GENEALOGY-DNA-L ArchivesArchiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2012-02 > 1329309952
Subject: Re: [DNA] Out of Africa
Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2012 12:45:52 +0000 (UTC)
>From: Andrew Mceachern < >
>Theoretically I should carry all those "Out of Africa" SNP's. Do I?
With your simple (but deep) question you have rescued the discussion. However, probably not for long.
The thing is that you have immediately been misled (I hope not much) by an "advice" to test at the WTY Project. To test at the WTY is in fact a good thing, but not in that context. Because it has nothing to do with your actual question on "Out of Africa".
And this is why. Because I can assure you that you have SNPs V168, V171, V221, and P108. However, they are not "African" and have nothing to do with "Out of Africa", as self anointed "mainstream" activists want you to believe.
The thing is that you have millions and millions of SNPs. Many of them are passed from chimpanzee and whoever was before the chimp, many of them are originated from post-chimpanzee genus Homo and its multiple species and subspecies, such as Homo erectus, Homo heidelbergensis, etc. Those SNPs have flown into the predecessor of both Neanderthals and future Homo sapiens, and you have them too. It well might be that SNPs V221 and P108 are among them. So, all Africans, and Neanderthals, and you, Andrew, and me, and Larry - we all have them. So, you will find them at WTY. What does it tell you about "Out of Africa"?
Those ancient SNPs, which are being discovered now, have a "multilayer" origin. Some from chimpanzee, some from those archaic Homo species and subspecies, some from the fork between us and Neanderthals, some from the alpha-haplogroup, which is a common ancestor of Africans and non-Africans (he lived apparently between 150 and 200 thousand ybp and could be earlier; Dr. Rozhanskii and I were able to dig to only 160,000 years ago and the ancestor was still there with his V168, V171, V221 and P108. The last two are apparently from chimpanzee, but that has to be extra verified. As far as I remember, the G->T SNP mutation in V221 which resulted in T in non-Africans (and in you, Andrew), is still G in subclades A1, A2, and in chimpanzee. So it might have happened between alpha-haplogroup and BT, but after the African branch diverged from alpha-haplogroup. So, it already shows that BT (and you, Andrew), did not descend from the Africans.
The same way, as I remember, the C->T SNP mutation in P108 which resulted in T in non-Africans (and in you, Andrew), is still C in subclades A1, A1a, A1b, and in chimpanzee again. So it might again have happened between alpha-haplogroup and BT, but after the African branch diverged from alpha-haplogroup. So, it shows again, that BT did not descend from the Africans. Besides, some ancient people could have migrated to Africa AFTER V221 and P108 have occurred, and in this case their lineages (subclades) would have those V221 and P108 as well. Again, it does not make them our ancestors. Africans (haplogroup A) and other haplogroups (BT and the derived haplogroups and subclades) are parallel lineages.
However, on some inexplicable reason all those SNPs, from the whole ladder from chimpanzee through all those Homo species and subspecies, including those which went to Neanderthals, including all those multilayers and steps of human evolution, including alpha-haplogroup and the diverged African line - all of them are now collectively called "haplogroup A" according to the new nomenclature (though as a draft). As a result, the haplogroup "A" have been totally refurbished, became a waste basket of all human evolution, and keeps changing. It is rather senseless to discuss it, since tomorrow it will be refurbished again. Those guys and gals love to change rules during the game, and call it "mainstream" both before and after they change rules.
It all boils down to a simple thing - those who work with that newly created "haplogroup A" cannot, or do not want to separate those multiple layers, and put those SNP which below the alpha-haplogroup separately, the alpha-haplogroup SNPs separately, the African (diverged lineages) SNPs separately. The haplogroup BT and above are reasonably O.K. The mess is underneath.
So, Andrew, before it is done, you are going just to learn at the WTY that you have SNPs V168, V171, V221, P108, etc., but it would not give you a thing about Africa. The whole "Out of Africa" concept is very poorly defined and practically has no ground, except some conjectures, fantasies, and ideological statements. For some, it became new religion. Nothing can be more distant from science, than that "mainstream".
Now, Larry, back to your calculations. In fact, I admire your willingness to learn things and I respect your quick desire to make those calculations, despite the deafening silence of the haplogroup A Project administrator. However, I have to disappoint you: your calculations are decisively incorrect. You cannot employ all those markers available, with many "fast" markers among them, for calculations beyond, say, 40,000 years, even 30,000 years, and often 20,000 years. Those fast markers play there wild basketball with their forth and back mutations, and after many of them the calculation methods are completely derailed. You get grossly inflated numbers.
To handle those time spans I employ ONLY SLOW 22 marker panel. It does not include even DYS393, the first one in the FTDNA panel, it is too fast for my slow panel. And you would be amazed to see how "African" and "non-African" base (ancestral) haplotypes are distant from each other. Your 70,000 years is a gross underestimation. Looking at those 22-slow marker data you see right away that the African and non-African lineages are totally distant from each other. In fact, they "coalesce" only at the alpha-haplogroup, around 160,000 ybp (or earlier). So, BT is not derived from the African lineages. There was no "Out of Africa" thing, which would have left a survived offspring making it to your, Andrew's and mine Y chromosomes.
Furthermore, haplogroup B did not descend from haplogroup A either (by haplogroup A I mean good old African haplogroup A, which was grossly distorted recently for the sake of good intentions [sounds familiar]). In reality. common ancestors of haplogroups A and B are separated by 120,000 years. As you understand, in that case B could not possibly be descended from A. They are also parallel lineages. However, haplogroup B is rather close to all other haplogroup, from C to T. Hence, BT. BT did not descend from A. They are distant cousins.
Unfortunately, the "mainstream science" continues to force itself to a (tentative) dead-end with its dogmatic "rules of engagement". It was with R1b in Europe "30,000 ybp", with a "Ukrainian glacial refuge" for R1a, with "population mutation rates by Zhivotovsky", with the "Cohen Modal J1 Haplotype" of 3300 ybp, etc. Now it is with "African haplogroup A", which comes from chimpanzees and Neanderthals.
There is no "mainstream" in contemporary science. For example, in my professional area, molecular biology and biomedicine of cancer, there are myriads of directions, and nobody in a sane mind would call his direction as "mainstream" (nobody knows who is going to be a winner). It would show not only bad taste, but a complete misunderstanding of science. "Mainsteam" belong to only well established statements, such as the Earth rotating around the Sun, but it is not science anymore. It is well established fact.
I hope, Andrew, I have answered your question.