GENEALOGY-DNA-L Archives

Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2012-02 > 1329102305


From: "Anatole Klyosov" <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] Out of Africa
Date: Sun, 12 Feb 2012 22:05:05 -0500
References: <mailman.1528.1329093099.1055.genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com>


> >>From: "Kenneth Nordtvedt" <>
>>.>..all y clade populations we see today have about the same
>>> length of time, one way or the other, back to our common y ancestor.

>> From: Anatole Klyosov
>> Well, they are not.

> From: "Kenneth Nordtvedt" <>
>Well, they are, "one way or the other" as I said ---
>...The comment above was made in context of questioning
> what sense, if any, A can be called the oldest whatever.

My comment:

Well, they maybe are "the other way", but not "one way". Indeed, in the long
run haplogroup A and all other haplogroups have one common ancestor,
however, it is like to say that Beacon Hill in Boston and Mount Everest stay
on the same ground. Technically it is true, however, there are many ways to
have a different view at those two elevations.

Haplogroup A has a continuous evolution of some 132,000 years, while all
other haplogroups, from B to T, form a ladder which practically started to
expand only some 64,000 years ago, apparently after a severe population
bottleneck. In that regard the "length of time" is very different.

>A and YxA have to be compared to see which has
>the most early node structure in order to give
> any sense to talk about one being older than the other.

It has been compared. That is why I am talking about it.

AK:
> It depends on how you define haplogroup A.

KN:
>Well, I don't define A as
> including genetic Adam like some websites do. Adam will be ancestral to
> both A and YxA; actually the most recent such male. A has at least one
> snp
> which YxA does not have. And YxA has at least one snp which A does not
> have. A and YxA are parallel groups. Adam would have had neither snp.

This is correct. However, "Adam" (which I call "alpha-haplogroup") had
plenty
of SNPs which present in both Africans and non-Africans. Cruciani has found
a
number of them, but on some reason he assigned them to haplogroup A. That is
why
I have noticed in the preceding message that why haplogroup A would not he
extended
down to chimpanzee. In that case all humans would have descended
from haplogroup A by default.

> From: "Lawrence Mayka" <>
> 1) The forum post hyperlinked below includes the new haplotree for yDNA A.
> Note the substantial rearrangement forced by new discoveries, including
> the
> "polarity reversal" of some SNPs. (Some SNP alleles that were thought to
> be
> derived are actually ancestral, and vice-versa.) So for example, M91 and
> P97 are actually derived in BT and ancestral in what we used to call A.
> http://dna-forums.org/index.php?/topic/17294-new-snps-in-the-haplogroup-a/pa
> ge__view__findpost__p__302983
> or
> http://tinyurl.com/new-a-tree

It is of interest, Larry, that you made a reference not to a scientific
publication, not to
the ISOGG "official" diagram, but to an opinion expressed on a forum. By the
way, that
"polarity reversal" of M91 and P97, and some other SNPs was suggested by Dr.
Igor
Rozhanskii at the Russian discussion forum "Rodstvo" in December 2011.
However,
this SNP-acrobatics, albeit interesting, does not make haplogroup A
ancestral to any
other haplogroup. Before that trick M91 was in haplogroup A and not in any
other
haplogroup, now it is in any other haplogroup but not in M91. What is the
point?

Regards,

Anatole Klyosov

This thread: