PDA

View Full Version : My results (Mexican)



Esmeralda
08-04-2015, 03:00 AM
I am Mexican, I did AncestryDNA recently and was shocked by my results
How accurate do you find AncestryDNA? I am only aware of having Spanish and Portuguese as far as European heritage, my Spanish is a mixture of Basque, Andalusian, Extremaduran and Castille-La Mancha

http://i.imgur.com/9mT4ODB.jpg


My 23andme results

http://i.imgur.com/CYJuNRt.jpg

shazou
08-04-2015, 04:12 AM
Nice results. What do you think the Asia Central means? Would it likely be real or perhaps signifying something else? Perhaps related to your Iberian or Native American?

I've seen other Mexicans get some Asia Central.

crossover
06-25-2016, 06:12 AM
Nice results. What do you think the Asia Central means? Would it likely be real or perhaps signifying something else? Perhaps related to your Iberian or Native American?

I've seen other Mexicans get some Asia Central.

i think it's related to the native american component

rocky
08-01-2016, 10:32 PM
Cool results :) The Central Asia is from the Amerindian.

kevingnet
03-04-2017, 05:30 AM
Some Amerindian have more central Asia than others. For instance B2 (my maternal group) is thought to have immigrated from central Asia and not from Siberia directly, therefore my group has more central or east Asian, than the rest, except for haplogroup X which is thought to be European or some mixture of it.

lwell
03-04-2017, 05:45 AM
Super awesome to see these results!!! I was dying to see an AncestryDNA v 23andMe comparison since I had only done AncestryDNA and just sent off my 23andMe. Also, i can't believe I didn't come across your post when I searched Mexican DNA results on this forum. I think I now have a better idea of what my mothers' might look like. Can't wait to get her tested.


Some Amerindian have more central Asia than others. For instance B2 (my maternal group) is thought to have immigrated from central Asia and not from Siberia directly, therefore my group has more central or east Asian, than the rest, except for haplogroup X which is thought to be European or some mixture of it.

I am super curious to get my haplogroup information. Out of curiosity, where did you get yours @kevingnet?

kevingnet
03-04-2017, 06:34 AM
I am super curious to get my haplogroup information. Out of curiosity, where did you get yours @kevingnet?

From 23andMe, and exported that to GEDMatch.com, the haplo info was from 23andMe though.

ArmandoR1b
03-04-2017, 03:50 PM
Some Amerindian have more central Asia than others. For instance B2 (my maternal group) is thought to have immigrated from central Asia and not from Siberia directly, therefore my group has more central or east Asian, than the rest, except for haplogroup X which is thought to be European or some mixture of it.

Autosomal DNA and mtDNA are two different things. Sometimes an autosomal component can accompany an mtDNA haplogroup such as Native American autosomal DNA and Native American mtDNA but after just several generation the Native American autosomal DNA can get lost but the mtDNA retained.

You aren't going to have more Central Asian because you have mtDNA B2 since B2 is found in almost all Latin American countries and almost all Native American groups so almost all would have it. B2 has not been found in anyone from central Asia. If B2 were from central Asia there would be people there with the subclade but there aren't. If there were they would be at http://www.ianlogan.co.uk/sequences_by_group/b2b_genbank_sequences.htm. B4b1 is a sibling of B2 and B4b1 has been found in the Tubalar people of the Altai Republic. See http://www.ianlogan.co.uk/sequences_by_group/b4b1a_genbank_sequences.htm I think you have read some posts or a Wikipedia entry about B2 that over generalized some basic info but didn't do a proper analysis of current data.

The Sioux John Iron Mocassin and the Clovis Anzick infant both have central Asian autosomal DNA but neither have mtDNA B2. They are C4c1 and D4h3a respectively. See https://dna-explained.com/2016/12/08/john-iron-moccasin-the-story-of-a-sioux-man/

The following person has mtDNA D1 and has Central Asian in his AncestryDNA results also. http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?2917-Xolotl-s-AncestryDNA-results

kevingnet
03-06-2017, 11:33 PM
Autosomal DNA and mtDNA are two different things. Sometimes an autosomal component can accompany an mtDNA haplogroup such as Native American autosomal DNA and Native American mtDNA but after just several generation the Native American autosomal DNA can get lost but the mtDNA retained.

You aren't going to have more Central Asian because you have mtDNA B2 since B2 is found in almost all Latin American countries and almost all Native American groups so almost all would have it. B2 has not been found in anyone from central Asia. If B2 were from central Asia there would be people there with the subclade but there aren't. If there were they would be at http://www.ianlogan.co.uk/sequences_by_group/b2b_genbank_sequences.htm. B4b1 is a sibling of B2 and B4b1 has been found in the Tubalar people of the Altai Republic. See http://www.ianlogan.co.uk/sequences_by_group/b4b1a_genbank_sequences.htm I think you have read some posts or a Wikipedia entry about B2 that over generalized some basic info but didn't do a proper analysis of current data.

The Sioux John Iron Mocassin and the Clovis Anzick infant both have central Asian autosomal DNA but neither have mtDNA B2. They are C4c1 and D4h3a respectively. See https://dna-explained.com/2016/12/08/john-iron-moccasin-the-story-of-a-sioux-man/

The following person has mtDNA D1 and has Central Asian in his AncestryDNA results also. http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?2917-Xolotl-s-AncestryDNA-results

"Autosomal DNA and mtDNA are two different things." That was my understanding. For example, I know you can have mtDNA from some lineage and someone else might have more autosomal from the same but be from another lineage. It's perfectly logical given the science.

"You aren't going to have more Central Asian because you have mtDNA B2" Here, I beg to differ, I was speaking in terms of probabilities. The fact of the matter is that if you belong to B2 you are more likely to have more of it than someone who does not. B2 having originated in central Asia, is more likely to have more of those genes. Although, I must admit, that's not always the case and I may be wrong if it is found that as a group they do not contain more of the same. I haven't come across any data one way or the other. If you have, please share the source, I'd be interested to know more about my genetics. As it stands as far as I can tell, I believe they do by virtue of proximity.

"B2 is found in almost all Latin American countries and almost all Native American groups so almost all would have it." Not so sure about that, my understanding was that C, D and other groups were more numerous, again I don't have a lot of data, just what I came across so far, things change quickly. I don't know anything about all NA having B2, never heard of that one. If you happen to know the source of that information please share.

"B2 has not been found in anyone from central Asia" Ok, look dude... I've never said that or implied it. What it was found, and this you can verify from data (I don't have source, you can google) is that B2 and many Asian groups share a common ancestor. Look it up.

Your datum about Anzick was not exactly inaccurate, but misleading. Here is a link: https://dna-explained.com/2014/09/23/analyzing-the-native-american-clovis-anzick-ancient-results/
What it says is:
Of the 1466 results:

2 were Y haplogroup C
79 were Y haplogroup Q
520 carried a mitochondrial DNA haplogroup of A, B, C, D, M or X
Of the 79 haplogroup Q carriers, 52 also carried a Native mitochondrial haplogroup.
A total 549 individuals out of 1466 carried at least one Native American haplogroup, or about 37.5%. That’s amazingly high.

Ok, from that I see your point, I thought Clovis Anzick was B2, I thought I'd read it somewhere. Nevertheless, many whom are related are B2, which, this data appears to not contradict your point or mine. Other than me making a mental correction about Anzick which is not B2. Regardless, the B2 group, although is found in many places in America, is not the most numerous, however, because of intermixing it's logical that other groups would share the same dna, same as every other region in the world, I suppose.

Please don't misquote me. I know that this is a difficult subject, I'm still learning a lot every day. Feel free to correct where you see correction might be necessary though.

ArmandoR1b
03-07-2017, 02:19 PM
"You aren't going to have more Central Asian because you have mtDNA B2" Here, I beg to differ, I was speaking in terms of probabilities. The fact of the matter is that if you belong to B2 you are more likely to have more of it than someone who does not. B2 having originated in central Asia, is more likely to have more of those genes.
B2 did not originate in central Asia. If it had it would exist today in central Asia.

The autosomal DNA tests are just finding a common DNA with central Asians because there is not a better fit autosomally but that does not mean there was direct gene flow from one region to another. That is a huge misunderstanding a lot of people have when it comes to the calculators. Next, even if a group that migrated to the Americas more than 12,000 years ago had a very large amount of central Asian then it would have been mixed in with all of the other groups they mixed with which is almost all Native American groups.


Although, I must admit, that's not always the case and I may be wrong if it is found that as a group they do not contain more of the same. I haven't come across any data one way or the other. If you have, please share the source, I'd be interested to know more about my genetics. As it stands as far as I can tell, I believe they do by virtue of proximity.
I have already given you examples of people that are not B2 that have what is interpreted as central Asian DNA in a calculator. In the next portion you will see a list of studies that show B2 almost everywhere in Latin America.


"B2 is found in almost all Latin American countries and almost all Native American groups so almost all would have it." Not so sure about that, my understanding was that C, D and other groups were more numerous, again I don't have a lot of data, just what I came across so far, things change quickly. I don't know anything about all NA having B2, never heard of that one. If you happen to know the source of that information please share.I didn't say all NA have B2. I said almost all. I never mentioned which is most numerous since that is beside the point. Here is a list of studies for you to read -

Reconstructing the History of Mesoamerican Populations through the Study of the Mitochondrial DNA Control Region
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0044666

Linguistic and maternal genetic diversity are not correlated in Native Mexicans
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs00439-009-0693-y

Demographic History of Indigenous Populations in Mesoamerica Based on mtDNA Sequence Data
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0043486

Decrypting the Mitochondrial Gene Pool of Modern Panamanians
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0038337

Genomic insights on the ethno-history of the Maya and the ‘Ladinos’ from Guatemala
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4422311/

The Genetic Legacy of the Pre-Colonial Period in Contemporary Bolivians
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0058980

A melting pot of multicontinental mtDNA lineages in admixed Venezuelans
http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2011/11/mtdna-of-venezuelans.html

Mitochondrial Echoes of First Settlement and Genetic Continuity in El Salvador
https://dx.doi.org/10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0006882

Genetic diversity in Puerto Rico and its implications for the peopling of the Island and the West Indies
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ajpa.22569/suppinfo

Ancient DNA Analysis Suggests Negligible Impact of the Wari Empire Expansion in Peru’s Central Coast during the Middle Horizon
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0155508

Genetic analysis of Paleo-Colombians from Nemocón, Cundinamarca provides insights on the early peopling of northwestern South America
https://www.raccefyn.co/index.php/raccefyn/article/view/328/227


"B2 has not been found in anyone from central Asia" Ok, look dude... I've never said that or implied it. What it was found, and this you can verify from data (I don't have source, you can google) is that B2 and many Asian groups share a common ancestor. Look it up.
This is what you said "For instance B2 (my maternal group) is thought to have immigrated from central Asia and not from Siberia directly" What you completely fail to understand is that for proof that B2 originated in central Asia it needs to be found in central Asia and since it has not been found there then the proof does not exist. The common ancestor for the Asian B and Native American B2 is in East Asia. B4b1 is a sibling of B2 and B4b1 has been found in the Tubalar people of the Altai Republic and that is in southern Siberia and not central Asia. It is closer to the Americas and therefore logic dictates that B2 descends from a group from somewhere in that region.


Your datum about Anzick was not exactly inaccurate, but misleading. Here is a link: https://dna-explained.com/2014/09/23/analyzing-the-native-american-clovis-anzick-ancient-results/

Ok, from that I see your point, I thought Clovis Anzick was B2, I thought I'd read it somewhere. Nevertheless, many whom are related are B2, which, this data appears to not contradict your point or mine. Other than me making a mental correction about Anzick which is not B2. Regardless, the B2 group, although is found in many places in America, is not the most numerous, however, because of intermixing it's logical that other groups would share the same dna, same as every other region in the world, I suppose.That is what I have been trying to explain to you, it does not matter that you have mtDNA B2 since people all the way from Mexico to Sioux territory can have what is interpreted as central Asian DNA. If we had the FTDNA myOrigins or AncestryDNA results of a lot of people from South America with a lot of NA DNA some would very likely have central Asian in their results also. Almost all of the same groups of people that have central Asian DNA from Native American ancestors have ancestors with mtDNA A2, B2, C1, and D1. There is no possible way to directly correlate B2 people, but not A2 or C1 or D1, as a source of central Asian DNA in the ethnicity calculators of the DNA companies.


Please don't misquote me. I know that this is a difficult subject, I'm still learning a lot every day. Feel free to correct where you see correction might be necessary though.
That is why I am trying to explain this to you.

Cinnamon orange
03-07-2017, 08:01 PM
I would say 23andme is better on the Iberian.
Ancestry seems wonky on the Italy Greece category and they tend to overdo Scandinavian, probably overdid the whole northern euro bit for you.

kevingnet
03-08-2017, 02:12 AM
B2 did not originate in central Asia. If it had it would exist today in central Asia.

The autosomal DNA tests are just finding a common DNA with central Asians because there is not a better fit autosomally but that does not mean there was direct gene flow from one region to another. That is a huge misunderstanding a lot of people have when it comes to the calculators. Next, even if a group that migrated to the Americas more than 12,000 years ago had a very large amount of central Asian then it would have been mixed in with all of the other groups they mixed with which is almost all Native American groups.


I have already given you examples of people that are not B2 that have what is interpreted as central Asian DNA in a calculator. In the next portion you will see a list of studies that show B2 almost everywhere in Latin America.

I didn't say all NA have B2. I said almost all. I never mentioned which is most numerous since that is beside the point. Here is a list of studies for you to read -

Reconstructing the History of Mesoamerican Populations through the Study of the Mitochondrial DNA Control Region
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0044666

Linguistic and maternal genetic diversity are not correlated in Native Mexicans
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs00439-009-0693-y

Demographic History of Indigenous Populations in Mesoamerica Based on mtDNA Sequence Data
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0043486

Decrypting the Mitochondrial Gene Pool of Modern Panamanians
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0038337

Genomic insights on the ethno-history of the Maya and the ‘Ladinos’ from Guatemala
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4422311/

The Genetic Legacy of the Pre-Colonial Period in Contemporary Bolivians
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0058980

A melting pot of multicontinental mtDNA lineages in admixed Venezuelans
http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2011/11/mtdna-of-venezuelans.html

Mitochondrial Echoes of First Settlement and Genetic Continuity in El Salvador
https://dx.doi.org/10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0006882

Genetic diversity in Puerto Rico and its implications for the peopling of the Island and the West Indies
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ajpa.22569/suppinfo

Ancient DNA Analysis Suggests Negligible Impact of the Wari Empire Expansion in Peru’s Central Coast during the Middle Horizon
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0155508

Genetic analysis of Paleo-Colombians from Nemocón, Cundinamarca provides insights on the early peopling of northwestern South America
https://www.raccefyn.co/index.php/raccefyn/article/view/328/227


This is what you said "For instance B2 (my maternal group) is thought to have immigrated from central Asia and not from Siberia directly" What you completely fail to understand is that for proof that B2 originated in central Asia it needs to be found in central Asia and since it has not been found there then the proof does not exist. The common ancestor for the Asian B and Native American B2 is in East Asia. B4b1 is a sibling of B2 and B4b1 has been found in the Tubalar people of the Altai Republic and that is in southern Siberia and not central Asia. It is closer to the Americas and therefore logic dictates that B2 descends from a group from somewhere in that region.

That is what I have been trying to explain to you, it does not matter that you have mtDNA B2 since people all the way from Mexico to Sioux territory can have what is interpreted as central Asian DNA. If we had the FTDNA myOrigins or AncestryDNA results of a lot of people from South America with a lot of NA DNA some would very likely have central Asian in their results also. Almost all of the same groups of people that have central Asian DNA from Native American ancestors have ancestors with mtDNA A2, B2, C1, and D1. There is no possible way to directly correlate B2 people, but not A2 or C1 or D1, as a source of central Asian DNA in the ethnicity calculators of the DNA companies.


That is why I am trying to explain this to you.

"B2 did not originate in central Asia." I've found links where it it said it was, and others that said indeterminate.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_B_(mtDNA): 'Possible place of origin Southeastern Asia'
http://haplogroup.org/mtdna/rsrs/l123456/l23456/l2346/l346/l34/l3/n/r/b45/b4/b4bdej/b4b/b2/ : 'Origin: Undetermined'

However, the first migrations to America (to date, to my knowledge) were around 14 kya. And the time of origin for B2 is around 19 kya. Therefore, in view of that data (not saying it's 100% conclusive, since new data may come to light) the place of origin must be either there or some vicinity. This is because they have not yet found any indication that B2 lived in Beringia.

"If it had it would exist today in central Asia. " This is not always necessarily true, although I can see your point that it should be a likely possibility. The current data does not show this to be the case. You are right in that B2 has not been found in Asia (as far as I know.) However, in and of itself does not establish a proof or even a likelihood in view of what data we currently have, imo. It was perhaps the case that the group was quite small and they simply migrated as a group, while the B2 mutation occurred somewhere along that path. I know that we do not know for sure, but I have to go by what seems more likely, that's how I try to make sense of all this. This so far is what makes more sense to me. Although I acknowledge I might be mistaken.

"The autosomal DNA tests are just finding a common DNA with central Asians because there is not a better fit autosomally but that does not mean there was direct gene flow from one region to another. That is a huge misunderstanding a lot of people have when it comes to the calculators. Next, even if a group that migrated to the Americas more than 12,000 years ago had a very large amount of central Asian then it would have been mixed in with all of the other groups they mixed with which is almost all Native American groups." This seems reasonable as an explanation. I'm kind of puzzled by this, as to why the percentage of Asian might be interpreted to be low for NA groups. However, this falls in the realm of interpretation and itself is how currently the data is filtered by and explanations are attempted. In other words, a lot of what is explained to us is filtered through the lens of interpretation. Nevertheless, interpretations are currently necessary, since few things are known with certainty. Interpretations are going to be necessarily biased in some way, not necessarily politically, but by what is know by the person doing the interpretation, and the data keeps changing on us, so it's really difficult to communicate given these conditions. My point here is that, although the NA populations might be currently thought to not have too much of Asian as for instance some Chinese groups, this doesn't prove that there isn't a link. Let's keep in mind that the degree of membership to a certain group is calculated via a group of SNPs thought to provide better samples for PCA (principal component analysis), therefore, more analysis would be necessary to ascertain that NAs aren't as related to Asians. This would prove futile, since we share more commonality in our DNA that we have differences. Or it may yet be possible, not my area of expertise.

"I have already given you examples of people that are not B2 that have what is interpreted as central Asian DNA in a calculator. In the next portion you will see a list of studies that show B2 almost everywhere in Latin America." Thank You for the links, it's going to make for some interesting reading.

"I didn't say all NA have B2. I said almost all." You're right about this, however, I suppose I took it as if you were trying to imply that B2 is quite ubiquitous. Yes, no doubt NA groups also engaged in social interactions and therefore mixed. However, B2 is not as ubiquitous, as it may seem. My understanding is that groups were more or less heterogeneous and there was some admixtures along the way but for the most part not that significant. So, for instance, my group of B2 is B2f specifically, and this is specific of the Yaqui and other Cahitan speaking tribes, I can almost guarantee you that you aren't going to find significant percentages in the current Mexican population other than in the region where they predominate. And this is the case for most. Except perhaps the major civilizations like the Aztecs (Mexicas) and Mayans. Therefore, I take your data as misleading at worst and not very helpful at best.

"What you completely fail to understand is that for proof that B2 originated in central Asia it needs to be found in central Asia and since it has not been found there then the proof does not exist" As I explained above, often some of us go by what data we currently have and it is understood that the interpretation might have to be adjusted as new data arrives. While you might be correct that proof hasn't been found, for the reasons I explained above, the more likely scenario, timeline wise, appears to be that the group must have originated somewhere else other than America, since no human settlements had been found in America prior to the mutation(s) for B2 SNPs. Therefore, it's not that I fail to understand, it's simply that I like others here, find it useful to construct a (shifting) theory in order to make sense of all this data, so that it may help me to better understand this field that I recently found fascinating enough to explore.

"There is no possible way to directly correlate B2 people, but not A2 or C1 or D1, as a source of central Asian DNA in the ethnicity calculators of the DNA companies." This has been my understanding all along, and it takes only simple logic to reach this conclusion. mtDNA deals with lineages, and not percentages of DNA membership. Yes, there is no possibility of knowing where exactly you got your genetic material going back so many generations, and even for near generations it's hard to establish since in all likelihood your ancestors are also related to some extent, so it's hard to know who gave you what. My argument wasn't about how much DNA I got from B2, since I cannot know that, what it is known is that my maternal line goes back in time through the B2 marker. Nevertheless, because the NA groups have maintained more cohesion (it seems apparent to me) than groups in Europe, it is more likely that much of my NA genetic material was obtained through B2 in part, and the other part is likely to be from whatever group my dad's maternal line may be. My dad being from the same general area as my mom, if and how much NA dna he may have is likely to be from the same groups in the general area. Although I do not think my dad has much of it, since his dad was born in Spain, and his mom is partly French.

"That is why I am trying to explain this to you" I do appreciate the time and effort you put in explaining and I find it useful. It's going to take me some time to assimilate all the info from the links you sent. As always, I have to take all information and sort of filter it in my mind and try and make sense of it. For the most part, since this is a very quickly evolving field, I try not to hold rigid opinions on what I think I know or believe, because that way it's easier to find out what's closer to the truth.

Thanks again.

ArmandoR1b
03-09-2017, 05:14 PM
"B2 did not originate in central Asia." I've found links where it it said it was, and others that said indeterminate.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_B_(mtDNA) 'Possible place of origin Southeastern Asia'
http://haplogroup.org/mtdna/rsrs/l123456/l23456/l2346/l346/l34/l3/n/r/b45/b4/b4bdej/b4b/b2/ : 'Origin: Undetermined'
umm, what you quoted does not state it originated in Central Asia and Southeastern Asia is not Central Asia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_Asia). They are different places. I'm wondering what you have meant by Central Asia this whole time. Does the Wikipedia entry on central Asia fit your description?


However, the first migrations to America (to date, to my knowledge) were around 14 kya. And the time of origin for B2 is around 19 kya. Therefore, in view of that data (not saying it's 100% conclusive, since new data may come to light) the place of origin must be either there or some vicinity. This is because they have not yet found any indication that B2 lived in Beringia.
They actually have found ancient remains from Beringia with B2. http://www.pnas.org/content/112/45/13833.full

We still don't know for sure the earliest date that the ancestors of the majority of Native Americans crossed over.


"If it had it would exist today in central Asia. " This is not always necessarily true, although I can see your point that it should be a likely possibility. The current data does not show this to be the case. You are right in that B2 has not been found in Asia (as far as I know.) However, in and of itself does not establish a proof or even a likelihood in view of what data we currently have, imo. It was perhaps the case that the group was quite small and they simply migrated as a group, while the B2 mutation occurred somewhere along that path. I know that we do not know for sure, but I have to go by what seems more likely, that's how I try to make sense of all this. This so far is what makes more sense to me. Although I acknowledge I might be mistaken.
Without B2 in Central Asia there is absolutely zero evidence of it originating there. I still wonder if you really meant Central Asia this whole time though.


"The autosomal DNA tests are just finding a common DNA with central Asians because there is not a better fit autosomally but that does not mean there was direct gene flow from one region to another. That is a huge misunderstanding a lot of people have when it comes to the calculators. Next, even if a group that migrated to the Americas more than 12,000 years ago had a very large amount of central Asian then it would have been mixed in with all of the other groups they mixed with which is almost all Native American groups." This seems reasonable as an explanation. I'm kind of puzzled by this, as to why the percentage of Asian might be interpreted to be low for NA groups. However, this falls in the realm of interpretation and itself is how currently the data is filtered by and explanations are attempted. In other words, a lot of what is explained to us is filtered through the lens of interpretation. Nevertheless, interpretations are currently necessary, since few things are known with certainty. Interpretations are going to be necessarily biased in some way, not necessarily politically, but by what is know by the person doing the interpretation, and the data keeps changing on us, so it's really difficult to communicate given these conditions. My point here is that, although the NA populations might be currently thought to not have too much of Asian as for instance some Chinese groups, this doesn't prove that there isn't a link. Let's keep in mind that the degree of membership to a certain group is calculated via a group of SNPs thought to provide better samples for PCA (principal component analysis), therefore, more analysis would be necessary to ascertain that NAs aren't as related to Asians. This would prove futile, since we share more commonality in our DNA that we have differences. Or it may yet be possible, not my area of expertise.There are several ways to determine relationships but the calculators by the companies use Admixture programs and not PCAs for our results since PCAs only look at the two main components. The SNPs are compared with the reference populations that each company has. If you want to learn how the calculators are made read the 23andme page on Ancestry Composition at https://www.23andme.com/ancestry-composition-guide/ , the FTDNA page on myOrigins at https://www.familytreedna.com/learn/user-guide/family-finder-myftdna/myorigins-methodology/ and the AncestryDNA page at www.ancestry.com/dna/resource/whitePaper/AncestryDNA-Ethnicity-White-Paper.pdf I have read them all as well as the instructions for Admixture at https://www.genetics.ucla.edu/software/admixture/ Apart from reading them and seeing how people well documented genealogies get crazy results with certain DNA calculators and I know that there are SNPs that are miscalculated as coming from a very different ethnicity than what the person actually has.


"I have already given you examples of people that are not B2 that have what is interpreted as central Asian DNA in a calculator. In the next portion you will see a list of studies that show B2 almost everywhere in Latin America." Thank You for the links, it's going to make for some interesting reading.
You're welcome.


"I didn't say all NA have B2. I said almost all." You're right about this, however, I suppose I took it as if you were trying to imply that B2 is quite ubiquitous. Yes, no doubt NA groups also engaged in social interactions and therefore mixed. However, B2 is not as ubiquitous, as it may seem. My understanding is that groups were more or less heterogeneous and there was some admixtures along the way but for the most part not that significant. So, for instance, my group of B2 is B2f specifically, and this is specific of the Yaqui and other Cahitan speaking tribes, I can almost guarantee you that you aren't going to find significant percentages in the current Mexican population other than in the region where they predominate. And this is the case for most. Except perhaps the major civilizations like the Aztecs (Mexicas) and Mayans. Therefore, I take your data as misleading at worst and not very helpful at best.You decided to change the subject. This discussion never had anything to do with B2f. It has been about the origin of B2, how widespread it is, and whether or not people with B2 will be more likely to have Central Asian DNA. My data is not misleading at all. B2 is very widespread and is found all the way down to Chile and Argentina.

Since you brought it up, Ian Logan's site shows a B2f from Chile at http://www.ianlogan.co.uk/sequences_by_group/b2_genbank_sequences.htm and if that kit has the correct location of ancestry then I expect B2f to be found all over the Americas. I also know of another person from central Mexico that is B2f. Once enough people from Mexico and the rest of Latin America get a full mtDNA test it will become more apparent that B2f is more widespread than you thought.


"What you completely fail to understand is that for proof that B2 originated in central Asia it needs to be found in central Asia and since it has not been found there then the proof does not exist" As I explained above, often some of us go by what data we currently have and it is understood that the interpretation might have to be adjusted as new data arrives. While you might be correct that proof hasn't been found, for the reasons I explained above, the more likely scenario, timeline wise, appears to be that the group must have originated somewhere else other than America, since no human settlements had been found in America prior to the mutation(s) for B2 SNPs. Therefore, it's not that I fail to understand, it's simply that I like others here, find it useful to construct a (shifting) theory in order to make sense of all this data, so that it may help me to better understand this field that I recently found fascinating enough to explore.
If you want to use the scientific method you need something more concrete than what is available to state mtDNA B2 originated in central Asia when it makes a lot more sense that it originated in northeast Asia or Beringia. I don't have a problem with B2 not originating in America. I have a problem with it originating in central Asia when there isn't one single piece of data to point to that location as a source.


"There is no possible way to directly correlate B2 people, but not A2 or C1 or D1, as a source of central Asian DNA in the ethnicity calculators of the DNA companies." This has been my understanding all along, and it takes only simple logic to reach this conclusion. mtDNA deals with lineages, and not percentages of DNA membership.Your earlier statement that "Some Amerindian have more central Asia than others. For instance B2 (my maternal group) is thought to have immigrated from central Asia and not from Siberia directly, therefore my group has more central or east Asian, than the rest" contradicts that and is why I started replying.


"That is why I am trying to explain this to you" I do appreciate the time and effort you put in explaining and I find it useful. It's going to take me some time to assimilate all the info from the links you sent. As always, I have to take all information and sort of filter it in my mind and try and make sense of it. For the most part, since this is a very quickly evolving field, I try not to hold rigid opinions on what I think I know or believe, because that way it's easier to find out what's closer to the truth.

Thanks again.
It's good to have an open mind but a hypothesis should have some piece of evidence and it should make sense. If new data changes a hypothesis then the new one should be accepted as long as all other possibilities have been explored.

kevingnet
03-11-2017, 04:29 AM
Ok, let me take a breather. It's a long and apparently contentious post. So, without further ado, here it goes:


umm, what you quoted does not state it originated in Central Asia and Southeastern Asia is not Central Asia. They are different places. I'm wondering what you have meant by Central Asia this whole time. Does the Wikipedia entry on central Asia fit your description?
I can get a bit vague or ambiguous at times. True. I think this is going to depend on the point of view of what constitutes central or west. From a Eurocentric approach I'd say west is around the area of Anatolya, I don't know why they call it Asia, though, it always confuses me. And I'd say central would be the Altai mountains or thereabouts. Therefore, coming from that kind of perspective, I've read texts that claim B2 originated in central Asia, so, I'm simply going by those data. Most of this stuff, I've no way of really knowing. And often I may not have enough leisure time to investigate in depth. So, sometimes I'm a moron.


They actually have found ancient remains from Beringia with B2. http://www.pnas.org/content/112/45/13833.full

I clicked on the link and got:
Error
There was a problem handling your request.
Please try again in a few minutes, or contact us if you continue to experience this problem.

So, your data goes against with what I'd read thus far. However, I'm not dart vader or the sith lord and don't go by absolutes. (Ah, that was just some star wars humor, I guess.)


We still don't know for sure the earliest date that the ancestors of the majority of Native Americans crossed over.
This much is certain to me. However, based on what I'd read, the way I sort of makes sense of the data, is that I usually have to go ahead and form an opinion and/or theory anyway, in order to make sense of it and to be able to communicate. Otherwise, I would always simply be obliged to say, I don't know, nothing is definitive, etc... So we form this theories regarding these things and therefore we may be able to compare them with others' theories. So, when faced with new data, I'd simply adjust my view as often as necessary.


Without B2 in Central Asia there is absolutely zero evidence of it originating there. I still wonder if you really meant Central Asia this whole time though.
This... I have to respectfully disagree with, because, while it's true that I do not know if there is evidence or not. What I have read is that in other regions of Asia, there have been found numerous other groups which were derived from B2. Therefore, it's certainly more likely that B2 would have originated thereabouts, as opposed to having had developed in America or Beringia and later did a back migration, although the later cannot be discounted either. So, here, I'm only going by probabilities.


There are several ways to determine relationships but the calculators by the companies use Admixture programs and not PCAs for our results since PCAs only look at the two main components. The SNPs are compared with the reference populations that each company has. If you want to learn how the calculators are made read the 23andme page on Ancestry Composition at https://www.23andme.com/ancestry-composition-guide/ , the FTDNA page on myOrigins at https://www.familytreedna.com/learn/...s-methodology/ and the AncestryDNA page at http://www.ancestry.com/dna/resource...hite-Paper.pdf I have read them all as well as the instructions for Admixture at https://www.genetics.ucla.edu/software/admixture/ Apart from reading them and seeing how people well documented genealogies get crazy results with certain DNA calculators and I know that there are SNPs that are miscalculated as coming from a very different ethnicity than what the person actually has.
This, is also very true. It's really messy and really open for interpretation. I don't take these things as absolute and still have some fun debating about it.


You decided to change the subject. This discussion never had anything to do with B2f. It has been about the origin of B2, how widespread it is, and whether or not people with B2 will be more likely to have Central Asian DNA. My data is not misleading at all. B2 is very widespread and is found all the way down to Chile and Argentina.

I didn't change the subject, simply expanded on my information. Since B2f is derived from B2 and the geographical region for B2f also relates to the topic. Although not specifically about the origin of B2. The OP was not specific to only the origin of B2, but more genera, at least that's how I thought of it.


Since you brought it up, Ian Logan's site shows a B2f from Chile at http://www.ianlogan.co.uk/sequences_..._sequences.htm and if that kit has the correct location of ancestry then I expect B2f to be found all over the Americas. I also know of another person from central Mexico that is B2f. Once enough people from Mexico and the rest of Latin America get a full mtDNA test it will become more apparent that B2f is more widespread than you thought.
Well, I'm not so surprised, due to some historical glitch of my NA group. It turns out that during the and before the Mexican revolutionary war, many Yaquis were enslaved and sent out to work in the Henequen (Agave) fields in the Mexican southern state of Oaxaca, some fortunate enough fled and I presume some perhaps made it to other regions nearby. That perhaps might explain it. I can almost guarantee you (well, not really, but I think it's very likely) that B2f originated, that is the SNP mutation happened in the area where the Yaquis live, because their haplogroup is very specific to the region. If we go your route, then we can very seldom have a good degree of understanding of origins since everything would be more muddled, due to the fact that migrations have been incessant through out history. So, I cannot go your route here, and in the absence of data to correct me otherwise, I'll go ahead and still believe that B2f is very specific to the area in question.


If you want to use the scientific method you need something more concrete than what is available to state mtDNA B2 originated in central Asia when it makes a lot more sense that it originated in northeast Asia or Beringia. I don't have a problem with B2 not originating in America. I have a problem with it originating in central Asia when there isn't one single piece of data to point to that location as a source.Here I'll have to also disagree because, the fact is that I don't, I don't use the scientific method for this, only very seldom, I suppose. My game is:
1) I get some data
2) I try to make sense of it, by comparing to other data, that I had prior and to others' opinions or any other relevant information, that I may come across. With the emphasis being 'that I may come across. If you're too strict about using the scientific method here, I'm afraid that very little will be understood. Although, I understand that for some, their way of interpreting, for them, it may be more useful to use that strictness, if it fits their purpose. My issue with the scientific method here, is that I'd have to be too selective in its use, due to the sheer quantity of the data and the changing nature of the same, and how even the hard data is always or at least often enough, is up to interpretation.


Your earlier statement that "Some Amerindian have more central Asia than others. For instance B2 (my maternal group) is thought to have immigrated from central Asia and not from Siberia directly, therefore my group has more central or east Asian, than the rest" contradicts that and is why I started replying.I didn't understand you at first. I think I now know what you may have meant. Anyway, here is the explanation of what I meant by that. This is actually based on science. The amount of DNA that an ancestor gives to a descendant is variable. That is, it's often 25% from each grand parent, however, there may be cases where the contribution of one may be close to zero, a DNA stingy grand parent, one might say. So, this is what I was trying to illustrate by way of saying some may have more central Asian DNA than others. Because, this is not determined by ancestry or region of origin alone.


It's good to have an open mind but a hypothesis should have some piece of evidence and it should make sense. If new data changes a hypothesis then the new one should be accepted as long as all other possibilities have been explored.This is agreeable.

kevingnet
03-11-2017, 04:39 AM
They actually have found ancient remains from Beringia with B2. http://www.pnas.org/content/112/45/13833.full


As long as the ancient remains of B2 found in that area are more ancestral to B2 in America, the data supports my current theory. That B2 originated in central Asia. Actually, not at all my theory, but some data I'd read. And I happen to believe it thus far. If however, the remains do not predate the migration of B2 into America, it has no effect with the same theory. In other words. I fail to see the relevance of this datum.

Slips
03-11-2017, 11:12 PM
You probably have actual East Asian ancestry since most Mexicans only get <0.1% Yakut on 23andme, which is just Amerindian that is being misread.

ArmandoR1b
03-12-2017, 02:46 PM
Ok, let me take a breather. It's a long and apparently contentious post. So, without further ado, here it goes:


I can get a bit vague or ambiguous at times. True. I think this is going to depend on the point of view of what constitutes central or west. From a Eurocentric approach I'd say west is around the area of Anatolya, I don't know why they call it Asia, though, it always confuses me. And I'd say central would be the Altai mountains or thereabouts.

This is from Wikipedia - "In modern contexts, all definitions of Central Asia include these five republics of the former Soviet Union: Kazakhstan (pop. 17 million), Kyrgyzstan (5.7 million), Tajikistan (8.0 million), Turkmenistan (5.2 million), and Uzbekistan (30 million), for a total population of about 66 million as of 2013–2014. Afghanistan (pop. 31.1 million) is also sometimes included." That is the definition most people are going to use and it is the one that I have been using. The difference between our definition has partly been the cause of the discussion.

The Altai Republic is in Siberia which is considered to be a part of North Asia per Wikipedia at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siberia



Therefore, coming from that kind of perspective, I've read texts that claim B2 originated in central Asia, so, I'm simply going by those data. Most of this stuff, I've no way of really knowing. And often I may not have enough leisure time to investigate in depth.
There aren't any texts that explicitly state that B2 originated in central Asia. They only state where B and B4b1 have been found and allow a person to come to their own conclusion where the origin of B2 is. Since B4b1 has not been found in the modern definition of central Asia then there is no reason to believe that B2 originated in central Asia.

"the subclade that is phylogenetically closest to American B2, namely B4b1, has been found mainly in populations of southern China and Southeast Asia, especially Filipinos and Austronesian speakers of eastern Indonesia (approx. 8%) and the aborigines of Taiwan and Hainan (approx. 7%).[10][11][12] However, B4b1 has been observed in populations as far north as Turochak and Choya districts in the north of Altai Republic (3/72 = 4.2% Tubalar),[13] Miyazaki and Tokyo, Japan (approx. 3%),[14] South Korea (4/185 = 2.2%),[9] Tuva (1/95 = 1.1% Tuvan),[13] and Hulunbuir (1/149 = 0.7% Barghut).[15]"

None of the countries defined as central Asian in the modern definition are listed in that Wikipedia entry as having B4b1 and neither does Ian Logan's site at http://www.ianlogan.co.uk/sequences_by_group/b4b1a_genbank_sequences.htm



I clicked on the link and got:
Error
There was a problem handling your request.
Please try again in a few minutes, or contact us if you continue to experience this problem.
I see you were able to open it after all.


So, your data goes against with what I'd read thus far. However, I'm not dart vader or the sith lord and don't go by absolutes. (Ah, that was just some star wars humor, I guess.)
What? The data is pretty straight forward including what is on the Wikipedia page on mtDNA B that you had linked. You still haven't provided a link that explicitly states B2 originated in central Asia.



This much is certain to me. However, based on what I'd read, the way I sort of makes sense of the data, is that I usually have to go ahead and form an opinion and/or theory anyway, in order to make sense of it and to be able to communicate. Otherwise, I would always simply be obliged to say, I don't know, nothing is definitive, etc... So we form this theories regarding these things and therefore we may be able to compare them with others' theories. So, when faced with new data, I'd simply adjust my view as often as necessary.
However your statement doesn't make sense based on the data and it is better to just say we don't know if there is no data or evidence pinpointing a more specific location for an origin. I have already stated that I don't have a problem with B2 not originating in America. I have a problem with it originating in central Asia when there isn't one single piece of data to point to that location as a source.



This... I have to respectfully disagree with, because, while it's true that I do not know if there is evidence or not. What I have read is that in other regions of Asia, there have been found numerous other groups which were derived from B2. Therefore, it's certainly more likely that B2 would have originated thereabouts, as opposed to having had developed in America or Beringia and later did a back migration, although the later cannot be discounted either. So, here, I'm only going by probabilities.

There hasn't been a single person living in Asia that has been tested positive for a subclade of B2 and there haven't been any central Asians that have tested positive for B2. If a person in north Asia or east Asia ultimately tests positive for a subclade of B2 it won't provide evidence of B2 originating in central Asia. To repeat myself again, I had already stated that I don't have a problem with B2 not originating in America. I have a problem with it originating in central Asia when there isn't one single piece of data to point to that location as a source.



I didn't change the subject, simply expanded on my information. Since B2f is derived from B2 and the geographical region for B2f also relates to the topic. Although not specifically about the origin of B2. The OP was not specific to only the origin of B2, but more genera, at least that's how I thought of it.
It wasn't more general, it was about a specific subclade that doesn't provide evidence to support anything that we had already discussed so it really is just a change of subject.



Well, I'm not so surprised, due to some historical glitch of my NA group. It turns out that during the and before the Mexican revolutionary war, many Yaquis were enslaved and sent out to work in the Henequen (Agave) fields in the Mexican southern state of Oaxaca, some fortunate enough fled and I presume some perhaps made it to other regions nearby. That perhaps might explain it. I can almost guarantee you (well, not really, but I think it's very likely) that B2f originated, that is the SNP mutation happened in the area where the Yaquis live, because their haplogroup is very specific to the region. If we go your route, then we can very seldom have a good degree of understanding of origins since everything would be more muddled, due to the fact that migrations have been incessant through out history. So, I cannot go your route here, and in the absence of data to correct me otherwise, I'll go ahead and still believe that B2f is very specific to the area in question.
Oh please. That's called reaching. Oaxaca is southern Mexico. I had mentioned a person in central Mexico and the documented ancestry is prior to the Mexican revolution. With B2f also in Chile it is evidence that there just hasn't been enough full mtDNA testing of people in Latin America.



Here I'll have to also disagree because, the fact is that I don't, I don't use the scientific method for this, only very seldom, I suppose. My game is:
1) I get some data
2) I try to make sense of it, by comparing to other data, that I had prior and to others' opinions or any other relevant information, that I may come across. With the emphasis being 'that I may come across. If you're too strict about using the scientific method here, I'm afraid that very little will be understood. Although, I understand that for some, their way of interpreting, for them, it may be more useful to use that strictness, if it fits their purpose. My issue with the scientific method here, is that I'd have to be too selective in its use, due to the sheer quantity of the data and the changing nature of the same, and how even the hard data is always or at least often enough, is up to interpretation.
The scientific method is based on acquiring data, because that also counts as evidence, but it needs to be data that can't easily be explained away. You still haven't provided any data for B2 originating in what is the modern definition of central Asia.



I didn't understand you at first. I think I now know what you may have meant. Anyway, here is the explanation of what I meant by that. This is actually based on science. The amount of DNA that an ancestor gives to a descendant is variable. That is, it's often 25% from each grand parent, however, there may be cases where the contribution of one may be close to zero, a DNA stingy grand parent, one might say. So, this is what I was trying to illustrate by way of saying some may have more central Asian DNA than others. Because, this is not determined by ancestry or region of origin alone.

That is what I had been explaining to you. People with Native American ancestry from all over the Americas are going to get central Asian with the current versions of AncestryDNA and myOrigins, and even at times with 23andme but less often, and it isn't going to specifically be from mtDNA B.



This is agreeable.
So you agree that there needs to be evidence but you don't have any evidence therefore the hypothesis doesn't make sense.

ArmandoR1b
03-12-2017, 03:23 PM
As long as the ancient remains of B2 found in that area are more ancestral to B2 in America, the data supports my current theory. That B2 originated in central Asia. Actually, not at all my theory, but some data I'd read. And I happen to believe it thus far.
No, it does not support the theory you purportedly read that B2 "is thought to have immigrated from central Asia and not from Siberia directly" because B4b1 has been found in the Altai Republic of Siberia, China and Southeast Asia so it is more likely that B2 originated in one of those areas not far from where the Native American mtDNA subclades of A2, C1, and D1 originated. You need at least one piece of data to support your theory.


If however, the remains do not predate the migration of B2 into America, it has no effect with the same theory. In other words. I fail to see the relevance of this datum.
You had stated in post #12 "This is because they have not yet found any indication that B2 lived in Beringia." I guess you had forgotten what you posted. The ancient remains show that they did.

kevingnet
03-14-2017, 02:27 AM
This is from Wikipedia - "In modern contexts, all definitions of Central Asia include these five republics of the former Soviet Union: Kazakhstan (pop. 17 million), Kyrgyzstan (5.7 million), Tajikistan (8.0 million), Turkmenistan (5.2 million), and Uzbekistan (30 million), for a total population of about 66 million as of 2013–2014. Afghanistan (pop. 31.1 million) is also sometimes included." That is the definition most people are going to use and it is the one that I have been using. The difference between our definition has partly been the cause of the discussion.

The Altai Republic is in Siberia which is considered to be a part of North Asia per Wikipedia at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siberia
Notice the word "In modern contexts".
Similarly, above, the data isn't always presented congruently, therefore, sometimes I just sort of fail to analyze it. I'm new to this, somewhat, and I haven't yet processed all the ramifications. As they said above, some of the data is presented in sort of general areas, therefore Altai is sometimes presented not simply as a geographical area, but it's more about what people lived there and people being people, that isn't the only area they lived in historically. So, when someone said central Asia, or refer to Altai as central Asia, perhaps it is meant the people there. I'm just repeating the schema others go by. I think you are more correct and there's nothing wrong with being specific. However, one can easily fail to communicate when the requirements to do so are too restrictive or strict. So, if it is a little to the south or the north, how does that affect the main subject?


There aren't any texts that explicitly state that B2 originated in central Asia. They only state where B and B4b1 have been found and allow a person to come to their own conclusion where the origin of B2 is. Since B4b1 has not been found in the modern definition of central Asia then there is no reason to believe that B2 originated in central Asia.
So, again, here, you want to get very strict. I don't have a problem, you can believe what you want, anyone can. However, what this implies is that, if you really want to get technical, then, yes, we don't know where it originated. This is not information we can know for certain. Ever. This will hold true for all other inquiries as to the origins of these mutations. Therefore, going by your strictures, then, we cannot communicate intelligently as to possible origins, since, because one cannot be 100% certain, we should abstain from forming any reasonable beliefs. I already told you before, I don't agree with your way of thinking regarding this case specifically. And, most people, judging by the data that they post, yes, even in scientific papers, don't either. Some are careful enough to say that these are possibilities, and they are understood that way, and I'd already stated this same thing before. My belief is not a 100% certainty of any of this. It's simply going by what data is available, I reserve the right to form my opinion and theory. If you want to get critical of this and say that I'm wrong about this, or that there's no proof, I'm making a statement for the last time that this is, has been and will continue to be my understandin


I see you were able to open it after all. Uhh!?


However your statement doesn't make sense based on the data and it is better to just say we don't know if there is no data or evidence pinpointing a more specific location for an origin. I have already stated that I don't have a problem with B2 not originating in America. I have a problem with it originating in central Asia when there isn't one single piece of data to point to that location as a source. Same as I explained above, I don't take it as 'proof' is simply a higher probability.



There hasn't been a single person living in Asia that has been tested positive for a subclade of B2 and there haven't been any central Asians that have tested positive for B2. If a person in north Asia or east Asia ultimately tests positive for a subclade of B2 it won't provide evidence of B2 originating in central Asia. To repeat myself again, I had already stated that I don't have a problem with B2 not originating in America. I have a problem with it originating in central Asia when there isn't one single piece of data to point to that location as a source. I had explained this, in what I thought was a reasonable explanation, you are opting for ignoring it. Therefore, I'm not going to bother typing any more regarding this. Go back and read it again, and if you didn't understand what I wrote, I'd be ok with explaining.


It wasn't more general, it was about a specific subclade that doesn't provide evidence to support anything that we had already discussed so it really is just a change of subject. I had explained about this as well. Since you are choosing to purposefully ignore my answers, I will have to do the same.


Oh please. That's called reaching. Oaxaca is southern Mexico. I had mentioned a person in central Mexico and the documented ancestry is prior to the Mexican revolution. With B2f also in Chile it is evidence that there just hasn't been enough full mtDNA testing of people in Latin America. Ok, same as above. So you're saying that because they were in southern Mexico, it must have somehow have been impossible, or very improbable that they would have, in the attempt to travel to their point of origin, pass through center Mexico. Ok, I'll believe you, so they must have taken a boat and travel by sea, instead of by land. Or if by land, perhaps in order to be able to make your statement correct today, they would have traveled *around* Mexico City. Ok, I'll buy that for a dollar, do you have a paypal account?


The scientific method is based on acquiring data, because that also counts as evidence, but it needs to be data that can't easily be explained away. You still haven't provided any data for B2 originating in what is the modern definition of central Asia. Here, I don't buy about the scientific method. I explained why and I think in the effort to make sense of the data, we may not be too strict. As I told you above, a lot of these things cannot be 100% ascertained, so by that token, going by said method, we cannot progress in our understanding, because everything will be. Uh... I don't know... You see where I'm coming from?



That is what I had been explaining to you. People with Native American ancestry from all over the Americas are going to get central Asian with the current versions of AncestryDNA and myOrigins, and even at times with 23andme but less often, and it isn't going to specifically be from mtDNA B. I know that you've been explaining, but it's becoming more evident that this is more about a sort of coercion into your belief system. I cannot view it the same way as you, I have my own way. Your way is not better than mine, regardless of your thinking of it as a scientific method. The scientific method is a tool, and there are other tools for special situations of which this I believe is part of.


So you agree that there needs to be evidence but you don't have any evidence therefore the hypothesis doesn't make sense. I'm going to explain this as succinctly as I can, one last time. Not so much for you, I won't disrespect your intelligence by believing you didn't understand. I think your running some sort of agenda here.

Your claim: It is not known where B2 originated.
Status: 100% true.
Supporting evidence: We cannot know where/when the mutation for this/these gene(s) happened. Because, we cannot go back in time and analyze each human genetic code for every cell, to make the scientific 100% determination of how this mutation occurred. (Not trying to be facetious, this is just factual information.)

My claim: I believe that B2 originated in central Asia.
Status: My opinion, high probability.
Supporting evidence:
1)http://bmcevolbiol.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1471-2148-11-293
"In our analysis of 568 mitochondrial genomes, the coalescent age estimates of shared roots between Native American and Siberian-Asian lineages, calculated using two different mutation rates,..."
"Haplogroups A - D are found throughout the New World and are frequent in Asia, supporting a northeastern Asian origin of these lineages "
"The 'Beringian incubation model' (BIM) [23] and its variants [21, 25, 26] emphasize that the Native American founder population reached greater Beringia by 30 kya, marked by the earliest evidence of human habitation in northeastern Siberia Yana Rhinoceros Horn Site [29]. According to these models, the founder populations remained in Beringian LGM refugium for about 5-15 kya, ecologically isolated to the west and physically isolated to the east by the glaciers that are believed to have effectively blocked the way to America until near the end of the LGM [24]. During this time, mtDNA lineages of American founders are likely to have differentiated from their Asian precursors..."
"The phylogeography and within haplogroup diversity of haplogroup B2 is very similar to haplogroup A2 and supports a major expansion from North America to South America. So far haplogroup B2 lacks any known immediate sister/ancestral clades in Siberia other then the B4b1 in South East Asia, and it remains unclear whether the B2, dating to 20.8 ± 2.0 kya/18.1 ± 2.4 kya, has evolved in situ in American founders after their divergence from Siberian-Asian ancestors or Siberia-Asia itself."
Note: I get the feeling that from the link above, the methodologies used, seem pretty scientific to me, or as scientific as possible? Nota bene that the communication talks about probabilities. Or perhaps you'd like to write to them and explain that their method is not scientific enough since they cannot be 100% certain, which they also mention btw.
Note that some text in the link above mentions that there was an isolated area that prevented the return of this group of people to central Asia, which would explain why there hasn't been any evidence found of their presence in central Asia.
2) http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0032179
"Previous studies have proposed that haplogroup B4 arose ∼44 ka, most likely on the eastern Asian or southeastern Asian mainland, where it is dispersed especially around the coastal regions from Vietnam to Japan. It subdivided ∼35 ka into three main subclades: B4a, B4b'd, and B4c (with a subclade of B4b, B2, found exclusively in Native Americans and dated to ∼16 ka"
"Noteworthy, the addition of a substantial set of completely sequenced mtDNAs from northern Asian populations has allowed us to reveal several new subclusters within the haplogroup B4 showing predominantly northern Asian distribution, i.e. B4b1a3, B4c1a2 and B4j (Figure 3, Figure S1). For example, identical Khamnigan and Buryat samples (Khm_21 and Br_336) bearing variants 16223 and 16362 as well as a series of specific mutations apparently belong to a previously unreported branch of haplogroup B–B4j, which is at the same phylogenetic level as nine other subclades (B4a–B4i) defined previously within B4 [18]. Ten of the new and one previously published sequence (Tubalar from southern Siberia [27]) clustered into uncommon B4b1a-branch, named B4b1a3, harboring the control region diagnostic motif 146-16086 (Figure S1). With the exception of Tubalar mtDNA having additional coding region transition at np 15007, all other B4b1a3 mtDNAs are characterized by 408A-9055-9388T-9615 motif defining subcluster B4b1a3a, which in turn can be further subdivided into two sister subclusters. The relatively large amount of internal variation accumulated in the northern Asian branch of B4b1a would mean that B4b1a3 arose in situ in southern Siberia after the arrival of B4b1a3 founder mtDNA from somewhere else in eastern Asia. "
"It should be noted that we have not found in northern Asia any haplogroup B mtDNA lineages ancestral to Amerindian-specific B2 branch. The only Tubalar (The Tubalar are an ethnic group native to the Altai Republic in Russia) mtDNA described previously by Starikovskaya et al. [27], designated there as B1 and interpreted as “closely related to Amerindian-specific B2 branch”, belongs in fact to the northern Asian-specific subcluster B4b1a3 (Figure S1) which in turns is a part of major subcluster B4b1, distributed predominantly in eastern Asia. Thus, there is no evidence at this time for the occurrence of haplogroup B2 mtDNA ancestors in Siberia, in contrast to the situation for haplogroup A2 and D2 mtDNAs" NOTE: This appears to support your claim. (I just came across this, btw.)

3) https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3631640/
" It has been proposed that most of these founding lineages were generated during a period of refuge of about 5,000 years in Beringia (13, 16). In contrast, genetic analyses of the nonrecombining portion of Y chromosome haplotypes have shown a significant founder effect (17). More than 80% of Amerindian Y chromosomes belong to the single haplogroup Q1a3a-M3, whose precursors could be traced back to central Siberia (18–20). Although this genetic evidence is suggestive of a single founding population for all Native South Americans, we have to realize that these studies have been largely limited to extant Amerindian groups or to relatively recent skeletal remains. Thus, molecular studies have not been capable of testing appropriately the Two Components model yet."

4) https://dna-explained.com/2013/09/18/native-american-mitochondrial-haplogroups/
B2a1a: Asia – Herrnstadt
B2a2: Asia – Herrnstadt
B2c: Asia – Herrnstadt

5) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_B-M60
"In Eurasia, B2a1a1a1 (B-M109) has been found in 3% (3/117) of a sample of Iranians from southern Iran[19] and 2% (2/88) of a sample from Pakistan and India"

6) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_B_(mtDNA)
"Although haplogroup B in general has been found in many samples of Altaic-speaking populations of Siberia, the subclade that is phylogenetically closest to American B2, namely B4b1, has been found mainly in populations of southern China and Southeast Asia, especially Filipinos and Austronesian speakers of eastern Indonesia (approx. 8%) and the aborigines of Taiwan and Hainan (approx. 7%).[10][11][12] However, B4b1 has been observed in populations as far north as Turochak and Choya districts in the north of Altai Republic (3/72 = 4.2% Tubalar),[13] Miyazaki and Tokyo, Japan (approx. 3%),[14] South Korea (4/185 = 2.2%),[9] Tuva (1/95 = 1.1% Tuvan),[13] and Hulunbuir (1/149 = 0.7% Barghut).[15]"

7) http://haplogroup.org/mtdna/rsrs/l123456/l23456/l2346/l346/l34/l3/n/r/b45/b4/b4bdej/b4b/b2/
"Haplogroup B2 is a branch on the maternal tree of human kind. The woman who founded this line lived between 14,200 and 19,400 years ago (Behar et al 2012b)."

B
-B4
--B4a
--B4b'd'e
---B4b
----B2
----B41b

From the data above, I came across new information that appeared new to me. Even so, here is why I still think it's a somewhat higher probability that B2 originated in Asia and not America:

NOTE: I came across new information and my view has changed so that the probability is not as high as before, and here's why.

a) The time it originated, it seems to be somewhat close to the time America was populated after the glacial ice started to melt.
b) People beloging to haplogroup B41b (or descendants) currently inhabit Asia.
c) The other groups A,C,D... have some subgroups that live in America and some that also live in Asia currently, although for B2, it hasn't been found specifically, but it's a bit suspicious that only B2 would be the exception.
d) The material from the above links.

I think overall, you are probably more up to date with information. And I can see the reasons for your arguments. We just have some disagreements on some key issues, such as the usefulness of the scientific method. I don't think that it should be applicable here to mean that only things that can be verified are the only valid ones. All you have to do is look at some of the papers to realize that people appear to be going also by probabilities, which is what I'm doing.

Kabah
07-31-2017, 09:04 PM
where in mexico your roots are ??