<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->link
Eurasian migration theory based on the latest findings
(For those regardless of race who tire of long reads, just read the headlines.)
I. Basal Eurasian Lineages around the initial stage of exodus out of Africa: M and N for the maternal side and C, DE, and F for the paternal.
-On the maternal side, M and N (including R) arose out of L3 either within or outside of Africa.
<b>-On the paternal side, Yap/DE arose within Africa and accompanied itâs ancestral type, M168, out of Africa, where C/M130 and F/M89 sprang up.</b>
II. Route (s) taken and the Eurasian Garden of Eden: <b>southern coastal route to India, the Eurasian Garden of Eden where the basal Eurasian lineages, as well as highest diversity, is found.</b>
-The route taken is a southern coastal route via East Africa, through southern Arabia, and into India. Large bodies of water likely were not obstacles because of lower sea levels due to water trapped in glaciers.
-A separate route out of Africa via the Levant is no longer viable. (This was proposed for Whitey to feel special.)
-The reason for this is simple.
1. On the maternal side, N (and R) is no longer solely found in Western Eurasia. <b>"Negritos" groups and Australian aborigines and Papuans all have unique N and R lineages. In fact, Australia seem to be lacking in a native M lineage. </b>The exclusive presence of N-derived lineages in West Eurasia was the original reason as to why the separate Levantine exit.
2. On the paternal side, the F/M89 lineage, which was proposed to came out of the Levant due to the initial appearance of higher % and diversity of F-derived lineages there, has been set up due to the discovery that<b> F*, the ancestral type, is largely restricted to tribal populations in India </b>(Those Brahmins pouring acid on untouchables are actually pouring acid on their daddies.):
âThe presence of <b>several subclusters of F and K (H, L, R2, and F*) that are largely restricted to the Indian subcontinent </b>is consistent with the scenario that the coastal (southern route) migration(s) from Africa carried the ancestral Eurasian lineages first to the coast of Indian subcontinent (or that some of them originated there).â
Source: p. 15 of PDF,
âThe Genetic Heritage of the Earliest Settlers Persists Both in Indian Tribal and Caste Populationsâ by Kivisild et al. in the American Journal of Human Genetics. 72:313â332, 2003
link
3. "Most experts agree that modern humans arose in Africa before spreading throughout the world. But while archaeological evidence suggests that humans moved north into Egypt and the Middle East {probably referring to the first fail exit from Africa 90,000 years ago in the Levant}, climate records show that this region was an inhospitable desert until 50,000 years ago, making this an unlikely choice of route.
Journeying east around the coastlines of Somalia and eventually India would have been one alternative, says Vincent Macaulay of the University of Glasgow, UK. "It wouldn't have been difficult to live on the coast," he says. "In fact, it would have been quite appealing."
link
-Either N and R left India for the Middle east before the birth of M, or M was left out or bottle-necked out of the scenario. Both cases are plausible since the population at the time wouldâve been very small, perhaps only a few hundred.
Examples:
-"The estimated effective size of the founding population for the New World is fewer than 80 individuals, approximately 1% of the effective size of the estimated ancestral Asian population."
source:
"On the Number of New World Founders: A Population Genetic Portrait of the Peopling of the Americas"
link
-"By comparing these with data on mitochondrial DNA from other populations in the region, the researchers conclude that the two populations are descended from a single group of people, containing perhaps 600 females of reproductive age, who lived in India around 65,000 years ago."
http://www.nature.com/news/2005/050509/p...10_pf.html
-in Upper Paleolithic Europe, the population remain around 50,000, dipping to the 10,000 range during glacial maximum.
Thus, lineages couldâve been easily distorted during crunch times. This could be the reason we see weird distributions that donât correspond to races today, such as the E3b-dominated landscape of N. Africa compared to the F-derived lineages of the ME and the R situation in Europe. <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Eurasian migration theory based on the latest findings
(For those regardless of race who tire of long reads, just read the headlines.)
I. Basal Eurasian Lineages around the initial stage of exodus out of Africa: M and N for the maternal side and C, DE, and F for the paternal.
-On the maternal side, M and N (including R) arose out of L3 either within or outside of Africa.
<b>-On the paternal side, Yap/DE arose within Africa and accompanied itâs ancestral type, M168, out of Africa, where C/M130 and F/M89 sprang up.</b>
II. Route (s) taken and the Eurasian Garden of Eden: <b>southern coastal route to India, the Eurasian Garden of Eden where the basal Eurasian lineages, as well as highest diversity, is found.</b>
-The route taken is a southern coastal route via East Africa, through southern Arabia, and into India. Large bodies of water likely were not obstacles because of lower sea levels due to water trapped in glaciers.
-A separate route out of Africa via the Levant is no longer viable. (This was proposed for Whitey to feel special.)
-The reason for this is simple.
1. On the maternal side, N (and R) is no longer solely found in Western Eurasia. <b>"Negritos" groups and Australian aborigines and Papuans all have unique N and R lineages. In fact, Australia seem to be lacking in a native M lineage. </b>The exclusive presence of N-derived lineages in West Eurasia was the original reason as to why the separate Levantine exit.
2. On the paternal side, the F/M89 lineage, which was proposed to came out of the Levant due to the initial appearance of higher % and diversity of F-derived lineages there, has been set up due to the discovery that<b> F*, the ancestral type, is largely restricted to tribal populations in India </b>(Those Brahmins pouring acid on untouchables are actually pouring acid on their daddies.):
âThe presence of <b>several subclusters of F and K (H, L, R2, and F*) that are largely restricted to the Indian subcontinent </b>is consistent with the scenario that the coastal (southern route) migration(s) from Africa carried the ancestral Eurasian lineages first to the coast of Indian subcontinent (or that some of them originated there).â
Source: p. 15 of PDF,
âThe Genetic Heritage of the Earliest Settlers Persists Both in Indian Tribal and Caste Populationsâ by Kivisild et al. in the American Journal of Human Genetics. 72:313â332, 2003
link
3. "Most experts agree that modern humans arose in Africa before spreading throughout the world. But while archaeological evidence suggests that humans moved north into Egypt and the Middle East {probably referring to the first fail exit from Africa 90,000 years ago in the Levant}, climate records show that this region was an inhospitable desert until 50,000 years ago, making this an unlikely choice of route.
Journeying east around the coastlines of Somalia and eventually India would have been one alternative, says Vincent Macaulay of the University of Glasgow, UK. "It wouldn't have been difficult to live on the coast," he says. "In fact, it would have been quite appealing."
link
-Either N and R left India for the Middle east before the birth of M, or M was left out or bottle-necked out of the scenario. Both cases are plausible since the population at the time wouldâve been very small, perhaps only a few hundred.
Examples:
-"The estimated effective size of the founding population for the New World is fewer than 80 individuals, approximately 1% of the effective size of the estimated ancestral Asian population."
source:
"On the Number of New World Founders: A Population Genetic Portrait of the Peopling of the Americas"
link
-"By comparing these with data on mitochondrial DNA from other populations in the region, the researchers conclude that the two populations are descended from a single group of people, containing perhaps 600 females of reproductive age, who lived in India around 65,000 years ago."
http://www.nature.com/news/2005/050509/p...10_pf.html
-in Upper Paleolithic Europe, the population remain around 50,000, dipping to the 10,000 range during glacial maximum.
Thus, lineages couldâve been easily distorted during crunch times. This could be the reason we see weird distributions that donât correspond to races today, such as the E3b-dominated landscape of N. Africa compared to the F-derived lineages of the ME and the R situation in Europe. <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->