quote:Originally posted by xyyman: So....were North Africans occupying Africa before SSA? AMRTU? Coalescence-man? Anyone?
Now. As I said before. I have no idea what a North African looks like. But I posted some pictures of indigenous North Africans ie Berbers/Amazigh which are different to the Turkish power elite.
Perhaps the answer to question that starts here:
The Southern (upper) part of Egypt has been inhabited for a long time now.
quote: Y-DNA haplogroup descriptions are provided on each haplogroup page. The combined haplogroups are the only ones whose description appears on this page.
The root of the Y haplogroup tree is the so-called "Y-Chromosome Adam," the most recent patrineal ancestor of all people living today, who is believed to have lived 60,000 to 90,000 years ago. He was not the only man living at that time, he simply was the only man with an unbroken male line of descent to the present day. The A haplogroup is thought to have been defined about 60,000 years bp. The BT haplogroup split from the root of the Y haplogroup tree 55,000 years before present (bp), probably in North East Africa. The CF(xDE) haplogroup was the common ancestor of all people who migrated outside of Africa until recent times. The defining mutation occurred 31-55,000 years bp in North East Africa and is still most common in Africa today in Ethiopia and Sudan. The DE haplogroup appeared approximately 50,000 years bp in North East Africa and subsequently split into haplogroup E that spread to Europe and Africa and haplogroup D that rapidly spread along the coastline of India and Asia to North Asia.
quote: A parsimonious phylogenetic tree for 20 major haplogroups (A-T) representing worldwide Y chromosomal variation was proposed in 2008 [2]. In the present work, we focused on the structure of haplogroup E1b1. Within haplogroup E, which represents the majority of the Y chromosomes found in Africa, E1b1 is the haplogroup which has the greatest geographic distribution. Three lineages, E1b1a (E-M2), E1b1b (E-M215) and E1b1c (E-M329) were included in the genealogy presented by Karafet et al. [2]. To gain a better understanding of the structure of this complicated haplogroup, we performed a high resolution analysis by sequencing, on the average, 45.4 kb in each of 13 E1b1 Y chromosomes (Table S1). Incorporating the information obtained from this analysis into the previously reported tree produced an extensively revised phylogeny for the haplogroup E1b1 resulting in 52 distinct haplogroups.
[...]
Firstly, haplogroup E-M2 (former E1b1a) and haplogroup E-M329 (former E1b1c) are now united by the mutations V38 and V100, reducing the number of E1b1 basal branches to two. The new topology of the tree has important implications concerning the origin of haplogroup E1b1. Secondly, within E1b1b1 (E-M35), two haplogroups (E-V68 and E-V257) show similar phylogenetic and geographic structure, pointing to a genetic bridge between southern European and northern African Y chromosomes. Thirdly, most of the E1b1b1* (E-M35*) paragroup chromosomes are now marked by defining mutations, thus increasing the discriminative power of the haplogroup for use in human evolution and forensics.
[...]
Haplogroup E1b1 which is characterized by a high degree of internal diversity is the most represented Y chromosome haplogroup in Africa. Here we report on the characterization of 12 mutations within this haplogroup, eleven of which were discovered in the course of a resequencing and genotyping project performed in our laboratory. There are several changes compared to the most recently published Y chromosome tree [2]. Haplogroup E1b1 now contains two basal branches, E-V38 (E1b1a) and E-M215 (E1b1b), with V38/V100 joining the two previously separated lineages E-M2 (former E1b1a) and E-M329 (former E1b1c). Each of these two lineages has a peculiar geographic distribution. E-M2 is the most common haplogroup in sub-Saharan Africa, with frequency peaks in western (about 80%) and central Africa (about 60%). The same haplogroup is also present in North Africa, although at a lower frequency (usually below 10%) [9]–[11]. Haplogroup E-M329, on the other hand, was observed almost exclusively in eastern Africa [10], [12 and R.S. unpublished data], where E-M2 is virtually absent. The second basal branch of E1b1, E-M215, has a broad geographic distribution from southern Europe to northern and eastern Africa where it has been proposed to have originated [8]. The new topology here reported has important implications as to the origins of the haplogroup E1b1. Using the principle of the phylogeographic parsimony, the resolution of the E1b1b trifurcation in favor of a common ancestor of E-M2 and E-M329 strongly supports the hypothesis that haplogroup E1b1 originated in eastern Africa, as previously suggested [10], and that chromosomes E-M2, so frequently observed in sub-Saharan Africa, trace their descent to a common ancestor present in eastern Africa.
posted
@Beyoku I've already debunked all your crazy hamitic crap you and Swenet are spurting out in this forum in my post above, reposted below here. We know that. You either post counter-arguments for each of my points or you implicitly admit I'm right, which you and Swenet already did. I'm just happy to have thoroughly debunked you 2 undercover racists for everyone to see:
@ES readers
In his quest to prove the racist hamitic race myth, Swenet (and Beyoku) is trying to tell us above that East Africans/Horn Africans are closer to Eurasian populations carrying the MtDNA haplogroups M and N than West African populations even at the moment of the OOA migrations. So before any back migrations of M and N MtDNA carriers in the last 3000 years (ethio-semitic speakers). He's wrong on so many level that I don't know where to start. So basically, for example he tries to say that unadmixed indigenous Somali, are closer genetically to Eurasian than West Africans.
For that he tries to use the fact that the Eurasian mtDNA M and N haplogroups are descendants of the basal L3 haplogroups. But this is wrong on so many levels.
First, the L3 haplogroups is common to almost all African populations, including East and West Africans. For example, using the numbers from the study called Complex Genetic History of East African Human Populations by Hirbo (2011) . We can see that both East and West Africans carry the African L3 haplogroups (excluding Eurasian M, N of course). For example, Yoruba got 45.45% of L3, while Somali 44.68% of L3.
Second, OOA migrants, future non-Africans, current Eurasian M and N carriers are not descendant of any East African L3 haplogroups (like L3i, L3j, L3k, etc). They are descendant of the BASAL L3 mtDNA haplogroup, which is common to almost all African populations including East and West Africans.
Third, as mentioned above, there's a 40-60kya gaps between East African populations and the back migration of Eurasian populations carrying M and N haplogroups into Eastern Africa. More than enough time for each of those people to become their own people with their own genetic profile, physiology and history.
Fourth, East Africans populations are not only composed of the haploroup L3 but also L0, L1, L2, etc mtDNA haplogroups. People carrying those haplogroups admixed with each others for several years after the OOA migrations of the M and N hg carriers. Around 62 000 years!!!
Fifth, last but not the least. Those 4 points above are more than enough to make my point but Swenet will come back in his desperate attempt to prove the hamitic race myth to say that East and West Africans don't have the same L3 haplogroups. For example, and this part is true, Horn Africans carry the mtDNA haplogroups L3i, L3x, but not West Africans, while West Africans carry the L3e haplogroups but not Horn Africans (Note: at the same time, east and west Africans share many haplogroups such as L2a, L3f, L3d, etc as E-P2 carriers). So in a stupid manner, he will try to say that this make somehow Horn Africans not so much related to other Africans like West Africans than to the basal L3 haplogroups and thus, in a ridiculous logic, Eurasians.
But this is false too!
Yes, Horn Africans are carry by L3i, L3x haplogroups while West Africans carry the L3e haplogroups. But the L3i, L3x and L3e haplogroups are united by the L3eikx haplogroups. One of the common grandmother of East and West Africans!!
The same thing can be said about the common East and West African L3bf grandmother and L3cd grandmother! (Note: L3a and L3h are absent in many Horn African populations like Somali, Afar, Beja, etc, so they can't be used to prove the hamitic race myth).
Visual aid for Beyoku:
^^^This last point, the fifth, will leave Swenet sulking for weeks. All those points hurt his retarded racist ass. They also hurt Beyoku.
So contrary to what Swenet and Beyoku try to promote with their racist hamitic race myth. OOA/Eurasian populations are not particularly closer to modern East African populations like Horn Africans, beside through the back migrations of non-African populations into the Eastern African region starting around 3000 years ago by future ethiosemitic speakers carrying the mtDNA M and N haplogroups, compared to most other African populations like West Africans.
Posts: 2981 | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged |
quote:Specifically, both of these ancient individuals (Edit:Ramses III and the screaming mummy) inherited the alleles D21S11=35 and CSFIPO=7, which are found throughout Sub-Saharan Africa but are comparatively rare or absent in other regions of the world . These African related alleles are different from the African related alleles identified for the previously studied Amarna period mummies (D18S51=19 and D21S11=34).11 This provides independent evidence for African autosomal ancestry in two different pharaonic families of New Kingdom Egypt
The results of the autosomal analyses do indicate to me that the ancient Egyptians sampled were biologically indigenous Africans. However, they may not necessarily negate the existence of the Northeast African substructure as described by Swenet et al. Even if Northeast Africans have a fraternal relationship to the ancestors of Eurasians, Eurasians could have still picked up some genetic components that distinguish them from the former.
Take the putative Neanderthal-like ancestry in Eurasians for instance. If this admixture affected Eurasians who left Africa but never made it to the Northeast African groups who evolved into ancient Egypto-Nubians, maybe said Egypto-Nubians might appear more "equatorial/southern African" in DNA Tribes' analyses than they actually are due to the relative absence of a Eurasian Neanderthal component.
Just a thought...
^^^You are welcome to post but it would be nice if you read the rest of the thread instead of just jumping in without reading the rest.
I already discussed all of this in a previous post in this thread . Basically there was indeed some substructure (obviously) among African population during the OOA migrations of non-Africans but it's between the CT haplogroup and the A and B haplogroups. So only 3 basal grandfathers left uniparental lineage descendants on earth, the A grandfather, the B grandfather and the CT grandfather. This is the substructure that was actually present as CT haplogroup carriers were closer to future non-Africans than A or B carriers. But then of course A and B haplogroup carriers continued to eventually interact, intermarry and admix with E haplogroup carriers in Africa (East Africa period, Green Sahara period, Bantu migration, various population movements and admixtures throughout history, etc). Between the time non-Africans left Africa some 65kya and their back migrations into Africa they had more than enough time to become their own people (with their own genetic make up, history, general physiological appearences, etc). Combined with the founder/bottleneck effect, that's why there's a relatively large genetic distance between African populations and non-African populations. Nowadays population living in African borderlines states have non-African gene flow because of back to Africa migrations (much later than the OOA migrations). The same way some Europeans are of African origin because of "recent" immigration of Africans in Europe.
So there was an A, B and CT substructure in Africa before the OOA migrations. But CT is an haplogroup common to most African populations including east and west Africans as most of them are E carriers. So OOA migrants were closer to future E haplogroup carriers than A and B haplogroup carriers. Not just Northeast Africans like Swenet and you are trying to claim but also West, Central and Southern Africans. The CT and its E descendant haplogroups are common all across Africa. Then between the time non-Africans left Africa some 65kya and their back migration into Africa they had more than enough time to become their own people (with their own genetic make up, history, general physiological appearances, cultures, etc).
Nowadays populations living in African borderlines states like in East Africa have significant non-African gene flows because of the back to Africa migrations of F-descendant carriers (much later than the OOA migrations).
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: This paper proposes a Central, not Eastern African origin for African haplogroups. .
For the record, the origin of MtDNA haplogroups has no importance in this context since between the moment of their origin and the dispersal of E-P2 Y-DNA carriers across Africa, they had more than enough time to migrate to Eastern Africa and be part of the population in which was living the common pan-African E-P2 grandfather.
We know for sure those intra-African migrations toward East Africa happened because populations in East Africa like Somali possess those mtDNA haplogroups (like L0, L1, L2a, or any haplogroups without an origin in Eastern Africa) despite those haplogroups having their ancient origin possibly elsewhere in Africa like in Central Africa.
As people know on this site, haplogroup E-P2 (as well as basal E), the most widespread haplogroup among African populations, has its origin in (North-)Eastern Africa (at a time period post-dating the OOA migrations), where various mtDNA haplogroup carriers were probably present considering their current distribution all over Africa. E-P2 is the only Y-DNA haplogroups which can explain the pan-African distribution of its MtDNA haplogroups counterparts (like L2a, L3f, L3d, etc) because it's the only Y-DNA haplogroup with a widespread pan-African distribution.
Posts: 2981 | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged |
posted
Speculations and supposition = blowing smoke AMRTU. You had a good thing going. Don’t screw it up. State the facts. Draw a clear line between fact and fiction eh…. smoke. Quote: 1. they had more than enough time to migrate to Eastern Africa 2. We know for sure those intra-African migrations toward East Africa happened 3. any haplogroups without an origin in Eastern Africa) 4. where various mtDNA haplogroup carriers were probably present eg. Facts you noted 1. L3 base is wide spread throughout Africa. 2. L3 sub-clades L3abc is found in West Africa 3. L3 sub-clades like L3efg is found in East Africa 4. L3 sub-clades like L3-M, L3N is found mostly outside Africa but a few is found in within Africa including West Africa eg M1. M1 is the oldest clade of the M lineage?
Now tell us what this all mean……
Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ Its smoke and mirrors that he just made up. A **** ton of gobbledygook that means nothing. I asked a VERY simple question: Why is my wife 85% "European"?
I followed another very simple question....Which human populations is the most genetically distinct from SSA. That second question can be answered in one word. ARTT declined comment. There is not need to go on for pages of rebuttals....everyone on the forum sees what kind of a chump you are.
Posts: 2463 | From: New Jersey USA | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
It's very important for the whites and the Amazigh activist that current ideology re Black Africa and North Africa be extended as far back in time as is possible. Oh, and it's important for ARtU too!
quote:Specifically, both of these ancient individuals (Edit:Ramses III and the screaming mummy) inherited the alleles D21S11=35 and CSFIPO=7, which are found throughout Sub-Saharan Africa but are comparatively rare or absent in other regions of the world . These African related alleles are different from the African related alleles identified for the previously studied Amarna period mummies (D18S51=19 and D21S11=34).11 This provides independent evidence for African autosomal ancestry in two different pharaonic families of New Kingdom Egypt
The results of the autosomal analyses do indicate to me that the ancient Egyptians sampled were biologically indigenous Africans. However, they may not necessarily negate the existence of the Northeast African substructure as described by Swenet et al. Even if Northeast Africans have a fraternal relationship to the ancestors of Eurasians, Eurasians could have still picked up some genetic components that distinguish them from the former.
Take the putative Neanderthal-like ancestry in Eurasians for instance. If this admixture affected Eurasians who left Africa but never made it to the Northeast African groups who evolved into ancient Egypto-Nubians, maybe said Egypto-Nubians might appear more "equatorial/southern African" in DNA Tribes' analyses than they actually are due to the relative absence of a Eurasian Neanderthal component.
Just a thought...
^^^You are welcome to post but it would be nice if you read the rest of the thread instead of just jumping in without reading the rest.
I already discussed all of this in a previous post in this thread . Basically there was indeed some substructure (obviously) among African population during the OOA migrations of non-Africans but it's between the CT haplogroup and the A and B haplogroups. So only 3 basal grandfathers left uniparental lineage descendants on earth, the A grandfather, the B grandfather and the CT grandfather. This is the substructure that was actually present as CT haplogroup carriers were closer to future non-Africans than A or B carriers. But then of course A and B haplogroup carriers continued to eventually interact, intermarry and admix with E haplogroup carriers in Africa (East Africa period, Green Sahara period, Bantu migration, various population movements and admixtures throughout history, etc). Between the time non-Africans left Africa some 65kya and their back migrations into Africa they had more than enough time to become their own people (with their own genetic make up, history, general physiological appearences, etc). Combined with the founder/bottleneck effect, that's why there's a relatively large genetic distance between African populations and non-African populations. Nowadays population living in African borderlines states have non-African gene flow because of back to Africa migrations (much later than the OOA migrations). The same way some Europeans are of African origin because of "recent" immigration of Africans in Europe.
So there was an A, B and CT substructure in Africa before the OOA migrations. But CT is an haplogroup common to most African populations including east and west Africans as most of them are E carriers. So OOA migrants were closer to future E haplogroup carriers than A and B haplogroup carriers. Not just Northeast Africans like Swenet and you are trying to claim but also West, Central and Southern Africans. The CT and its E descendant haplogroups are common all across Africa. Then between the time non-Africans left Africa some 65kya and their back migration into Africa they had more than enough time to become their own people (with their own genetic make up, history, general physiological appearances, cultures, etc).
Nowadays populations living in African borderlines states like in East Africa have significant non-African gene flows because of the back to Africa migrations of F-descendant carriers (much later than the OOA migrations).
quote: Y-DNA haplogroup F is the parent of all Y-DNA haplogroups G through T and contains more than 90% of the world’s population. Haplogroup F was in the original migration out of Africa, or else it was founded soon afterward, because F and its sub-haplogroups are primarily found outside, with very few inside, sub-Saharan Africa. The founder of F could have lived between 60,000 and 80,000 years ago, depending on the time of the out-of-Africa migration.
The major sub-groups of Haplogroup F are Haplogroups G, H, [IJ], and K, which are discussed elsewhere at this site. The minor sub-groups, F*, F1, and F2 have not been well studied, but apparently occur only infrequently and primarily in the Indian subcontinent. F* has been observed in two individuals in Portugal, possibly representing a remnant of 15th and 16th century contact of Portugal with India.
This branching pattern, along with the geographical distribution of the major clades A, B, and CT, has been interpreted as supporting an African origin for anatomically modern humans,10 with Khoisan from south Africa and Ethiopians from east Africa sharing the deepest lineages of the phylogeny.15 and 16
[...]
The deepest branching separates A1b from a monophyletic clade whose members (A1a, A2, A3, B, C, and R) all share seven mutually reinforcing derived mutations (five transitions and two transversions, all at non-CpG sites).
[...]
How does the present MSY tree compare with the backbone of the recently published “reference” MSY phylogeny?13 The phylogenetic relationships we observed among chromosomes belonging to haplogroups B, C, and R are reminiscent of those reported in the tree by Karafet et al.13 These chromosomes belong to a clade (haplogroup BT) in which chromosomes C and R share a common ancestor (Figure 2).
quote:Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate: @Beyoku I've already debunked all your crazy hamitic crap you and Swenet are spurting out in this forum in my post above, reposted below here. We know that. You either post counter-arguments for each of my points or you implicitly admit I'm right, which you and Swenet already did. I'm just happy to have thoroughly debunked you 2 undercover racists for everyone to see:
@ES readers
In his quest to prove the racist hamitic race myth, Swenet (and Beyoku) is trying to tell us above that East Africans/Horn Africans are closer to Eurasian populations carrying the MtDNA haplogroups M and N than West African populations even at the moment of the OOA migrations. So before any back migrations of M and N MtDNA carriers in the last 3000 years (ethio-semitic speakers). He's wrong on so many level that I don't know where to start. So basically, for example he tries to say that unadmixed indigenous Somali, are closer genetically to Eurasian than West Africans.
For that he tries to use the fact that the Eurasian mtDNA M and N haplogroups are descendants of the basal L3 haplogroups. But this is wrong on so many levels.
First, the L3 haplogroups is common to almost all African populations, including East and West Africans. For example, using the numbers from the study called Complex Genetic History of East African Human Populations by Hirbo (2011) . We can see that both East and West Africans carry the African L3 haplogroups (excluding Eurasian M, N of course). For example, Yoruba got 45.45% of L3, while Somali 44.68% of L3.
Second, OOA migrants, future non-Africans, current Eurasian M and N carriers are not descendant of any East African L3 haplogroups (like L3i, L3j, L3k, etc). They are descendant of the BASAL L3 mtDNA haplogroup, which is common to almost all African populations including East and West Africans.
Third, as mentioned above, there's a 40-60kya gaps between East African populations and the back migration of Eurasian populations carrying M and N haplogroups into Eastern Africa. More than enough time for each of those people to become their own people with their own genetic profile, physiology and history.
Fourth, East Africans populations are not only composed of the haploroup L3 but also L0, L1, L2, etc mtDNA haplogroups. People carrying those haplogroups admixed with each others for several years after the OOA migrations of the M and N hg carriers. Around 62 000 years!!!
Fifth, last but not the least. Those 4 points above are more than enough to make my point but Swenet will come back in his desperate attempt to prove the hamitic race myth to say that East and West Africans don't have the same L3 haplogroups. For example, and this part is true, Horn Africans carry the mtDNA haplogroups L3i, L3x, but not West Africans, while West Africans carry the L3e haplogroups but not Horn Africans (Note: at the same time, east and west Africans share many haplogroups such as L2a, L3f, L3d, etc as E-P2 carriers). So in a stupid manner, he will try to say that this make somehow Horn Africans not so much related to other Africans like West Africans than to the basal L3 haplogroups and thus, in a ridiculous logic, Eurasians.
But this is false too!
Yes, Horn Africans are carry by L3i, L3x haplogroups while West Africans carry the L3e haplogroups. But the L3i, L3x and L3e haplogroups are united by the L3eikx haplogroups. One of the common grandmother of East and West Africans!!
The same thing can be said about the common East and West African L3bf grandmother and L3cd grandmother! (Note: L3a and L3h are absent in many Horn African populations like Somali, Afar, Beja, etc, so they can't be used to prove the hamitic race myth).
Visual aid for Beyoku:
^^^This last point, the fifth, will leave Swenet sulking for weeks. All those points hurt his retarded racist ass. They also hurt Beyoku.
So contrary to what Swenet and Beyoku try to promote with their racist hamitic race myth. OOA/Eurasian populations are not particularly closer to modern East African populations like Horn Africans, beside through the back migrations of non-African populations into the Eastern African region starting around 3000 years ago by future ethiosemitic speakers carrying the mtDNA M and N haplogroups, compared to most other African populations like West Africans.
Can you explain why M1 doesn't follow the same pattern?
quote: "No southwest Asian specific clades for M1 or U6 were discovered. U6 and M1 frequencies in North Africa, the Middle East and Europe DO NOT FOLLOW similar patterns, and their sub-clade divisions do not appear to be compatible with their shared history reaching back to the Early Upper Palaeolithic."
--Erwan Pennarun, Toomas Kivisild et al.
Divorcing the Late Upper Palaeolithic demographic histories of mtDNA haplogroups M1 and U6 in Africa
quote:An important haplotype in Africa is Af-24. AF-24 is delineated by a DdeI site at 10394 and AluI site of np 10397. This haplotype is a branch of the African subhaplogroup LOd. The TMRCA for LOd is 106kya
quote:Originally posted by Troll Patrol # Ish Gebor: Can you explain why M1 doesn't follow the same pattern?
quote: "No southwest Asian specific clades for M1 or U6 were discovered. U6 and M1 frequencies in North Africa, the Middle East and Europe DO NOT FOLLOW similar patterns, and their sub-clade divisions do not appear to be compatible with their shared history reaching back to the Early Upper Palaeolithic."
--Erwan Pennarun, Toomas Kivisild et al.
Divorcing the Late Upper Palaeolithic demographic histories of mtDNA haplogroups M1 and U6 in Africa
quote:An important haplotype in Africa is Af-24. AF-24 is delineated by a DdeI site at 10394 and AluI site of np 10397. This haplotype is a branch of the African subhaplogroup LOd. The TMRCA for LOd is 106kya
posted
I agree with MOST of what AMRTU posted. Nice analysis but I would also put L3-M and L3-N “within” Africa for the reason TP cited. M1, which is the oldest clade within hg-M(?), is also wide spread in Africa albeit along the Sahel belt. Which means it is ubiquitous as the L3 subclades within Africa. What some of you are getting confused with is the designation/label of M and N. Think of M and N as L3xyz. M and N is just one of the many sub-clades of L3. I have to thank AMRTU for crystalizing that thought for me. It is all falling into place. We spent a lot of time discussing hg-N and sub-clades like R and HV in the past.
Anyone has a phyylotree of hg-M with age and branching with geographic frequency.?
Quote by TP. Can you explain why M1 doesn't follow the same pattern? quote:
"No southwest Asian specific clades for M1 or U6 were discovered. U6 and M1 frequencies in North Africa, the Middle East and Europe DO NOT FOLLOW similar patterns, and their sub-clade divisions do not appear to be compatible with their shared history reaching back to the Early Upper Palaeolithic."
--Erwan Pennarun, Toomas Kivisild et al.
Divorcing the Late Upper Palaeolithic demographic histories of mtDNA haplogroups M1 and U6 in Africa quote:
An important haplotype in Africa is Af-24. AF-24 is delineated by a DdeI site at 10394 and AluI site of np 10397. This haplotype is a branch of the African subhaplogroup LOd. The TMRCA for LOd is 106kya
I see Dr Winters just broached the same question by a few minutes. Great mind think alike.
But keep up the good work AMRTU
Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: Human Mitochondrial DNA and the Evolution of Homo sapiens By Hans-Jürgen Bandelt, Martin Richards, Vincent Macaulay
LOL. This is bs. First, of all M1 is found in India, and throughout Africa. Secondly, the Dravidians came from Africa and belonged to the C-Group, so the whole discussion of hg M, in this book lacks any foundation.
In your chart you make it appear that haplogroup M in Africa has to be a product of a back migration. But M1 originated in Africa.
It doesn't matter to me because M1 is present in "only" about 15% of Somali, so combined with other MtDNA and Y-DNA proportion which are mostly African, it's not enough to form the basis of any hamitic race. Especially if you remove recent Eurasian gene flow towards Eastern Africa.
But to answer your question, the post by lioness above clued to it, since M and N are non-African haplogroups any descendant of the M and N haplogroups are non-African, including M1. I still leave the door open to analyse the specific M1 haplogroup more deeply to determine the event(s) leading to its introduction in Africa (what time, within an African population or not, etc). I say only 15% because, I'm personally ready to consider that even Ancient Egyptians at their formative years had some Eurasian admixture in a minimal manner, since neighboring populations always interact with one another (more so in modern time though, due to the ease of transportation). In a similar way, Ancient Greeks may have some West Asian/African admixture but still commonly considered to be Europeans (aka mostly Europeans). Biologically, genetically, but also culturally, historically, archaeologically.
quote: You are no different from the people you criticize. Both of you accept Eurocentric lies about the origination of haplogroups L3(M,N) and R in Eurasia.
Since haplogroup M and N, as well as Y-DNA R, are rare among African populations. If in an absurd manner Ancient Egyptians were **only** composed of those haplogroups, it would mean they would be genetically completely different from most modern African populations like Yoruba, African-Americans, Somali, Afar, Dinka, Kongo, Wolof, Zulu, etc and be closer to European or West Asian populations. So it would give credence to the hamitic/dynastic race mythology. Of course current aDNA analysis of Ancient Egyptian mummies as well as other archaeological/historical data points to the contrary (Ramses III being E1b1a, JAMA/BMJ study, DNA Tribes - Great Lakes, Southern, West Africa). Ancient Egyptians are black Africans (aka mostly black Africans) in a similar way Ancient Greeks or Romans were mostly Europeans.
To be clear, I think Ancient Egyptians were composed of mostly Y-DNA A, B and E haplogroups, and MtDNA L haplogroups. Autosomally they would cluster closer to other modern African populations than modern Eurasian populations as we can see from the DNA Tribes results. The amount of non-African haplogroups, especially after the formative years, (F descendant, M-N descendants) should there but be minimal. We know there was the Hyksos (Aamu) invasion of West Asian as well as other peaceful or not foreign migration in Ancient Egypt throughout its history, and much more so afterward.
quote: Amun-Ra you need to answer this question.
Just did, hope you like it.
Posts: 2981 | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged |
In your chart you make it appear that haplogroup M in Africa has to be a product of a back migration. But M1 originated in Africa.
It doesn't matter to me because M1 is present in "only" about 15% of Somali, so combined with other MtDNA and Y-DNA proportion which are mostly African, it's not enough to form the basis of any hamitic race. Especially if you remove recent Eurasian gene flow towards Eastern Africa.
But to answer your question, the post by lioness above clued to it, since M and N are non-African haplogroups any descendant of the M and N haplogroups are non-African, including M1. I still leave the door open to analyse the specific M1 haplogroup more deeply to determine the event(s) leading to its introduction in Africa (what time, within an African population or not, etc). I say only 15% because, I'm personally ready to consider that even Ancient Egyptians at their formative years had some Eurasian admixture in a minimal manner, since neighboring populations always interact with one another (more so in modern time though, due to the ease of transportation). In a similar way, Ancient Greeks may have some West Asian/African admixture but still commonly considered to be Europeans (aka mostly Europeans). Biologically, genetically, but also culturally, historically, archaeologically.
quote: You are no different from the people you criticize. Both of you accept Eurocentric lies about the origination of haplogroups L3(M,N) and R in Eurasia.
Since haplogroup M and N, as well as Y-DNA R, are rare among African populations. If in an absurd manner Ancient Egyptians were **only** composed of those haplogroups, it would mean they would be genetically completely different from most modern African populations like Yoruba, African-Americans, Somali, Afar, Dinka, Kongo, Wolof, Zulu, etc and be closer to European or West Asian populations. So it would give credence to the hamitic/dynastic race mythology. Of course current aDNA analysis of Ancient Egyptian mummies as well as other archaeological/historical data points to the contrary (Ramses III being E1b1a, JAMA/BMJ study, DNA Tribes - Great Lakes, Southern, West Africa). Ancient Egyptians are black Africans (aka mostly black Africans) in a similar way Ancient Greeks or Romans were mostly Europeans.
To be clear, I think Ancient Egyptians were composed of mostly Y-DNA E, A and B haplogroups, and MtDNA L haplogroups. Autosomally they would cluster closer to other modern African populations than modern Eurasian populations as we can see from the DNA Tribes results. The amount of non-African haplogroups, especially after the formative years, (F descendant, M-N descendants) should there but be minimal. We know there was the Hyksos (Aamu) invasion of West Asian as well as other peaceful or not foreign migration in Ancient Egypt throughout its history, and much more so afterward.
quote: Amun-Ra you need to answer this question.
Just did, hope you like it.
Thanks. I don't recognize the Hyksos invasion as a non-African migration because the Hyksos, like many other West Asians were Kushites.
I believe the Kushites carried hg M,H and R. The Ethiopians probably introduced the J haplogroup into Eurasian when they expanded as the Naga people into Arabia,South Asia and Southeast Asia.
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: Human Mitochondrial DNA and the Evolution of Homo sapiens By Hans-Jürgen Bandelt, Martin Richards, Vincent Macaulay
These are not of Eurasian origin, they expanded into Eurasia. Thus became predominant in Eurasia. This they claim it as Eurasian in origin.
quote:An important haplotype in Africa is Af-24. AF-24 is delineated by a DdeI site at 10394 and AluI site of np 10397. This haplotype is a branch of the African subhaplogroup LOd. The TMRCA for LOd is 106kya
In your chart you make it appear that haplogroup M in Africa has to be a product of a back migration. But M1 originated in Africa.
It doesn't matter to me because M1 is present in "only" about 15% of Somali, so combined with other MtDNA and Y-DNA proportion which are mostly African, it's not enough to form the basis of any hamitic race. Especially if you remove recent Eurasian gene flow towards Eastern Africa.
But to answer your question, the post by lioness above clued to it, since M and N are non-African haplogroups any descendant of the M and N haplogroups are non-African, including M1. I still leave the door open to analyse the specific M1 haplogroup more deeply to determine the event(s) leading to its introduction in Africa (what time, within an African population or not, etc). I say only 15% because, I'm personally ready to consider that even Ancient Egyptians at their formative years had some Eurasian admixture in a minimal manner, since neighboring populations always interact with one another (more so in modern time though, due to the ease of transportation). In a similar way, Ancient Greeks may have some West Asian/African admixture but still commonly considered to be Europeans (aka mostly Europeans). Biologically, genetically, but also culturally, historically, archaeologically.
quote: You are no different from the people you criticize. Both of you accept Eurocentric lies about the origination of haplogroups L3(M,N) and R in Eurasia.
Since haplogroup M and N, as well as Y-DNA R, are rare among African populations. If in an absurd manner Ancient Egyptians were **only** composed of those haplogroups, it would mean they would be genetically completely different from most modern African populations like Yoruba, African-Americans, Somali, Afar, Dinka, Kongo, Wolof, Zulu, etc and be closer to European or West Asian populations. So it would give credence to the hamitic/dynastic race mythology. Of course current aDNA analysis of Ancient Egyptian mummies as well as other archaeological/historical data points to the contrary (Ramses III being E1b1a, JAMA/BMJ study, DNA Tribes - Great Lakes, Southern, West Africa). Ancient Egyptians are black Africans (aka mostly black Africans) in a similar way Ancient Greeks or Romans were mostly Europeans.
To be clear, I think Ancient Egyptians were composed of mostly Y-DNA A, B and E haplogroups, and MtDNA L haplogroups. Autosomally they would cluster closer to other modern African populations than modern Eurasian populations as we can see from the DNA Tribes results. The amount of non-African haplogroups, especially after the formative years, (F descendant, M-N descendants) should there but be minimal. We know there was the Hyksos (Aamu) invasion of West Asian as well as other peaceful or not foreign migration in Ancient Egypt throughout its history, and much more so afterward.
quote: Amun-Ra you need to answer this question.
Just did, hope you like it.
I asked why M1 doesn't follow the same pattern. Yet, you dance around this question.
quote: "No southwest Asian specific clades for M1 or U6 were discovered. U6 and M1 frequencies in North Africa, the Middle East and Europe DO NOT FOLLOW similar patterns, and their sub-clade divisions do not appear to be compatible with their shared history reaching back to the Early Upper Palaeolithic."
--Erwan Pennarun, Toomas Kivisild et al.
How come chromosomes C and R share a common ancestor in BT? In large parts of west Africa and this haplotype is being carried. Don't be shocked if you carry this as well.
quote:
The deepest branching separates A1b from a monophyletic clade whose members (A1a, A2, A3, B, C, and R) all share seven mutually reinforcing derived mutations (five transitions and two transversions, all at non-CpG sites).
These chromosomes belong to a clade (haplogroup BT) in which chromosomes C and R share a common ancestor (Figure 2).
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: I agree with MOST of what AMRTU posted. Nice analysis but I would also put L3-M and L3-N “within” Africa for the reason TP cited. M1, which is the oldest clade within hg-M(?), is also wide spread in Africa albeit along the Sahel belt. Which means it is ubiquitous as the L3 subclades within Africa. What some of you are getting confused with is the designation/label of M and N. Think of M and N as L3xyz. M and N is just one of the many sub-clades of L3. I have to thank AMRTU for crystalizing that thought for me. It is all falling into place. We spent a lot of time discussing hg-N and sub-clades like R and HV in the past.
Anyone has a phyylotree of hg-M with age and branching with geographic frequency.?
Quote by TP. Can you explain why M1 doesn't follow the same pattern? quote:
"No southwest Asian specific clades for M1 or U6 were discovered. U6 and M1 frequencies in North Africa, the Middle East and Europe DO NOT FOLLOW similar patterns, and their sub-clade divisions do not appear to be compatible with their shared history reaching back to the Early Upper Palaeolithic."
--Erwan Pennarun, Toomas Kivisild et al.
Divorcing the Late Upper Palaeolithic demographic histories of mtDNA haplogroups M1 and U6 in Africa quote:
An important haplotype in Africa is Af-24. AF-24 is delineated by a DdeI site at 10394 and AluI site of np 10397. This haplotype is a branch of the African subhaplogroup LOd. The TMRCA for LOd is 106kya
I see Dr Winters just broached the same question by a few minutes. Great mind think alike.
But keep up the good work AMRTU
I already had this posted, I'll repost this.
quote: The presence of M haplogroup in Ethiopia, named M1, led to the proposal that haplogroup M originated in eastern Africa, approximately 60,000 years ago, and was carried towards Asia [34].
Macrohaplogroup M is ubiquitous in India and covers more than 70 per cent of the Indian mtDNA lineages [28], [36]–[38]. Recent studies on complete mtDNA sequences (~187) tried to resolve the phylogeny of Indian macrohaplogroup M. As a result, M2, M3, M4, M5, M6 [28], [36], [39]–[40], M18, M25 [38], M30, [41], M31 [42], [24] M33, M34, M35, M36, M37, M38, M39, M40 [22], M41, M42 [43], M43 [23], [44], M45 [45], M48, M49, and M50 [46] haplogroups of M that was identified in India helped to a certain extent in understanding M genealogy in diversified Indian populations. In the above background, extensive sequencing of complete mtDNA of South Asia, particularly India, is essential for better understanding of the peopling of the non-African continents, and pathogenesis of diseases in various ethnic groups with different matrilineal backgrounds.
--Adimoolam Chandrasekar et al. 2009 Updating Phylogeny of Mitochondrial DNA Macrohaplogroup M in India: Dispersal of Modern Human in South Asian Corridor
Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Troll Patrol # Ish Gebor: These are not of Eurasian origin, they expanded into Eurasia. Thus became predominant in Eurasia. This they claim it as Eurasian in origin.
you say the same thing about all haplogroups, therfore there is no such thing as an Austrailan, Euroepan or Asian etc It's your politcial dogama
Updating Phylogeny of Mitochondrial DNA Macrohaplogroup M in India: Dispersal of Modern Human in South Asian Corridor Adimoolam Chandrasekar, Satish Kumar, et al
The out-of-Africa scenario [25] has hitherto provided little evidence of the precise route by which modern humans might have left Africa. Two major routes of dispersal have been hypothesized: one is through North Africa into the Levant [26], and another is through Ethiopia along South Asia [27]–[28]. The proposed northern route of initial dispersal of modem humans from Africa could not be sustained by complete and in-depth analysis of mtDNA in recent times [29]. The mitochondrial haplogroup M which was first regarded as an ancient marker of East-Asian origin [30]–[31], had been found at high frequency in India [32] and Ethiopia [33], thus raising the question of its origin. The presence of M haplogroup in Ethiopia, named M1, led to the proposal that haplogroup M originated in eastern Africa, approximately 60,000 years ago, and was carried towards Asia [34]. Contrary to the above, in 2006, Olivieri [35] reported that about 40,000 to 45,000 years ago, predominant North African clades M1 and U6 arose in southwestern Asia and moved together to Africa. Their arrival temporally overlapped the event(s) that led to the peopling of Europe by modern humans and most likely the result of the same change in the climatic conditions that allowed humans to enter in to the Levant, opening the way to the colonization of both Europe and North Africa. In the light of above, the origins of Asian M lineage in Eastern Africa became ambivalent.
Macrohaplogroup M is ubiquitous in India and covers more than 70 per cent of the Indian mtDNA lineages [28], [36]–[38]. Recent studies on complete mtDNA sequences (~187) tried to resolve the phylogeny of Indian macrohaplogroup M. As a result, M2, M3, M4, M5, M6 [28], [36], [39]–[40], M18, M25 [38], M30, [41], M31 [42], [24] M33, M34, M35, M36, M37, M38, M39, M40 [22], M41, M42 [43], M43 [23], [44], M45 [45], M48, M49, and M50 [46] haplogroups of M that was identified in India helped to a certain extent in understanding M genealogy in diversified Indian populations. In the above background, extensive sequencing of complete mtDNA of South Asia, particularly India, is essential for better understanding of the peopling of the non-African continents, and pathogenesis of diseases in various ethnic groups with different matrilineal backgrounds.
Origin of Macrohaplogroup M
L3 lineages other than M and N are absent in India and among non-African mitochondria in general [2]–[3], [49]. M, N and R haplogroups of mtDNA have no indication of an African origin. However, it is proposed that the origin of haplogroup M is in Africa [34], in view of its high frequency in Ethiopia. But in 2006, by [35] demonstrated that the presence of M1 and U6 in Africa is due to a back migration. Sequencing of 81 entire human mitochondrial DNAs belonging to haplogroups M1 and U6 revealed that these predominantly North African Clades arose in Southwestern Asia and moved together to Africa about 40,000 to 45,000 years ago. Only some sub-sets of M1a (with an estimated coalescence time of 28.8±4.9ky), U6a2 (with an estimated coalescence time of 24.0±7.3ky), and U6d (with an estimated coalescence time of 20.6±7.3ky) diffused to East and North Africa through the Levant, leaving the origin of macrohaplogroup M unresolved. Haplogroup M has been found ubiquitous in India, although its frequency is somewhat higher in southern Indian populations than in northern Indian populations and to a large extent autochthonous because neither the East nor the West Eurasian mtDNA pools include such lineages at notable frequencies [37], [58]. Our findings, (for example, deep time depth >50,000 years of western, central, southern and eastern Indian haplogroups M2, M38, M54, M58, M33, M6, M61, M62 and distribution of macrohaplogroup M) do not rule out the possibility of macrohaplogroup M arising in Indian population.
Phylogeny and antiquity of M macrohaplogroup inferred from complete mt DNA sequence of Indian specific lineages
Revathi Rajkumar et al.
Abstract
Background
Analysis of human complete mitochondrial DNA sequences has largely contributed to resolve phylogenies and antiquity of different lineages belonging to the majorhaplogroups L, N and M (East-Asian lineages). In the absence of whole mtDNA sequence information of M lineages reported in India that exhibits highest diversity within the sub-continent, the present study was undertaken to provide a detailed analysis of this macrohaplogroup to precisely characterize and unravel the intricate phylogeny of the lineages and to establish the antiquity of M lineages in India.
Results
The phylogenetic tree constructed from sequencing information of twenty-four whole mtDNA genome revealed novel substitutions in the previously defined M2a and M6 lineages. The most striking feature of this phylogenetic tree is the recognition of two new lineages, M30 and M31, distinguished by transitions at 12007 and 5319, respectively. M30 comprises of M18 and identifies a potential new sub-lineage possessing substitution at 16223 and 16300. It further branches into M30a sub-lineage, defined by 15431 and 195A substitution. The age of M30 lineage was estimated at 33,042 YBP, indicating a more recent expansion time than M2 (49,686 YBP). The M31 branch encompasses the M6 lineage along with the previously defined M3 and M4 lineages. Contradictory to earlier reports, the M5 lineage does not always include a 12477 substitution, and is more appropriately defined by a transversion at 10986A. The phylogenetic tree also identifies a potential new lineage in the M* branch with HVSI sequence as 16223,16325. Substitutions in M25 were in concordance with previous reports.
Conclusions
This study describes five new basal mutations and recognizes two new lineages, M30 and M31 that substantially contribute to the present understanding of macrohaplogroup M. These two newly erected lineages include the previously independent lineages M18 and M6 as sub-lineages within them, respectively, suggesting that most mt DNA genomes might arise as limited offshoots of M trunk. Furthermore, this study supports the non existence of lineages such as M3 and M4 that are solely defined on the basis of fast mutating control region motifs and hence, establishes the importance of coding region markers for an accurate understanding of the phylogeny. The deep roots of M phylogeny clearly establish the antiquity of Indian lineages, especially M2, as compared to Ethiopian M1 lineage and hence, support an Asian origin of M macrohaplogroup.
Posts: 42918 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Troll Patrol # Ish Gebor: [These are not of Eurasian origin, they expanded into Eurasia. Thus became predominant in Eurasia. This they claim it as Eurasian in origin.
you say the same thing about all haplogroups, therfore there is no such thing as an Austrailan, Euroepan or Asian etc It's your politcial dogama
Updating Phylogeny of Mitochondrial DNA Macrohaplogroup M in India: Dispersal of Modern Human in South Asian Corridor Adimoolam Chandrasekar, Satish Kumar, et al
The out-of-Africa scenario [25] has hitherto provided little evidence of the precise route by which modern humans might have left Africa. Two major routes of dispersal have been hypothesized: one is through North Africa into the Levant [26], and another is through Ethiopia along South Asia [27]–[28]. The proposed northern route of initial dispersal of modem humans from Africa could not be sustained by complete and in-depth analysis of mtDNA in recent times [29]. The mitochondrial haplogroup M which was first regarded as an ancient marker of East-Asian origin [30]–[31], had been found at high frequency in India [32] and Ethiopia [33], thus raising the question of its origin. The presence of M haplogroup in Ethiopia, named M1, led to the proposal that haplogroup M originated in eastern Africa, approximately 60,000 years ago, and was carried towards Asia [34]. Contrary to the above, in 2006, Olivieri [35] reported that about 40,000 to 45,000 years ago, predominant North African clades M1 and U6 arose in southwestern Asia and moved together to Africa. Their arrival temporally overlapped the event(s) that led to the peopling of Europe by modern humans and most likely the result of the same change in the climatic conditions that allowed humans to enter in to the Levant, opening the way to the colonization of both Europe and North Africa. In the light of above, the origins of Asian M lineage in Eastern Africa became ambivalent.
Macrohaplogroup M is ubiquitous in India and covers more than 70 per cent of the Indian mtDNA lineages [28], [36]–[38]. Recent studies on complete mtDNA sequences (~187) tried to resolve the phylogeny of Indian macrohaplogroup M. As a result, M2, M3, M4, M5, M6 [28], [36], [39]–[40], M18, M25 [38], M30, [41], M31 [42], [24] M33, M34, M35, M36, M37, M38, M39, M40 [22], M41, M42 [43], M43 [23], [44], M45 [45], M48, M49, and M50 [46] haplogroups of M that was identified in India helped to a certain extent in understanding M genealogy in diversified Indian populations. In the above background, extensive sequencing of complete mtDNA of South Asia, particularly India, is essential for better understanding of the peopling of the non-African continents, and pathogenesis of diseases in various ethnic groups with different matrilineal backgrounds.
Origin of Macrohaplogroup M
L3 lineages other than M and N are absent in India and among non-African mitochondria in general [2]–[3], [49]. M, N and R haplogroups of mtDNA have no indication of an African origin. However, it is proposed that the origin of haplogroup M is in Africa [34], in view of its high frequency in Ethiopia. But in 2006, by [35] demonstrated that the presence of M1 and U6 in Africa is due to a back migration. Sequencing of 81 entire human mitochondrial DNAs belonging to haplogroups M1 and U6 revealed that these predominantly North African Clades arose in Southwestern Asia and moved together to Africa about 40,000 to 45,000 years ago. Only some sub-sets of M1a (with an estimated coalescence time of 28.8±4.9ky), U6a2 (with an estimated coalescence time of 24.0±7.3ky), and U6d (with an estimated coalescence time of 20.6±7.3ky) diffused to East and North Africa through the Levant, leaving the origin of macrohaplogroup M unresolved. Haplogroup M has been found ubiquitous in India, although its frequency is somewhat higher in southern Indian populations than in northern Indian populations and to a large extent autochthonous because neither the East nor the West Eurasian mtDNA pools include such lineages at notable frequencies [37], [58]. Our findings, (for example, deep time depth >50,000 years of western, central, southern and eastern Indian haplogroups M2, M38, M54, M58, M33, M6, M61, M62 and distribution of macrohaplogroup M) do not rule out the possibility of macrohaplogroup M arising in Indian population.
I don't know what part you don't understand?
That cartoon board is nonsense, because from L (which doesn't show, they jump to M all of a sudden, as if there was no processes between the regions.
But this paper is about Hg M.
quote:The presence of M haplogroup in Ethiopia, named M1, led to the proposal that haplogroup M originated in eastern Africa, approximately 60,000 years ago, and was carried towards Asia [34].
--Adimoolam Chandrasekar et al. 2009 Updating Phylogeny of Mitochondrial DNA Macrohaplogroup M in India: Dispersal of Modern Human in South Asian Corridor
quote: An important haplotype in Africa is Af-24. AF-24 is delineated by a DdeI site at 10394 and AluI site of np 10397. This haplotype is a branch of the African subhaplogroup LOd. The TMRCA for LOd is 106kya
--Gonder et al, 2006
quote: "These indicate that the root of L3 gives rise to a multifurcation from a single haplotype producing a number of distinct subclades... The simplest explanation for this geographical distribution [haplogroups M and N], however, is an expansion of the root type within East Africa, where several independent L3 branches thrive, including a sister group to L3, christened L4 (Kivisild et al. 2004; Chap. 7), followed by divergence into haplogroups M and N somewhere between the Horn of Africa and the Indian subcontinent. Since neither the L3 root type nor any other descendants survive outside Africa, the root type itself must have become extinct during a period of genetic drift in the founder population as it diversified into haplogroups M and N, if the diversification was outside Africa. If on the other hand the diversification was indeed within East Africa, then Haplogroups M and N must have either been carried out of Africa in their entirety or subsequently have become extinct within Africa, with the singular exception of the derived M1."
- Hans-Jürgen Bandelt et. 2006. EDS. Human Mitochondrial DNA and the Evolution of Homo sapiens.
quote:Originally posted by Troll Patrol # Ish Gebor:
quote: The presence of M haplogroup in Ethiopia, named M1, led to the proposal that haplogroup M originated in eastern Africa, approximately 60,000 years ago, and was carried towards Asia [34].
--Adimoolam Chandrasekar et al. 2009 Updating Phylogeny of Mitochondrial DNA Macrohaplogroup M in India: Dispersal of Modern Human in South Asian Corridor
a "proposal" is a theory and on further reseach that theory turned out to be wrong so it is poor judgement to quote Chandrasekar when in the same article he concludes that M arose in India
quote:Originally posted by Troll Patrol # Ish Gebor:
quote: The presence of M haplogroup in Ethiopia, named M1, led to the proposal that haplogroup M originated in eastern Africa, approximately 60,000 years ago, and was carried towards Asia [34].
--Adimoolam Chandrasekar et al. 2009 Updating Phylogeny of Mitochondrial DNA Macrohaplogroup M in India: Dispersal of Modern Human in South Asian Corridor
a "proposal" is a theory and on further reseach that theory turned out to be wrong so it is poor judgement to quote Chandrasekar when in the same article he concludes that M arose in India
Right below, it shows that it arose within Africans, these Africans migrated out of Africa, taking these alleles with them. Where it became a dominant clade, where they went outside of Africa. During those days small pockets of people roamed as huntergathers. There weren't masses of people all over the globe as is now.
quote: An important haplotype in Africa is Af-24. AF-24 is delineated by a DdeI site at 10394 and AluI site of np 10397. This haplotype is a branch of the African subhaplogroup LOd. The TMRCA for LOd is 106kya
--Gonder et al, 2006
quote: "These indicate that the root of L3 gives rise to a multifurcation from a single haplotype producing a number of distinct subclades... The simplest explanation for this geographical distribution [haplogroups M and N], however, is an expansion of the root type within East Africa, where several independent L3 branches thrive, including a sister group to L3, christened L4 (Kivisild et al. 2004; Chap. 7), followed by divergence into haplogroups M and N somewhere between the Horn of Africa and the Indian subcontinent. Since neither the L3 root type nor any other descendants survive outside Africa, the root type itself must have become extinct during a period of genetic drift in the founder population as it diversified into haplogroups M and N, if the diversification was outside Africa. If on the other hand the diversification was indeed within East Africa, then Haplogroups M and N must have either been carried out of Africa in their entirety or subsequently have become extinct within Africa, with the singular exception of the derived M1."
- Hans-Jürgen Bandelt et. 2006. EDS. Human Mitochondrial DNA and the Evolution of Homo sapiens.
quote: Although Haplogroup M differentiated soon after the out of Africa exit and it is widely distributed in Asia (east Asia and India) and Oceania, there is an interesting exception for one of its more than 40 sub-clades: M1.. Indeed this lineage is mainly limited to the African continent with peaks in the Horn of Africa."
--Paola Spinozzi, Alessandro Zironi . (2010). Origins as a Paradigm in the Sciences and in the Humanities. Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. pp. 48-50
quote:“..the M1 presence in the Arabian peninsula signals a predominant East African influence since the Neolithic onwards.“
-- Petraglia, M and Rose, J (2010). The Evolution of Human Populations in Arabia:
posted
WOW! This Hirbo paper is off the chains. Damn! You said you met the man Beyoku? This is indeed a one-stop-shop! Maybe the lingusitics guys can give me some feedback on this. The linguistics section states that Nilo-Saharan and Afroasiatic languages are much older than Niger-Kordifian. This is further evidence that indeed the Bantus are an off-shoot ie “new” to West Africa. The North Africans(Berbers/Amazigh) are indeeded the big brother to Sub-Saharans. Indeed the Nilo-Saharans has the hghest frequency of E1b1*, proving that they(Nilo-Saharans-Nile source) are ancestral to both North Africans and West Africans. It all makes sense now. It is all coming together What is laso fascinating is the Beja carry some of the deepest clades of the female line. Proving they are indigenous Africans(Dr Winters?).
I always contended that West Africans are “new” to the forest region. @ Dr Winters, Hirbo also suggests that aside from R-V88 being in Central Africa. But underived R-M269(*) was also discovered in Africa.
He said that R-M269(not R-V88, maybe it was a typo) may have been spread by Bantu farmers. Which challenges the age of the Bantu expansion , or, if there was really one.
He also proposes that “indigenous” R-M269 is present in Namibia and other parts of South Africa. You understand the significance? I am checking the cited references. Damn!
-------------------- Without data you are just another person with an opinion - Deming Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
@TP Indeed…That is the only logical hypothesis based upon the geographic distribuation of L3 base, L3a-K, L3-M and L3-N. Plus the age and ditsribution of M1. This is what AMRTU is missing from his post. Aside from that..great work. The simplest explanation for this geographical distribution [haplogroups M and N], however, is an expansion of the root type within East Africa,
These indicate that the root of L3 gives rise to a multifurcation from a single haplotype producing a number of distinct subclades... The simplest explanation for this geographical distribution [haplogroups M and N], however, is an expansion of the root type within East Africa, where several independent L3 branches thrive, including a sister group to L3, christened L4 (Kivisild et al. 2004; Chap. 7), f
-------------------- Without data you are just another person with an opinion - Deming Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Troll Patrol # Ish Gebor:
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:Originally posted by xyyman:
The North Africans(Berbers/Amazigh) are indeeded the big brother to Sub-Saharans.
lol
We could summon the ancient Amazigh tribes. LOL
go ahead, make my day
Have your pick.
Rif Tafarsit Ichebdanen Ibuqquyen Ait Wayagher Aith 'Ammarth Igzinnayen Themsaman Ait Tuzin Aith Sa'id Aith Wurishik Iqer3ayen. Ibdarsen Ait Bouyahyi Ait Tourish Iznassen Ayt Khaled Ayt Menquch Ayt Aâtiq Ayt Urimmech Chleuh Ait namann Ait Baha, Biougra, Bouzakern Tiznit Zimmur, Ait Ndhir, Ait Yusi, Ait Warayin, Iziyyan, Ait Imyill, Ait Mhand, Ait Massad, Ait Sukhman, Ihansalen, Ait Siddrat, Ait 'Atta, Ait Murghad, Ait Hadiddu, Ait Izdig, Ait 'Ayyash, Ait Saghrushshn Ihahan, Imtuggan, Iseksawen, Idemsiren, Igundafen, Igedmiwen, Imsfiwen, Iglawn, Ait Wawzgit, Id aw-Zaddagh, Ind aw-Zal, Id aw Zkri, Isaffen, Id aw-Kansus, Isuktan, Id aw-Tanan, Ashtuken, Malen, Id aw-Ltit, Ammeln, Ait 'Ali, Mjjat, l-Akhsas, Ait Ba 'Amran, Ait n-Nuss. Kabylie (Algeria) IFLISSEN OUM EL LIL MAATKA AĎT AĎSSI AĎT IRATEN AĎT MENGUELLAT AĎT BETHROUN AĎT SEDKA IGOUCHDAL IFLISSEN LEBHAR AĎT OUAGUENOUN AĎT DJENNAD AĎT IDJER Beni Ziyyat Beni Zejel Beni Selman Beni Bu Zra (ghomara tmazight speakers) Beni Mansur Beni Grir Beni Smih Beni Rzin Sinhaja die tmazight spreken en/of darija Aith seddat aith khannus zarqat ktama aith bshir taghzut beni bu shibt Sinhaja (darija speakers). Beni Gmil Terguist Mix Riffijns/Sinhaja aith mazdui Rif (darjia) Bni Bu Frah Mtiwa Aith Yittuft Bargwata Casa blanca/ rabat Tunisia Djerba Libya Nefousa Tuareg ( Sahara-general) Tamashek Tinariwen (Mali, Algiers en Mauritania) Siwa(Egypte) (Algiers) Chaouia (North East)(Aurčs mountains), Chenoua (North central to the coast) Mozabites (North Sahara) (Tunisia) Matmata
Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
You got me with that long list, you win, North Africans(Berbers/Amazigh) are indeed the big brother to Sub-Saharans.
Posts: 42918 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Troll Patrol # Ish Gebor:
quote: The presence of M haplogroup in Ethiopia, named M1, led to the proposal that haplogroup M originated in eastern Africa, approximately 60,000 years ago, and was carried towards Asia [34].
--Adimoolam Chandrasekar et al. 2009 Updating Phylogeny of Mitochondrial DNA Macrohaplogroup M in India: Dispersal of Modern Human in South Asian Corridor
a "proposal" is a theory and on further reseach that theory turned out to be wrong so it is poor judgement to quote Chandrasekar when in the same article he concludes that M arose in India
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: Quote: “Hirbo will not help you in that case.”
I have to admit Hirbo et al is the shyt! You guys on FB are holding out on us on ES and ESR. I just started reading it and …wow! 490pages!!! Of great material. Some of what is covered in Hirbo I had already known. Most have been published over several separate research papers. But Hirbo is a one-stop-shop. I will have to do a thread on Hirbo et al on ESR. But from what I read several things stood out.
1. y-DNA E1b1b is 10Ky older than E1b1a!!! significance? 2. Essentially L3(base) is parent to L3b-L3k, L3M and L3N. Which makes these “offsprings” siblings. Significance? To AMRTU point. I will post on the paper on ESR. But from what I read this is Lazaridis et al ver 2. Lazaridis analyzed SNPs, Hirbo(2011) seemed to come to the same conclusion by doing a comprehensive analysis of male/female parental Haplogroups throughout Africa and nearby regions.
You are right about Hirbo's thesis. The paper makes it clear that L3(M.N) probably had spread or at the least existed prior to the OoA 60kya.
If you notice Sores decreased the ages of many haplogroups in his latest paper. He probably did this because the dating he provides for L3(M,N) are much earlier than the proposed OoA.These dates support the origin of these clades in Africa, and prove the lie that they are Eurasian specific haplogroups.
Many Europeans are attacking the OoA because they would have to admit too African parents. Evidence that L3(M,N) had already spread across Africa before the OoA would crush Euro self-esteem, the idea they are special, and blacks are inferior.
Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: You got me with that long list, you win, North Africans(Berbers/Amazigh) are indeed the big brother to Sub-Saharans.
You're welcome,
Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
I see the drift, you've mentioned. Which I have shown as well in previous citations.
Gonzalez et al claims that the M1c lineage is the oldest M1 subclade based on the coalescence age estimation of the M1 subgroup: M1a (16756 +-5997), M1b (10155 +-3590) and M1c (19040+-4916). This makes M1a and M1b the youngest clades.
The available sample for M1c was complete sequences from individuals found in Jordan, Senegal, and Spain. The small data set make a precise estimation of the errors in the data uncertain.
quote: Macrohaplogroup M (489-10400-14783-15043), excluding M1 which is east African, is distributed among most south, east and north Asians, Amerindians (containing a minority of north and central Amerindians and a majority of south Amerindians), and many central Asians and Melanesians.
--SUVENDU MAJI, S. KRITHIKA and T. S. VASULU (2009)
Phylogeographic distribution of mitochondrial DNA macrohaplogroup M in India
Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: Quote: “Hirbo will not help you in that case.”
I have to admit Hirbo et al is the shyt! You guys on FB are holding out on us on ES and ESR. I just started reading it and …wow! 490pages!!! Of great material. Some of what is covered in Hirbo I had already known. Most have been published over several separate research papers. But Hirbo is a one-stop-shop. I will have to do a thread on Hirbo et al on ESR. But from what I read several things stood out.
1. y-DNA E1b1b is 10Ky older than E1b1a!!! significance? 2. Essentially L3(base) is parent to L3b-L3k, L3M and L3N. Which makes these “offsprings” siblings. Significance? To AMRTU point. I will post on the paper on ESR. But from what I read this is Lazaridis et al ver 2. Lazaridis analyzed SNPs, Hirbo(2011) seemed to come to the same conclusion by doing a comprehensive analysis of male/female parental Haplogroups throughout Africa and nearby regions.
You are right about Hirbo's thesis. The paper makes it clear that L3(M.N) probably had spread or at the least existed prior to the OoA 60kya.
If you notice Sores decreased the ages of many haplogroups in his latest paper. He probably did this because the dating he provides for L3(M,N) are much earlier than the proposed OoA.These dates support the origin of these clades in Africa, and prove the lie that they are Eurasian specific haplogroups.
Many Europeans are attacking the OoA because they would have to admit too African parents. Evidence that L3(M,N) had already spread across Africa before the OoA would crush Euro self-esteem, the idea they are special, and blacks are inferior.
And this is why they are trying to disconnect themselves from this African predecessor. By using theories of Eurasian basal.
However, the alleles in Africans are regiment.
Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
I think I made it pretty clear that Europeans (or Eurasians) are not subset of East African people but a subset of African people period!!!
Eurasians are descendants of the Y-DNA CT haplogroup and the MtDNA L3 haplogroup common to both East and West Africans!!
Posts: 2981 | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged |
posted
@ amun ra. Then why are Eurasians closer to Southern Sudanese considering southern Sudanese have an abundance of haplogroup A and B.(non CT m168 lineages) Some being exclusively A and B. As well as southern Sudanese have primarily L lineages other than L3?
Posts: 2463 | From: New Jersey USA | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by beyoku: @ amun ra. Then why are Eurasians closer to Southern Sudanese considering southern Sudanese have an abundance of haplogroup A and B.(non CT m168 lineages) Some being exclusively A and B. As well as southern Sudanese have primarily L lineages other than L3?
Beside through bi-directional admixture with Eurasian populations, random genetic drift is the only explanation. How else do you explain it, since the A and B haplogroups were not part of the OOA migrations? Even if you randomly separate in 2 groups an Akan population from West Africa, lets say from the same village or town, into 2 groups. One of the group will be closer or further away to any Eurasian populations because of random drift in the population. There's no 2 groups of people with exactly the same genetic profiles including members of the same ethnic group or even family. As a trivia, even "identical" twins got different genetic profiles due to random mutations.
Same thing with European populations between one another. I didn't check it out but maybe German are closer to Scandinavian populations than Italian or French people (or vice-versa). So it's either bi-directional admixture or random genetic drift which can explain it.
Posts: 2981 | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by beyoku: @ amun ra. Then why are Eurasians closer to Southern Sudanese considering southern Sudanese have an abundance of haplogroup A and B.(non CT m168 lineages) Some being exclusively A and B. As well as southern Sudanese have primarily L lineages other than L3?
Beside through bi-directional admixture with Eurasian populations, random genetic drift is the only explanation. How else do you explain it, since the A and B haplogroups were not part of the OOA migrations? Even if you randomly separate in 2 groups an Akan population from West Africa, lets say from the same village or town, into 2 groups. One of the group will be closer or further away to any Eurasian populations because of random drift in the population. There's no 2 groups of people with exactly the same genetic profiles including members of the same ethnic group or even family. As a trivia, even "identical" twins got different genetic profiles due to random mutations.
Same thing with European populations between one another. I didn't check it out but maybe Germans are closer to Scandinavians populations than Italian or French people (or vice-versa). So it's either bi-directional admixture or random genetic drift which can explain it.
Seriously? Mixture how? And which elements in Sudan are you calling "mixed" with Eurasians, which Eurasians and when? Come on man this is nonsense. I certainly would expect SOME modern Sudanese have mixture with 'Eurasian' or more accurately NON African lineages, but you certainly cannot extrapolate that to all Sudanese or project that back in time to thousands of years ago. Any Eurasians in Sudan were a very distinct minority at most.
Also, just because A and B weren't part of OOA, which is probably false since there were multiple OOA expansions, doesn't mean A and B lineages didn't originate in Africa. And this is the problem. White folks have not done ENOUGH genetic sampling in Africa, the known origin point of humanity and therefore, no gentic atlas can be accurate until ALL of Africa is properly sampled. Because of this some of the current genetic affiliations are blatantly incorrect.
But lets go with your argument. Haplogroup A is associated with Far east Asia. Since when were far east Asians mixing with Sudanese in the ancient past and where are they now?
The most likely reason for the confusion is that there are TWO haplogroups called A. One is a Y Haplogroup that is unmistakenly African and the other is a MTDNA Haplogroup that is far East Asian.
Posts: 8889 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
^^Euh? Please try to not jump in a discussion this way without knowing what the discussion is about. That's ridiculous.
I think it's pretty clear the major point of my post was about genetic drift.
I even explained how people from the same ethnic group like Akan(randomly divided into 2 groups), family and even identical twins can be genetically different through random genetic drift.
Also Haplogroup A and B did originate in Africa, of course. They just can't be use to prove the hamitic myth since they are rare or absent among most non-African populations but frequent in many African populations other than Horn or East Africans.
posted
Y-chromosome variation among Sudanese: Restricted gene flow, concordance with language, geography, and history
Hisham Y. Hassan et al. 2008
Abstract
We study the major levels of Y-chromosome haplogroup variation in 15 Sudanese populations by typing major Y-haplogroups in 445 unrelated males representing the three linguistic families in Sudan. Our analysis shows Sudanese populations fall into haplogroups A, B, E, F, I, J, K, and R in frequencies of 16.9, 7.9, 34.4, 3.1, 1.3, 22.5, 0.9, and 13% respectively.
A -16.69
B- 7.9
E -34.4
F -3.1
I -1.3
J - 22.5
K -0.9
R -13.0
Haplogroups A, B, and E occur mainly in Nilo-Saharan speaking groups including Nilotics, Fur, Borgu, and Masalit; whereas haplogroups F, I, J, K, and R are more frequent among Afro-Asiatic speaking groups including Arabs, Beja, Copts, and Hausa, and Niger-Congo speakers from the Fulani ethnic group. Mantel tests reveal a strong correlation between genetic and linguistic structures (r = 0.31, P = 0.007), and a similar correlation between genetic and geographic distances (r = 0.29, P = 0.025) that appears after removing nomadic pastoralists of no known geographic locality from the analysis. The bulk of genetic diversity appears to be a consequence of recent migrations and demographic events mainly from Asia and Europe, evident in a higher migration rate for speakers of Afro-Asiatic as compared with the Nilo-Saharan family of languages, and a generally higher effective population size for the former. The data provide insights not only into the history of the Nile Valley, but also in part to the history of Africa and the area of the Sahel.
haplogroups F, I, J, K, and R are more frequent among Afro-Asiatic speaking groups
_____________________________
keep in mind Northern and Southern Sudan differences, Arab population 30 million compare haplogroup frequencies to neigboring inland populations CAR and Chad, Doug remedial
Posts: 42918 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by beyoku: @ amun ra. Then why are Eurasians closer to Southern Sudanese considering southern Sudanese have an abundance of haplogroup A and B.(non CT m168 lineages) Some being exclusively A and B. As well as southern Sudanese have primarily L lineages other than L3?
Beside through bi-directional admixture with Eurasian populations, random genetic drift is the only explanation. How else do you explain it, since the A and B haplogroups were not part of the OOA migrations? Even if you randomly separate in 2 groups an Akan population from West Africa, lets say from the same village or town, into 2 groups. One of the group will be closer or further away to any Eurasian populations because of random drift in the population.."....".......So it's either bi-directional admixture or random genetic drift which can explain it.
NOW....with what you just wrote above.....why are you then arguing that some populations in Africa cannot be closer to certain Eurasians than other Africans? As I said before..I KNOW YOU KNOW THIS. You were just arguing just to argue. So I am happy you now agree with modern science.
Lesson learned, lets move on. Here is something to consider though. The natural Cline toward "Eurasians" and the Sub Structure of sub Saharan Africans likely existed before "Eurasians" even existed. In literature you will read about the separation of Khoisan and Twa some 100,000 years ago. The sharing/splitting of A and B (and L0/L1)between Khoi/Twa and Sudanese again is something that goes back prior to OOA. Think of this when you look at that Tree Mix chart containing the Dinka.
Without Ancient DNA from Africa there is no telling how far the genome of these folks that existed Africa....or persisted in Ethiopia only to be absorbed...will be removed from from the modern people. You have to have some insight and imagination regarding the issue.
Posts: 2463 | From: New Jersey USA | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by beyoku: why are you then arguing that some populations in Africa cannot be closer to certain Eurasians than other Africans?
I didn't answer you when you said that a couple of times in this thread because it was a red herring.
I never said such thing, unless you can prove it by directly quoting me. I said there was indeed a substructure in Africa before the OOA migrations which affected OOA migrants but it was between the Y-DNA CT carriers and the non-CT carriers (A and B haplogroup carriers). As well as between MtDNA L3 carriers and non-L3 carriers.
CT and L3 haplogroup carriers unites East and West Africans as well as the majority of the African populations. So it can't constitute the basis to say that modern East Africans were particularly closer to Eurasian at the moment of the OOA migrations before any back migrations.
Basically, both modern Eastern and Western African population (E-P2 haplogroup carriers) originate in Eastern Africa at a time period after the OOA migrations.
Posts: 2981 | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate: ^^Euh? Please try to not jump in a discussion this way without knowing what the discussion is about. That's ridiculous.
I think it's pretty clear the major point of my post was about genetic drift.
I even explained how people from the same ethnic group like Akan(randomly divided into 2 groups), family and even identical twins can be genetically different through random genetic drift.
Also Haplogroup A and B did originate in Africa, of course. They just can't be use to prove the hamitic myth since they are rare or absent among most non-African populations but frequent in many African populations other than Horn or East Africans.
Y-DNA haplogroup A contains lineages deriving from the earliest branching in the human Y chromosome tree.
quote: The oldest branching event, separating A0-P305 and A1-V161, is thought to have occurred about 140,000 years ago. Haplogroups A0-P305, A1a-M31 and A1b1a-M14 are restricted to Africa and A1b1b-M32 is nearly restricted to Africa. The haplogroup that would be named A1b2 is composed of haplogroups B through T. The internal branching of haplogroup A1-V161 into A1a-M31, A1b1, and BT (A1b2) may have occurred about 110,000 years ago. A0-P305 is found at low frequency in Central and West Africa.
A1a-M31 is observed in northwestern Africans; A1b1a-M14 is seen among click language-speaking Khoisan populations.
A1b1b-M32 has a wide distribution including Khoisan speaking and East African populations, and scattered members on the Arabian Peninsula.
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: Y-chromosome variation among Sudanese: Restricted gene flow, concordance with language, geography, and history
Hisham Y. Hassan et al. 2008
Abstract
We study the major levels of Y-chromosome haplogroup variation in 15 Sudanese populations by typing major Y-haplogroups in 445 unrelated males representing the three linguistic families in Sudan. Our analysis shows Sudanese populations fall into haplogroups A, B, E, F, I, J, K, and R in frequencies of 16.9, 7.9, 34.4, 3.1, 1.3, 22.5, 0.9, and 13% respectively.
A -16.69
B- 7.9
E -34.4
F -3.1
I -1.3
J - 22.5
K -0.9
R -13.0
Haplogroups A, B, and E occur mainly in Nilo-Saharan speaking groups including Nilotics, Fur, Borgu, and Masalit; whereas haplogroups F, I, J, K, and R are more frequent among Afro-Asiatic speaking groups including Arabs, Beja, Copts, and Hausa, and Niger-Congo speakers from the Fulani ethnic group. Mantel tests reveal a strong correlation between genetic and linguistic structures (r = 0.31, P = 0.007), and a similar correlation between genetic and geographic distances (r = 0.29, P = 0.025) that appears after removing nomadic pastoralists of no known geographic locality from the analysis. The bulk of genetic diversity appears to be a consequence of recent migrations and demographic events mainly from Asia and Europe, evident in a higher migration rate for speakers of Afro-Asiatic as compared with the Nilo-Saharan family of languages, and a generally higher effective population size for the former. The data provide insights not only into the history of the Nile Valley, but also in part to the history of Africa and the area of the Sahel.
haplogroups F, I, J, K, and R are more frequent among Afro-Asiatic speaking groups
_____________________________
keep in mind Northern and Southern Sudan differences, Arab population 30 million compare haplogroup frequencies to neigboring inland populations CAR and Chad, Doug remedial
Can you explain why in clade (haplogroup BT) chromosomes C and R share a common ancestor?
quote:
This branching pattern, along with the geographical distribution of the major clades A, B, and CT, has been interpreted as supporting an African origin for anatomically modern humans,10 with Khoisan from south Africa and Ethiopians from east Africa sharing the deepest lineages of the phylogeny.15 and 16
[...]
The deepest branching separates A1b from a monophyletic clade whose members (A1a, A2, A3, B, C, and R) all share seven mutually reinforcing derived mutations (five transitions and two transversions, all at non-CpG sites).
[...]
How does the present MSY tree compare with the backbone of the recently published “reference” MSY phylogeny?13 The phylogenetic relationships we observed among chromosomes belonging to haplogroups B, C, and R are reminiscent of those reported in the tree by Karafet et al.13 These chromosomes belong to a clade (haplogroup BT) in which chromosomes C and R share a common ancestor (Figure 2).
quote:Originally posted by beyoku: @ amun ra. Then why are Eurasians closer to Southern Sudanese considering southern Sudanese have an abundance of haplogroup A and B.(non CT m168 lineages) Some being exclusively A and B. As well as southern Sudanese have primarily L lineages other than L3?
Beside through bi-directional admixture with Eurasian populations, random genetic drift is the only explanation. How else do you explain it, since the A and B haplogroups were not part of the OOA migrations? Even if you randomly separate in 2 groups an Akan population from West Africa, lets say from the same village or town, into 2 groups. One of the group will be closer or further away to any Eurasian populations because of random drift in the population.."....".......So it's either bi-directional admixture or random genetic drift which can explain it.
NOW....with what you just wrote above.....why are you then arguing that some populations in Africa cannot be closer to certain Eurasians than other Africans? As I said before..I KNOW YOU KNOW THIS. You were just arguing just to argue. So I am happy you now agree with modern science.
Lesson learned, lets move on. Here is something to consider though. The natural Cline toward "Eurasians" and the Sub Structure of sub Saharan Africans likely existed before "Eurasians" even existed. In literature you will read about the separation of Khoisan and Twa some 100,000 years ago. The sharing/splitting of A and B (and L0/L1)between Khoi/Twa and Sudanese again is something that goes back prior to OOA. Think of this when you look at that Tree Mix chart containing the Dinka.
Without Ancient DNA from Africa there is no telling how far the genome of these folks that existed Africa....or persisted in Ethiopia only to be absorbed...will be removed from from the modern people. You have to have some insight and imagination regarding the issue.
Cosigned.
Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
Indeed. Co-sign. Beyoku has come a long way. What about his FB buddy? Is he on board now?
quote:Originally posted by Troll Patrol # Ish Gebor:
quote:Originally posted by beyoku:
quote:Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate:
quote:Originally posted by beyoku: @ amun ra. Then why are Eurasians closer to Southern Sudanese considering southern Sudanese have an abundance of haplogroup A and B.(non CT m168 lineages) Some being exclusively A and B. As well as southern Sudanese have primarily L lineages other than L3?
Beside through bi-directional admixture with Eurasian populations, random genetic drift is the only explanation. How else do you explain it, since the A and B haplogroups were not part of the OOA migrations? Even if you randomly separate in 2 groups an Akan population from West Africa, lets say from the same village or town, into 2 groups. One of the group will be closer or further away to any Eurasian populations because of random drift in the population.."....".......So it's either bi-directional admixture or random genetic drift which can explain it.
NOW....with what you just wrote above.....why are you then arguing that some populations in Africa cannot be closer to certain Eurasians than other Africans? As I said before..I KNOW YOU KNOW THIS. You were just arguing just to argue. So I am happy you now agree with modern science.
Lesson learned, lets move on. Here is something to consider though. The natural Cline toward "Eurasians" and the Sub Structure of sub Saharan Africans likely existed before "Eurasians" even existed. In literature you will read about the separation of Khoisan and Twa some 100,000 years ago. The sharing/splitting of A and B (and L0/L1)between Khoi/Twa and Sudanese again is something that goes back prior to OOA. Think of this when you look at that Tree Mix chart containing the Dinka.
Without Ancient DNA from Africa there is no telling how far the genome of these folks that existed Africa....or persisted in Ethiopia only to be absorbed...will be removed from from the modern people. You have to have some insight and imagination regarding the issue.
Cosigned.
Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic