GENEALOGY-DNA-L Archives

Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2012-02 > 1329106298


From: "Anatole Klyosov" <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] Out of Africa
Date: Sun, 12 Feb 2012 23:11:38 -0500
References: <mailman.1550.1329101608.1055.genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com><3CD1CD94EB904AD392D9DCBA3FCD7475@anatoldesktop>


>From: "Lawrence Mayka" < > 1) No, my reference was not to
>an opinion, but to the publication of the new
ISOGG A tree (as soon as whoever is responsible for transferring it to the
web site gets around to it). FTDNA's Haplogroup A Project is doing the
bleeding-edge work--ordering WTYs, SNPs, and 67-marker upgrades:

Dear Larry,

I have no doubt that the Haplogroup A Project is doing a wonderful work in
collecting data. I am talking on interpretation of those data.

>2) The polarity reversal of M91 and P97 is not a "trick," but a scientific
>necessity imposed by recent research results...

I and many others here know that Cruciani paper pretty well. He postulated
Africa as the "Adam"/root homeland and even put Africa in the title of the
paper. In reality, as I have explained, he discovered a number of new SNPs,
which is very important, and assigned them to haplogroup A, which was wrong.
As you undoubtedly know, we carry zillions of SNPs from chimpanzee, and
there is no reason to assign them to haplogroup A as well. Why some ancient
SNPs are necessarily belong to haplogroup A?

In short, Cruciani has found a good amount of SNPs, which belong equally to
Africans and non-Africans, and belong to THEIR common ancestor. This does
not make us descendants of the Africans. I wonder why such a simple
statement is so hard to understand?

Regards,

Anatole Klyosov



This thread: