--- In cybalist@..., "Michal Milewski" <milewski@...> wrote:
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <x99lynx@...>
>
>
>
> The only situation, when you can assume that the haplotype lacking
subsequent mutations is more likely associated with the teritory of
the split, is when you suspect that the original population was
relatively large and not very mobile (of course, it is very hard for
large populations to move without splitting) and the new splitting
branches were represented by small migrating populations. In this
case, the genetic drift could affect the rate at which the new
mutations become visible (established/fixed) in different populations
(it has nothing to do with the true mutation rate).
>
> Let's go back to the real problem we are dealing with, which is the
question of 09 haplogroup (its origin and split). You suggested that
we should assume that the highest frequency of the founder haplotype
should indicate the center of the spread. In this case the center
would be New Guinea. I think that this kind of assumption is
justified only when we have a reason to suspect that the original
population was indeed quite large and stationary. And I don't think
it is very likely (though not impossible) that this requirement was
met. Firstly, since the sister branches of 09 haplogroup are qite
frequent mostly in Near East, Cucasus and Europe, it is not likely
that all these branches originated in New Guinea. More likely, the
common ancestor of those sister branches lived close to Near East
(especially if we remember that his ancestors came from Africa).
Secondly, it is also not very likely that the 09 mutation originated
not far from the Near East and then moved to New Guinea, where the
population became much larger and subsequently split in daughter
branches. The route from Near East to New Guinea is quite long, and
it's not very likely that such long migration was accomplished by a
large population, so the population was rather relatively small
during the migration. In this case, we should expect the genetic
drift will enable "accumulation" of new mutations, which we don't
see. Again, this variant is still possible, but (in my opinion) less
likely than for example the Southern Asian center of 09 spread.
Thirdly, the New Guinean spread of 09 subbranches would have to
assume that people moved from Africa through Near East and Southern
Asia to New Guinea, and then spread only nordward reaching Southern
Asia, SE Asia, Central Asia, Siberia, and finaly America nad Europe.
Again, this cannot be excluded, but if we use the Ockham's razor, we
should stick to Southern/Central Asian spread.
>
>
>
> >
> > 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.
>
>
> I hope you agree with my thesis that your rule applies only to
specific situations. And we are not sure that this situation existed
in New Guinea. I should also mention that this theory may depend on
just one additional mutation defining New Guinean 09 populations that
maybe was not yet detected. Would you change the whole scenario in
such case?
>
>
> > 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.
>
> I would agree with you if we were certain that 09 mutation spread
from New Guinea. But since we can not be certain, such additional
data are very important.
>
>
> > 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.
>
>
> Right. Note, that the same rule has to be applied when discussing
whether a place with low frequency of a "founder haplotype" could be
a center of the spread. The spliting/migrating population could
preserve the "founder haplotype", whereas ONE and ONLY one mutation
in the remaining population could start the transformation into a new
branch (assuming that this population was small enough).
>
>
> > 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.
>
> Yes I agree, and I even dated it's appearing roughly as 35,000-
30,000 BC.
>
>
> > 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.
>
> I think this "being near it" will satisfy me, so maybe we can agree
that Southern Asia is a quite possible center (it's almost equaly
close to Central and SE Asia, where 09 descendants are common)
>
>
>
> > 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.
>
> This accusation is a little bit unfair, since I never used the per
capita concentrations as the only (or even main) marker of branching
centers. I already asked you to cite my statements that would support
it.
>
> I will have less time to write now, but I will read your comments
with pleasure.(I would be especially thankfull for the most possible
routes of M173 mutation to Europe).
>
> Best wishes
>
> Michal
As readers of this group might have noticed, I have two idées fixes
1) That at the end of the last ice age there was a large population
in Sundaland, that is the area of present-day Indonesia, which at
that time (since the water level of the oceans due to much water
being bound in continental ice-shelves was much lower than today) was
one contiguous and very fertile land mass, and that parts of this
population, as the water level rose and inundated Sundaland,
dispersed to various parts of the world.
2) That a tribe or body of people migrated around 0 CE from around
the Sea of Azov first to Thuringia in Germany, then to Denmark and
further north in Scandinavia.
Do you know of any genetic data that would corroborate or refute
either of these two theories?
Torsten
(in order to heighten the scientificity of this posting, I have
studiously avoided any reference to the Flood or Atlantis)