Talk:Haplogroup I-M170

Maybe someone should separate some of the information here, rewrite, add any pertinent information to fill-out the I1a & I1b specific pages like the R* Y-DNA pages have done for their subclades? Nagelfar 01:28, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Done? Jheald 15:21, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Looks like! (at least a major step of it) Nagelfar 15:59, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

As for the presence of I1b2 in Anatolia, aren't you aware of the Gothic settlement there? 82.100.61.114 01:25, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

If the Goths were considered from the Scandinavian Peninsula, they'd bring I1 diaspora not I2. Nagelfar (talk) 06:01, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Yunusbaev (2006) found 2/364 (0.55%) I1a, 2/364 (0.55%) I1c, and 14/364 (3.85%) I1b for a total of 18/364 (4.95%) haplogroup I in a study of indigenous peoples of Dagestan, which is located at the eastern end of the Caucasus. This is not significantly different from the frequency of haplogroup I in Anatolia. Ebizur (talk) 06:12, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

ISOGG corrections based on newer research

[1] -Shows how some of the SNPs are incorrect on the '06 ISOGG map, and is the basis for my corrections. Nagelfar 21:18, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Proposal to create a new WikiProject: Genetic History

I have put up a suggestion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals to create a new WikiProject, WikiProject: Genetic History.

To quote from what I've written there:

Description

A wikiproject for articles on DNA research into genetic genealogy and genealogical DNA tests; the history and spread of human populations as revealed by eg human Y-chromosome and mitochondrial DNA haplogroups; and similar. Many such articles can be found in Category:Genetic genealogy and its subcategories, notably the subcategories on human haplogroups.

Rationale

• My direct motivation for seeking this Wikiproject was a recent run-in at Y-chromosomal Aaron, where I desperately missed the lack of a relevant WikiProject talk page to go to, to attract the input, advice and views of knowledgeable editors in this area.

There's a lot of general public interest in the proposed subject area -- eg the Y-chromosomal Aaron page is apparently getting well over 100 hits a day, and over the last 18 months or so there's been a lot of material added, by a fair number of different editors, mostly editing different pages which are particularly relevant to them. IMO, a central wikiproject would be useful, and also a good place to be able to bring WP:OR, WP:V, and WP:general cluelessness issues for wider informed input.

Wikipedia:WikiProject Molecular and Cellular Biology and Wikipedia:WikiProject Evolutionary biology do already exist, but their focus is much much broader. With regard to those project's charters, I believe the subject would be seen as a rather specialist niche topic area, rather out of the mainstream of those project's normal focus. On the other hand, I believe that there are a number of wikipedia editors (and readers) who are specifically interested in the subject, who would find advantage if there were a specific wikiproject for it. Jheald (talk) 12:56, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

If people think this would be a good idea, it's a target for WikiProjects to have at least five "interested" signatures to show there's some support, before they get going.

Alternatively, if people think it would be a bad idea, please leave a comment in the comments section.

Either way, please show what you think, at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Proposals#Genetic_History

Thanks, Jheald (talk) 13:39, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

P38 equivalency

P38 defined old "I1" but upon the restructuring of the Y-I tree: old I1 has dissolved and old I1a became I1. What is the P38 mutation now equivalent to? Was it considered equal to all things I* (M170, M258, P19, U179) or was it made the same as the new I1 (equivalent to M253, M307, P30, P40)? Nagelfar (talk) 23:26, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

The new ISOGG tree makes this now clear. It is "I". [2] Nagelfar (talk) 08:33, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Inconsistencies

This page needs to be rewritten with current thinking, information like The haplogroup is almost non-existent outside of Europe, suggesting that it arose in Europe - followed soon by: Haplogroup I first arrived in Europe around 20,000-25,000 years ago from the Middle East is contradictory. Nagelfar (talk) 11:27, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree, and am changing the wording of the last snippet to: The TMRCA for Haplogroup I is 22.2 (15.3, 30.0) ky, and cite Karafet et al. 2008. Since there is no data to support where the founding event took place, best to make no assumption. Foosayer (talk) 19:12, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

ISOGG 2008

I have made updates to the I chart to reflect ISOGG 2008. Specifically, per PA Underhill and others, Karafet et al have incorrect data as follows: M436/P14 is upstream from M223; M423 is upstream from P41.2

Also, have included all snps specified in ISOGG 2008.

Foosayer (talk) 19:03, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Organizational philosophy

The Yhg-I page has been edited to copy blocks of detailed data from other pages for the subclades. I believe this violates the 'keep the detailed info in one place and reference it when needed' principle of Wikipedia, and such moves make it nearly impossible to keep Wikipedia consistent and up to date.

Strongly suggest these redundant infos be deleted. The links to the I1 and I2 subclades are in the box at the top, and that is how people should explore the subclades of Yhg-I. Foosayer (talk) 19:18, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Haplogroup naming

The constant name changing is becoming really annoying and time-wasting. We might consider an experiment on Haplogroup I pages, using haplogroup names based on SNPs per Underhill.

Thus I-M223 instead of I2b1; or I-M284 instead of I2b1a

Is the expression of hierarchy really important in the name? People generally work in only one portion of the tree related to their own DNA, and in the local context, the SNPs are pretty well recognized. Foosayer (talk) 20:28, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Discrepancy in Underhill 2007

The referenced paper specifies the age of I1 and I2 divergence as 28.4±5.1 ky. I would think a value of roughly half this distance would make more sense, particularly as they go on to state the STR variation age of I1 to be 8.1±1.5 ky.

Perhaps I am not understanding something. Prof. Underhill has not yet answered my query. I almost expected that they were summing the length of both branches, but then they go on to imply it's an actual date estimate in that it matches the Aurignacian/Gravettian boundary.

Any ideas. Foosayer (talk) 22:51, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Who has more than 10% of I haplogroup

I don't get this, why are Slavs mentioned to have more than 10% of the I haplogroup, that is absolutely amazing POV. They don't even have 1% 77.78.200.160 (talk) 18:30, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Slavs have it. Some more, some less. Why don't you simply check the sources? BTW Bosniaks are Slavs too. It's not even that Bosniaks have the most of it in the western Balkans: Croats (inland) 37%, Croats (Dalmatia) >50%, Herzegovinians (who are the mostly Croats) 64%, Bosniaks (who are Slavs too) 42%, Slovenes 20%, Serbs and Mentenigrins 25%, etc... Zenanarh (talk) 20:44, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Wrong, since if you look at the Haplogroup_I_(Y-DNA)#Maps show that yes Slavs overall frequent it less than 10% defenetely. Bosniaks frequent it as much as Norwegians and Swedes do, 42% at minimum estimates, while Croatians overall frequent it around 37% in reality as you said. So if that is the case then why should Bosniaks be Slavs and Norwegians not? And BTW did you notice that Herzegovinians who frequent most of the Haplogroup I are actually in Mostar which is a town where Bosniaks are now the majority and were always at least half of the population? 77.78.200.160 (talk) 01:10, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Island of Brač >75%, city of Split - unknown but probably something like 50-70%, Herzegovina 64%, north of Bosnia settled by Bosniaks probably <30% since Bosniak average is 42%. Investigations in B&H were made by ethnical pattern: Bosniaks, Bosnian Serbs and Herzegovinians (Croats). The biggest local percentages of I2a were found in Dalmatia, not in Bosnia, which is logical - I2a originated in the highest populated area of this Ice Age Balkan refugium - in the Adriatic steppes (the most part of Adriatic Sea was dry!). I2a decreases towards the north. Croatian average is around 45%: Croats (inland) 37% + Dalmatia >50% /2.

Bosniaks are actually nice admixture of I2a (more) and E3b (less) + others.

However all this discussion is useless. Prehistory human genetics cannot be so directly used for modern ethnicities. Your claims are total rubbish. If you would insist on your childish ideas, all of us who must read it here are gonna piss our pants of laughing. :)

Name Slavs didn't originate in Russia!. It originated in the western Balkans! And gradually spread towards the north for all speakers of the Salvic languages. Sclavens - according to Byzantine writers - the inhabitants of Sclavinias - tribe unions in the WB. It means the inhabitants of eastern half of Austria, Slovenia, continental Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Serbia, Macedonia, northern Grece, Bulgaria. Bosniaks are Slavs because of their language - Slavic, not because of their genes. It works for all Slavs in the same way. Slavs are people who speak languages of a branch of Indo-European: Slavic. There is no Slavic Y-chrommosome haplogroup! And especially there is no Bosniak Y CHG!

Bosniak as ethnical concept is only 18 years old. After WWII there were Croats, Serbs and Muslims as etnicities. Before Ottoman expansion only Croats and Serbs, and somewhat more to the past they were Slavs.

And finally you are User:Noonien Soong - banned user, aren't you? POV mythomaniac and sockpuppeteer. How many of your dynamic 77.78.- IP's must be blocked to have peace here. You are disturbing other objective Bosnian users with similar IP range! Zenanarh (talk) 14:19, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Dude, I'm a hacker who bounced via cisco.com just to chat, I had more IP ranges than anybody on the planet most probably, I've served a sentence in correction facility as a kid for DDoS'ing google to a halt. I do however not take drastic digital measures over silly wikipedia though, it's not worth it. But liars like you are starting to piss off my substantial digital c9ck, I'll start slapping you with it =). And anyways you've just been mentioning some Islands which have 250 residents, what the hell is wrong with you? 77.78.200.160 (talk) 14:41, 28 June 2008 (UTC)