24,000 year old Mal'ta Siberians (ydna R* and mtdna U*)

Some 95%+ of American men (Native American of course, from Alaska all the way down to Chile and on the entire peninsula) are haplogroup Q; I suppose usually Q3 (I may be wrong on the precise subclade). Another 2-5% belong to Y-DNA C; the rest are all Q on the paternal line Amerindians have very low diversity.
 
If you take an Amerindian man (excluding ANY that may be mixed wth Europeans); there is a 95-98% chance he will have the Q mutation. If he DOESN'T; it's because he has C; which really is only present in western Canada's British Columbia region in Na-Dene Amerindian groups at a 20-25% maximum frequency.
 
Amerindian mtdna has of course A, B,C,D and sometimes X; but y-DNA virtually consists solely of Q.
 
A is pretty much only found in the Americas (north and south), B is present in East Asia AND north and South America, C is present only in Siberia and north and south america, D is also present in Siberia and the Americas. X is an extremely rare mtdna group that is sometimes found among middle eastern and north-east European populations and is also found among Algonquin Indian groups in the quebec/Vermont region of north-America.
 
Nobody1 said:
In the South and all other parts of Neolithic agriculture Europe;
Just thinking about Gök4 and the so-called 'Neolithic centers of renewed migration' - Busby et al 2011
Click to expand...

Very good point...

Just for further information, this frequency table for MATP374F is from the Lucotte et al 2011 study. It incorporates data from numerous studies. The frequency levels for this one are lower. I wish they had typed Oetzi for this one

. Distribution of 374F allele frequencies in 32 populations of West Europe and North Africa (N = sample size).
Country
Region/population
Latitude (°)
N
Frequency of 374f
References
1
Germany
Northrhine-Whestphali
50.9
241
0.965
Yuasa et al. (2006)
2
Munich
48.1
93
0.962
 “
3
France
Rheims
49.2
98
0.893
 “
4
Italy
Genoa
44.5
97
0.85
 “
5
Denmark
Copenhagen
56
51
0.98
Lucotte et al. (2010)
6
England
London
51.5
56
0.955
 “
7
Belgium
Brussels
50.5
53
0.934
 “
8
France
Lille
50.5
64
0.945
 “
9
Rennes
48
52
0.971
 “
10
Marseilles
43.2
312
0.888
 “
11
Perpignan
43
101
0.827
 “
12
Corsica
42
328
0.878
 “





Germany
Mulheim
50
59
0.975
 “
14
Switzerland
Basel
47.2
51
0.961
 “
15
Italy
Roma
41.9
64
0.898
 “
16
Napoli
41
128
0.859
 “
17
Sicily
38
39
0.833
 “
18
Sardinia
40
100
0.805
 “
19
Spain
Barcelona
41
59
0.856
 “
20
Sevilla
37.5
71
0.725
 “
21
Portugal
North
42
79
0.725
 “
22
South
38
59
0.780
 “
23
Morocco
Tangier
35.8
123
0.691
 “
24
Algeria
Algier
36.5
141
0.709
 “
25
Tunisia
Tunis
36.5
73
0.610
 “
26
England
Orcades
59
16
1
Norton et al. (2007)
27
France
46
29
0.91
 “
28
Basque
43
24
0.94
 “
29
Italy
Bergamo
46
14
0.96
 “
30
Tuscan
43
8
0.94
 “
31
Sardinia
40
28
0.68
 “
32
Algeria
Mozabite
32
30
0.40
 “



​
 
Angela said:
Just for further information, this frequency table for MATP374F is from the Lucotte et al 2011 study. It incorporates data from numerous studies. The frequency levels for this one are lower. I wish they had typed Oetzi for this one
Click to expand...

Great compilation of it;
Ötzi (and other known corpses) should def. be featured in those charts - maybe the next studies;
 
adamo said:
Any and all y-DNA R in the Americas is due to white modern colonialism; it is a known fact; y-DNA R NEVER crossed the Bering straight into the Americas.
.................
Click to expand...

Why is it a known fact? Please provide data concerning sub-clade analysis etc. or I'll think you're just making an assumption and we don't really know yet. Wikipedia says that Y haplotype R

"is the second most predominant Y haplotype found among indigenous Amerindians after Q (Y-DNA). The distribution of R1 is believed to be associated with the re-settlement of Eurasia following the last glacial maximum. One theory put forth is that it entered the Americas with the initial founding population. A second theory is that it was introduced during European colonization. R1 is very common throughout all of Eurasia except East Asia and Southeast Asia. R1 (M137) is found predominantly in North American groups like the Ojibwe (79%), Chipewyan (62%), Seminole (50%), Cherokee (47%), Dogrib (40%) and Papago (38%)."

So the author of the article thinks it's still unclear where all that R DNA came from. But perhaps you have some data that the author of that article didn't have?
 
Modern intermixing with Europeans that long after arrived to the Americas.
 
I repeat; Y-DNA R is not amerind component; it is the result of modern racial mixing that was propagated by the arrival of Europeans to the Americas in the past 200-400 years.
 
If you don't like what I say; if you don't like my answer; ask someone else for an opinion, I'm sure they'll agree with me regardless.
 
adamo said:
I repeat; Y-DNA R is not amerind component; it is the result of modern racial mixing that was propagated by the arrival of Europeans to the Americas in the past 200-400 years.
Click to expand...

Since you're so certain of this, and it's presumably not just an assumption you're making, I guess you must have detailed information about sub-clade analysis or whatever that proves it in a scientific manner. I'm not saying that you're wrong, just that so far your answer seems to be "just because" and I don't see that as a scientific analysis.

Some of us are going to wonder about this until we see some data that shows there's actually been research done to find out what's going on. Because Q and P are so close together and because they apparently developed in Siberia before people from Siberia colonized the American continents, I think there's a small chance that the R found in North America is pre-Columbian, especially since I haven't yet read about large amounts of other "European" haplotypes being found among Native North American populations. But if someone were to study some of these tribes with a lot of R and find that all the sub-clades are modern European ones, the possibility would be ruled out. Until someone actually looks at the issue in a scientific way, any conclusion about whether it is or isn't all post-Columbian DNA is just conjecture, IMO.
 
No. Q originated in Siberia; P originated towards Kazakhstan. I just don't get what you don't understand; the men of R1 never traveled as far out as extreme eastern Siberia: men of the R1 clan simply never crossed the Bering straight into the Americas
 
Both R and Q are downstream of P; they are the only branches sons of P. The Q men would head from Kazakhstan (Central Asia) towards the north and east in particular; eventually migrating from easternmost Siberia across into North America and all the way down to South America. The R men would move slightly more from their original position towards the west (plains of western Russia/ukraine); I would even argue almost south-central Russia (slightly more towards the west though) from here so e would move across parts of Central Asia and even India and all across Europe of course and rarer clades even to Middle East and Africa.
 
adamo said:
No. Q originated in Siberia; P originated towards Kazakhstan. I just don't get what you don't understand; the men of R1 never traveled as far out as eastern Siberia: men of the R1 clan simply never crossed the Bering straight into the Americas
Click to expand...

Read the first post in this thread and the comments about this subject on the Eurogenes Blog and perhaps you'll get it. In the first post, there's a reference to some material in Deineke's Blog, but in that blog the only reason given for concluding that the Siberian remains aren't related to Native American populations is the assumption that R doesn't appear among Native Americans, when it is in fact the second most common Y haplotype. So the conclusion was based on an incorrect assumption, not a fact. If it's so important to you to convince people that the R in Native North American populations in all post-Columbian, please provide some proof other than the statement that "it's a known fact". At one time, it was a known fact that the earth was flat, but that turned out to not be the case. You're assumption may well be correct. I'm just saying that you haven't provided any evidence yet.
 
It's like your trying to tell me some Native American guy who's ancestors have lived in the America's for what seems like forever is a y-DNA I1. I mean, really, what are the chances of that? Pretty much zilch; zero. It just isn't representative of American Indian populations; R1 can't be found at those frequencies you posted; because it never passed from Siberia into Alaska. BUT, if we consider the total number of people of European heritage in north-America today, then he source of all this "mystic" R1 becomes all too evident heh.
 
I just know it; factually, I don't have any little studies or science experiments proving it, but I guarantee you it's of European source origin, ask anyone else.
 
adamo said:
I just know it; factually, I don't have any little studies or science experiments proving it, but I guarantee you it's of European source origin, ask anyone else.
Click to expand...

Okay, let's look at the facts. Wikipedia tells me that there are approximately 220,000 Ojibwe in North America, and that 79.3% of them are R, 17.5% are Q and 3.2% are "other", although I don't know what that "other" consists of (these figures appear to be from Bolnick's study). Now, their territories were first infiltrated by the English and French. And the English currently have 67% R1b, 4.5% R1a, .5% Q and 28% other. The French currently have 61% R1B, 2.5% R1a, 0% Q and 36.5% other. So, if all the 174,000 Ojibwe people who have R got it from a recent European ancestor, those are very aggressive little R type sperm.

The figures just don't add up. I'm not saying that some of the R must have been there pre-Columbus. I'm just saying that I think someone needs to look at the situation in more detail, especially in light of recent finds in Siberia. I don't know why my comments would make anyone angry. Is there something wrong with suggesting that we apply the scientific method to a puzzling anomaly?
 
Whoever liked that comment is brainless let me tell you. No. R1 is not an ancient substratum among Amerindians; it arrived very recently with Europeans; I'm done with this discussion.
 
I didn't say that your R figures for those Amerindian groups are wrong; I just said it's not one of their genetic components; it was introduced en masse by Europeans within the last 500 years in the Americas.
 
Common sense is going to prevail here; I'll make sure of it, wether this brainless forum supports me or not; look at everyone validating aberdeen's comments! XD true clowns
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

This thread has been viewed 66128 times.

Back
Top