Page 29 of 35 FirstFirst ... 192728293031 ... LastLast
Results 281 to 290 of 346

Thread: #paleoamericanodyssey tweets on 24,000-year old Mal'ta Siberian

  1. #281
    Legacy Account
    Posts
    7,362
    Sex
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Nationality
    British
    mtDNA (M)
    H

    United Kingdom
    Quote Originally Posted by parasar View Post
    To clarify, that quote is credited to German Dziebel.
    Yes German Dziebel is crediting the apparently blameless Professor of Anthropology at Penn with astonishing ignorance which the latter has not vouchsafed in print. That is the point made above by Joe B.

    As for the back-migration, I assume that refers to Dulik MC, Zhadanov SI, Osipova LP, Askapuli A, Gau L, Gokcumen O, Rubinstein S, Schurr TG. 2012. Mitochondrial DNA and Y-chromosome variation provides evidence for a recent common ancestry between Native Americans and Indigenous Altaians. Am J Hum Genet 90:1–18.
    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...02929711005490
    Last edited by Jean M; 11-20-2013 at 09:50 PM.

  2. The Following User Says Thank You to Jean M For This Useful Post:

     Joe B (11-20-2013)

  3. #282
    Quote Originally Posted by Jean M View Post
    Gail has already explained this very clearly.
    There's no need to explain it. I understand it just as well as others. What's needed is proving the historical reality of the out-of-Africa phylogenetic model.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jean M View Post
    Think of this like your family. You might have a g-g-grandmother called Rainbow (to be fanciful) and a mother called Carnation. You are not called either Rainbow or Carnation, but you are descended from them. The alphabetical names attached to the tree are for convenience. They are not like surnames, where you expect to have the same one passed all the way down the lineage. The names change from A0'1'2'3'4 through various others down to the one geneticists decided to label R1a. It is still one lineage.
    I like the analogy but it doesn't work in your favor. A truly robust phylogeny should look like a string of surnames with personal names as modifiers, not as a sequence of personal names. So you need to have L0 and/or L1 in Australia at lower frequencies than in Africa to prove descent from Africa.

  4. #283
    Quote Originally Posted by Jean M View Post
    None at all.
    At least just as much as there's evidence for out of Africa. Amerindians are the exact opposites of Africans on all genetic metrics. It's just a matter of how we interpret this contrast.

  5. #284
    Quote Originally Posted by Jean M View Post
    Yes German Dziebel is crediting the apparently blameless Professor of Anthropology at Penn with astonishing ignorance which the latter has not vouchsafed in print. That is the point made above by Joe B.
    See a response on my website and please abstain from making such comments in the future.

  6. #285
    Registered Users
    Posts
    974
    Sex
    Omitted
    Location
    Colorado, USA
    mtDNA (M)
    U5a2a1

    Quote Originally Posted by German Dziebel View Post
    So you need to have L0 and/or L1 in Australia at lower frequencies than in Africa to prove descent from Africa.
    The data show a recent out of Africa expansion of two specific subclades of L3. The data do not show an expansion of each and every L haplogroup out of Africa, so the absence of L0 or L1 in Australia does not tell you anything about the expansion of L3. It simply tells you that L0 and L1 were not part of the L3 migration.

  7. #286
    Registered Users
    Posts
    974
    Sex
    Omitted
    Location
    Colorado, USA
    mtDNA (M)
    U5a2a1

    Quote Originally Posted by German Dziebel View Post
    At least just as much as there's evidence for out of Africa. Amerindians are the exact opposites of Africans on all genetic metrics. It's just a matter of how we interpret this contrast.
    This is actually quite simple. Look at the mtDNA Phylotree (link). The L haplogroups are all at the oldest, most diverse branch points in the mtDNA tree, and all are found primarily in Africa today, or in people of recent African origin. The Native American haplogroups are at the youngest tips of the tree. The primary non African groups M and N descend directly from L3. There are no European, Asian or African haplogroups that descend from the Native American haplogroups, so no mtDNA evidence at all that modern humans expanded out of America.

  8. #287
    Quote Originally Posted by GailT View Post
    This is actually quite simple. Look at the mtDNA Phylotree (link). The L haplogroups are all at the oldest, most diverse branch points in the mtDNA tree, and all are found primarily in Africa today, or in people of recent African origin. The Native American haplogroups are at the youngest tips of the tree. The primary non African groups M and N descend directly from L3. There are no European, Asian or African haplogroups that descend from the Native American haplogroups, so no mtDNA evidence at all that modern humans expanded out of America.
    The following is also very simple: the New World harbors 140 linguistic stocks, which are genealogical units. Papua New Guinea has 50+. Africa has only 20 max. Language is a hallmark of behavioral modernity. Only a subset of non-African languages entered Africa. One might say that the reason Africans are diverse genetically is that they absorbed an archaic genetic substrate. That's why "all are found primarily in Africa today, or in people of recent African origin." If behaviorally modern humans colonized the world out of AFrica, we would have seen all those ancient African lineages everywhere. But we don't.

    BTW, I've studied nearly every node of the mtDNA tree. So we can be assumptive about it and not link ourselves to PhyloTree all the time. Nearly all major human mtDNA lineages have at least one mutation in common with Denisovans and/or Neandertals (some more, others fewer) that their respective "upstream" lineages don't have. Nearly all mutations postulated for the "oldest" African lineages get reversed somewhere down the tree. Some mutations ascertained in the existing ancient DNA samples are shared by such disparate "haplogroups" as L0 and A2 (e.g., A12007G, which is not G12007A, contra PhyloTree because Den 1,2 has A in this position) and L0 and D5b (T1048C, which is not C1048T, contra PhyloTree because Den 1,2 are T in this position). These matches mean that these sequences are truly related because you have matches between sequence 1, sequence 2 and an ancient DNA outgroup. But the current haplogroup definition comes from pre-ancient DNA times and may need to be revised.

  9. #288
    Quote Originally Posted by GailT View Post
    The data show a recent out of Africa expansion of two specific subclades of L3. The data do not show an expansion of each and every L haplogroup out of Africa, so the absence of L0 or L1 in Australia does not tell you anything about the expansion of L3. It simply tells you that L0 and L1 were not part of the L3 migration.
    But M and N undergo major diversification into basal clades nowhere near Africa. They do so in East Asia or in eastern South Asia. And then we see their derived lineages back in Africa. So we don't have any phylogeographic evidence for continuity between the African L3 clade and the M and N lineages.

  10. #289
    Quote Originally Posted by GailT View Post
    This is actually quite simple. Look at the mtDNA Phylotree (link). The L haplogroups are all at the oldest, most diverse branch points in the mtDNA tree, and all are found primarily in Africa today, or in people of recent African origin. The Native American haplogroups are at the youngest tips of the tree. The primary non African groups M and N descend directly from L3. There are no European, Asian or African haplogroups that descend from the Native American haplogroups, so no mtDNA evidence at all that modern humans expanded out of America.
    The following is also very simple: the New World harbors 140 linguistic stocks, which are genealogical units. Papua New Guinea has 50+. Africa has only 20 max. Language is a hallmark of behavioral modernity. Only a subset of non-African languages entered Africa. One might say that the reason Africans are diverse genetically is that they absorbed an archaic genetic substrate. That's why "all are found primarily in Africa today, or in people of recent African origin." If behaviorally modern humans colonized the world out of AFrica, we would have seen all those ancient African lineages everywhere. But we don't.

    BTW, I've studied nearly every node of the mtDNA tree. So we can be assumptive about it and not link ourselves to PhyloTree all the time. Nearly all major human mtDNA lineages have at least one mutation in common with Denisovans and/or Neandertals (some more, others fewer) that their respective "upstream" lineages don't have. Nearly all mutations postulated for the "oldest" African lineages get reversed somewhere down the tree. Some mutations ascertained in the existing ancient DNA samples are shared by such disparate "haplogroups" as L0 and A2 (e.g., A12007G, which is not G12007A, contra PhyloTree because Den 1,2 has A in this position) and L0 and D5b (T1048C, which is not C1048T, contra PhyloTree because Den 1,2 are T in this position). These matches mean that these sequences are truly related because you have matches between sequence 1, sequence 2 and an ancient DNA outgroup. But the current haplogroup definition comes from pre-ancient DNA times and may need to be revised.

  11. #290
    Registered Users
    Posts
    974
    Sex
    Omitted
    Location
    Colorado, USA
    mtDNA (M)
    U5a2a1

    Quote Originally Posted by German Dziebel View Post
    The following is also very simple: the New World harbors 140 linguistic stocks, which are genealogical units. Papua New Guinea has 50+. Africa has only 20 max. Language is a hallmark of behavioral modernity. Only a subset of non-African languages entered Africa. One might say that the reason Africans are diverse genetically is that they absorbed an archaic genetic substrate. That's why "all are found primarily in Africa today, or in people of recent African origin." If behaviorally modern humans colonized the world out of AFrica, we would have seen all those ancient African lineages everywhere. But we don't.
    Modern humans exited Africa around 60,000 years ago, or possibly much earlier if they were in Arabia for an extended period before migrating to southwest Asia. Genetic evidence indicates that it was a small subset of African population that participated in that migration, not a mass movement of the entire population of the continent.

    People have been in the Americas for at least 15,000 years, ample time for a great diversity of languages to evolve. And there might have been multiple migrations into the Americas, bringing different language families. It would be interesting to see an analysis of the diversity of language families and their age estimates in the Americas.

    Much of sub-Saharan Africa is dominated by recent expansions of Bantu farmers, so this explains the limited diversity of languages in some parts of the continent. There are approximately 500 languages spoken in the Congo, where I lived for several years. In some cases a language is spoken within only a few small villages, and you find a large number of different languages spoken within a small region. They are all Bantu languages, and have similarities, but they are distinct languages, not dialects. This enormous diversity evolved probably within a few thousands years after the Bantu expansion into this region. It simply shows that a great diversity of languages can evolve quickly.

  12. The Following User Says Thank You to GailT For This Useful Post:

     Anglecynn (11-27-2013)

Page 29 of 35 FirstFirst ... 192728293031 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Difference between Siberian and NE Asian
    By ayhan in forum Autosomal (auDNA)
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 03-13-2020, 02:53 AM
  2. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 05-12-2016, 01:37 AM
  3. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 05-05-2016, 12:05 AM
  4. Russian/Siberian ancestry!
    By Herb. in forum General
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 01-14-2016, 09:39 AM
  5. Replies: 26
    Last Post: 02-06-2014, 07:41 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •