|
Post by kir on Apr 8, 2005 23:09:14 GMT -5
So, it looks as if M originated in Asia, then returned to NE Africa (and is there classified as M1.) That could explain the common "Indian" appearance that many people in that area show. Finally, someone who gets the point. And he said “could” as well.
|
|
|
Post by chrisjones on Apr 9, 2005 0:19:06 GMT -5
Actually M1 DID migrate back to Africa, that is what the paper proved beyond a reasonable doubt Finally, someone who gets the point. . But not you obviously: What is actually stated: In the absence of a detailed M1 phylogeny, we have focused our attention on M2 to estimate the place of split of M from L3 as Africa or Asia.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 majorhaplogroup.M Haplogroup derives from L3 and spawned M1. They are not the same thing. Also it is a mistake to try and translate haplotypes into phenotypes, and phenotypes into doubtful racial catagories. The andaman islanders have been sighted previously as one of the earliest M haplogroup descendant populations to migrate out of Africa: www.andaman.org/book/chapter6/text6.htmI assume you know what they look like.
|
|
|
Post by topdog on Apr 9, 2005 1:04:19 GMT -5
This has nothing to do with M1. It could have been any haplogroup found in Eurasia. It just happens to be M1. Because it is found in the Afrocentrist Eden of NE Africa it has to be negroid and African. Have you been following this thread? No one said anything about M1 being Negroid, in fact someone said it was Veddoid? I'm not going to bother replying to this, I've seen you argue this same point to the verge of flames with another poster in the RM forum about 'real' Negroid Africans. When facts are presented that prove otherwise[that variation exists in Negroids] you just deny anthropology as a valid science, that is when data do not support you. Pygmies are short people that originated in the forest, deep within the forest. They are as distinct from West Africans as Nilotes are, but none are mixed.
|
|
|
Post by topdog on Apr 9, 2005 1:10:30 GMT -5
But not you obviously: What is actually stated: In the absence of a detailed M1 phylogeny, we have focused our attention on M2 to estimate the place of split of M from L3 as Africa or Asia.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 majorhaplogroup.M Haplogroup derives from L3 and spawned M1. They are not the same thing. Also it is a mistake to try and translate haplotypes into phenotypes, and phenotypes into doubtful racial catagories. The andaman islanders have been sighted previously as one of the earliest M haplogroup descendant populations to migrate out of Africa: www.andaman.org/book/chapter6/text6.htmI assume you know what they look like. Indeed, I fully agree here. Since researchers have not found any lineages or evidence of M1 in India they chose to just shy away from it altogether and focus on M2. Its even stated in another paper: Based on the high frequency and diversity of haplogroup M in India and elsewhere in Asia, some authors have suggested (versus [3]) that M may have arisen in Southwest Asia [16,17,31]. Finding M1 or a lineage ancestral to M1 in India, could help to explain the presence of M1 in Africa as a result of a back migration from India. Yet, to date this has not been achieved [15], this study). Therefore, one cannot rule out the still most parsimonious scenario that haplogroup M arose in East Africa [3]. Furthermore, the lack of L3 lineages other than M and N (indeed, L3M and L3N) in India is more consistent with the African launch of haplogroup M.evolutsioon.ut.ee/publications/Metspalu2004.pdfBasically, they can say what they want about M2, but that recent paper doesn't prove M1 came into Africa as a result of back-migration.
|
|
|
Post by topdog on Apr 9, 2005 1:48:10 GMT -5
I take it personal because some Brainless AfroAmericans with no heritage claim that I'm arab and not a Berber. I can't accept it, especially from people who have nothing to do with North Africa. Sure, blame the Afro-Americans for calling you Arab when its North Africans who call themselves Arabs?. Your only contact with Afro-Americans is probably via this forum. We Afro-Americans do have a heritage, why don't you learn about it instead of denying we have one?
|
|
|
Post by topdog on Apr 9, 2005 2:21:26 GMT -5
So, it looks as if M originated in Asia, then returned to NE Africa (and is there classified as M1.) That could explain the common "Indian" appearance that many people in that area show. That hasn't been proven and since when is M connected with exclusively looking like Indians?
|
|
|
Post by kir on Apr 9, 2005 2:34:58 GMT -5
M Haplogroup derives from L3 and spawned M1. They are not the same thing. True, so did every other M linage, including the indian ones, so what’s your point.
|
|
|
Post by mhagneto on Apr 9, 2005 2:49:45 GMT -5
That hasn't been proven and since when is M connected with exclusively looking like Indians? Well, the new study supercedes the one you cited and offers pretty compelling evidence for an Asian origin i.e. M in India 50,000 BP, M1 in Ethiopia 12,000 BP. Perhaps we should both read it again. I didn't state that "M is connected exclusively with Indian-looking people." It was only a speculation, based merely on personal observation. But I don't think it's completely implausible, either, if distinctive populations similar to those that exist today had appeared as long ago as 12,000 BP.
|
|
|
Post by kir on Apr 9, 2005 3:11:02 GMT -5
That hasn't been proven and since when is M connected with exclusively looking like Indians? There are mongoloid varieties of M, as well Indian varieties or M. This holds for N as well. You are right, the Macrohaplogroups M and N have no look. However regional specific M’s an N relate with race. For instance if you test a Mongoloid population for haplogroups, there is like a 95% chance that their M would be C, D, M9, M7… etc. All of these M’s are mongoloid specific. It’s a good indicator of race. The same holds true for South Asians. Every Race has their own M, N or L types. However Australian Aboriginal and Caucausians have little of no M types, excluding M1 and I don’t know why. Here is an example: www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2156/5/26/figure/F11?highres=ySee it really does show race.
|
|
|
Post by topdog on Apr 9, 2005 3:30:00 GMT -5
Well, the new study supercedes the one you cited and offers pretty compelling evidence for an Asian origin i.e. M in India 50,000 BP, M1 in Ethiopia 12,000 BP. Perhaps we should both read it again. I didn't state that "M is connected exclusively with Indian-looking people." It was only a speculation, based merely on personal observation. But I don't think it's completely implausible, either, if distinctive populations similar to those that exist today had appeared as long ago as 12,000 BP. The new study has found no roots to M1 in India so you do need to read it again, plus there was no detailed phylogeny of M1 so M1 isn't conclusively proven to be a product of back-migration to Africa. M1 isn't found in India.
|
|
|
Post by mhagneto on Apr 9, 2005 5:12:56 GMT -5
The new study has found no roots to M1 in India so you do need to read it again, plus there was no detailed phylogeny of M1 so M1 isn't conclusively proven to be a product of back-migration to Africa. M1 isn't found in India. If what you say is true, then M1 has been mischaracterized and does not belong to M's phylogeny. What is the possibility of that being the case? What I find strange is the passion you bring to this issue. It appears that you're chagrined by even the possibility of M1 being Asian-derived. What's the big deal? Addendum: BTW, what matters here is not M1's descendants but rather M's. That M1 does not appear in India has no bearing on the issue of whether or not it derives from M in India. M1 is a downstream mutation.
|
|
|
Post by topdog on Apr 9, 2005 5:24:00 GMT -5
If what you say is true, then M1 has been mischaracterized and does not belong to M's phylogeny. What is the possibility of that being the case? What I find strange is the passion you bring to this issue. It appears that you're chagrined by even the possibility of M1 being Asian-derived. What's the big deal? I'm not chagrined, I just replied to your hasty conclusion of M1 which you jumped to without fully considering the facts. M1 is at its high frequency 17% in one East African population, so it does not matter where M originated, its the facts that matter.
|
|
|
Post by mhagneto on Apr 9, 2005 5:45:35 GMT -5
My hasty conclusion about M1? It's not my conclusion, it's the conclusion of the authors of the study. You can read. What do they say? Boy, this is getting really weird. You insist that the authors did not come to the conclusion they specifically stated they came to! Call them wrong, but don't tell me they didn't say what is right there in the language of the paper
|
|
|
Post by topdog on Apr 9, 2005 5:45:52 GMT -5
So, it looks as if M originated in Asia, then returned to NE Africa (and is there classified as M1.) That could explain the common "Indian" appearance that many people in that area show. This is the part you didn't read or missed in that study.. We further suggest that as more M1 mt DNA genomes are sequenced, there is a possibility that this lineage might find its root in one of the peripheral branches of Asian M lineage.That certainly doesn't support your above comment. When M1 is finally resolved then the origin of M can finally resolved.
|
|
|
Post by mhagneto on Apr 9, 2005 5:59:40 GMT -5
This is the part you didn't read or missed in that study.. We further suggest that as more M1 mt DNA genomes are sequenced, there is a possibility that this lineage might find its root in one of the peripheral branches of Asian M lineage.That certainly doesn't support your above comment. When M1 is finally resolved then the origin of M can finally resolved. Charlie: You and I have a communication problem. I just can't see that "resolving" M1 (12,000 yrs old) will lead us to the origin of M (50,000 yrs old). Can anyone here help us out? I've run out of things to say about this M1 business, and 99% of what I know was gathered from the paper rudeboy cited.
|
|