World Families Forums - Haplogroup A or Y?

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
November 24, 2014, 12:25:36 AM
Home Help Search Login Register

+  World Families Forums
|-+  General Forums - Note: You must Be Logged In to post. Anyone can browse.
| |-+  R1b General (Moderator: rms2)
| | |-+  Haplogroup A or Y?
« previous next »
Pages: [1] Go Down Print
Author Topic: Haplogroup A or Y?  (Read 909 times)
Maliclavelli
Guru
*****
Online Online

Posts: 2153


« on: February 26, 2012, 09:51:38 AM »

Ted Kandell is asking on many forums for funding a WTY for an American of African descent who is negative for the SNPs which define known haplogroups. There are on SMGF many of these haplotypes from Cameroon, but, with some variance, till Nigeria, Benin and other countries of Guinean Gulf. These haplotypes are of course interesting, above all they demonstrate my theory of the mutations around the modal, of the convergence to the modal as time passes and that sometime mutations go for the tangent. In fact, this haplogroup could be far for mine (and others) hundreds of thousands of years, but the values are pretty on a known range, except DYS635=15, not known at FTDNA, and the fractionate value of DYS449=32.2, 32.1 etc.
We shall see which SNPs will be found, but these Africans could be also the descendants of a parallel  hominid like Neanderthal or the Denisovians with whom they mixed, i.e. they could be the descendants of the true Africans, being probably hg. E (and of course my R) come to Africa from outside.

See: ySearch VTUTB (American Perry), Anutechia from Cameroon (MF7MA), Anonymous Nigerian (BP2HJ), and many others could be put on ySearch from SMGF, but this is the story.

« Last Edit: February 28, 2012, 04:22:33 AM by Maliclavelli » Logged

Maliclavelli


YDNA: R-S12460


MtDNA: K1a1b1e

Mike Walsh
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2964


WWW
« Reply #1 on: February 26, 2012, 01:40:13 PM »

... These haplotypes are of course interesting, above all they demonstrate my theory of the mutations around the modal, of the convergence to the modal as time passes and that sometime mutations go for the tangent.
I must not understand this, but I think citing mutations going for a "tangent" is a counter-argument to your main point of "convergence to the modal".

In fact, this haplogroup could be far for mine (and others) hundreds of thousand years, but the values are pretty on a known range, except DYS635=15, not known at FTDNA, and the fractionate value of DYS449=32.2.
I'm not sure why this is a demonstration of your theories. 

I think there were many, many branches to the Y DNA tree, but the vast majority have gone extinct. What we see now is just what we have left with some growth of variance from recent (Neolithic and Bronze/Iron Age/even Medieval Age) founders.
Logged

R1b-L21>L513(DF1)>S6365>L705.2(&CTS11744,CTS6621)
Maliclavelli
Guru
*****
Online Online

Posts: 2153


« Reply #2 on: February 26, 2012, 04:35:11 PM »

I must not understand this, but I think citing mutations going for a "tangent" is a counter-argument to your main point of "convergence to the modal".

Mutation around the modal:
hg. R:  
R1b1, DYS426=12
R-M269, DYS426=11
R-L23, DYS426=12
R-L51=DYS426=13
R-P312=DYS426=12

Mutation for the tangent :
R1a, DYS385=11-14
R1b, DYS385=14-11

Etc. etc.

I'm not sure why this is a demonstration of your theories.  I think there were many, many branches to the Y DNA tree, but the vast majority have gone extinct. What we see now is just what we have left with some growth of variance from recent (Neolithic and Bronze/Iron Age/even Medieval Age) founders.


This is clearly an escamotage. Even though the actual haplogroups are the descendants of a few lines survived, they don’t spring out from nothing, but they are the result of all the mutations of their ancestors. If you calculate the interclade between this strange haplotype A* and one of the European most diffused haplogroups, you will get a time of not more than 10000 years, whereas they separated at least 100, 200000 years ago. This demonstrates all the absurdity of your theories.
« Last Edit: February 27, 2012, 12:39:24 AM by Maliclavelli » Logged

Maliclavelli


YDNA: R-S12460


MtDNA: K1a1b1e

Maliclavelli
Guru
*****
Online Online

Posts: 2153


« Reply #3 on: February 26, 2012, 04:47:27 PM »

Ask Nordtvedt, Klyosov and all the others why these haplotypes (hg. A*) have DYS 393=13, DYS391=10, DYS439=12, DYS389=13-30 etc. and DYS437=12, YCAII=16-18, DYS635=15 etc.

Your theory is completely absurd.
Logged

Maliclavelli


YDNA: R-S12460


MtDNA: K1a1b1e

Mike Walsh
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2964


WWW
« Reply #4 on: February 27, 2012, 03:00:34 PM »

... Your theory is completely absurd.
I'm not really a big theorist.  What theory are you talking about that is absurd that I said?  Is it this? .....  I picture the Y DNA tree as a large, old tree with the vast majority of branches being lopped off leaving a lot of apparent gaps between the branches.   I do think this...  that most paternal lineages are extinct.
Logged

R1b-L21>L513(DF1)>S6365>L705.2(&CTS11744,CTS6621)
Mike Walsh
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2964


WWW
« Reply #5 on: February 27, 2012, 03:05:16 PM »

Quote from: Mikewww
I'm not sure why this is a demonstration of your theories.  I think there were many, many branches to the Y DNA tree, but the vast majority have gone extinct. What we see now is just what we have left with some growth of variance from recent (Neolithic and Bronze/Iron Age/even Medieval Age) founders.

This is clearly an escamotage.
My understanding of the word escamotage is that you are saying I am using "juggling, sleight of hand, trickery."  How so? I can assure you I'm sincere. If I'm wrong, I'm willing to admit it, but you need to demonstrate I'm wrong or your right or whatever. I'm just not tracking all of your arguments.
Logged

R1b-L21>L513(DF1)>S6365>L705.2(&CTS11744,CTS6621)
Mike Walsh
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2964


WWW
« Reply #6 on: February 27, 2012, 03:09:25 PM »

Mutation around the modal:
hg. R:  
R1b1, DYS426=12
R-M269, DYS426=11
R-L23, DYS426=12
R-L51=DYS426=13
R-P312=DYS426=12

Mutation for the tangent :
R1a, DYS385=11-14
R1b, DYS385=14-11
I'm not following the data you cite as demonstrating your theories.

I can cite many, many examples of subclades with a modal and variance of mutations up and down.  There is no doubt there can be back mutations, but keep in mind even though the R-L23 MRCA is much older than the R-P312 MRCA what we are looking at are NOT ancient haplotypes, just extant lineages. L23* is a paragroup and it just so happens that its extant lineages have left behind a modal of 12 at  426 whereas one set of its lineages, those in L51*, has a modal of 13 at 426. Of course, another of those L51 lineages, P312, has a lineage of 12. So what?

Sometimes a glass looks half-empty or half-full depending your perspective. What I think you are calling "Mutation around the modal" to me looks like "mutations from the ancestral" which seems like a logical result of a founder leaving some lineages behind to live until today. It's only natural happenstance that extant lineages are different today.

I guess I'm must be exhibiting more trickery.
« Last Edit: February 27, 2012, 03:17:52 PM by Mikewww » Logged

R1b-L21>L513(DF1)>S6365>L705.2(&CTS11744,CTS6621)
Maliclavelli
Guru
*****
Online Online

Posts: 2153


« Reply #7 on: February 28, 2012, 04:45:07 AM »

I have already answer your question: “This is clearly an escamotage. Even though the actual haplogroups are the descendants of a few lines survived, they don’t spring out from nothing, but they are the result of all the mutations of their ancestors. If you calculate the interclade between this strange haplotype A* and one of the European most diffused haplogroups, you will get a time of not more than 10000 years, whereas they separated at least 100, 200000 years ago. This demonstrates all the absurdity of your theories”.



You write: “I can cite many, many examples of subclades with a modal and variance of mutations up and down.  There is no doubt there can be back mutations, but keep in mind even though the R-L23 MRCA is much older than the R-P312 MRCA what we are looking at are NOT ancient haplotypes, just extant lineages. L23* is a paragroup and it just so happens that its extant lineages have left behind a modal of 12 at  426 whereas one set of its lineages, those in L51*, has a modal of 13 at 426. Of course, another of those L51 lineages, P312, has a lineage of 12. So what?”

It is a little bit strange that of all the supposed lines survived has come to us only this one (R1b1=DYS426=12, R-M269=11, R-L23=12. R-L51=13 etc.), because these mutations, if the modal was 12, would be anyway the most rare. Here it is the escamotage.
I think we should think that these very rare mutations have survived because they had the time to become the majority of that haplogroup, then the times aren't yours, but mine.

Logged

Maliclavelli


YDNA: R-S12460


MtDNA: K1a1b1e

Mike Walsh
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2964


WWW
« Reply #8 on: February 28, 2012, 03:36:06 PM »

Quote from: Mikewww
I can cite many, many examples of subclades with a modal and variance of mutations up and down.  There is no doubt there can be back mutations, but keep in mind even though the R-L23 MRCA is much older than the R-P312 MRCA what we are looking at are NOT ancient haplotypes, just extant lineages. L23* is a paragroup and it just so happens that its extant lineages have left behind a modal of 12 at  426 whereas one set of its lineages, those in L51*, has a modal of 13 at 426. Of course, another of those L51 lineages, P312, has a lineage of 12. So what?

It is a little bit strange that of all the supposed lines survived has come to us only this one (R1b1=DYS426=12, R-M269=11, R-L23=12. R-L51=13 etc.), because these mutations, if the modal was 12, would be anyway the most rare. Here it is the escamotage.
I think we should think that these very rare mutations have survived because they had the time to become the majority of that haplogroup, then the times aren't yours, but mine.
You said, "of all the supposed lines survived has come to us only this one only this one (R1b1=DYS426=12, R-M269=11, R-L23=12. R-L51=13 etc.)"

Perhaps this is a language/communication issue but the related point I'm making is that the modal values are NOT one lineage.  They are many, many lineages that happen to have left behind the modal values we are seeing, along with other values. These modal values for 426 are not necessarily ancestral values, just possibly so.

The only thing "singular" about the lineage is the sequence of SNP occurrences.  For instance, R-L23 is NOT 426=12. There are many varieties of R-L23, including L51*, L11*, P312, etc.     
Just in the paragroup of lineages designated as R-L23*, today 426 is found with the values of 10, 11, 12 and 13. There are possibly more variations that we have not found yet, but I don't think it is strange that lineages go extinct.
Logged

R1b-L21>L513(DF1)>S6365>L705.2(&CTS11744,CTS6621)
Mike Walsh
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2964


WWW
« Reply #9 on: February 28, 2012, 03:39:58 PM »

... These haplotypes are of course interesting, above all they demonstrate my theory of the mutations around the modal, of the convergence to the modal as time passes and that sometime mutations go for the tangent.
I'm not sure why this is a demonstration of your theories.  
Let's go back to your point that I question. Please clarify what you mean by your theory of "mutations around the modal."  Please explain the logic of how the new haplotype information "demonstrates" your theory is correct.

I'm not saying your theory is impossible. I just don't understand how it is demonstrated.
« Last Edit: February 28, 2012, 03:40:59 PM by Mikewww » Logged

R1b-L21>L513(DF1)>S6365>L705.2(&CTS11744,CTS6621)
Maliclavelli
Guru
*****
Online Online

Posts: 2153


« Reply #10 on: February 29, 2012, 09:28:48 AM »

Mike, you say: “There are many varieties of R-L23, including L51*, L11*, P312, etc.”

This isn’t correct. You may think that R-L23* is a paragroup, but not L51, L11, P312 etc.

L23 is a paragroup because from one of those happened the mutation L150+, but they are surviving some (so far 2: the Italian Romitti and son and the British Seymour) L150- and many L150+ (me too) and many lines, amongst them L584+ and perhaps others (I too have the mutation S136+, probably not older than 1 thousand years). But R-L51+ are the descendants of one person L150+ who had the mutation L51+ and so on. The problem is that that mutation happened in one R-L150+ who had DYS426=13 and not 12 (and you cannot think that the ancestor had DYS426=12 and only a descendant with DYS426=13 has survived with its descent). Statistically, at the beginnings, from a modal DYS426=12 the mutations 13 was rare and may be happened in many independent lines, but only one of them had the mutation L51+, and you cannot think that this mutation happened in the rare 13 and not in the 12. Statistically we had to suppose that DYS426=13 of the R-L150+ has become more diffused to permit (statistically) that amongst them happened the mutation L51+. And so on. For this I think that the times are older than it is thought. Perhaps from this we can presuppose that the mutation L150+ happened very soon after the mutation L23 and L49.1 fixed in one person, because now R-L150- is so rare (but this is an important indication of the place where they lived, and for me, thanks to Romitti, was Italy). Also that R-L51+ is at 4% in central-North Italy and at 0,3% out of it has some meaning for me. R-L51+ arose in Italy. And so on.

Do you understand now my theory? Haplogroup R1b1* was in Italy, it is more ancient than it is usually thought, it expanded from Italy beyond the Alps, and you shouldn’t forget that other haplogroups expanded from Italy (Y and mt), like the same G-L497, and, after Oetzi, I am not more the unique to think that hg. G was Palaeolithic in Italy (see the last posts on Dienekes’ Anthropology blog).
Logged

Maliclavelli


YDNA: R-S12460


MtDNA: K1a1b1e

Mike Walsh
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2964


WWW
« Reply #11 on: March 01, 2012, 12:13:01 AM »

Mike, you say: “There are many varieties of R-L23, including L51*, L11*, P312, etc.”

This isn’t correct. You may think that R-L23* is a paragroup, but not L51, L11, P312 etc.
I don't have to think it, R-L23* IS a paragroup.  L51, L11, P312 each have many, many lineages as well.

L23 is a paragroup because from one of those happened the mutation L150+, but they are surviving some (so far 2: the Italian Romitti and son and the British Seymour) L150- and many L150+ (me too) and many lines, amongst them L584+ and perhaps others (I too have the mutation S136+, probably not older than 1 thousand years). But R-L51+ are the descendants of one person L150+ who had the mutation L51+ and so on. The problem is that that mutation happened in one R-L150+ who had DYS426=13 and not 12 (and you cannot think that the ancestor had DYS426=12 and only a descendant with DYS426=13 has survived with its descent). Statistically, at the beginnings, from a modal DYS426=12 the mutations 13 was rare and may be happened in many independent lines, but only one of them had the mutation L51+, and you cannot think that this mutation happened in the rare 13 and not in the 12. Statistically we had to suppose that DYS426=13 of the R-L150+ has become more diffused to permit (statistically) that amongst them happened the mutation L51+. And so on. For this I think that the times are older than it is thought. Perhaps from this we can presuppose that the mutation L150+ happened very soon after the mutation L23 and L49.1 fixed in one person, because now R-L150- is so rare (but this is an important indication of the place where they lived, and for me, thanks to Romitti, was Italy). Also that R-L51+ is at 4% in central-North Italy and at 0,3% out of it has some meaning for me. R-L51+ arose in Italy. And so on.

Do you understand now my theory? Haplogroup R1b1* was in Italy, it is more ancient than it is usually thought, it expanded from Italy beyond the Alps, and you shouldn’t forget that other haplogroups expanded from Italy (Y and mt), like the same G-L497, and, after Oetzi, I am not more the unique to think that hg. G was Palaeolithic in Italy (see the last posts on Dienekes’ Anthropology blog).
I understand that you are saying that R1b1 is very old in Italy and expanded elsewhere from there. That is possible.

I just don't get why you throw out various modal values and say they demonstrated your theories.
Logged

R1b-L21>L513(DF1)>S6365>L705.2(&CTS11744,CTS6621)
Maliclavelli
Guru
*****
Online Online

Posts: 2153


« Reply #12 on: March 01, 2012, 01:03:39 AM »

Perhaps I haven't explained very well my thinking: I wanted to say that R-L23* is a paragroup and R-L51* is a paragroup etc. not these all together. If you did mean this, we agree.
But begin to think why all the subclades downstream R-L51 have DYS426=12 (modal) and not 11 or 13.
« Last Edit: March 01, 2012, 01:04:31 AM by Maliclavelli » Logged

Maliclavelli


YDNA: R-S12460


MtDNA: K1a1b1e

Pages: [1] Go Up Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


SEO light theme by © Mustang forums. Powered by SMF 1.1.13 | SMF © 2006-2011, Simple Machines LLC

Page created in 0.103 seconds with 18 queries.