Non-African populations inherited substantial X-chromosome segments from Neanderthal

Lol, the confusion started. Home sapience and Neanderthals had common ancestor about 1-2 million years ago. After that time they united again in one species. What's not pure about this? :shocked:
humans are one branch, Neanderthals are separate branch...
according to the research we talk about, there was some cross-breading between species, but that just mean that some modern people have partly hybrid origin.... while black Africans remained pure human race.... there is no such a thing as uniting of species...


When one reads a map like this it is important to look at the dots, which represent the samples with actual data. For Eastern Europe, there are data points in Poland, Serbia, Greece and Russia, but none in other countries.
.....
reece is far from homogeneous and if the sample DNA was taken from a region rich in haplogroup R, I or J but poor in E (e.g. Crete), I would expect a fairly high percentage of Neanderthal admixture.
....
I don't think that the percentage of I, J, R1a or R1b is very important. They probably all share similar Neanderthal admixture. What makes all the difference is the percentage of haplogroup E, and Serbia has a relatively high percentage by European standards.

your theory makes no sense...
Greece has around 27% of haplogroup E, while Serbia has 17%-20% depending on sampling... according to the map Serbia has much less admixture from Neanderthals than Greece...and you claim that it is due to haplogroup E that has no admixture, but that in Greece they have probably somehow sampled all non E haplogroup people.... sorry, but your claim is somewhat funny and extremelly biased...

you would do better if you try to pinpoint lineages that did mix.... but that is probably on level of subbranches and is not possible to determine from given data...

lol, wanna hear much more logical explanation than your biased interpretation?

Serbs were naturally white people, while others in Europe had to mix with Neanderthals to become white... :)
 
I think you don't know much about Neanderthal. May I suggest you have a look at this : Neanderthal : facts and myths.

Well, I've read almost all the work of Juan Luis Ursuaga, do not forget that in Spain we have one of the most important archaeological sites that exist to date and now it is true that is taking a more loving to Neardhental, but now suddenly I'm not going to love them unconditionally because fashion has changed the perception that they might have in the past.


Ursuaga have them unconditional love, logic is all day in his bones, but I prefer to leave them in quarantine and how one day discover that modern Europeans are mixed with Neardhental, which I doubt, we Neardhental for a while, will become the overnight in the most wonderful creatures that creation is given.
 
It seems possible that I and J are a branch of a separate hominid lineage, perhaps a separate neanderthal lineage that doesn't have a B0006 marker. Since, what we see is that where E1b1b, I, and J, exist, there's very little B0006 marking.

Per Maciamo's analysis, what is evident is that microsattelite frequency is not giving us a descriptive frequency of neanderthal admixture since the sattelites are functioning as a measure of collectively different populations. This is also a problem i pointed out with respect to y-halogroup frequency and varience in attemtping to locate a focal point of a haplogroup's origin. It won't be accurate until a high percentage of the population is tested, and the microsattelites become more representative of geography.

It's also unusual that native americans have such a high neanderthal admixture and east asians have zero. We assume natives are of east asian origin?

I'm also skeptical that B0006 measures neanderthal admixture at all. The focal point of west india is odd.
 
It seems possible that I and J are a branch of a separate hominid lineage, perhaps a separate neanderthal lineage that doesn't have a B0006 marker. Since, what we see is that where E1b1b, I, and J, exist, there's very little B0006 marking.
hm, this makes more sense... but I still would not relate this marker to key branches or even subbranches...

based on given figure I do suggest something else....
that this marker was absent in Asia minor as it perhaps developed in people who crossed from Asia to Europe via Caucasus or around Caspian sea....

I would say that the supplied spread of B0006 marker is yet another indicator that south Slavs are closely related to previous inhabitants of Asia minor.... in my opinion, as I have repeated on many threads, south Slavs directly origin from Veneti and perhaps also from Cimmerians...

we do not know where Veneti originally dwelt, but we know from Herodotous that Paphlagonia Eneti were kicked out of Asia minor somewhat after Troyan war due to their joint expedition with Cimmerians....and that they crossed to Thrace and some of them eventually settled Adriatic coast.... my guess is that from Thrace they spread in several directions giving Adriatic Veneti, Vistula Veneti and Sarmatian Venedi (which are in my opinion same as Antes/Anti which is tribal name that is likely aslo derived from Eneti)... but they might have had originally spread from Balkan to Asia minor....

we also know from Jordanes that early Slavs are from populous race of Veneti.... we know that Cimmerians match I2a2 hotspots in Asia minor and above Black sea....


Per Maciamo's analysis, what is evident is that microsattelite frequency is not giving us a descriptive frequency of neanderthal admixture since the sattelites are functioning as a measure of collectively different populations. This is also a problem i pointed out with respect to y-halogroup frequency and varience in attemtping to locate a focal point of a haplogroup's origin. It won't be accurate until a high percentage of the population is tested, and the microsattelites become more representative of geography.
good point... it is really necessary to have much larger number of samples to be able to have conclusions about mapping of genetics to historical events....
this way we can only guess.... and more often than not data given per countries of today, can be misleading....

It's also unusual that native americans have such a high neanderthal admixture and east asians have zero. We assume natives are of east asian origin?
true...
good point...
but keep in mind that this may be exactly due to the effect that you talked about.... as there seems to be only one sampled point in east Asia....so it can be very misleading....

I'm also skeptical that B0006 measures neanderthal admixture at all. The focal point of west india is odd.
exactly...

approximate range of Homo neanderthalensis

Range_of_Homo_neanderthalensis.png

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Range_of_Homo_neanderthalensis.png

lol, it kind of resembles spread of R1b
 
Sorry to interrupt, but could someone please explain to me what detailed divisions of y-dna haplogroups have to do with Neanderthal-admixture?

I thought the admixture took place around 50 to 80.000 years ago, long before such groups as R1b existed. I guess it was even before the last common ancestor of all 'Caucasians' lived. All over Eurasia Neanderthal genes distributed differently: while at some places the genes got more or less lost and just make some kind of 'genetic spam' , in other places these genes even provided an evolutionary advantage for the descendants.
 
Well, I've read almost all the work of Juan Luis Ursuaga, do not forget that in Spain we have one of the most important archaeological sites that exist to date and now it is true that is taking a more loving to Neardhental, but now suddenly I'm not going to love them unconditionally because fashion has changed the perception that they might have in the past.


Ursuaga have them unconditional love, logic is all day in his bones, but I prefer to leave them in quarantine and how one day discover that modern Europeans are mixed with Neardhental, which I doubt, we Neardhental for a while, will become the overnight in the most wonderful creatures that creation is given.

:LOL: Oh, you don't love Neanderthals just because it has become too fashionable to love them nowadays. *lol*
I really pitty the 'poor monsters' then... What you are probably thinking of is that is sounds too fantastic that the ugly caterpillar, due to a ONS, turned into the 'most wonderful creature that creation is given' [us!]. Yeah we really should do some research then on "How I met your mother" *lol*
 
^^

Of course, dear, richer countries of Europe do not have to be in control of the genetic classification for your convenience, the genetics are there for all the rest did not have to follow the guidelines that make only a few at your convenience nationalist genetics is in its infancy and there is much to discover and some people want to go too fast and his intentions are revealed nationalist, if not racist in some cases.
 
Sorry to interrupt, but could someone please explain to me what detailed divisions of y-dna haplogroups have to do with Neanderthal-admixture?

marker probably has nothing to do with Neanderthals either... as its spread doesnot correlate with spread of Neanderthals......

the marker doesnot have anyhting directly to do with Y-DNA haplogroups......
Maciamo tried to explain areas with lower level of admixture with newly arived people from Africa (haplogroup E) that didnot have the admixture....
However, I do not think it is good explanation...as it doesnot hold for Greece...

As for correlation of neanderthals with R1b spread, that is observation completely unrelated to the admixture marker from that research... correlation in spread is there...it is hard to say why...my guess is that it is coincidence.....

I thought the admixture took place around 50 to 80.000 years ago, long before such groups as R1b existed. I guess it was even before the last common ancestor of all 'Caucasians' lived. All over Eurasia Neanderthal genes distributed differently: while at some places the genes got more or less lost and just make some kind of 'genetic spam' , in other places these genes even provided an evolutionary advantage for the descendants.

how can one estimate that marker is really 50-80000 years old? it's just educated guess that can be off even 50-70000 years....

if all people origin genetically from same first person who is root of the YDNA tree... and I guess only survivor of some major apocalyptic event...
how can some of people who origin from him have more admixture and some less....

well, let's look when is estimated lifetime of the root of YDNA tree...

Y-chromosomal Adam probably lived between 90,000 and 60,000 years ago in the African continent and is the male counterpart of Mitochondrial Eve, although he probably lived later than she did, possibly 50,000 to 80,000 years later.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Y-chromosomal_Adam

if admixture was there before "Adam", than it should be equally spread in all people who descend from "Adam", but it does not.... it is not present in African population (except for north Africa) which tells us that that specific marker came to existence only after group of people that origin from "Adam"' has left Africa.... and in fact, map shows that the group who carried the marker has entered Europe via Caucaus or around Caspian sea, as the marker is not existent among the settlers of Asia minor (which was btw. very Nenderthal area)...

btw. there is no such a thing as Caucasian in genetic sense... skin color is phenotype... there are black R1b people in Africa... consequently, there is no such a thing as common ancestor of all Caucasians...
 
marker probably has nothing to do with Neanderthals either... as its spread doesnot correlate with spread of Neanderthals......

the marker doesnot have anyhting directly to do with Y-DNA haplogroups......
Maciamo tried to explain areas with lower level of admixture with newly arived people from Africa (haplogroup E) that didnot have the admixture....
However, I do not think it is good explanation...as it doesnot hold for Greece...

As for correlation of neanderthals with R1b spread, that is observation completely unrelated to the admixture marker from that research... correlation in spread is there...it is hard to say why...my guess is that it is coincidence.....



how can one estimate that marker is really 50-80000 years old? it's just educated guess that can be off even 50-70000 years....

if all people origin genetically from same first person who is root of the YDNA tree... and I guess only survivor of some major apocalyptic event...
how can some of people who origin from him have more admixture and some less....

well, let's look when is estimated lifetime of the root of YDNA tree...


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Y-chromosomal_Adam

if admixture was there before "Adam", than it should be equally spread in all people who descend from "Adam", but it does not.... it is not present in African population (except for north Africa) which tells us that that specific marker came to existence only after group of people that origin from "Adam"' has left Africa.... and in fact, map shows that the group who carried the marker has entered Europe via Caucaus or around Caspian sea, as the marker is not existent among the settlers of Asia minor (which was btw. very Nenderthal area)...

btw. there is no such a thing as Caucasian in genetic sense... skin color is phenotype... there are black R1b people in Africa... consequently, there is no such a thing as common ancestor of all Caucasians...


I don't know that much about the spread of genes, sorry. But isn't it that Y-DNA shows only one gene in the human pool of many? What speaks against the theory that people entered Eurasia, mixed with Neanderthals, but the Y-DNA that still exists today in Eurasia entered the continent later and replaced previous Y-DNA, similiar like IE Y-DNA replaced a lot non-IE Y-DNA later. So of course we descend from sapiens and neanderthalensis that lived here some 70.000 years ago, but this specific Y-DNA that we carry entered Eurasia at a later stage.

I also think that Maciamo is right and some of the Neanderthal material was diluted by some later African migrations that entered Eurasia.

Nevertheless, many people here insist that we carry a lot of Neanderthal phenotypical characteristics in ourselves, like that of pale skin, some bone structure, even mental features [btw that is what i meant with 'Caucasian', because according to some people here in this forum 'Caucasian' features of looks and behaviour resemble closest that of Neanderthal]. These differ in Eurasiamerica from place to place and don't necessarily correlate with the actual amount of Neanderthal gene percentages.

But if it was true, that shouldn't matter anyway. My theory then would be the following: Africans entered the Near East where they picked up a large amount of Neanderthal genes first. These first people were just a very few and their lifestyle didn't differ much from Neanderthal, so probably they didn't view themselves as very different.
Later on the humans spread all over Eurasiamerica and carried Neanderthal genes in themselves. Perhaps most of Neanderthal genes were not that important for survival and just resemble some kind of 'spam'. In some regions it even got mostly lost after some while. In other regions where Neanderthal genes were of advantage, or at least not of disadvantage like pale skin in northern regions, they still can be seen phenotypically.
In some regions they can phenotypically seen even though they don't make up much of the gene pool [some parts of Europe], while in others they can't be seen but still exist in a fair amount [western America].

What do you think about that?
 
Perhaps the weather and altitude, latitude, etc. of a certain place just giving any hominid living in them a similar physical characteristics.
 
Perhaps the weather and altitude, latitude, etc. of a certain place just giving any hominid living in them a similar physical characteristics.

For sure! As long as there is no sure evidence that we really picked up the one or other feature of Neanderthals, I would say the hypothesis that Europeans took a convergent development to Neanderthals is as realistic as the other. I just don't want to fix on either or right now!
 
I don't know that much about the spread of genes, sorry. But isn't it that Y-DNA shows only one gene in the human pool of many? What speaks against the theory that people entered Eurasia, mixed with Neanderthals, but the Y-DNA that still exists today in Eurasia entered the continent later and replaced previous Y-DNA, similiar like IE Y-DNA replaced a lot non-IE Y-DNA later. So of course we descend from sapiens and neanderthalensis that lived here some 70.000 years ago, but this specific Y-DNA that we carry entered Eurasia at a later stage.

I am no expert either...

but yes, you are right...
Y-DNA replacement is possible, as it only reflects direct male line of gene inheritance...

however, direct female line is even younger than direct male line....

now, you can replace direct male line of previous population by newly settled tribe killing all males and taking over their wives...

with Amazones like tribes, you can do the opposite as well, replace completely direct female line by killing all females and taking over their males

but this neanderthal marker not being related to either direct male lines or direct female lines means that both of above scenarios happened... now I find it hard to imagine regarding estimated fairly high percentage of its participation in total gene's pool....

I also think that Maciamo is right and some of the Neanderthal material was diluted by some later African migrations that entered Eurasia.

true, but I saw some works talking about haplogroup E reentering Africa after the initial split on basic branches.... so, the part of haplogroup E carriers that reentered Africa might have had the marker.... and if they again went out of Africa they would still have the marker... so Euroasia could have been entered by both E haplogroup carriers with marker and the ones without, also as marker is not part of YDNA....
but E haplogroup in Serbs and Greeks is the same subbranch and taken together with geographical proximity very likely of same origin... so it cannot be that ones have it from people with marker and others from people without marker...

north Africa, Levant and Greece are areas where haplogroup E is much more dominant than in e.g. Serbs, and in same time those areas have much more of the marker we talk about...so there is no correlation expected by Maciamo....

Asia minor and Sogdiana/northwest China are also areas that lack marker...
and while Asia minor has decent frequencies of haplogroup E, Sogdiana and northwest China have much less... again no correlation between presence of haplogroup E and absence of marker...


Nevertheless, many people here insist that we carry a lot of Neanderthal phenotypical characteristics in ourselves, like that of pale skin, some bone structure, even mental features [btw that is what i meant with 'Caucasian', because according to some people here in this forum 'Caucasian' features of looks and behaviour resemble closest that of Neanderthal]. These differ in Eurasiamerica from place to place and don't necessarily correlate with the actual amount of Neanderthal gene percentages.
lol, mental features....
from what we know, Neanderthals were wild creatures.... not some intellectually highly developed beings....stop seeing them as some Cambridge, Oxford, Sorbona, Yale graduates... from what we know, they were just bunch of wild beast without superior characteristics compared to humans...

But if it was true, that shouldn't matter anyway. My theory then would be the following: Africans entered the Near East where they picked up a large amount of Neanderthal genes first. These first people were just a very few and their lifestyle didn't differ much from Neanderthal, so probably they didn't view themselves as very different.
they did look quite different.... which is enough to see Neanderthals as enemies.... more likely scenario is that early humans did interbreed with some Neanderthal woman while conquering new areas....

Later on the humans spread all over Eurasiamerica and carried Neanderthal genes in themselves. Perhaps most of Neanderthal genes were not that important for survival and just resemble some kind of 'spam'. In some regions it even got mostly lost after some while. In other regions where Neanderthal genes were of advantage, or at least not of disadvantage like pale skin in northern regions, they still can be seen phenotypically.
I would not really relate white skin to Neanderthals...
after all highest percentage of marker that is attributed to Neanderthals is in Indians of north America...

In some regions they can phenotypically seen even though they don't make up much of the gene pool [some parts of Europe], while in others they can't be seen but still exist in a fair amount [western America].
this is a bit as Maciamo's attempt to explain lack of marker in some areas with haplogroup E... introducing in explanation a special case that is difficult to support....

What do you think about that?

I think that your theory, same as the one of Maciamo, does have in its core some sort of hidden racism that needs to show Caucasian or "white" skin people being some superior race compared to black skin people of Africa.... but such claims do not hold, as black people are not inferior to white people in any way... it is only the case that their environment and history was such that their cultures didnot achieve milestones set by people living in much better natural and social conditions.... do you think Europe would be what it is, if its inhabitants had to deal all the time with environment factors, such as various tropical diseases, jungle beasts and survival issues, and socially with being slaves of another population... I am sure it would not....
for civilization to develop there should be enough free time... e.g. in ancient Greece this was possible due to slaves doing all the work... modern civilization is built by adding more achievements in small steps... but those achievements are only possible when environment is such that it allows them...
 
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/328/5979/710.full
A Draft Sequence of the Neandertal Genome

It is possible that the remains of females Neardhental analyzed were contaminated with european science male genome and therefore are not african.

It was a rumor that had been sounding increasingly high among scientists who study human evolution. And it came true when the consortium led by Svante Paabo of the Max Planck Institute for German and Spanish participation, has released the draft of the Neanderthal genome sequence: the human species (Homo sapiens) and Neanderthals (Homo neanderthalensis). It has been said that both species share between 1% -4% of the genome. This has raised some comments, after all, do not share 98% of the genome with chimpanzees?
 
I am no expert either...

but yes, you are right...
Y-DNA replacement is possible, as it only reflects direct male line of gene inheritance...

however, direct female line is even younger than direct male line....

now, you can replace direct male line of previous population by newly settled tribe killing all males and taking over their wives...

with Amazones like tribes, you can do the opposite as well, replace completely direct female line by killing all females and taking over their males

but this neanderthal marker not being related to either direct male lines or direct female lines means that both of above scenarios happened... now I find it hard to imagine....


true, but I saw some works talking about haplogroup E reentering Africa after the initial split on basic branches.... so, the part of haplogroup E carriers that reentered Africa might have had the marker.... and if it again went out of Africa it would still have the marker... so Euroasia could have been entered by both E haplogroup carriers withj marker and the ones without, also as marker is not part of YDNA....
but E haplogroup in Serbs and Greeks is the same subbranch and taken together with geographical proximity very likely of same origin... so it cannot be that ones have it from people with marker and others from people without marker...

north Africa, Levant and Greece are areas where haplogroup E is much more dominant than in e.g. Serbs, and in same time those areas have much more of the marker we talk about...so there is no correlation expected by Maciamo....

Asia minor and Sogdiana/northwest China are also areas that lack marker...
and while Asia minor has decent frequencies of haplogroup E, Sogdiana and northwest China have much less... again no correlation between presence of haplogroup E and absence of marker...



lol, mental features....
from what we know, Neanderthals were wild creatures.... not some intellectually highly developed beings....stop seeing them as some Cambridge, Oxford, Sorbona, Yale graduates... from what we know, they were just bunch of wild beast without superior characteristics compared to humans...


they did look quite different.... which is enough to see Neanderthals as enemies.... more likely scenario is that early humans did interbreed with some Neanderthal woman while conquering new areas....


I would not really relate white skin to Neanderthals...
after all highest percentage of marker that is attributed to Neanderthals is in Indians of north America...


this is a bit as Maciamo's attempt to explain lack of marker in some areas with haplogroup E... introducing in explanation a special case that is difficult to support....



I think that your theory, same as the one of Maciamo, does have in its core some sort of hidden racism that needs to show Caucasian or "white" skin people being some superior race compared to black skin people of Africa.... but such claims do not hold, as black people are not inferior to white people in any way... it is only the case that their environment and history was such that their cultures didnot achieve milestones set by people living in much better natural and social conditions.... do you think Europe would be what it is, if its inhabitants had to deal all the time with environment factors, such as various tropical diseases, jungle beasts and survival issues, and socially with being slaves of another population... I am sure it would not....

Nope.
First of all, I don't link the shade of the skin to any superiority or inferiority. And even quite the contrary there aren't just a few people [e.g. Carlitos] who even see it as an insult that the 'European look' derives from an short and ugly human-like creature that wasn't even strong enough to survive and who's ugly women got probably raped, of what we are the product of.

Secondly, I don't think that we inherited mental features from Neanderthal. This is Maciamo's hypothesis! You can read it in this thread:
http://www.eupedia.com/forum/showthread.php?t=26085

Third, there is no clear evidence that we have pale skin from Neanderthals. It is a proven fact that Neanderthals had pale skin and red hair, too, but by which this derives from a different mutation than ours! [see in the same link above!] However, as research isn't finished yet and this theory couldn't neither be completely falsificated or verificated yet, it remains a hypothesis. But of course no fact! Personally I tend to prefer the convergent theory, but don't want to exclude the other fully.

There are still too many things we don't know about the exact movements of prehistoric people. I don't think that people moved always from one direction into the other, it was always to some degree a to-and-back movement, like between the Near East and Africa. Perhaps even between Asia and America, no one knows... Reseach still has to be done!

Concering racism, this is the classic discussion between followers of the Out-of-Africa Theory and the regionalists. As research progresses it seems more and more likely that reality was a mixture of both, by which Out-of-Africa was mostly right, but with some minor regionalist truth, by which the exact degree of this regionalist influence is in the focus now.
 
Mzungu mchagga
First of all, I don't link the shade of the skin to any superiority or inferiority. And even quite the contrary there aren't just a few people [e.g. Carlitos] who even see it as an insult that the 'European look' derives from an short and ugly human-like creature that wasn't even strong enough to survive and who's ugly women got probably raped, of what we are the product of.



No man, if the news is true, accept it, after all my comrade is a western, my only objection to the hypothesis that up very quickly and some believe anything right away and it seems the alleged similarities between Neardhental and modern sapiens found in modern non-sapiens in the Neardhental, strange, ugly "violated" the beautiful woman, no other way around. I do not know, is a very big mess and we are turning the tables to get away with it, these scientists and to show I do not know why, at the end.
 
No man, if the news is true, accept it, after all my comrade is a western, my only objection to the hypothesis that up very quickly and some believe anything right away and it seems the alleged similarities between Neardhental and modern sapiens found in modern non-sapiens in the Neardhental, strange, ugly "violated" the beautiful woman, no other way around. I do not know, is a very big mess and we are turning the tables to get away with it, these scientists and to show I do not know why, at the end.

Who ever who raped whom... It doesn't matter.

From what I know until about 80.000 years ago the lifestyle between Sapiens and Neanderthals didn't differ that much. Both were simple hunter&gatherers, used the same tools and created no arts, or at least we couldn't find any yet. Sapiens entered the Near East in a fairly small number, and probably didn't meet other humans very often. If they did, they perhaps would also have exchanged women with Neanderthals. Not on a large scale of course, but big enough to leave a print on a population which just underwent a bottle-neck situation.

40 to 50.000 years later things were different. Sapiens was culturally clearly superior with the creation of arts and weapons. They also started to outnumber Neanderthals in Europe. That could have been a point at which Neanderthals were not seen as any humans anymore, but perhaps as beasts. And also from this time on we have no evidence that both interbred, as the Neanderthal genes scientists have found in humans nowadays are much older [hey, that's what the authors of these scientific papers wrote].
 
Of course X and Y chromosomes will correlate if inbreeding took place between population a and b. The ways it wouldn't are if there is a constant supply of gene flow from population a into b, where population b would eventually be replaced by a. Or if the X chromosome was not favorably selected in the population ab, while the y chromosome of b was well selected for.

The other aspect is that it seems that haplogroup R and Q are showing correlations with B006. Which would mean that an ancestor of both R and Q mated with b006 hominids. The inbreeding would have occurred after MNOPS within haplogroup P which is a direct descendant of haplogroup R and Q.

Thus haplogroup O asians which branch off of MNOPS as well, lack b006 admixture. I think it's too early to know for sure what occured, but we should be reasonable to assume that they are not neandertal Y-DNA's. Since b006 marking took place after MNOPS.

Which leaves me to the hypothesis that IJ may be pure Y-haplogroups of a separate neanderthal branch or a separate hominid branch.


NOP -> P, NO
P (b006 marker) -> Q, R
NO -> N, O (no marker)

image007.gif

Haplogroup_Q_(Y-DNA).PNG

Haplogrupo_O_(ADN-Y).PNG

Haplogroup_R_(Y-DNA).PNG

X-DNA+B006.jpg
 
If anyone didn't read haplogroup P is the prime marker for B006 admixture.

Where was haplogroup P when it acquired B006. Maybe they were neanderthals, maybe they were hominids that already inbred with neanderthals.

Where did they mate? A good location seems to be Kazakhstan and the vicinities around there.

Now did they mate with Neanderthals with B006 or did they mate with other hominids with B006 or did they mate with a species that already inbred with neanderthal with b006. The location doesn't seems likely to be neanderthal.
 
Of course X and Y chromosomes will correlate if inbreeding took place between population a and b. The ways it wouldn't are if there is a constant supply of gene flow from population a into b, where population b would eventually be replaced by a. Or if the X chromosome was not favorably selected in the population ab, while the y chromosome of b was well selected for.
The other aspect is that it seems that haplogroup R and Q are showing correlations with B006. Which would mean that an ancestor of both R and Q mated with b006 hominids. The inbreeding would have occurred after MNOPS within haplogroup P which is a direct descendant of haplogroup R and Q.
Thus haplogroup O asians which branch off of MNOPS as well, lack b006 admixture. I think it's too early to know for sure what occured, but we should be reasonable to assume that they are not neandertal Y-DNA's. Since b006 marking took place after MNOPS.
Which leaves me to the hypothesis that IJ may be pure Y-haplogroups of a separate neanderthal branch or a separate hominid branch.
NOP -> P, NO
P (b006 marker) -> Q, R
NO -> N, O (no marker)
this is really good observation and explanation

though area of Afghanistan has lot of haplogroup R and not much of the marker... could it be that not all R is related to the marker...also not all Q, as it is not present in Mexico or in fact in area of Mayan civilization...

my guess is that when the admixture entered genes, there were already some R and Q people separated from basic tribe with P*, R and Q people...

perhaps even R1b-V88 branch already existed... though lack of marker in their area of Africa may be due to not fine grained sampling...

is it possible that admixture origins from massive mixing, not just from single person.... that mixing has given same resulting change in genetics in many people in same time...
 
Carlitos, do you have a picture of a real Neanderthal woman to prove your point, that they were ugly?
We all know that among people there are ugly woman too, and even they have kids.
 

This thread has been viewed 63545 times.

Back
Top