four transitions at nt 16,129, 16,189, 16,249 and 16,311. This HVS-I signature motif is not found either in our or other Indian samples, whereas it characterizes most of the M types sporadically observed in the Mediterranean area and 7% of Nile Valley sequences. - Semino et al.
Clyde's answer, is as I noted earlier ... to play dumb, to pretend that the M1 signature motif is really found in India, and simply ignore Semino, and Chang, and Kivisild, et. al since they are telling him something he doesn't want to hear.
For Winters, information that he doesn't like, doesn't matter.
I am actually enjoying this conversation.
It makes a splendid study of the processes of rationalisation and denial.
You should enjoy it you are being educated by one of the Master Afrocentric scholars of the 21st Century.
Chang et al's research supports my findings. Eventhough Semino claimed that" The eastern-African group, named M1, is characterized within M by a consensus HVS-I motif defined by four transitions at nt 16,129, 16,189, 16,249 and 16,311. This HVS-I signature motif is not found either in our or other Indian samples, whereas it characterizes most of the M types sporadically observed in the Mediterranean area and 7% of Nile Valley sequences".
Semino et al was wrong. 16189,16249, 16129 and 16,311 are found in Indian M haplogroups. On page 24 in the Chang et al paper [URL= http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/msj078v1.pdf ]web page[/URL] where the researchers discuss Figure 1 which details the phylogenetic tree of the 66 Indian mtDNAs, they note that the "highly recurrent mutations" in the Indian M haplogroups were in fact 16129,16189 and 16311.
This is exactly what I have been saying. The existence of these " highly recurrent mutations" confirms my theory that Indian M haplogroups are related to African M1, and was probably carried to India during the neolithic by Dravidian speakers who originally lived in Africa.
quote:This refutes Supercars hypothesis that the Indian M haplogroups are not related to the African M1.
^ this statement is also a lie.
Supercar has no such 'hypothesis'.
What you are running away from is in fact the findings of the Geneticist Chang Sun, as shown below....
A particular case in question is the origin of haplogroup M1, which is mainly found in Northeast Africa and the Near East (Quintana-Murci et al. 1999).
Due to the fact that M1 bears variant nucleotides, for example, at site 16311 in common with haplogroup M4, at 16129 with M5, and at 16249 with haplogroup M34, it has been proposed that M1 might have some affinity with Indian M haplogroups (Roychoudhury et al. 2001).
This inference, however, could not receive support from our complete sequencing information.
Indeed, the reconstructed ancestral motifs of all Indian M haplogroups turned out to be devoid of those variations that characterized M1, i.e., 6446, 6680, 12403, and 14110 (Maca-Meyer et al. 2001; Herrnstadt et al. 2002). Therefore, those common mutations in the control region rather reflect random parallel mutations. http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/msj078v1.pdf
^ Now that we've clarified what you are attempting to refute...please procede to *disconfirm* the work of Chang Sun.
Why???. Chang et al's research supports my findings.
B.S.
Chang et al.'s research couldn't possibly lend support to you, when they concisely maintained that the "random" sharing of positions reflects independent 'parallel mutations'.
quote:Clyde:
Eventhough Semino claimed that" The eastern-African group, named M1, is characterized within M by a consensus HVS-I motif defined by four transitions at nt 16,129, 16,189, 16,249 and 16,311. This HVS-I signature motif is not found either in our or other Indian samples, whereas it characterizes most of the M types sporadically observed in the Mediterranean area and 7% of Nile Valley sequences".
Semino et al was wrong. 16189,16249, 16129 and 16,311 are found in Indian M haplogroups. On page 24 in the Chang et al paper [URL= http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/msj078v1.pdf ]web page[/URL] where the researchers discuss Figure 1 which details the phylogenetic tree of the 66 Indian mtDNAs, they note that the "highly recurrent mutations" in the Indian M haplogroups were in fact 16129,16189 and 16311.
This is exactly what I have been saying. The existence of these " highly recurrent mutations" confirms my theory that Indian M haplogroups are related to African M1, and was probably carried to India during the neolithic by Dravidian speakers who originally lived in Africa.
Are you really pretending to be that hard of reading? Do you know the difference between 'random' motif sharing in HVS region, as a product of 'parallel evolution', as opposed to sharing the entire pattern of the HVS region in question?
If not, please produce the extract where Chang Sun et al. contradict Semino et al. in that the HVS-I pattern of M1 is not found in any other M subclade.
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
Note: Clyde is trying to divert attention from a legitimate discussion and from his utter incompetence by instigating a mudslinging match which he will have no chance of winning, only to proclaim "victim" later on, even though he has been warned repetitively on my part, with great self-restraint might I add, to avoid bringing the discourse down to such utter juvenile level.
That's because I am a great teacher. If you could read you know that Chang et al's research supports my findings. Eventhough Semino claimed that" The eastern-African group, named M1, is characterized within M by a consensus HVS-I motif defined by four transitions at nt 16,129, 16,189, 16,249 and 16,311. This HVS-I signature motif is not found either in our or other Indian samples, whereas it characterizes most of the M types sporadically observed in the Mediterranean area and 7% of Nile Valley sequences".
Semino et al was wrong. 16189,16249, 16129 and 16,311 are found in Indian M haplogroups. On page 24 in the Chang et al paper [URL= http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/msj078v1.pdf ]web page[/URL] where the researchers discuss Figure 1 which details the phylogenetic tree of the 66 Indian mtDNAs, they note that the "highly recurrent mutations" in the Indian M haplogroups were in fact 16129,16189 and 16311.
This is exactly what I have been saying. The existence of these " highly recurrent mutations" confirms my theory that Indian M haplogroups are related to African M1, and was probably carried to India during the neolithic by Dravidian speakers who originally lived in Africa.
.
[ 14. April 2007, 06:00 AM: Message edited by: Horus_Den_1 ]
Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: Why???. Chang et al's research supports my findings.
BLAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.
This is why I find you fun. [funny]
You simply don't care about truth at all.
Do you realise you have gone from stating that Chang supports your findings, to stating that he was a part of a cabal whose aim was to cover up the 'true' origin of the Dravidians...to claiming again that he supports your findings.
For me, you're dishonesty is simply amusing, but I wonder how your 'students' can read you without vomiting in disgust with the realisation that you have NO INTEREST WHATSOEVER IN TRUTH.
rotfl!
quote:Supercar writes: Dr. Winters, Are you really pretending to be that hard of reading
quote:This refutes Supercars hypothesis that the Indian M haplogroups are not related to the African M1.
^ this statement is also a lie.
Supercar has no such 'hypothesis'.
What you are running away from is in fact the findings of the Geneticist Chang Sun, as shown below....
A particular case in question is the origin of haplogroup M1, which is mainly found in Northeast Africa and the Near East (Quintana-Murci et al. 1999).
Due to the fact that M1 bears variant nucleotides, for example, at site 16311 in common with haplogroup M4, at 16129 with M5, and at 16249 with haplogroup M34, it has been proposed that M1 might have some affinity with Indian M haplogroups (Roychoudhury et al. 2001).
This inference, however, could not receive support from our complete sequencing information.
Indeed, the reconstructed ancestral motifs of all Indian M haplogroups turned out to be devoid of those variations that characterized M1, i.e., 6446, 6680, 12403, and 14110 (Maca-Meyer et al. 2001; Herrnstadt et al. 2002). Therefore, those common mutations in the control region rather reflect random parallel mutations. http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/msj078v1.pdf
^ Now that we've clarified what you are attempting to refute...please procede to *disconfirm* the work of Chang Sun.
Why???. Chang et al's research supports my findings.
B.S.
Chang et al.'s research couldn't possibly lend support to you, when they concisely maintained that the "random" sharing of positions reflects independent 'parallel mutations'.
quote:Clyde:
Eventhough Semino claimed that" The eastern-African group, named M1, is characterized within M by a consensus HVS-I motif defined by four transitions at nt 16,129, 16,189, 16,249 and 16,311. This HVS-I signature motif is not found either in our or other Indian samples, whereas it characterizes most of the M types sporadically observed in the Mediterranean area and 7% of Nile Valley sequences".
Semino et al was wrong. 16189,16249, 16129 and 16,311 are found in Indian M haplogroups. On page 24 in the Chang et al paper [URL= http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/msj078v1.pdf ]web page[/URL] where the researchers discuss Figure 1 which details the phylogenetic tree of the 66 Indian mtDNAs, they note that the "highly recurrent mutations" in the Indian M haplogroups were in fact 16129,16189 and 16311.
This is exactly what I have been saying. The existence of these " highly recurrent mutations" confirms my theory that Indian M haplogroups are related to African M1, and was probably carried to India during the neolithic by Dravidian speakers who originally lived in Africa.
Are you really pretending to be that hard of reading? Do you know the difference between 'random' motif sharing in HVS region, as a product of 'parallel evolution', as opposed to sharing the entire pattern of the HVS region in question?
If not, please produce the extract where Chang Sun et al. contradict Semino et al. in that the HVS-I pattern of M1 is not found in any other M subclade.
You can do this yourself. Read pg 24 of the Chang et al study. Parallel mutations are not "highly recurrent" across haplogroups.
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: Why???. Chang et al's research supports my findings.
BLAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.
This is why I find you fun. [funny]
You simply don't care about truth at all.
Do you realise you have gone from stating that Chang supports your findings, to stating that he was a part of a cabal whose aim was to cover up the 'true' origin of the Dravidians...to claiming again that he supports your findings.
For me, you're dishonesty is simply amusing, but I wonder how your 'students' can read you without vomiting in disgust with the realisation that you have NO INTEREST WHATSOEVER IN TRUTH.
rotfl!
quote:Supercar writes: Dr. Winters, Are you really pretending to be that hard of reading
Sport fibbing!
I never said this, these are your words. The evidence of M1 transitions in Indian Haplogroups is found on pg 24 of Chang et al, and Figure 1.
posted
^ Chang: It has been proposed that M1 might have some affinity with Indian M haplogroups
This inference, however, *could not receive support* from our complete sequencing information.
^ Notice the overcompensating lie from Winters.
Chang flatly says *no support*.... so, Winters claims.....support. Naturally, just claim the study states flat out the exact opposite of what is written. Why not. It's all good in the game, right Dr. Winters?
I think you're funny Clyde, but your students are disappointed.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
You can do this yourself. Read pg 24 of the Chang et al study. Parallel mutations are not "highly recurrent" across haplogroups.
I've read that page, and it appears to be your eyes playing tricks on you. Do you know what "parallel mutations" in of itself means?
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Comparing phonemically similar names with no similar meaning is purely amateurish. It can just be the result of typological similarities, i.e. similar distribution of phonemes just as the ones who link unrelated Basque, Russian Ludic or Ewe-Gbe.
Posts: 307 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
Isn't it time for you to start another "Dravidians were Neolithic Africans" thread, or have you finally learned your lesson?
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by rasol: Well, it's been 3 days Dr. Winters....
Isn't it time for you to start another "Dravidians were Neolithic Africans" thread, or have you finally learned your lesson?
I will be responding soon, I am just completing a study disputing Chang et al theory of parallel mutation to explain the presence of M1 material in Indian haplogroups. Once I send off the article to be considsered for publication I will make another post on this topic.
Isn't it time for you to start another "Dravidians were Neolithic Africans" thread, or have you finally learned your lesson?
I will be responding soon, I am just completing a study disputing Chang et al theory of parallel mutation to explain the presence of M1 material in Indian haplogroups.
I take it that you've performed DNA sequencing on mtDNA, or you know someone else who has done so, to dispute Chang Sun et al.?
quote:Clyde:
Once I send off the article to be considsered for publication I will make another post on this topic.
Well, if you already have a legitimate genetic rebuttal to Chang Sun et al. in place and ready for publication, why not just post it here right away. Why the stall? For instance, Brace and Cruciani filled us in on their recent works before actually publishing them.
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mystery Solver: I take it that you've performed DNA sequencing on mtDNA, or you know someone else who has done so, to dispute Chang Sun et al.?
...which would then require Winters to do what Chang Sun could not: reconstruct M1 from and Indian Haplogroup.
quote:Originally posted by Mystery Solver: I take it that you've performed DNA sequencing on mtDNA, or you know someone else who has done so, to dispute Chang Sun et al.?
...which would then require Winters to do what Chang Sun could not: reconstruct M1 from and Indian Haplogroup.
posted
Parallel evolution is usually explained by the mutational landscape model (MLM), allelic fitness, and extreme value theory (EVT), which is a branch of statistics used to explain extreme or rare events. In traditional data analysis extremes are either ignored or considered as outliners.
The MLM makes it clear that beneficial mutations are distributed exponentially. The MLM predicts that the effects of beneficial mutations are exponentially distributed even if the mutations are random (Betancourt & Bollbank, 2006).
Theoretically alleles that improve fitness lead to increase because they are beneficial to the organism. Beneficial mutations which leads to parallel mutations are rare (Orr, 2003). In relation to beneficial mutation theory Orr (2003) established two properties 1) the distribution of beneficial fitness effects at a gene is exponential; and 2) the distribution of beneficial effects at a gene has the same mean regardless of the fitness of the present wild type allele.
We would assume that if parallel mutation accounted for the distribution of African M1 HVS-I, we would see m+1 alleles, and a relatively high fitness for these transitions because the replicate populations live in the same environment and would present similar transitions in the M haplogroup because of the number of beneficial effects of African nt 16,111, 16,129,16,249 and 16,311. It is assumed that beneficial effects of the favorable mutant within the haplogroup which will account for the absolute fitnesses of the shared allele which is advantageous for identical environments pursuant to extreme value theory.
Sun et al(2005) seuqenced around twenty-seven (27) Indian M haplogroups . Eastern African M1 nt 16,311, 16,129,16,111,16249 and 16,189 was found in only eight (8 ) of the Indian M haplogroups: M2, M2a, M4, M4’30, M35a, M37, M38 and M40.
The distribution of M1 HVS-I in the Indian haplogroups vary. We only see transition in M2 and M4’30, while M37, M38 and M40 had only one M1 nt. In relation to M4 and M35a Sun et al (2005) report 3 shared transitions.
The limited distribution of M1 transitions in Indian M haplogroups failed to evidence the exponentially in distribution that is expected when parallel mutation takes place.
If the presence of African M1 transitions in the Indian haplogroups were the result of parallel evolution, the most plausible explanation would be that polymorphism maintained in both lineages must date to the time of the most recent common ancestor (MRCA). But we must reject this hypothesis because Sun et (2005) made it clear that the Indian haplogroups lack the ancestral motifs characterized by M1.
Only 30 percent of the Indian M haplogroups present M1 transitions. The presence of Eastern African M1 mutations across the Indian M hg subclusters is not exponential. Secondly, distribution of the mean for the Eastern African M1 motiffs across and within the Indian M haplogroups in not the same.
This illustrates that the existence of M1 HVS-I in Indian M haplogroups fail to meet the properties associated with beneficial allele mutations that researchers believe account for parallel mutations (Orr, 2003, 2005).
Absence of this phenomena within the sequenced Indian M haplogroups indicate that parallel evolution can not account for the M1 mutations present in some Indian M haplogroups. Indian and African M haplogroups has similar transitions because both populations carrying these genes originated in Africa.
The linguistic, osteological, anthropological and archaeological evidence make it clear that the Dravidian speaking people are of African origin. And that the speakers of these languages entered India during the Neolithic--founded the Harappan civilization, and then migrated to South India.
.
quote:Originally posted by Mystery Solver:
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
quote:Originally posted by rasol:
Well, it's been 3 days Dr. Winters....
Isn't it time for you to start another "Dravidians were Neolithic Africans" thread, or have you finally learned your lesson?
I will be responding soon, I am just completing a study disputing Chang et al theory of parallel mutation to explain the presence of M1 material in Indian haplogroups.
I take it that you've performed DNA sequencing on mtDNA, or you know someone else who has done so, to dispute Chang Sun et al.?
quote:Clyde:
Once I send off the article to be considsered for publication I will make another post on this topic.
Well, if you already have a legitimate genetic rebuttal to Chang Sun et al. in place and ready for publication, why not just post it here right away. Why the stall? For instance, Brace and Cruciani filled us in on their recent works before actually publishing them.
Parallel evolution is usually explained by the mutational landscape model (MLM), allelic fitness, and extreme value theory (EVT), which is a branch of statistics used to explain extreme or rare events. In traditional data analysis extremes are either ignored or considered as outliners.
The MLM makes it clear that beneficial mutations are distributed exponentially. The MLM predicts that the effects of beneficial mutations are exponentially distributed even if the mutations are random (Betancourt & Bollbank, 2006).
Theoretically alleles that improve fitness lead to increase because they are beneficial to the organism. Beneficial mutations which leads to parallel mutations are rare (Orr, 2003).In relation to beneficial mutation theory Orr (2003) established two properties 1) the distribution of beneficial fitness effects at a gene is exponential; and 2) the distribution of beneficial effects at a gene has the same mean regardless of the fitness of the present wild type allele.
We would assume that if parallel mutation accounted for the distribution of African M1 HVS-I, we would see m+1 alleles, and a relatively high fitness for these transitions because the replicate populations live in the same environment and would present similar transitions in the M haplogroup because of the number of beneficial effects of African nt 16,111, 16,129,16,249 and 16,311. It is assumed that beneficial effects of the favorable mutant within the haplogroup which will account for the absolute fitnesses of the shared allele which is advantageous for identical environments pursuant to extreme value theory.
Are you suggesting that the said trasitions have been 'naturally selected' for? If so, they are under selective pressure for what, and selected by what set of conditions?
Parallel mutations on the other hand, make no specific mention of selective pressure, but rather, that the said transitions formed in different M lineages at different points in time by mere coincidence.
quote:Clyde Winters:
Sun et al(2005) seuqenced around twenty-seven (27) Indian M haplogroups . Eastern African M1 nt 16,311, 16,129,16,111,16249 and 16,189 was found in only eight (8 ) of the Indian M haplogroups: M2, M2a, M4, M4’30, M35a, M37, M38 and M40.
The distribution of M1 HVS-I in the Indian haplogroups vary. We only see transition in M2 and M4’30, while M37, M38 and M40 had only one M1 nt. In relation to M4 and M35a Sun et al (2005) report 3 shared transitions.
The highlighted violates coherent thought, given that M1 HVS-I is characteristic of only M1; it is not duplicated in any other M sub-lineage. You've been informed of this ad nauseam. When will you come to grips with this?
quote:Clyde Winters:
The limited distribution of M1 transitions in Indian M haplogroups failed to evidence the exponentially in distribution that is expected when parallel mutation takes place.
If the presence of African M1 transitions in the Indian haplogroups were the result of parallel evolution, the most plausible explanation would be that polymorphism maintained in both lineages must date to the time of the most recent common ancestor (MRCA). But we must reject this hypothesis because Sun et (2005) made it clear that the Indian haplogroups lack the ancestral motifs characterized by M1.
Only 30 percent of the Indian M haplogroups present M1 transitions. The presence of Eastern African M1 mutations across the Indian M hg subclusters is not exponential. Secondly, distribution of the mean for the Eastern African M1 motiffs across and within the Indian M haplogroups in not the same.
[b]This illustrates that the existence of M1 HVS-I in Indian M haplogroups fail to meet the properties associated with beneficial allele mutations that researchers believe account for parallel mutations (Orr, 2003, 2005).[/q]
^??
See post above. No such thing as duplication of M1 HVS-I in "any" other M haplogroup.
quote:Clyde Winters:
Absence of this phenomena within the sequenced Indian M haplogroups indicate that parallel evolution can not account for the M1 mutations present in some Indian M haplogroups. Indian and African M haplogroups has similar transitions because both populations carrying these genes originated in Africa.
The linguistic, osteological, anthropological and archaeological evidence make it clear that the Dravidian speaking people are of African origin. And that the speakers of these languages entered India during the Neolithic--founded the Harappan civilization, and then migrated to South India.
Bottom line: This post of yours makes no sense, and it goes without saying, that it doesn't advance our understanding of the status quo.
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
There is a fundamental error that makes your post irrelevant to the question posed. The mtDNA analyses that are in the literature are done on the control region precisely because it does not code for any functions and thus any mutations are NEUTRAL. So any claims about "beneficial mutations" do not apply.
See Bryan Sykes.2001. The Seven Daughter of Eve. NY:Norton p. 56.
Posts: 833 | From: Austin, TX | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged |
There is a fundamental error that makes your post irrelevant to the question posed. The mtDNA analyses that are in the literature are done on the control region precisely because it does not code for any functions and thus any mutations are NEUTRAL. So any claims about "beneficial mutations" do not apply.
See Bryan Sykes.2001. The Seven Daughter of Eve. NY:Norton p. 56.
This is another possible reason why Chang et al discussion of parallel mutations is unfounded. The theory of parallel mutations demand these mutations appear because of their benefit. The theory for parallel evolution does not support the neutral rise of parallel mutations.
posted
This is what Winters gets for making up absurd claims such as a Neolithic Yoruba-Japanese connection-- utter self humiliation ROTFLMAO
Perhaps he'll have better luck with the Mande-Chinese Shang connection. Posts: 26361 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
This is just babbling and it shows that you do not understand what you are reading.
Posts: 833 | From: Austin, TX | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Parallel evolution is the mechanism used to explain the appearence of parallel mutations.
Not quite right and here is why ->
Parallel evolution is the independant selection of a similar end state from a similar starting point.
Convergent evolution is the independant selection for a similar end state from a distinct starting point.
Divergent evolution is the independant selection of a distinct end state from a similar starting point.
Parallel mutation is the development of similar end states via random mutations that in some cases may not be coded for or subject to selection at all.
Evolution depends on selection [natural, sexual, artificial, etc], mutation replication does not, provided it is not coded for.
Now heres the next question.
Do you know the difference between coding and non coding region of the genome?
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| 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