Talk:Haplogroup M (mtDNA)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

M1 originated in East Africa

L3 /East Africa/ ------> M1 /East Africa-Middle East/ -------> M(xM1) /Asia/ Cadenas2008 (talk) 05:57, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

No it did not. M1 originated in Asia per the latest sources already cited in the article:

"This study provides evidence that M1, or its ancestor, had an Asiatic origin."

It used to be thought that M as a whole originated in East Africa because researchers used to believe that M1 was older than all of the M sub-clades found in Asia, but this is no longer the case. They now know that M1 is but a recent mutation, albeit one confined to Northeast Africa (Horn of Africa, Egypt, & among some Berbers) where it was introduced from Asia:

"Interestingly, a single M2 genome differs in its coding region from the root of M at ten sites as compared to M1, which possess only four substitutions. Also, sub-lineages of M2, M5, M30 and M31 show long branch lengths, highlighting the deep roots of these lineages. Considering the antiquity of M2 and other East Asian specific M lineages, Ethiopian M1 lineage is by far a relatively newer branch. Our study on M1 and M2 mitochondrial genomes clearly established the Asian origin of M macrohaplogroup, followed by a back migration to Africa. We further suggest that as more M1 mt DNA genomes are sequenced, there is a possibility that this lineage might find its root in one of the peripheral branches of Asian M lineage."

And:

"The earliest M1 expansion into Africa occurred in northwestern instead of eastern areas; this early spread reached the Iberian Peninsula even affecting the Basques."

So not only does Asia already have the highest frequencies of haplogroup M (it's the most common mtDNA haplogroup there) and the most sub-clades of that particular macrohaplogroup, it also has the oldest M sub-clades, hence confirming it as the likely place of origin of both macrohaplogroup M and its recently back-migrated M1 sub-clade. Causteau (talk) 02:00, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Also from Chandresekar et al. (2007):

"The hypothesis of a back migration from Asia to Africa is strongly supported by the current phylogeography of the Y-chromosome variation, because haplogroup K2 and paragroup R1b*, both belonging to the otherwise Asiatic macro haplogroup K, have only been observed at high frequencies in Africa (Cruciani et al. 2002; Luis et al. 2004). Thus the major sub-sets of Y lineages that arose from the M168 lineage do not trace to an African origin. Likewise the M, N and R haplogroups of mtDNA have no indication of an African origin. In the light of recent findings by Olivieri et al. (2006) the scenario of a back migration into Africa is supported by two features of mtDNA: M1 (with an estimated coalescence time of 38.6 Æ 7.1 ky) and U6 (with an estimated coalescence time of 45.1 Æ 6.9 ky), which are predominantly north African clades arose in southwestern Asia and differentiated into their major sub-clades while they were in the Mediterranean area and only later some sub-sets of M1a (with an estimated coalescence time of 28.8 Æ 4.9 ky), U6a2 (with an estimated coalescence time of 24.0 Æ 7.3 ky) and U6d (with an estimated coalescence time of 20.6 Æ 7.3 ky) diffused to East and North Africa through the Levant."

Causteau (talk) 06:09, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

M1 Originated in East Africa

If M originated in India show me its upstream L3? M1 Peaks in Egypt, Sudan, Ethiopia, Somalia, Western Saudi which fits perfectly with M1 being an early downstream muation of L3, then making its way to Asia.

• Kivisild et al. 2004

Ethiopian mitochondrial DNA heritage: tracking gene flow across and around the gate of tears [1]

• Cerny et al. 2007

Regional differences in the distribution of the sub-Saharan, West Eurasian, and South Asian mtDNA lineages in Yemen [2]

L3 ---> Upstream M ---> Downstream M Cadenas2008 (talk) 06:24, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

M1 is a much younger sub-clade than the Indian M sub-clades. And if that weren't enough, M1 is the only M derivative to have appeared in Africa. Every other M sub-clade and descendant has a non-African distribution. Again, just read the quotes above. Causteau (talk) 06:30, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Buddy sure downstream A-M118 (Y-DNA) in Dinka is also younger than F-M89

Does that make F younger than A :)

M1 is almost exclusive to East Africa & immediate South European & Arabian Coasts. Seriously cut the racism! Cadenas2008 (talk) 16:04, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

No, M1 is not "almost exclusive to East Africa & immediate South European & Arabian Coasts" (like that makes a bloody difference). It is concentrated in North Africa, which is why Chandrasekar et al. (2008) label it a "predominantly North African [clade]". Judging by that comment and the rest of your absurd post above, you appear to believe that because you personally noticed that M1 -- a sub-clade of haplogroup M -- happens to be found in such and such areas, then we must indicate in the Haplogroup M (mtDNA) article that not only M1, but haplogroup M itself originated thereabouts. I'm afraid it doesn't work that way. We only go by reliable sources here (and up-to-date ones at that), not original research. It's already been repeatedly explained to you above in plain English that haplogroup M originated in Asia and why it originated there. This has been done with quotes of all the latest studies, including one published as recently as just a few months ago. Yet here you come back with the same old outdated study, and a cheap, opportunistic, offensive, and unsubstantiated personal attack, thinking that'll intimidate me into backing down. Utterly, lamentably pathetic. Causteau (talk) 22:27, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I've reverted User:Cadenas2008's latest POV edits. He is still pushing the same old study, which I've repeatedly explained to him above is outdated. Only this time, he's added another study which describes the M1 sub-clade of haplogroup M as "Sub-Saharan" based on the fact that this haplogroup was introduced into the studied Yemeni population by Horn Africans (a population where it enjoys a considerable presence). The study does not describe haplogroup M -- the subject of this Wikipedia article -- as "Sub-Saharan" much less indicate that this clade originated in East Africa. Causteau (talk) 19:17, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

If it was Asian he would have called it Asian, M1 is the next down stream lineage directly after M itself. All lineages in India are younger than M1. Some Indian lineages are older than downstream lineages of M1, well duh! Cadenas2008 (talk) 21:25, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid not. M1 is a more recent sub-clade:

"Interestingly, a single M2 genome differs in its coding region from the root of M at ten sites as compared to M1, which possess only four substitutions. Also, sub-lineages of M2, M5, M30 and M31 show long branch lengths, highlighting the deep roots of these lineages. Considering the antiquity of M2 and other East Asian specific M lineages, Ethiopian M1 lineage is by far a relatively newer branch. Our study on M1 and M2 mitochondrial genomes clearly established the Asian origin of M macrohaplogroup, followed by a back migration to Africa. We further suggest that as more M1 mt DNA genomes are sequenced, there is a possibility that this lineage might find its root in one of the peripheral branches of Asian M lineage."

You should actually read what has already been posted so it doesn't have to be posted for you again. Causteau (talk) 21:38, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Ok focus on this simple fact, I never doubted the fact that a downstream clade of M1a can be younger than an upstream clade of M2. Had Gonzalez found upstream M1 or just any M1 in India, then we will not be arguing.

M1 split early of L3, HOA, Egypt & Western Saudi is were L3 & M1 fade into each other making the logical transition from L3 to M1, then in Eastern Saudi & Iran more downstream lineages of M are seen & M1 & L3 lose ground to more downstream lineages of M & N.Cadenas2008 (talk) 21:43, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Are you serious? M1 is a recent mutation of haplogroup M -- not haplogroup L3. It was haplogroup M's oldest Indian mutation that split off from L3. That was what Rajkumar et al. (2005) and Gonzalez et al. (2007) both concluded i.e. the papers that actually studied in detail haplogroup M and its sub-clades. That is also why M1 is referred to as a "relatively newer branch" in the quote above. Again, Rajkumar et al. (2005) are talking about the phylogeny of haplogroup M, not L3:

"The deep roots of M phylogeny clearly establish the antiquity of Indian lineages, especially M2, as compared to Ethiopian M1 lineage and hence, support an Asian origin of M majorhaplogroup."

What is there not to understand? Causteau (talk) 22:00, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

M1 in Yemeni is downstream East African

M1

The M1 found in Yemen -very few- are way downstream because they are recent Horn of Africans, the main clade in Yemen is L3 it mutates into N1 & its clades radiating north to Saudi. The M1 in Ethiopia, Sudan & Southern Egypt is the main source. M1 frequency in Yemen is only 1% in East Africa it averages 20%. No M1 upstream lineages (even up to L3) are found in East Eurasia.

The L3 that hit the African Red Sea coasts are the ones that became M1, immediately surrounded by L3 from every direction from Somalia to Upper Egypt.

Indian clades are well know & found in Eastern Saudi, Oman those are downstream M clades that vanish as you reach western Yemen & the Syrian desert. Hejaz is an M1 region from an obvious North African source because M1 is not found to south were L3 & N clades are the standard. Cadenas2008 (talk) 00:24, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Okay, this is getting a little tired. How many different ways must I explain to you that M1 migrated into Africa from Asia? Here's a new quote from Gonzalez et al. (2007), from the section appropriately titled "Most probable origin of M1 ancestors":

"On the light of our and other authors results, it seems clear that by their respective coalescence ages and diversities, M1 is younger than other Asiatic M lineages. Although it is out of doubt that the L3 ancestor of M had an African origin, macrohaplogroup M radiated outside Africa and M1 should be considered an evolved branch that signals its return to this continent. Even more, as the coalescence ages of the northwestern M1c clade is older than the eastern M1a clade, we think that the most ancient dispersals of M1 occurred in northwestern Africa, reaching also the Iberian Peninsula, instead of Ethiopia."

That's a lovely map you personally created there, but it unfortunately runs counter to all the latest data & WP:NOR, as does the "bargaining" you seem to be trying to initiate. Causteau (talk) 00:54, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

And from Chandrasekar et al. (2007), who actually position M1's exact place of origin in Southwestern Asia:

"M1 (with an estimated coalescence time of 38.6 Æ 7.1 ky) and U6 (with an estimated coalescence time of 45.1 Æ 6.9 ky), which are predominantly north African clades arose in southwestern Asia and differentiated into their major sub-clades while they were in the Mediterranean area and only later some sub-sets of M1a (with an estimated coalescence time of 28.8 Æ 4.9 ky), U6a2 (with an estimated coalescence time of 24.0 Æ 7.3 ky) and U6d (with an estimated coalescence time of 20.6 Æ 7.3 ky) diffused to East and North Africa through the Levant."

Causteau (talk) 01:13, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

What does (U) & East Eurasian down stream clades have what with what I am discussing with you? All this clutter your posting is irrelevant & off the M1 discussion! No one denied a Eurasian back migration (later in Neolithic times), its impossible for a Neolithic migration to have M1 (atleast Mesolithic age mutation).

Answer the simple question? where did Indian M come from? (L3) or Upstream (M)?

where did upstream (M) come from? -even better if you ask your friend Gonzalez- since he is your source here!

Did you read Kivisild, Cerny et al studies? Cadenas2008 (talk) 02:28, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Stop wasting my time dude. I clearly highlighted the relevant parts in the Chandrasekar quote above i.e. where it states that "M1 (with an estimated coalescence time of 38.6 Æ 7.1 ky)... arose in southwestern Asia and differentiated into their major sub-clades while they were in the Mediterranean area". Don't pretend otherwise. I also already told you that macrohaplogroup M came from L3, not M1 (it's in the quote above). For the thousandth time, the Asian M sub-clades are not younger than M1, but older. Here's a phylogenetic tree of the M haplogroup from Gonzalez et al. (2007) (you know, the folks that said "M1 is younger than other Asiatic M lineages"). Note that the Indian M4'30 superclade and M30 branch are more upstream than the relatively newer M1 branch. Why this is so difficult for you to comprehend and/or accept, I still do not know. Causteau (talk) 03:12, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

So you are trying to say M1a or its ancestor exists in India? show me please???

M1a derived from M1 East African lineage not from India.

• India has 0 % M1, 0% L3Cadenas2008 (talk) 04:02, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

No, I am not "trying" to say that "M1a or its ancestor exists in India". In fact, I never even mentioned M1a; you just did. I've only dealt with the topic of concern, which is the origin of haplogroup M (as well as a digression into the origin of M1). But now that you bring it up, Gonzalez et al. (2007) suggest that M1a, for a change, likely originated in East Africa: "Although M1a (HVSI identified by the 16359 transition) is present in all the M1 range, its greatest frequencies and diversities are found in Ethiopia and eastern Africa, pointing to this area as the most probable origin of the M1a expansion in all directions". On the other hand, this is contradicted by Chandrasekar et al. (2007), who state that "some sub-sets of M1a (with an estimated coalescence time of 28.8 Æ 4.9 ky)... diffused to East and North Africa through the Levant." Note, however, that M1a is not the oldest sub-clade of M1 -- M1c is. And according to Gonzalez et al., M1c originated in Northwestern Africa: "Coalescence ages for M1 also fit into this period and the oldest clade M1c has an evident northwestern Africa distribution". But then again, Chandrasekar et al. believe it too originated in Southwest Asia, so that argument is moot as well. The point is, haplogroup M originated in Asia, as did M1. Causteau (talk) 05:14, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Well since you already know that M1a originated in East Africa, now show me an upstream lineage that could be an ancestor of M1 in East Africa?

I went through every sample done on India they only have downstream lineages & I could it even one sample of L3 (immediate ancestor of M, while in East Africa L3 & M1 (and its downstream clades) are always found in the same region, thats why Dr. Cerny & Dr. Kivisild went by commonsense & logic that L3 became M in East Africa. If you want to claim that India is teh origin show me the -upstream- genetic tracks?!!!! Cadenas2008 (talk) 14:37, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Please. Like your "word" is worth anything at this point. Cerny does not say haplogroup M originated in Africa. Why are you even lying about it? Don't you have any shame? This has already been explained to you:

"I've reverted User:Cadenas2008's latest POV edits. He is still pushing the same old study, which I've repeatedly explained to him above is outdated. Only this time, he's added another study which describes the M1 sub-clade of haplogroup M as "Sub-Saharan" based on the fact that this haplogroup was introduced into the studied Yemeni population by Horn Africans (a population where it enjoys a considerable presence). The study does not describe haplogroup M -- the subject of this Wikipedia article -- as "Sub-Saharan" much less indicate that this clade originated in East Africa."

The Kivisild study from 2004 -- i.e. from well before Rajkumar et al. (2005), Gonzalez et al. (2007, and Chandresekar et al. (2007) -- for its part states that M1 might have originated in either East Africa or North Africa or the Near East.

"High diversity of M1 among Cushitic populations of East Africa and the absence of specific subclades present among them, in Tigrais and in all western Asian populations, point to an ancient diversification of M1 in East Africa, consistent with the East African origin of the main subgroups of Afro-Asiatic languages (Ehret 1995). The ancestral status of Moroccan complete sequences at mtDNA coding-region sites that define the major clades present in Ethiopians, however, leaves open the possibility that M1 had originated in North Africa or the Near East instead and was imported to Ethiopia in the remote past, early enough to allow the rise of subclades frequent in and specific to the Horn of Africa."

What it says about haplogroup M is that "from the present evidence, the possibility cannot be eliminated that this haplogroup may even have originated from the same out-of-Africa migration that carried haplogroups M and N and founded the mtDNA diversity of Eurasia, the Americas, and Oceania." However, like I already told you in my very first post on this talk page:

"It used to be thought that M as a whole originated in East Africa because researchers used to believe that M1 was older than all of the M sub-clades found in Asia, but this is no longer the case. They now know that M1 is but a recent mutation, albeit one confined to Northeast Africa (Horn of Africa, Egypt, & among some Berbers) where it was introduced from Asia:

"Interestingly, a single M2 genome differs in its coding region from the root of M at ten sites as compared to M1, which possess only four substitutions. Also, sub-lineages of M2, M5, M30 and M31 show long branch lengths, highlighting the deep roots of these lineages. Considering the antiquity of M2 and other East Asian specific M lineages, Ethiopian M1 lineage is by far a relatively newer branch. Our study on M1 and M2 mitochondrial genomes clearly established the Asian origin of M macrohaplogroup, followed by a back migration to Africa. We further suggest that as more M1 mt DNA genomes are sequenced, there is a possibility that this lineage might find its root in one of the peripheral branches of Asian M lineage."

And:

"The earliest M1 expansion into Africa occurred in northwestern instead of eastern areas; this early spread reached the Iberian Peninsula even affecting the Basques."</blockquote

So not only does Asia already have the highest frequencies of haplogroup M (it's the most common mtDNA haplogroup there) and the most sub-clades of that particular macrohaplogroup, it also has the oldest M sub-clades, hence confirming it as the likely place of origin of both macrohaplogroup M and its recently back-migrated M1 sub-clade."

That said, stop referencing old studies. All the modern studies exclusively devoted to haplogroup M and its sub-clades affirm an Asian origin for haplogroups M & M1, and they do this based on modern data. The Kivisild study from 2004 that you keep pushing dates from well before the discovery of M30 and several other lineages of haplogroup M that, as I already showed you, are in fact more ancestral than M1. From Rajkumar et al. (2005):

"This study describes five new basal mutations and recognizes two new lineages, M30 and M31 that substantially contribute to the present understanding of macrohaplogroup M. These two newly erected lineages include the previously independent lineages M18 and M6 as sub-lineages within them, respectively, suggesting that most mt DNA genomes might arise as limited offshoots of M trunk. Furthermore, this study supports the non existence of lineages such as M3 and M4 that are solely defined on the basis of fast mutating control region motifs and hence, establishes the importance of coding region markers for an accurate understanding of the phylogeny. The deep roots of M phylogeny clearly establish the antiquity of Indian lineages, especially M2, as compared to Ethiopian M1 lineage and hence, support an Asian origin of M majorhaplogroup."

So again, STOP referencing old studies and pushing POV. Causteau (talk) 20:30, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Kivisild 2008

The Complex and Diversified Mitochondrial Gene Pool of Berber Populations

The mitochondrial DNA variation of 295 Berber-speakers from Morocco (Asni, Bouhria and Figuig) and the Egyptian oasis of Siwa was evaluated by sequencing a portion of the control region (including HVS-I and part of HVS-II) and surveying haplogroup-specific coding region markers. Our findings show that the Berber mitochondrial pool is characterized by an overall high frequency of Western Eurasian haplogroups, a somehow lower frequency of sub-Saharan L lineages, and a significant (but differential) presence of North African haplogroups U6 and M1, thus occupying an intermediate position between European and sub-Saharan populations in PCA analysis. A clear and significant genetic differentiation between the Berbers from Maghreb and Egyptian Berbers was also observed. The first are related to European populations as shown by haplogroup H1 and V frequencies, whereas the latter share more affinities with East African and Nile Valley populations as indicated by the high frequency of M1 and the presence of L0a1, L3i, L4*, and L4b2 lineages. Moreover, haplogroup U6 was not observed in Siwa. We conclude that the origins and maternal diversity of Berber populations are old and complex, and these communities bear genetic characteristics resulting from various events of gene flow with surrounding and migrating populations.

Kivisild 2008 old study huh?Cadenas2008 (talk) 04:21, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Cerny 2007

although more sub-Saharan L-type matches appear in more northern Yemeni populations. In fact, Yemeni populations have the highest frequency of R0a haplotypes detected to date, thus Yemen or southern Arabia may be the site of the initial expansion of this haplogroup. Whereas two variants of the sub-Saharan haplogroup M1 were detected only in southwestern Yemen close to the Bab el-Mandeb Strait.

Frequency of L3 in india = Zero % Frequency of M1 in India = Zero %

East Africa is the only possible origin of M1, hence it exists there along with its ancestoral lineages Cadenas2008 (talk) 04:21, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

The Ian Logan site you just added is a personal website -- not a reliable source. Personal websites are the very definition of self-published sites since anyone can create them and consequently publish anything they want on them and then claim with impunity that that self-published information is authoritative. Personal websites also circumvent the peer-review process, the latter of which is especially important for haplogroup articles since we are dealing with the genetics of actual living, breathing populations:

"Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, forum postings, and similar sources are largely not acceptable."

The Coudray et al. (2008) study -- it's not by Kivisild et al.; he didn't even participate in it! -- that you are now quoting above for the first time (as opposed to the, yes, old and obsolete Kivisild et al. 2004 study that you were championing just yesterday) describes M1 as "North African", not Sub-Saharan:

"The mitochondrial DNA variation of 295 Berber-speakers from Morocco (Asni, Bouhria and Figuig) and the Egyptian oasis of Siwa was evaluated by sequencing a portion of the control region (including HVS-I and part of HVS-II) and surveying haplogroup-specific coding region markers. Our findings show that the Berber mitochondrial pool is characterized by an overall high frequency of Western Eurasian haplogroups, a somehow lower frequency of sub-Saharan L lineages, and a significant (but differential) presence of North African haplogroups U6 and M1, thus occupying an intermediate position between European and sub-Saharan populations in PCA analysis. A clear and significant genetic differentiation between the Berbers from Maghreb and Egyptian Berbers was also observed. The first are related to European populations as shown by haplogroup H1 and V frequencies, whereas the latter share more affinities with East African and Nile Valley populations as indicated by the high frequency of M1 and the presence of L0a1, L3i, L4*, and L4b2 lineages. Moreover, haplogroup U6 was not observed in Siwa. We conclude that the origins and maternal diversity of Berber populations are old and complex, and these communities bear genetic characteristics resulting from various events of gene flow with surrounding and migrating populations."

But even if the study were to have described M1 as "Sub-Saharan", that would not necessarily have been a statement on the haplogroup's place of origin but more likely a statement on its distribution. For instance, this study by Gonçalves et al. (2003) describes E3b as "North African" because that is where its highest concentration is found:

"The two populations of Cabo Verde (CVS and CVN) differ significantly, in an opposite way, in their proportion of sub-Saharan (A and E3a) and north African (E3b) haplogroups, whereas they have a similar proportion of west Eurasian lineages, totalling about 60%."

By "North African E3b", the study's authors don't mean E3b originated in North Africa because E3b at the moment is accorded a Horn African place of origin. Again, they simply mean that that is where its most significant distribution is found. The same goes for Cerny et al. (2007), as already explained to you:

"I've reverted User:Cadenas2008's latest POV edits. He is still pushing the same old study, which I've repeatedly explained to him above is outdated. Only this time, he's added another study which describes the M1 sub-clade of haplogroup M as "Sub-Saharan" based on the fact that this haplogroup was introduced into the studied Yemeni population by Horn Africans (a population where it enjoys a considerable presence). The study does not describe haplogroup M -- the subject of this Wikipedia article -- as "Sub-Saharan" much less indicate that this clade originated in East Africa."

As further proof that Cerny et al. (2007) are not implying that haplogroup M originated in Africa, they clearly also refer to "non-African M haplotypes" (which I noticed you conveniently neglected to quote above):

"Despite its key location for population movements out of and back into Africa, Yemen has not yet been sampled on a regional level for an investigation of sub-Saharan, West Eurasian, and South Asian genetic contributions. In this study, we present mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) data for regionally distinct Yemeni populations that reveal different distributions of mtDNA lineages. An extensive database of mtDNA sequences from North and East African, Middle Eastern and Indian populations was analyzed to provide a context for the regional Yemeni mtDNA datasets. The groups of western Yemen appear to be most closely related to Middle Eastern and North African populations, while the eastern Yemeni population from Hadramawt is most closely related to East Africa. Furthermore, haplotype matches with Africa are almost exclusively confined to West Eurasian R0a haplogroup in southwestern Yemen, although more sub-Saharan L-type matches appear in more northern Yemeni populations. In fact, Yemeni populations have the highest frequency of R0a haplotypes detected to date, thus Yemen or southern Arabia may be the site of the initial expansion of this haplogroup. Whereas two variants of the sub-Saharan haplogroup M1 were detected only in southwestern Yemen close to the Bab el-Mandeb Strait, different non-African M haplotypes were detected at low frequencies (2%) in western parts of the country and at a higher frequency (7.5%) in the Hadramawt. We conclude that the Yemeni gene pool is highly stratified both regionally and temporally and that it has received West Eurasian, Northeast African, and South Asian gene flow."

Lastly, I think it's high time someone reminded you that this is the haplogroup M article -- not the M1 article. For the thousandth time, stop pushing POV. Causteau (talk) 10:47, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I will just assume that this went past your head?

Kivisild 2008 The Complex and Diversified Mitochondrial Gene Pool of Berber Populations

The mitochondrial DNA variation of 295 Berber-speakers from Morocco (Asni, Bouhria and Figuig) and the Egyptian oasis of Siwa was evaluated by sequencing a portion of the control region (including HVS-I and part of HVS-II) and surveying haplogroup-specific coding region markers. Our findings show that the Berber mitochondrial pool is characterized by an overall high frequency of Western Eurasian haplogroups, a somehow lower frequency of sub-Saharan L lineages, and a significant (but differential) presence of North African haplogroups U6 and M1, thus occupying an intermediate position between European and sub-Saharan populations in PCA analysis. A clear and significant genetic differentiation between the Berbers from Maghreb and Egyptian Berbers was also observed. The first are related to European populations as shown by haplogroup H1 and V frequencies, whereas the latter share more affinities with East African and Nile Valley populations as indicated by the high frequency of M1 Cadenas2008 (talk) 17:32, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

What are you, hard of reading or something? Pay attention this time:

The Coudray et al. (2008) study -- it's not by Kivisild et al. as you still falsely claim; he didn't even participate in it! -- describes M1 as "North African", not Sub-Saharan. It says nothing about M1 much less haplogroup M -- the subject of this article -- originating in East Africa. It just says that Egyptian Berbers "share more affinities with East African and Nile Valley populations" based on similarly shared high frequencies of M1 (hardly a revelation):

"The mitochondrial DNA variation of 295 Berber-speakers from Morocco (Asni, Bouhria and Figuig) and the Egyptian oasis of Siwa was evaluated by sequencing a portion of the control region (including HVS-I and part of HVS-II) and surveying haplogroup-specific coding region markers. Our findings show that the Berber mitochondrial pool is characterized by an overall high frequency of Western Eurasian haplogroups, a somehow lower frequency of sub-Saharan L lineages, and a significant (but differential) presence of North African haplogroups U6 and M1, thus occupying an intermediate position between European and sub-Saharan populations in PCA analysis. A clear and significant genetic differentiation between the Berbers from Maghreb and Egyptian Berbers was also observed. The first are related to European populations as shown by haplogroup H1 and V frequencies, whereas the latter share more affinities with East African and Nile Valley populations as indicated by the high frequency of M1 and the presence of L0a1, L3i, L4*, and L4b2 lineages. Moreover, haplogroup U6 was not observed in Siwa. We conclude that the origins and maternal diversity of Berber populations are old and complex, and these communities bear genetic characteristics resulting from various events of gene flow with surrounding and migrating populations."

Next thing we know, you'll be arguing that haplogroup T originated in West Africa just because the Fulani happen to have its highest frequencies! LOL Ever heard of genetic drift? I'm guessing not. Causteau (talk) 19:12, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Also why did you remove Bangladesh 83%

You didn't even bother to look at other constructive edits I added & just reverted the whole thing, that shows your attitude twoards editing in wikipedia!Cadenas2008 (talk) 17:32, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

That's not the question, wiseguy. The question is why did you replace the fact that haplogroup M is ubiquitous in India with the fact that it is ubiquitous in the much smaller, much less populated Bangladesh? The Metspalu et al. (2004) study that you cite as a source -- a predictably old study from well before Rajkumar et al. (2005)'s discovery of M30 and other ancestral lineages of haplogroup M, nevermind Gonzalez et al. (2007) and Chandrasekar et al. (2007) -- sure doesn't support that. The one time it uses the term "ubiquitous" is in reference to India in a section titled "Geographic distribution of macro-clades M and N in India" -- not to Bangladesh:

"Geographic distribution of macro-clades M and N in India. We found haplogroup M ubiquitous at almost 58% among the caste, and 72% among the tribal populations (Table 2), which is largely consistent with previous reports. Our results indicate that the frequency distribution of haplogroup M varies across different Indian regions by a significant cline towards the south and the east."

If that wasn't bad enough, the study's Table 2 states that the average frequency of haplogroup M's sub-clades in Bangladesh is 66.67% -- almost 20% lower than the 83% average you falsely claim it asserts! In fact, nowhere in the entire study does it cite an 83% figure. I swear, your POV and just plain dishonesty is truly beyond belief! Causteau (talk) 19:12, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Fluanis are Nomads & their T is Y-DNA not mtDNA, We are discussing mtDNA here, mtDNA reflects a slow pattern of migration. South Asia's most upstream mtDNA lineage is M2 & then all you find is downstream mutations, the downstream Indian lineages radiate out of India & reach Eastern Saudi as reported by Kivisild, Cerny. The M1 found in East Africa is the source of the M1 lineages found in North Africa & Western Yemen/Saudi.

L3-M1 is found in East Africa not India Cadenas2008 (talk) 19:37, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

What is your problem? Do you not understand that your opinion is worth nothing on Wikipedia? Only reliable sources are, and all you keep posting is personal websites, outdated studies from even before the discovery of M30 and other more ancestral lineages of haplogroup M (as well as Gonzalez et al. (2007)'s discovery for the first time of M1 lineages outside of Africa), and outright lies, as I've shown above. Stop with your POV. Real, trusting people actually read these articles. They deserve the latest, authentic information, not your jaundiced opinions and OR. Causteau (talk) 19:41, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Its not my opinion its all the studies that you reject. Another one below Cadenas2008 (talk) 05:33, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

No, it is very much your opinion because "half the studies [I] reject", as you so disinigenuously put it, either 1) don't even come close to stating what you claim (i.e. you lie about what they contain, as can be seen above with the Metspalu et al. (2004) debacle), 2) don't even make a pronouncement any which way on the origin of macrohaplogroup M -- the subject of this article, not haplogroup M1 for the millionth time -- or 3) they all pre-date Rajkumar et al. (2005)'s discovery of M30 and other more ancestral lineages of M, Gonzalez et al. (2007)'s discovery for the first time of M1 lineages outside of Africa, and Chandrasekar et al. (2007)'s work. Causteau (talk) 08:32, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

M1 is East African (Abu Amero et al. 2007)

Abu-Amero et al; 2007 licensee BioMed Central Ltd. Eurasian and African mitochondrial DNA influences in the Saudi Arabian population

Macrohaplogroup M Five of the eight M Saudi Arab lineages clustered into the M1 African haplogroup. Three of them had the 16359 transition that was diagnostic of the M1a East African cluster, and the remaining one belonged to the rare but widespread M1b1 cluster characterized in the HVSI region by 16185 transition and the 16190d deletion that had been identified in the northwest Africa, Jordan, and the Iberian Peninsula [27]. The other three M sequences belonged to Indian clades. One had the basic motif (16126, 16223) of the M3 haplogroup [28]. A second had the 15928 and 16304 transitions that defined haplogroup M25 [29], although this sequence [see Additional file 1] did not match any of the definite or putative M25 sequences found in India [29-31] or Pakistan [26]. Cadenas2008 (talk) 05:33, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I think it's very obvious what you are trying to do here. You'll hunt and peck for any 'ol study that even tangentially mentions haplogroup M1 and use that as an excuse to revert the whole haplogroup M article because heaven knows you sure can't find any recent one which accords M an African origin. I also notice you never bother to link directly to the studies in question. And I don't blame you because they consistently do not support what you claim, as is yet again the case with the study above. The Abu-Amero et al. (2007) study above nowhere indicates that haplogroup M -- the subject of this article -- originated in Africa. Here's an excerpt of the quote above, which you predictably and understandably did not quote in full:

"Five of the eight M Saudi Arab lineages clustered into the M1 African haplogroup [26]. Three of them had the 16359 transition that was diagnostic of the M1a East African cluster, and the remaining one belonged to the rare but widespread M1b1 cluster characterized in the HVSI region by 16185 transition and the 16190d deletion that had been identified in the northwest Africa, Jordan, and the Iberian Peninsula [27]. The other three M sequences belonged to Indian clades. One had the basic motif (16126, 16223) of the M3 haplogroup [28]. A second had the 15928 and 16304 transitions that defined haplogroup M25 [29], although this sequence [see Additional file 1] did not match any of the definite or putative M25 sequences found in India [29-31] or Pakistan [26]. The last M sequence (16111A, 16223) has been found with the central motif in Bhoksa from Uttar Pradesh [32] and with the central motif and the 16129 transition in two derivatives in Yerava from South India [33]. Because these lineages were pooled as undetermined M*, we completely sequenced our sample (Ar201) and compared it to 91 complete Indian M sequences [34-36] to know its phylogenetic position. Our Ar201 sequence shared only transition 3010 with the basal mutations that defined haplogroup M34 [35] so that the most parsimonious tree clustered it with this haplogroup (Figure 1). However, we think that Ar201 may be representative of a new Indian branch of macrohaplogroup M because 3010 is a highly recurrent mutation that has independently appeared in the tips (M40) and sub-cluster roots (D4) of other M haplogroups. The M contributions to the Saudi Arab gene pool represented gene flow from East and North Africa (4%) and India (3%) but not from Central Asia."

As can clearly be seen above, it does not state anywhere that macrohaplogroup M originated in Africa. The part you highlighted where it refers to M1 as an "African haplogroup" references the older Metsapalu et al. (2004) study (that is what the "[26]" refers to), which I already explained to you above pre-dates Rajkumar et al. (2005)'s, Gonzalez et al. (2007's, and Chandresekar et al. (2007)'s work. Metspalu et al. also clearly state in their study, based on the limited data they had available to them back in 2004, that "the question about the origin of haplogroup M [is] still open," which is why Rajkumar et al. (2005) reference Metspalu et al. (2005) in their study for the following remark:

"Furthermore, the frequencies of these clades among the different geographic, linguistic phyla and social strata have been investigated in detail, yet the fundamental question regarding origin of this super-haplogroup still remains unanswered".

However, unlike Metspalu et al. and other researchers before them, Rajkumar et al. were able to clearly establish the Asian origin of macrohaplogroup M based in part on the discovery of new sub-lineages of M such as M30 that are older than the relatively recent M1:

"Considering the antiquity of M2 and other East Asian specific M lineages [33], Ethiopian M1 lineage is by far a relatively newer branch. Our study on M1 and M2 mitochondrial genomes clearly established the Asian origin of M macrohaplogroup, followed by a back migration to Africa. We further suggest that as more M1 mt DNA genomes are sequenced, there is a possibility that this lineage might find its root in one of the peripheral branches of Asian M lineage."

Note the second bolded phrase in the quote above. As it so happens, that is exactly what Gonzalez et al. did i.e. they sequenced more M1 mtDNA genomes -- the entire study was on M1 for cryin' out loud! And Gonzalez et al. of course likewise only further established the Asian origin of M1 and especially macrohaplogroup M (the latter of which, need I remind you, is the subject of this Wikipedia article):

"On the light of our and other authors results, it seems clear that by their respective coalescence ages and diversities, M1 is younger than other Asiatic M lineages. Although it is out of doubt that the L3 ancestor of M had an African origin, macrohaplogroup M radiated outside Africa and M1 should be considered an evolved branch that signals its return to this continent."

And if that wasn't enough, this was even further established by Chandrasekar et al. (2007)'s work (and Olivieri et al. (2006) before them):

"Likewise the M, N and R haplogroups of mtDNA have no indication of an African origin. In the light of recent findings by Olivieri et al. (2006) the scenario of a back migration into Africa is supported by two features of mtDNA: M1 (with an estimated coalescence time of 38.6 Æ 7.1 ky) and U6 (with an estimated coalescence time of 45.1 Æ 6.9 ky), which are predominantly north African clades arose in southwestern Asia and differentiated into their major sub-clades while they were in the Mediterranean area and only later some sub-sets of M1a (with an estimated coalescence time of 28.8 Æ 4.9 ky), U6a2 (with an estimated coalescence time of 24.0 Æ 7.3 ky) and U6d (with an estimated coalescence time of 20.6 Æ 7.3 ky) diffused to East and North Africa through the Levant."

This is what makes your edits so frustrating! You're behaving as though the research has not progressed and we are still back before the discovery of Asian M lineages that pre-date M1 & before the finding of M1 outside of Africa. That's not particularly helpful or honest. Causteau (talk) 08:32, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

M1 originated in Africa (Semino)

The Genetic Legacy of Paleolithic Homo sapiens Conversely, all non-M mtDNAs of non-African origin analysed so far carry 10873T. These data indicate that the **transition 10400 C-->T, which defines haplogroup M**, arose on an African background characterized by the ancestral state 10873C, which is also present in four primate (common and pygmy chimps, gorilla and orangutan) mtDNA sequences.Cadenas2008 (talk) 05:52, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

The Semino et al. study above is from the year 2000 -- almost half a decade before the Rajkumar et al. (2005)'s discovery of M30 and other lineages of macrohaplogroup M that are more ancestral than M1:

"This study describes five new basal mutations and recognizes two new lineages, M30 and M31 that substantially contribute to the present understanding of macrohaplogroup M. These two newly erected lineages include the previously independent lineages M18 and M6 as sub-lineages within them, respectively, suggesting that most mt DNA genomes might arise as limited offshoots of M trunk. Furthermore, this study supports the non existence of lineages such as M3 and M4 that are solely defined on the basis of fast mutating control region motifs and hence, establishes the importance of coding region markers for an accurate understanding of the phylogeny. The deep roots of M phylogeny clearly establish the antiquity of Indian lineages, especially M2, as compared to Ethiopian M1 lineage and hence, support an Asian origin of M majorhaplogroup."

It's also from a good seven years before Gonzalez et al. (2007)'s monumental work on M1, which, among other things, found the clade for the first time outside of Africa!:

"The detection of a basal branch of haplogroup M in Africa (M1) gave support to the idea that haplogroup M originated in eastern Africa and was carried towards Asia with the out-of-Africa expansion [22]. The alternative hypothesis, that haplogroup M1 could trace a posterior backflow to Africa from Asia, considered by several authors [7,21,23,24] has not yet gained experimental support because, until now, no ancestral M1 lineages have been found outside Africa."

Good grief, have you no shame? Causteau (talk) 08:32, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

From Semino 2000 to Kivisild 2008 & Malyarchuk 2008 they seem to agree that M1 has nothing to do with India!, you keep quoting Hindu Nationalists & ignoring the fact that India has no upstream lineages & then tell me I have no shame!Cadenas2008 (talk) 16:00, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. You have no shame because if you did, you wouldn't "hunt and peck for any 'ol study that even tangentially mentions haplogroup M1 and use that as an excuse to revert the whole haplogroup M article because heaven knows you sure can't find any recent one which accords M an African origin. I also notice you never bother to link directly to the studies in question." You're quoting old studies (perfect example: Semino et al. 2000 -- I already addressed what's wrong with it above), 2) misrepresenting the contents of new studies (e.g. Coudray et al. 2008 -- and it's NOT by Kivisild et al. for the thousandth time -- which is also discussed and analyzed above), 3) outright lying about others (the Metspalu et al. (2004) debacle also covered above), and 4) linking to personal websites. And to top it off, you now accuse Rajkumar et al. and Chandrasekar et al. (2007) of being "Hindu Nationalists" with zero proof whatsoever just because you can't stomach that they assert an Asian origin for macrohaplogroup M in their up-to-date, peer-reviewed studies, and you have no way of effectively responding to this other than character assassination! You're hitting new lows with every post; truly. Causteau (talk) 17:33, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

M1 mtDNA originated in Africa (Malyarchuk - 2008)

Reconstructing the phylogeny of African mitochondrial DNA lineages in Slavs. Malyarchuk BA, Derenko M, Perkova M, Grzybowski T, Vanecek T, Lazur J. Genetics Laboratory, Institute of Biological Problems of the North, Far-East Branch of Russian Academy of Sciences, Magadan, Russia. malyarchuk@ibpn.ru

To elucidate the origin of African-specific mtDNA lineages, revealed previously in Slavonic populations (at frequency of about 0.4%), we completely sequenced eight African genomes belonging to haplogroups L1b, L2a, L3b, L3d and M1 gathered from Russians, Czechs, Slovaks and Poles. Cadenas2008 (talk) 15:55, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

And yet again you produce another misrepresented study to add to your barrage of obsolete studies, papers whose contents you've misrepresented or outright lied about, and personal websites. But, unsurprisingly, you again do not bother to produce a link for it. I wonder why that is? Could it because the authors only assert that the M1 in Slavonic populations might have been brought by African migrants -- North African migrants at that?

Nowhere in the study do they even mention haplogroup M -- the subject of this Wikipedia article -- much less its place of origin. Instead, they talk about its relatively recent M1 sub-clade which they believe was brought to Europe by North African migrants, but they say nothing about M1's place of origin either -- just which M1-carrying population transmitted it to the studied Eastern Europeans:

"In Northwest Africa, haplogroup M1 has been found at high frequencies in Algerians, and at lower frequency in Tunisians, Mozabites and Morroccan Arabs, showing a slight east – west cline.34 Haplogroup M1 is rare in Iberia, but the presence of North African M1 mtDNA in the Basques remains that pre-date the Muslim invasion (eighth century) points to the prehistoric arrival of M1 lineages in Iberia."

You've got some serious issues. Why are you pushing POV so shamelessly? And where do you get off reverting an entire article on haplogroup M based on false quotes, obsolete studies, a personal website, and utter misrepresentation of studies that never even directly assert the place of origin of its M1 sub-clade much less macrohaplogroup M itself? Absurd. Causteau (talk) 17:33, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

You are rude for no reason! I had to list many studies (3 of them are done in 2008!) & you have the nerve to say they are old? All studies simply lump M1 with L3 amongst African lineages, you are your Hinduvta sponsored friends are the only people trying to spread an unscietific rumour claiming that M1 originated in India although (You ignored the mysterious absence of upstream lineages that can produce M1 in India). Cadenas2008 (talk) 17:55, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I am rude for no reason? That's rich coming from you. You called me a racist, remember? And with no proof whatsoever. You wouldn't even bother discussing things with me at first until I had to practically twist your arm to get you to! You also just finished insinuating for the third time -- again with no proof -- that the Rajukamar et al. (2005) and Chandrasekar et al. (2007) studies published in reputable peer-reviewed journals are "Hindutva". And you did this because you have no other way of responding to what they assert. So don't come at me with ad hominem, buddy. Deal with the facts. And that is that haplogroup M, originated in Asia, as all of the latest studies assert. Anyone can see that it's me who has done the real argumentation above and point by point -- not cheap mud slinging. You weren't even ingenuous enough to link to the studies that supposedly supported your argument. If that's not a harbinger, I don't know what is. Causteau (talk) 18:12, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Before I forget, just because M1 is scarce-to-non-existent in India doesn't mean this is the case in other areas of Asia as well. In fact, M1 is found throughout the Middle East and so is L3. This is why the studies have decreed an Asian origin for haplogroup M, and not an necessarily Indian one:

"M1 is not uncommon in the Mediterranean basin showing a peak in the Iberian Peninsula. However, it is rare in continental Europe. Although in low frequencies, its presence in the Middle East has been well established from the South of the Arabian Peninsula to Anatolia and from the Levant to Iran."

Remember, all haplogroup M's sub-clades and its descendant lineages are restricted to outside of Africa. Only little M1 -- which is a relatively recent sub-lineage, let's not forget; one that's significantly younger than the Asian-exclusive sub-clades -- is predominantly found in Africa, but no longer even exclusively found there since Gonzalez et al. (2007)'s discovery of M1 lineages outside of the continent. Do you finally see the big picture? Causteau (talk) 18:40, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Causteau I will give you points to review on your own:

• M1 is not a recent sublcade of M, (M1a is). M1 itself has the same mutations M2 has (oldest in Asia), then Indian clades add their mutations & M1 adds its own mutations. Now everybody I mentioned (2000-2008) clearly point out that M1 is East African, because the ancestor of M is absent in India & its conviently located next to L3 (ancestor of M) in East Africa.

• M1 is not -little- in Africa! (Somalia, Ethiopia, Sudan, Upper Egypt, Libya, Algeria) all have it in 10~40% frequency. Levant & Arabia have it in lower frequencies 1~10%.

• L3 is found in a similar percentage wherever M1 is found & its absent in India. L3 & M are just letters many clades fo L3 are much closer to upstream M than downstream lineages of M.

• I am 100% aware of why this is anooying you, I know where you are coming from. However, please take your issues to other articles or blogs. Not Scientific articles, if you find me a study showing L3 or M1 is India then I have something to see.Cadenas2008 (talk) 21:44, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

• I'm beginning to wonder if you even read what I post. How you can say M1 is not a recent sub-clade of haplogroup M truly defies belief when Rajkumar et al. (2005) state that point blank:

"Considering the antiquity of M2 and other East Asian specific M lineages, Ethiopian M1 lineage is by far a relatively newer branch. Our study on M1 and M2 mitochondrial genomes clearly established the Asian origin of M macrohaplogroup, followed by a back migration to Africa."

And does Gonzalez et al. (2007)'s M1 study:

"On the light of our and other authors results, it seems clear that by their respective coalescence ages and diversities, M1 is younger than other Asiatic M lineages."

And no, none of the sources you cited accord M1 an East African place of origin aside from obsolete studies such as Semino et al. (2000) and that one Ian Logan personal website. I've already discussed this above study by study and point by point, so I'm not going to repeat it again. Actually read the text this time because your brute force tactics won't work.

• M1 as being "little" was a figure of speech, Cadenas2008. It was in comparison to all the descendants of haplogroups M & N that have a distribution and origin exclusively outside of Africa that I was referring to.

• Are you hard of reading or something? Rajkumar et al. (2005), Gonzalez et al. (2007) and Chandrasekar (2007) all give macrohaplogroup M an Asian origin -- not an Indian one. Gawd, you go on and on with about M1 when the bloody Wikipedia article is on haplogroup M. Causteau (talk) 23:35, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

• I don't need to find you anything buddy cause I'm in the driver's seat. It's me that can and, in fact, has been quoting all the up-to-date studies on macrohaplogroup M -- from the discovery of M30 and other lineages of M by Rajkumar et al. (2005) that are more ancestral than its M1 subclade, to the discovery for the first time of M1 lineages outside of Africa by Gonzalez et al. (2007), I've covered it all. And my quotes directly support what I include in the article whereas you rely on obsolete studies (as I've repeatedly demonstrated above), personal websites, untruths, and distortions of abstracts, many of whom don't even once mention macrohaplogroup M. You see Cadenas2008, I knew you couldn't prove anything you claimed. I knew you'd come back with no serious arguments in tow other than more of the same old arguments as you made before (and that I already responded to several times over) and brute force reverting. For instance, you insist that Rajkumar et al. and Chandrasekar et al. are "Hindutva", but yet can't even produce so much as one bit of evidence to back that BS up when squarely asked to. You write that Metsapalu et al. (2004) say that M1 is ubiquitous in Bangladesh, but:

The question is why did you replace the fact that haplogroup M is ubiquitous in India with the fact that it is ubiquitous in the much smaller, much less populated Bangladesh? The Metspalu et al. (2004) study that you cite as a source -- a predictably old study from well before Rajkumar et al. (2005)'s discovery of M30 and other ancestral lineages of haplogroup M, nevermind Gonzalez et al. (2007) and Chandrasekar et al. (2007) -- sure doesn't support that. The one time it uses the term "ubiquitous" is in reference to India in a section titled "Geographic distribution of macro-clades M and N in India" -- not to Bangladesh:

"Geographic distribution of macro-clades M and N in India. We found haplogroup M ubiquitous at almost 58% among the caste, and 72% among the tribal populations (Table 2), which is largely consistent with previous reports. Our results indicate that the frequency distribution of haplogroup M varies across different Indian regions by a significant cline towards the south and the east."

If that wasn't bad enough, the study's Table 2 states that the average frequency of haplogroup M's sub-clades in Bangladesh is 66.67% -- almost 20% lower than the 83% average you falsely claim it asserts! In fact, nowhere in the entire study does it cite an 83% figure.

Like I said, it's all old territory. I also have to wonder about your rationality at this point. Do you honestly think these brute force tactics would work? Don't be silly now. Only logic, reason and honesty can, cardinal virtues which your arguments (or rather, lack thereof) have heretofore been in dire shortage of. You claim you can sense my frustration, but I don't believe you can because you seem really out of touch with the outside world. If this is not the case, then how come I must keep repeating things as if I'm telling them to you for the first time? Like the quote above about M1 being a relatively recent sub-clade of M. I must've mentioned that (with quotes, of course) like at least four separate times on this talk page alone, yet you insist it didn't?! Unbelievable! And when you revert, why do you put all those bogus studies back into the article? Why, for instance, do you re-introduce the personal website when you know perfectly well it's a self-published source and therefore not a reliable source? Why do you ascribe figures and comments to Metspalu, for one, that he never once makes? Why???? I want to believe I'm dealing with another normal person here. Please convince me that I am because as things are, you are setting an unfortunate precedent by trying to legitimize obsolete studies, distortions of studies, and personal websites. Do you realize just how many studies say that haplogroup J, for instance, might've originated in Northeast Africa instead of your preferred Southwest Asia? Do you (e.g. 1)? Using your tactics, anyone could assail the haplogroup J article with similarly obsolete studies and turn around and say, "hey, I, like, cited 30 studies man, so why did you revert me?" Ummm... perhaps because you cited, like, 30 obsolete studies? Do you get my point? Respond for a change as one rational human being to another. Please. Causteau (talk) 23:35, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Opportunism 101! I offer you an invitation to reasoned debate and instead you use some bogus pretext about Metspalu et al. (2004) claiming that the M1 sub-clade of macrohaplogroup M is ubiquitous in Bangladesh and at 83% of mtDNA lineages there -- when they state no such thing -- to reinsert your obsolete studies, misrepresentations of what studies do actually cite, and personal website! How far do you think you will get with this behavior? Nowhere, I can assure you of that. Causteau (talk) 00:17, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

M mtDNA peaks in Bangladesh 66.67% - Metspalu et al. (2004)

• The table in Metspalu et al. shows that M mtDNA peaks in the sovereign nation of Bangladesh (83%) -I felt it was an important fact that needs to be added -not sure why that offended you?!!-, you can add the comment about (India 60%) if you feel its needed. Cadenas2008 (talk) 02:14, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I swear, you are truly out of your mind. The Metspalu et al. (2004) study does not once use the term "sovereign", so how on Earth could it state that M mtDNA peaks in "the sovereign nation of Bangladesh (83%)"? I invite ALL readers to avail themselves of the search function on their pdf programs, and see just how honest this Cadenas2008 character really is. What you'll notice right away is that it doesn't once state that M peaks in Bangladesh much less at 83%! Rather, it states on Table 2 -- notice how I had no trouble whatsoever citing the exact Table where the data is found whereas Cadenas2008 unsurprisingly hasn't once been able or willing to indicate which part of the study he got that famous make-believe percentage of his from -- that the average frequency of haplogroup M's sub-clades in Bangladesh is 66.67%, which is almost 20% lower than the 83% average Cadenas2008 claims! Unbelievable. Causteau (talk) 08:50, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Mea Culpa 66.67% in Bangladesh not 83%. I stand corrected. Cadenas2008 (talk) 15:38, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Origins of haplogroup M

At present most of the literature state that both haplogroups M and N originated in Asia. However, the lack of the mother haplogroup L3 in Eurasia has been the biggest stumbling block to the Asian origin of M and N. Conversely the lack of diversity of haplogroups M and N in Africa are also problematic for an African origin. Whatever happened, Haplogroups M and N arose shortly before or shortly after the exodus from Africa.The "before scenario" entails that the these haplogroups arose in a small population, this population quickly dispersed from Africa, before these haplogroups could spread to other African populations. The "after scenario" entails the mutations occurred shortly after the exodus. Because of a small effective populations size, drift would quickly lead the mother haplogroup L3 to extinction in Asia. Whatever the case, the current consensus is that there was a population bottleneck at the time of the exodus from Africa, with the total African population numbering less than 10,000 people, some estimates give 2000 people. From this population an even smaller population of people left Africa, estimates of about 150-200 people. It is possible that this population had been genetically isolated from the rest of Africa. These small population sizes mean there were a lot of founder effects and also genetic drift has destroyed much of the evidence. In summary, much of the literature tends to favor an Asian origin of M and N, but they do not rule out the possibility of an African origin. I would suggest including information on both scenarios.Wapondaponda (talk) 02:56, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the input, Wapondapaponda. I'm glad you at least were honest enough to acknowledge that the Asian origin of macrohaplogroup M is the status quo. How anyone familiar with the literature can argue otherwise in 2009 is truly a thing to behold. You are mistaken, however, when you state that the literature does not rule out an African origin for macrohaplogroup M. It definitely does and in strong terms. From Rajkumar et al. (2005):

"Interestingly, a single M2 genome differs in its coding region from the root of M at ten sites as compared to M1, which possess only four substitutions. Also, sub-lineages of M2, M5, M30 and M31 show long branch lengths, highlighting the deep roots of these lineages. Considering the antiquity of M2 and other East Asian specific M lineages, Ethiopian M1 lineage is by far a relatively newer branch. Our study on M1 and M2 mitochondrial genomes clearly established the Asian origin of M macrohaplogroup, followed by a back migration to Africa."

Gonzalez et al. (2007):

"On the light of our and other authors results, it seems clear that by their respective coalescence ages and diversities, M1 is younger than other Asiatic M lineages. Although it is out of doubt that the L3 ancestor of M had an African origin, macrohaplogroup M radiated outside Africa and M1 should be considered an evolved branch that signals its return to this continent."

Chandrasekar et al. (2007):

"The hypothesis of a back migration from Asia to Africa is strongly supported by the current phylogeography of the Y-chromosome variation, because haplogroup K2 and paragroup R1b*, both belonging to the otherwise Asiatic macro haplogroup K, have only been observed at high frequencies in Africa (Cruciani et al. 2002; Luis et al. 2004). Thus the major sub-sets of Y lineages that arose from the M168 lineage do not trace to an African origin. Likewise the M, N and R haplogroups of mtDNA have no indication of an African origin. In the light of recent findings by Olivieri et al. (2006) the scenario of a back migration into Africa is supported by two features of mtDNA: M1 (with an estimated coalescence time of 38.6 Æ 7.1 ky) and U6 (with an estimated coalescence time of 45.1 Æ 6.9 ky), which are predominantly north African clades arose in southwestern Asia and differentiated into their major sub-clades while they were in the Mediterranean area and only later some sub-sets of M1a (with an estimated coalescence time of 28.8 Æ 4.9 ky), U6a2 (with an estimated coalescence time of 24.0 Æ 7.3 ky) and U6d (with an estimated coalescence time of 20.6 Æ 7.3 ky) diffused to East and North Africa through the Levant."

You see, prior to Rajkumar et al. (2005)'s discovery of several Asian-exclusive lineages of M such as M30 that are more ancestral than M1, it was believed that M1 was the oldest of the M sub-clades. Since M1 was at the time also exclusive to Africa, it made sense to conclude that M1's parent macrohaplogroup M itself therefore originated in Africa. However, we now know that M1 is actually a relatively recent lineage (please refer to the quotes above), not an old one much less the oldest haplogroup M lineage. This is what Rajkumar et al. mean when they state that "this study describes five new basal mutations and recognizes two new lineages, M30 and M31 that substantially contribute to the present understanding of macrohaplogroup M." So that was one major argument down. However, if you scroll a few paragraphs up, you'll see that Cadenas2008 is still claiming outright that "M1 is not a recent sublcade of M, (M1a is)"! I think this demonstrates very clearly that he is stuck in a time warp, reading old literature from the days when M1 was considered the oldest lineage of M and the macrohaplogroup was consequently accorded an African origin.

Rajkumar's findings were followed by Gonzalez et al. (2007)'s discovery of haplogroup M lineages outside of Africa for the first time:

"The detection of a basal branch of haplogroup M in Africa (M1) gave support to the idea that haplogroup M originated in eastern Africa and was carried towards Asia with the out-of-Africa expansion [22]. The alternative hypothesis, that haplogroup M1 could trace a posterior backflow to Africa from Asia, considered by several authors [7,21,23,24] has not yet gained experimental support because, until now, no ancestral M1 lineages have been found outside Africa."

That was the final nail in the coffin as far as macrohaplogroup M's putative African origin was concerned. No longer was M1 its oldest sub-clade and no longer was M1 exclusive to Africa either but found throughout Asia and even in Europe! From Gonzalez et al.:

"In contradiction to the hypothesis of an eastern Africa origin for modern human expansions out of Africa, the most ancestral M1 lineages have been found in Northwest Africa and in the Near East, instead of in East Africa. The M1 geographic distribution and the relative ages of its different subclades clearly correlate with those of haplogroup U6, for which an Eurasian ancestor has been demonstrated... On the light of our and other authors results, it seems clear that by their respective coalescence ages and diversities, M1 is younger than other Asiatic M lineages. Although it is out of doubt that the L3 ancestor of M had an African origin, macrohaplogroup M radiated outside Africa and M1 should be considered an evolved branch that signals its return to this continent."

Both Rajkumar et al.'s and Gonzalez et al.'s conclusions were further buttressed by Chandrasekar et al. (2007), again confirming the Asian origin of macrohaplogroup M. I must therefore reiterate that all the studies which assert an African origin for macrohaplogroup M date from before Rajkumar et al. (2005), Gonzalez (2007), and Chandrasekar et al. (2007)'s work. By virtue of their age, none of these old studies take into account, for instance, the fact that the Asian-exclusive lineages are the oldest haplogroup M lineages or that sub-clade M1 is found pretty much throughout Western Eurasia and not restricted to Africa as had previously been believed. This is what I mean by obsolete studies. Cadenas2008 has repeatedly demonstrated that he has trouble understanding these simple principles (please see our discussion above; I address each of his studies point by point). People in the know such as Dienekes Pontikos, however, have no such trouble. They understand that the new data has, in the latter gentleman's words, "clinch[ed] the argument in favor of the Asian origin." Dienekes tellingly wrote that way back in 2005 too -- a good four years before this pointless and long-winded talk page discussion ever saw the light of day. Causteau (talk) 08:50, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Causteau there is a lot of support for the Asian origin of haplogroup M. Nonetheless, the debate is still on going. These recent studies are by no means the end of the story, there are still a lot of blanks to be filled. If haplogroup M1 is the result of a back migration from Asia, it may weaken the argument for an African origin of haplogroup M, but it does not rule out the possibility of an African origin of haplogroup M. As mentioned earlier, the biggest problem with an asian origin, in particular, in an Indian origin of M is the lack of ancient L3 lineages in asia.Kivisild et al 2003 state

the lack of L3 lineages other than M and N in India and among non-African mitochondria in general suggests that the earliest migration(s) of modern humans already carried these two mtDNA ancestors, via a eparture route over the horn of Africa

Whereas Quintana et al state

the following scenario can be envisaged: haplogroup M originated in eastern Africa approximately 60,000 years ago and was carried toward Asia. This agrees with the proposed date of an out-of-Africa expansion approximately 65,000 years ago. After its arrival in Asia, the haplogroup M founder group went through a demographic and geographic expansion. The remaining M haplogroup in eastern Africa did not spread, but remained localized up to approximately 10,000–20,000 years ago, after which it started to expand.

Gonzalez et al 2007, while supportive of an Asian origin of M1 state

To know whether the two M and N macrohaplogroups that colonized Eurasia were already present in Africa before the exit is puzzling. Another related disjunctive yet not settled is whether M and N (and its main branch R) arose inside or outside Africa

Gonzalez et al clearly state that the matter has not been resolved. I think that it is best to include both hypotheses, just as authors such as Gonzalez have done. Wapondaponda (talk) 13:31, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi! I was struck by the conflict between the two Gonzalez quotes so I looked this up. I think I am right in saying that the quote you have selected is in a section where they are reviewing the previous literature. Notice the peppering of citations and the "yet not settled" followed by "gave support to the idea", The alternative hypothesis ... considered by several authors has not yet gained experimental support because, until now, no ancestral M1 lineages have been found outside Africa". I added the bold on what I think are key words. Concerning the old Quintana paper I do not dispute that old papers can contain arguments that can remain important if those arguments have not been confronted. Obviously a key one you are pointing to is the lack of L3 in Asia. However Gonzalez et al. claim to have new data, not L3 but something similar, that no-one had before. So I think the wiki article should favour one theory over the other. I see no reason not to mention anything at all about the history of speculation about Asian origins, because it is in itself still relevant.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:01, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Andrew is right. The section of the study where Gonzalez et al. state that "another related disjunctive yet not settled is whether M and N (and its main branch R) arose inside or outside Africa" is dubbed "Background" because that is where Gonzalez et al. are reviewing the previous literature on the subject before unveiling the results of their own study. They also conclude that same section with a reference to their own findings i.e. that M1 hadn't been found outside of Africa until now. In a later section aptly titled "Most probable origin of M1 ancestors", they assert:

"On the light of our and other authors results, it seems clear that by their respective coalescence ages and diversities, M1 is younger than other Asiatic M lineages. Although it is out of doubt that the L3 ancestor of M had an African origin, macrohaplogroup M radiated outside Africa and M1 should be considered an evolved branch that signals its return to this continent."

And Gonzalez et al. conclude their study with the following:

"This study provides evidence that M1, or its ancestor, had an Asiatic origin. The earliest M1 expansion into Africa occurred in northwestern instead of eastern areas; this early spread reached the Iberian Peninsula even affecting the Basques. The majority of the M1a lineages found outside and inside Africa had a more recent eastern Africa origin. Both western and eastern M1 lineages participated in the Neolithic colonization of the Sahara. The striking parallelism between subclade ages and geographic distribution of M1 and its North African U6 counterpart strongly reinforces this scenario."

The Quintana et al. (1999) and Kivisild et al. (2004) studies also date from before Rajkumar et al. (2005), Gonzalez et al. (2007), and Chandrasekar et al. (2007)'s findings. This is what I meant by:

"I must therefore reiterate that all the studies which assert an African origin for macrohaplogroup M date from before Rajkumar et al. (2005), Gonzalez (2007), and Chandrasekar et al. (2007)'s work. By virtue of their age, none of these old studies take into account, for instance, the fact that the Asian-exclusive lineages are the oldest haplogroup M lineages or that sub-clade M1 is found pretty much throughout Western Eurasia and not restricted to Africa as had previously been believed. This is what I mean by obsolete studies."

That said, I have reviewed Andrew's edits to the article, and I think he has managed to strike a fair compromise by citing both theories, but indicating that the Asian origin of haplogroup M is the new standard theory (which is indeed the case). This is also consistent with WP:UNDUE, which indicates that:

"Neutrality requires that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. Now an important qualification: In general, articles should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and will generally not include tiny-minority views at all."

All in all, an agreeable denouement, and I for one thank both Andrew and Wapondaponda for their involvement and input. Causteau (talk) 21:15, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I tend to disagree that this matter has been resolved. I think there is still a long way to go in its resolution. M1 is still largely a sideshow to the origins of M. Whether M1 originated in Africa or Asia does not resolve the debate. Just as DE* was recently discovered in Tibet, it might just be possible to discover an M* in Africa or an L3* in Asia. Such discoveries could go a long way to solving these mysteries.

With regards to recent studies trumping older studies, there are two issues. Firstly recent studies can only trump older studies if the information is definitive. Over the years since I have been following these haplogroups, their age seems to change every year going up and down. Information based on molecular clock data is never definitive since these are just statistical approximations. For example, In one calculation Gonzalez et al state M1 is 35175 ± 7147, whereas Quintana et al state that M1 is 48,000 ± 15,000. These ages overlap so neither is definitive, it just depends on what rate of the molecular clock is used to calculate the ages.

Secondly, a recent study can only trump an older study if it directly refutes the older study. All the recent studies cited in the article have focused on showing the haplogroup M1 originated in Asia. They have not addressed the issue of L3 being absent in Asia. Consequently the L3 issue from previous articles such as Kivisild et al 2003, remains outstanding.

Gonzalez et al 2007, have sidestepped the issue of the origins of Haplogroup M in their article. Their conclusion makes no reference whatsoever to M, they only reference M1. At the moment both scenarios are plausible and are currently being used in literature. I see no reason why we should censor information regarding this debate, when both scenarios are being openly and widely discussed in scientific literature. For one of the most important haplogroups in human history, this article is extremely light on detail and could do with some beefing up.

Finally I don't see why there should be a specific mention of all populations that harbor haplogroup M since it is found in all populations around the world. Rather it would be more accurate to describe all non-African populations as belonging either to haplogroup M or haplogroup N. Wapondaponda (talk) 23:15, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

The haplogroup M issue bears little resemblance to the DE* debate. For one thing, all haplogroup M's major sub-clades have been observed in Asia, including M1 (and so has L3; it's not absent in Asia, only in India, which is why the researchers assert an Asian origin for M and not specifically an Indian one). In fact, all of M's descendant branches and macrohaplogroup N's as well are exclusively found outside of Africa, and all are accorded a non-African origin. By contrast, only M1 has been observed in Africa, and its distribution is geographically restricted to Afro-Asiatic speaking populations:

"With the exception of the M1 lineage that is confined to Ethiopia, all the other branches of this macrohaplogroup including M*, C, D, G, E and Z haplogroups are observed in Asia."

Secondly, Rajkumar et al. (2005), Gonzalez et al. (2007), and Chandrasekar et al. (2007) all unambiguously support an Asian origin specifically for macrohaplogroup M. From Rajkumar et al. (2005):

"Considering the antiquity of M2 and other East Asian specific M lineages, Ethiopian M1 lineage is by far a relatively newer branch. Our study on M1 and M2 mitochondrial genomes clearly established the Asian origin of M macrohaplogroup, followed by a back migration to Africa."

Gonzalez et al. (2007):

"In contradiction to the hypothesis of an eastern Africa origin for modern human expansions out of Africa, the most ancestral M1 lineages have been found in Northwest Africa and in the Near East, instead of in East Africa. The M1 geographic distribution and the relative ages of its different subclades clearly correlate with those of haplogroup U6, for which an Eurasian ancestor has been demonstrated... On the light of our and other authors results, it seems clear that by their respective coalescence ages and diversities, M1 is younger than other Asiatic M lineages. Although it is out of doubt that the L3 ancestor of M had an African origin, macrohaplogroup M radiated outside Africa and M1 should be considered an evolved branch that signals its return to this continent."

And Chandrasekar et al. (2007):

"The hypothesis of a back migration from Asia to Africa is strongly supported by the current phylogeography of the Y-chromosome variation, because haplogroup K2 and paragroup R1b*, both belonging to the otherwise Asiatic macro haplogroup K, have only been observed at high frequencies in Africa (Cruciani et al. 2002; Luis et al. 2004). Thus the major sub-sets of Y lineages that arose from the M168 lineage do not trace to an African origin. Likewise the M, N and R haplogroups of mtDNA have no indication of an African origin. In the light of recent findings by Olivieri et al. (2006) the scenario of a back migration into Africa is supported by two features of mtDNA: M1 (with an estimated coalescence time of 38.6 Æ 7.1 ky) and U6 (with an estimated coalescence time of 45.1 Æ 6.9 ky), which are predominantly north African clades arose in southwestern Asia and differentiated into their major sub-clades while they were in the Mediterranean area and only later some sub-sets of M1a (with an estimated coalescence time of 28.8 Æ 4.9 ky), U6a2 (with an estimated coalescence time of 24.0 Æ 7.3 ky) and U6d (with an estimated coalescence time of 20.6 Æ 7.3 ky) diffused to East and North Africa through the Levant."

Those are direct refutations.

Lastly, as far as indicating in which populations M's sub-clades are found, it would be more accurate to focus on just that: M's sub-clades rather than the haplogroups that descended from M (i.e. CZ, D, G, etc.). Causteau (talk) 00:38, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Origin of haplogroup m section break

Those are refutations based on haplogroup M1 not haplogroup L3. Yes L3 has been observed in Saudi Arabia, but it has only recently been introduced to the region from African migrants[3]. Wapondaponda (talk) 01:01, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi Wapondaponda. As far as I can see, my remark that the literature certainly favours Asian origin is now agreed to by everyone keeping an eye on this article, including you and User:Cadenas2008. So [your latest edit] goes the wrong way, making them all equal. This needs a source no-one has been able to find yet. Also I believe that including a new third option of "independent mutation" is WP:OR unless you can find a serious source for this. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:19, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Andrew, Having gone through the evidence, I have had to revise my position a little. Haplogroup M is definitely an Asian haplogroup, by frequency, but its origins are less certain. When humans crossed the Red Sea, or the entered Asia through, the levant, it would have taken several hundred, possibly thousands of years to reach the Indian sub-continent. Typically scientists have used a mile a year as migration rates for hunter gatherer population. If haplogroup M arose in India, then there would have been a trail of haplogroup L3 stretching all the way back to Africa. This population would have to go extinct to completely eliminate l3 from the Asian gene pool, an unlikely scenario. It is possible that M and N arose in Saudi Arabia, in a small population and drift eliminated L3. But the closer we get to Africa, the more parsimonious the explanations become.

In the spirit of WP:NOTCENSORED, I have included both theories and tried to update them with a summary of both arguments. I would hope, editors can focus on bolstering their preferred argument, rather than deleting opposing views. I think if it is directly relevant to the article, if it meets, WP:NOTE, WP:RS, WP:VERIFY and WP:NPOV it should be included in the article. As mentioned previously and in other articles, this article is light on detail for an important haplogroup. Wapondaponda (talk) 10:44, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Couldn't you be interpreted as "censoring" the evidence in the literature that there is now a strongly leading theory which post dates the sources you mention? I am a little uncomfortable with denying leadership to what seems to be the leader. In any case it seems your new format depends a lot on two sources. Can you please find exact quotes we can discuss for each? I think it is important that we do this carefully if we are to avoid more circular discussion. They are...

1. I think the most important point is your citation of Kivisild in 2004. Are we really qualified to say that Kivisild would consider the new data in Gonzalez in 2007 to not invalidate this? Perhaps you can write to him and ask what he really thinks. I don't see how we can use the 2004 article this way as if it comments on an article not yet written?
2. "Lineages ancestral to M1 in India, the purported place of origin of haplogroup M, have yet to be found." You cite Metspalu but here I think you need to be careful. Metspalu can not possibly be commenting on the later data in Gonzalez. Are we all in agreement that Gonzalez would agree with this? Is the comment even logical given that the obvious ancestral clade to M1 is some type of M, and most M is found in Asia?
3. "Some studies have reported the age of haplogroup M1 to be similar to that of haplogroup M." You cite Metspalu. I could find no such remark or estimate in that paper?

--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:06, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

There is an idea on these articles that newer is always better. I think it is more important to look at the quality of information rather than to focus on novelty. As I have posted below, the Rajkumar article has been criticized by other scholars for misinterpreting information. As I mention frequently, a single study alone is unlikely to sway the debate significantly. What does change consensus in the scientific community is when several independent studies confirm new findings. Also when opponents concede that their position was incorrect. The Gonzalez article is has new findings, but these haven't been widely scrutinized by the scientific community. The article is cited by only 12 other articles according to google scholar. I will add quotes as per your requests.Wapondaponda (talk) 11:26, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually I agree and I specifically noted earlier that it is possible that older articles contain information that is not confronted in newer articles and can not be easily assumed to be superseded. But the above examples are very clearly not like this. If someone say "there is no data like X" and then new data comes out which is like X, then the old material is clearly superseded. You argument that the scientific community has had no time to think about it is incorrect. Peer review takes long enough and as Wikipedia editors we have no right to demand more than peer review.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:37, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

By the way 12 other articles is not bad for this type of article, and I think you'll also find that when it comes to what happens when new data is published, the dry statistical stuff (putting aside aging models etc) is almost never controversial.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:40, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Andrew, I am bit disappointed because I gather that you have been following what has been happening in the genomics field for some time. I am sure you are aware that information in genomics has been extremely unstable. There have been constant revisions of nomenclature and phylogeny since their discovery, and this will continue to be the case. One day it is E3b/M35, the next its eibib/m215/m35. One study alone is generally insufficient until there are numerous independent corroborations. And I don't mean the scientist's buddy in the neighboring office. You can usually tell if you follow who is in the et al portion. Toomas Kivisild is one of the most respected geneticists in the field. He is known for his ground-breaking work in the field of population genetics. If he were to admit that his observations were wrong, it would carry weight. If he was wrong he would admit it since his reputation in the scientific community is extremely important. As for the other scholars, I have no idea who Chandrasekar, Rajkumal or even Gonzalez are. Somehow they managed to publish scientific journals. But not all studies or all opinions are equal. We should give weight to those who are more noteworthy as is evidenced by the Rajkumar case.Wapondaponda (talk) 12:03, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't have any problem with your opening lines above. There is constant change in this field. What you seem to be suggesting though is somehow waiting for a while until things stop changing. That can not work. For one thing it will not happen, and for another it is not up to judge these things as mere Wikipedia editors. (We can judge them in other places.) Let me put it this way: tomorrow a new study might come out which disputes Gonzalez' findings. Then we'll need to change the article, right? Or perhaps you will say that this is only the first article to dispute Gonzalez and we should wait to see if there are more? (You should always test the logic of your arguments by applying them to other examples.) Concerning your respect for Kivisild I have no problem either. Fact is that you do not know what he currently thinks. We can only look at the literature. The convention accepted on Wikipedia is that if it has gone through peer review then it has been checked by respectable people, like perhaps Kivisild himself? You and I are not the ones to judge in this forum.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:09, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I am not suggesting that editors should wait for a study to age in order to quote it. Once a study is released, it can immediately be referenced. What I have noticed from a few editors, is the tendency to automatically ascribe mainstream status on any new study simply because it is new. Overall, I think the article is in better shape and there isn't any blatant POV material. I am still a little bit disappointed that there is a lot of tolerance for some editors who are blatantly POV pushing. Wapondaponda (talk) 18:52, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree we are doing better. Simple things make a big difference like for example that we are not using reverts to change things. I am not entirely sure what your remark means though. There are two people working on the article today mainly, me and you. So presumably you are saying that I am being too tolerant of Causteau's original position which (I am surprised to say) I have ended up defending? Honestly, I have tried in all good faith to read all the arguments and literature. I think that boiled down there really is a good reason sometimes at least to say that new data supersedes old data. I've explained my position above, so I'll not repeat it all, lest I am scorned for producing too much argument. If you comment reflects your good intentions about social things and all that, then I've opened a section at WP:HGH where we can discuss that further. My intentions are also good!--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:11, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

For reference: Comments about this discussion

After Causteau and Cadenas2008 were in contact with me, I have posted my summary of what I think of this discussion on the talk page of Cadenas2008. This is based on what I can see of the sources Causteau and Cadenas2008 have used themselves up until now. I see that Wapondaponda is giving thoughtful new discussion which may also change my mind.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:49, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Social implications of haplogroups

I stumbled across this abstract Genetics and Tradition as Competing Sources of Knowledge of Human History

Recent genetic studies aiming to reconstruct the history of human migrations made a claim to be able to contribute to the writing of history. However, because such projects are closely linked to sociocultural ideas about the categorization of identity, race and ethnicity, they have raised a number of controversial cultural and political issues and are likely to have important potential socio-political consequences. Though some such studies played a positive role helping the researched communities to reaffirm their identity, other projects yielded results that contradicted local narratives of origin

Since the discovery of these haplogroups many people have attached significant importance to these haplogroups. It seems that these haplogroups have become badges of honor and symbols of ethnic identity and pride. So as the above study mentioned, it becomes a problem when the results of these studies have contradicted local narratives of origin. Some have even suggested that some scientists have been biased and have skewed results of their studies to align with local narratives.

I have mentioned earlier that I think it is possible that people attach maybe a little too much importance to these haplogroups. Firstly, the mitochondria started out as a primitive bacteria that hitched a ride on one of our ancestral single celled organisms. They had a symbiotic relationship and the primitive bacteria later became fully incorporated into our ancestral single celled organization. Technically, the Mitochondrial DNA is not "our DNA". The D-Loop section used for haplogroup identification is in the non-coding or junk DNA section of the mitochondrion DNA. Because the mitochondria is a "foreign body", its DNA does not recombine during sexual reproduction. Likewise the Y-chromosome also does not recombine. Apart from determining sex, the y-chromosome seems to relatively insignificant relative to other chromosomes. The Y only has 78 genes whereas the X chromosome has over 1500 genes. Much of the Y is junk DNA. In fact the Y started out as an X chromosome, but due to loss of function has lost one of its legs due to shrinkage. Women can do fine without a Y chromosome, but males cannot survive without an X chromosome.

The D-loop of the mitochondria and NRY of the Y-chromosome are the most useless parts of the human genome with regard to phenotype. Yet they are the most useful parts of the genome in determining ancestry. Mutations in junk DNA do not influence phenotype and accumulate at much faster rates than in coding regions. A mutation in an actual coding region of gene will likely influence phenotype. Mutations on average are more likely to be bad than good, since our DNA has already been tried and tested by millions of years of evolution. Consequently, coding genes vary less across human populations and are less useful at determining phenotype. The mitochondria and the NRY are thus not good candidates for determining the so called ethnic superiority or inferiority of a population. They are just junk DNA.

The reason for all this is I think it may be a good idea in the future to create an article that deals with some of the social consequences of the human genome. Already the above article deals with the topic. Another article Genetic ancestry and the search for personalized genetic histories also addresses the conflict between social identity and genetic history. Wapondaponda (talk) 20:27, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Rajkumar et al 2005

According to The Dazzling Array of Basal Branches in the mtDNA Macrohaplogroup M from India as Inferred from Complete Genomes there are serious problems with data used in the Rajkumar et al 2005 article.

Rajkumar et al. (2005)Go provided 23 Indian M sequences that were deemed to be complete. On the basis of their phylogenetic tree, the authors negated the haplogroup status of M3 and M4. However, a site-by-site audit of their sequences revealed that the obtained data are problematic, with numerous basal mutations evidently missed as well as some phantom mutations inflicted.

Wapondaponda (talk) 11:30, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Gonzalez et al

Regarding Gonzalez

Based on mitochondrial phylogeography it was proposed that M lineages expanded with the coastal route to southern Asia and Oceania and N lineages by the continental route to Eurasia . However, the posterior detection of primitive N lineages in southern areas as India and Australia weakened that hypothesis . As, in addition, the founder ages of M and N are very similar, the alternative hypothesis, that M and N founders derived from a single African migration, was favored by several authors

Gonzalez et al when talking about basal lineages are referencing the single origin, several dispersals theory, that states that there were two migrations out of Africa. The first was A northern migration consisting only of haplogroup N, left Africa through the levant to Europe. The second migration consisted only of haplogroup M leaving Africa through the Horn of Africa and subsequently proceeding to populate southern India, the Andaman islands and Australia.. This hypothesis aimed to explain why haplogroup M is rare almost absent in Western Europe, but abundant in Asia. However this hypothesis has been weakened, possibly even discredited because deep rooting lineages of haplogroup N have been found amongst Indigenous Australians and Papuans who were previously thought to only be of haplogroup M. The conclusion is that indigenous Australians, Papuans and Europeans all share the same haplogroup N, which almost certainly means they were part of the same colonization process, ie a single migration out of Africa involving individuals with both haplogroup M and N.

• Both Australian Aborigines and Europeans Rooted in Africa
• Aborigines, Europeans Share African Roots, DNA Suggests
• Mitochondrial Genome Variation and Evolutionary History of Australian and New Guinean Aborigines, reference 17 Gonzalez et al
• Major genomic mitochondrial lineages delineate early human expansions This theory holds that caucasoids are haplogroup N and left Africa through the levant. Australoids, papuans and south indians were thought to be only of haplogroup M. This particular study is reference number 7 from Gonzalez et al

As you can see, this relates to another controversy, not specifically to the origins of haplogroups M and N. Wapondaponda (talk) 02:59, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, Gonzalez et al. (2007) state very clearly what they mean, and which routes they're referring to:

"Focusing on mtDNA, all non-African lineages belong to two founder clusters, named M and N, which share a common root with their L3 African counterpart. Two possible out-of-Africa routes have been proposed: A southern coastal route bordering the Read Sea and an Eurasian continental route through the Levant. Based on mitochondrial phylogeography it was proposed that M lineages expanded with the coastal route to southern Asia and Oceania and N lineages by the continental route to Eurasia. However, the posterior detection of primitive N lineages in southern areas as India [15,16] and Australia [6,17] weakened that hypothesis."

From the above, it's plain as day that 1) One Out-of-Africa route proposed a southern coastal route for M "to southern Asia and Oceania" (i.e. (around India and Australia), and 2) the other Out-of-Africa route proposed a continental route to Eurasia for N lineages. However, because primitive N lineages were later found in India and Australia instead of being found in their proposed Western Eurasia, that threw a wrench into that theory on the "two possible Out-of-Africa routes". Causteau (talk) 03:58, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

LOL You wish.:

"However, the posterior detection of primitive N lineages in southern areas as India [15,16] and Australia [6,17] weakened that hypothesis." Causteau (talk) 04:11, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

They are dozens of articles that I can cite. I do not have to depend on any one study because numerous scholars have noted the possibility of an African origin of M and N. Yes, I only have access to a hard copy of the Torroni article, It appears in Trends in Genetics publications of 2006. But if anyone has access to the subscription websites they can view the content for themselves. Wapondaponda (talk) 07:03, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

If you indeed have a hardcopy, then it shouldn't be hard to type what it says in full (I'm talking the entire paragraph here). And no, there are only old studies that cite an African origin for macrohaplogroups M & N because that's an old argument not supported by all the actually recent studies. Even researchers that once used to support it no longer do, as we've seen below. Causteau (talk) 02:56, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Change

I must admit that I can't help but be a bit amused by the arguments of the origins of Haplogroup N & M. I can understand why it's a big deal. However we must consider that this 'Leaving Africa' happened eons ago. It is next to impossible to know exactly where or when the genetic marker happened. I think the geography was quite different from what it is today. Also people have moved back and forth northeast tropical Africa and Arabia for years. So who know exactly where they were headed or coming? I would also like to address the 'Missing L3'. Always remember- just because something isn't there now that doesn't mean it never was. Keep an open mind to all possibilities. You never can be too certain.

Someone should update the M phylogenetic tree. It's quite old.- Brout8 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:03, 31 March 2009 (UTC).

This following study seems to support the supporters of an African origin of Haplogroups N and M. It is a study of 553 Saudi Arabs and it found no evidence of an originating haplogroup N or M on the Arabian peninsula. Perhaps the study was too small, but it definitely adds significant doubt to a SW Asia origin of these two super-haplogroups.

Abu-Amero, Khaled K. February 2008 “Mitochondrial DNA structure in the Arabian Peninsula”, ‘BMC Evolutionary Biology’ 8:48. - Brout8 (talk) 20:42:42, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Interesting article, the information contained is very relevant to the origins of M1. Since there is no autochthonous M1 in Arabia, it makes the case for an Asian origin of M1 more complicated. M1 has a high frequency in East Africa, M a high frequency in Eastern India, in between these regions M is rare. Wapondaponda (talk) 21:36, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually, Abu Amero et al. (2008), like all actually modern mtDNA studies, assert an Asian origin for both macrohaplogroups M and N, not an African one. This is why they state the following:

"Two potential migratory routes followed by modern humans to colonize Eurasia from Africa have been proposed. These are the two natural passageways that connect both continents: the northern route through the Sinai Peninsula and the southern route across the Bab al Mandab strait. Recent archaeological and genetic evidence have favored a unique southern coastal route. Under this scenario, the study of the population genetic structure of the Arabian Peninsula, the first step out of Africa, to search for primary genetic links between Africa and Eurasia, is crucial. The haploid and maternally inherited mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) molecule has been the most used genetic marker to identify and to relate lineages with clear geographic origins, as the African Ls and the Eurasian M and N that have a common root with the Africans L3."

It doesn't hurt either that Ana Gonzalez -- who famously also asserted an Asian origin for macrohaplogroup M (as well as its M1 sub-clade) in her big study of only one year earlier -- collaborated on the paper. This is in addition to Coudray et al. (2008), who in their own study classify M lineages as Asian, not African (a study which Olivieri, who also asserts an Asian origin for both macrohaplogroups, collaborated on, by the way). Causteau (talk) 02:33, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Abu Amero et al. (2008) also does not "complicate" the Asian origin of M1 because the M1 sub-clades they observe in the Arabian Peninsula are mostly M1a derivatives, and that is predominantly characteristic of Northeast African rather than Northwest African groups (the latter of whom are mainly M1c, an older sub-clade). Abu Amero also collaborated on this brand new February 2009 study with Gonzalez and other researchers, which likewise asserts an Asian origin for M1. Here's what the study states with regard to the origin (as opposed to the distribution) of M1:

"Some of these haplogroups, including the X1, U6 and M1, although of West Asian origin, have Paleolithic coalescence ages in North Africa."

Gonzalez et al. (2007) also found ancestral M1 lineages in Asia for the first time, which is one of the many factors that allowed them to assert an Asian origin for the sub-clade in the first place:

"The alternative hypothesis, that haplogroup M1 could trace a posterior backflow to Africa from Asia, considered by several authors has not yet gained experimental support because, until now, no ancestral M1 lineages have been found outside Africa."

Causteau (talk) 02:33, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

By the way, the whole purpose of the Abu Amero et al. (2008) study was "to assess the role of the Arabian Peninsula in the southern route" i.e. the proposed route for the single migration of macrohaplogroup M & N carrying peoples out of Africa:

"Accordingly, it was hypothesized that both lineages were carried out in a unique migration, and even more, that the southern coastal trail was the only route, being the western Eurasian colonization the result of an early offshoot of the southern radiation in India. Under these suppositions, the Arabian Peninsula, as an obliged step between East Africa and South Asia, has gained crucial importance, and indeed several mtDNA studies have recently been published for this region. However, it seems that the bulk of the Arab mtDNA lineages have northern Neolithic or more recent Asian or African origins. Although a newly defined clade L6 in Yemenis, with no close matches in the extant African populations, could suggest an ancient migration from Africa to Yemen, the lack of N and/or M autochthonous lineages left the southern route without genetic support."

And here's the studies conclusions:

"Although there is evidence of Neolithic and more recent expansions in the Arabian Peninsula, mainly detected by (preHV)1 and J1b lineages, the lack of primitive autochthonous M and N sequences, suggests that this area has been more a receptor of human migrations, including historic ones, from Africa, India, Indonesia and even Australia, than a demographic expansion center along the proposed southern coastal route."

I have therefore removed the irrelevant "Disperal" section under the African origins hypothesis. It doesn't "debunk" either the argument by Gonzalez et al. (2007) refuting the two proposed routes out of Africa for macrohaplogroups M & N or Abu-Amero et al. (2008)'s argument refuting the single route out of Africa scenario for M & N, and therefore doesn't serve as an argument supporting the African origin hypothesis. Rather, it just lists the proposed routes the ancestral M & N carrying population(s) could conceivably have taken out of Africa under the African origin hypothesis; nothing more. Causteau (talk) 02:33, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Causteau, you are free to add whatever information that you feel is necessary to improve the article, as long as it is not a distortion or your own personal interpretation. The facts are some scientists support an asian origin of haplogroup M and M1 and some scientists don't. It is only fair that both arguments are presented per WP:NPOV. You can extract dozens of quotes that you assert support an Asian origin of M or M1, but until autochtonous L3 is found deep inside Eurasia, or incontrovertible M1 ancestral clades are found in India, or incontrovertible autochthonous M and N are found in Africa, the debate will remain unresolved. Wapondaponda (talk) 04:00, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

No, the "debate" will not "remain unresolved" because there is no debate any longer and hasn't been for some years now. But let's examine your sources anyway, shall we?

• Your first source supporting an African origin for macrohaplogroup M -- Quintana et al. (1999) -- dates from exactly a decade ago. That's practically a lifetime before the discovery of new basal mutations (e.g. M20, M30) by Rajkumar et al. (2005) that are older than M1 and which substantially contribute to the present understanding of the macrohaplogroup; before Olivieri et al. (2006)'s important mtDNA work that indicates a back-migration to Africa for macrohaplogroup M & other Eurasian haplogroups; before Gonzalez et al. (2007)'s discovery for the first time of ancestral M1 lineages outside of Africa; before Gonzalez et al. (2007)'s debunking of the proposed dual north/south migration routes out of Africa for macrohaplogroups M & N; and well before Abu Amero et al. (2008)'s debunking of the alternative single migration route out of Africa for macrohaplogroups M & N.
• Your second source, Underhill et al. (2000), also dates from well before the above discoveries that significantly contribute to the present understanding of the macrohaplogroup.
• Your third source Kivisild et al. (2003), another obsolete study, likewise dates from before this period. What's worse is that you've also claimed on your talk page in reference to Kivisild that "as of 2007 in a publication, he still thinks an African origin is possible." The irony is that Kivisild does not support an African origin for macrohaplogroups M & N any longer. See, the "Kivisild et al. (2007)" study in question is actually from 2005. It was just featured in a textbook that was published in 2007 (that's the problem with textbooks; they suffer major lag time, as I believe I've already explained elsewhere). That's why the study is cited in this paper from 2005 by Metspalu himself, the co-author of that so-called "Kivisild et al. (2007)" study. Going by this other study from 2006 with Underhill (as well as Torroni and Cavalli-Sforza), what Kivisild and Underhill now like their other colleagues believe is that macrohaplogroups M & N originated outside of Africa:

"The most recent common ancestor of all the Eurasian, American, Australian, Papua New Guinean, and African lineages in clade L3 dates to 65,000 ± 8000 years while the average coalescent time of the three basic non-African founding haplogroups M, N, and R is 45,000 years."

Now that that's out of the way, let's examine your actual edits:

• Even after my very logical explanation in my previous post, you have still re-added the "Dispersal" paragraph that discusses the debunked proposed routes (i.e. the dual north/south route vs. the single migration via the southern coastal route) haplogroups M & N would have taken under the long since-abandoned African origin hypothesis. However, instead of logically placing this section under the African origin hypothesis, you have very tellingly placed it under its own section so that this way, it shows up in the Table of Contents at the top of the article as the standard theory on macrohaplogroups M & N's origins. Because there is no dispersal out of Africa proposed for these macrohaplogroups under the Asian origin hypothesis (only for their parent L3 clade), it is very obvious that this is an attempt by you to suggest that it's the standard theory that macrohaplogroups M & N emigrated out of Africa when of course precisely the opposite is the truth.
• You are twisting Wikipedia:Proveit#cite_note-1 to make it seem as though it states that quotes take precedence over paraphrasing so we should therefore quote at will when the Wiki rulebook asserts no such thing. And the reason why you are doing this is because you are worried that readers might get wind of the fact that Gonzalez et al. (2007) have refuted the proposed dual north/south exodus scenario for macrohaplogroups M & N under the African origin hypothesis. Furthermore, Wikipedia:Proveit#cite_note-1 actually states that if there is a disagreement over whether a source supports an edit one has made, a direct quote from the source in question should be provided to show that said edit was indeed supported by the source:

"When there is dispute about whether the article text is fully supported by the given source, direct quotes from the source and any other details requested should be provided as a courtesy to substantiate the reference."

The quotes are to be provided to substantiate the reference, not to replace it as you've consistently been falsely asserting. And said direct quotes have already been provided for verification both on this talk page and in the article's footnotes.

• As Andrew has already explained to you on your talk page and also taken umbrage at, you are removing for no legitimate reason whatsoever reliable modern sources, all of which happen to indicate an Asian origin for macrohaplogroup M. You are also consistently inserting into the text obsolete sources simply because they support an African origin, nevermind the fact that some of them date from as far back as a decade ago. What's worse, many those authors whom you cite as supporting an African origin for macrohaplogroups M & N have long since abandoned this view as new data has come and keeps coming in, and they now also support an Asian origin for macrohaplogroups M & N (e.g. Kivisild and Underhill -- even Gonzalez once upon an extremely long time ago used to support the African origin hypothesis). Your insistence on misrepresenting even these authors' views is frankly obscene.
• You keep thinking that because you personally believe that "until autochtonous L3 is found deep inside Eurasia, or incontrovertible M1 ancestral clades are found in India, or incontrovertible autochthonous M and N are found in Africa, the debate will remain unresolved", there is in fact a debate still going on. There isn't. The truth is, you have tried in vain for well over a week now to manufacture one and across several pages, but it just won't stick because that's not where the status quo is. And need I remind you that on Wikipedia, we go by reliable sources, not on what Wapandaponda personally asserts or wishes. Causteau (talk) 05:22, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Causteau, you alone cannot be the arbiter of what is obsolete or not. In 2007, Kivisild et al still suggests the possibility of an African origin of M and N. Wapondaponda (talk) 05:27, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

LOL He most certainly did not. Actually READ what has been posted above this time. Causteau (talk) 05:30, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Toroni et al write that M, N and R occurred somewhere between East Africa and the Arabian Gulf. Harvesting the fruit of the human mtDNA tree 2006.

Therefore, these three root types (which originated somewhere between East Africa and the Persian Gulf)

There is enough recent information for a valid argument and presenting both sides of the argument in a neutral way is wikipedia's policy. At present there is nothing to change the status quo. Wapondaponda (talk) 05:37, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

No, there is not enough "recent information" to present a valid argument, as clearly demonstrated in my detailed post above. Torroni also unambiguously support a non-African origin for both M, N & R as my quote above also proves. Channeling you, I'm asking you right here and now to WP:PROVEIT with a direct quote from the Torroni source supporting what you claim. Causteau (talk) 05:45, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, there are enough reliable sources that proclaim the possible African origin for these three, thats all we need. WP:VERIFY, states the threshold for inclusion is verfiability not truth. Since we can verify all of these assertions, thats all that we need. Wapondaponda (talk) 06:08, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Causteau instead of wasting everyone's energy, why don't you try to reach a compromise by objectively analysing the data. As far as I am concerned we have peer reviewed publications that are still being cited today that proclaim the possibility of an African origin. It does no harm to objectively present these arguments. Wapondaponda (talk) 06:11, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually, it's you wasting everyone's time, Wapondaponda as Andrew has already made clear on your talk page. I've addressed each and every one of your sources claiming to support an African origin, and they are shockingly obsolete, so much so that two of them -- conducted by the same man, Kivisild -- have been superceded by later studies by the same author that unambiguously support a non-African origin for macrohaplogroup M. I've already explained to you above that the "Kivisild et al. (2007)" source is actually from 2005 -- not 2007. And I've done so by linking to another study from 2005 by one of its co-authors which cites it. Unless the co-author in question is gifted in time travel, that "Kivisild et al. 2007" study isn't actually from 2007 but from 2005 or more likely earlier. It therefore PREDATES the 2006 study I have also quoted above which shows him and Underhill unambiguously supporting a non-African origin for macrohaplogroups M & N. You'd already have know all this had you actually READ what I posted instead of knee jerk reverting the page the minute I removed your shockingly obsolete and dishonest attributions. Causteau (talk) 06:33, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I've also asked you to WP:PROVEIT your claims (something you love to demand of others yet can't seem to tolerate when it's required of you!) regarding Torroni with direct quotes, and you of course were neither able nor willing to do even that much. Your bad faith approach to editing has been noted. Causteau (talk) 06:36, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Therefore, these three root types (which originated somewhere between East Africa and the Persian Gulf) Wapondaponda (talk) 06:40, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh my God. That's your quote? That in no way, shape or form pinpoints an African origin for either haplogroups M, N or R. It says that the 3 clades originated between East Africa and the Persian Gulf; it doesn't say which originated where. And why didn't you quote the whole paragraph and link to the study? Let me guess, you don't even have access to the study, which is why you are only able to quote a snippet of it from Google books. Well here's what Torroni et al. state in this 2006 study with Underhill:

"The most recent common ancestor of all the Eurasian, American, Australian, Papua New Guinean, and African lineages in clade L3 dates to 65,000 ± 8000 years while the average coalescent time of the three basic non-African founding haplogroups M, N, and R is 45,000 years."

And there's nothing ambiguous about that. The fact that you'd use that flimsy, ambiguous quote as an excuse to re-insert all those obsolete studies from Kivisild -- who know longer supports an African origin for haplogroups M & N, as we've seen -- says a lot about your utterly dishonest approach to editing. Causteau (talk) 06:56, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Update: Torroni also participated in Olivieri et al.'s 2006 study, which of course famously ascribed a Eurasian origin for M, N, M1, & a host of other haplogroups. In fact, it states in that study that all correspondence pertaining to the study should be directed to Toroni rather than Olivieri!

I've also removed the following bit of original research which User:Wapondaponda has added to the arguments supporting an African origin:

"Haplogroup M1 is largely restricted to Africa where the highest frequencies of M1 can be found in East Africa, particularly in Ethiopia. M1,is found in Europe and the Near East but at considerably lower frequencies than in Africa. Macrohaplogroup M has peak frequencies in India, but is rare in the Near East and Europe."

He has ascribed the above claim to Gonzalez et al. (2007) when in fact nowhere do the authors make any such argument in support of an African origin for either haplogroup M1 or its parent M clade. In actuality, Gonzalez et al. (2007) simply assert that East Africa is the most probable place of origin for the dispersal of M1's M1a sub-clade (a sub-clade which, incidentally, they are quick to point out is younger than the ones found in the Maghreb i.e. M1c, etc.) since it has the highest frequencies and diversity:

"Although M1a (HVSI identified by the 16359 transition) is present in all the M1 range, its greatest frequencies and diversities are found in Ethiopia and eastern Africa (Table 2), pointing to this area as the most probable origin of the M1a expansion in all directions, with particular incidence in western Asia and sub-Saharan Africa."

Again, no mention of M1 much less macrohaplogroup M. In fact, Gonzalez et al. (2007) unambiguously assert an Asian origin for both macrohaplgroup M & its M1 sub-clade, as I've pointed out many times before:

"In contradiction to the hypothesis of an eastern Africa origin for modern human expansions out of Africa, the most ancestral M1 lineages have been found in Northwest Africa and in the Near East, instead of in East Africa. The M1 geographic distribution and the relative ages of its different subclades clearly correlate with those of haplogroup U6, for which an Eurasian ancestor has been demonstrated... On the light of our and other authors results, it seems clear that by their respective coalescence ages and diversities, M1 is younger than other Asiatic M lineages. Although it is out of doubt that the L3 ancestor of M had an African origin, macrohaplogroup M radiated outside Africa and M1 should be considered an evolved branch that signals its return to this continent."

Causteau (talk) 02:56, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

A new ref?

http://mathildasanthropologyblog.wordpress.com/2009/04/08/mtdna-variation-in-north-east-and-central-african-populations-gives-clues-to-a-possible-back-migration-from-the-middle-east/

New information to the article, not necessarily a new study. Program of the Seventy-Fourth Annual Meeting of the American Association of Physical Anthropologists 2005 Wapondaponda (talk) 22:49, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the study. It references Quintana et al.'s 1999 & 2004 studies when it says that:

"Some (Quintana-Murci et al. 2004, 1999) argue that the presence of M1 in modern Africans is a remnant of the original M haplogroup that left Africa 60 kya via the Horn of Africa."

However, Quintana et al. (2004) itself references his 1999 study when he writes that:

"African populations are characterized by the oldest superhaplogroups, L1, L2, and L3 (Bandelt et al. 1995, 2001; Chen et al. 1995, 2000; Graven et al. 1995; Soodyall et al. 1996; Bandelt and Forster 1997; Watson et al. 1997; Alves-Silva et al. 2000; Torroni et al. 2001b; Salas et al. 2002), but it seems that only L3 radiated out of Africa, mainly in the form of haplogroups M and N ~60,000 YBP, giving rise to the extant Eurasian variation (Watson et al. 1997; Quintana-Murci et al. 1999; Wallace et al. 1999)."

Which brings us back to square one: the African origin hypothesis supported primarily by the obsolete Quintana et al. 1999 study from a decade ago. The Holden et al. (2005) study above also adds that:

"Others (Forster, 2004) propose that it is instead the result of a back-migration from the Arabian Peninsula from 20 kya."

And follows that with a statement regarding the purpose of their study:

"This research aims to test these two competing hypotheses."

Before revealing the conclusions of the study:

"Our initial results indicate a sharp cline in M1 frequencies that generally does not extend into sub-Saharan Africa... This sharp cline indicates a history of little admixture between these regions. This could imply a more recent ancestry for M1 in Africa, as older lineages are more diverse and widespread by nature, and may be an indication of a back-migration into Africa from the Middle East."

The forgoing clearly yet again supports the status quo i.e. an Asian origin for haplogroup M1 (as Mathilda also indicates on her blog). Hence, the study's title: "MtDNA variation in North, East, and Central African populations gives clues to a possible back-migration from the Middle East." The study, however, doesn't rule any which way with regard to macrohaplogroup M, the subject of this Wikipedia article; it just talks about what the studies before it concluded in its revision of the earlier literature. Causteau (talk) 02:56, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Sanctions

Given the revert war, it is (alas) no great surprise to see a lack of discussion here and attempts to reach compromise. So W and C (you know who you are) are on WP:1RR parole on this article, and any closely-related articles. I don't plan to watch this carefully, instead relying on you to report each other, so if you want to edit war in future, please do so quietly William M. Connolley (talk) 14:34, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Mathilda Blog

With all respect to whoever runs the blog its a very politically motivated blog! The only blog that its worth mentioning in this talk page is Deinekes, I will be interested to hear his opinion.

As of now I don't see whats the big deal? why not just keep it Africa & Asia for now? Cadenas2008 (talk) 03:07, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Dienekes and Mathilda's blog, from what I've noticed are both quite political. For wikipedia purposes, the blogs are only useful because they sometimes have more hits on the web than publishers of journals. As a result, with google search, sometimes pics up the postings on blogs. Sometimes the blogs have information that would otherwise be only accessible through subscription websites. Other than these factors, its best to get information directly from the source. The proprietor of Mathilda blog believes in the multiregional hypothesis [4].

Until new information is released, I agree that both Africa and Asian theories should be presented with the context behind the theories. Wapondaponda (talk) 03:33, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Not sure if I would qualify either Dienekes' or Mathilda's blogs as "political". Actually, Dienekes' site, for one, appears to be quite mainstream. It is regularly cited on other anthropology blogs, and his site has even been referred to in a study published in a reputable journal as "a respected website dedicated to the examination of anthropological, archaeological and genetic research" (his independent research findings are also referenced in that study, by the way). Believing in the multiregional hypothesis is also not any more a "political" stance than believing in the recent single origin hypothesis. In addition, I sincerely doubt Andrew had any political motivations when he first introduced that study above to this talk page, nor do I think his intention was for us to reference said study directly to Mathilda's blog. And blogs are self-published sources anyway, so I don't see what there is to panic about. Causteau (talk) 11:38, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Just to make sure it is clear I am not suggesting using a blog as a reference. It was just a URL to see a note about an interesting new article. Both Dienekes and Mathilda have a lot of posts which are essentially neutral. You do not need to agree with all their opinions in order to make use of the fact that they are collating information that can be useful for everyone interested in this subject matter.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:00, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

True, this was probably the case with the url that you posted. The only thing to beware of is that, because of the political positions that the proprietors of these blogs may have taken( for example), they sometimes cherry pick studies or excerpts that support their political positions. Wapondaponda (talk) 06:06, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Whenever you have proof of such a thing let us know. Otherwise these just look like collections of acceptable articles to me, and rather complete collections at that.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:14, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Another new ref?

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18855041?dopt=Abstract --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:45, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Does this article address the controversial issue of the origins of M. Wapondaponda (talk) 17:06, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I have not read it.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:12, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

On the other hand this one http://www.ias.ac.in/jgenet/Vol88No1/127.pdf is an interesting source. Apart from the main subjects it deals with, this is a 2009 paper which apparently treats the question of M origins as still controversial.

The origin of M has been controversial and several hypotheses have been put forward to explain its origin. Some authors have suggested a southwest Asian origin for macrohaplogroup M, followed by a back migration to Africa (Kivisild et al. 2003) while others support its African ancestry (Quintana-Murci et al. 1999).

I am not sure this quote adds anything really, because this wiki article already mentions both theories, but at least we can say that this source supports doing so. This looks more interesting at first sight, but again does not really take a strong side...

It is well established that mtDNA data helps in understanding the past genetic history of man and especially the maternal migration of the populations that shaped the global human populations. Among the M haplogroups, M2 is the most ancient (the estimated coalescence time around 60, 200 ± 8600 yr) and is found mostly among the Dravidian castes (with the exception of their presence among Chenchu and Koya tribes) and Mundari speaking Austro–Asiatic tribes. This estimated coalescence time of M2 corroborates with the ‘Out of Africa’ theory of human evolution.

Enjoy.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:12, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the study. Here's more of what it states and directly pertaining to the origins of M2 & other Asian-specific clades of macrohaplogroup M:

"A majority of the populations (∼ 60%) belong to macrohaplogroup M, and a higher frequency of this macrohaplotype is observed among tribes as compared to caste populations. Several India-specific haplogroups (∼ 22) of M have been found, and are probably of in situ origin. The most ancient haplogroup M2 is reported among the Austro–Asiatic speaking Mundari, Dravidian (southern), and Indo– European speaking castes and tribes, but is completely absent among Tibeto–Burman speakers. M3 is predominant among southern Dravidian tribes; M4 is absent in Austro– Asiatic tribes and M5 is more a caste-specific haplogroup. Haplogroups M31 and M32 are mainly found among Andaman tribes, but however, the sub-haplogroup of M31, M31b shows presence in a Rajbanshi (West Bengal) sample and another sub-haplogroup M31c is present among the Khasi-Khmuic speaking Austro–Asiatic tribes. Some novel haplogroups especially M48, M49, M50 are found among Khasi sub-tribes of the northeastern hills."

Causteau (talk) 08:40, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Well yes the "feeling" between the lines is that they favor an Indian origin theory. But we can not cite something between the lines. They obviously took the decision to treat the African origin theory as "still alive" and also not to get directly involved in the debate about it.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:30, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

When Suvendu Maji et al. (2009) mention the African origin hypothesis, they reference Quintana et al.'s study from a decade ago and they do so in the intro to the 'Macrohaplogroup M in Indian populations' section of their study, which is where they review the previous literature on the subject (but not their own findings/views). The quote above indicating that the Asian specific clades of macrohaplogroup M "are probably of in situ origin", however, is cited in the second paragraph of the 'Overview' section of their study, where they do lay out their own findings (which is why they don't reference said statement to any other study). Just so it's clear, I also didn't suggest that we include the study in the article. If that had been my intention, I would've just added it myself. Rather, I was highlighting what's definitely the study's most important statement with regard to macrohaplogroup M's suggested place of origin (and the only one that highlights the authors' own views), a statement which had been omitted from the quotes above. Causteau (talk) 11:09, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes the article is not about the controversy, and yes they only mentioned the controversy as background, and with a past tense verb.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:30, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

thumb|left|800px|Haplogroup M1 according to Olivieri et al 2006 According to Olivieri, M1a is older than M1b(M1c Gonzalez) and M1a2(M1b Gonzalez) is older than M1b(M1c Gonzalez). It seems that the African M1a lineage is older than the M1c(Jordan) lineage, though Gonzalez believes that M1c is the ancestral type. Wapondaponda (talk) 17:29, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Please explain your point. Looming at the graphic you have chosen: why do you simply call M1a African? And anyway, is this discussion about the origin of M1a (as opposed to M)? Sorry if I am missing something obvious. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:54, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

The argument, that M1 has an asiatic origin is based on M1c being the ancestral haplogroup, and that M1c was found in Jordan and Northwest Africa but not in East Africa. M1a, in particular M1a1, has primarily an African distribution. So the if M1a diverged from ancestral M1 before M1c, is it correct to refer to M1c as the ancestral haplogroup. Gonzaleze et al state:

Although with overlapping errors, these results, together with the relative ancestral positions of each subgroup in the phylogenetic tree (Fig. 1), would suggest that the northwestern M1c clade radiation was older than those for the ubiquitous M1b and the eastern M1a clades, as also proposed by Olivieri et al.[5].

There seems to be an apparent contradiction because M1b(Gonzalez M1c) has an age of 23kya, whereas M1a has an age of 28kya, and M1a2(Gonzalez M1b) has an age of 24kya. Only M1a1 seems younger than M1c, but the other branches of M1a seem older. Wapondaponda (talk) 21:20, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I do not believe you can use the age estimates in this way. Given the margin for error, these ages you quote can be described as "approximately the same" in my opinion. Much more important is to look at the phylogenetic structure. Furthermore you still don't explain why you treat it as obvious that M1a in the diagram you post is African just because it has some African sub-clades?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:49, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree, that there is significant overlap in the margin of error. However it is Gonzalez, who proposes that M1a is african.

Although M1a (HVSI identified by the 16359 transition) is present in all the M1 range, its greatest frequencies and diversities are found in Ethiopia and eastern Africa (Table 2), pointing to this area as the most probable origin of the M1a expansion in all directions, with particular incidence in western Asia and sub-Saharan Africa[6]

Wapondaponda (talk) 09:08, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

While referencing Olivieri et al, Abu-Amero 2008 state: "Although there is evidence of Neolithic and more recent expansions in the Arabian Peninsula, mainly detected by (preHV)1 and J1b lineages, the lack of primitive autochthonous M and N sequences, suggests that this area has been more a receptor of human migrations, including historic ones, from Africa, India, Indonesia and even Australia, than a demographic expansion center along the proposed southern coastal route."[7] Until such lineages are discovered it is impossible to conclusively pinpoint the origins of M. Tomato or tomayto (talk) 21:45, 29 June 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by We used to sit (talk • contribs)

Untitled

Stephen Oppenheimer dates M to 80,000 BP. John D. Croft 15:47, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Soares et el 2009

A new study by Soares et al Correcting for Purifying Selection: An Improved Human Mitochondrial Molecular Clock has new dates for the origin of haplogroup M. The study claims to be the most accurate as it has considered the whole genome, both coding and non-coding regions. The article dates haplogroup M to 60,600 years ago with a 95% confidence interval of 47,300-74,300. The study places the Out of Africa migration at 55-70kya. As these dates overalap with the origins of haplogroup M, both an African and Asian origin are possible.The supplemental materials are available for free. M is on page 83. The image of the phylogenetic tree is available here In the government (talk) 18:27, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the study Wapondaponda. However, I'm afraid Soares et al. (2009) does not say haplogroup M originated in Africa. In fact, it says that it is L3 that evolved in that continent, and eventually gave rise to haplogroups M, N, and R -- all of which the study describes as "non-African":

"Thus, it estimates the coalescence time of the mtDNA tree overall at ~160,000 kya, L3 (the clade that evolved within Africa and gave rise to the three major non-African haplogroups—sometimes termed ‘‘macrohaplogroups’’— M, N, and R) at 65 kya, and M, N, and R themselves at 40–50 kya."

Further, the speculations you've added based on the study's supplementary material are not helpful, as that material is just page after page of genetic data with no explanatory much less analytical text whatsoever. Causteau (talk) 10:46, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

N is on page 87, M page 83 and R page 89 Wapondaponda (talk) 21:06, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

The dates are important and should be consistent with proposed migrations. From what has been published, the range of dates 47,300-74,300 overlaps with the Out of Africa migration 55,000-70,000, making the location of its origin indeterminate based on the dates. The upper bound of 74,300 would imply an African origin, whereas the lower bound 47,300 would imply an Asian origin. Wapondaponda (talk) 02:37, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Without yet looking closely, isn't that synthesis though?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:01, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

A good case can be made for synthesis, yet we also cannot ignore the dates. We cannot report something that is not feasible. For example, the article currently proposes that haplogroup M arose in West Asia 60,000 years ago. If humans left Africa 55,000 years ago, which is the lower bound, 50kya in some other studies, then it is illogical and it would be improper for us to blindly report such. The Eurasian paleoanthropoligical evidence before 50kya is either sketchy or non-existent. The paleoanthropoligical record begins at 45 kya, which is just above the limit of radio-carbon dating. So the scientific community is confident that humans were in Eurasia 45kya but they are unclear how further back in time they were in Eurasia. So even the lower bound of 50kya for the OOA is still possible. An upper bound of 70kya is also possible, but the scientists have to reconcile this with the scarce archeological record, and this complicated because carbon dating doesn't work well beyond 40kya. Wapondaponda (talk) 12:17, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

So are you only arguing that the article needs to show a wider range of age estimates?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:26, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

A point estimate is fine, because it is easy to read. My concern is consistency with the OOA migration of L3/M. All our dates for all the haplogroups should be consisted with the OOA. It wouldn't make sense for example, to say that haplogroup DE arose in Asia 90kya, when contemporary estimates for the OOA are now at 50-70kya, which is essentially what is being implicated on the haplogroup DE page. Wapondaponda (talk) 12:48, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

In this particular case of age estimates for the older clades I do not think we can just say that new estimates replace old ones. Karafet et al was for example trying out a different testing method, and not necessarily claiming this was better, or the end of the search for better estimates. I think all the estimates are "still around". The tolerances are simply very big. Hopefully Wikipedia articles will not imply otherwise.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:05, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I actually think, with the discovery of more markers, the tolerances are actually getting smaller. It will never be an exact science, but nonetheless the dates are fairly consistent. We have haplogroup M originating very near the exodus, either just before or shortly after, the point estimate is no more than 10,000 years before or after the exodus. Wapondaponda (talk) 17:16, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Honestly, these datings are still very far indeed from being anything geneticists would bet anything important upon. Everyone wants them to publish their latest estimates of course.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:15, 17 July 2009 (UTC)