PDA

View Full Version : Is haplogroup M1 Basal Eurasian?



NetNomad
11-03-2017, 03:57 PM
Apparently, there's a group called 'Basal Eurasian' that lowered Neanderthal admixture in West Eurasians, could it be from a group that was high in M1 and was isolated from other Eurasians before Neanderthal admixture occurred?

parasar
11-03-2017, 05:02 PM
Apparently, there's a group called 'Basal Eurasian' that lowered Neanderthal admixture in West Eurasians, could it be from a group that was high in M1 and was isolated from other Eurasians before Neanderthal admixture occurred?

Yes I would say so in a sense.

But the way Basal Eurasian is currently defined - no. Basal Eurasian is defines as that part of OoA West Eurasian ancestry that is not shared with ENA. In that sense M1 would not be Basal Eurasian since M1 is indeed found among the ENA derived population in Tibet.

NetNomad
11-03-2017, 05:21 PM
Yes I would say so in a sense.

But the way Basal Eurasian is currently defined - no. Basal Eurasian is defines as that part of OoA West Eurasian ancestry that is not shared with ENA. In that sense M1 would not be Basal Eurasian since M1 is indeed found among the ENA derived population in Tibet.

M1 in Northeast Africa seems to be associated with Southwest Asian autosomal DNA. No links with East Asia really.

If I had to guess, I'd say M1 may be linked to Basal Eurasian.

parasar
11-03-2017, 05:48 PM
M1 in Northeast Africa seems to be associated with Southwest Asian autosomal DNA. No links with East Asia really.

If I had to guess, I'd say M1 may be linked to Basal Eurasian.

SW Asian is a modern component.

M1 is a >60000 year old branch.

Basal Eurasian as defined is a ~60000 year old split from ENA. By definition, just pre time of split Basal Eurasian=ENA.

I was referring to the 60000 year old Basal Eurasian - ENA split that has nothing to do with modern SW Asian which has drifted 60000 years from Basal Eurasian as have current east Asians from ENA.

TuaMan
11-15-2017, 05:12 PM
How exactly do we know the age of M1? An older paper I read regarding African mtdna claimed M1 was around 40,000 years old.

parasar
11-16-2017, 04:37 AM
How exactly do we know the age of M1? An older paper I read regarding African mtdna claimed M1 was around 40,000 years old.

The paper is likely correct as far as African M1's TMRCA.
Branching is close to the root of M, though I have read that there may be a shared mutation with some SE Asian M.
"The detection in southeast Asia of new lineages that share with M1 the 14110 substitution [90, 91], gave rise to the definition of a new macrohaplogroup named M1′20′51 by PhyloTree.org Build 16 [44]. However, this substitution is not an invariable position (Additional file 2: Table S2) and, therefore, its sharing by common ancestry is not warranted [36]."
https://bmcevolbiol.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12862-016-0816-8

Megalophias
11-16-2017, 07:24 PM
The paper is likely correct as far as African M1's TMRCA.
Is there some reason to think the Asian TMRCA would be higher? I know of an M1 in Tibet, but it is M1b2, found also in North Africa, Southern Europe, and Iraq. All Eurasian samples from Pennarun et al are within M1a or M1b. Behar et al's estimated TMRCA for M1 is 24 000 years (plus or minus lots), Pennarun et al's is 26 000 (18-35 000) years. M1a and M1b both around 20-21 000 (13-28 000) years.

Why on earth would M1 be >60 000 years old?

parasar
11-16-2017, 07:55 PM
Is there some reason to think the Asian TMRCA would be higher? I know of an M1 in Tibet, but it is M1b2, found also in North Africa, Southern Europe, and Iraq. All Eurasian samples from Pennarun et al are within M1a or M1b. Behar et al's estimated TMRCA for M1 is 24 000 years (plus or minus lots), Pennarun et al's is 26 000 (18-35 000) years. M1a and M1b both around 20-21 000 (13-28 000) years.

Why on earth would M1 be >60 000 years old?

I am looking at M1 branching point under M as being 60000 years old, not M1's TMRCA.

Megalophias
11-16-2017, 08:58 PM
Oh, okay. That was confusing.

xKeleix
11-16-2017, 11:55 PM
Yes I would say so in a sense.

But the way Basal Eurasian is currently defined - no. Basal Eurasian is defines as that part of OoA West Eurasian ancestry that is not shared with ENA. In that sense M1 would not be Basal Eurasian since M1 is indeed found among the ENA derived population in Tibet.

But I don't understand why this means they couldn't have carried M1. Can you explain? If the M1 branched so long ago, isn't it possible that modern groups of very different ancestries could have the same haplogroup? Forgive me, I'm not well informed on the nomenclature for haplogroups (not anymore at least), but don't Y DNA E and Y DNA D have that kind of relationship; being found in vastly different populations despite having a like origin (DE)?

Megalophias
11-17-2017, 12:01 AM
M1 was found in like 1 out of 700 Tibetans (or something like that) in one study, and it's not like they are 100% pure East Eurasians with zero other admixture. So that makes no sense to me either.

parasar
11-17-2017, 02:32 AM
But I don't understand why this means they couldn't have carried M1. Can you explain? If the M1 branched so long ago, isn't it possible that modern groups of very different ancestries could have the same haplogroup? Forgive me, I'm not well informed on the nomenclature for haplogroups (not anymore at least), but don't Y DNA E and Y DNA D have that kind of relationship; being found in vastly different populations despite having a like origin (DE)?

Basal is a definition. So under that definition I would say that DE is not Basal, but E is, ie, E is on the Basal side after Basal and ENA split. The way I see it DE is not Basal to D but ancestral to E, but E is Basal to D.

NetNomad
10-11-2018, 03:55 PM
@parasar

Can it now be Ancestral North African (from the Dzudzuana paper)?

MTU
10-11-2018, 08:28 PM
The Most Aboriginal Asians (dark skinned Asians) carry Mtdna M Subsacles. So if The Predominantntly carried D Y Dna and M Mtdna Then its point of origin musst be East Africa. The point of diversification should be along the souther shores of Asia . The fact that Y DE and Mtdna M N are not widely distributed in African could be that unlike Y dna A and B and Mtdna L . Population carries of Y DNA DE and Mtdna MN war coastal population involved in living more from sea than from land .

The logical migration path must have been along the coastal lines . The larger groups seems to be concentrated along the shores of the Indian ocean and the red Sea
This group seems to be distinctive from Rainforest and Savannah Hunters and gatherers. Besides hunting and gathering they seem to have been involved in marine fishing along the non tropical Eastern coast of the African Continent . They must have been the first to leave the African continent entering Asian along the southern tip of Arabia , breaking in two groups one heading on a southern route along the Indian ocean and the other moving up along the red sea shore.

A population that is more of fishing than hunting is unlikely to venture in to the Hinterland of the African continent , it population seemed to have increased well in size along tropical Asian coast it diversified and increased in size in south south Asia where there was less competition and more fat rich meat like wild Hogs available.

The complete absence of Y DNA D and DE can be attributed to Fishing in addition to hunting and gathering ,these very tiny community with an additional skill ventured out northwards along the shallow sea water

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p6I6L8b6mQs

NetNomad
10-11-2018, 08:51 PM
@MTU

You are a moron, always coming up with armchair theories.

Oceanians also have subgroups of haplogroup N. Making your dumb theory fall apart.

Secondly, haplogroup M has been found in palaeolithic Europe and also exist at low frequency in the Caucasus in populations who have no L clades. Also, we know that modern-day haplogroup frequencies can be deceptive of ancient ones.

MTU
10-11-2018, 09:05 PM
Again this is where the whole story of Bantu migration doesn't work , These People are related to African pygmies and modern Africans but are in Asia since at least 40,000 years or even more. If one has to tell a lie that it has to be constant that is why despite facts and technology there are attempts to hold on to lies and European misconception about Human History . I questioned on this theories when i looked in to my DNA and seeing that i still carry substantial remanences of Archaic Africans, Asians , Caucasian HG and Oceanian My Y DNA E M96 explained all this since DE is the common ancestor between Africans and Non Africans .

Meaning my very deep past is between Africa & Mideast with archaic traces of Archaic Europeans and Archaic south Asians

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p6I6L8b6mQs

NetNomad
10-11-2018, 09:08 PM
Again this is where the whole story of Bantu migration doesn't work , These People are related to African pygmies and modern Africans but are in Asia since at least 40,000 years or even more. If one has to tell a lie that it has to be constant that is why despite facts and technology there are attempts to hold on to lies and European misconception about Human History . I questioned on this theories when i looked in to my DNA and seeing that i still carry substantial remanences of Archaic Africans, Asians , Caucasian HG and Oceanian My Y DNA E M96 explained all this since DE is the common ancestor between Africans and Non Africans .

Meaning my very deep past is between Africa & Mideast with archaic traces of Archaic Europeans and Archaic south Asians

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p6I6L8b6mQs

Please stop derailing this thread.

MTU
10-11-2018, 09:31 PM
Read and understand .....before you jump in to insults......What is the big deal of findig M in Europe ? that doesn't make it European . It has been with Negroits of asia for over 70, 000 years so what are you trying to prove .. I guess you know the Alphabet N comes after M , where you find M then N will follow . L M N .

So what exactly are you trying to prove with your arguments , that your European or what?

thejkhan
10-11-2018, 09:33 PM
DE is the common ancestor between Africans and Non Africans .


You can't say that. 90% of non-Africans are not DE.

Besides, what exactly is archaic European and archaic South Asian? Any West Asian or South Asian ancestry you have today is because of migrations during the Neolithic and later. I guess that's what you are terming 'archaic'?

MTU
10-11-2018, 09:36 PM
A Fundamental truth is a fundamental truth not a derailment .....

MTU
10-11-2018, 09:39 PM
Why do you People have a problem with facts , when the word African is mentioned? Why is the word African so allergic to you? . I mean all facts are out there what else are you trying to prove?

MTU
10-11-2018, 09:51 PM
Archaic Europeans are People no longer found in European population with D M174

NetNomad
10-12-2018, 12:01 PM
Read and understand .....before you jump in to insults......What is the big deal of findig M in Europe ? that doesn't make it European . It has been with Negroits of asia for over 70, 000 years so what are you trying to prove .. I guess you know the Alphabet N comes after M , where you find M then N will follow . L M N .

So what exactly are you trying to prove with your arguments , that your European or what?

You are seriously stupid. That was not my argument. Kindly leave this thread, dumb dumb.

MTU
10-12-2018, 02:51 PM
i asked you a question, i did not ask you to evaluate me .....what do you want to prove ?

Megalophias
10-12-2018, 04:35 PM
Why do you People have a problem with facts
Well, you haven't actually provided any facts, rather vague unsupported claims and assumptions followed by gazelle-like leaping to conclusions. You started out by saying "The Most Aboriginal Asians (dark skinned Asians) carry Mtdna M Subsacles. So if The Predominantntly carried D Y Dna and M Mtdna Then its point of origin musst be East Africa." So to begin with, why not explain who are these most aboriginal Asians you are talking about, what makes them more aboriginal than other Asians, what their haplogroup composition is and your source for that information, then carry on making your argument.

NetNomad
10-12-2018, 06:27 PM
Why do you People have a problem with facts

Says the idiot who denies the Bantu expansion while being a Bantu from Kenya.

You are a troll. Stop ruining this great forum with your ridiculous stuff.