Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:19, 12 November 2009

This is Andrew Lancaster's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7Auto-archiving period: 3 months

Welcome!

Hello, Andrew Lancaster, and welcome to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Misplaced Pages
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Misplaced Pages:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  --{{IncMan|talk}} 08:13, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Genetic history of Europe

After watching this article over the last few days, I consider the situation hopeless. 2 or 3 editors are ruining the article. I think it should probably deleted or rewritten from scratch at this point. Section are removed and rewritten with a non-neutral POV. The article is mature enough now that this type of daily editing should have subsided. I see it is listed under Human Genetic History Project as one needing improvement. What it needs is Administrative oversight and possibly page protection.PB666 

I have entered an entry for the article under NPOV in hopes we can get more administration attention for the WikiWar that is going on and off the page. I don't really expect much to become of this but . . . .PB666  19:29, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Genetic_history_of_Europe#Y_description_in_SSA.PB666 

Possible license problem

Is this image in the public domain? Or is it licensed under the GFDL? I don't think it can be both.--Rockfang (talk) 19:03, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:Robino_algeria_M81.png

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Robino_algeria_M81.png. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Misplaced Pages articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Misplaced Pages:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Misplaced Pages policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Misplaced Pages page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Rockfang (talk) 19:05, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

New AfD

Afd for African_admixture_in_Europe.PB666  15:08, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Journal of Genetic Genealogy

I'm not at all sure about using for other than (perhaps) surname studies. It says "The main emphasis of this journal will be to present a forum for articles that may not be appropriate for other established genetics journals since they may be based on datasets in which a statistically random sample cannot be guaranteed (i.e. surname studies)." Sophian has used it for a map - see User talk:SOPHIAN. The article is by Kalevi Wiik, see . I'll comment on Sophian's talk page. Dougweller (talk) 10:17, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

New Images

Andrew,

I have created several images over in the commons.

. I know these files probably have a few errors or oversights, I don't think the data is complete since they are based on Semino et al 2004.PB666  01:19, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

There has to be more data than this out there. I am not going to even attempt a contour map, because of the OR issue and also because without substantially more data, how reliable are these. One issue, the HLA studies differentiated Algerian berbers, are there any studies of Y that differentiated algerian or tunisian berbers? Are there any studies that looked at the Ivory and Gold Coasts? What about Egypt and Libya? Some of the studies Semino includes are bottom-of-the-bucket statistics. Essentially arguing that there is 0 when only 30 to 50 males have been typed, at least by HLA standards is not 0.PB666  13:31, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

One way to improve this wiki: http://www.haplozone.net/index.php?title=Kujanova_et_al._%282009%29. is to provide a Map for the subpopulation that was typed, for example what are the boundaries in which their immediate ancestors come from. Anyway thanks for the pointers. I think that given that these paints are going to come from several sources, I need to present each source on the commons-page for the graphic, so that the sources are transparent. I had to clean up all of Small Victories mtDNA frequencies on Genetic His.. because he failed to properly divulge the source and he converted absolute frequencies to %'s which I have no great problem with but unfortunately that falls under statistics-original research. PB666  17:57, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Let me know if you really can not get to the new article about Syria and Lebanon etc. Can you give me a PMID on this one?PB666  23:18, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

The data can be found in the supplementary material, or specifically this table. Wapondaponda (talk) 06:20, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Hey, I have completed most of the additions between the two Cruciani studies. EM-81 is no-data on many samples in EM-78, the reason for the gaps. Some areas the need to be filled are in both are Chad, Interior of Spain, Galicia(sp), Switzerland, Izibans, Malta, Jordan, S. Arabia, etc. More coverage of the Ivory & Gold coasts. Since you know where to find the info if it is available what I am going to do is going to give you the divider between the color scales that way you can modify the maps in paint. The way to do this is simple use the eye-dropper to pick a color off the paint scale which includes the % and use the paint bucket to fill the area. Also with regard to Sudan, the HLA studies are picking up major differences between peoples within the sudan, particularly those living on the lowest nile within the country. I suspect that Y-chromosomal breakdown will follow the same pattern as this is seen between Egyptian berbers and southern Egyptians and between different Ethiopians and different Kenyan groups. Ergo in terms of complexity the proxi-nile region is going to show the greatest frequency changes per geographic distance. You may find errors in the maps or things you think should change, please feel free. The values between color boundaries start with 100% each subsequent boundary = 0.79370052598 of the previous boundary. This can be generated on Excel quickly. I paint zero values as 0 to 0.1% because using zero (pure white) on maps with with white boundaries makes it difficult to repaint different colors later. The new images are not up yet but will be soon. I will indicate here once they have been uploaded.PB666  04:19, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Whoops, yes I painted serbia with Slovakia. I have to get back to EM-78. Its not complete yet.PB666  05:25, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

El-Sibai et al.

The paper is available online but was not listed on the main page, but one has to look under early view, it was the only paper. I don't think this paper can be used, the problem is that the authors did not subtype E1b1b1 into a, b, or c, despite that they used papers from other sources that were subtyped. They did to STR data but unfortunately the STR data cannot be aligned with a, b, or c. In addition they also separated Syria into 4 zones, but they did not look present the breakdown of which samples came from which zone. The data in Supplimentary table 5 is useful, if not difficult to dissect and is available from other sources, anyway.PB666  01:11, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Here is one aspect of the paper, this comes from the backdrop of what happened to mtDNA in 2001 to 2003 with respect to sequencing, again the cause as I will illustrate, is different the the effect might be the same. The authors go onto say migration and back-migration between the Levant and North Africa were evidence from the haplogeography of haplogroup E1b1b1 and its hapltye network structure.They go on to discuss the movements of moroccans back into the middle east after the displacement of spanish moors. The problem however with this hypothesis lies in Figure 5. There is alot of reticulation (for an analysis of reticulation see bandelts work on asian mtDNA from the 2003-2005 period) within their star diagrams, and the bigger problem when looking at the supplimentary material is that different STRs were shared across different E1b1b1 subtypes (*, a, b, and c) from studies that did type these. This is OK if an STR is shared between E1b1b1 and a daughter clad, but only version per site is allowed one can not have multiple STRs for a given site shared because then it implies that a, b, or c are not descent by common ancestry.

The problem here is that subtyping may have resolved these reticulations and that these reticulations may not be as commonly shared across different populations. Consequently the failure to subtype E3b after it was known that subtypes have widely different geographic structures is a major flaw in this paper and it should have been revised prior to publication.

As to the cause, Bandelt was able to show with mtDNA that reticulations except at a few sites (e.g. 16129 or 16189) that were hypervariable were largely due to sequencing errors. While this cannot be ruled out, more recent studies of Y have shown that different STRs have different stabilities and that some STRs evolve rather rapidly with noticable reversion within the extant generations. This is most likely the source, and therefore the primary source of information must be the SNP, with STR supporting addition information, but it is neither conclusive about joining ancestry. THis is a warning, particularly to Muntuwandi about using the discussion section of this paper as the results are somewhat speculative.

I haven't read the main article as I don't have access to elsevier. I did see some subtyping in supplementary material though it is the information has not been compiled. Wapondaponda (talk) 08:25, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

X-linked fixation times

X chromosomal around 1 million years and other autosomes more than 3 million years.

There is no single citation for this information, while I did not provide this I can tell you that 50% of X-linked loci so-far studied have undergone fixation within the last 700,000 years. Using a C/H LCA of 6.5 million years I believe the median fixation time is around 540,000 years. There is a paper out there, I believe S Shaffner is a co-author, that did describe this. With regard to Autosomal I think Takahata (1999) proposed a time on the level of 1 million years. To be exact, X-chromosome have never undergone fixation, since it undergoes recombination large sections cannot fix only SNPs between recombination hot spots will undergo fixation. For autosomes the distance between relevant hot-spots (by relevant I mean relative to longstanding pre-expansion population sizes) is rather small and Takahata pointed out that there are few relavent SNPs that are useful for establishing fixation. There may be newer references out. From the HLA there appear to be >10 HLA (of 16) DRB1 allelegroups that passed through the minimum, along the same level of HLA B, and examining chimp and gorilla many variant motifs passed through the constriction without the loss of variation. Ayala 1996 argued that HLA-DRB1 had a TMRCA of 60 million years. IOW we can argue with certainty that certain parts of Chromosome 6 have not fixed within African anthropoid lineages. IOW, unless one can provide a reference, there is no assertible age for Autosomes, and the X-linked loci sort within a range from 0 to 1.8 million years (See Harris and Hey, 1998).PB666  21:22, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't think the statement is anywhere near essential for the article.PB666  21:39, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

BTW, is there any possible way to clean up (shorten) the Genetic Studies and Cavalli-Sforza material. Good to see we are cleaning up the page, I am going to fix the table so that there is a margin around it.PB666  21:39, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Nature Reviews Genetics 5, 43-51 (January 2004) "The X chromosome in population genetics" Stephen F. Schaffner. doi:10.1038/nrg1247

You know that the X-chromosome, IMHO, is the best locus for tracking population movements, it presents with long-non-recombinant regions, and it does not have the problems associated with mtDNA and Y chromosome, I don't know why it doesn't get more coverage. Steve's interpretation and mine differ but from what I grasp he has analyzed the fixation of X, I spoke to him about this issue before he published, I haven't read the review.

I think there needs to be something explaining what "record longer genetic histories" means.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:49, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Is this from Shaffner's article?PB666  16:39, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I have read this paper, it would seem that one result of the discussion has ended up in the review. Good Review. Table 1 and Box 3 provide you with the information. If one looks at the mean fixation time (or mean coalescence time) for X instead of the median it would be about 750,000 years (for X) as he states, also presents a 1 my coalescence time(For Autosomes). This is what really shocked me when I modeled Vigilant's results almost 15 years ago (I had a 80386 with 64mb of memory installed just to run the monte-carlo analysis). The fixation times spread broadly over a profile (see Box 3, panel b). People at the time where making wildly polar claims in the literature but when one looked at the TMRCAs and plotted them, the fell almost exactly into the disribution in his panel b for X-linked loci if we asssume the constrict population size was approximate as defined by mtDNA.

Ergo, the authors of these papers like Harris and Hey or Hey and Harris were not really presenting the great statistical unreliability of single results. It was a bit of an educational process for all. Now, if we look at certain loci, by random expectation we expect to see autosomal fixation times that exceed 2.5 million years, this contrasts greatly with observations at the Y chromosome.

So now you see where I come from. I have made some additions to the mitochondrial Eve, page, and I will be adding results of Shaffner's work. I came up with the same effective population size as he did (Several years previous I might add) of 11,000 versus his 12,000 individuals. The effective population size range was between 8000 and 16,000 individuals and thus the size is consistent in magnitude across all loci. The greatest deviation from expectation on the low end is the Y chromosome, and the greatest deviation on the high end is the HLA. There are both X and Autosomes that remain fixed, however the problem is recombination hotspots may be so close for these sites that there are inadequate numbers of mutations to confidently assert a TMRCA.PB666  17:12, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Please explain to me why you think r1a is a domainant haplogroup in Southcentral Asia.

You said that I was trying to dismiss r1a in Southcentral Asia by calling it a pocket. If you look at the map that is clearly what it is. There is a corridor from Russia to Southcentral Asia that ends in a "pocket" or "bubble" or round shaped geographical area, of which the center, where r1a actually reaches more than 50% is an extremely small area compared to the European R1a.

R1a is not a Dominant Haplogroup in Southcentral Asia. There are Tribal groups that have high percentages of R1a because they do not mix with other groups in the area. There are no countries in Southcentral Asia in which R1a reaches a much higher level than 20% except Kyrgyzstan. This article is written in such a way that would imply that R1a is a dominant Haplogroup in Southcentral Asia, when in reality, R1a only accounts for a small fraction of Southcentral Asian men.Jamesdean3295

Mitochondrial Eve

So it comes down to meaning that they give older common ancestor estimates?

I am going to deal with issue the mitochondrial Eve page under a section called Implications under coalesence times. There is ploidy and there is effective ploidy (a mythological nomenclature that is akin to unreal numbers) mtDNA and Y are treated as haploids but mtDNA is monoploid DNA. However it can only be passed by females, therefore it is effectively haploid in its behavior. This is not a far step, however the next step is effective numbers or ratios in a population. For example about 1/2 the number of effective males pass Y as females pass mtDNA, ergo in coalescence theory mtDNA is behaving with an effective ploidy of 0.66 and Y is behaving with an effective ploidy of 0.33. Remember the Superduper computer in Hitchhikers guide to the galaxy, we have to play the same experiment. What this means is if we placed humans in an infinite number of evolution trails, and we had no information about chromosomal segregation, we could look at the fixation plots for loci and sort loci according to the ratios 0.33, 0.66, 1.66 and 2.0, because the median fixation times would plot .66*generations, 1.33*generations, 3.33*generations, and 4 times generations. If we inverted the 2N rule, IOW divided these values by median fixation generation/2 we would argue according to coalescence theory that the loci had ploidy of 0.33, 0.66 1.66 and 2. However we would be running our little experiment for a very long time, with great risk of the subjects smacking us with a hot plate, so to speak, trying to assess the ploidy of HLA loci. The reason for this is that apparently we can sense our HLA, we (mostly women) make decisions about mating based on HLA (the sweaty T-shirt experiment). Animals are much better at this. Survival also depends somewhat on HLA diversity, and the risk of cancer and certain autoimmune disease is higher in homozygotes. (E.g.Coeliac Disease) The risk of disease in homozygotes is 6 times higher than heterozygotes. If you are truely interested in balancing selection and TMRCAs I suggest the following reading.

• The review by Shaffner (easy reading)
• Naoyuki Takahata-Allelic genealogy and Human Evolution
• N. Takahata-Testing Multigreiognality of Modern HUman Origins.
• Hey and Harris (I forget the year 1998 or 7)
• Harris and Hey, 1998
• If you can get it, Critical Reviews in Immunology 1995, Watkins. Page 1
• The Myth of Eve (from a different perspective). Science. 1995 Dec 22;270(5244):1930-6.
• Population biology of antigen presentation by MHC class I molecules. Science. 1996 Apr 5;272(5258):67-74.

The last paper is interesting and explains why Ayala's paper was a misstep. While it is true there was no Adam and Eve bottleneck, Ayala failed to comprehend the reflexive nature of HLA to diversity. In the last paper they characterized class I loci in South America, they found a large number of new alleles, what Takahata says about HLA recombination is true, at times intergenic recombination is slow, in fact classical intragenic (meaning long range recombination through HLA) genes is not what we would think. However what Watkins, Parham and Ohta found is that a special form of recombination gene conversion was working at the HLA, this recombination was previously thought to be a labratory trick in molecular biology. Now, of course it has been recognized on many sites. But at HLA, in terms of non-synonomous changes gene conversion dominates (or appears to dominate) and thus in South America the first migrants went through the Isthmus bottleneck, this pruned diversity, selection responded by increasing diversity of HLA alleles by retaining new gene-convertants in the population. I had a discussion with one of my colleages at the college who argues that gene-conversion is an abortive form of recombination and this generally is unproductive (we dont see the results). What Ayala failed to see is that the HLA favor surrogates for site mutations using this form of recombination, if one is not aware of this, one begins surmised TMRCAs that are really ancient, and they may be, however reducing the clutter we have 14 HLA-DRB1 that appearred to have passed though the population constriction whereas we only have one mtDNA and one Y (there are now >700 HLA-DRB1). So balancing selection of this type will prevent TMRCAs from occuring, and gene conversion may make exaggerate the apparent age between branch points of alleles preserved as a consequence of balancing selection. Shaffner makes the point as well as anyone can make it, we cannot rely on a single locus to tell a story. Not only do different loci have different selection constraints, but also by simple random chance even in a constant population we expect fixation times to range from 0.5 to 5.0 times the median fixation time at 96% confidence. With so many genes in the genome of course we are going to find a few that don't fix at 10 times or 20 times the median time, this does not mean they had a recent common ancestor with chimpanzees or gorillas, as some have interpreted (MX1 locus as an example). The way we can place this in laymans terms, imagine a population size as a room size. Imagine a new allele as a point in next center of the room which at the exact center is a hole, and imagine that a person in the center of the room then randomly walks in several directions until he hits a wall (fixes) or the hole (exclusion). Ploidy increases the size of the room, however selection may attract the subject to the wall (positive selection) or to the hole above the center (negative selection). Alternatively selection as two opposing forces on the person keeping it away from the hole and keeping it also away from the wall. If one can imagine dropping new persons in the room, the room eventually gets very crowed, because no-one is leaving the room. Now add gene coversion, two players can touch and create a new player, the room gets more crowded. In real life evolution doesn't play games - Fastest evolving loci?

Hey, with regard to the article, I found it to have numerous errors in it. Concerning Japan I have been there and was entertained at an archaeological institute there. The discussion of Japanese prehistory is largely erroneous in that article compared to what I've learned. I would be happy to discuss the reasons why however its pertinence here is questionable. This is one area where I am studied, the other regard was constitutes a PMRCA, as present evidence suggest a region of Tanzania or points to the west is a likely place of expansion of AMHs. Sample densities for many studies types are not high, yet in these regions. Even Shaffners paper X-linked studies have not delved deeply into this region. Findings of exoafrican PMRCA may be nothing more and fortuitous associations and/or undersampling.PB666 

The error I want to address however is Hammer's claim of Erectine HS intermixing. Again I use HLA as a guide. If one considers a track of human migration from East Africa to Australia, and if one assumes that most recent alleles that have entered by migration are tracable from elsewhere and are in linkage disequilibrium (they are, and are mostly from west pacific rim, east Asians) then what we see that as one has moved from India to Australias aboriginal peoples diversity dropped. I test the hypothesis of whether diversity increased around flores Island (remembering that HLA tend to capture and preserve diversity when other loci tend to loose diversity except under extreme population events). No such increase in diversity was seen in either Sumatra or around Java, quite the opposite, diversity dropped for HLA-A, A2402 almost fixed in some peoples. I scoured the literature and databases of new alleles or groups that must be evident with admixture, none were found of any consequence.PB666 

Hey and Tiskoff published recently on the pitfalls of sampling, and now it is quite clear that undersampling in certain parts of Africa will give false impressions and interpretations. The study indicates the pitfalls of sampling methodologies. This is something I predicted more than 15 years ago, that despite even this best sampling effort, recent fixation in Africa, and fortuitous mutations outside of Africa while make some loci appear (as a well of diversity) exo-african in origin. In addition I also pointed out there was a core region of SSA and that specifically undersampling in this unknown core region would result in the highest risk of a false conclusion. For the HLA there is B48 which is Asian/Native America, and, more or less, the mode is in the Orochon of NE China, ESE Russia. Hammer finds evidence for things I would strongly resist calling evidence without an appropriate sample size. Unlike Hammer I make no claim about HLA-B48 except to argue that its origins are ambiguous, as for genetic contribution from regionals into the islandic Indopacific, there is no evidence what-so-ever for genetic contributions to AMH populations that crossed during expansion from Africa. If indeed B48 constitutes interpopulation gene flow, given HLA diversity, it would have likely represented 1 to, at most, 5 intermixing events. MX1 locus is an example of a locus that appeared have this melansian contributions with Hap4 and Hap5 and a well of diversity in the East (the other well, as with many other X-linked loci and HLA is in central Africas baka pygmies). For years this is the best evidence the MREH group had put forth. However, later publications showed that there is no evolution of the MX1 in any other apes making the TMRCA in humans 5 to 10 million years in age (and In Asia). Henceforth the locus was found is under selection within the tropics and that rare mutations may have undergone positive selection (or purifying selection) and this explained the increased number of haps in Asia. Ergo one has to be very careful in interpreting or giving credit to those who interpret these findings.

Human population structure, by HLA. There are several competing models of how humans spread, demic diffusion is one, diffusion with intial migration is another. HLA haplotypes preserve intial diversity, the evident patterns suggests bands (or streaks) of migration have occurred over time, these have typically occurred between intermediate zones, for example we see evidence of migrations from Kyushu, Ryukyu region or Manchuria/Korean peninsula down to Austronesia, but not from say Eastern Siberia. Two major streaks from SW to NE have made their way across Asia, one appears to have initiated from NEAfr/Levant and the other from the Sahel via the Indus river.

One sees evidence of pehistoric migrations from west in the East Asia, but not from Ireland into East Asia, we can make the case of migrations from the Horn of East Africa into Iberia, but not from the !kung into Europe. How far back in history the discrete intermediate range migrations took place is unknown. In the case of Africa, if certain alleles and haplotypes are scraped of then the hunter-gather population looks quite stable, same with Australia. IOW there is strong evidence in HLA for Serial assymetric expansions in which processes of migration eventually lead to the culling of allele frequencies, these are mostly evident outside of Africa, however the origin of some recent migrations appear to be African. In this background, alleles like HLA-B48 may be explained by discrete migration from Africa, and undersampling within Africa. Ergo I am very cautious to draw conclusions as Hammer has.PB666  16:21, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

SSA Section

Any change I make Small Victory will and has reverted. Small Victory does not seem to understand what Wikify means. My priority right now is to get the maps complete after I finish this unexpected venture into Eve. I have a couple more things I want to do with that page.

What about this idea, since African Admixture in Europe is a keep, I want to try to improve that page and maybe take a synopsis back to the Genetic History of Europe.

Here's the basic problem, for me, I don't think we can go talking about genetics without providing the appropriate eye-candy, either in the form of diagrams, maps or tables. If I spend alot of time trying to fix bad edits, the eye-candy is not going to get built, so it is better for me to spend my time creating the media than arguing with extremist.PB666  20:46, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

El Sibai

El Sibai seem to agree with Arredi 2004's assertion of a middle eastern dispersal E1b1b1 back into Africa. The E1b1b1 frequency gradient, considered in the light of the haplotype diversity, suggests an early migration (Neolithic) from the Levant into North Africa that is consistent with a limited gene flow into Africa followed by a rapid expansion and later punctuated by some back migrations as a result of migratory events in the Mediterranean (Arredi et al.,2004). Wapondaponda (talk) 16:44, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

What did I say above The problem here is that subtyping may have resolved these reticulations and that these reticulations may not be as commonly shared across different populations. Consequently the failure to subtype E3b after it was known that subtypes have widely different geographic structures is a major flaw in this paper and it should have been revised prior to publication.

I said this just for you and you went ahead and ignored it anyway. PB666  19:16, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Hey

I think I owe you an apologize- I was actually going to message you yesterday to tell you that your reformat of the R1a1 page was very fair, and more concise. Did a really good job! Thank you, and I'am sorry. It's hard to find editors who will actually be balanced. I will give Jamesdean3295 the benefit on doubt. Cosmos416 15:55, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Good adds in the links!! Cosmos416 22:16, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Hey thanks for adding more studies and your edits! I think it's also a good idea for the r1a1 map to get an overhaul. I don't have the faintest clue on how to do that or even what studies to include, and how to manage it, etc. Hope you figure that one out! lol What do you think? Cosmos416 19:38, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Jamesdean3295

A tag has been placed on Jamesdean3295, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Misplaced Pages. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article that does not provide sufficient context to identify its subject. Please see Misplaced Pages:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. If you plan to expand the article, you can request that administrators wait a while for you to add contextual material. To do this, affix the template {{hangon}} to the article and state your intention on the article's talk page. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this.

Maybe you meant it for the article talk page, or the user's talk page? Cheers! --SV Resolution(Talk) 20:07, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

R1a postings from Jamesdean3295

Please explain to me why you think r1a is a domainant haplogroup in Southcentral Asia. ==

You said that I was trying to dismiss r1a in Southcentral Asia by calling it a pocket. If you look at the map that is clearly what it is. There is a corridor from Russia to Southcentral Asia that ends in a "pocket" or "bubble" or round shaped geographical area, of which the center, where r1a actually reaches more than 50% is an extremely small area compared to the European R1a.

R1a is not a Dominant Haplogroup in Southcentral Asia. There are Tribal groups that have high percentages of R1a because they do not mix with other groups in the area. There are no countries in Southcentral Asia in which R1a reaches a much higher level than 20% except Kyrgyzstan. This article is written in such a way that would imply that R1a is a dominant Haplogroup in Southcentral Asia, when in reality, R1a only accounts for a small fraction of Southcentral Asian men.Jamesdean3295

Regardless of weather or not you like my sources you have yet to sight a single source that proves that R1a1 surpasses 15% in Southcentral Asia.--Jamesdean3295 (talk) 09:09, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I think that you sited this pub med article to me on my talk page to illustrate that R1a surpasses 15% in India.

This article states that in the Indian sample R1a accounted for 15%.

Here is another article that says from 15 different tribes in India the average R1a was only 9%

The fact is that India is very Tribal and the different Tribes in India have varying degrees of R1a, but I think that the general consensus is that R1a does not surpass 15% if you factor in the entire population of India. I think that all of the evidence supports my theory that R1a only reaches high frequencies in certain tribes within South Asia.

As far as Central Asia R1a only reaches high frequency in Kyrgyzstan where R1a averages 35-40%. In Kazakhstan R1a only accounts for approximately 5%. The Uzbeks only average approximately 15%.

The Pub Med article said that in Pakistan R1a accounted for approximately 25%.

--Jamesdean3295 (talk) 20:09, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I am not trying to prove that R1a does not reach high frequency in Central and South Asia. I would be delighted if the majority of South and Central Asians belonged to R1a. Most of the Sources that I have seen suggest that R1a in India accounts for 15-20% of the male population. It would be impossible for anyone to be entirely sure given the vast population of South and Central Asia.

South Asia typically consists of Bangladesh, Bhutan, the Republic of India, the Maldives, Nepal, Pakistan and Sri Lanka. Some definitions may also include Afghanistan, Myanmar, Vietnam, Tibet, the British Indian Ocean Territories and Iran.

Central Asia is defined like this. Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan. Other areas are often included such as Mongolia, Afghanistan, most of Pakistan, north-eastern Iran, north-western India, and western parts of the People's Republic of China such as Xinjiang. South-western and middle China such as Tibet, Qinghai, Gansu and Inner Mongolia, and southern parts of Siberia may also be included in Central Asia.

I have seen different statistics on the percentage of R1a in Pakistan, but the pub med article that I sighted earlier said that in their sample R1a accounted for 25%. If you look at this map and the map on the R1a page. It looks like their is a thin stream of R1a that goes through Central Asia and rapidly decreases to either side. Furthermore the map on the R1a web page clearly shows that R1a only exists in the far North of India. The map illustrates that most of South and Central Asia is absent R1a. According to the world Haplogroups Map R1a accounts for 30-40% in North India and 5% in the South. Kyrgyzstan is shown as being 30-40%. Persia or Iran is shown to be 15% or more, which is also the figure given for Iran on Eupedia. Uzbeks are shown to 15% or more. Kazakhstan is shown to be 5%. Tibet is also shown to be 5%. If you factor in what would be the Russian part of Central Asia, those populations are shown to be 25%.

I have looked at all of the Asian Listings that you gave on the web sight and they clearly show that R1a frequencies vary from 70% in some South and Central Asian groups to Zero in others. To me it looks like R1a accounts for anywhere from 15-25% of the South and Central Asian populations depending on what Geographical areas you factor in.

It seems to me that their are still conflicting opinions in the academic community on this subject. I am sure as time progresses more information will be available on R1a in South an Central Asia.--Jamesdean3295 (talk) 10:02, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I really appreciate all of your advise. Are you actually affiliated with Misplaced Pages, because it sounds like you are quit sure of your opinions. Well whatever your qualifications maybe everyone has a right to have an opinion. I was wondering why you keep telling me not to sight the map on Misplaced Pages. You just sighted Misplaced Pages to me in the last message you sent me. You have your sources and that's great. It maybe that R1a is as high as 30% in Pakistan but, I'd say that's disputable. It sounds like you are really trying to prove that R1a reaches high frequency in Asia. Good luck, remember that the term South Asia doesn't necessarily even include Pakistan. What needs to happen is that samples need to be taken from many different parts of each country and from that you could come up with an accurate average, but then you would have to factor in all the different tribes, their frequency of R1a and what percentage of the population belonged to each tribe. --Jamesdean3295 (talk) 11:17, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I am not trying to get into an edit war, but please stick to the normal page format. List countries and tribes of highest membership along with percentages. West Asia is the Middle East and R1a is only 5-10% there. Don't take stuff down about the Vikings, that is the kind of thing that makes this interesting, unless you don't like Vikings, but most people do. Maybe you should lay off the percentages a little and write something about the connection between the Proto-Indo-Europeans and how they came to be or something.--Jamesdean3295 (talk) 11:59, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Andrew Lancaster stated that it was important to note that R1a is carried by an extremely large number of Asians.

The Percentages of R1a in Central and South are disputable. What is not disputable is that South Asia had far fewer people just decades ago. From 1991-2001 the population of India increased by 21%. This is a ridiculously fast pace of population growth for a Country that is already extremely overpopulated. Pakistan is even more densely poplulated. These countries have a major population control issue.

Numbers of males belonging to R1a in these areas have dramatically increased over the last century. R1a likely was at a range of 15-20% in these areas a century ago as it is today. The population of India has more than tripled in the last 50 years.

To say that, just because, these areas have an extreme population explosion problem that they are the origin of R1a is ridiculous. I would characterize Central and South Asia as having major overpopulation problem but not as have high levels of R1a within those populations.

The actual number of men carrying the R1a lineage in South and Central Asia is not relevant, the Percentage of males carrying the R1a lineage is, when describing areas of High Frequency of R1a.--Jamesdean3295 (talk) 20:59, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

The population issue is important when discussing the number of males carrying the R1a lineage in Asia. ==

I think this is a relevant issue not only in the discussion that you and I are having but also to the entire Asian R1a topic.

I think it is important to post these comments on both pages because I was responding to your argument, but I hope that others will join this discussion so that we can get other opinions on the topic.--Jamesdean3295 (talk) 21:15, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

thanks for looking after the R1a article, Andrew. I had noted it as a problem spot for some time but I never had the heart to tackle it. --dab (𒁳) 13:22, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Genetic Studies on Albanians

Thank you for your efforts on that section. I don't know if you have seen the pdf links I have posted in the talk page there they might be useful of improving that section (if you have spare time:). Bests Aigest (talk) 10:19, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Maybe we can add the one thing that both authors (Crucciani,Battaglia) agree that EV13 generated in situ in Balkans (probably in South Balkans giving the high % of both Greeks and Albanians?) and also their possible link to Cardium Pottery(Battaglia) or Bronze Age (Crucciani) culture? What do you think? Aigest (talk) 11:24, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I ment the population marked with EV13 was generated in situ in Balkans. Whether this was a population created in situ by the increase of existing EV13 mutation ( A single clade within E-M78 (E-V13) highlights a range expansion in the Bronze Age of southeastern Europe, which is also detected by haplogroup J-M12. Phylogeography pattern of molecular radiation and coalescence estimates for both haplogroups are similar and reveal that the genetic landscape of this region is, to a large extent, the consequence of a recent population growth in situ rather than the result of a mere flow of western Asian migrants in the early Neolithic. Crucciani 2007) or a population increase following newly created mutation of EV13 in the Balkans (In addition, the low frequency and variance associated to I-M423 and E-V13 in Anatolia and the Middle East, support an European Mesolithic origin of these two clades. Thus, these Balkan Mesolithic foragers with their own autochthonous genetic signatures, were destined to become the earliest to adopt farming, when it was subsequently introduced by a cadre of migrating farmers from the Near East. These initial local converted farmers became the principal agents spreading this economy using maritime leapfrog colonization strategies in the Adriatic and transmitting the Neolithic cultural package to other adjacent Mesolithic populations. The ensuing range expansions of E-V13 and I-M423 parallel in space and time the diffusion of Neolithic Impressed Ware, thereby supporting a case of cultural diffusion using genetic evidence. Battaglia 2008 ) it looks to me that both authors suggest that this population (of EV13 origin) was created in situ in the Balkans. As for its link with J-M12 noticed above by Crucciani (Semino put J-M12 in South Balkans Whereas J-M67* and J-M92 show higher frequencies and variances in Europe (0.40 and 0.32, respectively) and in Turkey (0.32 and 0.30, respectively ) than in the Middle East (0.17 and 0.09, respectively), J-M12(M102) shows its maximum frequency in the Balkans. In spite of the relative high value of variance of this haplogroup in Turkey (Cinniog˘ lu et al. 2004)—which, however, could be due to multiple arrivals—the pattern of distribution and the network of J-M12(M102) (figs. 2 and 4) are consistent with its diffusion in Europe from the southern Balkans.) but also the interpretation of Battaglia linking it to Cardium pottery, both point to a population increase in South Balkans than later entering Europe through water ways. So concluding in the end we have a population generated in South Balkans and subsequently spreading in Europe. Am I right? Aigest (talk) 13:58, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

What do you think to change only few words "from a common ancestor who lived in the Balkans in the late Mesolithic or Neolithic," to "from a local population who lived in the Balkans in the late Mesolithic or Neolithic," or something like that. I think is more correct to say population than individual. The local population of that time had that marker and part of them moved north and this is more correct form than just one single ancestor. Maybe the word "a (looks like just one) common ancestor" is somewhat confusing, what do you think? Aigest (talk) 10:49, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Can we say that "E3b1a2-V13 is typical of the southern Balkan regions" ? Aigest (talk) 11:01, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

No, I wasn't talking about the origin of EV-13 but for its characteristics, in this case typical of Southern Balkans. As I saw to the study above or even in other studies EV-13 marker is seen as typical of Southern Balkans marker, I mean it came from Southern Balkan into Europe, Right? Aigest (talk) 11:29, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Semino 2004 for J-M12 from Southern Balkans -> Europe "the pattern of distribution and the network of J-M12(M102) (figs. 2 and 4) are consistent with its diffusion in Europe from the southern Balkans" Crucciani 2007 linking V-13 and J-M12 "Asingle clade within E-M78 (E-V13) highlights a range expansion in the Bronze Age of southeastern Europe, which is also detected by haplogroup J-M12. Phylogeography pattern of molecular radiation and coalescence estimates for both haplogroups are similar and reveal that the genetic landscape of this region is, to a large extent, the consequence of a recent population growth in situ rather than the result of a mere flow of western Asian migrants in the early Neolithic." and also suggesting referring to clinal pattern frequency the same movement Southern Balkan -> Europe "Haplogroup E-V13 is the only E-M78 lineage that reaches the highest frequencies out of Africa. In fact, it represents about 85% of the European E-M78 chromosomes with a clinal pattern of frequency distribution from the southern Balkan peninsula (19.6%) to western Europe (2.5%)." and Battaglia 2008 linking it to Cardium Pottery again Southern Balkan -> Europe (see Cardium Pottery link in wiki) "In addition, the low frequency and variance associated to I-M423 and E-V13 in Anatolia and the Middle East, support an European Mesolithic origin of these two clades. Thus, these Balkan Mesolithic foragers with their own autochthonous genetic signatures, were destined to become the earliest to adopt farming, when it was subsequently introduced by a cadre of migrating farmers from the Near East. These initial local converted farmers became the principal agents spreading this economy using maritime leapfrog colonization strategies in the Adriatic and transmitting the Neolithic cultural package to other adjacent Mesolithic populations. The ensuing range expansions of E-V13 and I-M423 parallel in space and time the diffusion of Neolithic Impressed Ware, thereby supporting a case of cultural diffusion using genetic evidence." . If you see all of them suggest a spread to Europe from Southern Balkans making it a typical marker for a descendance from Southern populations origin just like this study with the link here says "typical of Southern Balkan regions", am I right? Aigest (talk) 12:08, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Even Pericic suggest from Southern Balkans -> Europe here "The spatial pattern shown in figure 4(C) depicts a nonuniform E3b1 geographic distribution with a frequency peak centered in south Europe and SEE (13%– 16% in southern Italians and 17%–27% in the Balkans). Declining frequencies are evident toward western (10% in northern and central Italians), central, and eastern Europe (from 4% to 10% in Polish, Russians, mainland Croatians,Ukrainians, Hungarians, Herzegovinians, and Bosnians)." and here "These observations hint a mosaic of different E3b1 dispersal modes over a short geographic distance and point to the Vardar-Morava-Danube river system....as one of major routes for E3b1, in fact E3b1a, expansion from south and southeastern to continental Europe. In fact, dispersals of farmers throughout the Vardar- Morava-Danube catchments basin are also evidenced in the archaeological record (Tringham 2000)." So for Pericic it entered Europe from south Ballkan Vardar (Sesklo - Dimini culture) following river ways.

As for Battaglia he suggest that when he had in mind Cardium Pottery (pre-Sesklo) same area, south Balkan "these Balkan Mesolithic foragers with their own autochthonous genetic signatures, were destined to become the earliest to adopt farming, when it was subsequently introduced by a cadre of migrating farmers from the Near East. These initial local converted farmers became the principal agents spreading this economy using maritime leapfrog colonization strategies in the Adriatic and transmitting the Neolithic cultural package to other adjacent Mesolithic populations." only that he suggests that they moved from Sesklo to Adriatic not following river systems, but again the origin remains in Sesklo area, South Balkans, right? Aigest (talk) 13:19, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Also King et al 2008 () suggest a Southern Balkan origin expanding further from that. What do you think? Aigest (talk) 13:35, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I was just reading this and the statement there "..E3b1a2-V13 is typical of the southern Balkan regions.." brought in mind all the others. In fact looking back it would look like WP:SYNTH (albeit the direct reference of the article itself), but the way I see all the authors point to south Balkans ( somewhere in today's Greece territory and Greece quoting from wiki:) "is a country in southeastern Europe, situated on the southern end of the Balkan Peninsula") I find it logical explanation of all their findings that from there the population moved into Europe from river basins or along coast of Adriatic sea or both ways. This fits even with archaeology, Refrew model etc don't you think? Aigest (talk) 14:32, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree for WP:SYNTH as I explained above (no need to put in the article), this was more important for my personal knowledge than the article, however it would have been great if someone could have used those data in a scientific study concerning the possible creation of Albanian population, migrations, mixings, timings, population size reduction or founder effect etc. Thanks for the help anyway, you have done a great job there.

P.S. Now I know where to get help if I find more genetic articles;) Aigest (talk) 06:17, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Removal of PROD from Eurasian Adam

Hello Andrew Lancaster, this is an automated message from SDPatrolBot to inform you the PROD template you added to Eurasian Adam has been removed. It was removed by Small Victory with the following edit summary '(Nominator misread the article. See Talk.)'. Please consider discussing your concerns with Small Victory before pursuing deletion further yourself. If you still think the article should be deleted after communicating with the 'dePRODer,' you may want to send the article to AfD for community discussion. Thank you, SDPatrolBot (talk) 01:06, 2 September 2009 (UTC) (Learn how to opt out of these messages)

Andrew I completely understand that you want to list Asia in the High Frequency box.

I completely agree that Asia should be sighted as a place where R1a reaches high frequency. The purpose of the High Frequency box is to list countries with the highest frequencies. It is necessary to add % values to these areas in the high frequency box when sighting a particular area. I don't think that South Asia should even be in the high frequency box because 15-20% is not high frequency. The only countries that should be listed in the high frequency box are countries where R1a is greater than 40%. Or you could list the individual tribes in which R1a is greater than 40%. If you insist on listing Asia in the high frequency box then a value needs to be place on that listing. --Jamesdean3295 (talk) 06:26, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

the r1a artcile change

Hi Andrew. Sorry, I'm a newbie. I didn't realize i had to use the talk page untill now.

"I suggest you read you should always read through any article you want to edit, and check whether all of what you are saying is relevant, and in the right section and whether it has already been inserted by others. "

- As for how it fits, I tried to make it fit, but English is not my mother tongue which is a major problem for this kind of exercice (i'm that calabasas guy in the discussion page of R1a you may remember). Noone adding these informations, I thought I would try to do it.

- I checked and I didn't see anything about any of the informations I mentionned.

You say that the Eulau findings has been mentionned but I wasn't able to find it in the article with research w/ words such as "Eulau" or "corded" & "ware". Can you help me to see it ?

- As for the wrong section, yes, that was a blunder, sorry for that and thanks for your patience.

Your revision of my input seems to leave too much informations aside.

"Blond Hair and Blue eyes have nothing to do with this article."

On the contrary, a siberian (and strongly supposed to be indo-iranian) population with a majority of such characteristics in its population, is very likely to have its origin close to Europe. Phenotypes do have an hinting value here. This gives even more probatory strength concerning the origin of this R1a1 WHICH is the _purpose_ of the section.

also :

- You removed the percentages which IMO are pretty meaningful, especially in their historical context.

- The Kazkhstan findings have been discarded. While they do not mention R1a1, they do prove that the population was of west eurasian origin. Later findings have shown that R1a was present in this region in bronze age. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Waggg (talk • contribs) 14:54, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Maps

I am going back to work on the maps, for a time the first will be EM-78. What needs to be done to improve it?PB666  03:17, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I am looking at the following table Table 1 Y-chromosome Hg frequencies (%) and heterogeneities (H7SD) in Iberian populations I notice that there is no information in this table concerning E3b1a (E1b1b1a)?PB666  03:42, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

The problem with IberianM817201samples.gif is too much detail, the frequencies differ from other studies, however I supposed I can append that data onto the current map. I am going to work from the Cruciani data for M-78. You noted that Serbian frequencies were too low, I moved the misplaced coloration to Slovenia, but is there Serbian, Bosnian or Kosovar data. From there I will work toward M-35* and E1b1b1c. I notice that the Admins have finally figure SV out, i expect we will see more sockpuppets.PB666  16:00, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Y-Chromosome Variation Among Sudanese: Restricted Gene Flow, Concordance With Language, Geography, and History. Hisham Y. Hassan,1 Peter A. Underhill,2 Luca L. Cavalli-Sforza,2 and Muntaser E. Ibrahim1*. They break down Sudan very nicely, however they fail to give percentages. The do a good job illustrating where they sampled from however, if this data was broken down according to percent, the it would be fair game for the map.PB666  02:10, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I am going through Cruciani data on M35*, the differences between older studies is pretty remarkable. Am I making the assumption here that Cruciani assigned these older M35* to other clad, and Am I also making an assumption in saying that if the do full sequencing on Somalian and South African M35 that these may be assigned to new clades? Is this the reason the map is saying, if so the M35* Map is not of much utility.PB666  01:37, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

With regard to Cruciani data here There is an apparent error under the column heading M123+(Always M78+) I think you meant Always M35+, if not pipe me a reply.PB666  03:01, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

E-M33

Is there any recent data for E-M33?PB666  15:43, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

E-M123

Errors on this page: The values for Semino 2004 are presented as percentages in Table 1, Ergo Algeria 3.1% of 32 = 1 (0.992) of 32 the same was also confirmed for Tunisia 5.2% of 58 = 3 (3.016) however in the table these are presented as 9.69% and 8.97% IOW a percent was treated absolute frequency and used to calculate a percent. You can verify this by comparing column Hg E (%) in Table 1 to the some of all subclads. As per the discussion, whenever I am using external controls if they have not given control absolute frequencies, then first their percents are converted back to absooute frequencies, I have found numerous errors that way. The next think I do is to create a single selection probability distribution. Looking at the E-M123_data page you can see the value of doing that. I also now have to correct the map for E123.PB666  21:21, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Also, Omani Arabs should be 10% not 0.10%

On monday, I will see if I can find the paper. PB666  07:38, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

This is what I think you are looking for.

They do not give a table of what these Haplotypes are I gathered the following M122 (M134 and LINE-1/M159) 24–30% M17(SRY-1532, SRY10831) Salar (17%) Bo’an (26%) and Dongxiang (28%), M130 Salar (7%), Bo’an (3%), and Dongxiang (0%).

There are at least 4 other types present M45, M173, M9, M119, M95, M89/213, M172 in a very low quality graphical presentation. M45 Salar (4%), Bo’an (6%), and Dongxiang (9%) M173 Salar (4%), Bo’an (0%), and Dongxiang (4%) M9 Salar (10%), Bo’an (10%), and Dongxiang (18%) M119 Salar (3%), Bo’an (0%), and Dongxiang (0%) M95 Salar (18%), Bo’an (3%), and Dongxiang (2%) M89/213 Salar (0%), Bo’an (9%), and Dongxiang (4%) M172 Salar (9%), Bo’an (9%), and Dongxiang (11%) PB666  14:11, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Maternal origins of European Hunter Gatherers

This may be of some value in these articles....Genetic Discontinuity Between Local Hunter-Gatherers and Central Europe’s First Farmers (Found in Science Express)

Nonetheless, it is intriguing to note that 82% of our 22 hunter-gatherer individuals carried clade U . ...... Europeans today have moderate frequencies of U5 types, ranging from about 1-5% along the Mediterranean coastline to 5-7% in most core European areas, and rising to 10-20% in northeastern European Uralic-speakers. . .

Y-DNA haplogroups by ethnic groups

Does this article Y-DNA haplogroups by ethnic groups, have a realistic chance of accurately displaying the correct information. Wapondaponda (talk) 04:12, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

R1a/R1a1 (Nasidze) Iran

Dear Andrew if you take a look at the table on http://www.eva.mpg.de/genetics/pdf/Caucasus_big_paper.pdf Tehrani carry 0.2 = 20% R1a1 Isfahani carry 0.18 = 18% R1a1 The chart on that page confirms it too, R1a1 = sky blue What I edited was correct, —Preceding unsigned comment added by R1000R1000 (talk • contribs) 08:02, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Your comments at User talk:Small Victory

Andrew, if flogging a dead horse doesn't do any good, then neither does continuing to argue with a blocked editor. I know you are frustrated by him, but the problem has been solved (at least for a while). I suggest you concentrate on editing articles rather than continuing to argue with him. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:47, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

R1b

Hey Andrew, been well ? Has that new article on R1b by Cruciani come out yet ? ? Hxseek (talk) 22:42, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Origins of Albanians

Thanks you for being part of the discussion. What concerned me and some other editors in that article was the sentence that stated that Illyrians are extinct. While that could be the case, we can never be certain, so I required a more broader view on the issue. I tried to explain other theories concerning the issue, and the good thing is, it had a sort of success (for the first time with this Megistias guy) Here is his change. —Anna Comnena (talk) 23:54, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

What about this text?

As for the fate of Illyrians in Illyria proper there is no consensus among historians. Traditionally scholars have seen the Illyrians as proto Albanians.(1)(2) Although this hypothesis makes geographic and historical sense(3) this is untestable since we know little about Illyrian(4) The competing hypotheses that derives Albanian from Thracian or Dacian are likewise untestable since little is known about them too(5)(6)

• (1)Traditionally scholars have seen the Dacians as ancestors of the modern Rumanians and Vlachs, and the Illyrians as the proto-Albanians. ... However, from time to time these views have been challenged, very frequently for modern nationalistic reasons The Early Medieval Balkans: A Critical Survey from the Sixth to the Late Twelfth Century By John Van Antwerp Fine Edition: reissue, illustrated Published by University of Michigan Press, 1991 ISBN 0472081497, 9780472081493 p. 10</ref>
• (2)Traditionally, Albanian is identified as the descendant of Illyrian Sociolinguistics: an international handbook of the science of language and society By Ulrich Ammon, Norbert Dittmar, Klaus J. Mattheier, Peter Trudgill Edition: 2 Published by Walter de Gruyter, 2006 ISBN 3110184184, 9783110184181 p 1874
• (3)The origins of the Albanians cannot be separated from the problem of assigning their linguistic ancestors to one of the three main groups of the Balkans:Dacians, Thracians, or Illyrians. Although there are some lexical items that appear to be shared between Romanian (and by extension Dacian) and Albanian, by far the strongest connections can be argued between Albanian and Illyrian. The latter was attested in what is historically regarded as Albanian territory since our records of Illyrian occupation. The loanwords from Greek and Latin date back to before the Christian era and suggest that the ancestors of Albanian must have occupied Albania by then to have absorbed such loans from their historical neighbors. As the Illyrians occupied Albanian territory at this time, they are the most likely recipients of such loans. Finally as Shaban Demiraj argues the ancient Illyrian placenames of the region have achieved their current form through the natural application of the phonetic rules governing Albanian eg Durrachion>Alb Durrës(with Albanian initial accent) or Illyrian Aulona> Alb Vlonë`Vlorë (with Albanian rhotacism in Tosk) (page 11) Encyclopedia of Indo-European culture By J. P. Mallory, Douglas Q. Adams Edition: illustrated Published by Taylor & Francis, 1997 ISBN 1884964982, 9781884964985
• (4)"The widespread assertion that it is the modern-day descendant of Illyrian, spoken in much the same region during classical times, makes geographic and historical sense, but it is linguistically untestable since we know so little about Illyrian"..Indo-European Language and Culture: An Introduction Blackwell Textbooks in Linguistics Author Benjamin W. Fortson, IV Edition 2 Publisher John Wiley and Sons, 2009 ISBN 1405188960, 9781405188968 p. 446 )
• (5)"Competing hypotheses likewise untestable would derive Albanian from Thracian, another lost language farther east than Illyrian, or form Daco-Mysian, a hypothetical mixtor or ancestor of Thracian, Illyrian and the nearly unknown language of Dacia (a nearby Roman province)"Indo-European Language and Culture: An Introduction Blackwell Textbooks in Linguistics Author Benjamin W. Fortson, IV Edition 2 Publisher John Wiley and Sons, 2009 ISBN 1405188960, 9781405188968 p. 446
• (6)The linguistic records of Illyrians Thracians and Dacians are just sufficient to make it reasonably certain that they were all Indo-European. Nothing known of them so far shows any particular connection with what we know of Albanian Encyclopedia of Indo-European culture By J. P. Mallory, Douglas Q. Adams Edition: illustrated Published by Taylor & Francis, 1997 ISBN 1884964982, 9781884964985 p. 9

Is it ok? Aigest (talk) 11:01, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I was making two discussions at the same time. So you were right. I was saying that there should be a categorization of information. Illyrian-Albanian theory is among the oldest and most accepted theory of Albanian origins. (As you can see by sources that Aigest provided, and there are many many more), however since it is just a theory, it should be treated as such. So a good (if not equal) amount of space should be given to other theories too. The main challenge in all this issue is politics. The article should be formed in such a way that NO (as less as possible) political connotation can be present. So even small details are of great importance. And it is on these details that the problem lays. —Anna Comnena (talk) 11:44, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I think discussion should continue on the article talkpage. My main concern was that people should not try to press too hard for anything which is unlikely to ever be agree by others. For example, I think everyone is now agreeing that pushing for any kind of text which proclaims that there is a clear leading theory will be controversial.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:34, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I thought the text describes the situation perfectly. Even the google test supports it

• Albanian+Illyrian 1,740,000 results
• Albanian+Dacian 345,000 results
• Albanian+Thracian 144,000 results

Practically every book published by non biased scholars regarding Albanian topics, history sociology etc maintains that view. If this is correct or not that is another issue but generally when a book is written about Albanians says that without going in details. Keeping in mind that this is the oldest theory since 1854 (Hahn)and continuing through these days, still have more support while being very common place for authors to say that "Albanians descend from Illyrians" in English published sources, therefore the "traditional" view (I am not saying scientific view) is quite the correct term to be used. Aigest (talk) 13:08, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

It is certainly a well known and common theory. No doubt about it.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:34, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Eulau graves

Hello Andrew. I was looking this evening at the[REDACTED] entry on the Lichtenstein Cave, and wondering why there's not a corresponding entry about the gravesite found at Eulau near Naumburg in Saxony-Anhalt, Germany, last year? As you well know, that trove yielded a bunch of remains, including three individuals as part of a nuclear family with R1a. I just wanted to mention this as I think if Lichtenstein deserves an entry, certainly the find at Eulau of even earlier Bronze Age folks (some Indo-European) would seem to merit an entry of its own. (There is a brief reference to the find in the Kurgan hypothesis[REDACTED] piece.) Hope all is well. Regards, MarmadukePercy (talk) 05:10, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Hey. I'll try to get to that Eulau graves stub soon. I have a new Scottish clan entry to tackle, and more than a few loose ends in New England to tie up, but I hope to write the Eulau entry before long. Please have a close look to doublecheck it. The discovery deserves way more than the one sentence it merits by way of the Kurgan hypothesis. Incidentally, how about that hoard of Anglo-Saxon gold in Staffordshire? Regards, MarmadukePercy (talk) 02:39, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Hey Andrew, I added a brief graf on the Eulau discovery to the R1a page, as well as a footnote to the original paper by Haak et al. Please have a look and make sure I got it all correct. I wanted to add this in advance of writing a stub on the find. Thanks! MarmadukePercy (talk) 07:40, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Also, I think we can say that the Eulau find represents some of the earliest Y-DNA extracted from ancient remains, or at least that's what I take away from Jean's entry on the subject. Here is Dienekes' table. (Obviously there was the Cheddar Man and even more ancient finds that were mitochondrial.) But I wanted to run this by you first before inserting it. Also, the entry says the Eulau find is among the earliest indications of the spread of R1a among Corded Ware peoples. Obviously, that should probably read: 'the earliest documented.' I didn't add anything about the Kurgan hypothesis to the graf. MarmadukePercy (talk) 07:45, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

No worries. I just wanted to make sure you concurred with the wording I used. Thanks. MarmadukePercy (talk) 16:12, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

E1b1b1b

I noticed in the text on the E1b1b page that a number of percentages are given for various sites that are not currently updated in the image, including the western Desert for egypt. Are these additional percentages correct?PB666  21:26, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

These may be of some interest to you

Its open access."The Neandertal genome and ancient DNA authenticity". EMBO J. 28 (17): 2494–502. 2009. doi:10.1038/emboj.2009.222. PMC 2725275. PMID 19661919. {{cite journal}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help); Unknown parameter |authors= ignored (help)CS1 maint: PMC format (link)PB666  04:37, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

also:Jewish Priesthood Has Multiple Lineages, New Genetic Research Indicates

Fault in Y chromosomal clock may lie in the chimpanzee males sperm production. Human-chimp interbreeding challenged

"Doubts about complex speciation between humasn and chimpanzees" Trends in Ecology and Evolution. 24 (10) 2009 page 533- 540

"Evolution of X-Degenerate Y Chromosome genes in Greater Apes: Conseravtion of gene contest in HUmans and Gorillas but not chimpanzees" J. Mol. Evol (2009) 68:134-144.

Bar Yosef 1987

I noticed you cited this article, Pleistocene connections between Africa and SouthWest Asia: an archaeological perspective in your publication. I haven't been able to access the article, but I was interested in finding out more about the publication for the article on the Natufians. Wapondaponda (talk) 18:03, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Explain First

PROVIDE A DIRECT PASSAGE OR CITATION VERIFYING YOUR CLAIMS. VERIFICATION.

WHERE IN THOSE SOURCES DOES IT MAKE ANY TYPE OF CLAIM(S) IN REGARDS TO Kivisild's Study from 2003. SHOW DIRECTLY AND STOP STALLING.

From Misplaced Pages:

"Misplaced Pages does not publish original research or original thought. This includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position. This means that Misplaced Pages is not the place to publish your own opinions, experiences, arguments, or conclusions."

NOW...WHERE IN THOSE SOURCES DOES IT MAKE ANY TYPE OF CLAIM(S) IN REGARDS TO Kivisild's Study from 2003. Because IF YOU CAN'T: This Violates the synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position and also unpublished analysis section of Original Research. Cosmos416 02:32, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Revenge edits??? I asked for input, not a COMPROMISE ON SOMETHING THAT VIOLATES WIKIPEDIA'S synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position.

I used the same principles you were using, and found out it's all ORIGINAL RESEARCH to employ what you guys are employing. So I'm pointing that out. It's clear from your editing you try and position everything towards Eastern Europe. It's funny cause you avoid the synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position' because you have not even demonstrated that WHERE IN THOSE SOURCES DOES IT MAKE ANY TYPE OF CLAIM(S) IN REGARDS TO Kivisild's Study from 2003. Cosmos416 16:39, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

What are "my claims"? You called me to look at an edit by another author. I adjusted it, to try to make sure your concerns were resolved. The edit as it now stands in modified form does not even contain any claims except a dry comment about which data was not included in a particular study. Take a step back and look at this.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:56, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

before responding to this individual further check

Re-read this, it answers all of your questions.

(1) CONSENSUS CAN NOT OVERRIDE[REDACTED] POLICY ON ORIGINAL RESEARCH

(2) Don't be a sock and make baseless claims like WP:POINT, which has no bearing. Like (a) I said I was following your OWN principles after you had legitimized it, and (b), I found it out AFTER IT WAS AGAINST[REDACTED] ORIGINAL POLICY, So now I will FOLLOW guidelines, AS SHOULD ALL OF YOU (c)STICK TO THE FACTS and DON'T PERSONALLY ATTACK ME.

(3) Point out in those 4 sources provided where does it make any type of CLAIM(S) DIRECTLY in regards to Kivisild's study from 2003.

(4) If you can't (like you said: "The sources HXseek has added at your insistence were not intended to be sources ABOUT Kivisild, but rather examples of data from the other area.") > THAN THAT IS: synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position Do you have trouble understanding that? Than maybe you should go back to school. I have to go to my girlfriend's house for Thanksgiving, I hope you understand wikipedia: original research.

--Andrew, YOU know it's not a "dry comment". It's putting 4 unrelated published studies that serves to position itself against and over Kivilid's study. That is in Violation in Misplaced Pages's Orginial Research Policy of:synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position'. Cosmos416 17:20, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Berber people

The article Berber people has a few sections on genetics. The sections are quite detailed but may need some tweaking. I will take a look, but I think some contributions from you could improve the article. Wapondaponda (talk) 17:16, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

My latest creation :^)

Portal:Molecular_Anthropology. In doing this I realized there is no real organization to the Human genetic history project. We need to do better catagorization of pages.PB666  04:41, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Age of R1a

Hello Andrew. I reverted a poster's claims about the age of R1a, but I may have erred. In any case, I felt like this should be discussed and agreed upon on the talk page, as it's such a potentially divisive topic. I do see some discussion there, but wasn't sure there was any sort of concensus – nor any good, verifiable recent estimate from experts. You might want to take a look. All best, MarmadukePercy (talk) 01:31, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Apparently Karafet et al. (2008) give a TMRCA for R1a of 18,000 years. I see other guesses as young as 7,000 years. I'll keep looking into this, but it appears we may need to rejigger the age dates. MarmadukePercy (talk) 16:28, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Edit to R1a

Hello. Yes, the broad sweep of Northern Europe, included in most all pieces about R1a, needs to be included, because it is *not* part of Eastern Europe nor Central Europe. I'm referring to the rates in Norway specifically, where it is quite high and from which it likely spread to the British Isles. I had many months ago added the mention of Iceland in the text, where the R1a1 accounts for something like a third of the Y-dna. Certainly Scandinavia – specifically Norway – needs to be indicated as it's probably a quarter of the population. Not only that, but a case can be made, I think, that the R1a population in Norway is important beyond its size because thanks to the ramblings of the Vikings, it was so widely spread from that location. MarmadukePercy (talk) 16:19, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Scandinavia is not in Eastern Europe. If you'll look within[REDACTED] itself, it classifies Scandinavia as within Northern Europe. I don't argue for including Britain, and haven't, but certainly the level within Norway was disproportionate to its size (which was still substantial), as it became the jumping-off point of the spread of R1a across wide swaths of territory traveled by the Vikings. MarmadukePercy (talk) 16:44, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I have changed the lede to remove the reference to Northern Europe, which was too broad, as you suggested. I have instead substituted Scandinavia, and moved it from the front end where there are 'substantial' populations, to the back end where the haplogroup is found in 'certain populations.' I think aside from taking note of one of the main sources behind the spread of R1a1, the sentence as now configured gives an idea of the sheer arc of the haplogroup, which is obviously enormous. MarmadukePercy (talk) 06:27, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Hey Andrew, R1a appears to be the topic of the day, I moved the table to its own page. I was checking out the references and I found that Adams et al. (2008) does not exist in the citations. There are a few other Harvtext links that don't work.PB666  00:43, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Also I have changed some of the text-clades into tabled {{tl:clade}} however to try to condense things, maybe too much.PB666  00:43, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the topic, once I condense there was not enough for multiple sections, according to the guidelines of having dangling sentences in sections I condense Europe into one section. Frankly I think the Balkan slavs, Northern slavs and Scandinavians should be treated in one paragraph.PB666  23:51, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I should note regarding the Pas Valley and Neolithic Central Europeans. A strong HLA marker for Central Europeans is the A3-B7-DR15-DQ6 haplotype, it is at unexpectedly high frequencies in the Pas Valley dwellers of Spain, I always considered that the population may have been cut off from other Europeans by a strange migration westward, however there is signficant admixture and African derived genetics also.

R1 clade

I was getting to updating the cladogram, adding subbranch 334 when I noticed the following:

R1-R1a : M420, M449, M511, M513

R1a-R1a1 : M448, M459, M516

R1a1-R1a1a : M17, M198, M417, M512, M514, M515, Page7

R1a1a8: Page68

These additional mutations, which I did not consider increases the age of R1 branch and R1a branching, but decrease the age of the M1a1a clade. Are we going to add these new mutations to the branch diagram or would it be better to footnote these, I notice also the that R1a page defining mutations is obsolete.

SRY1532.2 also known as SRY10831.2 has normally been said to define R1a. M17 and M198 define the very dominant sub-clade usually called R1a1. (They always appear together so far.) PB666  06:34, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

That's exactly what my concern was. The L62 and L63 mutations are missing, whereas the have M420, M449, M511, M513. Note they did not underline any of the 4, which means either they don't know, or these are additional mutations. The problem with SNP clocking is that it appears they have no idea how many mutations there are between any well studied haplotype and the seqMRCA.

We are going to need an R1a1a page. Cadenas2008 created the page on October 24th, sure would have been nice if he had told someone. I am going to start working on refining that page.PB666  22:02, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Note I suggested Haplogroup R1a1a (Y-DNA) not R1a1a1. This is from Nortvert A Closing Note of Caution: A TMRCA estimate for a pair of present-day haplotypes is a fairly blunt tool at best, and it is easy to read too much into it. The statistical confidence intervals for such estimations are very wide, even if very high confidence in the underlying mutation model for the markers were at hand, which is not yet the case. But with that caveat, if the tool is to be used at all, it should not start from the very beginning with up to 100 percent error due to neglect of using information on the particular haplotypes involved. Such information pertinent to the haplotypes under examination is now readily available in the present Y-STR databases—databases that are growing rapidly, especially for certain regions of the world.

You can't have a mutation model without a fairly complete set of mutations between clade branches. Given this, quantities of mutations in the peripheral branches relative to SNPs can give fairly good estimates particularly with bushy trees, is the long branches that give the most problem. Consider the following, Standard error = Variance/ (N)^0.5. If the number of branches is 4 versus 2 then the branch structure then the confidence range drops by 30%, if the branches then increase to 8 then the confidence range drops by another 30% and so on. The problem with STRs is saturation. The paper I am referring to observed saturation in the extant generations, and this is occurring in the rapidly evolving STRs. The mutation rate of SNPs are so low and so spread out over the Y chromosome reversals will only occur on disgenic sites, or extremely are hypervariable sites which can be masked if observed. As a tree coalesces toward a single point in a maximum parsimony analysis the individual age estimates are impeded by short branch lengths (binomial probability distribution can be easily done to replace Nortvert's Monte Carlo analysis). However the number of branches in the periphery increase the accuracy of determining more basal branch times. These time begin to loose accuracy as the tree collapses because there are fewer defining mutations with the branches until finally there are two branches. Very long branches also mask the effects of saturation, as reticulations that are visible in surface branches disappear in older branches.PB666  16:57, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

R1a1a

"Sharma et al. (2009) found 22.8% R1a*" - Did Underhill09 type these R1a* variants?PB666  03:51, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

They did not type these variants, Sharma et al calls R1a1* R1a*, they typed no other version of R1*

Ergo these are R1a1*. J&K Brahmins had 2 of 51 R1a*(R1a1*) and this group did have unclassified R1*. Location appears to be in Datia.PB666  19:04, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

The R1a1a page was looking OK, IMHO. You are however right, I knew this was going to be complicated deal and I was hoping to create the page in a sandbox. However, it was already created. The R1a page is more of a problem. The material on the R1a1a was no less than a October 23rd variant of the R1a page, without modification and with no consideration of the inconsistencies, essentially a crop and plop split.

In returning to the old page the following decisison making needs to be made.

1. Remove all content from the R1a1a page and redirect it to the R1a page.
2. Return it to an almost R1a1a to a duplicate of R1a, which is most likely to be deleted and a merge placed on it, and I see it as likely that within several months the literature would force a split.
3. Blank and Delete the R1a1a page.

3, at this point is out. 2 only forestalls the inevitable. State your concerns on either page and lets work to fix these.PB666  22:08, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

No, please let's first create a situation where we can understand what we are reading. The removal of all the talkpage material here for example makes any discussion a joke.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 22:12, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't think so, I think you are emotionally tied to a vision of the article WP:OWN