This is underived R* that is found in West Africa, particularly in Cameroon, right?
Posts: 26361 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mystery Solver: ^Of course there are more, like; A, B, C, F & YAP, the sub-groups of which you've noted; just need to get familiar with Y chromosome chart.
quote:Originally posted by Tyrannosaurus:
R: Western Eurasians
Speaking of "R", what do you make of R*-M173?
Oops, I must have confused R with something else.
Posts: 7120 | From: Fallbrook, CA | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually R1 haplogroups are carried by both West Eurasians as well as peoples in Central Asia, north India, and parts of Southwest Asia, but it is in West Africa where there exists underived R1*.
Posts: 26361 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: Actually R1 haplogroups are carried by both West Eurasians as well as peoples in Central Asia, north India, and parts of Southwest Asia, but it is in West Africa where there exists underived R1*.
So, R originated in West Africa and entered Europe, then Asia? What, did they cross the Strait of Gibraltar or something?
Posts: 7120 | From: Fallbrook, CA | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
One of the most unclear elements of population genetics is that given that all non Africans migrated out of Africa beginning about 70 thousand years ago - exactly at what point do African lineages end and non African lineages begin?
I don't think we can say that R1 underived is African or non African...yet.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
One of the most unclear elements of population genetics is that given that all non Africans migrated out of Africa beginning about 70 thousand years ago - exactly at what point do African lineages end and non African lineages begin?
I don't think we can say that R1 underived is African or non African...yet.
So now you're a geneticist. Please cite some of your articles.
quote:Originally posted by Lord of the Nile: Ever heard of something called logical deduction???
According to gene theory a haplogroup is assumed to originate from the region where it is most prevalent.
Present state of gene science suggests that R1B* is most prevalent in West Africa. It's second most frequent expression occurs in Egypt.
Do you really need to be spoon fed to spell out the necessary implication of this fact???
Go figure it out yourself student.
The Lord
^ wow ... ???? This post does not answer anything that was asked of you and I see that your using R1B* but what about R1* ... if I'm not mistaken, I believe Rasol said and I quote:
quote:I don't think we can say that R1 underived is African or non African...yet.
Not cheer leading but your post is filled with assumptions posing as logical deductions. Please support your claim with genetic evidence.
Rasol has posted several articles which justify his position as one without A-ctric or E-ctric point of views. The research as to whether R1 underived is African or non African cannot be determined YET, but since you have the answer, can you provide genetic proof without assumption that R1 can be derived from Africa, through genetic research ...
I believe this is all he's asking you to do ... Plus I'm curious to your response ...
Peace!~
Posts: 951 | From: where rules end and freedom begins | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ Khepra writes: "Not cheer leading but your post is filled with assumptions posing as logical deductions. Please support your claim with genetic evidence."
Lord answers:
A cheerleader without qualification. I do not respond to ignorance. No thanks.
Rasol, before you begin fudging facts, just answer this question:
Where else in this world is R1* or R1B1* prevalent besides Africa???
Be honest for once. Honesty is good for the soul.
The Lord
Posts: 83 | From: Quebec, Canada | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Where else in this world is R1* or R1B1* prevalent besides Africa???
I don't know. I have never heard of R1b1*.
I have heard of R1* which is found almost exclusively in Cameroon, and then, disjunctively and rarely in Egypt and Jordan, which is why it's origin remains a mystery.
I have heard of R1b, which is divisible into R1b1,R1b2 and R1b3 and is found overwhelmingly in Europe, and splits from R1a in central Asia/Eastern Europe.
What is this R1b1* which is prevalent in Africa?
quote:Be honest for once. Honesty is good for the soul.
Agreed, please clense your soul by providing and honest answer on R1b1*.
posted
Let's not turn this into another heated argument over something so trite.
Rasol, I recall studies which show the presence of underived R1* in southern Arabia and in Egypt. Is this true, and if so does it show R to be of paleolithic African origin?
Posts: 26361 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ The difficulty of resolving earliest Upper Paleolithic L3 derived female or M168 derived male lineages is best explained by Shomarka Keita:
It might be likely that the greater percentage of haplotypes called "Eurasian" are predominately, although not solely, of indigenous African origin."
"Early hunting and gathering paleolithic populations can be modeled as having roamed between northern Africa and Eurasia, leaving asymmetrical distribution of various derivative variants over a wide region, giving the appearance of Eurasian incursion."
quote:QUOTE] I have heard of R1* which is found almost exclusively in Cameroon , and then, disjunctively and rarely in Egypt and Jordan, which is why it's origin remains a mystery.
[QUOTE]
From the horse's mouth!!!
Logical Deduction: When a haplogroup is found "almost" exclusively in a geographical location, the presumption is always that it probably originates from that location...nah???
That is why it is always recommended that one reads to understand not to rote-learn.
Bye for now
The Lord
Posts: 83 | From: Quebec, Canada | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Logical Deduction: When a haplogroup is found "almost" exclusively in a geographical location, the presumption is always that it probably originates from that location...nah???
Nah, and you know it, and that's exactly why you *failed* to answer the question.
quote:Give us the name of the geneticist who supports this pure and simple conclusion?
Let me help you with a form:
.......... [first name] .......... [last name]
^ now, supply 1st name and last name of supporting geneticist, or silence your prattle, yah?
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Logical Deduction: When a haplogroup is found "almost" exclusively in a geographical location, the presumption is always that it probably originates from that location...nah???
Nah, and you know it, and that's exactly why you *failed* to answer the question.
quote:Give us the name of the geneticist who supports this pure and simple conclusion?
^ now, supply 1st name and last name of supporting geneticist, or silence your prattle, yah?
^^ Straw man's logic!!! A dieing man's struggles.
Proper Logic: Underived R1* is found exclusively in Africa. Nowhere else in the entire globe. Consequently, it must be African in origin!!!
Posts: 83 | From: Quebec, Canada | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:QUOTE] I have heard of R1* which is found almost exclusively in Cameroon , and then, disjunctively and rarely in Egypt and Jordan, which is why it's origin remains a mystery.
[QUOTE]
From the horse's mouth!!!
Logical Deduction: When a haplogroup is found "almost" exclusively in a geographical location, the presumption is always that it probably originates from that location.
That is why it is always recommended that one reads to understand not to rote-learn.
“The Oman collection in the present study is the only population outside of Africa in which R1*-M173 has been found. Up until now, these undifferentiated lineages have been detected only in Egypt and in some Central and West African populations (Cruciani et al. 2002; present study). It is plausible that the African and Omani R1*-M173 chromosomes may be relics of an ancient back migration from Asia to Africa, which may have been a southern branch of the Upper Paleolithic westward expansion of this clade after its emergence in northern Asia ∼30 ky ago (Underhill et al. 2001b). The antiquity of the M173 backflow is implied by the total lack in sub-Saharan Africa of downstream mutations associated with the post–Last Glacial Maximum (LGM) reinhabitation of Eurasia (R1a1-M17 and R1b-M269) (Semino et al. 2000) or, later, with the Neolithic expansion (J-12f2 and G-M201) (Hammer et al. 2000; Semino et al. 2000; King and Underhill 2002; Cinniog˘ lu et al. 2004).
Egypt is the only African population that is known to harbor all three M173 subtypes (R1b-M269, R1*-M173, and R1a1-M17). This unique status is most likely due to Egypt’s strategic location and its long history of interaction with Eurasia. Oman, like Egypt, also exhibits all three M173 haplogroups. The relatively high frequency of R1a1-M17 (9%) may result from the post-LGM expansion associated with this mutation. The ex-pansion estimates of this haplogroup (11.4–3.4 ky; see table 3) support this hypothesis. The above data strongly suggest that the Levantine corridor was, by far, more important than the Horn of Africa passage in the original African dispersal of undifferentiated M173 chromosomes as well as the more recent introduction into Africa of its derivatives, since the M173 mutation is nearly absent in East, Central, and South African collections, except for a 1% frequency in both the Ethiopian (Underhill et al. 2000) and the Hutu assemblages.” - Luis et al. 2004
At least from this particular study, it would appear that R1's rarity in Africa, barring Egypt, Cameroon, and the mentioned small presence in West Africa, along with the rarity of downstream mutations, has been put forward as the case for suggesting back-flow of this group into Africa. Besides this, any other insights put forward, as to explain this group's presence in the west, and particularly, central African region. - ends -
---
^The authors here seem to focus on the relative rarity of the M173 mutation across the greater part of the continent, and counting on the availability of the same downstream mutations in the “Near East” or Egypt, which might be able to assist in hypothesizing for a relatively recent arrival from either of those places to the African interior at some point along with the undifferentiated R1*-M173 lineages in northern Cameroon, but of course downstream mutations of R1 are rare, if not absent in Cameroon, and many other parts of Africa, save for the coastal northeast African region, thereby inciting the authors to assume a prehistoric [likely in the Upper Paleolithic] arrival from the “Near East” , if back-migration were to be proposed as the factor of undifferentiated R1 lineages in the African interior.
I tend to look at another thing though, which is the frequency of ancestral M89 and M9 lineages, which are both ancestral to R1 lineages; one would have to presume that these lineages must have also arose in situ in mainland Africa, if the undifferentiated R1 lineages are presumed NOT to be the product of ‘back-migration’. It is reasonable to assume that the most ‘basal’ clades of these lineages would be present in the African continent, which would have formed the basis of the undifferentiated group located in Cameroon, and possibly Egypt. Another possibility of course, is the M89 and M9 lineages migrating back into the continent in the Paleolithic, and then giving rise to the undifferentiated R1 bunch in situ, with a small-size descendant group of the lineages then going back to “southwest Asia” and then expand, giving rise to the array of downsteam M9-derived lineages present therein, while those that remained in Africa underwent limited demographic expansion; rather, those African remnants increased in frequency as a product of [positive] genetic drift, and the sort of genetic drift [but negative this time around] which would have probably worked against the expansion of possible clearly-differentiated variants that would have branched from the pre-existing African ones, thereby limiting 'diversity'. Simply put, positive genetic drift randomness [outside any other designated environmental factors] promotes the bumping up [and/or maintaining] of the frequeny of undifferentiated R1 lineages, while negative genetic drift randomness limits/discourages the 'would-be' diversity emanating from those lineages by cutting short the lifespan of newer and clearly differentiated variants.
The third possibility, which once again goes back to what the authors above had outlined, looks at the relative lack of diversity of R1 lineage in the African continent in comparison to that available outside of the continent and rarity of undifferentiated R1 lineage distribution itself across the African continent save for the few places where notable concentration has already been noted, whereby some advocates [as our authors above] are inclined to assume that at least a few, if not a limited number of clearly delineated downstream mutations would have survived if the undifferentiated R1 African lineages were a largely in situ development as opposed to possible back-migration. This latter rationale doesn’t necessarily have to be the case for the undifferentiated lineages to have developed in situ, imo, but nonetheless another angle from which to look at the issue.
To date, highest frequencies of undifferentiated R1*-M173 lineages remain in northern Cameroon; lower frequencies have been detected in Egypt - as another African country, while "outside" of Africa [but really an extension], the only other two places where undifferentiated R1*-M173 lineages have been detected, again in much lower frequencies than those in Cameroon, are Jordan and Oman.
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
Let's not turn this into another heated argument over something so trite.
Printer-friendly view of this topic