GENEALOGY-DNA-L ArchivesArchiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2012-02 > 1329128236
From: "Anatole Klyosov" <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] Out of Africa
Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2012 05:17:16 -0500
> >As Cruciani laconically put it, A is not a monophyletic clade. It isn't
> >one clade at all; it's a collection of distinct clades
> From: "Kenneth Nordtvedt" <>
But that can be said about all the named clades under present system ---
either presently or
Both of you are right. However, the present system typically shows one clade
as a "parent" one and a number of downstream clades. The "haplogroup A" was
found to be "a collection of distinct clades" indeed, in which "good old"
haplogroup A was just a side branch.
In other words, the Africans (old haplogroup A) turned out to be a side
branch on the haplogroup tree. The parent haplogroup, which is ancestral to
both Africans and non-Africans, which is the alpha-haplogroup, is not
haplogroup A anymore. It could have been arisen anywhere, however, there are
some (tentatively) preferred regions. Africa is not among them.
Nevertheless, that "alpha haplogroup" was (forcefully and illogically)
included into "haplogroup A", which therefore became a "collection of
distinct clades". The whole system is now re-designed just to call it
"haplogroup A" and claim that "out of Africa" "theory" is still valid.
It is not. The view on the chain sequence of A -->BT and so forth which was
presented here by Bonnie is incorrect. That is why I have asked her what is
the distance between A and B, or A and BT on that matter.
|Re: [DNA] Out of Africa by "Anatole Klyosov" <>|