Talk:Haplogroup E-M96

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Human Genetic History  
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Human Genetic History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of genetic genealogy, population genetics, and associated theory and methods articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
 
WikiProject Molecular and Cellular Biology (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Molecular and Cellular Biology. To participate, visit the WikiProject for more information.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 


Untitled[edit]

Despite having a footnote reference to an article (which by the way can not be read without purchasing it) the following comments about the origin of E3b2 seems highly speculative and inappropriate to me, because not a generally held opinion:

E3b2 was present in the Maghreb and today it is the most important haplogroup of the Berbers (having arisen among the ancestral population to the Beta Israel, or Ethiopian Jews[1])

--Andrew Lancaster 09:45, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

About 70-80% of today's Berbers posess E3b2. The age of E3b2 seems to be lower than in other E3b-clades, only about 4000-8600 years, although some estimates are far higher.[1] In any case, E is generally estimated to be about 50 000 years old, which agrees with the advance of the wet Saharan phase, during which E must have expanded to the Saharan plateau [2] The divergence of E (roughly 25 000 years BP) coincides with the beginning of the Last Ice Age and the dessicating of the Sahara. The bearers of E must have naturally left the desert and E-lineages are thus now present both north and south of the Sahara. Centrum99 (talk) 06:44, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

The article about Y-haplogroup E is, in general, quite poorly written and structured. It would need adding more data and some clean-up (for which I currently won't find enough time, however). Centrum99 (talk) 06:48, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I tend to agree with both the above comments, but don't see any obvious immediate actions to take right now, apart from trying to tidy up the article whenever we get a chance. I hope the changes I have made this week are positive for everyone. The article needs more work eventually. Concerning the Sahara, your ideas are very reasonable, and in my opinion similar to what a lot of people are thinking, but of course unless you are careful such a remark might be deleted as "original research". In other words I can not think of a good reference to put for this theory, at least if you put it in as the only theory.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:21, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually I should say more about the Sahara question. Part of the problem in finding a simple reference for this is that people looking at the genetics often tend to focus too much on what they can measure, which is modern populations. Therefore they write as if it is obvious that E haplotypes moved downhill in a simple migration, from the Horn of Africa. Obviously however, as can be seen by reading articles more generally about the Nile's population, the Sahara's climate change ruins all the assumptions needed for this scenario. The high concentration of some of these haplotypes in the Horn of Africa might just represent a pocket where the original Saharans were pushed to - just to create an extreme possibility.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:28, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Origins[edit]

Based on all the recent studies, I could not find any support for the Asian origin of haplogroup E. Most importantly, there are no ancestral clades of E found in Eurasia. All Eurasian clades are derivatives of M35. The logic that chandrasekar et al uses, if indeed the study is being quoted correctly, is untenable if it is not based on any ancestral clades located in Eurasia. Chandrasekar et al 2007 state that one individual with E* was located in western India. But a year later Karafet et al 2008, make no reference to this individual instead stating "The most basal paragroup lineage in this clade, E*, was found in a single Bantu-speaking male from South Africa". In addition, only one article cites Chandrasekhar et al 2007 [3], which means that the article does not have widespread acceptance. You have raised the point that we are always choosing the same sides in the Africa/Asia debate. But that does not mean we should inaccurately report the mainstream consensus. I have thus removed the chandrasekar reference, and relegated it to the footnotes in line with WP:UNDUE. Wapondaponda (talk) 05:35, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I think you have to make a distinction. The case you make above is convincing to me only in that it concerns the last common ancestor of all modern E people. He was almost certainly in Africa, although I should say that I think it unlikely that he was south of let's say Kenya. OK so far? Now let's consider something much further back, E. What we know about E is that it has one well-known sibling D, which is East Asian, not even Indian or Middle Eastern, but East Asian. There also appear to be some smaller siblings - at least one DE* clade in Africa and at least one in Asia. So concerning the last common ancestor of D and E the case is very even. So we have two points in time and the origin of E is somewhere between these two points: MRCA of D and E, place unknown. MRCA of modern E, almost certainly Africa (although I should say that E* is found in Asia). If you want more examples see http://www.haplozone.net/wiki/index.php?title=Zalloua_et_al._(2008). Coming to your approach to the Chandrasekar article I find your approach untenable. It is your personal preference to try to ignore this article. This is not a good enough reason!--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:10, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
It doesn't help, that the full text for the Chandrasekar article is not available. The article is peer reviewed and has been published in some respectable journals. But that does not guarantee notability or reliability. Wikipedia policies still give editors room to assess the notability of any particular study. I have been wondering why only one study has referenced Chandrasekar in the two years since its publication, especially since the claims the study makes are very important and relevant to human genetic history. Looking at Karafet et al, which is only one year old, it is already 28 articles. I don't know exactly why chandrasekar is not being referenced, but my guess is that scientific community is skeptical of the study, since the Chandrasekar's results have not been replicated by any other study yet. WP:FRINGE states "We use the term fringe theory in a very broad sense to describe ideas that depart significantly from the prevailing or mainstream view in its particular field of study". I think Chandrasekar qualifies as a fringe theory. Over the last couple of months, I have been trying to search for any article that has published anything in connection with or consisted with the Chandrasekar article. There simply aren't any. We have given it the benefit of doubt for too long. Wapondaponda (talk) 14:28, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the article on Zalloua et al, I looked up the full article and there isn't a specific discussion on these particular E* groups. Though it is an interesting find, it would be great if they could publish the sequences. At the moment, this particular finding was not included in the Karafet et al study, possibly because they were published in the same year. So we don't yet know the specific relationship between E* in Lebanon and the other E clades. Wapondaponda (talk) 14:41, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
Your edits are so transparent, Wapondaponda. Whether you like it or not, an Asian origin for haplogroup E is the other major competing hypothesis for the place of origin of this clade. The Chandrasekar et al. (2007) study that you have consistently attempted to get rid of is a reliable, peer-reviewed source, unlike this press release featuring Michael Hammer that you have, by contrast, chosen to retain in the article and which you tellingly have no problem with. From WP:VER:

"The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true."

And WP:NPOV:

"The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting verifiable perspectives on a topic as evidenced by reliable sources. The policy requires that where multiple or conflicting perspectives exist within a topic each should be presented fairly. None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being judged as "the truth", in order that the various significant published viewpoints are made accessible to the reader, not just the most popular one. It should also not be asserted that the most popular view, or some sort of intermediate view among the different views, is the correct one to the extent that other views are mentioned only pejoratively. Readers should be allowed to form their own opinions."

You have attempted to suppress the Asian origin hypothesis by relegating the Chandrasekar et al. (2007) source that is cited in the article as supporting it to the footnotes section, a section few people read. You have also attempted to undercut it by adding the following bit of original research (in bold), which you've sourced to Karafet et al. (2008):
  • "Chandrasekar et al. (2007), YAP insertion signature in South Asia,propose that Haplogroup E arose in Asia, but this hypothesis does not have widespread acceptance and was not considered in the most recent y-chromosome phylogenetic tree by Karafet et al 2008."

  • "Chandrasekar et al 2007 state that one individual with E* was found in Western India. However the Karafet et al 2008 make no reference to this in the most recent publication of the Y-chromosome tree"

As can be seen by anyone who verifies the statements in the study in question, Karafet et al. make no such assertions. That's you availing yourself of their study to reach conclusions of your own.
One last thing: WP:FRINGE deals with fringe theories which Chandrasekar et al. (2007) cannot qualify as since it is a study, not a theory. And unfortunately for you, the Asian origin hypothesis (i.e. the theory) that Chandrasekar et al. (2007) supports actually has been the other major competing hypothesis pertaining to the origins of haplogroup E for quite some time. Causteau (talk) 05:56, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
See what Andrew has written above, the Asian origin of E is mere speculation, there is no evidence of a back migration that would have lead to 90% of Africans having haplogroup E. That is essentially a movement into an uninhabited continent. Wapondaponda (talk) 06:19, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm afraid there's nothing "speculative" about the Chandrasekar et al. (2007) source (which is why you are so keen on getting rid of it). I am also already well aware of what you personally believe regarding haplgroup E's place of origin, and frankly, I'm not in the least bit interested in it. Now go back and read the very first quote in my post above. Causteau (talk) 06:25, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Wapondaponda should be blocked from editing[edit]

Wapondaponda is trying to suppress the Asian origin theory of haplogroup E because he's an Afrocentrist with personal objections to it. At first, he made a feeble attempt on the Talk page to justify his actions, but that was shown to comprise original research. So now, he doesn't discuss his edits anymore or even give a reason for them. He simply deletes the evidence he doesn't like. Eight times in the span of five days, as of this writing. He's also guilty of OR and POV pushing in a number of other articles. At least two other editors (Causteau and The Ogre) are in agreement with me on this, and a third (Andrew Lancaster) has criticized his tactics. He needs to be stopped. ---- Small Victory (talk) 09:09, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. As can be seen in my expose above, Wapondaponda is guilty yet again of some pretty blatant original research. He has been consistently pushing POV across a number of articles that attempts to minimize the extent of non-Sub-Saharan African genetic influence on Asia, Europe & Africa and maximize the Sub-Saharan African influence on the aforementioned regions (even if that means inventing such influence, which is usually the case). His m.o. is basically to insert his POV into the article, feebly and briefly attempt to justify that POV when forced to on said article's talk page, then just knee-jerk revert thereafter once his POV has been exposed, as it invariably will. A more permanent solution to this problem is definitely required. Causteau (talk) 13:53, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
I blocked Wapondaponda, then unblocked him again as he seemed to be cooperative. I haven't read all the discussion, but if Ogre and Andrew can comment here, or if you can direct me to relevant comments of theirs, that would help me recognize what consensus there may be if the edit wars start up again. kwami (talk) 19:45, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
I believe that Wapondaponda is not the only one being a bit tendentious. What's more some of his edits are closer to what I think is consensus in the field than those opposed to him. After some discussion with Wapondaponda we have gone over the Chandrasekar paper together and I see that indeed that paper makes no new contribution to this debate, and only cites out-of-date articles. The E* which the paper supposedly discovered is not presented as such in the paper. The sample was not tested for any sub-clades of E-P96, so it is entirely unremarkable. Everyone in this debate including Wapondaponda should get more back to basics and actually read both the articles they are citing as well as the comments of other editors.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:06, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Chandrasekar et al 2007[edit]

I have argued that though Chandrasekar et al 2007 is a peer reviewed published article, it makes a poor case for the origin of E in Asia. In addition it is a minority view point that is not shared by majority of scholars and most of the recent studies have effectively neutralized the claims that are made by Chandrasekar. It is for these reasons we should follow the guidelines stipulated at WP:UNDUE which states "Wikipedia should not present a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention overall as a majority view."

I managed to access the Chandrasekar article. This is the quote that is said to support an Asian origin of E from Chandrasekar et al.

The YAP insertion probably occurred on an Asian Y chromosome as long ago as 55 000 years (Hammer et al. 1998) based on the evidence of ancestral alleles for M40 and M96 on exclusively Asian M174 chromosomes (Altheide and Hammer 1997). The ancestral allele of M174 found exclusively in Africa, supports an African origin of YAP insertion (Underhill 2001) but the time of mutational events on the Asian YAP insertion chromosome (Hammer et al. 1998) gives antiquity to M174. Our findings of the presence of the YAP insertion in northeast Indian tribes and Andaman islanders with haplogroup D indicate that some of the M168 chromosomes have given rise to the YAP insertion and M174 mutation in south Asia. The presence of C*, YAP insertion and F* in India (Kivisild et al. 2003; Cordaux et al. 2004; Sengupta et al. 2006; Thangaraj et al. 2003) suggests that the Y chromosome is well differentiated into major lineages in south Asia. Then they moved towards southeast Asia and the Andaman Islands. Andamanese maternal links have been established through mtDNA M31 lineage with the eastern part of India in the Rajbansi of West Bengal (Palanichamy et al. 2006) and the Pauri Bhuiya of Orissa (our unpublished data). After reaching the southern part of East Asia descendants of the initial dispersal, led to a northward diaspora thus peopling across all of East Asia (Su et al. 1999). Some of the YAP insertion chromosomes without the M174 mutation reached the Mediterranean via Central Asia and gave rise to the E lineage with mutations at M40 and M96 (31 000 years ago; Hammer et al. 1998). This E lineage back-migrated to Africa through the Levant as hypothesized by Hammer et al. (1997) and Altheide and Hammer (1997).


Just in this paragraph alone Hammer's articles from 1997 and 1998 are quoted 6 times. In fact the main argument that haplogroup E originated in Asia is exclusively based on Hammer's studies. The following are the articles cited

  1. Hammer et al 1997, The Geographic Distribution of Human Y Chromosome Variation
  2. Hammer et al 1998 Out of Africa and Back Again: Nested Cladistic Analysis of Human Y
  3. Altheide and Hammer (1997) Evidence for a Possible Asian Origin of YAP' Y Chromosomes

In articles 1 and 2 Hammer proposes or is sympathetic to the Multiregional hypothesis in explaining the Asian origin of Yap and haplogroup E. Currently the multiregional hypothesis is at best a minority view, at worst a fringe theory or even pseudoscience.

The Recent Out of Africa model is by far the current standard bearer and has consistently been upheld by multiple and independent lines of evidence. All the existing mtDNA and Y-chromosome phylogenetic trees have been constructed based on the Recent Out of Africa model and not a multiregional model. Just based on the support for the multiregionalism should be sufficient to place Hammer's articles in the minority position

Multiregionalism is a side show, there are other more important reasons. Firstly Hammer's articles were published before the discovery of the M174 that defines Haplogroup D (Y-DNA). Hammer had concluded that haplogroup E was a subclade of D, but the discovery of m174 neutralized that position and D, E are now considered separate haplogroups. M174 is in the ancestral state in haplogroup E and all other African haplogroups. Underhill and Cavalli-Sforza go as far as to state The M174 data taken alone would support an African origin of the YAP polymorphisms, as the M174 ancestral allele is found exclusively in Africa. Based on this, Weale et al are exasperated at why some scholars continue to reference Hammer's old studies when new discoveries have neutralized them. They state While this conclusion continues to be cited, Underhill and colleagues have shown through the discovery of the new marker M174 that the Asian YAP subgroup is not paraphyletic and thus that the origin and direction of expansion of YAP chromosomes cannot be determined on these grounds. Chandrasekar acknowledges the discovery of M174, but continues to cite Hammer anyway, despite concrete evidence that Hammer's articles are no longer applicable. Finally Hammer himself has all but recanted his earlier claims of a back migration to Africa. In a 2008 interview related to the widely cited recent publication Karafet et al, Hammer states.

The age of [haplogroup] DE is about 65,000 years, just a bit younger than the other major lineage to leave Africa, which is assumed to be about 70,000 years old. Haplogroup E is older than previously estimated, originating approximately 50,000 years ago.

The most telling part of the quote is "the other major lineage to leave Africa", which basically refers to Haplogroup CF (Y-DNA). other major lineage implies that DE left Africa along with CF. Effectively admitting to what has been the most realistic scenario and what has been known for years. Furthermore Chandrasekar is still referencing Hammer's date for the origin of haplogroup E as 31,000 kya. A position which Hammer has recanted specifically dating E to 50,000 years ago and the YAP to 65,000 years ago. These new dates either completely eliminate or significantly constrain the possibility of a back migration from Asia to Africa as the out of Africa migration is believed to have taken place 60-50kya.


However, determining the exact time and place of the origin of any haplogroup is beyond the capabilities of the current technology. Underhill et al state regarding this:

A degree of uncertainty will always exist regarding the geographic origins of DNA sequence variants such as the YAP+ because of a lack of precise knowledge concerning prehistoric spatio-temporal distribution of alleles

Rather than determining exact times and locations, scientists strive to determine the most likely, the most parsimonious time and location of origin. So an Asian origin of E or its parent clade Yap is theoretically possible, as mentioned by Underhill et al 2007. Just as it is theoretically possible that humans were abducted by aliens and haplogroup E arose in outer space before the Aliens returned the humans to earth. Neither of these two theories can be disproven based on the theory that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. The African origin of haplogroup E and Yap is the most plausible, most parsimonious and most accepted scenario. Based on the available evidence cited in this lengthy post, based on WP:UNDUE which states Wikipedia should not present a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention overall as a majority view, I propose that the Asian origin of E should not be given as much weight as the African origin. Wapondaponda (talk) 03:06, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I see you are still busy trying to get rid of and/or undermine the Chandrasekar et al. (2007) source that supports an Asian origin for haplogroup E, only this time you were forced to take the long route since the short route (i.e. claiming that the study is "fringe") was closed to you when I pointed out in my previous post dated 05:56, 6 June 2009 that WP:FRINGE "deals with fringe theories, which Chandrasekar et al. (2007) cannot qualify as since it is a study, not a theory." So now you have re-directed your focus on the Asian origin hypothesis itself, attempting to assail it by linking the studies by Hammer et al. that the Chandrasekar et al. (2007) source cites with the multi-regional hypothesis -- a theory on the origins of modern humans which you have then labeled as "fringe". There are, however, a couple of problems with your strategy:
  • You falsely presuppose that the multi-regional model is a "fringe theory" and that it is "at worst a fringe theory or even pseudoscience." I recall in the past you attempting to slander a blog author who had the audacity to publish a study which supported an Asian origin for macrohaplogroup M (something you have more than demonstrated on that article's talk page that you are dead-set against) by saying that she, like Hammer according to you, "believes in the multiregional hypothesis". Silly argument. Like it or not, the multi-regional model is the other major competing view on the origins of modern humans besides the recent single origin hypothesis that you personally champion (1, 2, 3). Unfortunately for you, it's not a tiny minority view.
  • None of Hammer's studies support a multi-regional model for the origins of modern humans. This is something you fabricated -- which is why you are unable to quote passages from the studies proving this -- and which you have been continuously attempting to tag on to Hammer's studies to discredit them ipso facto (and thus, by extension, the Chandrasekar et al. (2007) source, which is cited in this Wikipedia article as supporting an Asian origin for haplogroup E). In fact, Hammer in his study from 1997 supports the Out of Africa theory, but suggests that humans migrated out of the continent in several waves as opposed to via a single migration. He also adds that the YAP insertion probably originated in Asia:

"An important feature of our results is the number of polymorphisms that appear to have originated in Africa (ie., PN1, PN2, PN3, DYS271 A-G, and the poly(A) S allele). This may reflect a greater African population size and/or an African ascertainment bias in the polymorphic sites surveyed. On the other hand, the YAP element insertion and the poly(A) M and VS alleles may have originated in Asia. Overall, our combination haplotype data are compatible with either an African origin, an extremely heterogeneous source population in Africa, the aforementioned larger effective African population size, and/or various gene flow and genetic drift-based scenarios. Our contribution differs from previous genetic studies that have supported a model based on a single migration out of Africa (CANN et al. 1987; VIGILANT al. 1991; TISHKOFF al. 1996). For instance, in our opinion the TISHKOFF al. (1996) microsatellite data may have traced a more recent migration as exemplified by haplotypes 4 and 5 in our Y chromosome tree (Figure 3 ). Separate analyses of the patterns of genetic variation associated with each of the five YAP haplotypes point to the conjecture that our data contain evidence consistent with multiple dispersals, some emanating from Africa and one perhaps coming from Asia. It is also possible that our microsatellite data reflect comparatively recent demographic parameters and microevolutionary events, while the rest of our data reflect much earlier population dynamics."

In his 1997 study with Altheide, Hammer again does not endorse the multi-regional model of the origins of modern humans that you've for some inexplicable reason consistently demonized. All he says is that YAP originated in Asia and migrated to Africa:

"However, Hammer et al. (1997) have raised the possibility that YAP haplotype 3 originated in Asia and migrated to Africa."

And in his 1998 study, Hammer clearly endorses the Out of Africa hypothesis, but again indicates that the YAP insertion originated in Asia & back-migrated to Africa:

"We inferred that one of the oldest events in the nested cladistic analysis was a range expansion out of Africa which resulted in the complete replacement of Y chromosomes throughout the Old World, a finding consistent with many versions of the Out of Africa Replacement Model. A second and more recent range expansion brought Asian Y chromosomes back to Africa without replacing the indigenous African male gene pool. Thus, the previously observed high levels of Y chromosomal genetic diversity in Africa may be due in part to bidirectional population movements."

  • While it's true that Underhill et al. (2001) state that "the M174 data taken alone would support an African origin of the YAP polymorphisms, as the M174 ancestral allele is found exclusively in Africa", that of course was well before Shi et al. (2008)'s discovery of DE* (i.e. the "M174 ancestral allele") in Tibet. Underhill also laid out in that same study the conditions necessary for an Asian origin:

"Altheide and Hammer (34) have suggested that haplotypes defined by the presence of the YAP insertion originated in Asia and spread back to Africa. One prediction of this model is that the ancestral state of this lineage, which would be YAP(+) but ancestral for both the eastern (M174C) and western (M96C) sublineages (8), should be found in the Asian population(s) where the insertion originally occurred. We do not find any such ancestral chromosomes in our study. Although we cannot rule out the possibility that an ancestral YAP(+) chromosome will be found as more samples are analyzed, the current survey of ≈2,000 men does not support an Asian origin for the YAP(+) lineage, consistent with the results of Underhill et al."

In the wake of Shi et al.'s Tibetan DE* samples, that completely contradicts your argument. Incidentally, Lan Hai (2008) cites this same D* finding by Shi et al. (2008) as well as Chandrasekar et al. (2007)'s study for its own assertion of an Asian origin for YAP, effectively upholding both their findings.
  • The Weale et al. (2003) quote you cite above is a gratuitous red herring. Weale says absolutely nothing about Hammer supporting the multi-regional model much less Chandrasekar et al. (2007), the latter of which is the actual study cited in this Wikipedia article. And when Weale indicates that other studies continue to cite Hammer's studies (the "exasperation" you try and attribute to him is very much your own, I'm afraid), he is strictly referring to their use of "the position of group E within the (then) apparently paraphyletic group D to argue for an Asian origin of the YAP clade and a subsequent back-migration event that brought more derived YAP chromosomes to Africa from Asia". Here's the full passage, which I can't say I'm surprised you did not quote:

"Hammer and colleagues used the position of group E within the (then) apparently paraphyletic group D to argue for an Asian origin of the YAP clade and a subsequent back-migration event that brought more derived YAP chromosomes to Africa from Asia (Altheide and Hammer 1997; Hammer et al. 1997, 1998, 2001). While this conclusion continues to be cited (e.g., Maca-Meyer et al. 2001; Templeton 2002), Underhill and colleagues have shown (through the discovery of the new marker M174: see Figure 1) that the Asian YAP subgroup is not paraphyletic and thus that the origin and direction of expansion of YAP chromosomes cannot be determined on these grounds (Underhill et al. 2000, 2001; Underhill and Roseman 2001)."

Note that Chandrasekar et al. (2007) is not among those studies that assume that D* is paraphyletic based on Hammer's studies. Actually, Chandrasekar et al. repeatedly mention M174, including the fact that in their study the "YAP insertion in northeast India and Andaman tribes was found in association with haplotype D* (M168, M174)". You therefore officially have no point here either.
  • You try and make it seem like Chandrasekar et al. (2007) cites Hammer's studies in their entirety when, in fact, it only references specific portions of Hammer's studies pertaining to possible migration routes from Asia back to Africa:

"Some of the YAP insertion chromosomes without the M174 mutation reached the Mediterranean via Central Asia and gave rise to the E lineage with mutations at M40 and M96 (31 000 years ago; Hammer et al. 1998). This E lineage back-migrated to Africa through the Levant as hypothesized by Hammer et al. (1997) and Altheide and Hammer (1997)."

Pay special attention to the bold text above. Since M174 (as you yourself have pointed out) hadn't even been discovered at the time of Hammer's studies, that is obviously not the part of the sentence which is being sourced to Hammer et al. (1998). The part of that Chandrasekar et al. (2007) quote that is sourced to that Hammer study is strictly the migration route, like I wrote. And the latter Central Asia->Mediterranean route taken is certainly not what Underhill et al. "debunked" according to Weale et al. (2003), and neither is the route taken by E-carrying migrants through the Levant, which Chandrasekar et al. source to Altheide and Hammer (1998):

"Hammer and colleagues used the position of group E within the (then) apparently paraphyletic group D to argue for an Asian origin of the YAP clade and a subsequent back-migration event that brought more derived YAP chromosomes to Africa from Asia (Altheide and Hammer 1997; Hammer et al. 1997, 1998, 2001). While this conclusion continues Underhill and colleagues have shown (through the discovery of the new marker M174: see Figure 1) that the Asian YAP subgroup is not paraphyletic and thus that the origin and direction of expansion of YAP chromosomes cannot be determined on these grounds (Underhill et al. 2000, 2001; Underhill and Roseman 2001)."

Chandrasekar et al. also source the date of the YAP mutation event to Hammer et al. (1998):

The YAP insertion probably occurred on an Asian Y chromosome as long ago as 55 000 years (Hammer et al. 1998) based on the evidence of ancestral alleles for M40 and M96 on exclusively Asian M174 chromosomes (Altheide and Hammer 1997). The ancestral allele of M174 found exclusively in Africa, supports an African origin of YAP insertion (Underhill 2001) but the time of mutational events on the Asian YAP insertion chromosome (Hammer et al. 1998) gives antiquity to M174. Our findings of the presence of the YAP insertion in northeast Indian tribes and Andaman islanders with haplogroup D indicate that some of the M168 chromosomes have given rise to the YAP insertion and M174 mutation in south Asia.

But they base the Asian origin of YAP on their own findings (the bold text above), something I have pointed out to you many times before already.
  • Finally, your last rant regarding the Hammer press release, Karafet et al. (2008) and haplogroup CF is off-topic and has already been largely addressed on the haplogroup DE article's talk page (as, incidentally, have most of your "points"). That press release's whole purpose was to announce Karafet et al. (2008)'s study that Michael Hammer also participated in. Karafet et al. (2008) for its part doesn't once mention haplogroup DE or the YAP insertion or haplogroup CF much less their place of origin. Further, the Hammer quote is not explicit but ambiguous:

"In addition to improving the resolution of branches, the latest reconstruction of the tree allows estimates of time to the most recent common ancestor of several haplogroups. "The age of [haplogroup DE] is about 65,000 years, just a bit younger than the other major lineage to leave Africa, which is assumed to be about 70,000 years old," says Hammer, describing an example of the fine resolution of age that is now possible. "Haplogroup E is older than previously estimated, originating approximately 50,000 years ago."

It does not state directly and explicitly that haplogroups DE or CF originated in Africa -- you've read that into the text.
Overall, quite an obscene display, even by your unfortunate standards. By the way, I noticed your little attempt at gutting the multiregional origin of modern humans article of the bulk of its sourced statements. Keep this behavior up, and it's bound to end badly for you. Causteau (talk) 14:52, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Chandrasekar section break[edit]

To summarize my position, Chandrasekar quotes Hammer's articles when referring to the Asian origin hypothesis. Other studies have neutralized Hammer's articles and Hammer himself has revised his position. This makes all the claims made by Chandrasekar that rest on Hammer's articles obsolete. In this regard it does not qualify as a reliable source. As posted here, I have already looked at the only section of the article which would appear to be independent of Hammer's articles where they state Our findings of the presence of the YAP insertion in northeast Indian tribes and Andaman islanders with haplogroup D indicate that some of the M168 chromosomes have given rise to the YAP insertion and M174 mutation in south Asia. However they have not explained why. They have not addressed the branching order, neither have they discovered any new polymorphisms. In any case, the scenario that follows is totally dependent on Hammer's publications. Since Hammer has revised the age of E from 31,000 years to 55,000 years old, and Chandrasekar references 31,000, Chandrasekar is obsolete. Furthermore, there are no recent publications that support an Asian origin of E that are not based on Hammer. To the contrary, all the most recent publications support an African origin of E, rendering it the mainstream position. These include Underhill 2000,2001, Underhill and Kivisild 2007, Semino 2004, Cruciani 2002,2007 Shi 2008, Stone 2008, Weale 2003, Wells 2002. WP:UNDUE categorically states Wikipedia should not present a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention overall as a majority view. Wapondaponda (talk) 16:01, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Small Victory, there is a full thread here regarding the so called evidence and articles that support the Asian origin hypothesis. There is another thread Talk:Haplogroup_DE_(Y-DNA)#Origins_continued. Yet I haven't seen a single post from you regarding the available evidence. It would be helpful if you could air your views on the evidence, rather than simply reverting. You have said for instance that Andrew is misrepresenting the Chandrasekar study. I think we would all appreciate your explanation for this. Wapondaponda (talk) 15:12, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Everything has already been explained many times. You've just chosen to ignore the explanations because they prove you wrong. Read Causteau's long post above your "section break". That pretty much covers it all. ---- Small Victory (talk) 08:33, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, everything has already been covered. Wapondaponda has just started a new section to obscure the discussion that has already taken place above, something he regularly does when his arguments get debunked (as they invariably will). Have a look at his user page for more on his modus operandi. Causteau (talk) 04:57, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Okay, this is pathetic. I have no idea who is right, and I don't much care: the edit warring is ridiculous. I'm protecting the article, and when you all decide that you can either work together, or find someone to lead you through this if you are not willing yourselves, we can unprotect it again. kwami (talk) 08:36, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Dates[edit]

Since haplogroup E is now dated to 50-55 years ago according to Karafet et al 2008, how is an Asian origin of haplogroup E feasible, given that the out of Africa migration is dated to 50,000-70,000 years ago. Looking at the dates, an Asian origin now seems impossible, because the dates overlap with the Out of Africa migration, constraining the period for a back migration from Asia, but if anyone has an explanation, I would be willing to listen. Wapondaponda (talk) 21:03, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Even ignoring your way of using these dates, which are very rough estimates, I don't see any problem? Let's say DE was in Western or Southern Asia 50-70 thousand years ago, and then after a while the D and E ancestors appear in this population, then D moves east, while E moves SW. No lack of possible scenarios which can work?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:48, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
They may be estimates, and I am sure they will continue to be revised. But unless there is some paradigm shifting event, most studies seem to be converging on 50-70kya for OOA. DE has a mean age of 65kya(59-68)kya. So an Asian origin is only possible if OOA occurred at the upper bounds say 70kya, and DE emerged at the lower bound say 59kya, which is the least likely scenario based on probabilities, since the highest probabilities are centered around the mean. Even then DE, would then have to migrate back into Africa before the coalescence date of E in Africa, which is 50-55kya which is a very short trip ie 4-9kya into Asia and back into Africa.
The problem here is even the lower bound of 59kya for DE is still in the range for the OOA, that is humans could have left Africa 50kya. The vast majority of possible dates favor an African origin for DE and E and it simply the most parsimonious as it requires the least number of moves. Add to that, the recent dates for Eurasian haplogroups that may have back migrated to Africa, U6 at 36kya, and possibly M1 at 24kya, and R-M173 30kya. These are all too young to be contemporaneous with a back migration of DE at 65kya and E at 50kya. So the argument for a back migration fails on this front. Wapondaponda (talk) 13:26, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Honestly I do not think you can use these shots in the dark in this way. You are underestimating their inaccuracy. The whole timing of OOA migrations is itself a very speculative field.Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:55, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
We have to use these points, because this is the argument being presented by Causteau based on the Chandresekar article. He says that E back migrated to Africa along with M1, U6 and R1b. But none of these haplotypes in Africa show the level of diversity of haplogroup E. Karafet et al state:

There are a total of 83 polymorphic sites that mark lineages within this clade, compared with a total of 30 internal mutations in 2002. This makes haplogroup E by far the most mutationally diverse of all major Y chromosome clades. These polymorphisms define 56 distinct haplogroups, which can be found at high frequencies in Africa, at moderate frequencies in the Middle East and southern Europe, and with occasional occurrence in Central and South Asia

.

Basically E is significantly older than M1, U6, R1b*. In fact there is even no overlap when the margin of error is considered for M1 or R1b*,(which I think is actually R-M173) when compared with haplogroup E. U6, the 95% CI ends at 46,000 years ago. Chandrasekar article is not supported by the dates and is therefore unreliable.
The Asian origin of E and DE was created in the 1990, when there was incomplete information. It was simply due to sampling bias, in that most of the samples collected were from Eurasia and fewer were from Africa. However with the work of Underhill, Semino and Cruciani who have sampled extensively from Africa, and as a result, the asian origin of E and DE is now not even debated. The best argument for an Asian origin is from Underhill 2007, which as you state addresses the huge geogrophical gap that separates E from D. They state:

the previous inability to resolve the earlier tripartite structure left an element of

uncertainty because the Asian origin of haplogroup DE could be resurrected using the same principle of parsimony

They use the term "resurrected" implying that the asian origin is all but dead. But even with this gap, the current dates simply don't correspond with an Asian origin. Apart from Chandrasekar, no recent study supports an Asian origin. We cannot give undue weight to one study, whose results have not been replicated by any other study. Wapondaponda (talk) 17:00, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Really, you have to get over this. You should not be "using" information for winning any argument. Concerning Wikipedia the task if you are in this community is to collect neutral information as reflected in mainstream publication. Nothing more. Concerning the truth, I respect anyone who is interested in it, but wanting to win an argument has nothing to do with desiring the truth. Focusing yourself upon a weak argument made up by a fellow Wikipedian brings you neither truth, nor a good Wikipedia. To repeat: these age estimates are too weak to be used for any argument.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:17, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
If it is a weak argument by a fellow Wikipedian, why should we keep it in the article. A lot of people use wikipedia as a reference, and they are likely to be misled by this weak argument. We should not have to keep a week argument in the article just to please a fellow wikipedian. He or she may think that he can take people for a ride and continue pushing unacceptable theories. I think you know this to be the case, yet I see no reason, not to act on it. Dates are never accurate, however, the current technology is still able to discern what is most likely a younger lineage from an older one. My suggestion is to eliminate the Asian origin hypothesis altogether, or significantly downgrade its importance. This would be a true reflection of the current scientific consensus. The most important recent studies concerning E, semino, cruciani, underhill or Karafet make no mention of an Asian origin. There is nothing I would like more than to put this issue behind, but I think it is important that it is effectively dealt with. Wapondaponda (talk) 19:57, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
If it is jut the argument of a Wikipedian then of course that is not good enough. Have you demonstrated that though?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:07, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
I think Causteau has insisted on using Chandrasekar 3007 study, despite the many flaws in the article that have been demonstrated to him. In such a dynamic field, we cannot base the origins on just one article, especially if it is at odds with many other articles. Rather we should focus on the mainstream consensus. The article is still protected until we can demonstrate to Kwami that we have some form of consensus. Small Victory had joined in edit warring, even though he had not demonstrated on the talk page an understanding of the origins of E. So this gave the impression of a legitimate content dispute. Wapondaponda (talk) 20:23, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
The thing is this, you ask me to look at your complaints, but often these end up to be cases where you know the sourcing is correct, but you just don't agree with the published authors. Can you please just give up on those cases and only ask me to look at cases where there are no sources, or where the sources are being clearly misused? I am going to start ignoring your comments if you just keep complaining about Chandrasekar or any other author you don't agree with. This is a problem for me because it takes so much time to look through what you are saying and then I keep finding these types of no hope cases mixed in.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:26, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Merger proposal[edit]

I propose that Haplogroup E-P147 (Y-DNA) be merged into Haplogroup E-M96 (Y-DNA). I think that the content in the E-P147 article can easily be explained in the context of E-M96, and the E-M96 article is of a reasonable size that the merging of Foo will not cause any problems as far as article size or undue weight is concerned. --17:40, 12 January 2013 (UTC)RebekahThorn (talk)

  • Support - I am suggesting this because the E-P147 article has been sitting as a stub for over 3 years. The E-P147* paragroup also seem rare enough that content apart from the parent branch and the descendant branches is not going to be common. I am in no rush. I will not move to do this for several months, so take your time thinking about it. RebekahThorn (talk) 17:59, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Support. There are indeed a few such stubs around. Good call.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:43, 12 January 2013 (UTC)