| Origin of Y-chromosome haplogroup D in Central Eurasia? | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Aug 13 2006, 05:52:21 AM (1,824 Views) | |
| Ebizur | Aug 13 2006, 05:52:21 AM Post #1 |
|
Advanced Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
(ren note: split from topic: http://z6.invisionfree.com/orient/index.php?showtopic=545)
Actually, it is your logic that is completely misguided. You apparently don't seem to understand that the categorization of the Y-chromosomes sampled from the Jarawa and Onge aborigines of the Andaman Islands as Haplogroup D* is simply a convenient shorthand for indicating that the sampled Y-chromosomes of the Andaman aborigines ultimately derive from macro-haplogroup D*-M174, but that they do not display any of the downstream mutations that distinguish other previously identified clades of Haplogroup D, such as Tibetan-Central Asian-Northeast Asian-Chinese Haplogroup D1-M15, Ainu-Japanese-Ryukyuan (presumably Jomonic) Haplogroup D2-M55, or South Central Asian/Pamir Mountain Haplogroup D3-P47. This is merely a side effect of ascertainment bias, in which the more populous nations of mainland Asia and Japan were considered before the Andamanese aborigines when geneticists were first determining the phylogenetic tree of human Y-chromosomes. The Andamanese chromosomes belonging to Haplogroup D all belong to one of (if I remember correctly) only two STR-defined haplotypes, and even those two STR-defined haplotypes are only a single-step mutation apart from each other, strongly suggesting that only one or two very closely related male lineages survive in modern Andaman aborigines, which would be entirely predictable from the fact that the Andaman aboriginal groups, which all have extremely small effective population sizes, may have evolved in almost complete genetic isolation from other human populations of the world since the Middle Paleolithic (i.e., the era when the Neanderthals roamed over Europe), resulting in a signature of an extreme founder effect and/or genetic drift in the extant Andaman aboriginal populations. Need I remind you that the Andaman aborigines lacked even the knowledge of how to produce fire until modern colonial contact? The Andaman aborigines are quite obviously one of the most isolated and archaic of all extant human populations, which is also suggested by their very unusual combination of morphological traits that spans the range of variation of all the typical racial groups of modern humans, as they share general cranial affinities with Caucasoids, steatopygia with the Khoisan, short stature with pygmoid groups of diverse origins, frizzled hair with Papuans and Negroids, etc. The STR profiles of the Haplogroup D chromosomes of the Andaman aborigines are not similar to the STR profiles of any other identified group of Haplogroup D Y-chromosomes, suggesting that the Andaman aborigines share a private common ancestor that was already very distant from the Haplogroup D ancestor who has left descendants in some other Asian populations. It is quite likely that further research will elucidate a unique mutation that defines a separate clade in which we may place all the Andaman aborigine Haplogroup D chromosomes. In any case, it is extremely unlikely that Andaman aborigines, with their wonderfully independently-evolved physical characteristics and archaic technology, somehow managed to "colonize" Tajikistan, Tibet, and Japan, as you seem to have been imagining. By the way, the mtDNA of the Andaman aborigines (which, like their Y-chromosome DNA, is also unique and restricted to their isolated populations) coalesces to a (probably) Middle Paleolithic ancestor shared in common with some present-day inhabitants of Bengal on the Indian mainland. Another distinct group of Y-chromosomes that has been labeled as Haplogroup D* has been detected at a very low frequency (less than 0.5%) in populations of Mongolia. This extremely rare Mongolian group of chromosomes, like the group of Haplogroup D chromosomes that has been found among Andaman aborigines, contains only a couple very similar STR haplotypes (i.e., low diversity, which may be expected considering the extremely low frequency of this Mongolian Haplogroup D*), but the STR profiles of this residual Mongolian Haplogroup D* seem to be most closely related to those of the more widespread and frequently occurring Haplogroup D1, which is one of the major haplogroups found among Tibetan males. The derived Haplogroup D1 is also found among Mongolian males at a low frequency of about 1.2%, but this could be a signature of historical interaction between the Mongolian and Tibetan peoples; however, the fact that Haplogroup D1 occurs at low to moderate frequencies throughout practically all the populations of Central, East, and Northeast Asia makes its presence at a frequency of 1.2% among the Mongolians essentially insignificant. In any case, it is most scientifically sound to consider Y-chromosome macro-haplogroup D-M174 to have its center of diversity in the Hindu Kush/Pamir/Himalaya/Altai mountain ranges of Central Asia, with a few archaic (possibly as old as Middle Paleolithic, or Neanderthal-age) offshoots that have managed to survive to the present day in the Japanese Archipelago (Haplogroup D2) and the Andaman Islands (Andaman-specific type of Haplogroup D*).
The Altaian/Mongolian "paragroup" D* (perhaps better described as a "not yet defined haplogroup") is "only a paragroup," but the Andaman variety of not-yet-better-defined D* is somehow not "only a paragroup"? The Altaian/Mongolian D* and the Andaman D* appear to be phylogenetically on the same level, i.e. they are merely rare haplotypes that are exclusive to the Mongolian and Andaman aborigine populations, respectively, and one cannot claim that the Andaman D* is somehow more significant than the Mongolian D*. I am very interested in seeing the report of the researchers who claim to have found a variety of Haplogroup DE* in a population of Thailand, however. As far as I have heard up to this point, Haplogroup DE* has only been actually detected in five individual men from various ethnic backgrounds in Nigeria out of a dataset that included samples from greater than 8000 men worldwide, including 1247 samples from men of Nigeria: check out the PDF at http://www.ucl.ac.uk/tcga/tcgapdf/Weale-Genetics-03-HG4.pdf for the specifics. It is not known whether this newly discovered (and very rare) Nigerian Haplogroup DE* is really paraphyletic relative to Haplogroups D and E, so it could potentially be merely an isolated and rarely occurring monophyletic clade of YAP+ Y-chromosomes, and thus a "brother haplogroup" to Haplogroups D and E. I think the title of the paper that I linked to above describes my thoughts on the matter perfectly: "Rare Deep-Rooting Y Chromosome Lineages in Humans: Lessons for Phylogeography." As you can see, the recently discovered YAP+ chromosomes that belong neither to African/Middle Eastern/Mediterranean Haplogroup E nor to Asian Haplogroup D were found in only five males out of a sample of 1247 males from various populations within the single country of Nigeria: that equates to a frequency of this particular Haplogroup DE* of only 5/1247 or approximately 0.4%, and even then only within the restricted geographical region of Nigeria. Note also that the five Nigerian Haplogroup DE* specimens appeared to share a fairly recent common ancestor, as the group of five specimens included only two different microsatellite haplotypes, and even those two haplotypes differed by only one step at the DYS391 locus. The authors of the paper described it by writing, "This high level of similarity in such a rapidly evolving system strongly suggests that these five individuals share a private common ancestor." To make a long story short, this very important discovery is telling us that there is at least a third haplogroup derived from an ancient YAP+ ancestor that survives in a few modern day humans, besides the relatively common and widespread macro-haplogroups D and E. However, it is impossible to determine whether the third major subdivision of YAP+ chromosomes, namely Nigerian Haplogroup DE*, is derived from an undifferentiated YAP+ ancestor that was more closely related to the ancestor who originated Haplogroup D* or to the ancestor who originated Haplogroup E*. If one considers the fact that both Haplogroup E* and Nigerian Haplogroup DE* are primarily or exclusively found in Africa, it seems parsimonious to infer that Nigerian Haplogroup DE* might be derived from a YAP+ ancestor that was more closely related to the originator of Haplogroup E* than to the originator of Haplogroup D*, but we lack more detailed data necessary to ascertain the temporal branching order of the three major clades of YAP+ chromosomes (D*, E*, and Nigerian DE*, which could perhaps be less confusingly named as YAP-1, YAP-2, and YAP-3) from the original YAP+ trunk, and at this point, it is safest to state that we just can't know for certain the exact history of the YAP+ clades. Even more importantly, we should take heed of the authors of this article when they entreat us to beware of making any deep-level phylogeographic inferences on the basis of current databases of Y-chromosome samples from present-day human populations. With a sampled frequency of only 5/1247 (0.4%) among Nigerians, we would have to take a sample of at least 250 Nigerians in order to have a decently high probability of finding even a single specimen of Haplogroup DE*. This situation is similar to that of the rare but extremely important Mongolian Haplogroup D*, which is also found at a frequency of merely 2/422 (less than 0.5%). Most surveys of Y-chromosome diversity that have been conducted so far have certainly not sampled at least 250 male individuals from each population, and we must therefore conclude that our knowledge of the variety and distribution of extant human Y-chromosome haplotypes is not yet sufficient to make phylogeographic inferences about the pre-Holocene evolutionary history of Homo sapiens (sapiens) with any confidence. I hope you have all noticed (without my explicitly mentioning it) that we are still missing real specimens that reflect some of the inferred interior nodes of the phylogenetic tree of human Y-chromosomes. Doesn't that seem strange to any of you? Also, the distribution of many derived clades is odd: we find an extremely high frequency of several subclades of Haplogroup R in Europe, but the "parent" of Haplogroup R, namely Haplogroup P*, is not found in Europe or is only found there at nearly undetectable "background" frequency in certain geographically restricted areas (such as islands in the Adriatic Sea off the coast of Croatia, where it is found together with other haplotypes and genes that are typical of Central Asian populations), and the "parent" haplogroup of Haplogroup P* itself (namely, Haplogroup K*) is also found at merely background frequency in modern populations of Europe. These facts strongly suggest a volatile birth and death cycle of human Y-chromosome variants, with a single variant drifting to majority frequency within any endogamous population and all other variants gradually sinking down to a minor or background frequency as a proportion of the entire population. Some of the variants that have thus drifted down to a background frequency in any population are at an elevated risk of becoming entirely extinct from that population, remaining utterly undetected in a survey of Y-chromosome diversity of that population, or failing to be transferred to a new location during the process of migration associated with long-distance colonization or range expansion. Neither does the detection of Y-chromosomes belonging to an interior node of the phylogeny in any particular population necessarily entail that that population's present location is the geographical source of the descendant, exterior branches: for example, Y-chromosomes belonging to Haplogroup NO* have been found at a moderate frequency among populations of the Japanese Archipelago, but it would be quite contrary to all other evidence to infer from the presence of NO* chromosomes in Japan that Japan was the geographical source of the major clades of Y-chromosomes found in extant human populations of North, East, and Southeast Asia. It is more likely that NO* lineages have just managed to survive at appreciable frequencies within the Japanese population, whereas they have probably died out or become exceedingly low in frequency among other Asian populations. |
![]() |
|
| ren | Apr 23 2007, 05:18:12 PM Post #2 |
|
Advanced Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Andamans D*'s support of a southern route for D is a logical possibility.
I believe to characterize D3 as "South Central Asian/Pamire Mountain" is a bit delusional. No offence intended; just a figure of speech.
I thought it was the Tasmanians.
According to follow-up studies on their mtDNA, they are not so isolated, and links to mainland southern Asia well after the initial expansion out of Africa. I don't even see how they have "exotic", unique features. The macro-lineage has been now found among India's tribals.
You would like that, wouldn't you? Segregate them as far away as possible, from Japanese and Koreans.
1. I don't believe I've ever said the Andamanese colonized any place. I've said it's likely that people coming from the southern coast colonized various places in Asia at certain points. 2. I think the D in Tajikstan is of a recent nature via contact with Easu Eurasian nomads such as Tibetans.
Interesting point.. Where did you get this info? Hammer et al. states D* only in "Central Asia" (Tibetan, Mongolian, Altai, Uighur) at 2.1%, excluding the D* in the Andamans.
Practically all "Central Asians" and NE ASians? Really?
The Hammer et al. paper's "Central Asia" is more like western East Asia. I don't see how D has its center of diversity in the Hindu Kush or Pamirs, where presence of D there is miniscule and recent at best. It seems a bit delusional to me. No offense intended; just a figure of speech.
The P in the Adriatic appears to be resolved to Q, attributed to recent "Huns". |
![]() |
|
| black man | Apr 23 2007, 11:12:04 PM Post #3 |
|
The Right Hand
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
This was never in question. We were talking about reports of more (potential) traces of hg D in Asia. |
![]() |
|
| manju | Jul 8 2007, 11:49:14 AM Post #4 |
![]()
doubter
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
From Gao et al.(2007) Have any studies found Haplogroup D* in Qinghai province? |
![]() |
|
| black man | Jul 8 2007, 03:06:26 PM Post #5 |
|
The Right Hand
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
In two studies they reported "DE*" and "D1" only, due to the fact that they didn't use the marker(s) for hg D3. But there seems to be a relatively big genetic gap between Y-STR types of hgs D3 and D1 according to Gayden's data. So I guess that "D(xD1,D2,D3)" in that region would be upstream to the usually tested markers specific to the subbranches 1 and/or 3. In order to find out more, you will have to ask Hammer, Karafet and their team(s) as well as Zhou et al. for their Y-STR materials. Many SNP markers are rarely used for High Asian populations, even when they had been detected long ago. |
![]() |
|
| ren | Mar 10 2008, 02:26:36 AM Post #6 |
|
Advanced Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
JCA, I take it you wrote the Wiki for Y-chrom. hg D1? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_D1_(Y-DNA) --------- Anyway, the Pinghua study has made me notice the high frequency of "Tibetan" D1 in Tai-Kadai and Hmong-Mien populations. I had thought that D1 might be a relic of the Tibetan-Qinghai plateau, but its significant presence in Guangxi makes this unlikely, as Tibeto-Burman people have not penetrated to that region. Perhaps D1 originated in SW China. This might be evidence of an actual bifurcation of D from O, N, and C. The Liujiang fossil specimen (more likely 10,000 BP rather than the 65,000 BP assigned by Chinese anthros) has various "negrito" characteristics, as well as later fossils found in Guangdong to the east. --------- reference: Liujiang: "A LATE PLEISTOCENE HUMAN SKELETON FROM LIUJIANG, CHINA SUGGESTS REGIONAL POPULATION VARIATION IN SEXUAL DIMORPHISM IN THE HUMAN PELVIS" Guangdong finds: www.wenhuacn.com/article.asp?classid=6&articleid=1069 |
![]() |
|
| Ebizur | Mar 10 2008, 06:11:35 AM Post #7 |
|
Advanced Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Huh?
Haplogroup D1 is not really present in "high" frequency among all Hmong-Mien populations, although it has been found at very high frequency among some samples of Yao. In general, haplogroup D1 seems to be present at less than 10% frequency among most samples of Miao and Yao, but I have so far not seen any evidence that haplogroup D1 is shared between the Miao, Yao on the one hand and the linguistically related She people on the other. If we divided the Hmong-Mien family into an "Eastern" branch, represented by She, and a "Western" branch, represented by Hmong and Mien, then we might be able to say that haplogroup D1 is present at low to moderate frequency among the "Western" Hmong-Miens, but apparently absent from the "Eastern" Hmong-Miens. Haplogroup D1 is almost universally present among Tibeto-Burman populations in southwestern China, however; Qiang, Yi, and even Tujia all display a greater or lesser presence of haplogroup D1 Y-DNA. Haplogroup D1 seems to be found at highest frequency in the northeastern part of Tibeto-Burman territory, namely the Tibetan regions of Amdo and Khams, which straddle Qinghai and Sichuan provinces. As for the Tai-Kadai, it is difficult to find any particular genetic characteristic by which to define them, and their Y-DNA is especially troublesome. Most populations of the Zhuang-Tai branch, including the Zhuang themselves, have an extremely high frequency of haplogroup O2a-M95 (including both O2a* and O2a1), but various sorts of haplogroup O3 and haplogroup O1 are also quite common among many Tai-Kadai populations. Some of them even have significant amounts of O2b or O2*(xO2a, O2b). I have previously remarked on the extreme diversity of haplogroup O (and even haplogroup NO in general) among Tai-Kadai populations, and also on the fact that, on average, the Tai-Kadai populations seem to be the purest extant example of a "haplogroup NO population." The Tai-Kadai samples of some studies have been notable for being the only East Asians to contain exclusively haplogroup NO-M214-derived Y chromosomes. It seems that the most isolated Tai-Kadai populations (e.g. the Hlai on Hainan) do not possess any haplogroup D1 Y-chromosomes, and haplogroup D1 is rather found among Tai-Kadai populations whose ethnic origins are ambiguous or disputed, or who have been known to have extensive cultural interactions with other populations of Southwest China. For example, the study on the Pinghua-speaking Han found a high frequency of haplogroup D1 among the Laka, who, if I am not mistaken, are officially categorized as "Yao," despite the fact that they speak a Tai-Kadai language. There is obviously some reason for designating the Laka to be part of the Yao ethnicity, so we shouldn't take them to be representative of Tai-Kadai people.
There are large numbers of Yao and Miao in Guangxi, in addition to some communities of Tibeto-Burman Yi people. Several thousand Yi may be found even as far as northeastern Vietnam. Considering the fact that haplogroup D1 does not appear to be regularly found among Tai-Kadai peoples in Indochina or Hainan, it might be more likely that the presence of this haplogroup among some Tai-Kadai-speaking populations of the Yunnan-Guangxi region is due to some sort of admixture, perhaps with Yao, Miao, or Yi people. The westernmost and northernmost Zhuang and Buyei in Yunnan and Guizhou should be in contact with various Hmong-Mien and Tibeto-Burman ethnic groups, too. By the way, have you considered the fact that even haplogroup O2b1a-47z has been found at frequencies as high as 8% among populations in Indonesia, Thailand, and Vietnam? If haplogroup O2b1a really did originate somewhere around Japan, then there must have been some migration from that area to Southeast Asia, and that migration could have also brought along some haplogroup D. However, as I mentioned earlier, haplogroup D1 is more typically found among populations in western and southwestern China rather than among populations in Indochina and the Malay Archipelago, whereas haplogroup O2b1a has been found outside of Japan mainly in western Indonesia, Korea, Thailand, and Vietnam. I know of one study that claimed to have found quite a large amount of O2b1a among Manchus, but I am suspicious of the validity of this study, since many published studies of Manchus have not found any haplogroup O2b1a among them, and the areas where the majority of the modern people labeled as "Manchu" by the government of the PRC reside were heavily colonized by Japanese during the first half of the 20th century. I suspect that the researchers who found high frequencies of haplogroup O2b1a among Manchus might have used lax sampling procedures, and ended up testing a bunch of Japanese descendants.
No one really knows where haplogroup D1 originated, but it is known to be much less diverse than haplogroup D in Japan, which suggests that haplogroup D1 might have recently expanded from a small founder population.
The Liujiang fossil, only 10,000 years old? That would make it post-Natufian and even later than the beginning of the full-blown Neolithic in parts of the Middle East. I know there is a lot of controversy about the dating of the Liujiang fossil, but I think 10,000 BP is much too recent. I suspect that you probably made a typo and input 10,000 BP when you really meant 100,000 BP. |
![]() |
|
| ren | Mar 10 2008, 07:18:16 AM Post #8 |
|
Advanced Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
But haven't you needed less to be convinced of D's Central Asian origins?
But this is based on just 35 Li from Hainan and 35 Buyi, as well as the Zhuang study? The Pinghua study seems to show that the "Daics" are more diverse in terms of C, D1, and K than Han.
From "Male Demography in East Asia: a North-South Contrast in Human Population Expansion Times."? The sample of 35 Li (Hlai) and 35 Buyi is not enough to come to a conclusion that Tai-Kadai are the "purest NO population". In fact, your notion that the Li is one of the purest Tai-Kadai groups imply Tai-Kadai either originated on Hainan (unlike looking at the diversity of Tai-Kadai languages in the mainland) or that non-NO arrived later on. Or it could be that Hlai are simply unique, as a result of founder effects or poor sampling. Similar small samples have found the Drung/Dulong Tibeto-Burmans to possess only O3, for example.
Tibeto-Burman groups have not penetrated into Guangxi, as far as I know, and these ethnic groups tend to marry within their own groups, so such a diffusion is not easy to imagine.
There's very little trace of Japanese descendants in Manchuria, and even less so when it comes to Manchus.
Most Western anthropologists tend to prefer the 10,000 BP date, becase at 65,000 BP, Liujiang would be the oldest non-African modern found, and that date doesn't agree the advanced nature of the fossil nor the generally proposed timeline of human migration. The point is that the skulls of this region, from SE Asia to southern China, did not show conclusive "Mongoloid" characteristics untl the advancement of Neolithic agriculture around 4-3,000 years ago. |
![]() |
|
| Ebizur | Mar 10 2008, 01:04:22 PM Post #9 |
|
Advanced Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Central Asia is the best candidate for the place of origination of haplogroup D, if one excludes Japan according to the "standard" bias. Technically, Japan has the highest diversity of haplogroup D Y-chromosomes, so it should be considered the place of origination on purely genetic grounds. However, Central Asia has D1, D3, and also some D*, and although these groups are not so diverse as the haplogroup D in Japan, they still require that we consider Central Asia to have more diverse examples of haplogroup D than Southern China, where only haplogroup D1 is found.
No, this observation is based on the total of all the published studies I have seen that included a sample of Tai-Kadai speakers. Tai people in Southeast Asia do not carry haplogroup D1 at a "significant" rate (i.e. no higher than the rate at which it is found among Han Chinese, for example). The Pinghua study has even smaller sample sizes than any of the ones I was referring to, and yet you think that it is somehow better than them? The largest sample of a Tai-Kadai population in the Pinghua study was Kam-SanJiang, with a sample size of only 28 individuals. Although the 21.43% (6/28) figure for haplogroup C among the Kam-SanJiang sample is quite surprising, it is not significantly higher than the frequency of haplogroup C among some published samples of neighboring populations, such as Yao in Bama Yao Autonomous County (Xue et al.) or the Yao sample from "Dual Origins of the Japanese" (Hammer et al.). Maybe some of the haplogroup C among Dong in Sanjiang is due to admixture with Yao people; it could also just be an artifact of the sampling or genetic drift. The fact remains that haplogroup C is rare among Tai-Kadai populations in general, and it has not even been found at all among many samples of Tai-Kadai populations. (As for the Laka, I have already mentioned that their Tai-Kadai ethnic origin is questionable, and they only had 1/23 = 4.35% haplogroup C, which is insignificant since it is a singleton and 4.35% frequency is equal to or less than the average frequency of haplogroup C in China.)
I agree that larger samples of these populations are needed, but n=35 is still larger than any sample in the Pinghua study that you have been raving about. We may also note that Thai and Lao populations in Indochina belong almost exclusively to haplogroup NO, and these groups add up to a much larger population than the Tai-Kadai "remnants" in Hainan and southern China. The notion that Tai-Kadai might have originated on Hainan is actually frequently batted around in academic linguistic circles, but I have not even made such a claim; I wouldn't be so quick to deny it, either, though. Hlai is widely considered to be the most divergent (and thus the oldest branch) within the Tai-Kadai phylum.
Why do you keep going on about "small sample sizes" when the Pinghua study that you seem to like so much has the smallest sample sizes of all? I suppose it is because it suits your wishes. Anyway, the abnormally high frequency of haplogroup O3 (and haplogroup O3a5-M134 in particular) among Tibeto-Burman tribal peoples in the southern Himalayas and western Yunnan is probably due to a founder effect among a small population of Tibeto-Burman colonists coming from somewhere further north in China. I'm sure that would be the standard line, at least. It is easily conceivable that a small, endogamous tribal group like the Dulong really would be 100% haplogroup O3 at present, or at least so close to 100% that non-haplogroup O3 Y chromosomes would remain undetected without very extensive sampling.
I just mentioned that there are some Yi people in Guangxi and northeastern Vietnam, and Yi people are Tibeto-Burmans. The presence of Yao and Miao people is much more notable, however, and the haplogroup D1 among Laka could derive from the same source as the haplogroup D among Yao and Miao, especially considering the fact that the Laka are Yao, at least according to the Chinese government's official classification.
I know that there is hardly anyone who claims to be a Japanese descendant left in modern Manchuria, but that doesn't exclude the possibility that some Japanese DNA could still be floating around there. If haplogroup O2b1a really does exist among Manchus, it is hard to imagine why this haplogroup should have been missed in the samples of most published studies of Manchus (unless the researchers had excluded it a priori as "Japanese admixture"), and one would also expect to find some haplogroup O2b1a in other regions of China where Manchus have settled since the beginning of the Qing Dynasty and their spreading all over the territory of modern China, unless they were 100% endogamous. Anyway, the only study that has found a high frequency of haplogroup O2b among Manchus seems to be Toru Katoh et al., "Genetic features of Mongolian ethnic groups revealed by Y-chromosomal analysis," and it is not only that study's Manchu results that are quite strange. Which study was it that showed some haplogroup O2b1a among Manchus? Or am I just imagining things? I just checked the "Mongolian ethnic groups" study, which I suspected to be the one, but it looks like they only tested as far as haplogroup O2b in that study. I might have been thinking of the Xue et al. study which showed a fairly significant proportion of haplogroup O2b1a among Koreans, not Manchus. Anyway, maybe I was wrong about the O2b1a among Manchus thing; it might be that O2b1a has been confirmed only among Japanese, Koreans, Indonesians, Thais, and Vietnamese.
That report that you cited in your previous post suggested that the Liujiang fossil might be over 100,000 years old. They seem to think that the presently accepted dating is too recent rather than too ancient. Can you provide a citation to an article published by an anthropologist who has argued that the Liujiang specimen is only 10,000 years old? |
![]() |
|
| ren | Mar 11 2008, 02:14:02 AM Post #10 |
|
Advanced Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Lets see. D* is found in Tibetans, Mongolians, Andaman islanders. D1 appears across the board in various ethnic groups of East Asia. Atleast some of the D* is probably D3 because D3 was not tested, according to black man. D2 is in Japan. D3 is "Tibetan", and the D3 you mention in Tajiks most likely would just be spill-over from Tibetans. I don't see how that leads you to conclude D's focal point is at the Hindu Kush, the Pamirs... That's practically saying D is Pakistani. I'll answer the other questions in a separate thread on Tai-Kadai. Would you mind if I moved your Tai-Kadai comments into the post in made in the Tai-Kadai thread? That would be less confusing.
You have a tendency to jump ahead of conversation. When did I say the Pinghua study is better? The one thing it is better is that it samples a multiplicity of Tai-Kadai ethnic groups, thus providing a numerically larger sample both in terms of ethnic/regional groups and actual numer of samples. But my real point is actually that it nullifies your hypothesis because further samples here does not follow the pattern you predicted, unless you assume a priori that Tai-Kadai are pure NO's, but if you are willing to let go of a fondness for your hypothesis, you'll see that's a circular loop, a self-fulfilling prophecy. |
![]() |
|
| Ebizur | Mar 11 2008, 02:46:13 AM Post #11 |
|
Advanced Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Umm...
I don't know how to respond. Everything you have said in your post is ridiculous.
First, Mongolia, Xinjiang, and Tibet are included in many definitions of "Central Asia," and that is the definition that I am using when I say that the most likely place of origin of haplogroup D, outside of Japan, is in "Central Asia." Haplogroup D in Japan is much more diverse (based on calculations of time to most recent common ancestor using STR variances) than haplogroup D anywhere else. I don't know whether anyone has performed a calculation of TMRCA on all the haplogroup D Y-chromosomes found in Central Asia/Mongolia/Tibet/Western China (i.e. all of haplogroup D1, D3, and the local D* grouped together) to see whether they all share a common ancestor that is more recent than the common ancestor of haplogroup D in Japan, but I do know that when the TMRCA of each of the continental subgroups of haplogroup D is calculated separately, none of them is as diverse as Japanese haplogroup D. And I haven't mentioned Tajiks at all.
I've never said such a thing. What is it with people on online forums and their putting words in other people's mouths? I've been having so many problems with this lately, and definitely not only with ren. Some people are apparently able to attribute claims to those who have never made such claims without feeling any compunction. This sort of inconsiderate behavior is really starting to annoy me.
Amused at your false imputations?
I am not in Japan; I live on the west coast of the United States. At least you got the "White" part right. Finally, I have never tried to attribute a "Western" origin to elements of traditional Japanese culture. I'm afraid you are acting like the "drowning man grasping at a straw" now, ren.
I'm not really looking forward to reading it now that you've ruined any hope of receiving a relevant reply from you. |
![]() |
|
| ren | Mar 11 2008, 03:10:09 AM Post #12 |
|
Advanced Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
From your first post in this thread:
In this statement, you clearly distinguish "South Central Asia/Pamirs" from Tibet. So, if it's not Tajikstan, Pakistan, Afghanistan, then what is it?
---------
I was merely trying to find out how you see something that I don't see at all. How about his, I'll delete my comment out of my post. It may be an inappropriate excursion now that I think about it. edited 2010-7-13 (wrote on another thread on 12th)(split's Maju's old diatribe in-between my and JCA's post to the lounge - http://s6.zetaboards.com/man/topic/8659572/) JCA, I really don't see any evidence at all for D to be related E, in the sense that they split from each other in Central Asia. In fact, the evidence against it is overwhelming. I'm going to combine this topic with the previous D from Central Asia topic, if it's alright with you? The old topic is here, http://s6.zetaboards.com/man/topic/528819/1/. I can always split it if you don't want. After the combination I'm going to consolidate/update my views and delete some of my old posts, and hopefully you can also consolidate and delete. That way the thread and concepts are easier to follow. Edited by ren, Jul 13 2010, 10:28:26 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| Ebizur | Jul 13 2010, 05:53:07 AM Post #13 |
|
Advanced Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Where is this "overwhelming" evidence? I would prefer to keep my current thread separate. I have created that thread for the purpose of collecting all available data regarding the distribution of DE-YAP in greater Central Asia, and not for the purpose of debating the region of origin of subclades of DE-YAP. |
![]() |
|
| black man | Sep 27 2010, 03:17:40 AM Post #14 |
|
The Right Hand
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
5 Altaians reassigned to hg D3? Karafet, Osipova, Hammer: The effect of history and life-style on genetic structure of North Asian populations. Sagart, Blench, Sanchez-Mazas (eds): Past Human Migrations in East Asia: Matching Archaeology, Linguistics and Genetics |
![]() |
|
| ren | Sep 28 2010, 12:14:12 PM Post #15 |
|
Advanced Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Nice find and clarification of Altain D*.. |
![]() |
|
| black man | Sep 28 2010, 01:14:19 PM Post #16 |
|
The Right Hand
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Y hg D could have spread into the Altais before the advent of STs or later, together with Buddhism. Addendum: In one of the supplementary files of "Y-STR diversity in the Himalayas" (2010) Gayden's 6 Tibetans in paragroup D* were re-assigned: 2007 version: P47+: 29 M174+/M15-/P47-: 6 M15+: 44 M217: 4 H-M52: 3 J-M410: 1 M231: 7 M324: 4 M122: 1 M117: 45 M134+/M117-: 3 M120: 2 M346: 3 M124: 1 M198: 3 2010 version: P99+/P47+: 30 (one more) P99+/P47-: 4 (four more) M15+: 43 (one less) M174+/M15-/P47-: 0 (six less) M217: 5 (one more) H-M69: 3 J-M410: 1 M231: 7 M324: 3 (one less) M122: 1 M117: 46 (one more) M134+/M117-: 3 M120: 2 M346: 3 M124: 2 (one more) M17: 3 |
![]() |
|
| yungsiyebu | Oct 30 2010, 10:59:37 AM Post #17 |
|
Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I don't think Andaman's D* was so old to the island, andaman's stone technology is similar to Toalean stone industry which apppeared in South Sulawesi, Indonesia since 6000 BC, and there's the oldest archeaological site in the island dated back to less 3000 years. |
![]() |
|
| black man | Nov 22 2010, 09:46:01 AM Post #18 |
|
The Right Hand
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Addendum: the numbers in the book version of Karafet's article are the same. I.e., SW Siberian hg D is probably D3. Gil-White on adoptions by Central Eurasian Muslims in Are Ethnic Groups Biological “Species” to the Human Brain?:
Edited by black man, Feb 17 2011, 04:52:33 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| « Previous Topic · Y-chromosome: CF · Next Topic » |





![]](http://z6.ifrm.com/static/1/pip_r.png)




I don't know how to respond. Everything you have said in your post is ridiculous.