From: tgpedersen
Message: 13608
Date: 2002-05-02
> "tgpedersen" <tgpedersen@...> wrote:annoying etc
> <<Aha! Oho! Sundaland! Floods! Disasters! I told you so! (and
> etc)>>underived 09
>
> Looking at the Underhill tree again, I see just how old the
> mutation (haplotype 87) may be. It is a mere 5 mutations fromthe "non-human
> primate" root. Two generations back its predecessor is the foundernode for
> 80% of all Underwood's groups (e.g., about 80% of the variation inall modern
> human males) and which supposedly "marks the expansion ofanatomically
> modern humans out of Africa."human males.
>
> 09 itself generated about 40% of all such variations in modern
>back
> So the Underhill's "New Guinea" mutation looks like it is way, way
> there. We are given a wide range of dates for all this -- 35,000BPto 89,000
> BP-- and Underhill's estimate is relatively recent for these kindsof
> estimates. If we send 09 half-way back and do use Underhill'sdates (?),
> then the original 09 mutation would date at 18,000BP - 44,000BP --average it
> to about 31,000BP. This would put it about 20,000 years before theend of
> the ice age and maybe 15,000 years before there were such a thingas a modern
> Steppe climate. And 23,000 years before the first farmers andabout 20,000
> years before the disappearance of the sabre-tooth tiger and themastodon.
>all this.
> So I would imagine that there wouldn't be too much memory left of
>Of the mutation, no. But as has been pointed out several times etc,
>
> Steve