Talk:Genetic history of Europe/Archive 3

No original research noticeboard
I have created a thread here. Wapondaponda (talk) 12:51, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Molecular photofitting
This book by one of the founders of DNAPrint Genomics has more detail on their analysis of continental admixture. Specifically the explain the nomenclature used to describe Haplogroup E and its subclades. Frudakis states:

To add to the existing sources, here is another one that refers to Haplogroup E as Sub-Saharan and even e3b as well. Wapondaponda (talk) 22:54, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Behaviors on Main Page
WP:COI "A Wikipedia conflict of interest (COI) is an incompatibility between the aim of Wikipedia, which is to produce a neutral, reliably sourced encyclopedia, and the aims of an individual editor. COI editing involves contributing to Wikipedia in order to promote your own interests or those of other individuals, companies, or groups. Where advancing outside interests is more important to an editor than advancing the aims of Wikipedia, that editor stands in a conflict of interest."

While there is no monetary or biographic interest here, it is obvious that at least 2 individuals here are acting against the interest of the encyclopedia in provide WP:POV.

WP:NPOV"Neutral point of view is a fundamental Wikimedia principle and a cornerstone of Wikipedia. All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources."

In addition to the above situations, many aspects of this article appear to be in violation of Occam's razor, that is instead of providing the best information from reliable sources, editors have gone about a process of creating contorted arguments to support weak hypothesis that are not openly supported by reliable sources. In addition the article is over-reliant of Y chromosomal evidence which is not a good marker to investigate levels of admixture.

What the above have done to this article have made it a sense-less bowl of spaghetti. The recent addition of Sub-Saharan African admixture: we have one version that is anti SS Admixture and one version that is Pro SS admixture. Both versions violate WP:NPOV. Editors are supposed to work together, consequently I am going to remove the current section and the reverted section and place them here until these two versions can be messed together. Muntuwandi, where is the clear evidence for uncontrovertal evidence for Subsaharan contributions to Europe. PB666 yap

Sub-Saharan African admixture
Sub-Saharan African mtDNA (haplogroups L1, L2 and L3) and Y-DNA (haplogroups A, B and E (excluding E1b1b), particularly the ubiquitous Bantu marker E1b1a)  are present at generally low levels throughout Europe.

Maternal (mtDNA) lineages are the more common and likely represent gene flow from historical events, such as slavery. They've been found in Portugal (6.9%), Spain (2.1%), Slovakia (1%), Italy (0.87%), Finland (0.83%), Bulgaria (0.71%), Bosnia (0.69%), Basques (0.64%), England (0.6%), Greece (0.44%), Switzerland (0.44%), Czech Republic (0.4%), Russia (0.3%), France (0.3%), Poland (0.18%), Germany (0.17%) and Scotland (0.1%).

Paternal (Y-DNA) lineages occur less frequently. They've been found in Portugal (3%), Albanians from Italy (2.9%), France (2.5%), Germany (2%), Sardinia, Italy (1.6%), Calabria, Italy (1.3%), Austria (0.78%), Italy (0.45%), Spain (0.42%) and Greece (0.27%).

Version Muntuwandi
Apart from the above clear cases, there are also older connections between Europe and Africa, including sub-Saharan Africa. The study of these is part of the study of the genetic diversity of all humanity, which is a complex and developing field wherein European and sub-Saharan African genes do not necessarily represent constant and clearly defined separate entities.

Evidence of prehistoric Gene flow from Sub-Saharan Africa includes:
 * The presence of Haplogroup E in Europe. Haplogroup E is one of the main Y-Chromosome haplogroups of Sub-Saharan Africa. In Europe haplogroup E is represented by its main clade E-V13, in addition to several minor clades. The exact nature and timing of the migration of haplogroup E from Sub-Saharan Africa to Europe is the subject of on going study and debate. A number of scholars associate this migration with demographic and cultural changes that took place during the Neolithic transition. . *A 2007 study conducted at Penn State University found low levels of African admixture(2.8-10%) that were distributed along a North South cline. The authors suggest that the distribution of this African admixture mirrors the distribution of haplogroup E3b-M35(E1b1b).


 * E in Europe does arrive from the middle east, but as Frudakis mentions, where E comes from simply depends on the time of reference. Further back in time, Haplogroup E has its origins are in SSA. I agree that SSA is an ambiguous classification, however the Eurasian affiliation of North Africans, Horn Africans is all the result of recent events. Most Eurasian gene flow into Africa is post Neolithic, whereas gene flow out of Africa is pre-Neolithic. Technically, pre-Neolithic Africa is largely equivalent to contemporary SSA in terms of the profile the composition of mdDNA and Y-chromosome haplotypes. Furthermore, Shriver, Frudakis detect autosomal African admixture in Europe wherever E3b is found.  Wapondaponda (talk) 13:56, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Tishkoff et all 1996 Treats NE africa differently from the rest of Africa. If the Horn of Africa is the source of Eurasian Diversity, then how can it be considered more different in the past? I think the handling of Red Sea populations/NE african popultion should be handled without two many assumptions.

So this big influence of Arabs has to be taken against contributions and increases from the Sahul previously. All of this stuff occurs after the LGM, relatively recent in human history.
 * 1) You have movements of Nubians down the nile (to the North).
 * 2) There are Red Sea cultures putatively of regional African descent.
 * 3) There was a development of African Taurids and at least some of these cattle made their way to Iberia before the Iron Age.


 * Measures of genetic distance between Europe and Sub-Saharan are generally smaller than Genetic distances between Africa and other continental populations. Cavalli-Sforza states that the relatively short genetic distance is likely due to prehistoric admixture.
 * I agree that this is an older study, but CS and Bowcock are still widely referenced. What I find interesting, is that their findings are consistent with what others have said. CS hypothesizes that an admixture event, would have occurred due to gene flow from the middle East which is in line with other studies. Wapondaponda (talk) 09:06, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Who is using the techniques, anymore. Anne is currently working on Genome wide associations with skin disorders, she it using the same current techniques (Genome Wide survey) that everyone else is using. If these techniques of C-S are so great why aren't people refining them and using them?PB666 yap 22:57, 28 July 2009 (UTC)


 * A 2009 study by Auton et al found a North-South Cline of Hapmap Yoruba haplotypes (YRI) in Europe. The study determined that South and Southwest subpopulations had the highest proportion of YRI This distribution is indicative of recurrent gene flow into Europe from both the Southwest and the Middle East. The authors suggest that the haplotype sharing between Europe and the YRI are suggestive of gene flow from Africa, albeit from West Africa and not necessarily North Africa.


 * I agree that YRI isn't necessarily representative of SSA, and this is specifically mentioned on the hapmap page. However, in continental analysis, they use it as a proxy, in lieu of having to analyze the whole continent. Wapondaponda (talk) 09:06, 28 July 2009 (UTC)


 * A principal component analysis of data from Human Genome Diversity Project by Reich et al detected a West-to-East gradient of Bantu related ancestry across Eurasia. The authors suggest that after the Out of Africa migration, there was most likely a later Bantu-related gene flow into Europe.


 * I agree, poor choice of words by the authors of the study. However, their study did use samples from contemporary Bantus. In addition they use the term "Bantu-related", which doesn't mean actual Bantu's since the language family didn't exist in the pleistocene, but affiliated to modern day Bantus. Wapondaponda (talk) 09:06, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * So where precisely did 'Modern day bantus' Come from?PB666 yap 22:57, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Version Small Victory
Genome-wide autosomal DNA analyses using the STRUCTURE clustering program, which is designed to accurately detect and quantify admixture, show equally negligible levels of sub-Saharan African admixture in all Europeans.

Whatever, the case, the sub-saharan admixture section is given too much 'space' for such minimal impact. I agree with PB666 that it would be more simple to give a reference range or table rathern than to ad nauseaum catalogue all the countries with 0.5% sub-Saharan admixture. Someone is obsessed and compelled to include this bit of information that, as far as the whole picture is concerned, is rather minor. Hxseek (talk) 01:59, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

PB666, it seems you've found a lot wrong with "Version Muntuwandi" but very little wrong with "Version Small Victory". And the one thing you did say about mine is false. There's no policy I'm aware of stating that charts, graphs, diagrams and other forms of visual data cannot be cited as evidence for claims.

Your findings should tell you which version belongs in the article and which one doesn't, as well as show you that the labels "anti SS admixture" and "pro SS admixture" are gross mischaracterizations. Better would be "neutrality and factuality" vs. "OR and POV". Small Victory (talk) 09:58, 28 July 2009 (UTC)


 * A find very little wrong because your version is a magnitude smaller. How does the say 'what belongs to Ceaser . . .' Most of this 'evidence belongs in North African contributions'. What is left, discussions about papers that explicitly mention SSA contributions we need to present the evidence but at the same time point out the faults in these studies.PB666 yap 23:07, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Eastern Asian admixture
A concern has been raised that the study used to quote the frequencies of 'Asian" mtDNA. The study groups Bulgarians with Turks. They are two entirely different ethnic groups- culturally, religiously and geographically, and would undoubtedly skew the result. I do not conceive that such a methodology meets WP:RS standards. Hxseek (talk) 01:59, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Proposal
I don't mean to take this article hostage, after all it is about Europe and we are spending a lot of time discussing SSA influences. I see no reason why evidence of SSA gene flow should be censored. I agree that the amount of text should be proportionate to level of importance. I also believe that evidence for SSA gene flow doesn't have to be uncontroversial, but rather evidence for gene flow should be from notable sources as per WP:RS and WP:NOTE. There are a couple of consistent themes that are seen across several publications I think this can be summarized in one or two paragraphs, and percentages if necessary can be moved to a table as suggested by Pdeitiker. Wapondaponda (talk) 09:37, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Prehistoric and recent gene flow from SSA
 * South to North cline, through Iberia and the Middle East
 * Related to Haplogroup E including E1b1b, and mtDNA Ls

New articles
At some stage, it would be more appropriate to move the section on SSA influences to a separate article. This will prevent us spending too much time on one topic in the GHOE article, when the article has several other issues. The previous article was deleted because of POV fork issues. So if we are to create a new article, a reasonable consensus would be required. We have a partially complete draft and the reference list above. Pdeitiker can also present a summary of the current research on HLA, since there is some evidence of gene flow from Africa. This article can go live, if a a resonable consensus is achieved, but I don't know what others think. I would rather have an article about African influences, that includes both North African and Sub-Saharan influences because it is practically impossible to separate the two. Genes do not come with a stamp of North African or Sub-Saharan African. Possible names Finally at some stage it might become necessary to create an article Wapondaponda (talk) 09:37, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * African admixture in Europe.
 * Gene flow from Africa to Europe
 * Any other suggestions.
 * Population genetics of Africa or Genetic history of Africa, Asia, Americas, Oceania too.

The AfD is over, the article was deleted. The genetic history of Africa is 10 million years.PB666 yap 03:39, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree. A core problem of that deleted article is that science is not up to it. There is no clear definition of African and sub Saharan in DNA, and there might never be, because Africa is centre of gravity for human genetic diversity. But not only that: most of the details of exactly how are part of the still uncertain field of human genetic diversity overall. Somewhere during the debates about that deletion I made the point that it makes no sense to have an article about this subject while there are still no articles about some of the logically prior areas, for example the types of data analysis used to come up with speculative theories.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:00, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Xing et al 2009
Fine-scaled human genetic structure revealed by SNP microarrays, Supplemental material table 2

My question is why is the percentage of unique polymorphic SNPs shared between Europe and Africa at 1.59%, double that between Africa and Asia, at 0.74, and double that between Africa and India at 0.62. Shouldn't Europe be in the same range as Asia and India being that Europeans are descended from the same source population as Asians and Indians. Wapondaponda (talk) 15:45, 28 July 2009 (UTC)


 * You already know the answer to that question. From Cavalli-Sforza's The History and Geography of Human Genes:


 * http://img248.imageshack.us/img248/3122/cavallisforzaadmix.png


 * Figure S4 in the supplementary material of the Xing study shows clearly that Europeans have no African admixture. Stop wasting people's time with nonsense. Small Victory (talk) 10:34, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

mtDNA in SSA
This section has been moved here because the references are not valid and are based soley of Pubmed Abstracts. Lets make an effort to create traditional references.PB666 yap 20:29, 30 July 2009 (UTC) As I suspected more crap was buried under the improper referencing, references for studies were provided those without references are in the table to the left. Information without valid references should not be placed on the main page.

Almost any large scale study of mtDNA will detect some level of Sub-saharan haplotypes. It is therefore unnecessary to list every single study that detected these haplogroups. A few references that deal directly with the subject would suffice, instead of those that incidentally stumble upon these haplogroups. I suggest Malyarchuk 2005, 2008 and Gonzalez 2003 as these are comprehensive. If there is insistence on listing, a table with each study as a column heading should be introduced. Because of the small sample sizes, no single study is authoritative, and percentages vary from study to study. Wapondaponda (talk) 20:53, 30 July 2009 (UTC)Wapondaponda (talk) 20:50, 30 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Honestly, I am getting very tired of your attitude, you're sloppy, you apparently can't provide proper referencing for what you stated. I consider it dishonest to bury the results of 20 studies under one reference, and come to find out most of the data set has no valid reference. Instead of playing your little games that foul this Main page up, why don't you actually back up what you state.PB666 yap 21:10, 30 July 2009 (UTC)


 * The table with peoples who were referenced is placed on the Main, all the unreferenced (meaning the editor who added these made no effort to provide references) If you don't desire to reference them and you don't think every study is needed then why did you add them?PB666 yap 21:19, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * For those 20 studies apparently, I can find 20 more studies that detect some Sub-Saharan lineages. Would you like to list every single study that detected an L. But I didn't add them. Small Victory is the one who insists on using them. Wapondaponda (talk) 21:22, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Well then its a small victory isn't it because if it is not a valid reference its coming off the page. I See many more of these on the main pages under more of these junked up sections. You can have a thousand if you want, but if you don't have a reference for each one they come off the page.

All of the mtDNA figures have valid references. Most of them come from Table 2 of the Achilli paper, which is quite comprehensive. For countries that were subdivided by region (e.g. Italy, Spain, Greece, Germany etc.), the data was pooled to keep things simple and consistent.

Also, organizing the figures into a table takes up too much space, and then we'd have to do the same for the Y-DNA figures and for the comparable figures in the 'Central/East Asian admixture' section. It's just a bad idea. Small Victory (talk) 07:43, 31 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Bunching 4 references together as a single reference and then only providing linkouts is not the way to do it. If organizing the figures into tables takes up to much space, meaning the material is not that important that it needs a table, means don't put it on the page. You guys need to start thinking about the reader and stop trying to sell belief. There are numerous comments about this page being dubious science, a dirty laundry list of miscellaneous information, etc. Actually the 4 references that are given paint an adequate picture. Another way of referencing is to have the material listed a repository, such as www.allelefrequencies.net so that only one reference may be required to access. The key here is WP:VERIFY which means a person who has access to the literature is able, without further searching through the literature be able to find the source of information.

Auton does say that STRUCTURE shows admixture
I was so busy looking at the supplementary material that I failed to notice this in the main study:

So it's in fact established within Auton itself that STRUCTURE quantifies admixture between populations corresponding to continental regions. Note that the Figure 1A they refer to is extracted from Figure S3A in the supplementary material. Note also that the source they cite is the very paper published by the program's creators that I've been saying all along supports the use of STRUCTURE to quantify admixture. Small Victory (talk) 13:05, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

go it alone editing
Small Victory, concernint this edit, just to remind you again, the deleted article was entirely your baby. You rejected contributions from myself and compromises from Andrew. The community rejected your approach with []. That was essentially a referendum on your approach. So this time, we have to use another approach. SOPHIAN was blocked yesterday for recreating the article Sub-Saharan DNA admixture in Europe, what you are doing comes awfully close to what SOPHIAN is trying to do. I suggest you accept that you must work with others to achieve a consensus. Wapondaponda (talk) 14:11, 21 July 2009 (UTC)


 * You're quite delusional. That article was deleted because it was a WP:CFORK. And your POV-pushing, original research, 3RR violations and sock puppets had more to do with it than anything I ever did. In fact, the article was problem-free until you (and Andrew Lancaster) came along and started tampering with it. Let's remember that you're the one who's been blocked for repeated rule violations. My record is clean. So if anything, the deletion was a referendum on your approach. Take the hint. Small Victory (talk) 12:18, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Technically you have no blocks, but that doesn't make your record clean. Your account is basically a single purpose account, which is almost devoted entirely to enforcing POV material on SSA DNA admixture in Europe article. SPA editing is not a healthy type of editing. In fact, your editing record is somewhat disappointing. In three years since you opened an account, you have only edited 17 unique articles. Since the deletion of SSADAE, more than half your edits have been deleted, so you only have about 91 live edits. I think this explains why you are quite uncivil towards other editors and why you have difficulty collaborating with others.
 * This is a summary of comments from the AFD
 * CFORK
 * Essay
 * Socking has nothing to do with
 * One quote doesn't make sense
 * what material in this article is worth saving?
 * POV fork
 * POV fork
 * Nothing to do with me here.
 * Wapondaponda (talk) 13:32, 22 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Nothing to do with me either. But more to do with you than you think. I'd been involved with that article almost since its creation three years ago, and there was never any problem with "my approach" (which is based on up-to-date, peer-reviewed research and usually backed up by consensus). Then you and Andrew came along with your POV-pushing, OR and edit warring, and a few months later the article was gone. Coincidence? I don't think so.


 * And btw, that's not my editing record, it's my editing history. Apparently, you're not familiar with the expression "clean record". Look it up with "criminal record" and find out what it means. I've never been blocked for rule violations, therefore my record is clean. You have, several times, therefore yours is not. Period. The length of my editing history is of no relevance whatsoever. And as far as having a "single purpose account", let's take a look at your editing history. It can be summed up in one word: AFROCENTRISM. Small Victory (talk) 12:00, 23 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Small Victory, the version which everyone agreed to delete was largely the version with all the stuff you objected to removed. Wapondaponda is right to say that the problems with the article went far beyond what you think of as Afrocentrism. Look at the comments of the editors who came to comment on the deletion page, and they are very much directed at the same materials which I posted tags on and removed when it appeared again in this article, for example the theory that sub Saharan lineages in Africa are mainly due to slavery, which is pure OR. Wapondaponda had been kept from editing (his own fault) during that period.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 00:56, 25 July 2009 (UTC)


 * They didn't agree to delete a specific version of the article. They agreed to delete the article at a specific point in time. Namely the time that an edit war broke out because you and Wapondaponda were inserting OR and POV. The main reason given was WP:CFORK, which was caused by the two of you (and Wapondaponda still hasn't quit). The second reason was that the subject wasn't notable enough to have its own article and should instead be dealt with more briefly here, which is exactly what I did. And none of the materials I included in the new version received negative comments on the deletion page. That's a huge lie. I just included the basics to match the 'Central/East Asia' section.


 * Btw, in case you didn't notice, I added a new source for the claim that L mtDNA in Europe is associated mostly with "historical events, such as slavery". It covers the whole of Europe (actually the whole of Eurasia), not just Portugal, and it makes reference to both the Atlantic and Arab slave trades, as well as the Arab/Berber conquest of Iberia and Sicily as a possible source for the transmission of L markers. Small Victory (talk) 13:35, 25 July 2009 (UTC)


 * OK, into details and deflecting from reality as usual, yes of course there were several versions while discussion went on. All were dominated by you and SOPHIAN's editing, not Wapondaponda's. The discussion on the deletion proposal page also made it very clear what types of stuff was being seen as OR.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 22:23, 27 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Still haven't learned how to read, huh? The only accusations of OR on the deletion proposal page are leveled against you and Wapondaponda by SOPHIAN. My name isn't even mentioned once. Small Victory (talk) 10:02, 28 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Please don't keep looking for details to deflect from the real point, and please cease writing in such an aggressive tone, which is also a distraction. Not all descriptions of OR use these 2 letters as an abbreviation. Remember, I proposed the deletion and gave the most detailed reasoning about why. Several people simply agreed with my description, including Wikiscribe and Causteau. Telling me I don't understand myself seems particularly silly. Let's just get back to the subject. Here are the types of comments which were tagged and later deleted when they reappeared in THIS article. These are the ones you think are being treated unfairly:-
 * Maternal (mtDNA) lineages of sub Saharan origin are the more common than Y lineages in Europe.
 * The maternal lineages "likely represent gene flow from historical events, such as slavery".
 * Other theories you've defended putting in Wikipedia in this area include ideas about how male lineage arrive in Europe, and that lineages are only named after a region of origin if they are still present in that region. You need to defend such things case by case, not by attacking the people who question them.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 23:46, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Y description in SSA
Y-DNA haplogroups A, B and E are the predominant haplogroups in Sub-Saharan Africa. Only Haplogroup E is found at moderate levels(7.2% in one sample ,Cruciani et al 2004) in Europe whereas all others haplogroups are present at low levels, usually less than 1%. Haplogroup E which originated in Sub-Saharan Africa, is thought to have entered Europe via the Middle East in the late Pleistocene or Early Holocene. The main clade found in Europe is E1b1b. Haplogroup E1b1a dispersed recently in Africa, and therefore its sporadic presence in Europe is usually attributed to recent events, such as the slave trade, the Moorish occupation of Iberia and other historical contacts across the Mediterrenean and Atlantic. Haplogroups A, B and E1* are ancient African lineages that are relatively infrequent in Africa. They have sporadically been detected in Europe but their exact mode of entry into Europe is still not understood. A prehistoric entry of these haplogroups into Europe remains a possibility.

Problems:
 * Haplogroup E may have originated in SSA, but the E - haplotype E1b1b that gave rise to these various European E originated in East Africa along the NE margin of the continent, proximal to SW Asia. So that its attachment with SSA is not great. The core centers of diversity in sub-saharan african lie from Ethiopia Eastward to the pygmoid populations of central and west Africa, down to the congo and back down the Khoi-san region (no info on Angola) to the Indian ocean at the northern boarder of S. Africa and back up to Ethiopia. In this the core regions extend from SE Tanzania to !kung to the efe, baka, mbuti, the african rift lakes back to Tanzania. Therefore its evolution along the Red Sea really does not offer anything interesting other than it evolved along the continent margin where humans had migrated from in the past. The discription of the evolution of Eurasian E's belongs in the discussion of North African Contributions, not Sub-Saharan. All Y chromosomes have ancestors in sub-Saharan Africa, in which case there is nothing special about E1b1b1a or b in Europe. Not all Y chromosomes haplotypes are shared between Europe and Africa to the extent of E1b1b1a and E1b1b1b. As I have repeated reminded you its not about handwaving arguments (like the above, with lots of weasel words) its about specific genetic contributions from probable points of emigrations to probable points of immigration. This I why I have told you, the evidence based on LL C-S is just such 'hand waving evidence' it is a proxy for genetic studies which are capable of giving refined information.


 * I appreciate you taking the effort to critique the material. I tend to disagree on the not great affiliation between E1b1b and SSA. Firstly E1b1b is most closely related to E1b1a, they are siblings and share the PN2 mutation which is now thought to have originated in East Africa/Northeast Africa. Wapondaponda (talk) 08:32, 29 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I did not state E1b1b originated in North Africa, I stated in likely originated in East Africa, part of which is in Subsaharan Africa. That E1b1b is of subsaharan origin is irrelevant since the parent haplotype does not exist outside of Africa, and therefore there should be no reason to discuss E1b1b* at all, the discussion of E1b1b1 is also moot, though I think Andy should have some input. You are simply trying to stall and handwave over the basic issue, you are trying to turn evidence for E1b1b1b and E1b1b1a into a discussion of E1b1b's origin. As such it undermines your credibility in this discussion.PB666 yap 20:22, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Would you dispute that there was a migration of genes from SSA to Europe in the last 15kya. Wapondaponda (talk) 20:27, 29 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I dispute you have any proof of a direct migration of genes from SSA into Europe that has not undergone admixture with other genes or chromosomes in North Africa of people without much recent Subsaharan African contribution and ditto with the Middle East. All genes have migrated out of Subsaharan Africa. The fact you continue to focus on fluffy old studies and Y DNA which has a known migration/invasion bias indicates your general lack of concern of the importance of the migrations.
 * Your analysis also violates WP:SYNTHESIS. PB666 yap 20:41, 29 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Ethiopians have the highest proportion of PN2 ancestral lineages(Semino 2004). This basically means that the Niger-Congo speakers with E1b1a, also have their origins in the same general area as Afro-Asiatic speakers with E1b1b. So what we have is that E1b1b is fully nested within other Sub-Saharan haplogroups, E1b1, E1b, E1 and E*. Furthermore its cousins include E1b1c, E1b12, E1a and E2. All E1b1b's cousins and siblings are exclusively sub-Saharan. Within E1b1b, one clade, E-M293 formerly E3b*, is largely confined to Sub-Saharan Africa, found as far south as South Africa, though it has been observed at frequencies around 1% in southern Europe. Europeans with E1b1b are more closely related to Africans than to non-E1b1b Europeans via the Y-Chromosome.
 * I also disagree with the contention that E1b1b is North African or rather exclusively North African. As I previously mentioned, before the Neolithic, the genetic profile of North African haplogroups would have been more similar to Sub-Saharan Africa, with large amount of E lineages and L lineages. Wapondaponda (talk) 08:32, 29 July 2009 (UTC)


 * The question of N African Neolithic is questionable, key to neolithic is settlements. North Africa is not characterized be a classic neolithic period as many H-Gs had no alternative but to adopt nomadic pastoral lifestyles.
 * The discussion of E1b1a, -c etc. Is not relevant Haplotype D is found all over Asia both E and D are found in Asia Ergo, but that has nothing what-so-ever to do with E1b1b1b and E1b1b1a in Europe. Where is the LCA of D in Africa?
 * E1b1a origin is over 25,000 years ago, and here you are talking about Niger-Congo speakers, as if it has some meaning?
 * You are simply trying to obfuscate the issue with loose facts that you think others will not be able to follow, you are engaging in sophistry and most importantly you are violating the WP:NPOV. PB666 yap 20:22, 29 July 2009 (UTC)


 * The arrival of most Eurasian haplogroups occurred after the Neolithic in the middle East as suggested by Arredi et al and Mitochondrial DNA haplogroup H in North Africa. Both these articles suggest a Neolithic/late paleolothic migration from Eurasia to North Africa. Which means prior to this migration mostly Sub-Saharan haplogroups were present in North Africa. Wapondaponda (talk) 08:32, 29 July 2009 (UTC)


 * No it does not. North African has HLA haplotypes and alleles within its 'negroid' population which are considered to be diagnostic of N. Africans. You are violating WP:SYNTHESIS. PB666 yap 20:22, 29 July 2009 (UTC)


 * So when people associate E1b1b with North Africans, there is a misconception that people were similar to contemporary North Africans, who are predominantly of Eurasian ancestry. Rather the Sahara, was largely depopulated and Sub-Saharan Africans occupied much of the Nile up through Egypt. It is these people who spilled over into Eurasia to help kick start the Neolithic, after which Eurasian peoples migrated back into Africa bringing with them Neolithic crops and domesticated animals. Wapondaponda (talk) 08:32, 29 July 2009 (UTC)


 * This publication by Kujanova et al 2009 Near Eastern Neolithic Genetic Input in a Small Oasis of the Egyptian Western Desert detected 70% African Y chromosomes, E1b1b at 64%, E1b1a at 6%, and 31.4% Sub-Saharan L lineages. Though a small sample, the African/Eurasia contribution is 50% each. This illustrates an African population that absorbed Eurasian populations and became predominantly Eurasian, while maintaining a genetic trace of their SSA roots. Wapondaponda (talk) 08:06, 29 July 2009 (UTC)


 * The Epipaleolithic ends about the same time as the onset of the holocene, mesolithic tool technology is not widely observed in Europe, but the Neolithic transition is sharp, working backward from youngest to oldest, the Irish Neolithic is about 3800 to 4300 years old, the first evidence of the British Neolithic is about 7100 year ago, the LBK culture begins around 7500 to 8000 years ago in the Iron gourges region of Austria. The onset in the sub-channel loess belt the range if from 7500 to 6900 years ago. The Central European neolithic is associated with a well defined package of cattle industry (probably from what is called thracia), LBK pottery, and Triticeae cultivation. The Italian neolithic does not have a clear onset, but earliest dates are between 8500 and 9500 calibrated years before present, the later Impressed Cardial Ware seen in Ionia and Impressed Ware along the western coast of Italy and swept the coastal regions of Iberia thereafter. LBK and Impressed Cardial Ware differ in the package, with western European Neolithic pastoral habits including locally domesticate caprids. The onset of the Italian neolithic (scant evidence) greek neolithic and middle eastern neolithic boundaries are fuzzy but generally occur after the onset of the holocene. IOW before 9000 years ago Iberia would be considered preNeolithic. Around 9000 years ago almost all of Italy is assumed to be in the late Mesolithic, only a few river basins would be considered Neolithic. Cattle were believed to have been domesticated in Thracia about 10,000 years ago, and with the discovery of domesticated cattle bones in the Sahara from about the same age there is now a running debate as to when and where cattle were domesticated first (include middle east).

The bottom line here is that most of the evidence pertains to either Neolithic conveyors of middle eastern genes along the mediterranean (and associated migration/invasion bias for Y expansion) or more recent gene flow from NW Africa. PB666 yap 04:51, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * E1b1b is not found in Europe at all, only the daughter clad E1b1b1 and I don't think E1b1b1* is found in Europe either. You are really not talking about haplogroup E, but the E1b1b1 subclads that entered the middle East after (Note "Cruciani et al. (2007) also note evidence for "trans-Mediterranean migrations directly from northern Africa to Europe (mainly in the last 13.0 ky)") So that generally places in in either a Holocene or post-mesolithic context. E1b1b1b appears to have come from west Africa after 5600 years ago. You can pretty well guess the mode of entry of E1b1b1b involved at least on Male getting in a water craft in NW Africa and touching soil (and other aspects of Iberian fauna, namely homo sapiens) on some parcel of land in Iberia.
 * All Y have ancient African lineages.PB666 yap 04:51, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The trouble with this interpretation, is an arbitrary selection of the time frame and region. Why should we choose say, the Middle East over North Africa, or North Africa over East Africa. Is there an objective reason to do so. If there is, please let me know. We know that the expansion of E didn't start in North Africa. The expansion started in SSA heading Northwards. By arbitrarily selecting North Africa or the Middle East, we are ignoring the earlier periods of expansion. But what is most important here is that we have reliable sources that specifically make a connection between Sub-Saharan Africa and the spread of E3b. Per wikipedia policy we can use them in the article. We are entitled to our own opinions, but we should report what reliable sources say. Much of this confusion originated from the fact that e3b was once thought to have originated in the Middle East, rather than in SSA. So now we will see a reorientation in the way people describe E3b. Wapondaponda (talk) 16:05, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * As mentioned by Frudakis et al, the affiliation depends on the time frame and what subclades we look at. If we only consider E-V13, then we are looking at Europe and the Middle East. But if we consider the parent clades, then E-M35, PN2 right up to E-M40 are all Sub-Saharan markers. We can assign arbitrary terms to E1b1b, and this will simply depend on the preference of the author. I think there are enough reliable sources to demonstrate this. The Out of Africa migration is thought to have occurred at the least 50kya, possibly before. For about 40k years, Europe was devoid of haplogroup E, while E was evolving in SSA. Since the Out of Africa migration, E has spent more time in SSA than it has in Europe, North Africa or anywhere else. The big question is whether autosomal admixture that was brought with E from SSA was significant. Frudakis et al seem to think so stating, "West African affiliation detected for continental Europeans and Middle Eastern populations appears to be anthropoligically meaningful" . When we look at the haplotype sharing by Xing et al, we see an elevated amount of unique haplotypes shared between Europe and Africa. From my perspective the only explanation can be E1b1b because it has such a wide distribution in Europe. Wapondaponda (talk) 08:06, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Y description SSA and physical appearance

 * Europeans don't have the parent clades. They have the subclades, which didn't originate in Sub-Saharan Africa. Implying that the two are equivalent is original research.


 * Also, you quote Frudakis' vague statement that it "appears to be anthropologically meaningful", but I guess you missed the preceding paragraph where he actually discusses the anthropological implications:


 * http://img339.imageshack.us/img339/6682/frudakis2007.png


 * Probably not quite what you had in mind. Small Victory (talk) 10:52, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * No I have read the preceding discussion on the paleoanthropological evidence from East Africa. It is nothing unusual, though I think Frudakis is a bit out of his league in discussing prehistoric crania, and should stick to genetics. We know that during paleolithic times, there was fragmentation and population differentiation. In fact the Hoffmeyr skull from South Africa, is said to be more similar to Cro-Magnon Europeans than contemporary Africans. This is consistent with non-Africans being derived from a single African population. Wapondaponda (talk) 16:05, 29 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Nice try, but Frudakis cites an anthropologist (Howells) as saying that "prehistoric East Africans...were non-African in nature—that is, not Negroid." And he ties that in with the appearance of YAP and E carriers, and potentially all other OOA migrants. Certainly such non-Negroid prehistoric "admixture" shouldn't be mentioned in the same section as historical admixture from Negroid slaves, as if they were both part of the same demographic process, especially when Europeans only have the non-SSA subclades of those haplogroups. That's original research and deliberately misleading. Small Victory (talk) 08:28, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * That has now been debunked, Wapondaponda (talk) 13:10, 30 July 2009 (UTC)


 * You're very confused. It's Rightmire (1975) who's been debunked by Howells (1995):




 * --- Small Victory (talk) 07:53, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * There is nothing inconsistent here, the three skulls clearly exhibit African affiliations. Rather he contradicts Rightmire on the hypothesis of continuity between Bantus and Early holocene skulls( something like three samples from 3kya). Frudakis is incorrect to describe them as "non-Negroid" because this is not what Howell's stated, he just stated that the discriminant analysis failed to cluster them with modern SSAs. Furthermore the Negroid skeletal classification itself is disputed. What Frudakis should have said was that skulls differ from the modern inhabitants of the region. But it is correct to describe Africans as having a high diversity in skeletal measurements. It is true that the Bantu expansion has erased much of the pre-existing diversity in across SSA. It is generally accepted that East Africa has the highest diversity in skull measurements. . Wapondaponda (talk) 15:59, 31 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Wrong again. Howells is saying that recent East Africans exhibit African affiliations. The prehistoric ones do not:




 * --- Small Victory (talk) 07:39, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * There is nothing unusual here, all humans descend from an African population that lived 50-70kya. The same number of generations separate Europeans, Asians, Native Americans and Australians from the prehistoric African population as modern Africans. There is no reason to think that modern Africans look the same as prehistoric Africans. Even the skulls of modern Khoisans differ from those of modern Niger-congo speakers. Skull shapes are dynamic and are constantly responding to environmental pressures. So it shouldn't come as a surprise that discriminant analysis found differences between prehistoric and modern Africans. But one shouldn't read too much into it. Elmenteita is still fairly recent at 7kya. Furthermore there are actually very few fossil specimens in Africa to make any firm conclusions.
 * Evolution of Modern Human diversity pages 282-283
 * Evolution of Modern Human diversity pages 282-283


 * I agree that we don't know what the person who first carried E3b looked like. When we look at the phylogeny of y-chromosomes, we see that haplogroup A is found among khoisans, Nilo-Saharans and Ethiopians. B is found  with the pygmies. E*, E1, E2, E1b are found among Niger-Congo and Nilo-Saharans. E1b1 is found among Niger Congo and Afro-Asiatic. So there are all kinds of interesting scenarios that could have taken place in history.  I think Frudakis was reading blogs when he wrote that section of his book, LOL. Wapondaponda (talk) 08:53, 1 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The first E3b-carriers were, like all OOA migrants, generalized modern humans who were nonetheless more similar to modern non-Africans than they were to modern Africans. That makes referencing them in a section mainly about modern Negroid slave admixture all the more absurd. Afrocentrism at its finest. Small Victory (talk) 09:25, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * You are entitled to your opinion, as far as I can tell, nobody knows what the carriers of E3b looked like, let alone the migrants from OOA. There aren't any complete human fossils from the period. Even if they were, the soft tissues like skin and hair would have long disintegrated. What we do know, is E3b is more closely to its siblings which include E3a, the Niger-Congo haplogroup, than to any other haplogroups. We also know that the more ancestral E lineages are all found in West Africa. Whatever the case, what they looked like is irrelevant. What is important, is where they lived and the events that led to their migration to North Africa and then to Eurasia. Wapondaponda (talk) 08:52, 2 August 2009 (UTC)


 * It's not my opinion. It's an anthropologist's assessment of fossils from the OOA period and before:




 * And of course, Howells confirms that East Africans as recently as a few thousand years ago still had non-African affinities. Small Victory (talk) 13:30, 2 August 2009 (UTC)


 * And of course, Howells confirms that East Africans as recently as a few thousand years ago still had non-African affinities. Small Victory (talk) 13:30, 2 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't recall ever having introduced the concept of race into this discussion. I think it is you Small Victory who is racializing the discussion. I have simply pointed out that E3b and its parent clade originated among peoples living in Sub-Saharan Africa and therefore its presence outside of SSA is due to gene flow out of SSA, and this gene flow took place several millenia after the OOA migration. What prehistoric Africans and peoples of the world looked like is a very interesting topic, unfortunately there is only a handful of human fossils from the pleistocene periods so we know little. What we do know is it just takes a few thousand years for populations to change their physical appearance. Indo-European speakers from India and Europeans share recent common ancestry, yet Indian people are brown skinned and Europeans tend towards depigmentation. These differences are fairly recent, on the order of about 5000 years. So the appearances of humans have undoubtedly changed multiple times in human history, and continue to change today. On a side note, East Africans and the Khoisan have high frequencies of Haplogroup A (Y-DNA). So we have no idea whether pleistocene East African fossils were haplogroup E or Haplogroup A, both or neither.Ethiopians and Khoisan Share the Deepest Clades of the Human Y-Chromosome Phylogeny  Group I is hap A, group II hap b and group III hap E. Wapondaponda (talk) 17:11, 2 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Bringing up pigmentation in a discussion about craniometry shows that you have very limited understanding of this subject. Suffice it to say that there are fossils from ~100,000+ years ago from East Africa (Herto, Omo), South Africa (Klasies), North Africa (Jebel Irhoud) and West Asia (Qafzeh, Skhul); fossils from Late Pleistocene South Africa (Hofmeyr); and fossils from Holocene East Africa (Howells' study); all of which have been found to have non-African affinities. That more than spans the time periods and geographical areas of both OOA and the later dispersals of E3b. So we actually have a fair picture of these people's appearance, and it doesn't look good for Afrocentrism. Small Victory (talk) 10:41, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Answering Muntuwandi's question breifly, (his stubborness has become a waste of time). You can either have two approachs, the birth place of the person who migrated, or if not admixed the point of origin of those ancestors (An example, polynesians migrated across the oceans to Hawaii and eventually Easter Island, not admixed with other peoples, however prior to that they admixed at some location and spread, consequently they originated at the point in which the two groups admixed). Since examining this in the prehistoric past is not possible, the second approach is the point of likely origin emigration of a defining SNP or an allele, for example, the A*3002 allele in Europeans likely came from the negroid population in North/NorthWest Africa, this allele likely originated from the forest dwelling peoples of Central/West Africa pygmoid peoples of the cameroon region, but since that time it has recombined into the the A*3002:Cw*0501:B*1801:DRB1*0301:DQA1*0501:DQB1*0201 haplotype, which is not found in Subsaharans (except the Nikohola Mandenka) and therefore can be considered to have originated in North Africa. IOW, the origin of A*3002 remains enigmatic or unclear unless we look at the multigene haplotype, at which point some portion of its origin in N/NW Africa can be explained by specific migration(s). The same thing is true of E, E1b1b, and E1b1b1, the pathway(s) into Europe remain unclear until we look at the subtypes, at which point the points of exit become clear, NorthWest Africa and Middle East. Since these haplotype clarify paths of migration, they superceded the less definative use of haplogroups that did not migrate into Europe In addition we can add levels of parsimony. Since above I have already defined that notable haplotype in the Basque, Sardinians came from North Africa (Actually several) and since we have evidence of distribution similarities with E1b1b1b then therefore we add specific evidence suggesting that the migrations of certain markers initiated from certain regions of NW Africa. Again, I warned against the use of CS's research specifically for this reason. I hope this helps.

Evil Kneival tried to cross the Grand Canyon by Jumping over it with a flying car. Of course 10,000s of years previous with no technologies the native people went down the canyons walls across the river and up the other side, one method lacks success because it attempts to take a big step, the other method is successful because it breaks things down into small solvable problems. Molecular genetics starts with tiny bits of evedince known as SNPs, we then combine SNPs into haplotypes, and and then look for ways to combine those into bigger types, related types.

Note: this does not rule out a hypothesis that people traveled down the Nile, the way to approach this hypothesis since it was first presented from the HLA is to do massive haplotyping from bulgaria to Italy along the mediterranean coastline, in addition to type by haplotype the peoples who live along the nile and surrounding peoples to look for discontinuity. This has not been done. With NW Africa there is a problem, if humans have existed along the African Coast for >40,000 years and SW Europe has only been occupied for <40,000 years, then direct contribution from SSA into SW Europe is not likely without admixture. Since Arabia has been occupied from the last 80ky and since Europe SE has been occupied for <45,000 years then direct admixed DNA from Asia to Europe is unlikely. The nile is a corridor of travel which points a direction of flow, partially during the floods that allows rapid travel to the mediterranean, having followed molecular anthropology and archaeology from almost 2 decades it would not surprise me if this occurred, and in the mediterranean there is a small probability of a founder affect on some of these Islands (Catastrophic volcanism). That it is a possibility and that it happened are two different things. PB666 yap 20:02, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Y description in SSA section break
If you say that A*3002 allele in Europe likely originated in SSA, then I see no reason why E in Europe should be treated any differently. The main issue I see here is simply time. Is admixture that took place between 10-15kya still considered admixture. I think it is though, its impact is less than say more recent admixture. Both Europeans and SSAs have undergone some microevolution since E3b left Africa, so an argument that E3b is autochthonous to Europe can be made. At the same time its presence in Europe is fairly recent relative to other European y-chromosomes, enough to describe it as admixture. For the record, I don't intend to describe E3b as exclusively SSA. As these Africans moved northwards, it took several generations and they definitely were mixing along the way. Outside of Africa there is a dramatic reduction in L lineages outside Egypt, so it seems that when these Africans left Egypt they were coupling more frequently with Eurasian women, though L2 has a prehistoric presence in Jordan. Another issue is the presence of L lineages in North Africa. When E3b males migrated into North Africa, they obviously travelled with L females from East Africa. The Berber populations have L frequencies that range from 8-48%. These L lineages are now being considered autochthonous to North Africa. However we still describe them as SSA because they originated in East Africa. Likewise the same should apply to E3b. Wapondaponda (talk) 20:24, 29 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Simply because alleles undergo drift as they undergo migrations and population contraction and expansions, the recombination of A*3002 indicates multiple possible routes into Europe, however the haplotype analysis confirms the direction of only one, from one specific region of Africa, and this region is not Subsaharan Africa. It is not important so much whether Europeans of SSAs have undergone microevolution, what is most important in the evolution that has occurred as the people who carried the allele or haplotype from where it originated to where it ended up. By saying that the allele migrated from SSA to Europe implies that it was born by one common people with closely related ancestry. In the case of Y we know that Y can quickly expand in peoples who are very distantly related to the source of the chromosome. You are pushing the limits of this discussion.
 * Using the logic of Muntuwandi that any branch point that occurred prior to the clads evident in Europe, in essence all Y chromosomes migrated from SSA, since all early branchpoints default backwards in time to the Y-chromosomal Adam which is from Africa. Therefore using his logic we have no basis for arguing the mtDNA or Y-chromosomes or Nuclear DNA migrated from other points in the world, because they all default backwards into Africa. Native Americans no problem, they migrated from Subsaharan Africa. Indigeonous australians in SE Australia, despite the presence of LM3 ~55 kya, they migrated directly from Africa, just got in the boat and flew over their in the paleolithic seaways bunga seven-four-seven. No matter where-you-are or who-you-are, your last prehistoric ancestor got thier by migrating from Sub-saharan Africa. Neandertals must have a shared Y ancestry from Africa, they are prehistoric, therefore they (each and everyone) came from sub-Saharan Africa. Plessy-versus-Ferguson watch-out, that bus came from subsaharan Africa also. Why stop there, there is obviously a first Y chromosome, lets just say that all prehistoric people came from the place where the first animal that had a Y chromosome was born, that makes Genetic history of Europe, why not? I don't see the word "human" in the page name.

The more Muntuwandi argues with me, the more I see the need to abolish the Genetic_history_of_Europe and move it as a couple of sentences under Genetic_history_of_Europe. Anyone agree?PB666 yap 21:34, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

There is no single definition of admixture, one can even have admixture within a continent. Firstly a barrier to gene flow must emerge that separates two populations. This barrier will lead to the genetic isolation and divergence of the two populations. If the barrier to gene flow is breached, then we get admixture. Barriers to gene flow could include, language or ethnicity, oceans deserts, mountains or simply a long distance separating two populations. How much time for divergence or isolation is purely a subjective matter. For instance we have heard scholars describe the pygmies having Bantu admixture, though there are all SSA populations. Europe is a highly heterogeneous population, the French are described as admixed from several European populations. So as long as we have genetic isolation that is significant, when a breach of the barriers to gene flow occurs we have admixture. I think we all agree on certain, things what we disagree on is semantics. This is what we can agree on The upper boundary for the 96% confidence interval for first exit times exceeds 100,000 years. Signs of human activity have been found at Skhul and Qafhez to 125 kya, in South Eastern india to 76 kya, in LiuJiang China to 67 kya. Note the Skhul 5 did not have an austronegroid crania. Wapondaponda (talk) 23:52, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Humans migrate out of Africa 50-70kya without haplogroup E
 * 50kya Haplogroup E emerges in SSA and is now the predominant haplogroup in SSA
 * Europe is settled from western Asia starting about 45kya.
 * 20-30ky the PN2 mutation occurred in SSA, most likely in East Africa
 * Both Niger-Congo(e3a) and Afro-Asiatic(e3b) carry the PN2 mutation
 * E3b emerges in East Africa 17-22kya on a male with the PN2 mutation.
 * E3a emerges somewhere in SSA on another male with the PN2 mutation
 * E3b migrates North most probably along the Nile
 * Between East Africa and North Africa E3b picks up at least 3 new mutations in three different males, m78, m81 and m123.
 * E3b enters Eurasia maybe 9-15kya mostly through M78 via the Levant and is carried by farmers into Europe.
 * E3b disperses across North Africa, primarily through M81 and M78 and is now the predominant North African male haplogroup
 * E3b-M81 enters Europe via Iberia
 * E3a is dispersed across much of SSA from the Sahel during the African Neolithic and Bantu expansion.
 * Colonization of the New World and Atlantic slave trade E3a is dispersed into the New World,

I can create a subpage off this talk page so that you can blabber on if you like. It still does not change the fact that you have no evidence for a SSA contribution, either as single individuals or as a group of people who collectively migrated, to Europe. AS this I will continue to block adding of the E1b1b1a and b material as evidence of SSA migrations.PB666 yap 02:02, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I must say I am somewhat disappointed with your approach. I understand that you are knowledgeable about genetics, but at the same time Wikipedia is not a venue to express your own personal opinions if they are unrelated to reliable sources. That is not how Wikipedia works. You continue to avoid and reject peer reviewed publications without providing any reliable sources to back up your criticism of them. You have criticized Cavalli-Sforza, but with no evidence to state that CS's studies are now completely obsolete. You suggest an Out of Africa exit more than 100k, while such a date may be possible, it is not the date that is most often cited in publications. So this seems like WP:ADVOCACY. Your decision to change "Sub-Saharan admixture" to "Potential Sub-Saharan admixture" and placing it as a level 3 subheading under "North African admixture" is POV. Why is SSA singled out for being "potential" when all other sources of admixture are not. The sources in the SSA section are of the same quality as all the other sources. It is also unencyclopedic to pre-decide to block anything and avoid discussion. Wapondaponda (talk) 05:10, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

It was moved because the evidence you present is not at the level of credible, and since you are mixing evidence of Slavery with handwaving arguments based on incorrect use of Taxonomy as more important then it should be treated as an alternative to N.African contribution. If you decide to act from a NPOV and stop the gamesmanships over work then it can stay, as long as you are willing to fill the section with alternative opinions to N. African contribution then I will continue to move it to N. African section.PB666 yap 16:11, 30 July 2009 (UTC) I fundamentally disagree with your deletion of all references to haplogroup E in Sub-Saharan Africa. This is absurd because haplogroup E makes upwards of 80-90% of all SSA haplogroups and has the highest diversity of lineages in SSA. To completely delete all reference of haplogroup E and place it in North Africa, where the prevalence and diversity of haplogroup E is even lower is unusual. You have only left a mention of haplogroup A, which has frequencies of about 5% in Sub-Saharan Africa, and Haplogroup B which is restricted mostly to the pygmies and Nilotic populations. I will proceed to add the comprehensive analysis of of Sub-Saharan influences. Wapondaponda (talk) 16:21, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Direct quotes
I have gotten some input from the Nor noticeboard regarding direct quotes. In general they are not original research. That is if individuals are not quoted out of context and quotes are attributed correctly. So in this case, I intend to use direct quotes to substantiate some of the material. Accusations of original research should not apply where direct quotes are used. I also intend to use peer reviewed publications and journals, which meet the threshold for reliable sources as defined atRS and Verify. Personal complaints about unreliability have no basis unless backed by sources that counter the reliable sources I intend to include. Wapondaponda (talk) 16:30, 31 July 2009 (UTC)


 * If you try to make it look like Europeans just have E or E3b, then it's POV because that's based on selective quoting of outdated information. If you acknowledge that they have subclades of E3b, then it's OR because those subclades didn't originate in Sub-Saharan Africa and no source considers them evidence of Sub-Saharan African admixture. Either way, it's unacceptable.


 * On that notice board page, you wrote the following about including STRUCTURE data:




 * Heed your own advice. None of your E/E3b quotes even use the word 'admixture'. At least Auton et al. discuss admixture in reference to the chart I'm citing, thereby establishing what it shows:




 * --- Small Victory (talk) 08:07, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * As I stated on the noticeboard, just because someone gave a name to haplogroup E in Europe, by calling it E-V13 doesn't change its history or its membership in haplogroup E. That is why the first letter in the name of the clade is "E". It is still haplogroup E as long as it contains the mutations M40 and M96 and it is E3b(E1b1b) as long as it contains the mutations M215 and M35. Recall that these mutations aren't present in the Y-Chromosomes of all Europeans who are not members of haplogroup E, but these mutations are present in Sub-Saharan Africans. Wapondaponda (talk) 09:05, 1 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Unless you have a source stating that E-V13 originated in Sub-Saharan Africa and is present in Europe as a result of Sub-Saharan African admixture, then it's OR. Small Victory (talk) 09:44, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * This is a somewhat illogical argument. The mutation that defines E-V13 didn't occur in Sub-Saharan Africa, it occurred most likely in Asia, and I have never said that the mutation occurred in Sub-Saharan Africa. Every human harbors something like 100 new mutations that neither of his/her parents have. That doesn't change the phylogenetic relationship that the human has with his/her parents. By your argument if a child has a unique mutation that occurred during gametogenesis, then the child is no longer related to his parents. E-V13 is part of Haplogroup E and more closely related to all other E clades, than it is to any non-E clade. Wapondaponda (talk) 16:04, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with SV on this. If you go about using E3b as evidence, and use quotes then other editors would be justified in citing the other studies that properly qualify these quotations also with quotations and the main page becomes a battle of quotations, Just like the E1b1b page used to be. I should state that this whole discussion has been made on the E1b1b page, and one major reason that page was a train-wreck and needed to be cleaned up. You know what is intellectually honest and dishonest here. Posting Admixture with E1b1b when it only is found in the horn of Africa, and failing to mention E1b1b1a and b and their origins slants the understanding against what. As I pointed out to you many people consider this page a trainwreck. The primary reason is the dependance on outdated studies and the need to explain those studies. In addition to this, Small Victory, the use of trivial information that is unreferenced and should be placed in tables.PB666 yap 14:26, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Any discussion of how E3b should be handled should be under the North African contribution section, since the best evidence offered is that E3b derivatives came from N. Africa or the Middle East and not Subsaharan Africa. This topic is already discussed in the section on N. Africa.PB666 yap 14:26, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * As I have previously mentioned, E3b derivatives didn't spontaneously appear in North Africa, they occurred on migrants from Sub-Saharan Africa. Some derivatives that have been found in Europe may in fact be local to Sub-Saharan Africa, such as M34 and E3b*. So the expansion of E3b lineages began in Sub-Saharan Africa and this is my point. I don't dispute, that certain E3b derivatives are local to North Africa or West Asia, and I don't dispute the inclusion of such findings. However the net effect is a migration of peoples/genes from Sub-Saharan Africa to Europe as stated by Underhill et al 2001 and Cruciani et al 2004. If we decide to arbitrarily cut out SSA, then we have an incomplete picture, and we are cherry picking information for reasons that are unscientific. In addition there is also a high diversity of E3b lineages in Sudan, as indicated in Hassan et al 2008. The ancestral E-M78* was also found in two individuals who speak Nilo-Saharan/Niger Congo languages. In fact Hassan et al still suggest an East African origin for M78. Battaglia et al suggest that E3b lineages actually dispersed from Sudan. But this is just a side issue. We have a net movement of haplogroup E from West Africa to East Africa, to North Africa, to the Levant and finally into Europe. Wapondaponda (talk) 15:50, 1 August 2009 (UTC)


 * There is a net movement of all major exoafrican haplogroups from Africa to those various places. There is nothing relevant or special about your claim, you are beating a dead horse. No one yet has come to your support, when are you going to drop the issue and stop trying to draft the wiki community. They have told you once again, to apply your material carefully, that you must work with other editors.PB666 yap 23:01, 1 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Not exactly, the net movement of exoafrican haplogroups only happened once, 50-70kya. And you know this very well. E3b came out of Africa much later, around 10-15kya and only entered Europe and Southwest Asia. I am disappointed that a person as knowledgeable as yourself, is willing to opt for a very simplistic explanation. Wapondaponda (talk) 05:56, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

PB666 is absolutely right. Every haplogroup's phylogeny ultimately takes it back to Africa. If we go by Wapondaponda's "logic", then every haplogroup on earth is "Sub-Saharan African". We have to go by where each individual haplogroup originated, not where it's great-great...grandparent originated. That's what geneticists do, hence no source calling E-V13 "Sub-Saharan African" or attributing it to admixture from Sub-Saharan Africa. It's West Asian and represents Neolithic admixture from West Asia. Period.

As far as haplogroup E having dispersed more recently, it's still descended from haplogroup CT (M168), which has been called the "Eurasian Adam" because it gave rise to all non-African haplogroups. Wapondaponda likes to emphasize phylogeny over everything else. Well, haplogroup E is more phylogenetically related to "non-African" haplogroups C, F and D than it is to "African" haplogroups A and B. In fact, one might even say that it represents Eurasian admixture in Africans. It may even have originated in Eurasia and back-migrated to Africa. But either way, its phylogeny is the same. Small Victory (talk) 07:49, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes all haplogroups trace their ancestry to Sub-Saharan Africa. But Haplogroup E was not part of the Out of Africa migration 50-70kya. It remained in Africa and only dispersed later into Europe and Southwest Asia 10-15kya. You are right, that phylogenitically E is more closely related to Eurasian Y-chromosomes than to A and B. But this isn't unusual, all non Africans are descended from a single African population. From an estimated 2000 people who were alive 50kya, only 150 may have left Africa from an East African population. So all non Africans are more closely related to descendants of that East African population, then to other African populations for example southern African Khoisan. It is the same with mtDNA, all non Africans are haplogroup L3(M, N), whereas Africans are L0, L1, L2 and L3. Africans with L3 are more closely related to non-Africans than with L3(M) and L3(N) than they are to Africans with L0-L3. Eurasian Adam is technically a misnomer because it includes one African Branch. Simply because, of the four lineages to descend from Eurasian Adam, only 3 left Africa. Anyway read Underhill and Kivisild for a full explanation. As for the back migration, that was simply an error due to incomplete sampling. Nobody supports it. I posted a link of current publications that unambiguosly support an African origin of E on Kwami's talk page. If you have any peer reviewed sources that suggest otherwise, let me know. Wapondaponda (talk) 08:11, 2 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Chandrasekar is a peer-reviewed source. And some of your sources are far from unambiguous: "suggested originated in Africa", "believed to have an African origin". But that's beside the point. The issue here is not where E originated, it's that you're being inconsistent. When it comes to E3b, phylogeny matters more to you than the geographical origin of its subclades (like E-V13). But when it comes to E itself, all of a sudden geography is the only thing that matters and phylogeny (linking E with Eurasian haplogroups) goes out the window. Total hypocrisy. Small Victory (talk) 12:58, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Being peer-reviewed is no guarantee of reliability. A quick inspection of the article reveals that Chandrasekar et al 2007 is a clone of Hammer et al 1997, 1998 with no new information. Even Andrew agrees with this assessment . Wapondaponda (talk) 18:24, 2 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I can see you're very eager to change the subject away from your POV hypocrisy. But you aren't doing a very good job, as you've been shown a million times that Chandrasekar's conclusions are based on their own findings, and not on Hammer's studies. Small Victory (talk) 10:23, 3 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually No, what he is doing is selectively using the nomenclature to violate NPOV. Without the other clads it would be impossible to know where E or E1b1b originated. So that to make the case for an African origin of E or E1b1b he needs the cladistics, what he is then doing is sweeping all the cladistics under the door-mat and claiming that the subclads are not important only the older clads. I believe the proper wording for what he is doing is called 'intellectual dishonesty'. The folks at the notice board told him that quoting out of context or to support a POV may violated NOR. He disregards this. The support of non-NPOV on this page is what destroys the page.PB666 yap 19:01, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * If you have noticed, I have not altered any of the information concerning E1b1b1a. I don't intend to significantly change any of the information that concerns the sub-clades. My problem is simply that there is a notion that somehow E-V13 is not part of sub-saharan haplogroup E. When in fact, phylogenetically, it is no more or no less haplogroup E than E1b1a. My proposal is to add a section that looks at the macro-picture. Which is a prehistoric movement of haplogroup E from SSA to Europe, and there are a number of reliable sources, with direct quotes, that use this approach. Wapondaponda (talk) 01:08, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Your logic is arbitrary, why stop at E, just say there are derived African lineages in Europe. You can't go wrong with that approach, all Y are derived from African lineages. There are three logical groups of Y chromosomes in Europe, those that can be ancestors by early exit from Africa, Those that can be explained by entry of slaves or historic flow across the mediterranean, and those that cannot be explained by either of the above. Only E1b1b1a and E1b1b1b can be explained and the LCA of these two clades is E1b1b1. Even that is a stretch of logic, because is there actually any E1b1b1* is Europe (1), and from the looks of things they had two very independent entries, and both appear to be from N. Africa. So that why are we discussing this at all in the Subsaharan section. If you want to discuss E in the context of E1b1a as a consequence of Slave trade and leave discussion of E1b1b out all together, since it is discussed in the preceding section, I am all for that.PB666 yap 04:09, 3 August 2009 (UTC)


 * SV has a point, the DE clad gives rise to D and E but no D is found in Africa, whereas D and E exist in Asia. Therefore without careful cladistics we would argue that E evolved in Eurasia and backmigrated into Africa. However since we have cladistics and improved fine mutations we can argue against this. The same applies to what you are arguing, only the discussion of E1b1a (historical trade activity) belong in the section on SSA, since by phylogenetics the origins of E1b1b1a and E1b1b1b can be defined as being of N. African origin.PB666 yap


 * Yes there is E1b1b1* in Europe, read Henn et al 2008. The reliable sources do use this approach. Semino et al is titled Origin, Diffusion, and Differentiation of Y-Chromosome Haplogroups E and J: Inferences on the Neolithization of Europe and Later Migratory Events in the Mediterranean Area. As you can see they use the macro-definition, "Haplogroup E" in their terminology, though they are fully aware of subclades M35 and M78. Since haplogroup E was not part of the initial OOA migration, it does make a difference in how it is approached. A number of studies have made reference to "Neolithic Admixture" in Europe for which haplogroup E was a part. One issue I have with using the term North African, is that it gives the impression that involved admixture from populations similar to modern North Africans. That is not clear, because we don't know exactly when Eurasians entered North Africa and mixed with Africans. This is because E1b1b1a is also in Sudan, among the Nuer, the Nuba, and the Masalit, Shiluk. According to Hassan et al E1b1b1a was more frequent in Nilo-Saharan than in Afro-Asiatic speakers. Wapondaponda (talk) 10:56, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, all DNA can potentially be called sub Saharan, and this raises questions for not only Muntuwandi's approach but also Small Victories - because seem to want to use a personal definition of when the term can and can not be used. As was discussed in the deleted article, there is no intrinsic problem saying a clade is "sub Saharan" if you define exactly how this term is being used and if other editors agree that it is not confusing and silly. (There has to be a good reason for contrasting the clade with others as somehow more sub Saharan I suppose.) Problem is that we could not reach a consensus on how to use such terms. E-M35* appears to be present in Europe BTW, possibly mainly in northern Spain, though it has not been much tested for M293.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 22:59, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

noticeboard
I have created a thread on the administrator's noticeboard regarding Small Victory's continued insistence on analyzing charts. Wapondaponda (talk) 11:32, 3 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The dispute about that hasn't been resolved yet, and anyway you've been shown that I'm not analyzing charts. Going around forum shopping to try to dupe someone into taking your side is a cheap last-resort tactic and a poor reflection on you. Small Victory (talk) 09:09, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Central and East Asian admixture in Bulgarians and Turks
East Asian mtDNA (haplogroups A, B, C, D, M, N9a and Z) is restricted mainly to Eastern Europe and Scandinavia and is found at generally low frequencies: ...Bulgaria/Turkey (6.9%)... Could somebody provide a source that Central and East Asian admixture in Bulgarians is 6.9%? I think this is a simple average calculation by haplotypes from scientific inadmissible common data about two very distant populations. Jingby (talk) 17:48, 31 July 2009 (UTC)


 * The study used several combined samples. See Table 3. Small Victory (talk) 08:14, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

This info is not reliable. The Turkish people are Asians. Also their data is not directly connected with the topic. There is a direct study about the Turkish mtDNA with their profile -"... Six distinct major clusters, namely H, J, T, M, U and W, were observed in our population. The frequency of the clusters is given in table 1 ... The cumulative frequency of European specific clusters (H, J, T and W) was 43.9% and Asian specific cluster (M) was 10.6% in our population (table 1)..." Check here: Mitochondrial DNA sequence variation in the Anatolian peninsula (Turkey) Mergen et al. 2004. Pleace provide correct data about the Bulgarian population and replace this estimated calculated data about the Turks. If no, I am going to remove this POV! Jingby (talk) 15:23, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

No reference was provided, but blind revert. Pleace provide correct data about the Bulgarian population and replace this estimated calculated data about the Turks. If no, I am going to remove your unscientific original research anain! Regards. Jingby (talk) 11:43, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

North African influences
What exactly are the genetics of North Africans. North Africans are basically an admixed population of Sub-Saharan Africans and Europeans. Middle Eastern populations, in addition to the aforementioned contributions, may have some minor South-Asian admixture. But essentially there are little differences between Middle Eastern and Mediterranean Europeans. So when we are speaking of North African admixture, what exactly are we referring to. Eurasians markers mixing with Eurasians markers would hardly constitute admixture. The closest thing to a unique North African marker is Haplogroup U6, though it is a subclade of Eurasian haplogroup U. But since it may have been in Africa for 35,000 years, it has evolved enough in situ, for its presence in Europe to be considered admixture. A similar case can be made for M1, if it is considered Eurasian, though most clades originate in East Africa. So basically what we have is a situation where almost all markers used to identify North African admixture are of late pleistocene/neolithic Sub-Saharan origin. The only markers that distinguish North Africans from Eurasians are of Sub-Saharan origin, that is predominantly E1b1b, and to some extent Haplogroup M1. Middle Easterners all speak Afro-Asiatic languages, which originated in Sub-Saharan Africa, and this in itself is evidence of their recent Sub-Saharan ancestry. Consequently, we need to rethink the North African section. I am definitely leaning towards an "African" contribution, rather than a segregated North African and Sub-Saharan sections, because it is impossible to separate the two. Masalit, the Nuba, and the Nuer. All these populations have high frequencies of E1b1b1a, according to Hassan et al 2008, and these are not archetypal North Africans. On page 3 of Y-chromosome Lineages from Portugal, Madeira and A¸cores Record Elements of Sephardim and Berber Ancestry, there is E1b1b*(e3b*). Wapondaponda (talk) 15:07, 3 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Muntawandi, do yourself a favor and turn the amplifyer down on interpreting Y-chromosome. The HLA present a different and clearer picture of the relative level of paleoAfrican and neoAfrican influences. If you would read . The primary issue is not how much influence have the Arabs had on N. Africa, but how much North Africans have enfluenced the Arabs. Populations that show substantive recent admixture included the Jordanians, Saudis, Omani (if we want to go further west) Baloch or Iran and Pakistan. If we want to look from the west we see strong influence of Tunisians (Carthaginian as the putative source) paleoAfrican population in Portugal and Iberia with potential influences as far north as Ireland and England. If we look at the NW african influences in Iberia are very strong, and subside quickly through france. In addition I question the statement North-South cline. The direction of the cline is very clear, from SW to NE across Europe.PB666 yap 14:03, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I will give you a pointer of just how bad it can be. 30% of the HLA in Sardinia is from North Africa, 3 are present as a consequence of a founder affect, but if you look at Y chromosome you would likely conclude that 0% was from N. Africa except via influence from Arabic peoples to the East. Since sardinia is an island and most of its population arrives as a consequence of maritime trade, there was a constant influence of N. Mediterranean Y chromosome on its port areas, eventually pushing Y inward to the center of the country until it disappeared. This is visible in the African HLA, which a present at their highest frequency in the internal parts of the Island. HLA haplotypes tend to preserve diversity the longest, Y chromosome, on the other hand, tends to loose diversity the fastest. Ergo in one place that has a large but anceint african contribution you have the appearance of no contribution, and in another area one can have relatively little contribution, but as a consequence of the last invasion, and leaves a fairly big footprint. This is the danger of overinterpreting Y chromosome. I personally think to much of the main is devoted to Y-chromosome and not enough of the page is devoted to other loci. The followance of Y chromosome is extremely biasing of average ancestry of hologenomic representation.PB666 yap 14:16, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I have made some corrections to your edits. You wrote that E1b1b1 originated in North Africa when in fact E1b1b and E1b1b1 are in fact the same clade. Maybe you meant E1b1b1a. In any case there are four clades found in Europe. E-M78, E-M34, E-M81 and E-M35(e3b*). Only E-M78 and E-M81 are definitely North African. Whereas M34, is either Near Eastern or East African. E3b* possibly Sub-Saharan, but it consists of several undefined clades. With regard to the cline Auton et al specifically mention a south-to-North gradient. Whereas Frudakis mentions the highest diversity in South East. Either way both state a south to North and not specifically a SW to NE distribution. Wapondaponda (talk) 14:42, 4 August 2009 (UTC) I have taken the article African admixture in Europe live. It is dramatically different from the deleted version, and we can contiue to build on it. Wapondaponda (talk) 14:44, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Your "new" article is just a rehash of the deleted one, only with the added OR and POV you've been trying to insert here. I've listed it for deletion. Small Victory (talk) 13:36, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Pdeitiker, I agree that Y-chromosome admixture will not necessarily correlate with autosomal admixture due to differential selection pressures. It is right not to focus too much on the Y-chromosome. But nonetheless there will be some correlation between uniparental and autosomal markers, albeit an imperfect correlation. This is what some of the articles you listed about North African genetics have suggested.
 * Piancatelli et al state


 * Hajjej et al 2006 state:


 * Coudray et al state
 * Needless to say North African populations are primarily of Eurasian origin but have significant levels of Sub-Saharan admixture. Therefore, we cannot completely divorce North African admixture from Sub-Saharan admixture. Wapondaponda (talk) 21:49, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Needless to say North African populations are primarily of Eurasian origin but have significant levels of Sub-Saharan admixture. Therefore, we cannot completely divorce North African admixture from Sub-Saharan admixture. Wapondaponda (talk) 21:49, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Whereas look at the Y-chromosome. Then you see the problem of the last migrations. If there is a constant flow of Y chromosome, even if the rate of flow is a trickle, over time (1000 - 5000 years) that trickle can completely erase all previous Y. The the core Cw5-B18 component is found in the rainforest dwellers (In these peoples they did not study B18-DR3), the bubi. This indicates that some aspect of N. Africa was not colonized from the traditional east Africa as many have claimed, but colonized from the pygmoid peoples via W. African rainforests. When one considers human populations looking at HLA, the major outgroups are the !kung, Efe, and Baka and within the pygmies the N. pygmies have the lowest levels of linkage disequilibrium. Therefore comparing E. Africa with W/C African rainforest there is no reason to suggest peoples were in Eastern Ethiopia or Somalia before they spread west through the rainforest of W. Africa. But by the fact that I have drawn from cw-b haplotypes and the longer haplotypes are not evident, where the genetic contributions between 'negroid' north-africans are evident between N. Africa and Europe, we are are talking about temporal connections to those rainforest dwellers that are quite old.
 * Sardinia is actually the best example for this, ~30% of HLA haplotype frequencies are best explained by contribution from Africa.
 * You see evidence of recent contributions in Southern Tunisia, there is a salient of genetic contribution from the south, but one has two more steps, to reach the southern coast of the mediterranean, and to cross. Whereas I don't treat that as Subsaharan contribution to Europe, but simply African contribution. You had said that N. Africa was considerably repressed because of modern Eurasian contribution. But this is not true, as you state above there is alot of clearly african contribution in the Berbers, and as one goes westward the level of apparent Arabic contribution declines. Cw5-B18, Cw7-B5801, Cw1601-B4403, Cw7-B8, Cw5-B44 and other specific two locus haplotypes tail a story of the direction of African contribution that is much different than that indicated by mtDNA or Y chromosome.PB666 yap 14:02, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Brace et al and Ricaut et al
Small Victory writes in the edit summary that "Brace and Ricaut are anthropology studies. This is a genetics article. Plus, they don't say what Muntuwandi is claiming". I wrote

Ricaut et al state:

and

Brace et al state:

I apologize, if I have given too much detail, but it has to be done, since SV has made accusations of misrepresentation. Finally, admixture can sometimes be determined, though less accurately, through non-DNA experiments. Forensic anthropologists, for example, can and do determine ethnic profiles of human remains, including possible admixture amounts. Without aDNA, it is the next best thing. Wapondaponda (talk) 22:13, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

We've already been over this. Brace's conclusion about a Sub-Saharan (via Natufian) element in Neolithic farmers is stated in uncertain terms and contradicted by his own findings:

As for the Ricaut study, it references Brace's (flawed) conclusion, and likewise, its own results contradict the claim of Sub-Saharan affinities in the skeletal remains from Turkey (Sagalassos):

And it doesn't matter how many other ways admixture can be determined. The only way that's relevant to this article is DNA testing because the title of the article is "Genetic history of Europe". Small Victory (talk) 13:43, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Once again, you are analyzing the study providing your own interpretations. The fact that the sample size of Brace et al is small, does not completely eliminate the relevance of his findings. for almost 100 years, the entire theory of human evolution was constructed on fewer than 200 hominid remains, of which Turkana boy and Lucy (Australopithecus) are probably the closest things to a complete human specimen older than 1 million years. A small amount of evidence is better than no evidence at all. It would be great if there were more samples, but unfortunately this is not the case.
 * Secondly, you seem to misunderstand admixture. Admixture occurs when one population receives genetic input from a different population. This means that the two populations involved should have different genetic profiles. If genetic profiles of two populations are the same, then they aren't really two populations, but rather they are part of the same population. So if the turkish population is closer genetically, to Scandinavians, then it shouldn't be alarming, because, except for distance, there are no significant barriers to gene flow between Scandinavia and Turkey. Nobody is saying that Europeans are predominantly Sub-Saharan, so they should always cluster with Sub-Saharans. Since the settlement of Europe 45kya, Europe has for the most part remained genetically isolated from East Asia and Africa. However admixture events seem to have occurred on a number of occasions to the extent that this admixture is detectable by genetic or even anthropological studies. In some cases, this admixture may be small, due to the effects of time, but nonetheless still present. Nobody here is arguing for admixture levels in excess of 50%.Wapondaponda (talk) 21:10, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Information Suppression
Wapondaponda has attempted to defend his edits by claiming that all he's doing is using direct quotes, which is never original research. Even if that's true, WP:NOR is not the only guideline with which edits much comply. There's a policy in the NPOV tutorial against information suppression, which has a direct bearing on his defense. It states:

Here are some instances where Wapondaponda is in violation of this policy:


 * When he cites Auton et al.'s claim that shared haplotypes are "suggestive of gene flow from Africa, albeit from West Africa" without including the many other possible explanations put forth by the authors, nor the results of the STRUCTURE analysis. (Note that the reference to the Auton study in my version mentioned everything).


 * When he cites outdated sources stating that E3b is Sub-Saharan African or East African while omitting more recent sources that have discovered new subclades (some of them separate haplogroups) with West Asian and North African origins, which are the markers that Europeans actually have.


 * When he cites Frudakis and Halder without the caveat that their results are very likely inaccurate because they're using markers called AIMs that have been shown to "involve loci that have undergone strong selection, which makes it unclear whether these markers indicate shared ancestry or parallel selective pressures" (Bolnick et al. 2007).


 * When he cites Brace and Ricaut (which aren't even genetic studies, btw) without mentioning all of the uncertainty, contradictions and conditional statements in their studies, where it's unclear not only whether Natufians were the source of the European Neolithic, but even whether they actually had Sub-Saharan affinities.

That covers most of his edits to the 'Sub-Saharan African influences' section, meaning that while they may qualify for inclusion on the basis of WP:Verifiability and maybe even WP:NOR, they fail to comply with WP:NPOV and should therefore be disallowed. Small Victory (talk) 14:10, 12 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Small Victory, without explaining why in detail one more time, the information you say is being suppressed involves your own synthesis of ideas from different filtered (eg your use of Bolnick) sources, in every case you mention (and in each case your ideas are controversial anyway). Such original material is supposed to be "suppressed". To the extent that you are implying that the article wording implies more certainty in the literature than there really is, then this can of course be discussed, but no examples are immediately clear to me. For example the article wording does not currently make strong statements about the Natufians being the source of the European Neolithic, it only makes the very correct statement that this is a common proposal.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:21, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The issue of analyzing charts has already been dealt with. A couple of things,
 * The primary role of STRUCTURE is to determine Clusters, admixture is a secondary role. This is because you can set STRUCTURE to produce clusters with no admixture(Prichard et al). In addition, you can run STRUCTURE with any value of K. Human populations aren't always structured in "clusters" so applying clusters may not always be realistic, even though Structure will process data for whatever value of K. Structure is basically an abstraction of the data it processes and it requires interpretation, even if the results seem obvious.


 * Clusters and admixture go hand in hand. This is what the creators of the STRUCTURE program say about how it works:




 * Very simple. Small Victory (talk) 11:54, 13 August 2009 (UTC)


 * SV had stated "negligible levels of Sub-Saharan ancestry", when reading the STRUCTURE chart. This is a somewhat misrepresentation, given that YRI is from 60 individiduals from one tribe in a single city, Yoruba's from Ibadan (YRI). So technically SV should have written "negligible levels of YRI related haplotypes". Sub-Saharan Africans are quite diverse and include Afro-Asiatics, Nilo-Saharans, Niger-Congos and Khoisan. Yorubas are Niger-Congo speakers, but they are part of the Volta-Niger languages sub family. The other major Niger-Congo subfamily is Bantu. Basically YRI is only a sub-set of Sub-Saharan African genetic diversity.


 * Incorrect. "Clusters corresponded largely to major geographic regions" (Rosenberg 2002), and the Yoruba belong to a Sub-Saharan African cluster (orange) that includes other West Africans (Mandenka), South Africans (S. Africa), East Africans (Kenya), Bushmen (San) and Pygmies (Mbuti, Biaka). Small Victory (talk) 11:57, 13 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The structure analysis, YRI individuals made up the smallest sample, only 60 individuals, while the whole analysis was done on 1245 individuals. So the average continent had 300 individuals, compared to Africa's 60. YRI data was obtained solely from Hapmap, whereas the data from the other continents included hapmap, POPRES, LOLIPOP and possibly HGDP
 * The study also used a very high threshold, as they filtered out SNPs with a minor allele frequency> 0.2. They state that qualitatively, this doesn't change much, but quantitatively it does make a difference.
 * I don't exactly know whether all these issues would make a difference in the STRUCTURE analysis, but at least they require the authors to interpret their own results, and not a Wikipedian.
 * With regard to the direct quotes SV has discussed above, in general studies will have a main hypothesis, and then they may suggest alternate explanations and provide caveats. This is pretty much standard practice to "hedge your bets". I have deliberately selected the authors' main hypotheses in all these quotes, but have not used any strong or definitive language as this leaves open the door to other scenarios. What SV did was to prop up the caveats and alternate hypotheses and downplay, almost ignore, the authors' main hypotheses. Studies are not conducted for the sake of caveats, or alternative hypotheses. So propping them up is classic POV and WP:UNDUE.
 * As for information suppression, if anyone has a reliable source, ie a current, mainstream peer reviewed publication, that states that comprehensively, Europeans have "negligible levels of Sub-Saharan" admixture, and direct quotes are available from such a source, then I won't stand in the way of including such information. By comprehensive I mean mtDNA, Y-chromosome, autosomal including HLA and also the entire European continent. The problem is nobody has tried introduce such a source. Rather it is SV et al. who have tried hard to suppress information from current mainstream peer reviewed publications, from which, direct quotes are available to back up every single statement, indicating both recent and prehistoric gene flow from SSA to Europe. If you have direct quotes from reliable sources, then we are in business, if not, please see WP:SOAPBOX, WP:NOTAFORUM and WP:NOTBLOG. Wapondaponda (talk) 21:00, 12 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Stop your lies and distortions. And don't try to turn this around and make it about me. It's obvious that you're quoting selectively to emphasize admixture, and deliberately omitting anything that calls that admixture into question or finds it to be absent. That's the very definition of WP:Information suppression.


 * Auton et al. don't have a "main hypothesis". They propose several different explanations for their finding and conclude that more research needs to be done. You only include the West African admixture theory. That's information suppression.


 * Europeans have E-V13 and E-M81. You can't produce a source attributing these markers to Sub-Saharan African admixture, so you ignore them and quote old studies from before the phylogeny of E3b was mapped out. That's information suppression.


 * Frudakis and Halder used adaptive markers, but you cite them anyway because you like their inaccurate results. STRUCTURE evidence uses neutral markers, but you try to have it all banned as OR because it doesn't show what you want. That's information suppression.


 * All of your edits are in violation of this policy and will not be tolerated. Small Victory (talk) 11:45, 13 August 2009 (UTC)


 * This line of discussion is simply twisted.
 * Making a distinction between E1b1b1 and the sub-clades which make it up is OR and plain illogical. This has been discussed over and over.


 * You've said some pretty stupid things before, but that has to be the stupidest. Every study that discusses the subclades makes distinctions between them and E3b -- major distinctions in terms of where they originated and how they spread. If that weren't the case, you would have no trouble producing a source that attributed E-V13 and E-M81 to Sub-Saharan African admixture. But of course, you can't. Small Victory (talk) 12:51, 14 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Saying that certain data should not be mentioned because of one small comment in an article which goes over all types of concern with all population analysis is WP:synthesis, cherry picking, and actually looks more like "information suppression" than anything being discussed here.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:03, 13 August 2009 (UTC)


 * How small the comment is and what else the article covers is completely irrelevant. It states unequivocally that DNAPrint's AIMs include adaptive markers and therefore may not indicate shared ancestry, which is confirmed by the fact that the results obtained are contradicted by multiple STRUCTURE analyses. And according to WP:Information suppression:




 * That's exactly what Wapondaponda is doing. And you're supporting it. Small Victory (talk) 12:51, 14 August 2009 (UTC)


 * SV is basically spamming this talk page, because at the moment SV is acting alone against other editors and against Wikipedia's policies, standards and norms. A number of editors have been the target of his snide comments, personal attacks and incivility, and he continues being uncivil because no action has been taken against him. Independent editors who have nothing to do with this controversy have come to the same conclusion, such as Blueboar who has noted SV is using WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT approach . SV is unnecessarily holding up progress, by criticizing every finding of a peer reviewed publication. Rarely has SV added any new material, and when he has, he adds his own personal interpretation as per the OR noticeboard. This is very counterproductive. I understand that some of this material is controversial in the blogosphere, but it isn't in scientific circles. Wikipedia is not part of the blogosphere and what goes on their is irrelevant to Wikipedia articles. Because understanding the genetics articles requires some effort, a lot of administrators don't know much about the subject. As a result it isn't clear to them, that there is disruptive editing, POV pushing and incivility going on. I wish other editors would be a little bit more assertive when dealing with problematic editors, per WP:DUCK. SOPHIAN for instance, was a problem right from the start, but it took a long time for the community to accept that he is indeed troublesome.Now SOPHIAN's activities are under heavy scrutiny. Wapondaponda (talk) 15:20, 13 August 2009 (UTC)


 * You're the problem, not me. Small Victory (talk) 12:55, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Correlations with U6
"This leaves open the possibility of prehistoric migrations from Sub-Saharan Africa to Europe. Goncalves et al. 2005 suggest a possible prehistoric migration of E1 lineages alongside Mitochondrial haplogroup U6."

Muntawandi, this particular sentence I removed, why do you think this should belong in the Article, U6 appears to be African of West Asian origin, Ergo this is not evidence of SSA contribution but back migration into africa. And new paper suggest backflow from iberia to Africa. The prehistoric migration of E1 lineages with U6 would only correlate with the concept of circummediterranean gene flow.PB666 yap 04:53, 15 August 2009 (UTC) Note: do not add the sentence back unless you can explain why this in particular supports faster rates of SSA gene flow, you should avoid arguments that gene flow from Africa's horn in to SW Asia that are then carried back into Africa or into the Middle East and then into Europe as evidence of SSA admixture.

"detected a South-to-North cline of West African haplotypes in Europe with peak frequencies in Iberia and suggested that this cline is indicative of gene flow directly from West Africa and not necessarily from North Africa."

Once again, Muntuwandi, why do you keep adding this back. Traditional HapMap populations (4) in which YRI is one is not a surrogate for what is going on in extreme West Africa or even North Africa. The North African population was not sampled as a consequence the HapMap based studies maybe seeing very long range similarities when infact the gene flow is over a shorter range. I have pointed out to you this issue before and you agreed that they cannot be used as a profile of gene distributions in Africa, so why do you continue to add this back. I should point out that both Hawks and Wang have studied hap Map and they found peculiar levels of evolution (Hawks claims SNP evolution is 10 to 100 fold higher around extendable haplotypes). I disagree with his conclusions, based on the HLA it would appear that there has been selection for haplotypes, so once again similarities that are seen in long distance studies may simply reflect the selective preference of African haplotypes in Iberia over West Asia or East Asia in some instances. I have to state, many here argue that the length of the section should be proportional to the verifyable level of contribution, and every time I prune the section down as per the consensus of what the size is you go about adding more material.PB666 yap 05:04, 15 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I am not persnickety about which sources to use in the article. But I will summarize some of the important points concerning the genetic relationships between Sub-Saharan Africa and Europe post OOA.
 * My argument is, as I have stated previously, that population genetics of NA and SSA are related. NA seems to be a heterogeneous population, with some North African populations showing stronger affinities to SSA than others. E1, though Sub-Saharan is found in North African populations at frequencies<10%. Occurrences have also been observed by Adams et al which I noticed from Andrew's publication. The presence of E1 in these regions could be as old as E-M81. Certain L lineages are autochthonous to North Africa. Mitochondrial Heterogeneity in Tunisian Berbers suggest an autochthonous clade of L3 in North Africa. Though the SSA component in North Africa is secondary to the Eurasian component, this may not have been the case in prehistoric times, at the time some of these lineages entered Eurasia. So I would like to see either a merging of the North African and Sub-Saharan sections, or alternatively a discussion on the interrelatedness of North African and Sub-Saharan influences.


 * I did merge those two section together. Although now that the section of slave trade has been hashed out. I am looking at your E-M81 map right now, the density of M81 (E1b1b1b) in NW Africa is at saturation and the level of other E in the region is low, there is almost no M81 south of Senegal, which basically means that E1b1b1b is a North African hap that has migrated southward. The movement southward is probably a consequence of Islamification of the Sahara and Sahel particularly settlements on the Niger river. There is all but no Y chromosomal typing on the Ivory or gold coasts. The movement of M81 to the Basque is largely an overstate case, it is minor, and the presence in Andalusia is more or less due to the Moorish occupation. Think of it like thise, if Y isn't under selection, how come we have all this evidence for migrations from North Africa from ancient periods. E1b1b1b is low in N.Iberia but these N.African gene frequencies are high from a period before E-M81 migrated to North Africa. Does it not make any sense to you that Y-chromosomal selection in that region is a probable explanation for the very high levels. That other Y chromosome that once existed in NW Africa have been excluded there but still may exist in Iberia? That is the paradox the E-M81 data creates. Constant migration of males, even if only a trickle, from east to west, can in almost the blink of an eye, cause a replacement and leave the majority of genetics almost as they were.


 * There is quite a distance between SSA and Europe, but nonetheless the people who brought E3b-M35 lineages into Europe, carried with them some Sub-Saharan genetic material that was not previously present in Europe. How much genetic material is still being investigated. But as you mentioned the y-chromosome is not necessarily concordant with autosomal markers, so admixture could be significantly more or significantly less than the frequency of haplogroup E in Europe. This is related to the debate of whether Neolithic in Europe spread by demic diffusion or cultural diffusion. If the Neolithic was spread by demic diffusion( ie middle eastern farmers moving into a sparsely populated Europe), and if the Neolithic was spread by farmers carrying haplogroups E and J, then the Sub-Saharan component in Europe is likely to be more significant than a cultural diffusion scenario. Demic diffusion appears to be the favored model. Frudakis et al suggest that West African affiliation of Europeans is anthropologically meaningful. CS already showed with his serological techniques that Sub-Saharan influences are being expressed in the phenotype of the blood of Europeans. We also see a diversity of hair textures among Europeans that are not seen elsewhere. Some Europeans have straight hair, other curly and some Europeans can even have Afro (Jewfro). Such diversity is not seen in East Asia, the Americas and to some extent South Asia. These phenotypes could have evolved in situ in Europe, but it is not impossible that they are due to SSA admixture. Wapondaponda (talk) 11:48, 15 August 2009 (UTC)


 * You talk as if the evidence from autosomal markers isn't in yet. Of course, you know that it is, and you also know that it unanimously reveals Europeans have no more than a drop of Sub-Saharan African admixture, which is why you're trying so hard to suppress it.


 * Europeans compared to Yoruba, Mandenka, S. African and Kenyan Bantu, San and Pygmy


 * More European samples compared to Yoruba


 * Europeans compared to Sierra Leone and Tanzania


 * Europeans compared to South African Bantu, Ethiopians and Afro-Caribbeans


 * Europeans compared to virtually all Africans


 * --- Small Victory (talk) 13:41, 15 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Muntuwandi, once again, I am reminding you that inevitably all gene flow comes from Subsaharan Africa. I also remind you that standard models of evolution including models of demic diffusion tolerate gene flow depending on the habits of species. Geneflow has been noted between coyotes and wolves in certain parts of the US despite the fact these have different behaviors and are considered different species. Gene flow in the context of diffusion makes no pretense that our continental boundaries mean anything if there is a habit of generational transmigration along coast lines or across small distances of water, or desert nomadism.PB666 yap
 * You have to make it clear as to why the geneflow of the markers is much more rapid than a casual expectation. For example, an allele arises in subSaharan Africa a few thousand years ago, and is present in Europe now and not as a consequence of historically known transmigration. Simply arguing there is genetic contribution by standard mode human transmigration (i.e. species consistent diffusion) does not deserve special treatment other than as North African contribution. IOW, for the sake of wikipedia, which requires citation and NOR, you need to provide a clear reasoning from authors, the marker for which they believe this rapid migration occurred, and of course the data needs to be more sound than comparing YRI and EUR HapMap populations. PB666 yap
 * We do not know the context of migration from East Africa into NE Africa, I suspect it was technology driven since prior to the LGM Africa appears to have been more technologically advance relative to Eurasia compared to the development of Eurasia after the LGM. Technological based influxes are generally dominated by Y-chromosome, IOW Y chromosome gets filtered in and forward as it migrates, this could leave very little SSA character in the autosomes. Again I am warning you guys, overt use of Y is frought with all kinds of logical perils. (e.g. Sardinia). The HLA does register migrations from N and NE Africa and this gene flow can be observed all they way to the indigeonous populations of the new world. Two distinct migrations appear to be responsible. 1. the migration via the Middle East (evident from the Balkans to NE Asia/Ainu), a second migration I credit having intiated from the Sahel and leaving trace alleles on the Arabian peninsula (particularly Oman) and reaching the Western approaches to the Indus river, this more recent gene-flow only recently reached Korea and was largely spread by historical activities of the Turko-mongols. There could be more, certain HLA allele frequencies indicate migrations in the 40 to 60 kya time frame, which might be more consistent with a selective sweep of Y from Africa after the initial colonization of humans from Africa. Therefore there is nothing, to me, really outstanding about haplotypes D or E being in W Asia, and given there is controversy about the timing of Y . . . . . .PB666 yap 15:21, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

What is the point of the above debate
The problem with the edits is NPOV. I have gone through and removed contributions (by SV in thier original form) which were original research.
 * The major or scientific consensus are to be entertained, it does not need to be quoted extensively and we don't need 20Kbytes of notes. If these consensi are not certain, then they should be treated as uncertainties no matter how wide the consensus.
 * Minor opinions are allowed, and I would say if there are a few authors that retain these opinions these are still to be allowed and quoted. Minor points of view are acceptable as long as they are not 'obvious' speculation and not 'obviously' obsolete. We do not want to have a page filled with flat-earth theories or Earth as the center of the universe.PB666 yap

What I am inclined to do is to remove the section on SSA contributions, point to the new page, and bring the contents here so that we can hash it out here instead of having an endless Edit-war.PB666 yap

Muntuwandi and Small Victory - You are both flooding this talk page - PLEASE STOP. Please restrict your comments to ways to improve the main page.PB666 yap

Small Victory - Your comments on this page an others are abusive, if you continue this type of language I will seek that you are blocked.PB666 yap Point on Editing - If you interrupt someones statements or reply please copy their time and name stamp and place it at the last edit they made before you interrupt. This type of discourteous response is a clear indication that Small Victory is making responses from a emotional standpoint and not a rational stand-point.PB666 yap 16:22, 14 August 2009 (UTC) One way to ensure that your edits remain labeled is to each point or paragraph.
 * Small Victory and I are at polar opposites of this dispute. There is no way that the two of us alone can ever come to a compromise. As previously mentioned, Small Victory is a single purpose account, his whole purpose of editing wikipedia, is to push a POV on African admixture in Europe. For more than three years SV has essentially edited no other articles except the deleted SSA in Europe and this article. As a result I don't see SV accepting any compromises. Any direct compromise between SV and myself is virtually impossible. I think Andrew and Pdeitiker and any other editors who are not at the extremes in this dispute can play an important role in bringing this dispute to some kind of resolution. Otherwise it could proceed indefinitely, which would be a waste of everyones' time. There are many other articles and topics that need attention, and our time would be better served elsewhere. Seeing SV tenacity at POV pushing, he is still posting at WP:NORN, I see no other solution but administrative intervention. I think SV has satisfied the requirements of DISRUPT and IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Wapondaponda (talk) 18:21, 14 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Don't argue with him, he has even taken lately to insulting administrators. He is not responsible for your edits. If your think you opinion is too extreme for the main page, post your edits to the section here first, so that they can be revised here. SV obviously has anger-management issues that he is (or not) dealing with.  Don't feed the trolls. PB666 yap 21:30, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

''Fortunately, at least for wikis, a way out is clear. First, NameTheConflict. Identify the ForestFire for what it is. Second, collect all the arguments onto one page and then delete the rest--i.e. recan the worms. Just copy and paste the pages together. Don't worry about being clean; the argument is far from neat and tidy. Let the argument continue on that page for as long as it remains hot. It will die down soon enough now that the front is contained in one place and after people see the whole argument for the overbearing mountain of crap that it is.''

In this case it is actually rather hard to do. I will try.
 * 1) Small Victory does not see or want to see genetic contribution from Africa to Europe within the post-OoA time frame, therefore he minimizes every support for the evidence.
 * 2) Muntawandi finds pearls in every oyster, including those that are not mother-of-pearl. He himself claims he is too opinionated.
 * 3) There is a history of distrust: Small Victory has allied himself with Sophian, who is currently blocked as a long standing mischief maker. Muntawandi has used sock-puppets and rapidly reverts to farming the noticeboards for support.
 * 4) Over use of Y-chromosomal data, because of social selection and rapid drift associated with its low ploidy and socio-sexual selection, it is probably the worst marker that is not otherwise eliminated due to the lack of relevant SNPs. mtDNA is used as if it not under selection. I can assure everyone, mitochondrial DNA sequences are under regional selection.
 * 5) Original Research, particularly not disclosing content that has been modified by the editor for the point of emphasizing a point of view. The use of outdated techniques or studies, the non-neutral failure to disclose outdated techniques or conclusions.
 * 6) Small Victory is a prolific insulter.

Muntawandi, I have remapped the Hap E- Data. . . . the graphed data for E appears to be largely an overstated case. Most of the countries in West Africa have not been surveyed, those that have have not been surveyed at anywhere near the level of HLA surveylance, The HLA material has a sample discrimation of almost a magnitude higher in Europe, about 3 fold higher in Africa and about 50 fold higher in Asia. I will upload these images soon, I think we are lucky in this instance that Commons rejected those images, they are biased in their interpretation. The Hap E data, IMHO, should not be used at all, certain types, like M81 appear to have been sampled with a moderately confident degree of certainty, others (for example those that are modal in SW asia, have not). Be extremely warey of frequency data presented as clines, the clines are often a result of idealization without a adequate amount of data. Small Victory, this is to let you know I am not doing anything behind your back, the language you are using has been brought to the attention of Administrators in the pre-mediation board. If you continue with hostile editing and insulting of people it will be brought to arbitration. Muntawandi is right but for the fact that he exaggerates everything, there is a substantive amount of contribution from West Africa in Western Europe (Although the modality and rate of gene flow is something that has not been greatly investigated). This has been pointed out with HLA, and there are many finger-print level haplotypes that exist in Europe that are low probabilities of W Asian routes of entry. Andrew and I are privy to information, he works with Y and I work with HLA although with HLA few researchers have the time to go through and write a review on these matters. The genetic markers declines from Iberia to Eastern Europe with the lowest frequencies evident in the Arctic peoples of Northern Asia. But if were not for the fact there was far more recent contribution from the Eastern Mediterranean into central Europe, these contributions would be far easier to detect. Andrew is trying to make a point to you, don't concretize you beliefs based on a high probability of Beta-error. I have been trying to get the same point across, detectability is a function of the refined nature of tools to detect. People publish often when detectability provides a method for promoting a conclusion that is tentative to the level of significance. What authors often choose as the Null hypothesis is often left to general arguments (maximum likelihood sources with no admixture). 'We failed to detect' often means that the N used in a sample does not suffice to detect. If a second study detects something that previous studies does not, it generally means that more sampling was done, or two samples were combined to increase the power of the argument. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. When we examine some of these studies, particularly Y but also mtDNA, there are large areas that have not been adequately sampled, and many areas have been sampled but the results are tainted by sequencing or typing errors. While I disagree with the emphasis that Muntawandi is making (because the level of contribution is subject to wide-interpretation at the moment based on the technologies and level of sampling) and because his methodological approach to arguing is often flawed, that does not mean I disagree with everything he says. When I criticize him is often meant to correct the way in which he phrases to more accurately represent the science, not to say his statements are all wrong, we are as editors are allowed to criticize each other without implying or creating the meaning that everything the other editor is doing is wrong. In fact, that is the way that we can work toward a parsimonious consensus. Small Victory, you appear not to work with anyone toward a consensus, and when they disagree with you, you resort to name-calling, insults, and belittling people.

Before the World-Wide Web, before Wikipedia, before Facebook, before Google and Yahoo groups, not so long after SMTP was created another technology NNTP was created, this allowed the creation of the USENET, which was a set of expanding forums where scientist and computer savvy people interacted. It was limited to people who had access to the internet and Unix type interfaces, generally speaking academic professionals. I first posted to the USENET in 1989, it was extremely difficult and so posting had to be well worded, and one did not waste alot of effort back-biting and insulting people. 1994 and 1995 come along and Win95 enters the scene with many people coming online, by 1997 any Joe who could have access to the internet could enter the USENET via backdoors such as Google (Deja-vu was assumed by Google after its demise) and anyone who had modem access to the internet with windows 95/98 and could then post to the UseNet, and the UseNet began to die. During this early period after the expansion of USENET groups we saw the increase of Trolling and duping newbies into well-hashed out debates. Now, most of the science groups are now battlegrounds that argue, over and over again, the same niche debate (e.g. Sci.Anthropology.paleo and aquatic ape theory: Sci.archaeology and Norse in North America). All the posters who once added content left to moderated groups, the only people left are wanted trolls, and the number of complaints rose to the point many ISPs stopped carrying USENET, and now if you want USENET you have to pay to get full access. Incivility and lack of self-control is the primary cause of the decline of social networking sites, and is a large reason for the loss of free access. Just because anyone can do just about anything they want in many social networking forums (and this is not a forum) does not mean that they should. If you want wikipedia to prosper with your contributions, each of you has to work to preserve the civility of the place, otherwise, overtime, regulations will increase such that only editors of a certain status in the encyclopedia will be allowed to edit. Andrew and I are not your baby-sitters, you must learn to compromise and work toward an agreeable consensus. If wikipedia fails, or in this instance if the Genetic History of Europe continues to be an eye-sore in the Human genetic history Project, it is the fault of editors that have not worked to bring the article foward by the standards of this encyclopedia.

Which brings me to the final point. This entire page is a train-wreck! And the reason that the page cannot evolve is because it is involved in this black-white whose right POV edit war.
 * 1) The use of very old material, surrogate genetic studies etc. If you know this material is ancient don't keep it simply because it reinforcnes your POV. Delete it.
 * 2) The insertion of non-scientific or non-measurable qualities. Genetics tracks directions of gene-flow, it cannot tell whether the gene flow was made be a Roman, a Greek, or a Zoroastraian from Yzad Iran.
 * 3) BIGGEST point of all, the editors of the page do not put the reader first. They put their agenda first, there is a lack of use of images (and the attempt to DL copyrighted images which are then removed), the lack of use of tables, improper and deceptive referencing, overt use of footnotes when they are not required, and Edit-warring!.

Why do you keep talking about the HLA system as if it were still widely used in population genetics? This isn't 1974. Geneticists have learned to avoid adaptive markers, and being related to the functioning of the immune system certainly places HLA genes in that category. Today, STRUCTURE analysis dominates the field, especially when it comes to quantifying admixture (that's what it's designed for). A majority of new studies use that method because of its accuracy based on hundreds, thousands, even hundreds of thousands of neutral autosomal markers. Wapondaponda knows this, which is why he's trying to have it banned as OR (but I've refuted every feeble argument made against me). The section should focus primarily on the latest STRUCTURE studies that contain global admixture analyses (Rosenberg, Wilson, Bauchet, Auton etc.) and secondarily on mtDNA and Y-chromosomes, which provide much rougher estimates of admixture but are still commonly used in the field. Adaptive markers (including DNAPrint's bogus AIMs) should be left out entirely, as they've been mostly abandoned. And of course, E3b should not be cited as a "Sub-Saharan influence" when the markers Europeans have are West Asian and North African. Small Victory (talk) 13:28, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

You are pretending that mtDNA and Y chromosome are neutral, they are not. These two markers show one of the highest degrees of purifiying selection. In some instances the mtDNA alone, because of mutations in the coding regions would place the genetic distance between some SE Asia and Native American variants of the same haplotype if neutral mutation is assummed at 1.4 million years pairwise differences. There are hundreds of papers now proporting deleterious mutations of mtDNA, and many are now claiming these are the result of purifying selection. It would appear that mtDNA is under greater selection than HLA. The HLA loci our operating under a heterozygous selection coefficient (See Ayala, Science, 1996) which means that diversity is largely preserved when diversity is lost at other loci. Ergo in situations where the loss of diversity strongly biases ones conclusion, HLA is a better marker the Y chromosome or mtDNA. In fact in the case of Oceanians, when the conflict came up whether they were from Taiwan or from Papua New Guinea, the HLA clarified the issue, Most of the polynesians gene-flow were from Taiwans aboriginal peoples and some was from Melanesia. The ratio of male to female was 1:2 based on HLA exactly in tune with what anthropologist believe stone-age ratios would be. What this tells you is that rapidly, within 3000 years mtDNA can be biased entirely one direction, whereas Y chromosome can be entirely biased in a different direction, and without a different perspective, since fixation occurs, one has no way observing the difference. Again, I repeat, you continue to water down evidence for greater contribution from Africa, but you fail to look at the weaknesses of the evidence you present. A recent paper on Ireland noted that in NorthWestern Ireland, exclusion is underway simply based upon the historic preference of one surname, approximately half of the Y in a large segment of Ireland are descended from a single male ~1000 years ago. IOW, I don't discriminate between adaptive evolution and drift as a consequence of social selection. In either case they both bias our understand, therefore, I look at what biases our understanding the most, and it is clear that Y chromosome has very abundant problems. It fixes rapidly, it has a conquestors bias, and the TMRCA does not align with TMRCAs predicted from mtDNA or from Autosomal studies, nor does it align with the Archaeology. Consequently it is a very troubled locus to use. MtDNA is almost as bad if not worse, only the L5 lineages of Tanzania reflect neutral evolution. All other lineages are under selection. According to Gonder et al, all lineages outside of SE Africa are under selection, independently I found the lineages that have undergone migration through SE Asia to the Arctic back to South America under the highest level of selection in the coding region. This does not fit any neutral model, and neutrality of mtDNA should be rejected. It fits best a model of regional selection, rapid adaptive evolution and purifying selection (which includes some purifying selection tolerant of deleterious mutations).

Here again, I am tolerant of adding information about Y and mtDNA knowing their bias, and yet you want to exclude HLA studies and you ignore your own bias. That is a problem with your editing.PB666 yap 14:42, 15 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Please read what I actually wrote. I said precedence should be given to the latest STRUCTURE studies that use large numbers of neutral autosomal loci. I'm not a huge fan of uniparental markers either, and even less of HLA genes (remember the infamous Arnaiz-Villena HLA-DRB1 fiasco). However, the former are still widely used in studies about admixture, whereas the latter are not anymore. Decisions about what to include in the article should be guided by trends in the field. Small Victory (talk) 13:11, 16 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Let me correct one issue here with concern to Arnaiz-Villena, I have investigated several of his claims with regard to the Ionian,Aegean, and Black Sea regions, as more studies have been published by other authors. I found his claimes about a sub-Saharan origin largely to be truthful in as much as Egypt was previously typed 20 years ago, as a consequence many high resolutions types were not done. In other studies that were published before his (for example bulgaria) in which no conclusion was drawn showed similar HLA-A and B alleles. The claim that Sardinia fit into the Grecan cluster was revised to show a better fit with North and NorthWest Africa. I am not going to defend his work on palestine as that was avery poltically charged paper, or the paper on the Basque-Etruscan languages. The point is that many of what you claim is controversial has been backed up by other groups and more recent papers. I don't call it a fiasco.
 * Second the problem that plagues HLA plagues Y and mtDNA. Where is the typing from Egypt and Libya?PB666 yap 13:48, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

This is the fiasco I'm talking about:

--- Small Victory (talk) 10:06, 18 August 2009 (UTC)