Page 14 of 42 FirstFirst ... 4121314151624 ... LastLast
Results 131 to 140 of 417

Thread: Is Indo-European originally an Eastern Eurasian language family?

  1. #131
    Registered Users
    Posts
    355
    Sex

    Quote Originally Posted by MNOPSC1b View Post
    25kya is still quite old, and if East Asians indeed arose in SE Asia around that time, then it would be rather hard to explain why many SE Asians and Oceanians don't have those genes, cause they had enough time to spread in the south if they indeed originated from there.

    And I can ask you the same question vice-versa, why is it a requirement that IUP industries spreading to SE Asia to support a northern route, but not a requirement that Hoabinhian industries spreading to NE Asia and Siberia to support a southern route?

    And I've never heard any reports about Qihe resembling Oceanians.

    You see, we both cannot convince the other, and that's because right now there's simply not enough evidence to determine the exact origin of East Asians, we're still lacking the crucial evidence.

    But at least AR19K was already quite close to modern East Asians, whereas the Hoabinhian samples, despite being much younger less than 10k, were still quite distinct from modern East Asians, and that should tell you something.
    If East Asians arose in Southeast Asia, it was at some point before 40 and 30kya, not 25. If the paper Ryukendo linked is accurate however, then it is very likely most of East Asian ancestry is from the south considering Kale's qpAdm models also. Given that Native Americans and Jomon appear to carry D2 however, it had to arrive in East Asia prior to 30kya.

  2. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Max_H For This Useful Post:

     okarinaofsteiner (12-14-2021),  theplayer (11-26-2021),  Tsakhur (11-26-2021)

  3. #132
    Registered Users
    Posts
    199
    Sex
    Ethnicity
    Southwestern Chinese

    China Canada Thailand Laos Cambodia
    Quote Originally Posted by Max_H View Post
    If East Asians arose in Southeast Asia, it was at some point before 40 and 30kya, not 25. If the paper Ryukendo linked is accurate however, then it is very likely most of East Asian ancestry is from the south considering Kale's qpAdm models also. Given that Native Americans and Jomon appear to carry D2 however, it had to arrive in East Asia prior to 30kya.
    It's still too early to say for certain that East Asians came from the south. The northern hypothesis is more in line with archaeology and also with the ancient DNA samples that we currently have.

    I know that some calculators or models describe East Asians as mostly Onge-like, but that's not the case for all. In a paper published earlier this year regarding to the origin and admixtures of Southwestern Chinese populations, it was shown that Southern East Asians derive 81% of their lineage from a Tianyuan-like ancestor, and only 19% of their lineage is Onge-like. And according to the same paper, Northern East Asians' lineage is 89% Tianyuan-like and 11% Onge-like.

    And being Onge-like doesn't necessarily mean southern, I see no reason why Onge themselves couldn't also have originated from the north, considering that apart from their D1a2b, all the other D1a lineages are from East Asia.

    Right now we're still lacking the crucial evidence regarding the ultimate origin of East Asians, so I don't think the northern route hypothesis should be discarded in favor of the southern one just yet, since the northern hypothesis can equally well explain the origin of East Asians with the evidence we have so far.
    Last edited by MNOPSC1b; 11-26-2021 at 02:31 PM.

  4. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to MNOPSC1b For This Useful Post:

     JoeyP37 (11-28-2021),  theplayer (11-26-2021),  TuaMan (11-26-2021)

  5. #133
    Registered Users
    Posts
    984
    Sex
    Location
    EU
    Ethnicity
    Finnish
    Y-DNA (P)
    Father N1c
    mtDNA (M)
    I5a

    Quote Originally Posted by Ryukendo View Post
    The main disagreement we have at the moment is how the East Eurasian and East Asian clades came into being, where the population splits occurred geographically. I would say that the most likely scenario has a trail of Hoabinhian-AASI like populations moving West across S Asia and Sundaland admixing with Denisovans from the group D2, two basal East Asian groups in Guangxi (later becoming the Longlin) and coastal SE Asia (later becoming the Jomon), and a E Asian crown group emerging in C China, admixing with the Altai Denisovans in D0, and spitting out first Tianyuan and AR33K ~40kya, and later East Asians proper in AR19K ~30kya. This makes it possible that the various K2b and P* clades in SE Asia and the Andamans, and later in Tianyuan, actually have phylogeograhic significance--how likely the scenario suggested by them is for K2b in later West Eurasians is less easy to gauge though.
    Considering that Initial Upper Palaeolithic genomes from Europe are closer to East Asians than later European genomes are, do you argue that the Eurasian Initial Upper Palaeolithic (incl. Ust Ishim) marks the migration of modern humans to Eastern Asia (with yDNAs C, K2, F and D) which may have happened already 50 000 years ago? The model proposed by you could even be viewed as supporting the Hallast model (https://link.springer.com/article/10...39-020-02204-9).

    Do you think that the migration of modern humans reached East Asia via the southern jungle or the northern steppe? Am I right that you seem to argue that the Tianyuan man marks the exit of yDNA P from China to North Asia? As Ust Ishim is quite close to Tianyuan and their uniparentals are similar (yDNA K2 and mtDNA R), I am rather viewing Tianyuan as an into-China migrant than out-of-China migrant.

  6. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Kristiina For This Useful Post:

     Jack Johnson (11-27-2021),  Max_H (11-26-2021),  MNOPSC1b (11-26-2021),  TuaMan (11-26-2021)

  7. #134
    Registered Users
    Posts
    355
    Sex

    Quote Originally Posted by MNOPSC1b View Post
    It's still too early to say for certain that East Asians came from the south. The northern hypothesis is more in line with archaeology and also with the ancient DNA samples that we currently have.

    I know that some calculators or models describe East Asians as mostly Onge-like, but that's not the case for all. In a paper published earlier this year regarding to the origin and admixtures of Southwestern Chinese populations, it was shown that Southern East Asians derive 81% of their lineage from a Tianyuan-like ancestor, and only 19% of their lineage is Onge-like. And according to the same paper, Northern East Asians' lineage is 89% Tianyuan-like and 11% Onge-like.

    And being Onge-like doesn't necessarily mean southern, I see no reason why Onge themselves couldn't also have originated from the north, considering that apart from their D1a2b, all the other D1a lineages are from East Asia.

    Right now we're still lacking the crucial evidence regarding the ultimate origin of East Asians, so I don't think the northern route hypothesis should be discarded in favor of the southern one just yet, since the northern hypothesis can equally well explain the origin of East Asians with the evidence we have so far.
    The Denisovan D0/D2 argument seems to strongly support southern origins of East Asians along with Kale's qpAdm models and some of the published papers. Otherwise, I agree that more recent papers increasingly model East Asians as mostly Tianyuan in origin though it can not be said with certainty where Tianyuan's ancestors came from.

    I do think it is very unlikely that there was a Papuan-related migration bringing Denisovan ancestry to East Asia so "D2 Denisovan ancestry" had to be in the ancestors of East Asians prior to 35kya. Of course, there is also the possibility that the paper is mistaken in its assessment of Denisovan ancestries in East Eurasians, so far some of the papers seem to contradict each other.

    Edit: The distribution of Ydna D subclades in East Asia suggest to me that they arrived first along with subclades of Ydna C and then were pushed to refugia by incoming K2 carriers. I think divergence between Jomon and Onge clades is very deep more than 40kya...
    Last edited by Max_H; 11-26-2021 at 05:31 PM.

  8. The Following User Says Thank You to Max_H For This Useful Post:

     TuaMan (11-26-2021)

  9. #135
    Registered Users
    Posts
    62
    Sex

    This whole argument is pretty useless.

  10. #136
    Registered Users
    Posts
    147
    Y-DNA (P)
    R1b-CTS3087
    mtDNA (M)
    H16

    United States of America England Scotland Ireland Wales Italy Sicily
    Iím skeptical of the whole Denisovan-Neanderthal component to be honest. I feel this will more or less be refuted/confirmed once we have enough ancient Homo Sapien genomes, like 60-300kya.

  11. The Following User Says Thank You to Jack Johnson For This Useful Post:

     MNOPSC1b (11-27-2021)

  12. #137
    Registered Users
    Posts
    199
    Sex
    Ethnicity
    Southwestern Chinese

    China Canada Thailand Laos Cambodia
    Quote Originally Posted by Max_H View Post
    The Denisovan D0/D2 argument seems to strongly support southern origins of East Asians along with Kale's qpAdm models and some of the published papers. Otherwise, I agree that more recent papers increasingly model East Asians as mostly Tianyuan in origin though it can not be said with certainty where Tianyuan's ancestors came from.

    I do think it is very unlikely that there was a Papuan-related migration bringing Denisovan ancestry to East Asia so "D2 Denisovan ancestry" had to be in the ancestors of East Asians prior to 35kya. Of course, there is also the possibility that the paper is mistaken in its assessment of Denisovan ancestries in East Eurasians, so far some of the papers seem to contradict each other.

    Edit: The distribution of Ydna D subclades in East Asia suggest to me that they arrived first along with subclades of Ydna C and then were pushed to refugia by incoming K2 carriers. I think divergence between Jomon and Onge clades is very deep more than 40kya...
    Well, the thing is we don't know D2 Denisovans' distribution range yet, and we don't know a whole lot about Denisovans in general. If their range was only limited to SE Asia then you could say the ancestors of East Asians took the southern route, however if they were distributed widely from Central Asia all the way to SE Asia, then even if the ancestors of East Asians took the northern route they would likely have admixtures with D2. So far we cannot say for certain just yet.

    And like I said earlier, not all models or calculators show East Asians as predominantly Onge-like, more recent models show that East Asians (both northern and southern) largely derive their ancestry from a Tianyuan-related lineage.

    And nothing suggests that carriers of Y-haplogroups D and C arrived in East Asia prior to K2, recent evidence tends to suggest that they were all part of the same wave of IUP migrants.

    I know emotionally you and Ryukendo probably wish that East Asians originated from the south, but we're discussing genetics it's a domain of science it has to be objective and not emotional.

  13. The Following User Says Thank You to MNOPSC1b For This Useful Post:

     TuaMan (11-27-2021)

  14. #138
    Registered Users
    Posts
    355
    Sex

    Quote Originally Posted by MNOPSC1b View Post
    Well, the thing is we don't know D2 Denisovans' distribution range yet, and we don't know a whole lot about Denisovans in general. If their range was only limited to SE Asia then you could say the ancestors of East Asians took the southern route, however if they were distributed widely from Central Asia all the way to SE Asia, then even if the ancestors of East Asians took the northern route they would likely have admixtures with D2. So far we cannot say for certain just yet.

    And like I said earlier, not all models or calculators show East Asians as predominantly Onge-like, more recent models show that East Asians (both northern and southern) largely derive their ancestry from a Tianyuan-related lineage.

    And nothing suggests that carriers of Y-haplogroups D and C arrived in East Asia prior to K2, recent evidence tends to suggest that they were all part of the same wave of IUP migrants.

    I know emotionally you and Ryukendo probably wish that East Asians originated from the south, but we're discussing genetics it's a domain of science it has to be objective and not emotional.
    Please do not misinterpret my words. I have no emotional attachment to north or south as origin for East Asians, I want to know what most likely happened.

    I agree with you that we still know too little about Denisovans and that their range was very wide from the Altai to likely Papua-New Guinea. They also lived in Tibet: https://www.science.org/doi/full/10....e.370.6516.512

    If East Asians turn out to be mostly of Tianyuan descent I will have no issue with it (nor if they turn out to be mostly Onge or both or whatever other combination) I only want to examine all possibilities.

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

     okarinaofsteiner (12-14-2021),  theplayer (11-27-2021)

  16. #139
    Registered Users
    Posts
    1,731
    Sex

    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Johnson View Post
    I’m skeptical of the whole Denisovan-Neanderthal component to be honest. I feel this will more or less be refuted/confirmed once we have enough ancient Homo Sapien genomes, like 60-300kya.
    Please read the original papers and see the figures, including the mutational difference counts in the 2018 paper (the plots with the topographic lines) and Figure 3A and 3B in the more recent paper I posted, and tell me how else to explain such findings other than multiple Denisovan populations with deep divergences. The methods these papers used are very easy to understand, and the results quite unambiguous. What do you think those results show?

    It is not every day that you can get published in a prestigious journal asserting the existence of new archaic populations, including a new archaic hominin population in Wallacea (New Guinea) of all places (!), on the evidence of genetic data in moderns alone. Why did scientists allow this to go through peer review, and such a finding not receive widespread pushback when it was presented? You are just refusing to engage with the evidence at this point.
    Last edited by Ryukendo; 11-27-2021 at 04:52 PM.
    Quoted from this Forum:

    "Which superman haplogroup is the toughest - R1a or R1b? And which SNP mutation spoke Indo-European first? There's only one way for us to find out ... fight!"

    " A Basal Eurasian and an Aurignacian walk into a bar... "

  17. #140
    Registered Users
    Posts
    1,731
    Sex

    Quote Originally Posted by Kristiina View Post
    Considering that Initial Upper Palaeolithic genomes from Europe are closer to East Asians than later European genomes are, do you argue that the Eurasian Initial Upper Palaeolithic (incl. Ust Ishim) marks the migration of modern humans to Eastern Asia (with yDNAs C, K2, F and D) which may have happened already 50 000 years ago? The model proposed by you could even be viewed as supporting the Hallast model (https://link.springer.com/article/10...39-020-02204-9).

    Do you think that the migration of modern humans reached East Asia via the southern jungle or the northern steppe? Am I right that you seem to argue that the Tianyuan man marks the exit of yDNA P from China to North Asia? As Ust Ishim is quite close to Tianyuan and their uniparentals are similar (yDNA K2 and mtDNA R), I am rather viewing Tianyuan as an into-China migrant than out-of-China migrant.

    Of course I do not support the Hallast model--I never said anything about it and never suggested anything about any populations other than East Eurasians, much less anything about modern human Y-chromosome diversity.

    Given that IUP populations reached an extremely wide area almost simultaneously (Initial Upper Paleolithic) and were replaced less than 10,000 years later in much of Western Eurasia, we know populations were extremely fluid during the initial settlement, so why could not IUP populations have reached tropical Asia and Europe simultaneously? There need not be a single arrow for populations with K2 ~45 kya, especially given how quickly populations spread initially in Eurasia--just like there need not be a single arrow for populations with C (it being found in ancient Europeans despite the strong E Asian tilt of that haplogroup today).

    The issue with K2b/P at this early time is that K2b down to P has been found in E Eurasian populations, and by the time of P (35 kya) we are not looking at initial settlement any more, meaning that the East Eurasian pattern we see is not just confined to very early time periods.
    Quoted from this Forum:

    "Which superman haplogroup is the toughest - R1a or R1b? And which SNP mutation spoke Indo-European first? There's only one way for us to find out ... fight!"

    " A Basal Eurasian and an Aurignacian walk into a bar... "

  18. The Following User Says Thank You to Ryukendo For This Useful Post:

     Max_H (11-27-2021)

Page 14 of 42 FirstFirst ... 4121314151624 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. new papers about indo-european language origin
    By paoloferrari in forum Linguistics
    Replies: 68
    Last Post: 08-07-2021, 05:26 PM
  2. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 12-30-2020, 01:38 AM
  3. Replies: 12
    Last Post: 09-28-2017, 08:50 PM
  4. Indo-European Language SPA Map
    By Humanist in forum Autosomal (auDNA)
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 12-28-2013, 12:19 PM

Posting Permissions

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