IJ*-samples in large study Iran

[Knovas]

As I said...xd

Again, the finding proves nothing concerning IJ origins. And I think we'll never know it, because this haplogroup was surely very widespread in the deeper past. The most especific guess at the moment is West Eurasia, and let's see what happens when checking ancient DNA, but I think it's possible to find ancient IJ in Europe, West Asia, the Middle East and even North Africa. So if this finally happens, which it wouldn't be surprising IMO, it will be pretty difficult to know its origins.

 

[JFWR]

As I said...xd

Again, the finding proves nothing concerning IJ origins. And I think we'll never know it, because this haplogroup was surely very widespread in the deeper past. The most especific guess at the moment is West Eurasia, and let's see what happens when checking ancient DNA, but I think it's possible to find ancient IJ in Europe, West Asia, the Middle East and even North Africa. So if this finally happens, which it wouldn't be surprising IMO, it will be pretty difficult to know its origins.

According to most research I've read, it would be unlikely to be found in significant numbers in North Africa. The Middle East in general is the censensus for where IJ would probably be located.

 

[Knovas]

Not unlikely at all considering IJ's antiquity. Finding ancient IJ in North Africa would not mean it originated there (very unlikely of course), it would just support my point that it was a very widespread haplogroup in West Eurasia. This is the most logical escenario since this haplogroup had a lot of time to move and spread.

 

[Alan]

That's the general story, BUT...



As you said, IJ hasn't been found in any ancient samples in Iran.

I would hope that we'll find them, but it would be quite a shock if we did not.

I dont get the but part, since it was neither found in modern nor in ancient populations anywhere else?

As I said...xd

Again, the finding proves nothing concerning IJ origins. And I think we'll never know it, because this haplogroup was surely very widespread in the deeper past. The most especific guess at the moment is West Eurasia, and let's see what happens when checking ancient DNA, but I think it's possible to find ancient IJ in Europe, West Asia, the Middle East and even North Africa. So if this finally happens, which it wouldn't be surprising IMO, it will be pretty difficult to know its origins.

I thought it was common knowledge the IJ (the mother of I and J haplogroups) originated somewhere in West Asia. Or do some people expect that IJ originated in Europe and moved into West Asia and formed Haplogroup J? doesnt sound very meaningful. And also you have to take in account It has to be at least some 30-40000 years old, so it is not really a must to find any ancient IJ samples of that time if we have not even been able to find lineages of Paleolithic times in Europe.

To me this "but" simply sounds some people cant get over the fact that IJ* (as most scientist believed even before this finding) originated in Western Asia. Was there any doubt about this even before this finding?

Knovas dont drag this into ridiculousness with your Middle Eastern phobia. It is general knowledge that IJ* has to be originated in West Asia assuming anything else would be out of sense. Your talking about findings in Middle East in such a generalizing tone as if any other place beside Western Asia would come in question.

It is possible to assume, that Haplogroup IJ originated somewhere else in Western Asia (as example in Eastern Anatolia or North Mesopotamia where the diversity of J gets highest), but any place outside West Asia is out of question for me.

 

[Knovas]

No phobia my friend, and please, do not try to insult myself with such childish argument. I hope moderators take some notes about your behaviour when someone tells something you simply don't like to read...because it's not the first time.

What is of general knowledge, is that there's nothing as clear as you pretend to show regarding IJ, and we'll probably won't know more for the reasons I already explained (and seems you intentionally ignore). Like it or not, we need ancient DNA, it's the best clue, but probably not enough to know where IJ originated if it finally appears in many ancient burials as I suspect. In short: take it easy with your categorical statements and lack of respect, this is just the begining

 

[Alan]

point out the "insult" I have used against you.

 

[Alan]

No phobia my friend, and please, do not try to insult myself with such childish argument. I hope moderators take some notes about your behaviour when someone tells something you simply don't like to read...because it's not the first time.


What is of general knowledge, is that there's nothing as clear as you pretend to show regarding IJ, and we'll probably won't know more for the reasons I already explained (and seems you intentionally ignore). Like it or not, we need ancient DNA, it's the best clue, but probably not enough to know where IJ originated if it finally appears in many ancient burials as I suspect. In short: take it easy with your categorical statements and lack of respect, this is just the begining

We havent found any ancient I* samples in Europe(the Balkans) yet you seem to be very ok with the idea its origin being assumed in the Balkans. We have high diversity of J* and the only confirmed IJ* samples are also from West Asia, yet you want some ancient Data do confirm the origin of IJ in Western Asia? If this is not childish and just an attempt to refuse the Western Asian origin than I have no idea.

So tell me where do you think Haplogroup IJ originated?

 

[Knovas]

"Knovas dont drag this into ridiculousness with your Middle Eastern phobia"

I said you TRIED to, not that you achieve the goal. So it seems you find ridiculous what I posted because it doesn't fit with your thoughts LOL. The fact is this is not the proper way to explain your arguments, that's the point I wanted to leave clear. Maybe you should take care of your phobia against people who don't think the same as you, and that's why you offer replies like the one above. I think it's enough, nothing left to say.

 

[Knovas]

I posted above West Eurasia, bacause I don't know. Perhaps I am not as clever as you, and I prefer to wait for more evidence.

 

[Alan]

"Knovas dont drag this into ridiculousness with your Middle Eastern phobia"

Wow what a sensible person you are. Though I couldnt see any personal attack.

 

[Alan]

Maybe you should take care of your phobia against people who don't think the same as you, and that's why you offer replies like the one above. I think it's enough, nothing left to say.

Well I accept my wrongs and also the opinions of other as far as they dont reach ridiculousness

 

[Knovas]

Wow what a sensible person you are. Though I couldnt see any personal attack.

"Knovas dont drag this into ridiculousness with your Middle Eastern phobia"

Yeah, that's not personal at all, no way...¬¬ XD

I'm afraid you should wear some glasses.

PD: You reached the top, congratulations.

 

[JFWR]

I dont get the but part, since it was neither found in modern nor in ancient populations anywhere else?

As it has been said: IJ hasn't been found in any ancient populations period. The remaining IJ might reflect a historical population growth to Iran, or else the only remaining IJ left in the world which was once formed elsewhere.

 

[Maciamo]

As it has been said: IJ hasn't been found in any ancient populations period. The remaining IJ might reflect a historical population growth to Iran, or else the only remaining IJ left in the world which was once formed elsewhere.

I agree. I explained two and a half years ago why it is wrong to assume that a haplogroup originated where it is most frequent now.

The Middle East is a seriously undersampled region for Y-DNA and we could still find plenty of other pockets of IJ. Once there are enough of them, these could be further tested for new SNP's, and who knows, one of several new branches parallel to haplogroups I and J could emerge. They would probably be called IJ1, IJ2... a rather clumsy nomenclature, until the whole Y-DNA tree of modern humanity becomes clear and all haplogroups are renamed in a better organised way.

 

[zanipolo]

basically I view all HG came through the middleeast except E ( which is african).

There are too many people with phobias about their DNA. the only true "aboriginal" europeans would be neaderthals.....are you one of them?

 

[Maciamo]

basically I view all HG came through the middleeast except E ( which is african).

That is not exactly true. A haplogroup is not just a (subjectively attributed) top-level haplogroup like E, I or R. I2a2a1 is as much a haplogroup as I2a or I or IJK. Even a vey deep subclade like R1b1a2a1a1a5b2b1a1b2a is ultimately as much a single haplogroup as R*. You shouldn't be misled by the (always-changing and arbitrary) nomenclature. If tomorrow the ISOGG decided that there just too many subclades under R1b1a2a1a1a (S21/U106) and that it would be more convenient to rename it haplogroup U, it would instantly become a "root haplogroup". This is just to show how arbitrarily haplogroup names are attributed. It is popular now to give letter names, then alternate with numbers for each subclade level, but what if later geneticists prefer to give individual names to each subclade ? (a bit like Brian Sykes gave names for mtDNA subclades)

So when you say that all haplogroups came from the Middle East, this is simply not true. Many of them developed in Europe or elsewhere.

 

[JFWR]

That is not exactly true. A haplogroup is not just a (subjectively attributed) top-level haplogroup like E, I or R. I2a2a1 is as much a haplogroup as I2a or I or IJK. Even a vey deep subclade like R1b1a2a1a1a5b2b1a1b2a is ultimately as much a single haplogroup as R*. You shouldn't be misled by the (always-changing and arbitrary) nomenclature. If tomorrow the ISOGG decided that there just too many subclades under R1b1a2a1a1a (S21/U106) and that it would be more convenient to rename it haplogroup U, it would instantly become a "root haplogroup". This is just to show how arbitrarily haplogroup names are attributed. It is popular now to give letter names, then alternate with numbers for each subclade level, but what if later geneticists prefer to give individual names to each subclade ? (a bit like Brian Sykes gave names for mtDNA subclades)

So when you say that all haplogroups came from the Middle East, this is simply not true. Many of them developed in Europe or elsewhere.

Good post.

Though to be fair to Zanipoli, I think he means that most haplogroups have an ancestor haplogroup that came from the ME.

 

[JFWR]

basically I view all HG came through the middleeast except E ( which is african).

There are too many people with phobias about their DNA. the only true "aboriginal" europeans would be neaderthals.....are you one of them?

It is meaningless to say that Europeans are not indigeneous to Europe due to the length of time which they have inhabitted the land.

Excluding historical invasions of Asiatic and Turkic people, the majority of European groups were here by the Neolithic at latest.

 

[zanipolo]

That is not exactly true. A haplogroup is not just a (subjectively attributed) top-level haplogroup like E, I or R. I2a2a1 is as much a haplogroup as I2a or I or IJK. Even a vey deep subclade like R1b1a2a1a1a5b2b1a1b2a is ultimately as much a single haplogroup as R*. You shouldn't be misled by the (always-changing and arbitrary) nomenclature. If tomorrow the ISOGG decided that there just too many subclades under R1b1a2a1a1a (S21/U106) and that it would be more convenient to rename it haplogroup U, it would instantly become a "root haplogroup". This is just to show how arbitrarily haplogroup names are attributed. It is popular now to give letter names, then alternate with numbers for each subclade level, but what if later geneticists prefer to give individual names to each subclade ? (a bit like Brian Sykes gave names for mtDNA subclades)

So when you say that all haplogroups came from the Middle East, this is simply not true. Many of them developed in Europe or elsewhere.

I do not know of any haplogroups that developed/formed/created in europe , only ones I know of developed in the middle-east, africa or western & central asia. The only things that developed in europe where subclades and branches of haplogroups.

I hope we are not saying that ...as an example, I1 and I2a are different haplogroups from a different "parental" haplogroup. To me they originated from I

I agree with you that they can rename it to haplogroup U , but they have not done this

[TABLE="align: center"]
[TR]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="align: left"][/TD]
[TD="colspan: 2, align: right"][/TD]
[TD="colspan: 19"][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="colspan: 3"][/TD]
[TD="colspan: 2, align: left"][/TD]
[TD="colspan: 2, align: right"][/TD]
[TD="colspan: 19"][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="colspan: 6"][/TD]
[TD="align: left"][/TD]
[TD="colspan: 2, align: left"][/TD]
[TD="colspan: 3, align: right"][/TD]
[TD="colspan: 19"][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="colspan: 9"][/TD]
[TD="colspan: 3, align: left"][/TD]
[TD="colspan: 3, align: right"][/TD]
[TD="colspan: 17"][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="colspan: 14"][/TD]
[TD="colspan: 2, align: left"][/TD]
[TD="colspan: 4, align: right"][/TD]
[TD="colspan: 15"][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="colspan: 13"][/TD]
[TD="align: left"][/TD]
[TD="align: right"][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD="colspan: 3, align: right"]
[/TD]
[TD="colspan: 13"][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="colspan: 19"][/TD]
[TD="colspan: 4, align: right"][/TD]
[TD="colspan: 9"][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="colspan: 23"][/TD]
[TD="colspan: 5, align: left"][/TD]
[TD="colspan: 10, align: right"][/TD]
[TD="colspan: 6"][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="align: right"]
[/TD]
[TD="colspan: 3"][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="colspan: 35"][/TD]
[TD="align: right"]
[/TD]
[TD="width: 5"][/TD]
[TD="align: left"]
[/TD]
[TD="width: 8, align: center"][/TD]
[TD="width: 8, align: center"]
[/TD]
[TD="width: 8, align: right"][/TD]
[TD="width: 12"][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="colspan: 40"][/TD]
[TD="align: right"]
[/TD]
[TD="width: 4"][/TD]
[TD="width: 8, align: left"]
[/TD]
[TD="width: 8, align: right"][/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

 

[Knovas]

It's not even sure that E is native to Africa despite the fact it's very common and has a lot of diversity there. Dienekes' pointed the possibility that E it's a Paleo-Eurasian haplogroup likely originated in the Arabian Peninsula or carried by people different from modern Africans. The article was also discussed here in Eupedia.

Using autosomal experiments, Dienekes' found that some deep Sub-Saharan populations had a West Eurasian affinity, and those were specially groups having higher E frequencies. Deep Sub-Saharan populations did not include East Africans, since they have a more recent input via the middle East wich is actually well reported.

There you are the summary by Dorianfinder, he did it good:

Dienekes notes that HG A and B are purely African Y-haplogroups whereas HG D is East Asian. He states that according to the new software preliminary findings show that African populations with HG E have proportionally higher amounts of West Eurasian genetic input suggesting that HG E may not be 'entirely' African. This is interesting as it links HG E with Eurasia and not with Africa as first thought. No doubt this will be followed up with some interesting comments and articles.