Page 33 of 39 FirstFirst ... 233132333435 ... LastLast
Results 321 to 330 of 389

Thread: The deep population history of northern East Asia from the Late Pleistocene to the

  1. #321
    Registered Users
    Posts
    310
    Sex
    Omitted
    Y-DNA (P)
    F0R1a1a-Z280
    mtDNA (M)
    R0H5B1

    Poland Slovakia Scotland England Israel Ireland
    Quote Originally Posted by anthrofennica View Post


    And in some ways, East Eurasians are nested within West Eurasians as far as hpDNA is concerned. This situation mirrors to some extent the Y-DNA situation of GHIJK. G, H, and IJ are all nested within and around Anatolo-Irania. And even within K, LT is difficult to view even as a very South Asian haplogroup going deeper in time. So there was clearly a period of time after OoA when Y-DNA haplogroups were diversifying an spreading, eventually throughout the world, and yet only a very nested part of this diversification, K2, made it to East Asia, while the rest of the diversity we see in the same region where we see the greatest hpDNA diversity.

    Of course this is not counting some today-very-rare F clades, nor C and D. And it should be remembered that basal F* does seem to have been found in Europe and the Middle East even in the earlier part of the Neolithic (i.e. Derenburg Meerenstieg II); just like C1a it is quite possible the reason some of the rarer clades are not really present among West Eurasians like they are among East Eurasians has more to do with pure probability during the strong lineage extinction events during and following the Neolithic. North Eurasia could only support very low population densities, while in Southern Europe most of the native lines were replaced with Anatolian Farmer lines during the Neolithic. And "Circum-Anatolo-Irania" (CIA) has maximum forager population densities much lower than S Asia, SE Asia, or E Asia. So in contrast to those who take the preserved rare lineages in the latter regions as evidence for GHIJK being successive spreads from S Asia into CIA, I remain agnostic, and can only be convinced by a complete lack of such relict lineages in CIA following extensive aDNA testing, or if such lineages turn out to be nested within the eastern diversity.

    Add the evidence of mtDNA (which provides less detail than hpDNA for basically the same lineage and may be more suspect to founder effects), and the evidence of auDNA, and together these seem to confirm a spread through S and SE Asia. They don't negate another spread through C Asia. But with so much diversity nested within CIA, the spread of OoA humans throughout Eurasia becomes much more complex than "it was clockwise" or "it was counter-clockwise". The more evidence we have, the clearer the picture will become. But already, I have to agree with everyone so far who doubts the Hallast et al. "F Out of SE Asia" hypothesis (though P is still interesting).
    Hello a hypothesis I have is the original East Asians had y-dna C as well as mtdna M and of course the oldest remains in Europe we're a mix of these East Eurasians and the proto west Eurasians who had y-dna F and mtdna N. Therefore east Eurasians are mostly a west Eurasian subset with a large amount of very divergent true eastern Eurasian with mtdna M and y-dna C. I think the fact the the earliest Europeans were a mix of these two profiles might be evidence against this hypothesis.
    Last edited by venustas; 08-09-2022 at 03:12 PM.
    Maternal Uncle y-line= F0R1b1-L21

  2. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to venustas For This Useful Post:

     anthrofennica (08-09-2022),  MNOPSC1b (08-09-2022)

  3. #322
    Registered Users
    Posts
    2,618
    Sex
    Omitted

    Quote Originally Posted by venustas View Post
    Hello a hypothesis I have is the original East Asians had y-dna C as well as mtdna M and of course the oldest remains in Europe we're a mix of these East Eurasians and the proto west Eurasians who had y-dna F and mtdna N. Therefore east Eurasians are mostly a west Eurasian subset with a large amount of very divergent true eastern Eurasian with mtdna M and y-dna C. I think the fact the the earliest Europeans were a mix of these two profiles might be evidence of this hypothesis.
    That is reminiscent of a qpgraph model I tried a few years ago in which basal Eurasian could be eliminated by having the entire East-Eurasian clade originally forming as a mix of Goyet and some divergent branch, (Basal East Eurasian? lol).
    Last edited by Kale; 08-09-2022 at 03:07 PM.
    Collection of 14,000 d-stats: Hidden Content Part 2: Hidden Content Part 3: Hidden Content PM me for d-stats, qpadm, qpgraph, or f3-outgroup nmonte models.

  4. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Kale For This Useful Post:

     anthrofennica (08-09-2022),  durmang (08-09-2022),  Max_H (08-11-2022)

  5. #323
    Registered Users
    Posts
    452
    Sex
    Ethnicity
    Bo / Raeuz / Baipu

    Indonesia Malaysia Thailand Laos Cambodia Singapore
    Quote Originally Posted by anthrofennica View Post
    I too fail to see how the tree would support a specifically coastal migration. But a migration through S and SE Asia towards E Asia? Well, the sample labelled "iceman" is the closest sample from West Eurasia (BM012A's ethnicity was not given but they were tested in "West Australia" so statistically they were likely to be of European descent). Further down the line, {India7, SNT49} is a South Asian clade. Shortly after, the line responsible for UBN18 (Thailand) diverged. Thailand is in SE Asia, and while there is South Asian ancestry there, statistically it is more likely to be "East-of-South Asian" (we await further testing for a better picture). The next to diverge were the Sahullans. Sahul is east of SE Asia. I couldn't find where PeCan4 came from beyond the probably the Americas judging by the label (this study didn't always label correctly). Everything else is East Asian.

    I just connected the dots. Again, a separate migration through North Eurasia is not ruled out, i.e. for the Okinawan outliers. But for everyone else, trying to fit this with a migration from the north means you have to have an {East Asian, Sahullan} clade related closest to a Thailand clade, followed by an India clade. So there would be a fast and far migration stopping at India that wasn't strong enough to hold out against a fast+far migration all the way to Thailand eventually, followed by a fast+far migration to Sahul that happened to be closer to the East Asians.

    So we now have [admittedly mild] hpDNA support for a southern route. And now we have to fit this with the mtDNA, auDNA, and Y-DNA evidence. And on top of that there is a complicated archaeological picture. Think for instance of Langley et al. 2020 and the evidence presented for bow-and-arrow primate hunting toolkits ~48 kya at Fa-Hien Lena in Sri Lanka. Similar technology has been cautiously suggested at the Niah Caves ~32 kya in Sunda, though the first confident evidence of bow hunting is with the Hoabinhians. Whether or not the projectiles were shot from a bow, their technology is similar.
    Would you mind providing the date for the UBN18 sample from Thailand? AFAIK there’s no samples that had been genetically tested in SE Asia that are older than the La368 sample from 8 kya. Hence if the UBN18 is modern or recent, it cannot really prove sth that happened 50 kya ago. There’s no reason to believe that East Eurasians originated from Thailand 50 kya.

    Overall I fail to see how your tree supports the southern route hypothesis and your analysis is dubious at best. Just providing a random tree with no sample date and no paper linked and then saying this is a solid proof of the southern migration is not a serious effort at all.

  6. #324
    Registered Users
    Posts
    11
    Sex
    Omitted

    Quote Originally Posted by venustas View Post
    Hello a hypothesis I have is the original East Asians had y-dna C as well as mtdna M and of course the oldest remains in Europe we're a mix of these East Eurasians and the proto west Eurasians who had y-dna F and mtdna N. Therefore east Eurasians are mostly a west Eurasian subset with a large amount of very divergent true eastern Eurasian with mtdna M and y-dna C. I think the fact the the earliest Europeans were a mix of these two profiles might be evidence against this hypothesis.
    Presence of K2 relatated haplogroups in Australia and Papua makes this scenario unlikely. They are not modeled as mixture of such populations even though so many ancient samples exist now.

  7. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Sky22 For This Useful Post:

     anthrofennica (08-09-2022),  jose luis (08-09-2022)

  8. #325
    Registered Users
    Posts
    1,125
    Sex

    Quote Originally Posted by MNOPSC1b View Post
    Would you mind providing the date for the UBN18 sample from Thailand? AFAIK there’s no samples that had been genetically tested in SE Asia that are older than the La368 sample from 8 kya. Hence if the UBN18 is modern or recent, it cannot really prove sth that happened 50 kya ago. There’s no reason to believe that East Eurasians originated from Thailand 50 kya.

    Overall I fail to see how your tree supports the southern route hypothesis and your analysis is dubious at best. Just providing a random tree with no sample date and no paper linked and then saying this is a solid proof of the southern migration is not a serious effort at all.
    The source is Rumiko Suzuki et al. (2022), "Helicobacter pylori genomes reveal Paleolithic human migration to the east end of Asia."

    The analyzed samples are neither ancient nor human; they are samples of Helicobacter pylori bacteria obtained from the stomachs of present-day people.

  9. The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to Ebizur For This Useful Post:

     anthrofennica (08-09-2022),  cpan0256 (08-15-2022),  jose luis (08-09-2022),  Max_H (08-11-2022),  okarinaofsteiner (08-30-2022),  Varun R (08-10-2022)

  10. #326
    Registered Users
    Posts
    92
    Sex
    Omitted

    Quote Originally Posted by MNOPSC1b View Post
    Would you mind providing the date for the UBN18 sample from Thailand? AFAIK there’s no samples that had been genetically tested in SE Asia that are older than the La368 sample from 8 kya. Hence if the UBN18 is modern or recent, it cannot really prove sth that happened 50 kya ago. There’s no reason to believe that East Eurasians originated from Thailand 50 kya.

    Overall I fail to see how your tree supports the southern route hypothesis and your analysis is dubious at best. Just providing a random tree with no sample date and no paper linked and then saying this is a solid proof of the southern migration is not a serious effort at all.
    Thank you Ebizur for the citation. I forgot to include it.

    The evidence of hpDNA is not to be treated the same as mtDNA, Y-DNA, or auDNA. I like to think of it this way. Today we use spit to determine mtDNA and Y-DNA lines. We use hpDNA to determine "spit lines". H. pylori is transmitted mainly by spit, mainly from parent to child during the weaning phase, before teething allows children to chew their own food. Mostly the mother chews the food, sometimes grandmother if she still has teeth, and in most stone age cultures other close community members can do this too. So it has a matrilineal transmission pattern, but a tendency to homogenise within a community over time. Because of this it is relatively impervious to founder effect. In fact even though it is transmitted most like mtDNA, it has a longterm behaviour closer to auDNA.

    How so? Because it is highly unlikely for a single individual to transmit their strain to an entire community, or even a few individuals, it means that the Thailand lineage requires an entire population of women to move there. Your model has not been proven wrong. It is just that the Southern route has been proven more parsimonious.
    Last edited by anthrofennica; 08-09-2022 at 06:18 PM.

  11. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to anthrofennica For This Useful Post:

     jose luis (08-09-2022),  okarinaofsteiner (08-30-2022),  Psynome (08-10-2022),  VladimirTaraskin (08-09-2022)

  12. #327
    Registered Users
    Posts
    452
    Sex
    Ethnicity
    Bo / Raeuz / Baipu

    Indonesia Malaysia Thailand Laos Cambodia Singapore
    Quote Originally Posted by anthrofennica View Post
    Thank you Ebizur for the citation. I forgot to include it.

    The evidence of hpDNA is not to be treated the same as mtDNA, Y-DNA, or auDNA. I like to think of it this way. Today we use spit to determine mtDNA and Y-DNA lines. We use hpDNA to determine "spit lines". H. pylori is transmitted mainly by spit, mainly from parent to child during the weaning phase, before teething allows children to chew their own food. Mostly the mother chews the food, sometimes grandmother if she still has teeth, and in most stone age cultures other close community members can do this too. So it has a matrilineal transmission pattern, but a tendency to homogenise within a community over time. Because of this it is relatively impervious to founder effect. In fact even though it is transmitted most like mtDNA, it has a longterm behaviour closer to auDNA.

    How so? Because it is highly unlikely for a single individual to transmit their strain to an entire community, or even a few individuals, it means that the Thailand lineage requires an entire population of women to move there. Your model has not been proven wrong. It is just that the Southern route has been proven more parsimonious.
    The northern route is definitely more parsimonious if you examine from the aspect of ancient DNA. I don’t think you should rule the northern route out at this point, it’s still too early.

    And yes, entire communities of men and women can definitely move around, or else how do you think our ancestors got out of Africa?
    Last edited by MNOPSC1b; 08-09-2022 at 09:01 PM.

  13. #328
    Registered Users
    Posts
    452
    Sex
    Ethnicity
    Bo / Raeuz / Baipu

    Indonesia Malaysia Thailand Laos Cambodia Singapore
    Quote Originally Posted by Ebizur View Post
    The source is Rumiko Suzuki et al. (2022), "Helicobacter pylori genomes reveal Paleolithic human migration to the east end of Asia."

    The analyzed samples are neither ancient nor human; they are samples of Helicobacter pylori bacteria obtained from the stomachs of present-day people.
    Which means that it’s still based on present-day people, and I don’t think this can prove something that happened many many generations ago, like 50 kya.

    Ancient DNA is still gonna be the most convincing evidence, hands down. Any method using present day samples would rely on some degree of guesswork and inference to extrapolate this onto the distant past.

  14. #329
    Registered Users
    Posts
    488
    Sex
    Omitted
    Ethnicity
    Mostly Chinese
    Nationality
    USA

    United States of America China
    Quote Originally Posted by jose luis View Post
    Not only in Papuans, the percentage of Altai Neanderthals in East Asia decreases as the percentage of Basal Asians (Ḥab́nhian, Negritos, Andaman, Papuans, Aboriginal Australians) increases.

    Genetic connections and convergent evolution of tropical indigenous peoples in Asia,
    https://doi.org/10.1093/molbev/msab361

    In square brackets are my words
    [3] TIA [(Tropical indigenous peoples in Asia), are] combinations of two ancestry components: one closely related to bASN ancestry; another split deeply from the East Asians. For the South Asian groups, the Onge-related ancestor contributes 80% ancestry to Irula and 48% ancestry to Gujarati (non-indigenous), with the remaining ancestry contributed by the European ancestor; for groups in Malaysia, the Negrito ancestor contributes 59% to Temiar and a lesser extent to Malay (non-indigenous).
    More like Irula are modeled as 80% AASI/Onge-like and 20% West Eurasian-like, Gujaratis are modeled as 48% AASI/Onge-like, etc. Makes sense that Non-Negrito Orang Asli groups would have >40% East Asian-like ancestry (from Austroasiatic Neolithic rice-farmer groups)

  15. The Following User Says Thank You to okarinaofsteiner For This Useful Post:

     jose luis (08-10-2022)

  16. #330
    Registered Users
    Posts
    92
    Sex
    Omitted

    Quote Originally Posted by MNOPSC1b View Post
    Which means that it’s still based on present-day people, and I don’t think this can prove something that happened many many generations ago, like 50 kya.

    Ancient DNA is still gonna be the most convincing evidence, hands down. Any method using present day samples would rely on some degree of guesswork and inference to extrapolate this onto the distant past.
    Agreed. Especially considering North Eurasia's reduced maximum forager population size compared to the south. It translates to a reduced ability to function as a population sink, and so we expect fewer isolated archaic lineages to survive in the long term. It is part of the reason why for instance Metspalu et al. 2004 was not as convincing to researchers in population dynamics with their southern route of spread:



    Anthrogenica thinks I am a robot so I can only read a few pages at a time per day before being blocked. If it is not too much trouble, could you explain to me your northern route hypothesis in a reply? If you have posted it previously, a copy-paste will do. Like I said, I am not against a northern route for a portion of East Asian ancestry. Merely leaning towards East Eurasian spreading from a locus somewhere where it could separately reach Central Asia and South Asia, and spreading to East Asia primarily through South Asia.
    Last edited by anthrofennica; 08-10-2022 at 02:27 AM.

Page 33 of 39 FirstFirst ... 233132333435 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 9
    Last Post: 05-21-2020, 09:38 AM
  2. Replies: 15
    Last Post: 05-10-2020, 04:48 PM
  3. Genetic history of South-East Asia / Sundaland
    By Tomenable in forum Ancient (aDNA)
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 02-05-2019, 08:03 AM
  4. Replies: 63
    Last Post: 02-04-2018, 10:46 AM
  5. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 12-03-2016, 01:44 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •