PDA

View Full Version : Is Y-DNA E of ANA or BASAL EURASIAN ORIGIN?



Scythoslav
05-28-2021, 05:38 PM
Title.

leorcooper19
05-28-2021, 05:47 PM
Neither in its entirety, but I believe E-M35 and its branches can be associated with ANA.

capsian
05-28-2021, 05:47 PM
Haplgroup E maybe frist have ANA

Musashi
05-30-2021, 07:50 PM
I think It is a wrong question, as it is. First of all, y-dna is completely different from autosomal DNA. No haplogroup is exclusively associate with one specific autosomic component. In addition to this, anyway, ana admixture included some basal eurasian percentage. So, It looks to me a wrong question. E haplogroup seems to be associated, in its oldest clades, with basal eurasian component, and some of its subclades look to be associated with ana admixture (carriyng some basal eurasian component). You need to consider the Age, if you want to know something about the autosomal DNA.

Scythoslav
05-30-2021, 10:23 PM
I think It is a wrong question, as it is. First of all, y-dna is completely different from autosomal DNA. No haplogroup is exclusively associate with one specific autosomic component. In addition to this, anyway, ana admixture included some basal eurasian percentage. So, It looks to me a wrong question. E haplogroup seems to be associated, in its oldest clades, with basal eurasian component, and some of its subclades look to be associated with ana admixture (carriyng some basal eurasian component). You need to consider the Age, if you want to know something about the autosomal DNA.




Either basal eurasians and ANA both carried E. Or ANA carried E and brought it into the near East. Or basal brought it into North Africa. From what component was this Y-DNA spread? Where was it first?

That’s my question. My belief is that ANA were haplo E and it’s from them that this haplogroup spread into the near East and into natufians.

leorcooper19
05-30-2021, 10:38 PM
I think It is a wrong question, as it is. First of all, y-dna is completely different from autosomal DNA. No haplogroup is exclusively associate with one specific autosomic component.

I think this is not entirely true. In the Stone Age, the diversity of uniparentals in a given hunter-gatherer group would have been extremely low. But by the Neolithic let's say as groups are transitioning into different lifestyles, having growing populations, and starting to mix with other formerly disparate HG groups, the uniparentals that did survive until that mixing period would in effect be "markers" for their respective autosomal ancestries. Take G2a and Anatolian HGs for instance. Of course Y-DNA is separate from autosomal DNA, but the same group (meaning that loosely, not suggesting that they were all some unified confederacy) that exemplifies Anatolian HG autosomal DNA would also be the source of G2a in all populations its found in today.

NetNomad
05-31-2021, 01:45 AM
Nobody knows for sure. More research is needed. E could be either of upper paleolithic East African, North African, or Basal Eurasian origin. All three are possibilities.