Nostratic's New Guinea Home

I wrote:
<<In fact, to the extent that particular haplotype survives today (according
to the Underhill table), the largest apparent modern concentration of that
gene combination (marked 87 in Underhill) is in New Guinea (30%), with
smaller ratios in Cambodia/Laos (5%), Hunza (5%) and "Central
Asia-Siberia"(3%). Subsequent mutations of this founder gene does not affect
that conclusion.>>

"Michal Milewski" <milewski@...> wrote:
<<Sorry, but I think you are making a major mistake here (repeating it later
on several occasions). The fact, that the modern haplogroup 87 contains the
initial 09 polymorhism and lacks other polimorphisms, that appeared in sister
branches, does not mean that people from this haplogroup are more "ancestral"
than others carriers of 09 polymorphism.>>

First of all, haplotype 87 (unmutated M90) MUST be older than any of the
other varieties of 09 haplotypes. There are NO sister branches with the 09
mutation. Haplotype 87 IS the phylogenic "root" of the whole group. This
means that wherever you find 87, no other form of 09 can be as old. All
other 09 "polymorphisms" are subsequent.

So what HAS TO BE the oldest form of the 09 mutation is found in the greatest
per capita concentration in modern New Guinea. There is no way around that,
if Underhill's cladistic tree is correct.

How it got there is a different question. BUT subsequent 09 mutations in
Central Asia or any where else DO NOT COUNT in answering that question,
BECAUSE they are subsequent. The assumption is that a new mutation starts
with ONE and ONLY one individual. So a vast amount of people with newer
forms of 09 mutation does not tell you how many original Haplotype 87
unmutated 09's there were originally in the same area, since you only need
and you only get one person starting the spread of the new mutation.

Haplotype 87, the original unmutated 09, had only one AND ONLY ONE immediate
predecessor. And according to Underhill's phylogenic tree, it was Haplotype
71 (m89). And Haplotype 71 had one and ONLY ONE immediate predecessor - the
node marked as mutation "186" - which is so old it is given no haplotype
number and has no modern occurence. Take two steps down from that super-old
caveman era mutation and you are back at your m09 - Haplotype 87. THAT is
the DIRECT ancestry of the unmutated 09 genotype. This is the ancestral line
of anchor 09's descent diagrammed in the Underhill tree. It is a very, very
old gene.

So, where was H87(09)'s immediate ancestor located? The best answer is the
current data for Haploid 71 (m89) is very statistically small per capita, but
America has the biggest ratio of these probably statistically insignificant
numbers. India et al and Siberia et al show even more minor traces. The
direct grandparent of 87(09) is m186 and it gives no current evidence of
location or even current existence (according to Underhill.)

This means that the first time we meet a significant modern per capita
concentration in the Underhill data on grandpa m168, pa m98 or daughter m09
is -- believe it or not -- New Guinea. You can explain the concentrations of
later 09 mutations as you wish, but if you are going to use them to prove
origins, then New Guinea sure gives exactly the same evidence of being m09's
original origin place. Or at least being near it.

Michal wrote:
<<Let's compare it with the situation in lingustics. The fact that Baltic
languages posses the largest number of features characteristic for PIE
(regardless whether it's true or not), doesn't mean that the teritory ocupied
by Lithuanians and Latvians was an IE homeland.>>

You really should read Ringe's work on a phylogenic tree for IE to see how
that has been handled. I'll send you a copy when you have the time. I don't
know anyone who claims that the Baltic languages have the largest number of
PIE features.

Finally, it seems a little inconsistent to find all these origin points in
other per capita concentrations and then balk when New Guinea shows up.

Steve