GENEALOGY-DNA-L ArchivesArchiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2005-05 > 1117223597
Subject: Re: [DNA] Middle Eastern ancestral markers on new Euro 1.0 test
Date: Fri, 27 May 2005 15:53:17 EDT
Some individual haplotypes and
> haplogroups appear within the three divisions of Europeans, Africans, and
> Asians, which just reinforces the connections within the human race. No
> "pure" result should be expected in the short time period we have had for
> the development of differences.
In a message dated 5/27/2005 10:47:52 A.M. Pacific Standard Time,
I have hard evidence in my own results suggesting that this is a fiction in
the 'one-world' universalist/monotheist category. If that were true,
everybody should show majority sub-Saharan African ancestry, with slight
inclusions of these other later groups. This obviously does not happen
I'm not sure which of us is misunderstanding what here, but either I don't
understand your reasoning or I think I or you misread the original post.
So let me rephrase the original post in my understanding.
There are haplogroups and haplotypes in those haplogroups that will show up
in the European population, the African population and the Asian population.
The appearance of these in all three populations shows how humans are
connected, regardless of residence, ethnicity, skin tone, physical features, etc.
The time since we had a common ancestor has not been long enough to allow any
haplogroup or haplotype to become a "pure" representative of a particular
region -- i.e. no region has become the exclusive territory of one particular
[NOTE: this isn't quite right, since there is the group found ONLY in
sub-saharan Africa, no? I don't recall if this an mtDNA or Y-DNA group}
Now to your reasoning: Why would we all show majority sub-Saharan ancestry
if the groups that moved out of sub-saharan Africa mutated into other
haplogroups and mitogroups and the sub-saharan group never left sub-sahara?
Instead we are a mix of these other groups which haven't yet mutated so far
away from each other as to be uniquely found in one particular region (perhaps
with the exception of the NA X compared to the European X]
Your own results (one datapoint) don't prove or disprove the original
statement! Europe is full of people who for whatever reason (intermarriage only
among their own kind, isolation, etc) have "100 %" R1b1c and H5 for example --
pretty 100% European right? However it's also full of people who are a
mixture of J2, R1b1c, G2, E3b and several mitogroups as well!
To the contrary, your one datapoint is only proof that we aren't all