IJK haplogroup

[motatalea]

Haplogroup IJK is Divided in to two Major haplogroups (IJ and K) Where haplogroup K has been orginated in modern days Iran since about 40000 years and his brother IJ has been originated in Modern Days Middle east (Levant and Mesopotamia) since about 38000 years bp.
I have calculated the percent of both IJ and K and I conclused this:

1-The population of people with haplogroup IJ and its subclades around the world is about 530000000 (about 7.83% of World population).

2-The population of people with haplogroup K and its subclades around the world is about 5050420000 (about 74.6% of world`s population).

3-The black africans(people of african continent except north africans because they are not blacks) who carry IJ (particually J1) are about 16480000 (about 3.1% of World`s IJ population)

4-The black africans(people of african continent except north africans because they are not blacks) who carry K(particually T and R1b) are about 14151000 (about 0.28% of total World`s K population.

5-The true concentration of IJ is in Middle east(arabian plate+Mesopotamia+Levant) while the true concentration of K is in East asia,Europe ,Indian subcontinentant and americas while the true concentration of haplogroup E is in africa.

What is your opinion Mr Maciamo in those conclusions ,are they very close to true?

[Maciamo]

I didn't make the calculations, but it looks about correct.

[motatalea]

I didn't make the calculations, but it looks about correct.

By the way My Y-DNA haplogroup is J1e what about yours?

[Savant]

Actually I'm pretty sure that neither IJ or IJK have actually been observed or found in anyone ever. They are haplogroups which have just been hypothesized to exist, so as to be able to tie them to the rest of the yDNA tree. No one has actually observed their existence.

[Taranis]

Actually I'm pretty sure that neither IJ or IJK have actually been observed or found in anyone ever. They are haplogroups which have just been hypothesized to exist, so as to be able to tie them to the rest of the yDNA tree. No one has actually observed their existence.

Actually, you're mixing up how Haplogroups work. Everybody who's a carrier of Haplogroups I or J is also a carrier of the mutations that define IJ. However, what has not been observed is IJ*, that is, persons who carry the defining IJ mutations, but none of the mutations for its subclades (ie, Haplogroups I or J). The same applies for *IJK and its child clades.

[Savant]

Actually, you're mixing up how Haplogroups work. Everybody who's a carrier of Haplogroups I or J is also a carrier of the mutations that define IJ. However, what has not been observed is IJ*, that is, persons who carry the defining IJ mutations, but none of the mutations for its subclades (ie, Haplogroups I or J). The same applies for *IJK and its child clades.

No, I'm not mixed up at all. I am puzzled why you'd think that anyone here wouldn't already know what you just offered here, albeit in a miscontextualized and misleading manner.

IJK, IJ, and I* have never been observed, ever. It illustrates MY point that IJK and IJ mutations are present in all I and J carriers. We're talking about many, many of years worth of mutations that has never been seen once, ever. They can not be tied back to F, except for imaginary haplos which represent huge chunks of missing evolution which have only been hypothesized to explain the existence in such a manner that it conforms to the prevailing academic paradigm. There's zero actual evidence for any existence of IJK, IJ, or I*.

[bertrand]

I disagree with the initial statement:
My opinion is that F and K originated in India and IJ probably originated in Iran. Please check the following link:


en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Y-chromosome_DNA_haplogroup

Also studying the descendants haplogroups of F and K (for instance F*, Q, NO, and H) clearly shows that K originated further east than Iran.

Bertrand

[Savant]

Actually, you're mixing up how Haplogroups work. Everybody who's a carrier of Haplogroups I or J is also a carrier of the mutations that define IJ. However, what has not been observed is IJ*, that is, persons who carry the defining IJ mutations, but none of the mutations for its subclades (ie, Haplogroups I or J). The same applies for *IJK and its child clades.

Also, from your response I got the impression ( and please excuse me if it's not the case ) that you were unaware that several Y haplogroups do not carry the mutations of their supposed predecessors on the orthodox Y DNA tree at all. For example I, and most Europoid haplogroups do not carry either SNPs M91, P97, M31, P82, M23, M114, P262, M32, M59, P289, P291, P102, M13, M171, M118 (haplogroup A and its subclades SNPs) or M60, M181, P90 (haplogroup B), as it was shown recently in “Walk through Y” FTDNA Project on several hundred people from various haplogroups. The whole OOA gospel was based primarily on the Y chain that "proved" that there was an African Y MRCA for all AMH. It was presented to the public as iron clad fact, and in no small measure based on some rather large theoretical leaps with zero actual evidence. It never ceases to amaze me how so many people, even DNA enthusiasts active on a forum are completely oblivious to this.

[zanipolo]

IIRC

F created G, I, H, J, K ...........out of K came L and T

Y-DNA haplogroup F is the parent of all Y-DNA haplogroups G through T and contains more than 90% of the world’s population.

basically , nearly everything

[JFWR]

I'm going with Savant here:

Where's the evidence? Can we get some links?

[sparkey]

I'm going with Savant here:

Where's the evidence? Can we get some links?

Sure... ISOGG has a good SNP tree that shows SNPs shared by different branches.

Savant's criticism of the canonical tree is a total misfire, in case you were worried. The following Haplogroup A SNPs he cited are either in A1a or A1b, neither of which are ancestors of Haplogroup I: M31, P82, M23, M114, P262, M32, M59, P289, P291, P102, M13, M171, M118. The other two (M91 and P97) are the two that distinguish A from BT (the ancestor of non-A clades), and although I don't know much about P97, I know that M91 is somewhat volatile, and different standards use +/- on that SNP differently. And B is not an ancestor of Haplogroup I, either, so the Haplogroup B SNPs he cites are irrelevant, as well. See Cruciani et al for a deep dive.

One thing to always keep in mind is that some SNPs are quite volatile, and can appear in totally different haplogroups. But F has a ton of defining SNPs. ISOGG gives: L132.1, M89, M213/P137/Page38, M235/Page80, P14, P133, P134, P135, P136, P138, P139, P140, P141,P142, P145, P146, P148, P149, P151, P157, P158, P159, P160, P161, P163, P166, P187, P316. Even if some of these backmutate elsewhere (IIRC, L132 does so within R1b-U106, for example), it's a mathematical impossibility for F not to be the ancestor of the subclades it currently claims.

[ebAmerican]

From what I understand about genealogical DNA testing is that it's based on the comparative model. Savant may test negative for all mutation that are generally associated with the haplogroup tree, but it doesn't mean that there aren't any snp's that may be associated with his haplogroup and a supposed ancestor in the future. It only takes a small sample of (I) and (J) individuals to show a relationship to (IJ) to assume a relationship between all (I) and (J) individuals (even if they don't share the confirmed SNP relationship). I would guess as geneticist obtain more samples the missing SNPs will be filled in. Am I correct in my understanding?

[sparkey]

Am I correct in my understanding?

Basically, although it would be really surprising if anybody tested "negative for all mutation that are generally associated with the haplogroup tree." The only time that has happened, we had to create a new root for the Y tree, we didn't stick them in Haplogroup I. What we expect are (relatively) frequent backmutations of volatile SNPs, and only rare backmutations of non-volatile SNPs. Of course, it can be difficult to tell how volatile an SNP is without testing it across different haplogroups, but the trunk of the tree, at least, is well studied.

[JFWR]

Sure... ISOGG has a good SNP tree that shows SNPs shared by different branches.

Savant's criticism of the canonical tree is a total misfire, in case you were worried. The following Haplogroup A SNPs he cited are either in A1a or A1b, neither of which are ancestors of Haplogroup I: M31, P82, M23, M114, P262, M32, M59, P289, P291, P102, M13, M171, M118. The other two (M91 and P97) are the two that distinguish A from BT (the ancestor of non-A clades), and although I don't know much about P97, I know that M91 is somewhat volatile, and different standards use +/- on that SNP differently. And B is not an ancestor of Haplogroup I, either, so the Haplogroup B SNPs he cites are irrelevant, as well. See Cruciani et al for a deep dive.

One thing to always keep in mind is that some SNPs are quite volatile, and can appear in totally different haplogroups. But F has a ton of defining SNPs. ISOGG gives: L132.1, M89, M213/P137/Page38, M235/Page80, P14, P133, P134, P135, P136, P138, P139, P140, P141,P142, P145, P146, P148, P149, P151, P157, P158, P159, P160, P161, P163, P166, P187, P316. Even if some of these backmutate elsewhere (IIRC, L132 does so within R1b-U106, for example), it's a mathematical impossibility for F not to be the ancestor of the subclades it currently claims.

Thanks very kindly for this information. Provided Savant was right, it was quite curious that such should be the case.

Now as a question regarding this: You say that BT is the ancestor of all current haplogroups, but then say that B is not the ancestor of I?

[sparkey]

Now as a question regarding this: You say that BT is the ancestor of all current haplogroups, but then say that B is not the ancestor of I?

Yes, BT has two children: B and CT. B has no descendants other than B subclades. CT's descendants include every haplogroup on the tree other than Y0, A, BT, and B.

[JFWR]

Yes, BT has two children: B and CT. B has no descendants other than B subclades. CT's descendants include every haplogroup on the tree other than Y0, A, BT, and B.

Ah, okay. So B's mutations would not be found in C's line. Are BT mutations, however, found in the C line?

[sparkey]

Ah, okay. So B's mutations would not be found in C's line. Are BT mutations, however, found in the C line?

Yep, both B and CT have BT mutations (L413, L418, L438, L440, etc.).

[sparkey]

I just realized that Savant was basically echoing Klyosov 2012 verbatim. I just read that paper for the first time, and I'm not sure I've ever had a scientific paper make me say "what the hell" so many times. I don't understand how Klyosov can have so much data, and come to such a wrong conclusion.

The abstract:

Seven thousand five hundred fifty-six (7556) haplotypes of 46 subclades in 17 major haplogroups were considered in terms of their base (ancestral) haplotypes and timespans to their common ancestors, for the purposes of designing of time-balanced haplogroup tree. It was found that African haplogroup A (originated 132,000 ± 12,000 years before present) is very remote time-wise from all other haplogroups, which have a separate common ancestor, named β-haplogroup, and originated 64,000 ± 6000 ybp. It includes a family of Europeoid (Caucasoid) haplogroups from F through T that originated 58,000 ± 5000 ybp. A downstream common ancestor for haplogroup A and β-haplogroup, coined the α-haplogroup emerged 160,000 ± 12,000 ybp. A territorial origin of haplogroups α- and β-remains unknown; however, the most likely origin for each of them is a vast triangle stretched from Central Europe in the west through the Russian Plain to the east and to Levant to the south. Haplogroup B is descended from β-haplogroup (and not from haplogroup A, from which it is very distant, and separated by as much as 123,000 years of “lat- eral” mutational evolution) likely migrated to Africa after 46,000 ybp. The finding that the Europeoid haplogroups did not descend from “African” haplogroups A or B is supported by the fact that bearers of the Europeoid haplogroups, as well as all non-African haplogroups do not carry either SNPs M91, P97, M31, P82, M23, M114, P262, M32, M59, P289, P291, P102, M13, M171, M118 (haplogroup A and its subclades SNPs) or M60, M181, P90 (haplogroup B), as it was shown recently in “Walk through Y” FTDNA Project (the reference is incorporated therein) on several hundred people from various haplogroups.

First of all, Klyosov seems to have conveniently skipped P108, which Cruciani placed as shared between A1b and BT, meaning that his "β-haplogroup" is a subclade of A. He also published this before the African outlier Y0 was found. But even if Cruciani turns out to be wrong about P108, and we ignore Y0, Klyosov's arguments still don't make any sense. The diversity balance of A is all African, and BT's diversity is half all-African, half split between Africa and Asia--and hence has its center of diversity in Africa, as well. His postulation that B must represent a migration to Africa is therefore unfounded.

I'm not saying his TMRCA calculcations are all wrong, although the structure of the A subclades needs some work based on SNPs. But a much simpler explanation for the B and CT trees expanding right after they split is a population expansion, which included the out-of-Africa migrations. I mean, duh.

In conclusion, there's no reason to doubt the ISOGG tree at the moment, including IJK's spot, nor is there a reason to doubt that it descended from earlier haplogroups that had been in Africa.

[JFWR]

I just realized that Savant was basically echoing Klyosov 2012 verbatim. I just read that paper for the first time, and I'm not sure I've ever had a scientific paper make me say "what the hell" so many times. I don't understand how Klyosov can have so much data, and come to such a wrong conclusion.

The abstract:



First of all, Klyosov seems to have conveniently skipped P108, which Cruciani placed as shared between A1b and BT, meaning that his "β-haplogroup" is a subclade of A. He also published this before the African outlier Y0 was found. But even if Cruciani turns out to be wrong about P108, and we ignore Y0, Klyosov's arguments still don't make any sense. The diversity balance of A is all African, and BT's diversity is half all-African, half split between Africa and Asia--and hence has its center of diversity in Africa, as well. His postulation that B must represent a migration to Africa is therefore unfounded.

I'm not saying his TMRCA calculcations are all wrong, although the structure of the A subclades needs some work based on SNPs. But a much simpler explanation for the B and CT trees expanding right after they split is a population expansion, which included the out-of-Africa migrations. I mean, duh.

In conclusion, there's no reason to doubt the ISOGG tree at the moment, including IJK's spot, nor is there a reason to doubt that it descended from earlier haplogroups that had been in Africa.

So p108 is the common link between these clades?

Given the rate of mutation in the Y-chromosome, why the tens of thousands of time lapse? Is it due to such sparse populations?

[JFWR]

Yep, both B and CT have BT mutations (L413, L418, L438, L440, etc.).

Thank you. That's quite intriguing and seems to nullify much of Savant's points.

Of course, I would like to see Savant give his answers to your views to see what evidence he might muster.

Savant? Come on and tell us why you think Sparkey is wrong.

[sparkey]

Of course, I would like to see Savant give his answers to your views to see what evidence he might muster.

Savant? Come on and tell us why you think Sparkey is wrong.

Sorry, shortly after he posted, he got banned (not for the post, for something else).

[JFWR]

Sorry, shortly after he posted, he got banned (not for the post, for something else).

For his Irish-Berber crap?

[sparkey]

So p108 is the common link between these clades?

Between A1b and BT, yes. Other A clades don't have it, which means that BT is on the A1b branch of Haplogroup A. (But recall that I had also mentioned that a bunch of A1b subclade SNPs are not shared by BT--these are ones that subclades of A1b developed after BT split.)

Given the rate of mutation in the Y-chromosome, why the tens of thousands of time lapse? Is it due to such sparse populations?

I think it's mainly due to genetic drift over time, which sparse populations can indeed accelerate.

[JFWR]

Between A1b and BT, yes. Other A clades don't have it, which means that BT is on the A1b branch of Haplogroup A. (But recall that I had also mentioned that a bunch of A1b subclade SNPs are not shared by BT--these are ones that subclades of A1b developed after BT split.)

Very intriguing. Thanks, my good man.

I think it's mainly due to genetic drift over time, which sparse populations can indeed accelerate.

Or you mean: Decelerate? Because the process is much slower than the divergences between the other haplogroups.

A sparse population allows fewer occasions for haplogroup genesis via mutational changes.

[sparkey]

Or you mean: Decelerate? Because the process is much slower than the divergences between the other haplogroups.

A sparse population allows fewer occasions for haplogroup genesis via mutational changes.

I mean a sparse population accelerates genetic drift. So if a population is sparse for a long time, you'll have a lot of bottlenecks, making the average distance in time between them relatively large (if multiple ones survive at all). Another factor is geographic isolation, where a population will split in two geographically, and then have its lineages bottleneck in different places.