|
Post by topdog on Apr 9, 2005 6:11:54 GMT -5
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. The citation simply stated that M1's roots have not been found in India and unlike the example of U6, no timeline and research has been done to confirm an Asian origin and the time it allegedly entered Africa. The authors concluded that M has an Asian origin based on M2 and they did no analysis on M1's phylogeny[they even state in the absence of M1 phylogeny they used M2], they merely concluded that based on their finding of M having an Asian origin the roots of M1 might possibly be found in India or somewhere in Asia. M1's phylogeny isn't even complete to come to your conclusion.
|
|
|
Post by chrisjones on Apr 9, 2005 9:32:36 GMT -5
hmagneto writes; Do you understand that M Haplogroup is also 'downstream'? You should go back and read some of the good posts by Valerie: The ciataion simply stated that M1's roots have not been found in India and unlike the example of U6, no timeline and research has been done to confirm an Asian origin and the time it allegedly entered Africa. The authors concluded that M has an Asian origin based on M2 and they did no analysis on M1's phylogeny[they even state in the absence of M1 phylogeny they used M2], they merely concluded that based on their finding of M having an Asian origin the roots of M1 might possibly be found in India or somewhere in Asia. M1's phylogeny isn't even complete to come to your conclusion. Charlie and Valerie have a good understanding of the current status of M1 haplotype.
|
|
|
Post by mhagneto on Apr 9, 2005 10:45:43 GMT -5
hmagneto writes; Do you understand that M Haplogroup is also 'downstream'? You should go back and read some of the good posts by Valerie: Charlie and Valerie have a good understanding of the current status of M1 haplotype. Of course; L3 is the precursor to most of the world population mt DNA, including M. The issue discussed above had to do with M1 and its relation to the rest of the M superhaplogroup, specifically where and at what time M originated. The authors of that new study concluded that M originated in South Asia; that M's derivative M1 arrived as a result of a back- migration from Asia to NE Africa (the M1 "substitutions at the coding regions" I would guess occuring in NE Africa because that's the only region where this haplogroup is common). The question for the authors (about M1, which wasn't the paper's main focus ) was from which part of the M supergroup did M1 derive: did M1 derive from the "main trunk" of M or from one of its peripheral branches? I wasn't sure what Charlie was saying; perhaps I misundertood. But he seemed to me to be suggesting at least that we couldn't be sure that M1 came from Asia because it's not known yet from which part of M M1 derived. That's like saying: The evidence shows that Mr M1 came here to Baltimore from Chicago, but since we don't know which part of Chicago he came from, we can't conclude after all that he is from Chicago! But, as I said before, I'm not sure I understood what Charlie was saying. Anyway, that's my interpretation of the paper. I welcome any critical comments, both pro and con, on my interpretation. After all, there may be some things I overlooked or misunderstood.
|
|
|
Post by chrisjones on Apr 9, 2005 11:07:20 GMT -5
lol, I repeat, Valerie and Charlie appear to have a good understanding of the paper in question.
|
|
|
Post by SensoUnico on Apr 9, 2005 11:34:31 GMT -5
Valery is just using the frequencies of haplogroups in a population genetic framework. Topdog Lol. One is unbiased and understands genetics, the other lacking his training and capacity to understand. Your earlier statement about Semitic languages leaving Africa is equally unproven and based circumstantial evidence. It is just opinion. You seem to agree with Topdog a lot, a bit odd is it not.
|
|
|
Post by chrisjones on Apr 9, 2005 11:51:04 GMT -5
The point about the Afro-Asiatic language phylum analogy, is that the fact that only one branch migrated out of East Africa, does not prove that only one branch EXISTED in East Africa, indeed quite the opposite is the case.
ps - I'm relatively new to this forum and not interested in personal animosities and ill feelings that have apparently accumulated over time.
|
|
|
Post by SensoUnico on Apr 9, 2005 12:00:10 GMT -5
You are just bits of electricity on my computer. Relax and get used to vehement discussions. I am a forum virgin myself and do not know the rules. I do not accept any Semitic languages as African even Amharic. The out of Africa theory is just that a theory without any real proofs. The other languages in the groups may not even be related to Semitic languages. Not everything in Africa is indigenous or evolved there. The NE corner of Africa is the only part that is ever discussed. Why is that?
|
|
|
Post by mhagneto on Apr 9, 2005 12:33:59 GMT -5
lol, I repeat, Valerie and Charlie appear to have a good understanding of the paper in question. What I'm asking, Chris, is this: Since I'm not sure of Charlie's or Valery's interpretation of the cited study, could you (or them or someone else ) explain theirs, and how it's different than mine; I mean, do they interpret the author's conclusions differently than I did, as I delineated in my last message? I'd like to discuss specifics. BTW, I now realize that I didn't see the "coalescence time" (?) for M1 (12,000 BP) in the cited study, but rather in someone's recent message. The authors of the study did state, however, that the antiquity of the Asian - specific M lineages is far greater than that of the relatively newer Ethiopian M1, and they see this as evidence that the M superhaplogroup is Asian derived.
|
|
|
Post by chrisjones on Apr 9, 2005 13:13:37 GMT -5
I do not accept any Semitic languages as African even Amharic. The out of Africa theory is just that a theory without any real proofs.. OOA has nothing to do with the Afro-Asiatic language group. I recommend - Christopher Ehret's: Reconstructing Proto-Afroasiatic for more information.
|
|
|
Post by mhagneto on Apr 9, 2005 13:40:38 GMT -5
You are just bits of electricity on my computer. Relax and get used to vehement discussions. I am a forum virgin myself and do not know the rules. I do not accept any Semitic languages as African even Amharic. The out of Africa theory is just that a theory without any real proofs. The other languages in the groups may not even be related to Semitic languages. Not everything in Africa is indigenous or evolved there. The NE corner of Africa is the only part that is ever discussed. Why is that? Doesn't OOA theory enjoy the prevailing consensus? I'm no expert, but it appears that there is so much evidence accumulated in favor of OOA and against multi regionalism that that latter theory has been pretty much debunked.
|
|
|
Post by topdog on Apr 9, 2005 14:44:47 GMT -5
Please show where the paper states M1 came to NE Africa in a back migration. Incorrect, the researchers came to the conclusion that M originated in Asia only after they bypassed M1 and focused on M2 since they 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.Until there's a detailed phylogeny on M1, nothing is certain about its origins. Its obvious why M1 wasn't used because there is no evidence of it being in India and its highest frequencies are in East Africa. m1 is one of those lineages researchers don't care to touch it appears.
|
|
|
Post by mike2 on Apr 9, 2005 14:57:06 GMT -5
lol... this topic won't die. M1 must be real controversial or something for this much debate.
|
|
|
Post by topdog on Apr 9, 2005 15:00:18 GMT -5
lol... this topic won't die. M1 must be real controversial or something for this much debate. Not really, its just an outpouring of dialogue. Despite gundagai's disruptive ramblings, this thread has been very clean.
|
|
|
Post by mhagneto on Apr 9, 2005 17:54:04 GMT -5
Please show where the paper states M1 came to NE Africa in a back migration. (quote from the paper): " Although this study presents only a preliminary view of the M phylogeny, the emerging data may be useful in resolving the debate on the Asian origin of the M macrohaplogroup. Since M macrohaplogroup is derived from L3, which finds its roots in East Africa, some believe that the presence of M1 in Ethiopia further substantiates an African origin for M."...... "In the absence of a detailed M1 phylogeny, we have focused our attention on M2 to estimate the place of the split of M from L3--- Africa or Asia. Interestingly, a single M2 genome differs in its coding region from the root of M at ten sites; in comparison, M1 has only four substitutions. Also, sub-lineages of M2, M5, M30 and M31 show long branch lengths, highlighting the deep roots of those lineages. Considering the antiquity of M2 and other Asian specific M lineages, the Ethiopian M1 lineage is by far a relatively newer branch. Our study on M1 and M2 mt DNA genomes clearly established the Asian origin of the M macro haplogroup, followed by a back migration to Africa. We suggest that, as more M1 mt DNA genomes are sequenced, there's the possibility that this lineage might find its root in one of the peripheral branches of the of the Asian M lineage." I'll finish later, Charlie; gotta run now Incorrect, the researchers came to the conclusion that M originated in Asia only after they bypassed M1 and focused on M2 since they 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.Until there's a detailed phylogeny on M1, nothing is certain about its origins. Its obvious why M1 wasn't used because there is no evidence of it being in India and its highest frequencies are in East Africa. m1 is one of those lineages researchers don't care to touch it appears.
|
|
|
Post by SensoUnico on Apr 10, 2005 0:48:36 GMT -5
These topics go on much too long because it involves the white haired boys of the Afrocentrists, the Ethiopians. Similarly the ancient Egyptians are the blue eyed boys of Afrocentrists. Guess what? I am not an Afrocentrist. The argument about any haplogroup's presence in any group is moot as it does not tell you what the possessor's looked like or what the donators of that haplogroup looked like. It does not even tell you whether it is imported, a local change in DNA, a coevolutionary change in diverse populations. All it tells you is that it was present in some of the ancestors of those people tested. Everything else is supposition. The Lemba and today's Jews, some of the males anyway, share similar markers. Do they look the same? Do they share the same history and culture? Assumptions can be made which can never be proven. Personally I think my contribution is both an awakener to doubt and a voice of reason. chrisjones may consider Mr. Ehret or Mr Greenberg or whoever as the bee's knees and divine word on the origins of languages found in Africa and West Asia but many do not. The African origin of the Semitic language group has more to do with 20th century fashion, feelings of Eurocentric guilt for the devalueing of negroid African achievements, Political Correctness, Africa is the home of everything human paradigm and base self interest in establishing a name for oneself than actual linguistic relationships. The jury has been intimidated and cowered by the Afrocentrist thugs but the doubters are still there.
|
|