Wednesday, June 5, 2013

A Dialog On Non-Denisovan Archaic Admixture In Denisovan DNA (Postscript added)

The dialog after the jump (edited to remove discussions of other issues) is from the comments to a post from last month at this blog and I've elevated it to a new post for the benefit of readers not following the comments on old posts closely (some of the emphasis in quoted material is mine specific to this post).

Denisovan autosomal DNA was found archaic hominin remains in a Siberian cave a few years ago and is a match for traces of archaic admixture found in modest percentage in modern Australian aborigines and Melanesian populations (and populations derived from these populations), but in no other modern human populations, as shown in the following map (via John Hawks blog).



Recent analysis has determined that the Denisovan DNA is admixed with Neanderthal DNA (who were contemporaneous with the population whose remains were found in Siberia from ca. 30,000 years ago) and not too far to west of them and in the same cave at a later date), just as non-African modern humans are today.  More intriguingly, there is also evidence in the Denisovan autosomal genome of admixture with another unidentified archaic hominin species. They were 17% Neanderthal and 4% unknown archaic hominin.

The $64,000 question is which species of archaic hominin account for the core of the Denisovan DNA and the unidentified archaic admixture in it, respectively.


Wednesday, May 1, 2013

Some Important Open Issues In Human Prehistory . . . 
1. When and where did Neanderthal admixture take place? 
One, two and three admixture event scenarios are all plausible (and, of course, more complex scenarios are also possible).

The simplest model assumes that admixture took place ca. 100 kya to 75 kya at a time when the archaeology shows the two species overlapping in the Levant and the effective population size would have been smallest, and not thereafter. But, this would mean that a schism into West Eurasian and East Eurasian populations would have had to happen very early on to prevent the admixed Neanderthal genes from coming closer to fixation between the proto-West Eurasians and proto-East Eurasians than differences in which Neanderthal genes are found in each population reflect.

Another one admixture model puts the date closer to 50-75 kya when the modern human population is at a post-Toba low point after an initial Out of Africa surge, perhaps in an Arbian or Persian Gulf refugium. This reduced effective population size, and allows for a sustained period of declining population during which genetic drift can loose some of the Neanderthal inheritance and give rise to Founder effects not likely to be seen in a rapidly expanding population that has reached fixation.

In a simple two event model, West Eurasians and East Eurasians split before admixture takes place and Neanderthal admixture takes place in parallel processes that produce similar overall levels of admixture in each clade of Eurasians in different places - perhaps one in Anatolia, and another in Arabia, Persia or South Asia. This also has the virtue of driving down effective population sizes in each source population.

A three event model combines these two models, which some admixture taking place early on and pre-schism and some taking place later in parallel.

An example of a more complex model would be one with a common admixture event, additional East Eurasian admixture, and then additional West Eurasian admixture that is diluted in the Upper Paleolithic to Neolithic transition by West Asian populations that did not experience the additional West Eurasian admixture experienced by Europeans with prolonged co-existence with Neanderthals.

2. Were there cases of archaic admixture in Africa?

Preliminary population genetic analysis and possibly one Y-DNA haplogroup A00 that looks older than the species make this look plausible and may have happened in two or three separate cases there quite recently.

The case for Neanderthal and Denisovan admixture where observed is in my opinion rock solid and not adequately explained by any other mechanism (such as deep population structure in Africa within modern humans).

The window of time in which additional non-African, non-Neanderthal, non-Denisovan admixture could be discovered in modern humans alive today hasn't completely closed but is well on its way to doing so. It is quite clear that this isn't present outside modern relict populations of Eurasia and the Americas.

6. What archaic hominin species is Denisovan DNA associated with?


Denisovan DNA was found in a Siberian cave. Denisovan admixture is found from roughly the Wallace line and beyond. At least two know archaic hominin species were present in between: Homo Erectus, in most of that region, and Homo Florensis on Flores and perhaps a couple of neighboring islands only. Theories about the existence as a separate species and range of Homo Heidlebergus is also sketchy.

There is no solid indication of Neanderthals beyond South Asia, but they aren't entirely ruled out, particular via a Northern route to the Denisovan cave. Some clade analysis of the Denisovan DNA suggests a clade shared with Neanderthals apart from Homo Erectus. . . .


9. How did Homo Erectus go extinct?

While the evidence is very thin indeed on this point, extinction due to warfare and/or inability to complete for food and territory with modern humans upon first contact, outside of Flores where a cooperative mode emerged, possibly boosted by the Toba erruption or a climate shift seems most plausible.

10. When, if ever, did Homo Florensis go extinct?

The earliest possible date for the extinction is about 10,000 years ago, which is the date of the oldest skeletal evidence, but there is good reason to think that they persisted even after first contact with Europeans and that there may even be a tiny population of this species extant on one known part of one Indonensian island. . . .

Posted 3:29 PM
terryt said...
"There is no solid indication of Neanderthals beyond South Asia" 
As far as I'm aware there is actually no evidence for Neanderthals anywhere within South Asia apart from some disputed presence in the far northwest. . .
"How did Homo Erectus go extinct?" 
I think that technically it didn't become extinct. Collectively we probably have many genes picked up by 'modern' humans as they passed by and mixed with Homo erectus populations.  

andrew said...
I am defining extinct to mean "cease to exist as a separate species if the resulting species is predominantly the other part of the hybrid." Also, it doesn't appear that there was any admixture in mainland Asia where most H. Erectus must have lived. They went completely extinct in most of their range.

terryt said...  
"it doesn't appear that there was any admixture in mainland Asia where most H. Erectus must have lived. They went completely extinct in most of their range". 
I actually believe our evolution has been far more complicated than the simple story usually presented.

terryt said...
"6. What archaic hominin species is Denisovan DNA associated with?"

I don't know if you've noticed John Hawks' latest post, but just in case you haven't here it is:

http://johnhawks.net/weblog/reviews/denisova/biology-of-genomes-pennisi-update-2013.html

Some interesting aspects:

"And the comparison revealed another surprise: Four percent of the Denisovan genome comes from yet another, more ancient, human—'something unknown,' Pääbo reported".

So we have yet another ancient Homo species that could interbreed at least with another species that could interbreed with 'modern' humans. In fact the whole thing gets even more complicated:

"With all the interbreeding, 'it's more a network than a tree,' points out Carles Lalueza-Fox"  . . .  



andrew said...

Re the Denisovan admixture with yet another unknown archaic hominin species (i.e. not modern human and not Neanderthal), this really is exciting and mysterious. Fitting two non-Neanderthal, non-modern human archaic species into Eurasia (presumably pre-OOA), is not an easy task. I am inclined to think that one of Asian H. Erectus (probably Denisovan) and the only other real candidate I can come up with as the second archaic hominin species would be H. Ergaster (sometimes called African H. Erectus and believed to be ancestral to all known Eurasian hominin species), or Homo heidelbergensis aka Homo rhodesiensis which was antecedent to Neanderthals in essentially the same range and were probably antecedent to modern humans in Africa. There is no attested instance of H. Ergaster outside Africa, although arguably this is due to geography influenced taxonomy since not everyone agrees that H. Ergaster and H. Erectus are the same species.

If Denisovans are a late evolutionary phase of H. Erectus that first admixed with H. Heidelbergensis to the west of their range and then late admixed with Neanderthals who replaced them to the west of their range (at least amongst N. Asian Denisovans) (with H. Flores being a pygmy species of H. Erectus due to island dwarfism that probably lacked Neanderthal or H. Heidelbergensis admixture), then you start to have a pretty coherent story.

The plot would really thicken if the trace unidentifical archaic admixture in the Denisovans and the trace archaic admixture in either certain Khoisan or certain pygmies in Africa were a match - pointing strongly to the possibility that there were relict populations of H. Heidelbergensis both in and outside Africa through the Upper Paleolithic (with the other of the two separate unaccounted for archaic admixture in African populations possibly being a trace of H. Ergaster (I'd guess Ergaster for the Khoisan and Heidelbergensis for the Pygmies in light of the probably archaic admixed Y-DNA haplogroup found in West Africa near Pygmy territory and based on the need for Heidelbergensis to be closer to Eurasia than Ergaster - also we know that Ergaster's range extended to Southern Africa based on fossil evidence but have no evidence of Ergaster in jungle settings - perhaps due to preservation conditions, but perhaps because they never lived there). If H. Heidelbergensis evolved north of the Congo and never migrated to Southern Africa, then H. Ergaster would be the most evolved archaic hominin species in Southern African upon first contact with modern humans and might have survived for some time as a relict population in marginal environments that the Khoisan would eventually themselves being pushed into. 



terryt said...


"Fitting two non-Neanderthal, non-modern human archaic species into Eurasia (presumably pre-OOA), is not an easy task".

I don't see a problem there. After all Denisovans and Neanderthals were very close neighbours, leaving a considerable amount of Eurasia for other species.

"the only other real candidate I can come up with as the second archaic hominin species would be H. Ergaster (sometimes called African H. Erectus and believed to be ancestral to all known Eurasian hominin species)"

My vote goes towards an East Asian separate species, perhaps descended from 'Pekin Man'. When the information on the EDAR370 variant came out the authors suggested one possibility was introgression from some unknown East Asian species as well as a possible mutation within Homo sapiens. I thought the former scenario quite likely.

"If Denisovans are a late evolutionary phase of H. Erectus that first admixed with H. Heidelbergensis to the west of their range and then late admixed with Neanderthals who replaced them to the west of their range (at least amongst N. Asian Denisovans) (with H. Flores being a pygmy species of H. Erectus due to island dwarfism that probably lacked Neanderthal or H. Heidelbergensis admixture), then you start to have a pretty coherent story".

Possible. But I think you are hugely influenced by your desire to fit the Australasian Denisova genetic trace with SE Asian Homo erectus. At this stage we have no evidence at all that SE Asian H. erectus had any significant genetic connection to Denisovans in the Altai. That is a huge distance and for most species with the apparent limited mobility of pre-modern humans would be sufficient to give rise to separate species. The distance involved certainly seems sufficient to have given rise to separate species within other genera.  


Continued Discussion

I am influenced by the desire to figure out why traced of autosomal DNA sequences found in remains in Siberia are found in Australasian populations, but nothing in between.  Some species or closely related group of hominin species necessarily had a range that extended from the far side of the Wallace line to Siberia sometime in the time frame from 100,000 years ago and 30,000 years ago.  Despite the fact that the distance seems incredible, that part of the story is pretty much an undisputable fact.  We can't say with certainty this species was indeed H. erectus, but no other known archaic hominin species had a range even vaguely that great in that region.

If you want to argue for a new species, my inclination is to say "show me a body." 

There is archaeological evidence of S. Asian H. erectus from the island of Java to China from close to 1,000,000 years ago to 100,000-200,000 years ago or so (I've seen better dates on that than I have provided, and I'm sure that this isn't exactly right, but the material points are (1) that there is no archaeological evidence of H. erectus in Siberia or NE Asia other than the Denisova remains (to the best of my knowledge), (2) that H. erectus remains are present over an expansive range in Asia over a long time span of many hundreds of thousands of years, and (3) there is no clear overlap of dates in hominin remains between archaic and modern human populations in Asia, apart from H. Florensis on the island of Flores itself.  Furthermore, H. Florensis is the only other species of archaic hominin for which we have clear evidence in the form of hominin remains east of India.

The map below (via For what they were . . . we are) sums up the existing evidence of archaic hominins in Asia prior to the Toba explosion.



The conventional wisdom about Peking Man is that this is a representative of H. erectus (the type fossil of which is Java man), both of which are more than 700,000 years old, and that they are not separate species.  The distance between these two sets of remains is greater than the distance from the Peking man location to Denisova, so the possibility that a single species of archaic hominin could spread so far is well supported.

The correct species for some late East Asian hominin remains (ca. 100,000 years ago) such as the Llujiang remains (139,000 to 168,000 years ago) and Zhirhendong remains (100,000 to 110,000 years old) are not definitively determined.  This is highly relevant because the Denisova remains and any first contact with modern humans would have been closer in time to these remains than any other archaic hominin remains in Asia to the east of India.

The late (ca. 100,000 years ago) East Asian hominins could be a new species entirely that is absent from the archaeological record elsewhere. They could be a late phase of H. erectus. They could be a modern humans suffering from diseases or disorders or with remains distorted by pressure or warping over the millennia or could have been inaccurately dated as older than they actually are due to some methodological problem.  Or, they could be highly admixed modern human-archaic hominin hybrid individuals.

Given mountain evidence for a first wave of Out of Africa migration ca. 125,000 to 100,000 years ago, and an absence of any other modern human remains east of India that are anywhere near that old (despite the huge ecological impact of modern human settlement in many other places), I am strongly inclined to believe that either the dating or that the tentative classification of these remains as modern human is wrong.  The circumstances of discovery in the case of the Llujiang remains were not a meticulous archaeologist's dream of care and optimal methodology, so some degree of skepticism about methodology issues is appropriate in that case. The Zhirhendong remains discovered in 2007 are more securely dated and more professionally evaluated, for example in this paper by Liu, et al in 2010 also discussed here), but I don't share their confidence that the highly fragmentary remains are really modern human and the possibility that a more modern fragment of human bones were somehow muddled in with older dirt, rock and fauna remains from previous archaic hominin occupants of the cave is not ruled out as definitively as one might hope for remains that are outliers by more than 60,000 years from all other modern human remains for many hundreds of miles around the site (many of those at least 40,000 years old themselves and hence not in locations where preservation of remains for thousands of years was a seriously problem). 

These remains are also 60,000 years or more removed from any lithic tool sets found in the region which would be associated with modern humans or even with Neanderthals.  Normally, lithic tool remains are far more abundant than teeth and jaw bones. 

Modern human-like features arising in populations descended from H. erectus due to convergent evolution seems like at least as likely an explanation, and perhaps both modern human admixture seen in Melanesia and Australia and the directly sampled Denisova DNA involved this highly evolved (in a mostly convergent direction) version of H. erectus, rather than more primitive archaic species like the H. erectus type fossils.

The presence of two separate kinds of archaic admixture in Denisova DNA strengthens the case for possibility that there were hominin species for which we have no remains was present in Asia.  The missing species could be the Denisova itself, or the Denisova remains could be from H. erectus or H. florensis, with the unidentified archaic species being one for which we also have no archaeological finds of remains.

The interpretive bias that I am guilty of and I admit this, is that the conjectures and narratives that I am piecing together are "minimalist".  I have preferred explanations that most parsimoniously explain the data with a minimum of missing species or data points implied by that narrative.  It could indeed be the case that the real story is much more complex.  But, I am reluctant to consider possibilities that imply some very major new discoveries that have yet to be made merely because they are "possible" when there is no real positive evidence to support them.

Put another way, my Baysean prior is that the data that we have already, while not complete, is quite comprehensive, rather than being the mere tip of the iceberg with new unexpected discoveries lurking in every cave and every eroded away landslide. 

I have no doubt that there are new discoveries to be made, but the evidence that we are missing an entire species or genera of archaic hominin that stretched from Indonesia to Siberia at some point in a range of tens of thousands of years seems relatively low in my mind after hundreds of thousands of years of H. erectus stability over a range almost as vast in Asia.  A missing species is by far the more interesting possibility, but it also seems speculative and if we must speculate, assigning the possibility to a relict population of a known archaic hominin species that has been attested in Eurasia seems like the most likely possibility.

Post Script

John Hawks' latest post on the subject does some analysis of the possible species affinity of the Denisova hominins:

The first reported third molar has length and breadth dimensions within the size range occupied by australopithecines and early Homo, both H. habilis and H. erectus. There are no distinctive morphological characters that would allow it to be assigned to any taxon. . . . 
The similarity of Denisova and Neandertal genomes suggests that they emerged from a single population. This possibly was the early Middle Pleistocene population of Eurasia. Green and colleagues [2] derived Neandertals from a common ancestor with living Africans only 250,000-400,000 years ago. A model including the Denisova data, reported by Reich and colleagues [1] puts the emergence of a Neandertal-Denisova clade at between 190,000 and 520,000 years ago, and the divergence of the Neandertal and Denisova branches around 50,000-100,000 years later. This is later than the time of the last unequivocal H. erectus fossils, and more than a half million years after the Trinil individual -- type specimen of Homo erectus -- lived. Based on this chronology, the Denisova genome does not represent Homo erectus or any hominin population derived from the initial diversification of Homo.

A slower mutation rate might bring the most recent specimens of Homo erectus into the temporal range of the Denisovan population, by elevating the time of divergence of Denisovans, Neandertals and contemporary African peoples. Whole-genome sequencing of human parent-offspring pairs, as well as resequencing of more limited regions of the genome, has suggested a slower rate of substitutions [5], [6]. This would be consistent with a much earlier diversification of Denisovan and Neandertal genomes, making it possible that they came from an early Middle Pleistocene adaptive radiation.

The Denisovans were too closely related to living humans to represent Homo erectus, as it is currently understood. Homo erectus occurred widely in Asia, including China and Java, and Africa during the span from 1.95 million to 750,000 years ago. In China and Java, fossils attributed to Homo erectus persisted until 200,000 years ago. There is no unequivocal fossil of Homo erectus after 200,000 years ago.

The mtDNA sequence of the Denisova genome is an outgroup to a clade including both humans and Neandertals, and appeared to branch from our ancestors roughly a million years ago. In addition to the finger bone, Reich and colleagues recovered the mtDNA of a second individual from Denisova Cave, represented by an isolated third molar [1]. Reich and colleagues [1] showed that the mtDNA divergence between Denisova and the modern-Neandertal clade is deeper than expected given the nuclear genome genealogical divergence. They also showed that the nuclear genomes of Neandertals and Denisovans are somewhat closer than either is to the majority ancestors of living people. They discuss two possible explanations.

One scenario a mixture of the Denisovans with a more ancient Pleistocene population, followed by introgression of a more ancient mtDNA clade into the Denisovans. This would assert an ancient structured population preceding the origin of Denisovans, presumably from one of the Middle Pleistocene populations of Africa or Eurasia. A second scenario is incomplete lineage sorting, in which an earlier mtDNA divergence was captured by the Denisova and Neandertal populations at the time of their divergence and differentially lost from them. . . .
It has become possible to make some good estimates of demographic history using only a single diploid genome, using a technique developed by Li and Durbin. Meyer and colleagues applied this technique to the Denisova genome, finding that its genetic history contrasts with that of living human populations. Whereas African populations and living humans outside Africa share signs of population growth in the last 100,000 years, the Denisova genome seems to have come from a population that had long been small, and may have been shrinking.  
If the Denisova are too closely related to modern humans to be H. erectus, then H. erectus becomes a prime candidate for the 4% undetermined archaic admixture in the Denisova on top of the 17% Neanderthal admixture that may simply have reflected the geographic location on the farthest fringe of the Denisova range immediately adjacent to and overlapping with Neanderthal territory. In terms of relatedness, seeing the Denisova sharing a clade derived from H. Heidelbergensis with modern humans and Neanderthals, all of which diverge out of Africa or West Eurasia from H. erectus at a much later date than H. erectus, seems to be a pretty decent fit with the autosomal and mtDNA data.

But, what is going on from 200,000 years ago (the last unequivocal Homo erectus fossil) until 40,000 years ago (when modern humans are unquestionably dominant in all of SE Asia, East Asia, Melanesia and Australia and Denisova admixture in populations that are Denisova admixed today appears to have been complete)?

Did the Denisova entirely replace H. erectus over its entire range, only to be replaced in turn by modern humans? If so, what made this replacement possible and why did they otherwise leave such a slight footprint in the fossil and paleofauna/paleoflora record? Could it be that H. florensis, were not pygmy H. erectus and were instead a completely different Denisova species?

The Denisova Diaspora Model

Alternately, perhaps the Denisova were not a replacement for H. erectus.  Instead, they may have been a somewhat more adaptable and resourceful secondary hominin species contemporaneous with H. erectus and Neanderthals that could not compete directly with either H. erectus (whom they did not replace over most of the H. erectus range) or Neanderthals, perhaps due to their smaller size (on the theory that H. florensis are type examples rather than pygmy examples of the species), for example.  

Perhaps, instead, the Denisova sought habitats such as the Denisova cave and islands on the far side of the Wallace line in Indonesia that were desirable to them because they were adaptable enough to get there and live there, while H. erectus was not capable of living there and competing with them. 

In this analysis, it was H. erectus and not modern humans that kept the Denisova from becoming numerous on the mainland Asian side of the Wallace line. 

This would also imply that H. erectus had almost no admixture with humans anywhere, perhaps because, unlike the Denisova and Neanderthals, they were simply too fully speciated from modern humans to produce fertile hybrid offspring.  The 4% unknown archaic admixture in the Denisova, which I have hypothesized is Homo erectus admixture into the Denisova, is suggestively about the same as the amount of Neanderthal admixture in modern human Eurasians, suggesting that perhaps this intermediate species may have been about as distinct from H. erectus as modern humans were from Neanderthals (something that is approximately true if they are a relict population derived from late pre-Neanderthal H. Heidelbergensis).  The higher level of admixture in the Denisova cave with Neanderthals (17%) may have reflected not just proximity, although surely that was one factor, but also a considerably higher level of compatibility and similarity between the Denisova and Neanderthals than between Neanderthals and modern humans. 

One can perhaps imagine the Denisova as a relict pre-Neanderthal population of Europe that was replaced by the Neanderthals entirely there where the Neanderthals had evolved to be better adapted to the local conditions, but persisted in distant environments of Asia that Neanderthals were less suited to whenever they could find territory not definitively claimed by well established H. erectus populations. 

This Denisova diaspora model is a good fit for both the odd geographic distribution of the Denisova range and for its small and declining demographic history which is a poor fit for a model in which the Denisova replace H. erectus over a wide range prior to the arrival of modern humans.

191 comments:

Maju said...

"... this would mean that a schism into West Eurasian and East Eurasian populations would have had to happen very early on to prevent the admixed Neanderthal genes from coming closer to fixation between the proto-West Eurasians and proto-East Eurasians than differences in which Neanderthal genes are found in each population reflect".

Nonsense. The differences are tiny and irregular, and we do not even know for sure which are those differences: now an expert says one thing, then another says the opposite.

The differences are caused, if at all, by the same founder effects that caused other differences withing the Homo sapiens genome (senso strictissimo).

"... a post-Toba low point after an initial Out of Africa surge, perhaps in an Arbian or Persian Gulf refugium".

More confused claims. Not just archaeology supports continuity through Toba in India but the mtDNA signature does not seem to allow for such a huge time span between the various implicated nodes. Upon arrival to India M expanded very quickly and continued at strong pace, almost uninterrupted, for a long time, in South Asia, in East Asia and in Australasia (where archaeology gives dates older than 60 Ka, time that is just before the colonization of Neanderthal West Eurasia, beginning before 55 Ka ago in West Asia and just after 50 Ka in Europe and Central Asia). N may well have found a niche to expand after Toba but that's about it.

"In a simple two event model, West Eurasians and East Eurasians split before admixture takes place"...

This does not fit with the fact that the immense majority of Neanderthal-inherited sites are the same in all Eurasian populations.

The assumptions made after that, like presuming that Paleolithic West Asians did not have "prolonged" contact with Neanderthals are absolutely gratuitous. Neanderthals were settling Yemen 50 Ka ago... Neanderthals were in the Zagros and Syria, Neanderthals were in Central Asia... the contact zone must have been similar.

But anyhow, Hawks claimed exactly the opposite: that Europeans had more Neanderthal admixture than East Asians. So it's using just one data point, a single paper, to elaborate the more complicated and surely wrong hypothesis ever.

andrew said...

Hawks is my main source of data on the diversity in Neanderthal DNA, so I'll quote him on some of the key points.

April 7, 2013:

"If there had been a very small number of Neandertal-modern contacts (like a dozen or so) then everybody who carries Neandertal genes today should have the same small set of them, all inherited from the founder effect of those few Neandertal ancestors. So your Neandertal genes and my Neandertal genes should all be pretty much the same. And most of the genome should have no Neandertal genes today at all. . . the number of contacts was not very small -- more like the low thousands or high hundreds than dozens. Remember that the entire human population from that time era acted like a breeding population of fewer than 100,000 people, so 3000 Neandertal ancestors are quite a large fraction of that."

The really critical data sources for my conclusions are from posts here and here. He notes in one of these posts looking at the particular Neanderhtal allels found in the X chromosome that:

"China and Europe by and large have different Neandertal-derived haplotypes. Haplotypes from Neandertals that are common in Europe -- say, with more than two or three copies -- are mostly rare in China. And vice-versa; haplotypes that are common in CHB are rare in CEU.

Why should this be? Green and colleagues [1] hypothesized an early population mixture of Africans and Neandertals in West Asia, before that population dispersed throughout the rest of Eurasia. This hypothesis was meant to explain why China and Europe have the same proportion of Neandertal genes.

I think that is also consistent with the fact that China and Europe have different Neandertal genes. If the population mixture was followed by substantial genetic drift as the West Asian population dispersed in different geographic directions, drift would randomly increase the frequency of some haplotypes in one direction, others in the other direction. Europe and China would end up with the same proportion of Neandertal ancestry, but it would be distributed very differently among loci."

In the other (posted a few days later), he states:

"When I last wrote about the Neandertal genome, I showed that across the X chromosome, Europe and China have different Neandertal genes. There is overlap between the two, but as a generalization few Neandertal haplotypes that are common in Europe are also common in China, and vice-versa. . . is this a pattern that occurs on the autosomes, or does it reflect X chromosome dynamics in some way?

That's not a hard question to answer, and I went looking first at chromosome 19. The number of haplotypes is fewer, because chromosome 19 is shorter than the X. The overall pattern is the same. Most Neandertal haplotypes are rare in the HapMap samples, and relatively few are common in both the CEU and CHD samples. . . .
this is not solely an X chromosome phenomenon; basically we're looking at the effects of drift in small ancient populations after they mixed with Neandertals.

I did have an excellent question today . . . how do we know that this isn't separate mixture events giving rise to different Neandertal-derived variants in different recent humans?

That's not a trivial question to answer, and I don't think we could easily rule out the hypothesis in the abstract. But the fact that these populations have very similar fractions of Neandertal contribution overall does suggest a single history of mixing."

andrew said...

Elaborating a bit further on the quoted material in my previous comment, the problem with a model in which there is Neanderthal admixture once, early on, followed by dispersal of populations to the East and West respectively with different Neanderthal genes, is that we have a large number of admixture events and a long time period (ca. 100kya to 30 kya in round numbers) in which Neanderthals and modern humans co-existed in Eurasia and could have come into contact with each other and admixed.

As he notes, really the only factor favoring a single admixture event over parallel admixture events is the similarity of Neanderthal gene fraction in both populations. But, if the parallel admixture processes played out separately in very similar ways because the key factors influencing the overall extent of admixture were similar in each of the two cases, then this objection fades away.

As the quotes above demonstrate, the differences between the specific West Eurasian and East Eurasian Neanderthal genes that were inherited predominate over the similarities, which is a high degree of drift (and some of the few high frequency Neanderthal genes found in both areas may have been fitness enhancing and hence not subject to random drift in the same way). What influences the amount of drift?

1. Was the source population homogeneous or not? The more homogeneous the source population, the less you see drift in daughter populations from each other. Homogeneous populations arise genetically when you have an unstructured population (i.e. a single gene pool with random mating within it) that is in place for many generations (but not nearly as many as you would expect intuitively). Almost maximal homogeneity, called "fixation" is reached in time periods on the order of ten to twenty generations in an unstructured population (i.e. 300-600 years or so). "Leaky" population structure (i.e. subpopulations with an endogamy preference that is strong but not 100% whether due to culture or geography) take longer to reach fixation (and may never reach fixation) depending on the extent of admixture between the groups, but even low levels of between group admixture (e.g. 1-2% per generation) bring the entire linked population to a homogeneous fixation level much faster than you would intuitive expect. Even a quite structured population with only modest leakage between subgroups would reach fixation (i.e. maximal homogeneity) in 3,000 to 12,000 years or so.

2. How small and how interrelated is the smaller daughter population? The smaller it is, and the greater the extent to which the daughter population is made up of extended family groups, the greater the drift because the effective sample from the homogeneous population is smaller and hence can have more "sampling error" from the percentages in the population as a whole. But, sampling error is highly non-linear. The allele frequency percentages for any particular allele in a daughter population with 300 independent extended family lineages (or the effective population equivalent) should be within about 4 percentage points of the population as a whole if it has reached fixation. To get the amount of drift we observe would require a daughter population with far fewer than 300 independent extended family lineages which doesn't fit other data suggesting an effective population size for the East Eurasian founding population closer to 3,000 to 4,000.

Ergo, two options seem plausible:
(1) the population structure that eventually gave rise to West Eurasian v. East Eurasian population genetic differences arose less than 600 years after Neanderthal admixture and had become entirely separate populations within a few thousand years of Neanderthal admixture or (2) much of the Neanderthal admixture that did happen took place after the West Eurasian and East Eurasian populations had split from each other (if not completely at least to a high degree of population structure with only modest leakage) already.

terryt said...

Thanks for a very interesting blog. I agree we don't have enough data to draw conclusions, however I don't share your belief we have found representaives of each regional variety of Homo erectus that has ever lived,

"Upon arrival to India M expanded very quickly and continued at strong pace, almost uninterrupted, for a long time, in South Asia, in East Asia and in Australasia (where archaeology gives dates older than 60 Ka, time that is just before the colonization of Neanderthal West Eurasia"

I notice you're suggesting that M14 was the first mt-DNA to each Australia. I find that very unlikely. To my mind you place too much faith in the presence or absence of a mutation tail. And you use the presence of any tail to postulate any number of migration theories to make the evidence fit pre-conceived beliefs.

The evidence as we have it at present indicates that M14 is confined to Arnhem Land. To me that suggests it was not part of any 'original' arrival. Its spread was limited by the presence of other people. As you say, M15 has a tail of 5 mutations from the L3 root. But M42 has just 4 mutations from L3. I can see why you wish to ignore that fact. Placing too much faith in M42 having been an early arrival in Australia is made difficult by the fact that M42 is also especially common in Munda-speaking people of India, and its sister haplogroup, M74, is south Chinese. That suggests a fairly rapid expansion, but not an early one. The other M haplogroup to have reached Australia is M15, slightly more widespread than M14 having reached the Kimberly and moved into Central Australia.

So we're left with the most widespread haplogroup family: N. To me it seems obvious that P developed in Australia. And that means R reached that continent, most likely from Timor. That gives five basal N haplogroups in Australia: R and S, both on 6 mutations from the L3 root, O at 7 mutations, as well as N13 on 11, and N14 on 15. These last two are confined to the Kimberly region as far as I'm aware. Their long mutation tails are most easily explained as being the a product of isolation in the Kimberly rather than being the product of a prolonged Exodus from some unknown region. The tail gives no idea of the time of their arrival.

terryt said...

"If the population mixture was followed by substantial genetic drift as the West Asian population dispersed in different geographic directions, drift would randomly increase the frequency of some haplotypes in one direction, others in the other direction. Europe and China would end up with the same proportion of Neandertal ancestry, but it would be distributed very differently among loci"

Under such a scenario we surely would not expect the ratio of Neanderthal genes to remain the same in each population at all.

"how do we know that this isn't separate mixture events giving rise to different Neandertal-derived variants in different recent humans?"

The most likely explanation to me.

Maju said...

We cannot simply expect the Neanderthal legacy to behave differently from the African-sapiens one. Hence a comparison is needed.

In most cases I know of, East Asian and West Eurasian alleles (usually inherited from Africa) are different in type and frequency. This I tend to explain by founder effects because selection in similar latitudes and climates does not seem to help explaining it.

One key question is how common are "common haplotypes" and how do they behave differently, if at all, than non-Neanderthal ones? Probably "common haplotypes" are not too common either (just a small percentage, seldom larger than 20%) and they behave exactly like non-Neanderthal African/OoA ancestry.

It's important to compare with something or we may completely lose perspective. As I said, this kind of differential founder effects are common in all the variable genome, especially when we compare Eurasian subpopulations like CBH vs CEU, etc. This is surely because the Eurasian expansion after arrival to South Asia was fast and each subgroup tended to its own quasi-fixation patterns.

Incidentally fixation (a terminal tendency of drift) is not a deterministic process but stochastic and otherwise dependent on factors such as effective population size and time. Each simulation with the same initial parameters will produce different results: it's chaotic. This is important to understand.

Anyhow, even in remote isolated populations, like Papuans or Andamanese or Bushmen, we do see retained diversity even today. So fixation is not a necessary result but just a tendency at the limit. After the founder effect(s), population diversifies in geography and genetic diversity (within the original legacy), and much of that diversity makes it through the millennia.

... "how do we know that this isn't separate mixture events giving rise to different Neandertal-derived variants in different recent humans?"

Because the percentage of admixture is almost identical everywhere. Different admixture events should have normally caused different apportions. But they are almost identical in all Euro-Australo-Asians.



Maju said...

... "the differences between the specific West Eurasian and East Eurasian Neanderthal genes that were inherited predominate over the similarities"...

As do the African-sapiens legacy. Also has anyone bothered studying differences between, say Etruscans and North Europeans, Gujarati and Dravidians, Han and Japanese? I recall from the first Neanderthal admixture paper that the Japanese individual had smaller frequencies than the Chinese (and everyone else out of Africa in that study), which may also represent differences in distribution.

"Was the source population homogeneous or not?"

IMO not too homogeneous. Otherwise we'd see less macro-haplogroup diversity, probably just one mtDNA and one Y-DNA lineage, and instead we see two of each.

I do not think your scheme describes the reality. There were at least two original Eurasian subpopulations, Asia1 and Asia2, which admixed with each other in the process of Asian and Australian colonization once and again. Indians are probably the best example of Asia1-derived population (high y-CF and high mt-M). I can't find any good example of relatively unmixed Asia2-derived population (high y-D and high mt-N) This is because they criss-crossed their paths once and again, with Asia1 being clearly dominant all the time, even if a mixed Asia1'2 population (dominant: y-MNOPS, mt-R) did have a significant impact of their own right.

One problem here is that populations are not absolute neatly boxed categories but fluid ones. Asia1 alone soon gave birth to many different derived populations, including many mixed with Asia2. There were no long prolonged isolations for them but instead they were all the time interacting with their neighbors as the overall process of expansion unfolded (and later as well).

However the WEA-EA split was not something that happened any time soon. If I'm correct EA was already forming c. 80-70 Ka ago, while WEA only formed some 20 Ka later and partly from that EA genetic pool. The real split was actually between South and East Asia (as well as the Australasian populations) but these were interacting quite intensely (i.e. not fully split) until roughly the time when the West Eurasian colonization began c. 60-50 Ka ago.

An expanding population has nearly zero drift incidentally, and therefore no fixation whatsoever (other than by localized founder effects).

andrew said...

"Probably "common haplotypes" are not too common either (just a small percentage, seldom larger than 20%)"

Per Hawks none are more than 10% and the uncommon haplotypes which make up a majority of cases are under 0.5%.

The point about the value of having a comparison case to compare to is very valid. Why do simulations that may omit some important assumption when it is possible instead to do a comparison that by clever comparison design naturally controls for all of the same population history. One has to be careful to find a comparison that is ancestry informative but selective fitness neutral, but this is still an excellent suggestion as a means of comparison.

The other problem is to figure out how to peel away the palmpiset of recent population history with multiple waves of gene exchange between regions which is not possible in the case of Neanderthals after about 29kya or so in Europe and not possible in Asia after about 60kya or more, since Neanderthals as a separate species with which gene exchange is possible ceases to be. Multiple wave population histories are in contrast the norm in most modern human populations even seemingly some of those like Australian aborigines and Native Americans in North America that used to be considered one wave followed by total isolation for tens of thousands of years until first meaningful and enduring European contact ca. 500 years ago or less.

Maju said...

"Per Hawks none are more than 10%"...

Then I must have misunderstood the figures of his graphs. :/

"The point about the value of having a comparison case to compare to is very valid".

I would say it is essential. And in my experience, many studied alleles with likely African origins (and/or later mutations maybe) have different founder effects in West+South and East Asia. Although I have never read any statistic on this.

"... not possible in Asia after about 60kya or more"...

At least in Altai there were Neanderthals (or Denisovans, but most likely Neanderthals) until c. 30 Ka in the northernmost fringes of the region.

The Mousterian in Yemen begins c. 50 Ka. and is very possible that there were other Neanderthal pockets in West Asia, just like they were in Europe (Iberia, Croatia, NE Russia, parts of France...) I don't see any clear differences between the pattern of Neanderthal extinction in West/Central Asia and Europe, sincerely.

"Multiple wave population histories are in contrast the norm in most modern human populations"...

Only in some areas. If we disdain (as we should) the Modern Era, we find little more than the Bantu expansion as such clear partial replacement wave. All the rest are possible, I guess, but speculative (and hence not evidence).

andrew said...

"... not possible in Asia after about 60kya or more"...

My wording was sloppy, but what I was intending to refer to in that sentence was only Southeast Asia and East Asia.

Maju said...

Ok. Still there's some late apparent Mousterian in Mongolia, surely derived from Altai's. I don't recall many details but it's probably after your 60 Ka date.

What there is not is any Neanderthals in East Asia before that date almost for sure (nor later with that Mongolian exception).

There were also no Neanderthals in South Asia either, although an Acheulean-using relative, the Hathnora hominid, is an alternative candidate for the source of the admixture. However I'd say that the admixture does look like happening in West Asia in the earliest stages of the OoA process, before the real expansion began in Tropical Asia east of Iran: too homogeneous for having happened when the original population(s) was already fragmenting, diversifying itself.

But, if you really believe that there are serious grounds for differential hybridization processes, then Hathnora (and not actual Neanderthals) could be a good candidate.

DDeden said...

Re. Mt. Toba Sumatra supervolcano + dry millenium

Analysis of Borneo cave stalagmites show Toba resulted in 1,000 year dry period

"The researchers also discovered a 1,000-year dry period triggered by the supereruption of Sumatra's Toba volcano 74,000 years ago."

"This was the largest eruption in the past 2.5 million years," Carolin said. "Usually, volcanic winters last a few years to 10 to 20 years, but this dry period lasted for a millennia."

http://news.yahoo.com/tropical-caves-fill-gap-climate-record-180849511.html

Living in the future... said...

Very interesting thoughts! I just received my Geno 2.0 kit back and have found out that I am 46% Northern European(R-P310) 36% Mediterranean, 17% South West Asian(U2e1c) 1.5% Neanderthal and finally 2.9% Denisovan! Incredibly my maternal line came over with the first Japanese ambassador to Europe. I actually do have a great immune system and rarely if ever get sick. I hope this information helps stimulate more interesting debate on here!

Maju said...

Japanese do not have detectable "Denisovan" admixture. I would always take commercial information like that with a pinch of salt (get a second independent test if you wish to be certain) but, if you have such high "Denisovan" levels and only remote ancestry from the only regions known to have it (essentially Oceania and some nearby SE Asian islands) it is either:

1. A false positive.

2. Real but local from wherever you are and most of your ancestry come from (Spain?)

I never heard of women arriving with the Hashekura embassy, much less leaving descendants (it was a male thing), so I would rather think of recent Filipino ancestry instead. Still it seems hard to justify such a high "Denisovan" apportion.

Maju said...

PS- If (2), most unlikely, it'd demand more research on the matter. As of now Europeans have ~0% "Denisovan" ancestry, as do most other world populations.

So, if your 2.9% Denisovan ancestry is real, then one of your parents should be Papuan or Australian Aborigine. It sounds most unlikely, so I'd rather think that the result is wrong.

andrew said...

I would have to suspect cryptic Filipino negrito ancestry or Melanesian ancestry (Aboriginal admixture was too rare to be a very likely source compare to the other two).

I would tend to suspect a Melanesian or Filipino wife acquired by the male Japanese ambassador while the man was stationed in one of those places during a Japanese occupation of one of islands in one of those places.

Maju said...

He means, I understand, the Hasekura embassy to the Pope in the early 17th Century, which left some legacy of Japanese paternal ancestry (notably the surname Japón) in an Andalusian village near Seville.

So it is simply impossible what he says. It may well just be troll gibberish (???)

Ruth Robertson said...

Well, as a lay-person, I am still shaking my head over my 3.2 Denisovan geome based solely on my mother's Scott, Welsh, Swede, and American Indian background! That is pretty far removed from what the scientists say that today this geome is found almost exclusively in those from Native New Guinae and Austrailia. It is not found in those from a typical British Isles back ground which my mother's back ground almost exclusively is so it must somehow be tied up in her California Maidu Indian heritage but I don't see how.

Marni Dee Sheppeard said...

As someone from an old Australian family, I can tell you that many modern diaspora 'whites' would have Australian aboriginal ancestry - perhaps their ggggg father was sailing around the Pacific and ended up in America. More common than people realise.

Maju said...

Let's see: a ggggg-father dos not contribute to 50% of ancestry or almost (that would be the father or mother, a ggggg-father contributes on average a mere 1.6%), as would be needed.

So either:

1. there are other populations with notable "Denisovan" ancestry (retained from loooooong ago in isolation), which have yet to be detected/identified in academic studies, or:

2. 23&Me is doing something very wrong.

I lean for the latter but we cannot exclude option (1) completely.

andrew said...

"Well, as a lay-person, I am still shaking my head over my 3.2 Denisovan geome based solely on my mother's Scott, Welsh, Swede, and American Indian background!"

Sounds like it is time to blame dad.

J. Lyon Layden said...

See the thing is , homo erectus soloensis has more in common with flores and dmanisi than with the "eastern" or "western" erectus. Peking man is really more like antecessor than later eastern erectines...and ceprano groupswith those and narmada. Knowing that, its not surprising that antecessors DnA is more like antecessor- its because of the peking man component. Recent studies show a divergence 3.5 million years ago, and that either comes from solo man if we're tracing back in time with the assumption that ergaster is our primary ancestor. But if we find that what that study was actually doing was tracing us back to our south asian "advanced" erectus ancestor which became dominant in everywhere but soloensis/hobbit teritory (usually seperated from the mainland) then we will probably find that the the introgression from that 3.5 million year old split is actually ergaster, instead.

J. Lyon Layden said...

Sorry for the mistakes...but to make it simple lets say indian erectus spread out and became dominant in a warm period when india became desert in the interglacial....heidelberg and dali are resulting hybrids and the only species not touched by those would be the interglacial islanders in south east asia who just so happen to have more in common with dmanisi than with any of the other archaics.

J. Lyon Layden said...

One more thing....the idea that early chinese hss being convergent evolution is stretching it hard. They were a ghost population of hss and further evidence of that can be found in the dna of mungo man and the ydna strains of pure BT, F, and even Y (pre-A) in Tibet. One of those SE asian ghost populations is who melanesians absorbed most of their "denisovan" genes from most likely. In most of the world non BT peoples have been assimilated just like neanderthals and denisovans...africa was just one of the last places BT has gotten to. If not for humanitarian effirts we may have gotten to the As too...judging from reports on the hunting of pygmies for food in subsaharan africa.

J. Lyon Layden said...

South asian hss was not convergent evolution...they are a ghost population of Hss, some of whom likely assimilated denisovan and/or solo man genes. They are the ones hat many melanesians got their denisovan genes from...as evidenced from the dna of mungo man, the presence of unmutated BT and Y male dna in Tibet, and the need for a first wave....they were there' and mtdna haplogroup M was probably a part of their genome before us bloodthirsty nenderthal hybrids killed off all the men.

terryt said...

"the ydna strains of pure BT, F, and even Y (pre-A) in Tibet".

I haven't heard of any BT or pre-A in Tibet. Any references? And I doubt mt-DNA M was anywhere much at all before so-called 'modern humans' first appeared.

J. Lyon Layden said...

Yes but what is termed 'modern human' has a lot bigger genome than the partbof it that is derived from mtdna eve and y chromosome adom. Mungo man is anatomically modern, more gracile than kow swamp and probably modern aborigines too. No neanderthal admixture and he comes from a mother older than mtdna eve. The truth is that mostbof the human y lineages are gone because haplogroup k likes to headhunt and cannibalize and take women by force.

J. Lyon Layden said...

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Y-DNA_haplogroups_by_populations_of_East_and_Southeast_Asia

Above are many lineages for the ancient lineages in Tibet. Here's the thing- I KNEW they had to be there, was worried that last tsunami might have wiped them out if they were in indonesia instead of tibet. They were right under my nose all this time they just havent gotten much attention because of western orejudice against chinese scienticists. The truth is the reports arent only coming from china, and westerners are responsible for just as many hoaxes as China.

J. Lyon Layden said...

Err...references for the ancient lineages in Tibet I meant.

J. Lyon Layden said...

I suspect that western scientists will try to say that the eastern scientists didnt check for certainmutations....but they got plentynof hits for all the other lineages usually found in east asia. If those haplogroups were really a, b, ltk, oe even de or e the logical conclusion would be the same- neanderthal human hybrids dominated the world and then the strain that assimilated microcephalin d from soloensis/hobbit/ or the non human half of balangoda man dominated the rest of the neanderthal hybrids.

J. Lyon Layden said...

Right now its looking like y haplogroup F assimilated something good from whatever was in india or sri lanka after theyd aquired neanderthal genes from the neanderthal invasion. A ghost population of hss may have gone before F into india, which accounts for lower neanderthal admixture than haplogroup c. Once F drove C out of Sundaland they got down into the heart of it and assimilatedmicrocephaline d. Microcephalin d is good stuff: southern solo man had it but denisovan's solo part didnt. It wasnt god stuff up north during a glacial period. Neanderthals never came in contact with it...though their hss hybrid descendents did.

J. Lyon Layden said...

Alot of this stuff Stan Gooch figured out a long time ago by studying human culture, people just dont give him credit because he only had the word "neanderthal" to work with. He did designate them into at least three different categories, though.

J. Lyon Layden said...

Some other reasons this theory works better and satisfies your desire for simplicity- you only listed one studies dates for the divurgences. As Stan Gooch would entertain, what if the nuclear dna, the mito dna, and the allele difference tests are ALL correct? Then denisovan is a blend of eastern neanderthal, peking man, and soloensis....neanderthal is the result of ceprano man dominating antecessor.....and hss is a mixture of ceprano/narmada/omo and ergaster....and all the dates make ense with the fossil record.

J. Lyon Layden said...

It also explains why china ss, levant hss, and some neanderthal have chins but most african hss from that same era (middle paleolithic) dont. It may even explain why haploigroup ED likes tooth knocking and Haplogroup CF likes headbinding.

terryt said...

"Above are many lineages for the ancient lineages in Tibet".

I see no mention there of either A or B. C, D and K are the earliest haplogroups in the list. What did you mean earlier when you said, 'the ydna strains of pure BT, F, and even Y (pre-A) in Tibet'?

"what is termed 'modern human' has a lot bigger genome than the partbof it that is derived from mtdna eve and y chromosome adom".

There is no doubt about that but all surviving non-African mt- or Y-DNAs are C, D, E of F-derived. Nothing more ancient than that.

"The truth is that mostbof the human y lineages are gone because haplogroup k likes to headhunt and cannibalize and take women by force".

I don't think there is any evidence that Y-DNA K is any worse than anybody else in that respect.

"Once F drove C out of Sundaland"

C is still found through much of Sundaland and even in Australia. K is also present through the region as shown by:

http://forwhattheywereweare.blogspot.co.nz/2014/06/y-dna-macro-haplogroup-k-m526.html

I actually disagree with his placing Borneo as a major expansion centre but the remainder is pretty reliable. Of course both C and K in what was once Sundaland have since been replaced to a considerable extent by the arrival of Y-DNA O.

"It may even explain why haploigroup ED likes tooth knocking and Haplogroup CF likes headbinding".

Those traits arte cultural, not genetic.

J. Lyon Layden said...

Look to the far right column under "others." Youbwill find listings for Y(not A,B,BT) and for BT(nt de or cf) under certain tibeto-burman ethinicities and even under some the south china area ethnicities. You will also find some F and ancient K.

J. Lyon Layden said...

"I see no mention....."
Look at the list again under "others"

"Nothing more ancient than that."
Look under "others" and also to recent reports of a newly found y in afriuca thats 300k old...and should not be put in A in my opinion.They have to redefine A to place it.

"C is still found..."
But always as a subordinare to K or even D, except in australia where only the most primitive K everbreached and among very isolated populations driven to the backwoods of subsistence.

Yes O replaced alot of the evidence after the flooding of Sundaland

"These are cultural traits.."
Yes but there are reasons for them. When one end if the former territory of ED (Ibero-maurusian) and the other end of the ED expanse (jomon) both practice knocking the same teeth out at adolescence...we can infer that there once was a problem assimilating the tooth scheme of a sub-species or that this people found one of thgeir ancestors teeth unattractive. Head binding from shanidar neanderthals and shanidar hss 40k later and its presence wherever k was in the neolthic cant be just a coincidence.

J. Lyon Layden said...

I'm sure I'm K too...probably the worst of them...R or I....and I agree that E did some serious genocide on A and B and D probably did the same on some B. And C did some killing of archaics too. Im not laying blame- jusy saying that whats left today isnt ncessarily the smartest....just the most vicious and slick. ASPM d might be a con-artist gene even.

J. Lyon Layden said...

Oops I meant that D did some killing of C, not B. C was rocking before D cut a swath through the middle of Eurasi and pushed them down into sundaland. But then F expanded out of india and erased most of both all through central adia. When it got down into sundaland it became k, as per Mike Hammer, and P was the first one out. P dominated the north of Sundaland for a bit, as evidenced by the aetas...p and k who assimilated alot of soloensis. Gave them denisovan genes and 26 year life spans.

J. Lyon Layden said...

So 50k ago, you have ED from the meditteranean to central china, sharing space with C in some places. C is competing with real neanderthals in siberia and mongolia, and soloensis, hobbit, mungo man in south east asia and southern china. D becomes dolminate in ED in the east and moves into south east asia mainland. But F has been assimilating archaic hss whos been assimilating narmada man in south asia, and K strikes gold. Maybe it got cold again and an awesome gene got let loose on india from sri lanka. Or maybe it just took F a while to extract the goodie out of the narmada genome. But when F got it, it kicked some ass for them, and they pretty much erased all the ties between E and D as they spread into the caucasus and southeast asia.

J. Lyon Layden said...

So 50k ago, you have ED from the meditteranean to central china, sharing space with C in some places. C is competing with real neanderthals in siberia and mongolia, and soloensis, hobbit, mungo man in south east asia and southern china. D becomes dolminate in ED in the east and moves into south east asia mainland. But F has been assimilating archaic hss whos been assimilating narmada man in south asia, and K strikes gold. Maybe it got cold again and an awesome gene got let loose on india from sri lanka. Or maybe it just took F a while to extract the goodie out of the narmada genome. But when F got it, it kicked some ass for them, and they pretty much erased all the ties between E and D as they spread into the caucasus and southeast asia.

J. Lyon Layden said...

So Id like to say to all the asian women out there... we werent the ones who killed your husbands...it was whoever youve been with for the past 10,000 years. We were with the west side gang getting human women back from neanderthals and neanderthaloids, whos sexy genes had already made a sweep through most of their genome. The neanderthals took alot of human women when they moved into the levant 70k ago, and the hairy neanderthal girls were no match for all that. Biggest problem was that neanderthals daughters with human chicks were fertile, but their sons...not so much. Hey maybe thats where we got Amazons!

terryt said...

"Look to the far right column under 'others.' Youbwill find listings for Y(not A,B,BT) and for BT(nt de or cf) under certain tibeto-burman ethinicities"

I have checked again and still see nothing that has to be A or B. For example Y(xA,C,DE,J,K) could easily be F, probably F2-M427, widespread but not common in East Asia. Same for BT(xC,DE,J,K).

"Oops I meant that D did some killing of C, not B".

I don't think 'killing' is a necessary explanation. If we assume that each population expansion is the result of more people being able to live in a particular region then later arrivals would become more numerous than the pre-existing populations. In other words haplogroup proportion may be largely proportional to the original proportions of each haplogroup. On the other hand I fully accept minority haplogroups have progressively become extinct.

J. Lyon Layden said...

Yes it could be F, and if F is in Korea thats pretty freaky. But there is still mungo man and his dna. When a haplogroup like R has 12 mutations it also shows ghost populations- all those didnt happen in just one dude so alot of mr. Rs kin must be extinct. Same with F. See has like 2 mutations vs. Fs gazillion mutations. The thing is, if anatomically modern man from china to australia was assimilated, thered be no trace unless a direct lineage survived. Nuclear DNA wont show anything because though their mtdna and y dna lineage would be differernt, their genetic makeup would be similar. The only trace of them might ber that little piece of tail that mungo man inserted tosome populatiokns. Its frustrating to me that researchers just dont come out and show frequencies of aspm-d, microcephaline d, yap, mungho man insertion, as per ethnicities with haplogroups listed

J. Lyon Layden said...

Autocorrect, sorry...
C has like 2 mutations while F has gazillion.....

J. Lyon Layden said...

It doesnt have to be all killing, but theres so much more continueum along mtdna lineages compared to rapid replacement along y dna lineages across the board that killing had alot to do with it. Plus on the northern borders of sundaland you have headhunters and on the southeast border you have headhunters and cannibals, both practicing agriculture. My point with all this is that theres no reason for an out of africa anymore...if we had invented geneology before mungo man's crew was fully assimilated into our lineages we might have spent the last 4 decades tuck on an Out of Australia theory instead. Given 5000 more years, E may have fully assimilated A and B lineages...and then I guess we would have been stuck on an Out of Southwest Asia theory or something.

terryt said...

"When a haplogroup like R has 12 mutations it also shows ghost populations- all those didnt happen in just one dude so alot of mr. Rs kin must be extinct".

True to some extent. However what a string of mutations indicates to me is a long period spent as part of a population of very limited size. In other words the population is not large enough to allow multiple mutations to survive. Diversification of haplogroups occurs with population expansion.

"C has like 2 mutations while F has gazillion....."

Yes. C's expansion and diversification happened quite soon after it first separated from F while F remained confined within a limited geographic region for quite some time. To me the fact that G appears to have been the first F-derived haplogroup to form indicates F originated somewhere near the Caucasus Mountains.

"Nuclear DNA wont show anything because though their mtdna and y dna lineage would be differernt, their genetic makeup would be similar".

The evidence of our own eyes tells us they are quite different even though the haplogroups are related. As you say, that indicates rather different a-DNA. As far as I'm aware the Mungo man (probably a woman evidently) is not completely accepted. Something about possible contamination.

"but theres so much more continueum along mtdna lineages compared to rapid replacement along y dna lineages across the board that killing had alot to do with it".

But that could be a product of male mobility as compared with mt-DNA.

"we might have spent the last 4 decades tuck on an Out of Australia theory instead".

I've actually tried to point out to German several times that it's actually much easier to build a case that modern humans originated in Australia than it is to demonstrate they originated in America. To me it is apparent that modern humans did not originate in any single region. They are a product of much interbreeding and back and forth movement, although the surviving haplogroups all obviously originated in Africa.

J. Lyon Layden said...

Why do all the surviving haplogroups have to come from Africa? What if A And B were once spread out to the middle east andE just had a lot longer to drive them into extinction there?

Hawkes said that early chinese ss has some aspects more modern than african specimines of a similar age in his article "who put the chin in china?"

I dont see how mungo man could be a mistake ehen they've found a piece of his mtdna embedded in certain peoples chromisome...
I agree that mutations might show isolation....they might also show that the group went through a period of assimikating a gene that was very hard tdigest. I wonder what the rate of macrocephaly is among R and F? It could be that all of their lineages that didnt work with the new gene and caused a small brain have been weeded out....and nowadays only those populations who werent exposed to micro-d in the past have trouble with it today.

J. Lyon Layden said...

Small caveat- how about mungo being a 6'6 tall women? Them french cro-magnons were giants too, and idaltu too. One scientist said pops of heidelberg reached 7 feet on average less than a decade ago. But still doug weller points stuff like that out to Kristen Herst when I mention it so that she changes the articles for the public and helps paint the mainstreams false vision of prehistory.

J. Lyon Layden said...

My argumenton male mobility vs female mobility is this- a recent study showed that female orangs and chimps are mire mobile and promiscuous than males. Also, males moving into a territory and killing all the women and children is seen throughout the mammal species and we have observed it many times in recorded history of humans. Jared Diamond talks about it at length in Gund, Germs, and Steel. My guess is that M and L and K and O had more to do with the neolithic revolution, R just got the bedt steel, swooped down on horses, and stolewhat they had built in eurasia.

J. Lyon Layden said...

I just found an article on sri lanka that says te first tools were habilis, second erectus, third microliths. What they probably mean is Oldawan-Acheuian-Micrlith, but theres s MUCH on al the western sites and so LITTLE on Eastern sites. The bias is overwhelming and very frustrating. Wish theyd get out of africa and spend more time in the east.

J. Lyon Layden said...

Every damn site on Deinekes map thats in Africa or the middle east has chapters of info from a google search Youre lucky to get a sentence out of the sites from india, and usually its bogged down with Hindu explanations. Can westerners not dig there?

Maju said...

Layden: all you say is laden with great ignorance and obtuse fanaticism. Africa has by far the greatest basal diversity in mtDNA, Y-DNA and also in autosomal DNA. All the rest isn't but a small subset of the huge African diversity.

But there is more: there is archaeology, by which we can track our species forming in Africa some 200 Ka ago, migrating to Arabia and Palestine c. 125 Ka ago and to India and East Asia c. 100 Ka ago, before going (in this order) to Australasia, the rest of West Eurasia (alias the Neanderlands) and finally America. It is exactly the same story told by all the available evidence.

So I understand that denying it implies both ignorance and fanaticism. Spare us, please.

J. Lyon Layden said...

Maju- read this: http://www.scirp.org/journal/PaperInformation.aspx?paperID=19566

A and B entered africa after splitting fro Y according to the latest studies.

I'm not studying this for any agenda. I am just trying to write some prehistoric fiction and am being hampered by the the political war of eurocentricists, afrocentricists, and pc police.
Scientist try to explain it alk by genetic drift and founding fathers and ignorant ideas like deep african substructure instead of presenting a theory to us that doesnt defy commin sense. So i hsve to do their job for them just so I can write a damn story thst wont look dated 50 years from now.

J. Lyon Layden said...

Maju- everything hss before 125k has archaic features, the ones from africa have no chins, and the ones from 70k to 90k in africa suddenly have neanderthal features and chins. How did they not mate with the archaics in subharan africa until 37k ago if both were already there?
Why do our tooth structures seem to derive more from asian hominids in Europe and in most of africa instead of looking more like antessor and ergasters? Why is E the main haplogroup in africa after its obvious back-migration there? E is the hapligroup of Einstein and Nelson Mandela by the way. Whats my agenda, by the way? A white boy trying to prove that y dna adam lived in central asia or the middle east? Or that the y haplogroups that originally became white originated in south east asia? Why does it matter to you where y haplogroup adam came from anyway? Mito eve may still have come from africa, but the russian study petty much proes that y chromosome adam did not.

J. Lyon Layden said...

I meant the y haps that eventually became white, not originally became white. Color of course has most to do with where your ancestors spent the glacial periods and where theyve been living the last 10,000 years anyway, not your haplogroup or where it spread from. E may even be the greatedt intelligence indicator of the 6 y haps that increase intelligence in populations, according to one study. So i dont k ow what yoyre getting at. Human beings moved around alot, and at times during our prehistory india and most if africa suddenly became nearly uninhabitabke for short periods do to glaciation.

J. Lyon Layden said...

In fact I'm thinking of writing a dating tips book called "Men are from Mesopotamia' Women are from Africa" or maybe "Men are from Erectus, Women are from Ergaster."
"Men are from Neanderthal, Women are from Heidelberg" would sell better but its not as true...

J. Lyon Layden said...

Mujo- That small fracti,on of "african" diversity accounts for 90% of the people in the world. E accounts for 80% of africa. And E migrated (not necessarily back-migrated) into africa.
Usually when we talk about diversity in africa were talking about mtdna' in which you could be right. The problem is that if mito eve lived in africa, her people could only have been in north and east africa and couldnt outcompete iwo eleru in sub-sahara until the descendents of Y adam (haplo E) invaded and helped them spread into those regions.
Also when you talk bout diversity- the neanderthals and denisovans seemed to have alot of diversity before we absorbed them, and they must not have been in africa. Who has the most diversity largely depends onwhat eon the sample is taken from.

J. Lyon Layden said...

The russian study also shows that y haplogroup B "back-migrated" or "migrated" into africa 70k ago as I've long supposed. Thats about the time neanderthal and neanderthal hybrids start showing up all through the middle east for the first time, cutting off pure hss from his other half. One side off hss in africa and the other in ne india and southern china...neanderthal in between. Narmada was in India, soloensis in se asia, denisovan in china, and neanderthals throughout the noryhern hemi.

J. Lyon Layden said...

Then toba happened, ice age, refugiums....

J. Lyon Layden said...

Neanderthal hybrid ed in one and cf i the other..

J. Lyon Layden said...

In the regugiums, dominate neanderthals ruled but their sons werent potent, so ED came to dominate before a warmer period some 40k ago loosed that population on the world. Since that time its moved down into africa and pushed all the A and B into subsahara to mix with the iweo eleru who had ben pushed there beforehand. It made it all the way across the midle of eurasia nearly to japan and down into northern sunda to eradicate alot of C there. But then F emerged out of india, having assimilatef some narmada genes, and took over central asia, also moving down into south east asia too to replace that D in turn.

J. Lyon Layden said...

And D remained the mnain deal in non-coastal china until the end of the glaciations, when no moved in from the coast and started pushing them into japan and tibet.

Maju said...

Klyosov is just a fanatic of his own ideas, particularly on an extremely accelerated molecular clock. Luckily nobody pays attention to him anymore, after even Dienekes, who was once his more ardent supporter, realized that he was completely wrong.

I believe this was because, among other reasons, according to Klyosov, E1b-V13 would be from the Bronze Age but has been in fact detected among Catalan earliest farmers. Every theory may be demonstrated false and this is a very clear case of scientific Q.E.D.

Whatever the case, Klyosov can only argue that CT (CF'DE) would be not African (legitimately debatable, although I disagree) but that still leaves the two more basal Y-DNA lineages A and B as strictly African.

K. does not addresses the other critical issues, IMO much more important, as are mtDNA, for which the African basal diversity is a zillion times more rotund (L0, L1, L2, L4, L5, five sevenths of L3 and at least half of L6) nor the African autosomal diversity, consistently much greater than anywhere else.

As for archaeology, there are dozens of modern human remains much older than 45 Ka, none of them in Europe. The oldest known Homo sapiens is Omo 1, dated to c. 190 Ka in Ethiopia, then come Jebel Irhoud (Morocco) and Idaltu (Ethiopia), both dated to c. 160 Ka., then, c. 125 Ka. we see them in Palestine (Skhul & Qahfez), then c. 100 Ka we find modern humans in China... While none of them has been successfully tested for DNA, there are remains of c. 40 Ka from near Beijing that show a very advanced evolution of the haploid lineages (mtDNA B4'5 specifically), what implies a much slower mutation rate than what K. sustains.

"the ones from africa have no chins"

False: Omo I, with a very clear chin and very modern features in general; Skhul V (claimed to have some Neanderthal features but still with a very clear chin). Etc.

You sound like a creationist.

...

Maju said...

...

"E migrated (not necessarily back-migrated) into africa."

If E migrated to Africa it would have done so as DE (DE* is most common in West Africa, although admittedly rare) and in any case it would imply a back-migration, a very early one.

But what most likely happened, judging the evidence from all angles and not just the Y-DNA, is that E became fixated in the Nile population (represented by L2-6 in mtDNA), what implies an intra-African process of some sort, while its "uncle" CF became established in Asia, carrying with it some residual DE (pre-D). Whatever the case, this issue cannot question the overall African origin of Humankind, it'd be at most a secondary phenomenon. Y-DNA is more susceptible to this kind of fixation processes because men can have much more descendants than women, given the right conditions. Therefore it is also less trustworthy on its own for tracking the origins of any population.

A good example are Finnish: per the Y-DNA, they would be half-Mongols (so to say) but per the mtDNA, autosomal DNA and visible phenotype they are 90% pure Europeans. Or Greeks: per the Y-DNA they'd be 30% African but per everything else they are not. So Y-DNA may well become fixated in odd patterns but in the end it does not matter so much for overall ancestry. Otherwise Polish and Hindi would be the same, and they are not. Or Brits and Chadic speakers from North Cameroon...

"Y adam (haplo E)"

Nope the so-called Y-DNA Adam carried a root form of human Y-DNA that would be described as A, because nowadays we know that A is not a haplogroup but a paragroup of several basal lineages. We are all A! Y-DNA Adam lived in the Northern Tropical belt of Africa, somewhere between Niger and Ethiopia. MtDNA Eve on the other hand seems more like Southern Sudanese or Ugandan, maybe NE Congolese, so the origin of Humankind is somewhere between Lake Chad, Lake Victoria and the Ethiopian mountains.

"... a warmer period some 40k ago"...

Your ignorance knows no bounds: 40 Ka ago is precisely the Heinrich Event 4: a very cold spell that was surely decisive in Neanderthal demise caused by the Campanian Ignimbrite eruption, a huge volcano that spit rocks as far as Russia.

J. Lyon Layden said...

Oh wow you must either be smoking crack or you are the one wit an agenda. D E is sometimes found in the middle east and one man in arabia.

Deep populon substructure in africa theories are about as ridiculous as ancient aliens show.

My mistake about the 40 000 years. I dont know the exact date. I know that there was an extreme glacial period after toba,andbthat we got a break from it sometime between 50 and 25k ago before we went back into the last LGM. That is what I meant when I said 40k ago.

J. Lyon Layden said...

Your women vs. Men reproduction thing looks like the same kind of slight of hand that centrists us when they are loosing.
You have one example and are trying to establush an all encompassing rule with it. Thingsblike this, genetic drift, founder effect...they might account for one demographic anomoly in 100 but when scientists try using them fir EVERY anomoky I point out it means that OOA is drowning in its own bs.
Im not sure what context I used y adam as he pertains to E, so I cant adress your comnent about adam being E.bi know y adam is not e and isA or Pre-A. Maybe it was a typo I am having real trouble typing with this pad.

Now, do you have anything intelligent to say in response to the russian study, no chins in africa before 125, presence of ewo eleru entering our genome at 37k, the fact that A and B have been pushed into subsahara by E, that 99.9% of PHDs believe that E represents a ackiration (yes t broughtsoe DE with it, so what) or do you only have sophomorcic namecalling in your arsenal?
Also, muchbof what I said in y last 4 poss were pretty muc paraphrased from John Hawks. Is he ignorant too now, and biased by his agenda?

J. Lyon Layden said...

Excuse me...99.9% believe E and DE are back migrations. It is almost impossible to type on thid thing.

J. Lyon Layden said...

Oh I see..above you did rsdpnd to the russian study. Ibstead of exaining why they are wrong about B back-migrating you use the discredit the scientists tactic instwad.

From what I understand Omo1 is pretty unique in comparison to most skulls its age in africa. He was obviously among the first invaders.
Let me askbyou this...since for you it HAS to be africa, who do you think was in the Levant 160k ago? You think it was empty?
Why is it so important to keep man isolated in africa? His tools are found all the way to the indus....by 125k his bones are found all the way to china possibly.
According to you and the afrocentrusts, hominids formed in africa, spread all over the world, and then a better one formed in africa and replaced the others in the whole world, then another one formed in africa and spread all over the world, and then hss formed and did the whole thing again from africa. Why would it always be africa? Its like lightning striking the same pin head 5 times.

If heideberg is the ancstor of man and neanderthal like mainstreamers contend, then man is from central asia ultimately anyway.

J. Lyon Layden said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
J. Lyon Layden said...

The fact is, we NEEDED OOA after WWII. Nazi and colonial eurocentrism needed a counter. But it's time has passed and we should inject some common sense and keave out the politics now.

J. Lyon Layden said...

If the status of DE in africa remains mostly west it's worse for an african origin for DE...it would probably point more to an ibero-maurusian origin entering from iberia where the last neanderthals are found on gibralter and hybrids were in portugal. But i think well find a little bit of DE everywhere between tibet, japan, adaman, and africa/meditteranean.

J. Lyon Layden said...

It was slightly dominate over C in those places before F assimilated Narmada in India and began its outward spread.

Maju said...

"99.9% believe E and DE are back migrations."

99% of you and yourself?!

In any case, that's not only a false claim: it is also an irrelevant claim.

If 99.9% of people would believe in something absurd like, say, god or creationism, would you accept it without evidence? That would be just idiotic: burying the last hope for intelligent life on Earth out of lack of personality.

" who do you think was in the Levant 160k ago? You think it was empty?"

This is the synthesized fossil evidence → http://leherensuge.blogspot.com/2010/09/late-human-evolution-maps.html

160 Ka ago it was an arid period so most likely West Asia was pretty much semi-empty. But we do not know for sure for lack of evidence for that precise date. Previous to H. sapiens and H. neanderthalensis (and prior to 200 Ka) there is a H. erectus or ergaster fossil, i.e. some other human species or subspecies which did not leave any obvious descendants.

"Why is it so important to keep man isolated in africa?"

It is not "important" it just is what actually happened: absolutely ALL evidence converges in that direction with absolute clarity. There is no reasonable doubt.

My question is why would you care being just paleohistorical anecdote? My suspicion is that you care because you are racist and fear to acknowledge that at some point in the past your ancestors were "black".

And that's only because you are emotionally and intellectually weak, because you try to hide your personal fears behind racial supremacism, as if somehow belonging to a supposedly "superior" group would make you better.

Believe me: it won't. You are what you are and no group will save you nor me nor anybody from our weaknesses.

"According to you and the afrocentrusts"

I am not "afrocentrist". To Caesar what is of Caesar. I am as likely to argue with an irrational afrocentrist as I am to argue with an irrational eurocentrist like you.

Look: if Humankind would have evolved in Ice Age Europe, we'd be a lot hairier and won't need to sweat so much. It's as simple as that. And there would not be two different evolutionary paths to paleness in West and East Eurasia, as actually happens.

...

Maju said...

...

"... hominids formed in africa, spread all over the world, and then a better one formed in africa and replaced the others in the whole world, then another one formed in africa and spread all over the world, and then hss formed and did the whole thing again from africa".

More or less yes. And you know which is the most likely reason behind that? Greater genetic diversity being preserved in Africa. Neanderthals for example only had a small fraction of Sapiens' genetic diversity and that sucks because without diversity, adaption to changing circumstances becomes much harder.

"If heideberg is the ancstor of man and neanderthal"...

The most recent genetic evidence (mtDNA) says otherwise. Heidelbergensis from Atapuerca happen to be closely related to Denisova hominins, while Neanderthals are in the Sapiens branch in comparison. Many questions remain open (admixture and such) but, taking this evidence as it is, Neanderthals seem to have been a very early offshoot from African Homo (proto-Sapiens, "rhodesiensis").

"Nazi and colonial eurocentrism needed a counter".

It has nothing to do with that. It has to do with overwhelming evidence.

"If the status of DE in africa remains mostly west it's worse for an african origin for DE...it would probably point more to an ibero-maurusian origin".

It has nothing to do with Iberomaurusian: it needs to be a lot older. Iberomaurusian has to do with some 30% Iberian-derived mtDNA in NW Africa, as well as important autosomal affinity. Nothing more nothing else.

It is true however that the mtDNA and Y-DNA evidence are a bit contradictory regarding what part of the Sudanese corridor modern humankind evolved. I generally trust more mtDNA anyhow: it is a lot more clear.

[Neanderthal] "hybrids were in portugal".

Totally outdated. It was demonstrated years ago that Lagar Velho kid is a recent H. sapiens.

"But i think well find a little bit of DE everywhere between tibet, japan, adaman, and africa/meditteranean."

In all the literature there are two cases of DE* in Tibet. That's it. It's probably just residual pre-D but so far it has not been studied further (very difficult to study such rare cases). All other DE* is from West Africa. There's no DE* in Japan nor Andaman nor the Mediterranean. All DE in the Mediterranean is recently arrived E1b from Africa. All DE in East Asia is D (different things therefore).

"It was slightly dominate over C in those places before F assimilated Narmada in India and began its outward spread".

Nonsense. We know nothing about what happened to the Narmada hominin but we know that CF are a single haplogroup and should be considered together, F and C being the first split of many.

You should talk much less and study much more.

terryt said...

"It is true however that the mtDNA and Y-DNA evidence are a bit contradictory regarding what part of the Sudanese corridor modern humankind evolved. I generally trust more mtDNA anyhow: it is a lot more clear".

I don't think we need assume that both male and female basal surviving haplogroups evolved at the same time and in the same place. That they did come together at some time and spread from Africa is obvious though.

J. Lyon Layden has the beginnings of a point in that there was obviously some level of hybridism between the OoA population and the pre-moderns outside Africa however he postulates a far greater level of hybridisation that the evidence allows.

J. Lyon Layden said...

"My question is why would you care being just paleohistorical anecdote? My suspicion is that you care because you are racist and fear to acknowledge that at some point in the past your ancestors were "black".

No, thats not it. My ancestors were not only bkack they had big browridges and small oecjers and ate esch other.


"And that's only because you are emotionally and intellectually weak, because you try to hide your personal fears behind racial supremacism, as if somehow belonging to a supposedly "superior" group would make you better."

Wow you project alot dont you You must be thinking of someone else youve argued with before.
Your stance really is that anyone who questions OOA is a racist?
And your only counter to my arguments isthrowing around the word "diversity" like it trumos everything? Ace card of thevanthropology game. Your right, kets never question another hypothesis or theory again because Mujo knows the word "diversity."

I think its ravists that your not affirding chinese archaics the sane status your affording african archaics. You have a doubke standard and it shows. There are scientidts in china insisting Dalibis sapien sapient and its 200k old. I dont agree with them but i dont think they are acists just because they have a couple points to make.

"Believe me: it won't. You are what you are and no group will save you nor me nor anybody from our weaknesses.

Dude have you ever been laid in yourblife? You sound as if youre speaking from experience.
Sorry i cant relate.


"According to you and the afrocentrusts"

I am not "afrocentrist". To Caesar what is of Caesar. I am as likely to argue with an irrational afrocentrist as I am to argue with an irrational eurocentrist like you.

Hmmm...now eurocentrists belive that europe was a backwater of evolution like me?
Hybridization happens in the center, in the hybrid zone, not on the edges of human habitation like africa and europewhen sprcies spread out if theur original habitat, they evolve rapidly. Once they become successful they spread out. The best of afric, europe, china, south asia, and southeast asia meets in central asia after each ice age, and then empties out again with conditions go bad...and thats according to its lithic industry record too.


Africa retained diversity each time? Hahaha what bullshit!

Look: if Humankind would have evolved in Ice Age Europe, we'd be a lot hairier and won't need to sweat so much. It

Whobthe living fuck said hss evolved in europe you loony toon?




's as simple as th
at. And there would not be two different evolutionary paths to paleness in West and East Eurasia, as actually happens.

J. Lyon Layden said...

Jeez dude, who cares about paths to whiteness? Theres different paths to whitenes in ainu, northern han chinese, and neanderthals too...who gives a flying fuck about whiteness.

Look im probably from pastoralists or hunter gatherer genes. We werent responsible for the agricuktural revolution. That ws the main carrier of aspm-d. Kallash, druze, new guinea cannibals. So what type of superiority do you imagine Im claiming?
Everyone has had the same amount of time to evolve. Certain genes get selected sexually and naturally. If you cannot admit that certain haplogroups have been driven to extinction and that certain haplogroups are being driven to extinction and into unfavorable habitats then you are kiddingbyourself.
Y hapligroup a might still go extinct without humanitarian efforts. That doesnt make anyone superior.
Neanderthals were bigger, stronger, and maybe smarter than us but they werent superior. The haplogroup that makes sweeps might fuck better, bear children better, or just be more cold and murderous. Or have really good immunities. It doesnt make anyone superior and it doesnt give you the right to pretend it diesnt happen.

J. Lyon Layden said...

So you think ergaster or erectus was in levant, hss in africa, neanderthal in europe, before that heidelberg..and they were just too nice to mess with sweet little homo erectus. They just taught them to make better tools and tried to make their lives better. The ergasters were so appreciative that they let the heidelbergs pass through so they could become idaltu in africa. Oh wait you think thsts convergent evolution right, because we cant have any human sprvues start out anywhere but africa. Then i guess you have to strech it to say hss didnt come out until 90k, and then neanderyhal took over in the levant? Neanderyal kicked hss outta there, but a couple thousand years later man got angry and just decided to kick neanderthal ass. He could do it the second time because he bekived in himself, right? And lianjing is convergent evolution, right? Somehow a peking man evolved into the same thing ass idaltu over in africa when Mujo waved a magic wand?

J. Lyon Layden said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
J. Lyon Layden said...

J. Lyon Layden has the beginnings of a point in that there was obviously some level of hybridism between the OoA population and the pre-moderns outside Africa however he postulates a far greater level of hybridisation that the evidence allows.

Thank you for debating without projecting your prejudices and misconceptions like Mujo does, Terry.

I assume youre taliking about introggression levels. I believe that this is solved by the fact that there had to be ghost populations such as mungo, C in Europe, etc.p
I think its further diluted because our male ancestors were closer to neanderthals than our female ancestors. And when I say that I mean A and B too.

J. Lyon Layden said...

And Mujo, i dont really "care" whether we came out of africa. At leastbonce in the last 5 million years the most advanced hominid DID come from there. Just not 5 times, as dictated by common sense...something i know you probably have problems with.
If man came out of africa 125,000 years ago it doesnt change the fact that he was all the way to china by the time neanderthal invaded, cut him off from the other half of his genome, and created the hybrids DE and CF....who later DOMINAtED the entire earth. F alone makes up 80% of the worlds population now, and E is the modal hap of africa.

J. Lyon Layden said...

You know we assimilatef onebof our chromosome strands from a hominid that split off 1.7 milion ago, right? How do you explain that? They went off and evolved it in asia and then came back to africa and sacrificed it to assimiltion like lemmings off a clff into the mouths of all powerful africans? Or they just go off in one cirner of africa for a million years and make sure they kept their population under control so none would leak it out before it was finished baking?
Somehow central asia seems a better choice, since there was only one subspecies in africa, but at least 4 species of advanced species world wide.

J. Lyon Layden said...

Wait im wrong it split off 3 million and we assimilated it 1.7 but same implications.

J. Lyon Layden said...

Leave your comment

And Mujo- I repeat, Einstein and Nelson Mandela were both E. Id be willing to bet both their IQs were higher than yours or mine. This is not about UV ray protection evolution, its about explaining introgresdion' sweeps, and ancient migrations. Yout model just has too many holes.

J. Lyon Layden said...

And just to be clear, y haps L, T, M, N, and O had alot more to do with the neolithic revolution than my ancestors did, and none of those are "white."
It really pisses me off you assume Im a eurocentrist or racists just because I dare not accept mainstream over-simplification. These are the guys who have been telling us there was NO NEANDERTHAL admixture for 20 years...and there were always TOOLS like you who cried foul when I disagreed back then too. You act as if wikipedia were your god.

J. Lyon Layden said...

I'm just trying to process this information as it comes to me so that I can write my orehistoric fiction stories. My main concern is the places where different types of hominids came together, especially in the neolithic and late neolithic. I want to get it as correct as I can. The reason I'm thinking this way is that it seems the only way that all the introgressions and divurgences can comply with the fossil and lithic assemblage. I came here to bounce off some ideas so I could refine them. Whats up with this guy reading conspiracies and aryan aliens from niburu into it and shit?

J. Lyon Layden said...

Err...neolithic and late paleolithic

J. Lyon Layden said...

"The most recent genetic evidence (mtDNA) says otherwise. Heidelbergensis from Atapuerca happen to be closely related to Denisova hominins, while Neanderthals are in the Sapiens branch in comparison. Many questions remain open (admixture and such) but, taking this evidence as it is, Neanderthals seem to have been a very early offshoot from African Homo (proto-Sapiens, "rhodesiensis")."

Atapuerca weren't heidelbergis. They were a sister species of peking man. Ceprano man came into europe and assimikated those. He assimilated ergaster in africa and he assimilated peking man in china. Didnt get to flores/soloensis in southeast indonesia...and he probably originated in india.
When i say heidelbergis I mean the hybrid results of ceprano/antessessor an/or omo/ergaster.

J. Lyon Layden said...

Jinnishan, Dali/peking man hybrid they call denisovan nowadays.
Atapeurca is an antessessor, not a true heidelberg, and of course he has more in common with the peking man component of denisovan. Classic erectus had not spread out from india yet. Asnd neanderthal assimilated antessessor better than denisovan assimilated peking man....maybe because peking man had a larger population or because soloensis/flores was contributing to their "diversity" down in the south as well.

J. Lyon Layden said...

Terry- just a possibility, but another speculation is that y haplogroup adam was a shanidar neanderthal himself and loved those african and middle eastern women with the long legs and adolescent faces. We havent gotten any dna from those neanderthal invaders...

J. Lyon Layden said...


It is true however that the mtDNA and Y-DNA evidence are a bit contradictory regarding what part of the Sudanese corridor modern humankind evolved. I generally trust more mtDNA anyhow: it is a lot more clear.

It shows you what was there before invasions, mostly.


[Neanderthal] "hybrids were in portugal".

Totally outdated. It was demonstrated years ago that Lagar Velho kid is a recent H. sapiens.

By biased scientists who didnt think we were ever going to find neanderthal in our genome, and returned to by many promijnent thinkers since.

"But i think well find a little bit of DE everywhere between tibet, japan, adaman, and africa/meditteranean."

"In all the literature there are two cases of DE* in Tibet. That's it. It's probably just residual pre-D but so far it has not been studied further (very difficult to study such rare cases). All other DE* is from West Africa. There's no DE* in Japan nor Andaman nor the Mediterranean. All DE in the Mediterranean is recently arrived E1b from Africa. All DE in East Asia is D (different things therefore)."

Maybe they renamed the ones they used to claim from the middle east. Probably added them to E somehow. Doesnt matter, C isnt in iberia anymore and R* isnt in siberia anymore, either. It doesnt change the fact that they were there.

Y

"It was slightly dominate over C in those places before F assimilated Narmada in India and began its outward spread".

"Nonsense. We know nothing about what happened to the Narmada hominin but we know that CF are a single haplogroup and should be considered together, F and C being the first split of many."

I gues you havent read John Hawks "Denisovans and the Middle Paleolithic of India" then.


"You should talk much less and study much more."

Looks like you are the oine who hasnt studied that John Hawks post or the papers it quotes if you think its "nonsense."



July 27, 2014 at 1:25 PM

J. Lyon Layden said...

And C is defined by 3 mutations. F is defined by like 15 or something. That implies isolation....and possible hybridization...in india.
Or do you not understand how rates of mutation work?

Maju said...

"Your stance really is that anyone who questions OOA is a racist?"

When someone beats that dead horse on no grounds and with a lot more vehemence than knowledge, showing obsession about it, then you make it look like. Only the Nazi scum acts that way, and not even all of them.

"I think its ravists that your not affirding chinese archaics the sane status your affording african archaics. You have a doubke standard and it shows. There are scientidts in china insisting Dalibis sapien sapient and its 200k old".

Dalibis? H. erectus from Dali? That's not an anatomically modern human as should be obvious: too low vault, extreme browridges. Just that sometimes the term H. sapiens has been used to include Neanderthals and what not (the subspecies model).

"I dont agree with them but i dont think they are acists just because they have a couple points to make".

One thing is arguing a point 10 or 20 years ago, long before the advent of Genetics and its revolutionary resolution of Humankind (and other species) at molecular or coding level (and not anymore just phenotype) and within the blurry area of "sapiens" as macro-species (including the Neanderthals and what-not) and another thing is doing the same today with 2010's knowledge and language.

"Africa retained diversity each time? Hahaha what bullshit!"

The only bullshit is the one floating in your head. Every migration implies a founder effect (i.e. a bottleneck) with the consequence important reduction of diversity. Africa has retained huge genetic diversity absent elsewhere and it is only normal that it happened that way. Only extinction or near-extinction of Humankind in Africa would have changed things and that never happened.

Of course, in the long term, some novel diversity evolves internally but, barring extreme bottlenecks inside Africa, it will never reach the diversity levels of the Human Urheimat. Another tool of diversity increase is hybridization/introgression but, although it has no doubt helped, it has not been any replacement.

"Whobthe living fuck said hss evolved in europe you loony toon?"

You did.

"Jeez dude, who cares about paths to whiteness?"

I do. I am seriously interested in Human evolution and paleohistory.

"Theres different paths to whitenes in ainu, northern han chinese"...

Not that I know. They belong 100% to the Eastern Asian genetic pool.

"Look im probably from pastoralists or hunter gatherer genes. We werent responsible for the agricuktural revolution."

I can tell you for sure that you have at least some ancestry from early farmers. Everybody in Europe has, even Lithuanians!

Indirectly that implies also some ancestors from Africa in "recent" times, i.e. in the Holocene.

"Everyone has had the same amount of time to evolve."

Conceded. Yet, if your ancestors lacked certain allele in their molecular arsenal, they could never be selected for it and a less optimal one may be favored instead. That's why diversity is so crucial: because it gives populations a wide coding arsenal to choose from depending on circumstances. Novel adaptive mutations happen but are most rare.

...

Maju said...

...

"If you cannot admit that certain haplogroups have been driven to extinction"...

I don't see why. The Y chromosome has only a handful of functional genes and it largely depends on the X chromosome (transmitted to males by mothers) in order for the male organism to work properly. There's very little to no selection associated to Y-DNA. Y-DNA obsession is largely a Patriarchal fetish.

"Neanderthals were bigger, stronger, and maybe smarter than us but they werent superior."

They were heavier and could only walk shorter distances without falling to exhaustion. That again thanks to our tropical adaption. They also lacked most of our diversity.

In any case if something is very specific of non-Africans, that is a small but significant amount of Neanderthal hybridization (~2.4%). For example it is very likely that straight hair was inherited from them.

"So you think ergaster or erectus was in levant, hss in africa, neanderthal in europe"...

Not at the same time. Anyhow I'm just stating the obvious: what the fossil record tells us.

Right now, after becoming apparent that Neanderthal and Heidelbergensis are not related (at least not via mtDNA), the issue of Neanderthal origins has become more open. No matter what Atapuerca researchers say based on bones alone, the DNA is telling us a different story: one of Neanderthals being "proto-Sapiens" probably migrated out of Africa before Sapiens proper formed as species.

"The ergasters were so appreciative that they let the heidelbergs pass through so they could become idaltu in africa."

The very notion of Heildelbergensis and other quite ad-hoc categories are being brought into question again nowadays. Some are calling for the recovery of the old usage of calling them all "Homo erectus" until their relationships are further clarified.

In any case there is no "Heidelbergensis" in Africa but "Rhodesiensis". True that they look similar but not quite identical and this similitude should be attributed to either shared origins (Acheulean migration - OoA again). It is not too clear but it does not matter regarding the origins of modern humankind (H. sapiens or H. sapiens sapiens if you adhere to the subspecies model) which is clearly in Africa (even transitional fossils like Lake Eyasi can only be found there).

"then neanderyhal took over in the levant? Neanderyal kicked hss outta there, but a couple thousand years later man got angry and just decided to kick neanderthal ass".

In my reconstructive model, H. sapiens persisted in Arabia and maybe even in Palestine (only part of the Levant where it is documented before the Upper Paleolithic), although its numbers must have dwindled because of growingly arid conditions. It was in the Mousterian Pluvial (c. 50 Ka ago, meaning 50 Ka after the expansion in Asia beyond the Hindu Kush) when H. sapiens turned back on Neanderthals and, maybe because of dogs, maybe because of ranged weapons, maybe because perfected clothing (needle) or maybe just because improved versatility and hunting range, overwhelmed our cousins in the course of many millennia.

The reason to push back into the Neanderlands was almost certainly demographic pressure in South and East Asia. We also see a contemporary expansion of H. sapiens into NE Asia (Beijing are and such) in about that same chronology. That means that there was not enough room anymore for everyone in Tropical and Subtropical Asia and probably also that the technology had advanced enough to allow the inhabitation of cold areas.

...

Maju said...

...

"Somehow a peking man evolved into the same thing ass idaltu over in africa when Mujo waved a magic wand?"

Nope. They went extinct, just the same as Neanderthals.

"If man came out of africa 125,000 years ago it doesnt change the fact that he was all the way to china by the time neanderthal invaded"

This part is quasi-correct, I understand. Although I do postulate pockets of H. sapiens surviving in Arabia, Persian Gulf Oasis (it was a marsh back then), etc. Just that their influence in modern humans is very minor, even in that area.

"... cut him off from the other half of his genome, and created the hybrids DE and CF"

This part is not. CF clearly coalesced at the time of the OoA and, by definition, is not any hybrid (haploid lineages cannot be hybrid) but a branch of the African Y-DNA. We have already discussed DE but I want to underline that the expansion of Y-DNA E in Africa necessarily corresponds with that of mtDNA L2 and L3, what means a chronology of the OoA (all non-African mtDNA lineages are L3 derivates, excepting the occasional Arabian L0 and L6).

In other words: E expanded in Africa (mostly in the Sudanese corridor) c. 125 Ka ago (or earlier) and the migration out-of-Africa is an offshoot of that secondary expansion, with lineages very closely related to the ones expanding in Africa.

As for CF dominating the World... in a sense it happened, largely because Asia provided the resources and the routes for such thing to happen. F people back-migrated to Africa as well (particularly North Africa but also to some extent to East Africa - but not to all of it). So indeed there's no point in denying the important role of Asia (and much more punctually Europe) in the paleohistory of Humankind. But that is very different to what you have been saying.

"You know we assimilatef onebof our chromosome strands from a hominid that split off 1.7 milion ago, right?"

Not sure what you're talking about. It is most unlikely that Neanderthals are so extremely distant from us.

"And Mujo- I repeat, Einstein and Nelson Mandela were both E."

Hitler too (proven, it's likely that his biological father was Jewish). He would have got to get himself into Auschwitz for that... but then of course he was a hypocrite.

Anyhow, whatever you think about DE, E itself expanded from Africa (roughly Sudan) and there is no possible doubt about that. It did so together with mtDNA haplogroups L2 and L3 (primarily, also L4, L5 and L6), all of which are neatly African. And it did c. 125 Ka ago because it has to be coincident with the OoA.

"And just to be clear, y haps L, T, M, N, and O had alot more to do with the neolithic revolution than my ancestors did"...

In Europe the lineages associated with Neolithic are G2a, E1b-V13 and I2a (all them documented among early farmers in Swabia, Languedoc, Catalonia and South Tyrol). Probably also J2b, although this one still needs to be directly documented. There is an ongoing debate on whether R1b was also involved but I personally believe it has more to do with the more "mestizo" Atlantic Neolithic and hence it is possibly of Euro-Paleolithic background.

It does not matter much anyhow, because Y-DNA is just one aspect of the whole story. What is clear is that, via autosomal DNA (and also to large extent via mtDNA) all modern Europeans have early farmer ancestry (varied degrees). Your ancestry, as mine and anyone's, is complex. And it is so extremely complex that it is estimated that every European alive is a distant cousin of any other, sharing one or more ancestors from some 500 years ago.

We can say the same globally although we may need to push back the common ancestor some more centuries. We don't reproduce by cloning but by sexual admixture (quite luckily for us, otherwise we would become degenerate).

"I'm just trying to process this information as it comes"...

Do please. React less and read and meditate more.

...

Maju said...

...

"My main concern is the places where different types of hominids came together, especially in the neolithic and late neolithic".

In the Neolithic there was only one type of hominid on Earth: us.

"Err...neolithic and late paleolithic".

Same thing. Neanderthals probably went extinct c. 30 Ka BP. Since then (and with the possible exception of H. floresiensis) there has been only one human species: us.

"Atapuerca weren't heidelbergis."

Ahem! Write to Arsuaga and tell him that.

"Atapeurca is an antessessor, not a true heidelberg"...

There are also Antecessors (H. ergaster?) in Atapuerca but they belong to much older layers than the well documented Heidelbergensis of Sima de los Huesos, who are relatives of Denisova.

"By biased scientists" [Lagar Velho]

No, by people who understood that the flexible skull of the kid had been compressed by earth's pressure after burial. It's a fact.

"Maybe they renamed the ones they used to claim from the middle east".

Much more likely that you are confusing generic DE (D and E in essence) with DE* (i.e. DE(xD,E)).

"C isnt in iberia anymore"...

How do you know? AFAIK C1a2 (former C6, the same lineage of Braña 1) is found only in Europe, albeit very rarely.

"I gues you havent read John Hawks "Denisovans and the Middle Paleolithic of India" then".

Your guess is correct (care to provide a link?) I respect Hawks but he has been wrong before anyhow.

"And C is defined by 3 mutations. F is defined by like 15 or something."

That is only because of different levels of study. With the advent of full chromosome sequencing (still expensive but already in use) this will be solved but so far it has been only used very limitedly.

Most likely F and C are of similar age (probably c. 100 Ka ago), just that F was "luckier". See my review of Y-DNA ages with HGDP samples and full chr. sequences.

J. Lyon Layden said...

Ok you are an undisputed idiot. Red deer cave people. The hobbit. The last bone that didnt rot is not the last member a species that everblived, you baffoon.
The neolithic started earlier in sundaland too. The 28,000 yearbold domesticatrd tubers in the solomon islands are from that radiation.
But if you want to call red deer cave people hss because it scares your itsy bitzy mind, thats fine.
You can pretend that we know the exact date of the beginning of the neolithic too. For a close-minded idiot like you, i should have said

J. Lyon Layden said...

Places where hss with archaic features came together, especially in the mesolithic.

In south china, man was growing rice, building walls, and coming in contact with trolls in the southern woods- red deeer cave people. Hobbits lasted past 12000, we just havent found the bones yet. For dnisovans entire million year ecistence we find one partial bone.

J. Lyon Layden said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
J. Lyon Layden said...

Neanderthals didnt go extinct until 21000 years ago or later. Their are neanderthals on gibralter at that time and ibero-maurusians have obvious nandrthal featurs, even occipital buns.

J. Lyon Layden said...

You only accept the data that favors ooa. I accept all the info and eexplore what it would mean if all the data were correct.
Thats the big difference. I dont throw out stuff just because it doesnt fit someone elses preconceived notions and political agendas.
Denisovans have 3 splits from us, not one. Neanderthals have 2. Hybrids existed. Hybrids are usually more vigorous than either parent.

Nobody can have a chin until it spread from the original atchaic whonpossessed the chin.

Hominids dont go extinct as a result of leaving africa as you seem to believe.

J. Lyon Layden said...

I.'m not confusing DE and DE*.

One begat the other. There had to be a population of DE wherever DE* is now.

Natural selection, sexual selection, invasion and genecide are the standards in mammalian evolution.
Genetic drift and founder effect play an extremely small role. Deep substructure in africa is a silly myth.

Of course C and F are from a similar age. They are siblings. But F was isolated in india while C spread out, thats why F has so many more mutations.
You can google the title I provided, i cant cut and paste very well on this thing.

J. Lyon Layden said...

I.'m not confusing DE and DE*.

One begat the other. There had to be a population of DE wherever DE* is now.

Natural selection, sexual selection, invasion and genecide are the standards in mammalian evolution.
Genetic drift and founder effect play an extremely small role. Deep substructure in africa is a silly myth.

Of course C and F are from a similar age. They are siblings. But F was isolated in india while C spread out, thats why F has so many more mutations.
You can google the title I provided, i cant cut and paste very well on this thing.

J. Lyon Layden said...

never use genetic drift or founder effectbon something that can be explained by natura or sexual selection. Otherwise genetic anthropology will never progress and a hundred years from now we will be no closer to a semblance of the truth.

J. Lyon Layden said...

And almost neber use "convergent evolution" if you want your theory to still be sound 50 years from now.

J. Lyon Layden said...

And almost neber use "convergent evolution" if you want your theory to still be sound 50 years from now.

J. Lyon Layden said...

And almost neber use "convergent evolution" if you want your theory to still be sound 50 years from now.

J. Lyon Layden said...

Late atapeurca was still antecedent in my opinion. It ad evolved by then and robably already had some ceprano admixture. It still doesnt fit with classic heidelberg and has some antessessor/ergaster features.

J. Lyon Layden said...

genetic drift, founder effect, convergent evolution= lazy science, denial, bias, and agenda 99 of the time.
The shortest distance between 2 points is a straight line....
so why read a labrynth into everything when there are much simpler explanations?

Here is the choice you and I are faced with:

DE spread across asia and was later replaced
vs.
1000 coincidences happening just right at the same time in the greatest union of genetic drift and founder effect ever seen in planetary species, with some deep substruc ture thrown in for added unlikelyhood, in order to support some old theory

J. Lyon Layden said...

Let me blow your mind a bit further, Mujo.
The Yap mutation helped DE to network with neanderthals better. Their language was tonal too. It also helps them as musicians. I have played music at venues in 4 countries and can tell you this: western musicians struggle to keep up with the sense of pitch possessed by african and east asian musicians. There are probably many westerns so "tone-deaf" that they would show learning disabilities if they tried to learn some of the more difficult ones.

Tonal languages dont work well with alphabetic writing and require more brain power.
Pictographic writing is more esoteric and harder to spread than alphabetic writing...

J. Lyon Layden said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
J. Lyon Layden said...

"... cut him off from the other half of his genome, and created the hybrids DE and CF"

This part is not. CF clearly coalesced at the time of the OoA and, by definition, is not any hybrid (haploid lineages cannot be hybrid) but a branch of the African Y-DNA. "

You are missing something about mammalian hybridization:
Usually the male offspring are sterile.
If neanderthal let a few DE live when they took their territory and their women, those men would become dominate in the gene pool after a generation or two.

"We have already discussed DE but I want to underline that the expansion of Y-DNA E in Africa necessarily corresponds with that of mtDNA L2 and L3, what means a chronology of the OoA (all non-African mtDNA lineages are L3 derivates, excepting the occasional Arabian L0 and L6)."

It doesnt necessarilly correspond if you understand than man expands by killing and invasion, whereas woman expands more peacefully(except in the neolithic evudences of slave trade, of course..but thats much later)

"In other words: E expanded in Africa (mostly in the Sudanese corridor) c. 125 Ka ago (or earlier) and the migration out-of-Africa is an offshoot of that secondary expansion, with lineages very closely related to the ones expanding in Africa."

And it took them 95000 years to drive A and B into subsahara to assimilate iwo eleru genes?
Gimme a break.


"As for CF dominating the World... in a sense it happened, largely because Asia provided the resources and the routes for such thing to happen. F people back-migrated to Africa as well (particularly North Africa but also to some extent to East Africa - but not to all of it). So indeed there's no point in denying the important role of Asia (and much more
punctually Europe) in the paleohistory of Humankind. But that is very different to what you have been saying."

No it is not. It is how you have been interpretting what I have put forth.



"You know we assimilatef onebof our chromosome strands from a hominid that split off 1.7 milion ago, right?"

Not sure what you're talking about. It is most unlikely that Neanderthals are so extremely distant from us.

"And Mujo- I repeat, Einstein and Nelson Mandela were both E."

Hitler too (proven, it's likely that his biological father was Jewish). He would have got to get himself into Auschwitz for that... but then of course he was a hypocrite.

Anyhow, whatever you think about DE, E itself expanded from Africa (roughly Sudan) and there is no possible doubt about that. It did so together with mtDNA haplogroups L2 and L3 (primarily, also L4, L5 and L6), all of which are neatly African. And it did c. 125 Ka ago because it has to be coincident with the OoA.
"

Sure, thats fine. But DE migrated INTO africa first is all im saying.

"And just to be clear, y haps L, T, M, N, and O had alot more to do with the neolithic revolution than my ancestors did"...

In Europe the lineages associated with Neolithic are G2a, E1b-V13 and I2a (all them documented among early farmers in Swabia, Languedoc, Catalonia and South Tyrol). Probably also J2b, although this one still needs to be directly documented. There is an ongoing debate on whether R1b was also involved but I personally believe it has more to do with the more "mestizo" Atlantic Neolithic and hence it is possibly of Euro-Paleolithic background."

Agreed. I just think europe got agriculture late so it wasnt even involved in the main spread.
I am looking for neolithic cuktures that had both agriculture and megaliths around 10000 bp, not just agriculture. Gobekli tepe, jericho, catal huyuk, gunnang padang, etc. Those are aspm d markers with y haps L and maybe T.
Agriculture was discovered much earlier and was widespread before the end of glaciation. We just didnt get serious about irrigation and trading seeds until later.

Do please. React less and read and meditate more.

J. Lyon Layden said...

Microcephaline Ds ancestor branched off 1.7 million years ago and werent reintroduced to us until 37k ago. Thats when dmanisi, with crazy "diversity" according to the latest find, was spreading out from central asia. Though it took over old world, flores/solensis survived on an island and didnt get assimilated until hss came along. Thats why their are 3.5 million 'year old introgressed genes in our genome.

J. Lyon Layden said...

Doesnt have to be dmanisi, its just a likely match based on lack of specialization compared to others that age and the diversity the fossils display.

J. Lyon Layden said...

In a population neanderthal males takeover, females wil be 50% neanderthal after a generation. In two generations all neanderthal y dna markers from neanderthals will be gone.
When DE fnds its the last patrelineal line standing inside an ice age refugium, his offspring are 25% neanderthal but show no y or mtdna markers. Not hard to figure out how it was diluted to 10% neolithic G, 8% new guinean, 4% eurasian as the hybrid spread out and mixed with pure hss in a mostly dominate role.
As brutal as it sounds, DE and Cf may have barely been fetuses when the neanderthals came...and thats why the neanderthals didnt realize that they were pregnant already.

J. Lyon Layden said...

And even if the neanderthals did bring a few chicks down from the north with them...have you seen the reconstructions of neanderthal babes?

Of course DE liked the hss girls better....sterile ass neanderthal probably even liked the southern girls better.
Less hair- better sex.

J. Lyon Layden said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
J. Lyon Layden said...

They were probably shipping hss girls back to europe begore we even got there...

J. Lyon Layden said...

Hominids available for assimilation in late palelithic/mesolithic/neolithic:

Neanderthals on gibralter.

Balangoda man,s better half (archaic till 5000 bc

Ibero-maurusian hybrids.

Hobbit.

Soloensis- 27k date is disputed but mans tools and bones cant get to java until after 30,000 bc and the questioning has been questioned. Plus theres hius close cuz the hobbit that had to have been shielded from man in some way.

Red Deer cave people- even if they had archaic hss dna, they still have erectus AND neanderthal features.

J. Lyon Layden said...

And there were neanderthals somewhere up north(probably siberia) somewhere too, even into the mesolithic...else native americans wouldn,t have an extra dose of their genes.

J. Lyon Layden said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
J. Lyon Layden said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
J. Lyon Layden said...

One more late paleolithic hominid: iwo eleru

And theres probably more to be discovered, even younger than 10,000 ybp

J. Lyon Layden said...

There are unswabbed tribes in new guinea and south america...I wouldnt be all that surprised to see a hobbit on 11 oclock news one day. So far ive seen a newly discovered 100 pound deer with nostrils that look like gills on there and a couple of years ago an anthro from my home state discovered a sprcies of gorilla sized chimps.
There was an expedition a couple months ago that turned up a bunch of new mammals, some of them pretty big. And now yeti is a polar bear in the middle of the friggin himilayas!!

J. Lyon Layden said...

My bad not making it clear that I meant that E migrated or backmigrated into africa as DE.
Maybe thats why you came out the gate spitting flames?

Maju said...

Well, my patience with you has reached the limit. So farewell.

terryt said...

"My main concern is the places where different types of hominids came together, especially in the neolithic and late Neolithic".

In most groups of species the populations most different from the 'average' tend to be found at the geographic extremities. That is because gens flow from the middle to the edges but genes from the edges flow only ot the middle. As a result human populations at the edge of the Paleolithic human range tend to be the most different but not necessarily because they belong to different 'species'. Therefore humans can be broken into at least five different varieties: Australian Aborigines/Papuans, East Asians, northwest Europeans, Weat Africans and South/East Africans. All other populations can be thought of as various admixtures from that five-pointed variation.

"You know we assimilatef onebof our chromosome strands from a hominid that split off 1.7 milion ago, right?"

We didn't assimilate a whole 'chromosome strand', just a few genes.

"Here is the choice you and I are faced with:

DE spread across asia and was later replaced
vs.
1000 coincidences happening just right at the same time in the greatest union of genetic drift and founder effect ever seen in planetary species, with some deep substruc ture thrown in for added unlikelyhood, in order to support some old theory"

I certainly accept the first option, but I doubt the 'replacememt' was made by other Y-haplogroups. To me D and E were separated by the cooling climate in the north and the increased aridity in the centre. The region left unoccupied was not later inhabited by F as a whole, merely by virtually a single branch of it: P.

"And it took them 95000 years to drive A and B into subsahara to assimilate iwo eleru genes?
Gimme a break".

I don't think the evidence indicates that either A or B were ever Sahel haplogroups. They have been confined to the margin between forest and grasslands almost entirely.

J. Lyon Layden said...

Mujo- thats because youre too butt-dumb stupid to realuze that you have not offered one single piece of evidence that refutes anything ive said.

You are a a liar, a deeply sad person, and i bet you live at your moms and havent been laid in decades.

I NEVER, Not ONCE, said that man evolved in europe
My guess is that mito eve was either in africa (north ir east) and y adam was either in the middle east or levant.

J. Lyon Layden said...

Nice response Terry, makes sense.

J. Lyon Layden said...

Excuse me- mito eve either lived in africa (east or north) or arabia or levant. Some reaserchers consider those one ecosystem anyways, and most animals migrate through the whole of it.
Y adam probably lived in the levant or middle east....though its possible he lived in africa or even central asia.

Only places we know he DIDNT live in the old world are subsaharan africa, north asia, east asia, europe, or south asia.

The same toolkit that 160,000 year old african hss used stretches all the way across west asia until the neanderthal invasion.
Africa just preserves fossils better and their is more digging in africa.
Also there was the Saharan Pumps: populations continually moved in and out.

But youve demonstrated that you dont study all the literature and dont even keep up with the latest groundbreaking apers so i dont expect you to know what the saharan pump is, either, Mujo.

J. Lyon Layden said...

Terry- the rwason I think itvwas F dominating that region before P is because of the F pushed to the fringes of the caucusus and its oissible presence in tibet and the spread of its subclades from west asia and india. I think g,h,i,j were already dominant there before k went into sunda and came back as P.
But thats just me.
Your reason for the seperation of DE is possible' but I like mine better because it solves a couple of other problems too...such as why asians and africans have different neanderthal genes than westerners, the reason for the yap mutation, the isolation/ containment of F until it could assimilate narmada and come back strong, etc. Also works with the evidences mentioned in the john hawks post i mentioned earlier. But I am glad we can respect each other and have an adult debate about it.

J. Lyon Layden said...

See, I assume that F was the same as C until something gave it the edge. That F was isolated means to me that it was oppressed and contained while C was spreading out everywhere.
What made it into the comeback kid if not narmada or rapid evolution to cope with the stressors?
Likewise with OOA vs. Neanderthal Invasion.
Hss was neanderthal man's bitch for 50,000 years and then hss reads a self help book and finally gets out of africa?
Hiybrid vigor just makes ore

J. Lyon Layden said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
J. Lyon Layden said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
J. Lyon Layden said...

Hybrid vigor just makes more sense to me. It gives a reason for the spread and dominance of ED and CF.

If africa has the richest diversty, then why did a poor expatriate come back and kick its ass?

To me it seems it must have picked up something extremely beneficial while it was abroad...and how could you get more beneficial for war than neanderthal's orangutan strength, keen night vision, giant brain, and high pain threshold

J. Lyon Layden said...

If that is offensive to someone because theres an isolated san population somewhere in Africa that doesnt have any DE descendents in its gene pool, and therefire you think it doesnt have any neanderthal, well I'm sorry.
Being a cannibalistic killing and raping machine might be the way neanderthal hybrid males became dominant anyway, so I dont see why its so taboo to simply point out that something has made E dominant over A and B in africa and it could be neanderthal genes.

terryt said...

"Terry- the rwason I think itvwas F dominating that region before P is because of the F pushed to the fringes of the caucusus and its oissible presence in tibet and the spread of its subclades from west asia and india".

I'm not aware of F in Tibet apart from NO derived haplogroups. I agree F probably has an early presence near the Caucasus. In fact it's likely it originated there rather than in South Asia.

"I think g,h,i,j were already dominant there before k went into sunda and came back as P".

I agree. They were even 'dominant there' before F entered South Asia.

"it solves a couple of other problems too...such as why asians and africans have different neanderthal genes than westerners"

But Africans and Asians don't have the same Neanderthal genes anyway.

"I assume that F was the same as C until something gave it the edge. That F was isolated means to me that it was oppressed and contained while C was spreading out everywhere".

I don't think that is the explanation. F is basically western while C is basically eastern. I very strongly suspect that the split between C and F is the result of the same factors that split D and E. Climate. I agree 'F was isolated' for a considerable time but not by C. Probably environmental factors again.

"What made it into the comeback kid if not narmada or rapid evolution to cope with the stressors?"

I think technological advances allowed the expansion of some groups. Even in modern times it has been such technological advances that have allowed most expansions.

"Hiybrid vigor just makes ore"

I agree hybrid vigour has often been a driving force in evolution, and has assisted many expansions. In fact technology advances may also be the result of 'hybrid vigour' in the sense that mixing of technologies have led to their improvement. For example I believe that improvements in boating in Southeast Asia have resulted from mixing of technologies as different boating groups have come in contact with other boating groups.

"Being a cannibalistic killing and raping machine might be the way neanderthal hybrid males became dominant anyway"

In other words, unlike you, I see co-operation more than competition as being the driving force for most advances in human lifestyles.

J. Lyon Layden said...

Well if its not F its BT or ancient Y.
Remember the other thread and the wikipoedia page y groups of east asia?
Also they just renamed a former F clade into H in india....which to me means they are super close.
But your point is valid, and I think youre right about our different aproaches.
The truth is somewhere in between because there was both cooperation and competition, different levels of each at different times.
But I think were pretty close on the migrations of these haplogrous though the causes we site are different.
At least its evident that neither of us believe in Mujos idea that everything came out of africa 40,000 years ago pre-segregated from deep sub-structure and then walked into an empty levant, empty mesopotamia, empty india, and empty south china while making light work of neanderthals up in europe oiver a couple thousand years.

J. Lyon Layden said...

I like the boating example. What do you think of the Caves of Nanumanga?
I ask because with domesticated tubers at 28,000 bp in the solomon islands and the divergence time of polynesian K, I've thought for a long time that they must have gotten out there long before 3000 bc.

J. Lyon Layden said...

I like the boating example. What do you think of the Caves of Nanumanga?
I ask because with domesticated tubers at 28,000 bp in the solomon islands and the divergence time of polynesian K, I've thought for a long time that they must have gotten out there long before 3000 bc.

terryt said...

"What do you think of the Caves of Nanumanga?"

I hadn't heard of them until you mentioned them. From what I've just read I don't know if it's definitely confirmed that they were actually inhabited.

"I ask because with domesticated tubers at 28,000 bp in the solomon islands and the divergence time of polynesian K, I've thought for a long time that they must have gotten out there long before 3000 bc."

The Solomon Islands were settled long before people managed to move further out into the Pacific. I doubt anyone had made it as far as Tuvalu before 3000 years ago, let alone 3000 BC. And Polynesian Y-DNA is primarily C1c1a with a smattering of O3a2c of some sort.

"Also they just renamed a former F clade into H in india...."

A specific clade of F, namely F3-P96, is now H2. It was always considered a southwest Asian haplogroup. Specifically south Asian F(xH) is now considered a single clade.

J. Lyon Layden said...

3) Haplogroup K [M9] This is the haplogroup of about 18% who report their paternal line as Polynesian. K is an old lineage presently found only at low frequencies in Africa, Asia, and in the South Pacific. One descendent line of this lineage is restricted to aboriginal Australians, while another is found at low frequency in southern Europe, Northern Africa, and the Middle East.

I got that from a site caled hawaii dna.

J. Lyon Layden said...

Any island in the pacifics elevation would be 150 meters higher during glaciation so its no wonder we dont find any tools- people eberally inhabit the low ground until someone else or rising oceans moves them inward....

J. Lyon Layden said...

Also froma culture standpont, hawaiian kahuna religion seems to be an infuence of both yoga and eastern martial arts. Pieces of kahuna are found in Ayur Veda but not in martial arts and vice versa....making methink that the ideas of chi,yin yang, prana, third eye, 3 souls, chakras, etc originated in SE asia.
This is something Stan Goch pointed out and I have found more evidence in Secret Sciece of Miacles by Max Freedom Long.

J. Lyon Layden said...

Whatbthey found is evidence of a camp fire 40 metes under the water in a cave. I guess theres a slight pssibiliy that a branch from a forest fire blew in and burned in a perfect circle 8000 years ago.
But I dont have any problem with C and K making it all the way to hawaii and then o finding them by wordof mouth much later while exploring the pacific

J. Lyon Layden said...

It would also explain the folk legends of "little black dwarves" from japan and korea to the phillipines, australia, and even hawaii...but thats just speculation.

J. Lyon Layden said...

Mujo says the reason he attacked me was because I sound fanatical. I am fanatical but not about my own heritage.
I believe legends have their origin in reality and maybe Im on a quest to return some magic to the world.
When they found the hobbit, it was almost like revenge against people like Mujo who want to rip the mystery and magic out of existence.

J. Lyon Layden said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
J. Lyon Layden said...

For instance classic cromagnons stood 6'6 and there were heidelbergs 7' on average. But Doug Weller and people like him want that info kept from mainstream articles because they're afraid a Creationist might call it a nephilim.
I'm not a creationist but I dontwant people to laugh at my prehistoric fiction's 7 foot tall hyper robust giants.

J. Lyon Layden said...

For your theory: polynesians can put their feet in water, tap their paddle to the water, and tell where the closest land is.
Members of O3 are the longest breath holders in the world.

terryt said...

"I got that from a site caled hawaii dna".

It must be fairly old. Much has changed since it was compiled. For example:

"Haplogroup K [M9] This is the haplogroup of about 18% who report their paternal line as Polynesian".

Polynesian K is specifically K2b1a-M79 and reaches 18% only in Western Polynesia. It is quite rare further east. The particular haplogroup is found through Melanesia as far east as Timor. Therefore it may have moved east from Southern Wallacea with C1c1and the Austronesians. The remainder of your comment here is not quite correct:

"K is an old lineage presently found only at low frequencies in Africa, Asia, and in the South Pacific".

Not found at all in Africa as far as I'm aware. What was once considered western 'K' is now a separate line called 'T'.

"One descendent line of this lineage is restricted to aboriginal Australians"

Again not correct. Aborigine K is another K2b1a, this time K2b1a-P60, shared with New Guinea. It is not specifically 'Australian'.

"while another is found at low frequency in southern Europe, Northern Africa, and the Middle East".

Once more you're talking about what is now T.

"Whatbthey found is evidence of a camp fire 40 metes under the water in a cave. I guess theres a slight pssibiliy that a branch from a forest fire blew in and burned in a perfect circle 8000 years ago".

On reflection the evidence may be correct. It would certainly explain the enigmatic distribution of Y-DNA M2-M353. It has been found mainly in Fiji and Futuna, and is not closely related to the other Fiji/Futuna M3 which appears to have arrived there with the Austronesians.

"But I dont have any problem with C and K making it all the way to hawaii and then o finding them by wordof mouth much later while exploring the pacific"

The problem is that there's no evidence, either archeological or genetic, for any presence in Hawaii until some 1500 years ago. With the Austronesian expansion.

J. Lyon Layden said...

Well I was just quoting the site, that makes sense.
But even if k2b19-M79 is only RARE in east polynesia, its still there, right?
If Im rigtht we are lucky that O left any at all for us to find.
The hawaiian folkore says that the Mana Huna were pushed inland by the invaders. They say that they are still alive but dont answer the census or allow swabbing, and that the polynesian word Menehune is a mispronunciation.

J. Lyon Layden said...

Theres a statement from thenm on the wikipedia page for Max Freedom Long.
There would be little evidece i there were an earlier colonization of at polynesia. The best islands are now underwater.
I'm not trying to prove this scientifically: if I made no educated guesses Id have nothing to write about, they know so little.
The reason I suspect it is because polynesian culture seems more like an influence to asian culture than the other way around. Yoga and tai chi and shaolin ideals borrow from different huna beliefs.bg

J. Lyon Layden said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
J. Lyon Layden said...

The other thing is......how did this clade of K stay isolated from M and S and P until O got there? They may not have gotten all the way to Hawaii, but isnt it easier to explain if they were eyond the reaches of M.It doesnt look like m had much luck trying to settle in papua...it looks to me they had to keep going eas and avoid it or get eaten....

J. Lyon Layden said...

Excuse me, i meant O didnt have much luck with papua

terryt said...

"There would be little evidece i there were an earlier colonization of at polynesia. The best islands are now underwater".

That statement is not actually relevant. If anyone lived on those Remote Oceanian islands they must have arrived by boat. They could therefore simply have moved to neighbouring islands from any islands about to become submerged. We would therefore find evidence of early presence on those islands. We don't.

"But even if k2b19-M79 is only RARE in east polynesia, its still there, right?"

Yes, but there is no reason at all to doubt that it arrived in Polynesia with the first Austronesians, just some two thousand years ago.

"If Im rigtht we are lucky that O left any at all for us to find".

The survival of M2 in Remote Oceania indicates you are almost certainly wrong. According to your theory anything earlier than the Austronesians should have become extinct, especially on the small isolated islands where M2 survives.

"The hawaiian folkore says that the Mana Huna were pushed inland by the invaders".

Everyone has myths about people in the region before the current inhabitants arrived. Families get pushed around. Weaker tribes in New Zealand got pushed into the more mountainous and undesirable regions too.

"how did this clade of K stay isolated from M and S and P until O got there? They may not have gotten all the way to Hawaii, but isnt it easier to explain if they were eyond the reaches of M.It doesnt look like m had much luck trying to settle in papua...it looks to me they had to keep going eas and avoid it or get eaten...."

A further blow to your theory of haplogroup extermination. For a start M (can in effect be considered K2b1d-P256) is closely related to K2b1a and so 'beyond the reaches of M' is hardly relevant. They shared the environment. The improved boating technology of O1a, O3a2c and C1c allowed them to spread rapidly into previously uninhabited islands, past already-occupied New Guinea and the Near Oceanian islands containing K2b1a, M1, M3 and S(which is really yet another K2b1a). But some of the latter haplogroups were picked up and carried along out into Remote Oceania. Another example of co-operation and mixing rather than extermination.

"i meant O didnt have much luck with papua"

And C1c had its main success in what is known as the 'Bird's Head' in far western New Guinea. It may have been in that region for some time before becoming part of the Austronesian eastward movement.

J. Lyon Layden said...

Im not getting why we would find evidence if the can move from a sinking island by boat.
It seems to me we would find no evidence because everywhere that they inhabited is now submerged- their own coastline and the islands they inhabited before they moved to their current island are all underwater now. I know there are uninhabited islands in the pacific but are there really that many good ones along their route?
Youve got a point with the rest of it.
But Im trying to figure out who spread aspmd from sundaland as it flooded. It cant be O because its not even dominant in O.
Its dominant in M and L.
If it's dominant in K2B1a, it points to a megalithic culture spreading from sundaland and explains rongorongo script and a whole bunch of other evidence from cultural traditions and archetypes to the genetic origins of bannanas, chickens, and dogs.

I understand these things can spread peacefully/cultually but where did those people go?

J. Lyon Layden said...

Lots of aspm-d had to be available to M and L for it to make a 50% sweep of the planet from only 5000 years ago.
There dont seem to be any time equivalent mtdna markers spreading to both sides from there.
They do find some y halogroup L in a few east and sesian locations and wikipedia says there may be more because they dont test for it there, but L seems like a long shot...

J. Lyon Layden said...

Also I just received Oppenheimers Eden in the east last night and from the Preface it looks like its going to be 500 pages of evidence that the Sumerians and Polynesianare part of a spread from the last flooding of Sundaland 8000 years ago. He claims to have come to realizations about sundaland a different way than I did: studying malaria resistent genes and their paths through the pacific.

J. Lyon Layden said...

About C1c...I didnt know about that but I have long supposed that C populated New Guibea first and was absorbed by M and S populations later, and pushed into the more remote regions of the land mass, of which I suspect this part of West New guinea is one.

J. Lyon Layden said...

Also when I talk about one hapogroup replacing another, I realize it is not always because of headhunting, cannibalism, and competition. European diseases wiped out a large portion of native americans, so Im sure that happened alot.
I also agree with you about hybrids benefiting from cultural exchange as much as from hybrid vigor.

terryt said...

"I have long supposed that C populated New Guibea first and was absorbed by M and S populations later, and pushed into the more remote regions of the land mass, of which I suspect this part of West New guinea is one".

C is almost unknown in the New Guinea Highlands. The evidence actually indicates C was the last of the main Papuan/New Guinea haplogroups to arrive. The Bird's Head would have been easily accessible from both north and south by a boat-using people.

"It seems to me we would find no evidence because everywhere that they inhabited is now submerged- their own coastline and the islands they inhabited before they moved to their current island are all underwater now. I know there are uninhabited islands in the pacific but are there really that many good ones along their route?"

The fact is that all Remote Pacific islands were uninhabited until some 3000 years ago. At that time the use of fire and extinctions all date to that period. Therefore even if people were present on islands that became submerged they should also have been present on larger, nearby islands. No people lived anywhere in Remote Pacific although the evidence for fire in an underwater cave may prove decisive for that particular island. I'm not aware of any research on prehistoric bird populations there.

"But Im trying to figure out who spread aspmd from sundaland as it flooded".

What makes you sure it spread from Sundaland?

" it looks like its going to be 500 pages of evidence that the Sumerians and Polynesianare part of a spread from the last flooding of Sundaland 8000 years ago".

The Polynesian language is Austronesian and there is a huge amount of evidence that the language spread from Taiwan not much more than 4000 years ago. Polynesians as such did not form until around 2000 years ago.

J. Lyon Layden said...

Oppenheimer in the preface says he has evidence that the language spread earlier though I havent read it yet.
The reason I tink it spread frm sundaland is because M people have 65% aspm like Druze and Kaas (they have alot of L).
And because there was a population oin sundaland that shuld have been leaving it at the end of the glaciation but I cant find which Haps they belonged to.
Oppenheimer also states in tbe preface, that scientists say that agriculture and megaliths develped independently after the glaciation because they are afraid of being ridiculed, or misinterpretted as atlantean, ancient aluens devotees, or creationists. But there are extreme s

J. Lyon Layden said...

Similarities between cultural remains of many of the megalithic agricultural societies that began around 10,000 bc from burial practices to building techniques to supposed idols or figurines.
It seems to me that scientists must be utterly drvoid of common sense when no paper about Jiahu mentions that Naga still bury their dogs in the same exact way but instead says "the religious significance of the dog burials are unknown.

J. Lyon Layden said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
J. Lyon Layden said...

I could spend hours typing all the things that point to sundaland as a spreader of neolithic technology from the genetics of yams, bannanas, and mangos to the domestication of chickens, pigs, and bovines.
Gunnung Padang may be the first megalithic structure ever.
The late paleolithic in sundaland is more advanced than the "paleolithic revolutions)" of europe and africa and they probably started earlier.
Sundaland would have been the best refugium on the entire planet during the ice age, hence a highnpopulation.
It looks to me like microcephaline D was introgressed there, and aspm-d seems to be a reaction to micro-d and formed within a micro-d population, the highest concentrations of which are in indonesia as well!
The udeas of ki energy, prahna, the third eye, and much other eastern thought seems to have its roots in the huna relugion of hawaii.
Oppenheimer also says that many of the worlds flood myths have their roots in flood myths the indonesian tribes still tell today.

J. Lyon Layden said...

Ive got pages more reasons why a neolithic culture spread from sundaland and was a big part of the neolithic revolution and I am going to get more from Oppenheimer, though Ill have to check out his sources too.

J. Lyon Layden said...

If C was not in ng before M and S got there...what was keeping them out? They were already in the continent of sahul and are the main hap in australia.
Maybe solo man was there and thats why they have so much denisovan?
Aspm-d may have introgressed like micro-d...does that mean solo man was the major neolithic expander fro sundaland? Kow swamp people are robust and bound there heads to look more erectine...and were probably dolcephalic and shared other features with erectines. Flores lithics were originally considered to be made by hss even though it has a brain the size of a grapefruit. Solo mans tools were highly advanced but dont show much similarity with those of hss.
But an erectus neolithic revolution is pretty far fetched.

J. Lyon Layden said...

Terry i also have an unrelated question for you. I cant post on deinekes blog, maybe because I thought deep african substructure to explain introgression was so ridiculous a year ago.
I saw you said that R1b came before I. Otherwise your model for europe was similar to mine. What is the evidence for I being later? Thanks.

terryt said...

"I saw you said that R1b came before I. Otherwise your model for europe was similar to mine. What is the evidence for I being later? Thanks".

If I ever said that I've changed my mind. Haplogroup I may have expanded north after R1b but it was certainly present in SW Asia before even P reached there.

"If C was not in ng before M and S got there...what was keeping them out? They were already in the continent of sahul and are the main hap in Australia".

That's the point. C reached Australia some time before anyone had reached New Guinea as it was just a short distance across the Timor Strait. It formed C1d in Australia and C1c in Southern Wallacea. Progressive improvements in boating technology allowed K haplogroups to travel further from Sunda along the north coast of Australia and reach southeast New Guinea. Later still more improvements allowed C1c to reach the Bird's Head directly and later still the Austronesian mixture was able to travel yet further into the Pacific.

"Ive got pages more reasons why a neolithic culture spread from sundaland and was a big part of the neolithic revolution"

I think the evidence shows that some form of agriculture was practised in New Guinea quite some time before it appeared anywhere else. But I see no haplogroup evidence for a wide expansion from there late enough to be responsible for its spread.

J. Lyon Layden said...

Ok I understand you on I now, that works.

Thanks for the clarification on C.

Back to the drawing board on a piece of the puzzle for me; I had thought C was in New guinea first, now I dont know why theres more neanderthal across Wallacea (unless they arent considering australia and aborigines only have as much as the rest of us!)
Ive long debated whether C had much neanderthal to begin with, or if it comes from other haps that are part of their current populations. There are so few 100% C groups and no direct info on how much neanderthal they have or what kind.
Also New guinea having no M probably means they met denisovan in sundalasnd or new guinea. If sundaland, did C go around it like mungo man had before him? If new guinea, where are the remains from the earlier habitation? Or do you suppose they were in the submerged portion of Sahul before the neolithic?
There's no radiation from sundaland at that time like you say, and that ius the puzzle for me, because of aspm-d's 50% sweep.
Maybe there is a clade of O3 that has really high aspm-d and it only caught on in sundaland because there was too much yap in the mainland?

J. Lyon Layden said...

Correction- Also NG having no C before M and S means they met denisovan...

terryt said...

"Also New guinea having no [C] probably means they met denisovan in sundalasnd or new guinea".

Sunda is far the more likely.

"If sundaland, did C go around it like mungo man had before him?"

That is an interesting problem. I uised to assume C had brought the Denisova south in the first place but that now seems unlikely.

"Or do you suppose they were in the submerged portion of Sahul before the neolithic?"

The Denisova element in the region is almost certainly far older than the Neolithic.

J. Lyon Layden said...

Terry I just figured something out that makes it 20 times even more complicated and when I saw it I even got shivers up and down my spine.
It destroys my theory and I think it probably destroys all the other ones Ive read about too.

Remember I was saying how mungo mans mtdna accidentalky inserted itself into our chromosome, which proves it wasnt a contamination?

Well the truth is that insertion is y chromosome 11.

It is the insertion that defines yap, and therefore y haplogroup DE.

There has actually been no evidence of faulty testing on mungo man- its just that all the findings are so wierd that no one can incorporate them into their theory.

J. Lyon Layden said...

So most people just skip it.
Its easy to get away with because the test were done a long time ago and now the remains are protected by aborigine religious politics so they cant be retested.
Why on earth is this not common knowledge?
Do a google search and you will find nothing that mentions mungo mans direct connection with yap.
But google yap insertion, and you will find that it is an insertion on y chromosome 11 (todays nomenclature is Yq11).
Google mungo man dna and you will find that his mtdna split off before mito-eve and that its somehow inserted itself into some peoples y chromosome 11.
Are mainstream scientists stupid or are they trying to hide something?

J. Lyon Layden said...

Now I got to figure out where DE met mungo man. I have long thought that mtdna m originally evolved and spread with a pre- A y haplogroup that is now extinct...was mungo man's mom's lineage mixed with M before DE came along, and thats how DE got her mtdna lodged in his y chromosome?
And where the hell was Y dna FC during all of this?
Y hap K, microcephaline D, aspm-d all point to SE Asia....but so does yap and mungo man..and those genes avoid yap at all cost, and vice versa!?

terryt said...

"It is the insertion that defines yap, and therefore y haplogroup DE".

I don't believe the Y-chromosome has anything to do with chromosome 11. There are many Alu insertion in human chromosomes. The one in the Mungo mt-DNA is probably not connected at all to the Y-DNA Alu insertion in Y-DNA DE.

"Are mainstream scientists stupid or are they trying to hide something?"

Neither. The YAP Alu insertion defines Y-DNA DE, as you say. But in Mungo 'man' it is in the mt-DNA.

"Now I got to figure out where DE met mungo man".

They may not have met at all.

"I have long thought that mtdna m originally evolved and spread with a pre- A y haplogroup that is now extinct..."

Possible. But most dating, unreliable as it is, places mt-DNA M and N about the time Y-DNA BT split into B and CT. In that scenario mt-DNA M and N left Africa with CT.

"Its easy to get away with because the test were done a long time ago and now the remains are protected by aborigine religious politics so they cant be retested".

But it is quite possible the test was wrong. It has been pointed out that the researchers found quite a surprising amount of DNA for the age of the bone and for the technology available at the time.

"There has actually been no evidence of faulty testing on mungo man- its just that all the findings are so wierd that no one can incorporate them into their theory".

To me it would simply mean the survival of an mt-DNA line from an earlier group of humans. I find that far from impossible as we know diploid genes from other pre-OoA humans survive today. To me that would certainly not be surprising.

J. Lyon Layden said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
J. Lyon Layden said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
J. Lyon Layden said...

Yep I was wrong, yq11 means part of the y chromosome. I just got that all screwed up.
Where can I find out more about these diploid genes.
I feel foolish about that but if mungo had been yap it would have ben frustrating enough tmake me give up, sok I'm thankful!

J. Lyon Layden said...

The insertion from mungo man is is found in 78% of an Amerindian tribe, 68% of Melanesians, 65% of Japanese, and 54% of Europeans, but only 10 to 25% of Africans.
Thsts all I could find on its distribution.

M broke away the same time as Bt and N but that is the same time of the neanderthal invasion of sw asia.
I am still not convinced that BT, M or N ever came out of africa, especially now that I have read A Middle Paleolithic Link between Africa and the Thar valley of Deinekes.
I know somebody like Maju might attack me for even daring say it but if L3b1 was found outside africa was to stop all subgroups of L and y haplogroups A and B ehaving been widespread wherever hss roamed?
90% of our lineages may be extinct

J. Lyon Layden said...

So the neanderthal invasion, toba, and the ensuing glaciation may have been more devasting to hss outside of africa at the time, hence mtDNa M and N and y hap bT may have just been lucky survivers or dominant outside of africa due to more neanderthal genes.
I dont see why this offended Maju as it would mean that mito eve was from anywhere between North and east africa and pakistan, not that some people are from africa and some people arent.

J. Lyon Layden said...

I was looking up diploid and Ooa and this came up....to me it seems like evidence for the above- the paper says that the modern look began 125k ago and around 65-75k ago the bottleneck hit eurasia harder than africa, and africa recovered quicker.
Neanderthal took over SW asia somewhere between 90k and 70k...

J. Lyon Layden said...

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v475/n7357/full/nature10231.html

terryt said...

"I guess the mungo insertion is on nuclear chromosome 11 and yap is on y chromosome 11?"

There is no 'y chromosome 11'. Just a single Y-chromosome. The Y-chromosome is the male version of chromosome 23.

"Where can I find out more about these diploid genes".

http://ghr.nlm.nih.gov/handbook/basics/howmanychromosomes

Did you not do genetics, Punnett squares and inheritance in school? This will be useful:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punnett_square

Capital letters are used for dominant genes and small letters from recessive.

"mtDNa M and N and y hap bT may have just been lucky survivers or dominant outside of africa due to more neanderthal genes".

That is possible. But all M, N and BT's relations are found only, or mainly, in Africa which provides adequate evidence for their having a deeper origin there.

"Neanderthal took over SW asia somewhere between 90k and 70k..."

It is quite possible that event split the African 'modern human' population from the Eurasian 'modern human' population. The southward Neanderthal movement was presumably a consequence of increased cooling and aridity and it may have been environmental factors as much as the presence of Neanderthals that gave rise to the split.

J. Lyon Layden said...

Thank you. No I wasnt taught any of this in school or college, having to learn it all the hard way.

terryt said...

"No I wasnt taught any of this in school or college"

You may find these couple of my essays useful:

http://humanevolutionontrial.blogspot.co.nz/2009/06/human-evolution-on-trial-chromosomes.html

http://humanevolutionontrial.blogspot.co.nz/2009/06/human-evolution-on-trial-pedigrees.html

And possibly this one:

http://humanevolutionontrial.blogspot.co.nz/2009/06/human-evolution-on-trial-hybrid-vigour.html

J. Lyon Layden said...

Coming back to this a long time later because I have read some of the things you mentioned and Oppenheimer's book. He has a really strong case for the "Out of Taiwan" theory being incorrect, and points to an earlier expansion.
But I also wanted to adress the debate we were having about the seperation of C and F. They've found C in an Iberian from the stone age now...which creates problems. to me it means that C and F were not seperated East to West, but that F was isolated (probably in South Asia) until it somehow got the other hand...technonologically as I would guess Terry would have it or via hybrid vigour as I tend to explain).
To me, this is yet another evidence for genocide in prehistry--- the extinction of C in Europe by invaders.
But I'm sure terry might have a climactic explanation that I didnt think of too.

terryt said...

"They've found C in an Iberian from the stone age now...which creates problems".

No problem. It was not C*. The La Brana C at 7000 years ago is C1a2-V20, still found at a minute level in Europe. C1a2 is 'brother' to C1a1, found in Japan. The obvious conclusion is that C1a was at one time widespread and we are left with remnants at either end of its original spread. An earlier example of C has been found at Kostenki at 37,000 years ago, this time C1b*. C1b also forms two clades, C1b1-M356 in India and Bangladesh and C1b2-M38 in Wallacea (SE Asia). Presumably its presence at Kostenki is the product of an early C1b expansion. The origin of the expansion is problematical but C1c-M347 is confined to Australia. The other branch of C, C2-M217, is East Asian and so to me it seems very likely C originated somewhere near there.

"F was isolated (probably in South Asia) until it somehow got the other hand"

Not East Asia though. I would guess it is far more likely to have originated in Iran or Anatolia as several early branches are found there (G, IJ and H2).

"technonologically as I would guess Terry would have it or via hybrid vigour as I tend to explain)".

Probably both. It was actually just two branches within K that expanded widely, K2a-M214 into East Asia and K2b2-P295 through most of Eurasia. I think it is now pretty unequivocal that K2 originated in SE Asia and so hybrid vigour would arise through the mixing of Y-DNA C and Y-DNA K2 populations. The technology that enabled the expansion is to me most likely the efficient boating needed to cross Wallace's Line being carried back along coasts and rivers.

"this is yet another evidence for genocide in prehistory"

I doubt the disjunct distribution of C1a in Eurasia is the product of genocide. To me it is an indication that C1a was a minor component of the Q/R population that moved onto the Eurasian steppe. Perhaps C1a was a little ahead though. The modern absence of C1b is more likely the product of cooling climate though, as is the modern absence of the 45,000 year old K2a* found at Ust-Ishm.