Talk:Haplogroup DE (Y-DNA)/Archive 1

Multiregional
Templeton and Hammer are multiregionalists, read Out of Africa again and again. The genetic impacts of Africa upon the entire human species is large because of at least three major expansions out of Africa, although the genetic impact is not as complete as it would be under total replacement. This model is similar to earlier models that have emphasized the role of out-of-Africa population expansion coupled with gene flow and not replacement, such as the assimilation model of Smith et al.49, the multiregional model with expansions followed by admixture ofWolpoff et al.50, and the `mostly out of Africa' model of Relethford1. Wapondaponda (talk) 13:48, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The quote above doesn't describe Templeton and Hammer as multi-regionalists. It doesn't even mention them. Rather, it attributes the model to Wolpoff et al. Again, saying that they are multi-regionalists when the study doesn't is original research. Causteau (talk) 14:01, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

It clearly says that his model is similar to Wolpoff's multiregional model. By the very definition- it is multiregional evolution or hybrid-origin. Wapondaponda (talk) 14:10, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Here's what Templeton says in full:


 * "'The genetic impacts of Africa upon the entire human species is large because of at least three major expansions out of Africa, although the genetic impact is not as complete as it would be under total replacement. This model is similar to earlier models that have emphasized the role of out-of-Africa population expansion coupled with gene flow and not replacement, such as the assimilation model of Smith et al.49, the multiregional model with expansions followed by admixture of Wolpoff et al.50, and the `mostly out of Africa' model of Relethford1.'"


 * Again, nowhere does the paper describe either Templeton or Hammer as multi-regionalists. Causteau (talk) 14:34, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The user Wapondaponda keeps adding to the text original research that the researchers Templeton and Hammer (who have in the past supported the Asian origin hypothesis for haplogroup DE) "believe in some form of multiregional origin of modern humans as opposed to a recent African origin of modern humans (RAO)". He has backed this up with this New York Times article (a user who, only a day or two ago, was taking me to task for relying on ISOGG rather than peer-reviewed studies), which states no such thing. It actually affirms the opposite; that Templeton supports the Out of Africa hypothesis, but with modifications. It also ascribes the multi-regional label to one Dr. Milford Wolpoff, not Templeton (the article doesn't even mention Hammer):


 * "'The findings apparently do not undermine the out of Africa theory, which holds that there was a relatively modern founding migration of human ancestors into Asia and Europe from Africa."


 * "But they do suggest that there were at least two migrations rather than one -- the first about half a million years ago, the other, as in the out of Africa theory, beginning some 100,000 years ago."


 * Dr. Templeton's findings fall somewhere between two much-debated theories of modern human origins.


 * "Since the 1980's, molecular biologists have produced strong DNA evidence that people living today stem from a common genetic source in Africa about 150,000 years ago or more. That research underpins the out of Africa theory, favored by most anthropologists."


 * "But a few stalwarts, led by Dr. Milford Wolpoff of the University of Michigan, have continued to argue the case for multiregional origins. They contend that humans evolved around the world in different regions about the same time, often living in isolation but not without occasional infusion of outside genes. These early humans were descendants of the protohuman Homo erectus, which first migrated from Africa about 1.7 million years ago."


 * "In the sense that the genetic legacy of humanity is disproportionately from Africa, Dr. Templeton said, the out of Africa model still stands, but with modification: the two waves of migration out of Africa did not completely replace the local populations.'"


 * Wapondaponda also insists on referencing old studies by Templeton and Hammer so that this may give him the opportunity to say that a later study from Underhill et al. from 2001 effectively "neutralized" said studies. The problem with this is that the Chandrasekar et al. (2007) study also effectively neutralizes the Underhill et al. source! Note that he has also written the older Templeton studies in the present tense (i.e. "Templeton argues that..."), while introducing the more recent Chandrasekar et al. source in the past tense ("Chandrasekar stated..."). If that weren't bad enough, the user's overwhelming bias is further confirmed by his removal of Weale et al. (2003)'s assertion that the DE* chromosomes that were found in five Nigerian males probably are not paraphyletic, and only if DE* is paraphyletic does it also become automatically older than D or E (this is significant because if DE* is not older than haplogroups D or E, than they can't be its descendants). I have therefore reverted his edits because they constitute a clear cut case of sneaky vandalism:


 * "Vandalism that is harder to spot, or that otherwise circumvents detection. This can include adding plausible misinformation to articles, (e.g. minor alteration of facts or additions of plausible-sounding hoaxes), hiding vandalism (e.g. by making two bad edits and only reverting one), using two or more different accounts and/or IP addresses at a time to vandalize, abuse of maintenance and deletion templates, or reverting legitimate edits with the intent of hindering the improvement of pages." Causteau (talk) 03:16, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Causteau, you have removed a legitimate source from Linda Stone and Cavalli-Sforza in your overzealousness to remove references to multiregionalism. If you are familiar with RAO vs Multiregional, it is pretty clear that Out of Africa again and again, is multiregional evolution, the author even admits and is cited in numerous sources. As I mentioned in the other page, there isn't any uncontroversial evidence of a sustained modern human presence outside of Africa until 50,000 years ago based on the archeological record. This makes YAP older than the dispersal of humans from Africa some 55kya. The only way to account for the origin of YAP+ outside Africa, was if YAP occurred in homo erectus or some archaic hominid, who have been known to be in Eurasia for at least 1 million years. According to Templeton, African archaic humans migrated to Asia and interbred with erectus in Asia, afterwhich some returned to Africa carrying YAP+ and evolved into modern Africans, the other branch of hybrid erectus-sapiens moved on into inner Asia and Europe and evolved into modern Eurasians, carrying with them their branch of YAP+. Wapondaponda (talk) 03:45, 11 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually, I removed the Linda Stone & Paul F. Luirquin book (Cavalli-Sforza only wrote the intro) by accident. As proof, I just re-added it. I also don't need to "conceal" that which the sources in question never even come close to asserting, as can quite clearly be seen in my previous post. Thanks for the lecture, but I prefer my info factual and from professionals. Causteau (talk) 04:11, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * You are certainly right, I am no pro, but nonetheless the sources I have cited are indeed factual and from professionals. Just for consideration, the following articles discuss the archeological record of modern humans.
 * Why did modern human populations disperse from Africa ca. 60,000 years ago?, Mellars, 2006
 * of Africa ::and the evolution of human behavior, Klein 2009
 * Both these studies estimate a migration out of Africa circa 60-50000 kya to Eurasia. Though there have been other dates proposed, these are the most recent, and are consistent with both the genetic and archeological evidence. Since YAP+ is 65kya, it is apparently older than the proposed dates for the migration out of Africa. There may be some overlap when margin of error is taken into consideration, but that also means that YAP+ could be even much older than 65kya. What ever the case, YAP+ occurred either shortly before migration out of Africa or shortly after. The shortly after requires almost immediate backflow into Africa, because YAP frequencies in Africa are high and widespread. MtDNA coalesces much further back in time, nonetheless there is a clear split between L3 and its daughters haplogroups M and N, with M and N being the haplogroups of all non-Africans, and being all but absent in AFrica. There is the the exception of the much younger M1 found only in East Africa, the result of more recent backflow, circa 10-20kya. In other words, MtDNA shows no evidence of back migration. This means that back migration of YAP from asia, constituted only males.
 * Thats why multiregionalists have seized on YAP+, and tried to make an argument for archaic-modern interbreeding. On the surface, multiregionalism solves the problem of the fossil record, but in reality it leaves more questions than answers. Wapondaponda (talk) 07:19, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Chandrasekar
I couldn't find anywhere where Chandrasekar says YAP originated in Asia. He says there was a back migration to Africa, which is true. North Africans are originally from Asia. But there is no mention of YAP+. Consequently I have deleted the reference. Below is the quote from Chandrasekar, and essentially these are all north Africa, and some ethiopian haplogroups.

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

Wapondaponda (talk) 19:54, 12 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The entire Chandrasekar et al. (2007) study is on the YAP insertion (it's called "YAP insertion signature in South Asia"). The back migration they are talking about in the quote above is that of YAP chromosomes from Asia to Africa, which they clearly state is supported by recent mtDNA findings by Olivieri et al. (2006) and the fact that "major sub-sets of Y lineages that arose from the M168 lineage do not trace to an African origin." Earlier in the study, the authors address the YAP insertion as well:


 * "'Our findings of the presence of the YAP insertion in northeast Indian tribes and Andaman islanders with haplogroup D indicate that some of the M168 chromosomes have given rise to the YAP insertion and M174 mutation in south Asia.'"


 * That is how haplogroup E was able to back-migrate from Asia to Africa in the first place: Because the YAP insertion had already arisen in its native Asia. Causteau (talk) 22:39, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Material moved from E1b1b talk page
The following has been moved from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Haplogroup_E1b1b_(Y-DNA)#The_Genographic_Project, where it was way off topic...--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:37, 13 March 2009 (UTC)


 * There isn't really enough data in yet on DE* to be able to definitively conclude where exactly it originated. But based on all the information presently available (including the recent finding of DE* chromosomes in Tibet, the exclusively Asian distribution of haplogroup D, and the non-African origins of all the myriad descendants of haplogroup CF), haplogroup DE would most likely appear to have evolved in Asia, from where it later back-migrated into Africa:


 * "'The hypothesis of a back migration from Asia to Africa is strongly supported by the current phylogeography of the Y-chromosome variation, because haplogroup K2 and paragroup R1b*, both belonging to the otherwise Asiatic macro haplogroup K, have only been observed at high frequencies in Africa (Cruciani et al. 2002; Luis et al. 2004). Thus the major sub-sets of Y lineages that arose from the M168 lineage do not trace to an African origin. Likewise the M, N and R haplogroups of mtDNA have no indication of an African origin. In the light of recent findings by Olivieri et al. (2006) the scenario of a back migration into Africa is supported by two features of mtDNA: M1 (with an estimated coalescence time of 38.6 Æ 7.1 ky) and U6 (with an estimated coalescence time of 45.1 Æ 6.9 ky), which are predominantly north African clades arose in southwestern Asia and differentiated into their major sub-clades while they were in the Mediterranean area and only later some sub-sets of M1a (with an estimated coalescence time of 28.8 Æ 4.9 ky), U6a2 (with an estimated coalescence time of 24.0 Æ 7.3 ky) and U6d (with an estimated coalescence time of 20.6 Æ 7.3 ky) diffused to East and North Africa through the Levant.'" Causteau (talk) 13:36, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * We don't know yet, at the moment YAP+ is very Africa heavy. Though ancient migratory patterns were certainly complex involving a lot of back and forth. In fact the Near East and North Africa are essentially one ecological zone. The terms Africa and Asia are recent social constructs that didn't exist in prehistory. That said, there is a remarkable consistency in that most of the deepest lineages of the human family tree all trace back to Africa. At present the weight of evidence favors an African origin. So too does the archeological evidence, though still sketchy, there isn't much evidence of Humans present outside of Africa until after 50,000 years ago. If we take the YAP+ to be 65,000 years old, that places it right in the middle of Africa. However these dates are still being revised, an archeological find could change them. One more thing, it is well established that templeton and hammer are supporters of multiregional evolution, which is not widely accepted.Wapondaponda (talk) 13:40, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Section break

 * Good to know, but that quote above doesn't come from either Templeton or Hammer. It comes from Chandrasekar et al. (2007). Causteau (talk) 14:17, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * There is no place where Chandrasekar says, yap arose in Asia and migrated back to Africa. He is discussing the back migration of younger haplogroups. Wapondaponda (talk) 20:14, 12 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The entire Chandrasekar et al. (2007) study is on the YAP insertion (it's called "YAP insertion signature in South Asia"). The back migration they are talking about in the quote above is that of YAP+ chromosomes from Asia to Africa, which they clearly state is supported by recent mtDNA findings by Olivieri et al. (2006) and the fact that "major sub-sets of Y lineages that arose from the M168 lineage do not trace to an African origin." Earlier in the study, the authors address the YAP insertion as well:


 * "'Our findings of the presence of the YAP insertion in northeast Indian tribes and Andaman islanders with haplogroup D indicate that some of the M168 chromosomes have given rise to the YAP insertion and M174 mutation in south Asia.'"


 * That is how haplogroup E was able to back-migrate from Asia to Africa in the first place: Because the YAP insertion had already arisen in its native Asia. Causteau (talk) 22:48, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Causteau, you either misunderstand the Chandrasekar article, or are engaging in some OR. I read through the quotes, and nowhere does he say that YAP originated in Asia. Yes there was a back migration to Africa, but all that is recent with haplogroup M1, and the other haplogroups found in North AFrican populations. Yes the major subsets of M168 are found outside Africa, that is because only M168 males left Africa. So all non-Africans are M168, whereas Africans are both M168 and non-m168, consistent with being the origin of m168. This does not mean, Chandrasekar says it arose in Africa. Your analysis is a huge misinterpretation. Chandrasekar is not contradicting any of the mainstream scholars on the African origin of M168 or of YAP. Read stone and Cavalli-Sforza for a clear and succint explanation Wapondaponda (talk) 23:50, 12 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Go ahead and believe that if it makes you feel any better. The quotes, however, do not lie:


 * "'Our findings of the presence of the YAP insertion in northeast Indian tribes and Andaman islanders with haplogroup D indicate that some of the M168 chromosomes have given rise to the YAP insertion and M174 mutation in south Asia. The presence of C*, YAP insertion and F* in India (Kivisild et al. 2003; Cordaux et al. 2004; Sengupta et al. 2006; Thangaraj et al. 2003) suggests that the Y chromosome is well differentiated into major lineages in south Asia. Then they moved towards southeast Asia and the Andaman Islands. Andamanese maternal links have been established through mtDNA M31 lineage with the eastern part of India in the Rajbansi of West Bengal (Palanichamy et al. 2006) and the Pauri Bhuiya of Orissa (our unpublished data). After reaching the southern part of East Asia descendants of the initial dispersal, led to a northward diaspora thus peopling across all of East Asia (Su et al. 1999). Some of the YAP insertion chromosomes without the M174 mutation reached the Mediterranean via Central Asia and gave rise to the E lineage with mutations at M40 and M96.'" Causteau (talk) 00:10, 13 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Another thing: Chandrasekar et al. do not say that M168 originated in Asia, and neither have I. So quit building strawmen. Causteau (talk) 00:14, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

This is the abstract from Chandrasekar "A total of 2169 samples from 21 tribal populations from different regions of India were scanned for the Y-chromosome Alu polymorphism. This study reports, for the first time, high frequencies (8-65%) of Y Alu polymorphic (YAP) insertion in northeast Indian tribes. All seven Jarawa samples from the Andaman and Nicobar islands had the YAP insertion, in conformity with an earlier study of Andaman Islanders. One isolated case with haplotype E* was found in Dungri Bhill, a western Indian population, while YAP insertion in northeast India and Andaman tribes was found in association with haplotype D* (M168, M174). YAP insertion frequencies reported in the mainland Indian populations are negligible, according to previous studies. Genetic drift may be the causative factor for the variable frequency of the YAP insertion in the mainland populations, while the founder effect may have resulted in the highest incidence of haplotype D among the Andaman Islanders. The results of YAP insertion and the evidence of previous mtDNA studies indicate an early out of Africa migration to the Andaman and Nicobar Islands. The findings of YAP insertion in northeast Indian tribes are very significant for understanding the evolutionary history of the region.pYAP insertion signature in South Asia." At no point does the article state the YAP arose in Asia but did not arise in Africa. Since the African origin of YAP is the mainstream view, one would think if Chandrasker study revealed YAP to be of Asian origin, they would specifically state that it was not of African origin. They have not done so. According to your quotes :some of the M168 chromosomes have given rise to the YAP insertion and M174 mutation in south Asia. This is nothing more than the standard phylogeny of Y-chromosomes, that is M168 to YAP to M174. Look up any DNA tree and that is what you will get. There is nothing ground breaking in this study, everything they write about has been mentioned in prior publications. If anything, they even state that YAP in mainland Indian populations are negligible. Whereas in Africa YAP+ has frequencies of 80%. I hope you have an open mind, and are interested in the truth. I am somewhat concerned that you are only interested in the truth if it conforms to certain beliefs you have, otherwise you're not having any. My advice to you, do not cherry pick studies in isolation, rather take a broader view. The results from the most reliable studies are usually replicated over and over again. Whether it is Cruciani, Semino, Underhill, Cavalli-Sforza etc, they all favor an African origin. Its just a few people, mostly on the fringes who don't. The few respected scholars that advocate an Asian origin, such as Hammer, have no evidence other than their gut feelings. Wapondaponda (talk) 05:20, 13 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh, I have an open mind alright. But not to the point where I will pretend to not notice what is written as plain as day for all to see. That image above is yet another digression, only this time a visual one. We're talking about the place of origin of the YAP insertion here, which Chandrasekar et al. (2007) clearly situate in Asia, not in Africa (and they do so in the study's body, not in the abstract you've quoted above). The authors state that the YAP mutation arose in South Asia from M168 chromosomes, as did the M174 mutation which in turn defines haplogroup D. That's two separate polymorphisms with a proposed Asian origin. And they do this after directly challenging Underhill et al. (2001)'s African-origin hypothesis for "the ancestral allele of M174" (i.e. YAP), stating that the M174 mutation occurred before Underhill et al.'s proposed date for the Out-of-Africa migration of the M168 chromosomes:


 * "'All Y chromosomes that are not exclusively African have M168 mutation. The M168 lineage evolved into three distinct sub-clusters: One with the Alu insertion, YAP (DE haplogroup) and the other two lineages, C (RPS4Y/M216) and F* (M89/M213). Underhill et al. (2001) suggested that an African population with M168 mutation dispersed from the Horn of Africa via a coastal or interior route about 50,000–45,000 years ago (Walter et al. 2000) towards southern Asia, where the C lineage (RPS4Y/M216 mutations) probably originated. The YAP insertion probably occurred on an Asian Y chromosome as long ago as 55,000 years (Hammer et al. 1998) based on the evidence of ancestral alleles for M40 and M96 on exclusively Asian M174 chromosomes (Altheide and Hammer 1997). The ancestral allele of M174 found exclusively in Africa, supports an African origin of YAP insertion (Underhill 2001) but the time of mutational events on the Asian YAP insertion chromosome (Hammer et al. 1998) gives antiquity to M174. Our findings of the presence of the YAP insertion in northeast Indian tribes and Andaman islanders with haplogroup D indicate that some of the M168 chromosomes have given rise to the YAP insertion and M174 mutation in south Asia."


 * Before I forget, a new study by Lan Hai from December 2008 that was just published in the COMMUNICATION on CONTEMPORARY ANTHROPOLOGY official journal of the Shanghai Society of Anthropology also supports an Asian origin for both the YAP insertion and haplogroups D and E. The study bases its conclusions on the recent finding of DE* chromosomes in Tibet by Shi et al. in their paper that was published earlier in the year. It also references Chandrasekar et al. (2007), BTW. Looks like the "mainstream" opinion is changing and fast following Olivieri et al. (2006) & especially Shi et al. (2008). Causteau (talk) 12:45, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

How do you explain the part of the quote which says "Some of the YAP insertion chromosomes without the M174 mutation reached the Mediterranean via Central Asia and gave rise to the E lineage with mutations at M40 and M96"?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:41, 13 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Exactly. Causteau (talk) 12:45, 13 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh---. I missed that part, the article thus does make a case for an Asian origin of YAP. The full text of the article isn't available online. I used that quote to find a more complete reference, which actually states "his E lineage back migrated to Africa through Levantine.". However, the Chandrasekar article is still problematic, there are a series of issues raised by Underhill et al , that have not been addressed by Chandrasekar. As far as I can see, there isn't anything new that has been raised by the study. The back migration of U6 and M1 were established by the 1990s. The antiquity of M174 vs M40/96 was already discussed by Underhill et al. In fact Chandrasekar's findings are based on references to Hammer et al 1998.
 * "The YAP insertion probably occurred on an Asian Y chromosome as long ago as 55,000 years (Hammer et al. 1998) based on the evidence of ancestral alleles for M40 and M96 on exclusively Asian M174 chromosomes (Altheide and Hammer 1997). The ancestral allele of M174 found exclusively in Africa, supports an African origin of YAP insertion (Underhill 2001) but the time of mutational events on the Asian YAP insertion chromosome (Hammer et al. 1998) gives antiquity to M174. Our findings of the presence of the YAP insertion in northeast Indian tribes and Andaman islanders with haplogroup D indicate that some of the M168 chromosomes have given rise to the YAP insertion and M174 mutation in south Asia."
 * Does it make sense to use Hammer et al 1998 to refute Underhill et al 2001? The presence of YAP in Andaman Islanders was already established by Thangaraj et al 2002. This is a summary of the Objections raised by Underhill et al
 * The highest frequency of YAP(>80%) is found in Africa
 * No other division of the Asian lineages have been found in Africa, if there was a back migration, one would expect more asian lineages contemporaneous with HG E in Africa.
 * There is no archeological evidence of a back-migration to Africa.
 * There is no mtDNA evidence of a back migration to Africa coincident with haplogroup E. Equally there is no autosomal evidence of a back-migration to Africa. Despite Africa's smaller population relative to Asia, Autosomal diversity is still largest in Africa than anywhere else in world.

Wapondaponda (talk) 14:08, 13 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I could easily counter with reasons why you are mistaken with your points above, but I won't because that'll only prolong the agony. I'll just say that Chandrasekar et al. actually use the findings of their own study as well as Olivieri et al. (2006)'s mtDNA work to show that Hammer et al.'s conclusions have validity. Even Underhill is realistic enough to admit by default in another study he participated in (along with Zalloua, Zerjal, Wells, and others) that should DE* chromosomes be found in Asia, that immediately and quite logically boosts support for the Asian origin hypothesis:


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


 * Ancestral YAP+ chromosomes have of course since been found in Tibet by Shi et al. (2008), so the foregoing, at least in this regard, has come to pass.


 * That said, on Wikipedia, we go by reliable sources. It makes no difference whether you personally agree with said source's conclusions or not:


 * "'The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth&mdash;that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true.'" Causteau (talk) 19:22, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

It sounds like you could put together a good case for your opinions on the matter. That is something you can try out on a discussion forum. But on Wikipedia we can't really do that. We have to present what is in the literature. What's more it is has to be clear and simple in the literature. We are told to obey the following...--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:20, 13 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Indeed. Causteau (talk) 19:22, 13 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually this is all from one source, Underhill et al 2001.Wapondaponda (talk) 14:25, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

My remark was only concerning anything which went beyond that. I do think that concerning DE origins there is still some uncertainty in the literature. All mainstream theories should be mentioned. By the way, you should be able to track my e-mail down and send me a mail. I can send you copies of some articles.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:51, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The findings of DE* in Tibet are still preliminary. Tibetan DE* will be compared with the African DE* to examine the relationship between the two. If the Tibetan DE* is more ancestral it would boost the Asian origin hypothesis. That said the discovery of Asian DE* should not come as a surprise. Before M174 occurred, all Asians were DE*. Likewise, before M40 occurred all African YAP+ were DE*. The previous assumption was that DE* lineages had been wiped out both in Asia and Africa. The findings of DE* simply mean that was not the case.Weale et al had already predicted that deep rooting lineages will continue to emerge. Only after we know which DE* is more ancestral, which may not even be possible, will there by some headway in the debate. Given the high frequency of YAP+ in Africa, upwards of 80%, along with other ancient lineages, parsimony still favors an African, rather than an Asian origin. Wapondaponda (talk) 20:21, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Section break 3

 * Again, this is interesting, but for Wikipedia we mainly need to determine what exists in the literature. I really think we should be discussing these points on a forum elsewhere, but it is interesting...


 * What would a more "ancestral" haplotype look like in this case? This approach is not likely to give any new lead with such small numbers of DE* to look at.
 * "Before M174 occurred, all Asians were DE*" should surely be "all Asian DE was DE*"? But what does that mean? Of course the ancient DE people of Asia might have had many SNPs, some of which might still exist, and might be discovered, so this only refers to SNPs we know of today, and this would include E. Now this raises a question: what if we find E* in Asia? Because I believe E* has now been found in Asia?
 * Modern populations are unfortunately a crude tool for analysis of ancient populations. I think that finding DE* and E* in even tiny amounts in Asia and Africa teaches us one thing which is very important: there was back and forth movement very early over large distances and between continents. However this is not good news for anyone expecting a simple answer soon about where DE and E first came into being.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:35, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes there has been a lot of gene flow between areas. It could just take a few thousand years for a single gene to move halfway across the world if hunter gatherers migrate 10km a year. One could probably find any haplogroup in trace amounts in any population around the world. Focusing on the article, though there are two sides to the debate, would it be correct to say that the current literature tends to favor an African origin of DE rather than an Asian origin. Of course there are opposing theories. At present it I can only find Hammer and Chandrasekar supporting an Asian origin. Whereas Weale et al, Cavalli-Sforza et al, Underhill et al, Cruciani et al, Semino et al all tend to favor an African origin. Causteau has included This reference from Lan Hai claiming that it supports an Asian origin of DE. Having read through the Abstract, I could find no such thing.
 * "'The recent paper by Shi et al. (2008) provided the most details for the ethnic features of Y chromosome haplogroup D. The geographic distribution and age estimate for haplogroup D and its sub-clades helps in understanding the origin and migration processes of the early modern human in East Asia. Clades DE* and D* were found in Tibetan and Thai respectively. These findings make the search of the birth place of haplogroup D possible. Here we continued the discussion of Chandrasekar et al. (2007). The frequencies of haplogroup D in various populations of East Asia were collected from all the available literature. The analyses showed that the emergence of haplogroup D may be between India and Indochina. Clade D1 emerged subsequently when population move to the east. After clade D* diffused to the whole East Asia, it gave birth to clade D2 in Japan and clade D3 in Tibet independently.'"

In addition Causteau writes "'However, Underhill also conceded in a later study that he could not rule out the possibility that an ancestral YAP+ chromosome (DE*) would be found as more samples are analyzed, which would support the hypothesis of an Asian origin for YAP+'." Is this an accurate reflection of what is written in the article "Although we cannot rule out the possibility that an ancestral YAP(+) chromosome will be found as more samples are analyzed, the current survey of ≈2,000 men does not support an Asian origin for the YAP(+) lineage, consistent with the results of Underhill et al. (6)." In this statement Underhill makes no reference to DE* only to ancestral YAP(+). This seems more like original research to me Wapondaponda (talk) 16:29, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I'd say that by ignoring the what comes after the part of the quote he is using Causteau is using a polite turn of phrase to imply a concession that is really only in the form of "anything could happen, but it sure would be a surprise". I would not say this was OR though, because what is the difference between ancestral YAP+ and DE*? Coming to the more important question though for Wikipedia, I am not entirely confident that we can still call African DE origin as the dominant theory because many of the authors you mention have not yet reacted to the discovery of E* and DE* in Asia?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:24, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I haven't found any literature about E*. From my basic understanding, DE* in Tibet and DE* in Africa, most likely are different haplogroups that are awaiting formal classification. The only thing they have in common is that they are neither haplogroup D or Haplogroup E. The African hypothesis was dominant before DE* was discovered in Nigeria. When that happened, the African hypothesis was given a boost. Now that DE* has been discovered in Asia, that boost has been neutralized. But the situation is back to the same place that was before DE* was discovered in Nigeria, that is with Africa hypothesis still being more parsimonious than an Asian one. As you pointed out, before M174 mutation occurred in Asia, all Asian DE were DE*, and before M40, all African DE were DE*. Therefore DE* is expected to be found in both areas. What should tilt the balance will be the position in the tree of African DE* relative to Asian DE*.
 * In the Chandrasekar article states as part of their argument that there was a back migration to Africa of mtDNA lineages U6 and M1. This is true, but these haplogroups are found in North Africa amongst Afro-Asiatic speakers. They are a rare in the rest of sub-Saharan Africa where YAP+ attains frequencies of 80%. Isn't Chandrasekar making a false argument. In short there is no connection between the recent back migration of U6 and M1 and the supposed back migration of E to Africa. Otherwise they would have similar frequency distributions across Africa, which is not the case. How can one explain, that mtDNA lineages only found in Africa make upwards of 90% of all African lineages but an Asian y-chromosomal lineage makes upwards of 80% of all African lineages. This is somewhat discordant. Wapondaponda (talk) 19:28, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * In order to include a reference to Lan Hai, its relevance to the origins of YAP+ should be established, as far as I can tell from the abstract, there is no mention whatsoever of YAP+. Wapondaponda (talk) 02:03, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Stop removing the Lan Hai source. First, you repeatedly delete it altogether, effectively engaging in page-blanking vandalism. Then, you cite the article's abstract, when the latter doesn't even talk about the origins of YAP -- the article's body does. How convenient and utterly dishonest. Quit playing dumb; when a link to an article's abstract is provided, it's to the article itself. I've restored the page from your relentless manipulation of the data. Stop trying to suppress the Asian origin hypothesis while spamming the African origin one. Causteau (talk) 02:20, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The only article I can see is written in Chinese. This is English Wikipedia. Wapondaponda (talk) 02:29, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * See WP:PROVEIT. Wapondaponda (talk) 02:30, 15 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, Wapondaponda. The study is in Chinese, and that is not a problem on English Wikipedia so long as the source in question is a reliable source, which the Lan Hai study from the COMMUNICATION on CONTEMPORARY ANTHROPOLOGY official journal of the Shanghai Society of Anthropology is:


 * "Because this is the English Wikipedia, English-language sources should be given whenever possible, and should always be used in preference to other language sources of equal caliber. However, do use sources in other languages where appropriate. If quoting from a different language source, an English translation should be given with the original-language quote beside it." Causteau (talk) 02:45, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * We would need an official translation from a verifiable source. Maybe if there is a trusted wikipedian who can translate from chinese. Otherwise a translation from yourself is not good enough. Wapondaponda (talk) 02:50, 15 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Very well. That'll be coming along shortly. But I'll have you know that you're just delaying the inevitable. Causteau (talk) 02:54, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:PROVEIT states
 * "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation.[1] The source cited must clearly support the information as it is presented in the article.[2] The source should be cited clearly and precisely to enable readers to find the text that supports the article content in question. Editors should cite sources fully, providing as much publication information as possible, including page numbers when citing books."
 * PROVEIT states:
 * "When there is dispute about whether the article text is fully supported by the given source, direct quotes from the source and any other details requested should be provided as a courtesy to substantiate the reference."


 * Basically if you want to include the reference, you have to ensure that editors like myself or anyone else can verify the accuracy of your quote. The burden of proof is on you. I do not have to learn Chinese or any other language.


 * With regard to the inevitable, you could have avoided all this by doing your homework in the first place.Wapondaponda (talk) 02:57, 15 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Somehow (seeing as how you're the other editor involved), I doubt that even a source from Cruciani or Underhill themselves that should support an Asian origin hypothesis for YAP would go unchallenged by you. Causteau (talk) 03:20, 15 March 2009 (UTC)


 * It also takes serious chutzpah to insist that this:


 * "'Underhill also conceded in a later study that he could not rule out the possibility that an ancestral YAP+ chromosome (DE*) would be found as more samples are analyzed, which would support the hypothesis of an Asian origin for YAP+, as posited by Altheide and Hammer (1997).'"


 * ...is not directly based on this:


 * "Although we cannot rule out the possibility that an ancestral YAP(+) chromosome will be found as more samples are analyzed, the current survey of ≈2,000 men does not support an Asian origin for the YAP(+) lineage, consistent with the results of Underhill et al. (6)."


 * Serious chutzpah, indeed. Causteau (talk) 03:20, 15 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I am happy to use it straight out of the horse's mouth with no modification whatsoever. Remember these comments were made in 2001 before even DE* was discovered in Nigeria in 2003 or DE* was discovered in Asia in 2007. Its original research to match events from the past with future events. Wapondaponda (talk) 03:25, 15 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Wapondaponda, Causteau, why not use the Underhill and Kivisild article from 2007, which is much more recent?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:29, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Wapondaponda wrote that "I haven't found any literature about E*" however Causteau earlier posted a quote from Chandrasekar's abstract (which can be seen online) that says "One isolated case with haplotype E* was found in Dungri Bhill, a western Indian population".--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:27, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Wapondaponda wrote that "From my basic understanding, DE* in Tibet and DE* in Africa, most likely are different haplogroups that are awaiting formal classification. The only thing they have in common is that they are neither haplogroup D or Haplogroup E." I don't follow this line of reasoning. There will be unidentified SNPs distinguishing pretty much every single man. One day we might be able to sequence cheaply enough, and have enough samples, that we can say how many SNPs there are which really differ between two or more men, for a long stretch of NRY DNA, and then we can go in this direction of discussion. In any case, even if it is just hypothetical the question for this discussion is not whether there are different unidentified SNPs in Asian and African DE*, and not even how old they are, bu rather how many distinct and old lineages there are in each region. If there is one undiscovered clade in Africa and one in Asia this just keeps the case even.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:27, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes Chandrasekar writes that there was one case of E* found in Dungri Bhill.Karafet et al also indicate about E*: "The most basal paragroup lineage in this clade, E*, was found in a single Bantu-speaking male from South Africa". I have not found any literature on the phylogeny of E*, in other words what mutations distinguish E* from other E. In addition, there are known communities of Indians of recent African descent such as the Siddis who arrived from East Africa from the 11th to the 19th century.


 * Given the deep rooting DE*, on the order of 50000 years, there are likely to be several SNPs that distinguish the African lineage of DE* from the Asian lineage of DE*. It is true that diversity of lineages rather than age of a particular lineage is what counts when trying to determine origins. At the moment, from a logical perspective, both Arican and Asian origins of YAP have equal outcomes. However when other supporting information is considered, such as the frequency of YAP in Africa, the lack of other Asian lineages in Africa, and the lack of archeological evidence of a back migration, the short time window for a back migration and the lack of asian mtDNA in Africa, the African origin hypothesis carries with it less baggage.Wapondaponda (talk) 12:36, 15 March 2009 (UTC)


 * When we are talking about the age and origins of DE as a clade, then the diversity of E and D are both absolutely irrelevant. And as there are only a handful of DE* people who are not E or D ever found, we can say nothing significant about them as a clade or clades, only that they exist.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:44, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Original research, mostly
I've removed the following bit of original research:

"'However, Linda Stone et. al. (2007)[13] have argued that based on the various ancestral markers that define DE* and on the premise that the first haplogroup bearing the M168 transition emerged in east Africa prior to a proposed out of Africa migration, by extension DE and its descendants are ascribed an African origin.'"

Linda Stone makes no such argument in her book Genes, Culture, and Human Evolution. The page on which she ascribes YAP an African origin is p.185, and all she says there is that:

"'Suffice it to say that the insertion of this YAP element took place in Africa before humans started migrating out of this continent, prior to 60,000 years ago.'"

No mention of M168, DE*, DE, much less DE's descendants. In fact, the entire book doesn't even contain the words "DE" or "DE*". I've also removed the following untruth:

"'Others concur stating that the Asian YAP is not paraphyletic, and thus the origin and direction of expansion of YAP chromosomes cannot be determined on these grounds'"

The Weale et al. (2003) study the above phrase claims to be supported by is actually referring to haplogroup D (defined by marker M174) not being paraphyletic, not DE:

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

Weale et al. (2003) actually say that it's the Nigerian YAP chromosomes that are likely not paraphyletic, not the Asian ones:

"'Here we report a new very rare deep-rooting haplogroup within the YAP clade, together with data on other deep-rooting YAP clades (Fig 1). The new haplogroup, so far found only in five Nigerians, is the least derived of all YAP chromosomes according to currently known binary markers, such that application of the same phylogeographic inference method used by Hammer and colleagues (the nested cladistic method of TEMPLETON et al. 1995 Down) leads to the opposite conclusion—i.e., significant evidence for range expansion from West Africa to Asia. However, we show that the apparently paraphyletic status of this haplogroup, and hence the conclusions of nested cladistic analysis, are also likely to be illusory.'"

Furthermore, I've also removed the following bit of original research since, contrary to its claims, ancestral DE* lineages have been found outside of Africa, and in the very study the claim below is falsely ascribed to (viz. Shi et al. (2008))!

"'As noted, the oldest ancestral lineage of the D/E haplogroup has only been found in 5 Nigerians, and these results have been used in a recent 2008 study to confirm the origin of modern humans out of Africa.'"

Lastly, I've removed the phrase "this view is shared by the majority of geneticists" since it is a non-sequitur. The quote it was drawn from is about the recent single origin of modern humans in East Africa, not specifically about haplogroup DE:

"'Currently available genetic and archaeological evidence is generally interpreted as supportive of a recent single origin of modern humans in East Africa. However, this is where the near consensus on human settlement history ends, and considerable uncertainty clouds any more detailed aspect of human colonization history.'" Causteau (talk) 02:57, 18 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I've again removed the same bit of original research the same editor as before re-added. Only this time, he was good enough to omit the non-sequitur that "this view is shared by the majority of geneticists". The rest of the edit is exactly as described above, except for a modification of the phrase "the new haplogroup, so far found only in five Nigerians, is the least derived of all YAP chromosomes according to currently known binary markers" to the following:


 * "'As noted, the oldest ancestral lineage of the D/E haplogroup has only been found in 5 Nigerians, and these results, among other data have been used in a recent 2008 study to confirm the origin of modern humans out of Africa associated with the expansion of this haplogroup.'"


 * The paragraph above was then falsely ascribed to Shi et al. (2008), when it's Weale et al. (2003) that first announced the discovery of DE* chromosomes in five Nigerians, as already mentioned in the haplogroup DE article. Shi et al. (2008) actually reported having found DE* in two Tibetans, not Nigerians. Causteau (talk) 08:01, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Weale clearly states that the origin of YAP chromosomes cannot not be reconciled as originating in Asia due to the distribution of said chromosomes. He is clearly refuting Hammer who was cited. And removing Shi simply because you disagree with their argument is original research. You're an editor. Shi et al. clearly locates its point of origin in Africa associated with the modern dispersal of humans out of the continent. They say the presence of DE* only proves an ancient colonization. Also, I didn't wrongly attribute anything, I merely posted the wrong link in the wrong place, that's it that's all. You have no right to go around suppressing everyone's edits, simply put up a tag and stop being so destructive. Wiki has a policy against article ownership and I will see to it that it is enforced if you refuse to work in cooperation. Posting on the talk page does not validate your vandalism. I'll revise Stone as a concession, as I've omitted the out of Africa reference.Taharqa (talk) 15:44, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Made edit removing all but Shi et al. to avoid repetition as the others were already cited, which I'd overlooked. It would have been more reasonable to base your edits on those grounds rather than obviously distorted and stretched accusations of O.R..Taharqa (talk) 16:30, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Regarding DE* in Tibet, Shi et al do not mention anything about its origin, only that it supports the antiquity of D-M174 in Asia.
 * "he finding of two DE* in Tibet, which was only observed in Africa, supports the antiquity of D-M174 and suggests that the D-M174 lineage is among the earliest modern human settlers in East Asia."

I think the article should do the same. Wapondaponda (talk) 17:14, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

You are rambling about nothing that has to do with your actual edits, Taharqa. Here's what you actually added to the article:

"'However, as noted, the oldest ancestral lineage of the DE haplogroup has previously only been found in 5 Nigerians, and these results, among other data have been used in a more recent 2008 study to confirm the origin of modern humans out of Africa associated with the expansion of this haplogroup. New findings of DE* in Tibetan samples were attributed to this ancient out of Africa colonization. '"

You are literally repeating what has already been stated in the article, only you're adding original research to it that Shi et al. (2008) simply do not assert. Above, you write that DE* was found in 5 Nigerians. This has already been mentioned in the haplogroup DE article:

"'In a study of over 8000 men worldwide including 1247 Nigerians, Haplogroup DE* was observed in only 5 Nigerian males (5/1247).'"

What is the purpose of this forced repetition? You absurdly call it "suppression", yet how can one "suppress" what has already been mentioned in the article? Next, you write that "New findings of DE* in Tibetan samples were attributed to this ancient out of Africa colonization." This is patently false. The Shi et al. study you ascribe this statement to makes no such assertion. All it states is that:

"'The finding of two DE* in Tibet, which was only observed in Africa, supports the antiquity of D-M174 and suggests that the D-M174 lineage is among the earliest modern human settlers in East Asia. Additionally, the biased distribution distribution of D-M174 and its ancient coalescent time suggests an independent Paleolithic migration of modern humans in East Asia.'"

Again, no mention of an "ancient out of Africa colonization" or anything of that nature. Rather, the authors state that it's the previous finding of DE* in Nigerians that supported the Out-of-Africa hypothesis. And they mention this in the past tense and in the 'Introduction' section of the study where they review the previous literature on the subject (they reference Weale's study from five years earlier) i.e. well before they reveal the results of their own study -- including the finding of DE* chromosomes in Tibet -- in the section dubbed 'Results':

"'The sub-haplogroup DE*, presumably the most ancient lineage of the D/E haplogroup was only found in Africans from Nigeria [2], supporting the 'Out of Africa' hypothesis about modern human origin.'"

Why you have misattributed the forgoing to the finding of DE* in Tibet when the authors themselves do not is anyone's guess. Causteau (talk) 21:10, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Taharqa has added in an interesting source. Basically I think the Chandrasekhar article is approaching fringe territory, with regards to YAP. The article is only cited by by one other article. Per WP:UNDUE, "In general, articles should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views," and "If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia regardless of whether it is true or not and regardless of whether you can prove it or not, except perhaps in some ancillary article". Going forward we should be looking at trimming the Chandraskhar reference with the long term goal of completely eliminating it, especially since Hammer has switched sides.Wapondaponda (talk) 20:41, 5 May 2009 (UTC)


 * The new "source" is actually a press release, not a study, and one that has no bearing on the present situation since Hammer's study isn't even referenced in the haplogroup DE article. The Chandrasekar et al. (2007) study, I'm afraid, is also not "fringe". Have you even read it? No, you clearly have not. Chandrasekar et al. (2007) does not base its findings on Hammer as you have insinuated. It only mentions Hammer's studies when it is reviewing the debate surrounding the origins of YAP, which is also why it mentions Underhill's 2001 study supporting the alternative African origin hypothesis for YAP in the same paragraph:


 * "'The YAP insertion probably occurred on an Asian Y chromosome as long ago as 55 000 years (Hammer et al. 1998) based on the evidence of ancestral alleles for M40 and M96 on exclusively Asian M174 chromosomes (Altheide and Hammer 1997). The ancestral allele of M174 found exclusively in Africa, supports an African origin of YAP insertion (Underhill 2001) but the time of mutational events on the Asian YAP insertion chromosome (Hammer et al. 1998) gives antiquity to M174.'"


 * Chandrasekar et al. (2007) actually base their conclusions largely on their own findings:


 * "'Our findings of the presence of the YAP insertion in northeast Indian tribes and Andaman islanders with haplogroup D indicate that some of the M168 chromosomes have given rise to the YAP insertion and M174 mutation in south Asia.'"


 * As well as Olivieri et al. (2006)'s mtDNA work and the Y DNA findings of Cruciani et al. (2002) and Luis et al. (2004):


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


 * Whether you like it or not, the Asian origin of haplogroup DE is the other major competing hypothesis regarding the origins of the YAP insertion, and this has been the case for quite some time. In Asia, it is the standard theory for haplogroup DE's place of origin. See this map indicating an Asian origin for YAP? That's from the National Science Museum at Ueno/Shinjuku in Japan, and reflects that continent's mainstream scientific view on this issue. The Chandrasekar et al. (2007) study just gave that theory a major boost, as did the Lan Hai et al. (2008) study that references it as well as Shi et al. (2008) -- it's not just cited by "one study" as you have falsely claimed. I can understand your desire to want to censor the study seeing as how you so fervently support an African origin for YAP, but you don't really have a choice as to whether or not it is "eliminated":


 * "'The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth&mdash;that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true.'" Causteau (talk) 10:58, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

It is true, but so far, only one study has referenced Chandrasker 2007, and probably not in relation to YAP. Basically, his findings don't seem to have gained any support from mainstream scientists. Unless the study gains support, we can begin to consider it as a minority view or maybe even a fringe theory. I also think that, the press release concerning Karafet et al 2008, by Hammer is noteworthy for inclusion in the article. Wapondaponda (talk) 16:13, 6 May 2009 (UTC)


 * There you go again pretending as though it's only Chandrasekar et al.'s study that supports an Asian origin for DE. It most certainly is not. First you tried to insinuate that it was only cited by one study, which of course is patently false. And now you're attempting to get rid of it by some bogus "fringe" charge. What a joke. What part of the following did you not understand?


 * Whether you like it or not, the Asian origin of haplogroup DE is the other major competing hypothesis regarding the origins of the YAP insertion, and this has been the case for quite some time. In Asia, it is the standard theory for haplogroup DE's place of origin. See this map indicating an Asian origin for YAP? That's from the National Science Museum at Ueno/Shinjuku in Japan, and reflects that continent's mainstream scientific view on this issue. The Chandrasekar et al. (2007) study just gave that theory a major boost, as did the Lan Hai et al. (2008) study that references it as well as Shi et al. (2008) -- it's not just cited by "one study" as you have falsely claimed. I can understand your desire to want to censor the study seeing as how you so fervently support an African origin for YAP, but you don't really have a choice as to whether or not it is "eliminated":


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


 * You complain about a peer-reviewed study published by a reputable geneticist in a respected journal yet feel that some ambiguous quote from a press release (linked to a study that doesn't once mention haplogroup DE/YAP much less its place of origin) is by contrast "noteworthy for inclusion in the article" -- very telling stuff. You've now graduated from pushing obsolete studies whose own authors have long since abandoned their old views on both the haplogroup M & N articles to attempting to censor a new, peer-reviewed study and by extension the Asian origin hypothesis at large on this article. Remember: Even Andrew indicated to you on his talk page that "as per discussions at the DE article, I tend to agree with Causteau on this also. There certainly is an Asian origins hypothesis that is alive and well in the recent literature." There's a good reason for that. Causteau (talk) 23:36, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

More original research
The same editor has again re-added the same original research as described and analysed above. He has also added the following new bit of OR:

"'In addition, recent data has begun to shed more light on the typology of Y-Chromosome distribution and a new study by Karafet et al. (2008), has significantly rearranged the time estimates of various Y-Chromosome haplogroups, pushing the age of haplogroup D/E back to 65,000 ybp. A large part of Chandrasekar's interpretations were based on the work of Hammer et al. (1997), however Hammer's new data based on the inclusion of 300 markers into the Y-chromosomal haplogroup tree, has lead to the interpretation that D/E was involved with the out of Africa expansion circa 65,000 years ago, slightly after the emergence of the other major lineage to leave Africa. '"

As I've already explained in my previous post, Chandrasekar et al. (2007) did not base "a large part" of its findings on the work of Hammer et al. (1997). It only mentions Hammer's studies when it is reviewing the debate surrounding the origins of YAP, which is also why it mentions Underhill's 2001 study supporting the alternative African origin hypothesis for YAP in the same paragraph. Chandrasekar et al. actually base their conclusions largely on their own findings, as well as Olivieri et al. (2006)'s mtDNA work and the Y DNA findings of Cruciani et al. (2002) and Luis et al. (2004). Furthermore, it is a violation of WP:PRIMARY to interpret primary sources for readers without instead relying on a secondary source to do this:

"'Wikipedia articles should rely mainly on published reliable secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors.'"

And the Chandrasekar et al. (2007) study is a primary source:

"'Primary sources are sources very close to an event. For example, an account of a traffic accident written by a witness is a primary source of information about the accident. Other examples include archeological artifacts; photographs; historical documents such as diaries, census results, video or transcripts of surveillance, public hearings, trials, or interviews; tabulated results of surveys or questionnaires; original philosophical works; religious scripture; published notes of laboratory and field experiments or observations written by the person(s) who conducted or observed the experiments; and artistic and fictional works such as poems, scripts, screenplays, novels, motion pictures, videos, and television programs. The key point about a primary source is that it offers an insider's view to an event, a period of history, a work of art, a political decision, and so on.'"

The press release also does not say that "D/E was involved with the out of Africa expansion circa 65,000 years ago, slightly after the emergence of the other major lineage to leave Africa." That too is original research. Here is what it actually states:

"'In addition to improving the resolution of branches, the latest reconstruction of the tree allows estimates of time to the most recent common ancestor of several haplogroups. “The age of [haplogroup] DE is about 65,000 years, just a bit younger than the other major lineage to leave Africa, which is assumed to be about 70,000 years old,” says Hammer, describing an example of the fine resolution of age that is now possible. “Haplogroup E is older than previously estimated, originating approximately 50,000 years ago.'" Causteau (talk) 10:58, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Hammer (who Chandrasekar cites) says it's slightly younger than the "other" lineage that "left Africa". This language is explicit and can't be distorted with your own original research. It is an interpretation of Karafet et al. (2008),, which Hammer was involved with. Your interpretation is far inferior to a secondary source' interpretation of a primary source, especially if it's from an individual who makes up part of that primary source. Period. You are scrambling right now trying to suppress information on any grounds you see fit which isn't going to work logically or per wiki policy. But I appreciate your concern.Taharqa (talk) 20:02, 6 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't believe it. You've re-added all of the exact same original research as before without even so much as attempting to prove that none of it is original research (stating that it's not OR is not the same thing as actually proving that it isn't OR). I'd be willing to bet good money that you haven't even read the Chandrasekar study, yet you're somehow so confident in what it states? Give me a break. Again:


 * Chandrasekar et al. (2007) does not base its findings on Hammer as you have insinuated. It only mentions Hammer's studies when it is reviewing the debate surrounding the origins of YAP, which is also why it mentions Underhill's 2001 study supporting the alternative African origin hypothesis for YAP in the same paragraph:


 * "'The YAP insertion probably occurred on an Asian Y chromosome as long ago as 55 000 years (Hammer et al. 1998) based on the evidence of ancestral alleles for M40 and M96 on exclusively Asian M174 chromosomes (Altheide and Hammer 1997). The ancestral allele of M174 found exclusively in Africa, supports an African origin of YAP insertion (Underhill 2001) but the time of mutational events on the Asian YAP insertion chromosome (Hammer et al. 1998) gives antiquity to M174.'"


 * Chandrasekar et al. (2007) actually base their conclusions largely on their own findings:


 * "'Our findings of the presence of the YAP insertion in northeast Indian tribes and Andaman islanders with haplogroup D indicate that some of the M168 chromosomes have given rise to the YAP insertion and M174 mutation in south Asia.'"


 * As well as Olivieri et al. (2006)'s mtDNA work and the Y DNA findings of Cruciani et al. (2002) and Luis et al. (2004):


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


 * The only "point" that's left to discuss is whether the Hammer quote from the press release supports your assertion in the haplogroup DE article that:


 * "'Hammer's new data based on the inclusion of 300 markers into the Y-chromosomal haplogroup tree, has lead to the interpretation that D/E was involved with the out of Africa expansion circa 65,000 years ago, slightly after the emergence of the other major lineage to leave Africa'"


 * Firstly, that press release's whole purpose was to announce Karafet et al. (2008)'s study that Michael Hammer also participated in. Secondly, Karafet's study doesn't once mention haplogroup DE or the YAP insertion much less their place of origin. Thirdly, the Hammer quote is not explicit but ambiguous:


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


 * It does not state directly and explicitly that haplogroup DE originated in Africa -- you've read that into the text. Rather, the entire quote is about the age of the haplogroups, as can be seen in the bolded phrases above. Hammer does not state that "D/E was involved with the out of Africa expansion circa 65,000 years ago", as you have indicated but that haplogroup DE arose 65,000 years ago. The date of a human migration is not the same thing as the age of a haplogroup. Do you understand the difference? And even if we accord that an African place of origin is, in fact, what the quote is saying, you should at least be ingenuous enough to indicate that said assertion does not come from an actual study but from a quote in a press release. No worries though; I've already seen to this. Causteau (talk) 23:36, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

"African" Haplogroup E and to say that he doesn't ascribe to D/E an African origin is very disingenuous when the quote clearly states this (more than implies it). And for the last time, Chandrasekar does cite Hammer to support his conclusions, who only undermines him in 2008 with newer data.

From the paper:

"Some of the YAP insertion chromosomes without the M174 mutation reached the Mediterranean via Central Asia and gave rise to the E lineage with mutations at M40 and M96 (~31 000 years ago; Hammer et al. 1998). This E lineage back-migrated to Africa through the Levant as hypothesized by Hammer et al. (1997) and Altheide and Hammer (1997)". ---Chandrasekar (2007)

I honestly have no interest in cherry-picking quotes with you and scrutinizing the accuracy of claims that are otherwise clearly discernible.Taharqa (talk) 05:29, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Causteau is correct. The press release in question certainly does not refute Chandrasekar and the many other geneticists who support the Asian-origin hypothesis. That's ridiculous. All it contains is an ambiguous offhand remark by Hammer that's not even about the origin of DE, and that's in reference to a study (Karafet et al.) that's also not about the origin of DE.

And claiming that Shi et al. attribute the presence of DE* in Tibet to a migration from Africa is a huge lie. They say absolutely nothing of the kind. Their study is primarily about D-M174. It doesn't even address the origin of DE*, apart from a brief recap of older research in the Introduction. But nothing in the body of the paper.

Wapondaponda has made his objective perfectly clear: "completely eliminating" evidence he doesn't like. Taharqa hasn't so brazenly admitted it, but it's pretty clear that his objective is the same. All edits made by these two, both here and elsewhere, should be monitored very closely.

--- Small Victory (talk) 09:10, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:AGF. I don't have a problem with using Chandrasekhar 2007 as a reference. However, according to WP:UNDUE, minority view points should not be treated as mainstream view points. As previously mentioned, basically no study has used Chandrasekhar 2007 as a reference, according to google scholar.
 * one citations for Chandrasekhar 2007
 * Other articles of a comparable time frame include
 * Gonzalez et al 2007 is referenced by 13 studies
 * Karafet et al 2008 is cited by 20 studies
 * Basically Chandrasekhar 2007 have not gained widespread acceptance as yet. Wapondaponda (talk) 14:24, 7 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Absurd. First of all you have not proven that the Asian origin hypothesis is a "minority view"; get that through your brilliant head. In fact, looking at the sources cited in the haplogroup DE article which support an African origin for haplogroup DE, they all predate Chandrasekar et al. (2007)'s study and by at least a couple of years. This includes Linda Stone's book, which took several years to compile. Hammer's offhand remark in the press release does not in any way, shape or form support an African origin for haplogroup DE, as already clearly demonstrated by both myself & Small Victory. Secondly, you've been told at least three times now to stop pretending as though Chandrasekar et al. (2007) is cited by only one study. Just who do you think you're fooling here? For the thousandth time, Lan Hai (2008) also references it, and specifically with regard to the origins of YAP. You've already attempted to suppress the latter perfectly admissible study indicating an Asian origin for YAP, and now you're attempting to do the same with regard to Chandrasekar et al. (2007). But instead of comparing Chandrasekar et al. (2007) to Underhill et al.'s study from eight years ago, Weale et al.'s study from six years ago and the Linda Stone book -- just how many studies cite that book exactly? None, that's how many! -- which you've cited as supporting an African origin for YAP, you compare Chandrasekar et al. (2007) to some unrelated studies on other haplogroups. Nice attempt there to distract away from the real issue, and that's whether or not Linda Stone's book has, using your own words, "gained widespread acceptance as yet." The answer is obviously no. But your alleged "good faith" of course has you say nothing about that. Causteau (talk) 07:45, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Not exactly
 * Underhill/Kivisild 2007 cited by 16 studies.
 * This particular study supports an African origin of DE, prior to OOA migration. It is of the same time frame as Chandrasekhar, though Chandrasekhar is only cited by 1 study, which is to do with cranial analysis, not specifically genetics. Chandrasekhar can be cited, but as a minority view because we cannot find many of the well known scientists who are supportive of an Asian origin. Even Hammer's views have evolved somewhat. Wapondaponda (talk) 15:11, 8 May 2009 (UTC)


 * The Underhill et al. (2007) study is indeed cited by many other studies. Those studies that cite it, however, are on subjects as disparate and irrelevant as cancer & do not directly cite it with regard to the origins of YAP. On the other hand, the Lan Hai et al. (2008) source from just this past December that prominently references Chandrasekar et al. (2007) -- it's not just "one study" that cites Chandrasekar, as you keep falsely and desperately insisting -- cites it specifically with regard to its assertion of an Asian origin for the YAP insertion. I realize at this point that this troubles you, but do try and stick to the facts. Causteau (talk) 17:39, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes Google scholar does not pick up all the articles that cite a particular article, so it is imperfect. But nonetheless it is still a good measure of notability. More at Search engine test. Generally articles that get a lot of hits it show up on google, and articles that don't get a lot of hits don't show up on google. That might explain why Lan Hai et al 2008 is not picked up, but then again it could be because it is in Chinese. I would imagine that if it was notable, someone would have translated it into English, since English is the world's lingua franca. Overall, Chandrasekhar is a poorly cited article both in terms of the quality of articles citing it and the quantity. At this stage it doesn't seem to be heading in any direction towards some kind of a mainstream consensus. Wapondaponda (talk) 17:56, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * No, I did not say anything about whether or not Google scholar "pick[s] up all the articles that cite a particular article". That is yet another straw man on your part. I quite clearly stated that:


 * The Underhill et al. (2007) study is indeed cited by many other studies. Those studies that cite it, however, are on subjects as disparate and irrelevant as cancer & do not directly cite it with regard to the origins of YAP. On the other hand, the Lan Hai et al. (2008) source from just this past December that prominently references Chandrasekar et al. (2007) -- it's not just "one study" that cites Chandrasekar, as you keep falsely and desperately insisting -- cites it specifically with regard to its assertion of an Asian origin for the YAP insertion.


 * Keep telling yourself Chandrasekar is "poorly cited" if it makes you feel any better, but it only makes your own assertion of Underhill et al.'s African origin for YAP being "cited" all the more comparatively preposterous. Causteau (talk) 18:10, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Cavalli-Sforza
CS is a co-author to this book Genes, culture, and human evolution By Linda Stone, Paul F. Lurquin, Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza, I don't see why it is a problem in mentioning that he coauthored the book. Wapondaponda (talk) 05:13, 24 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I looked the book up using internet resources and Causteau appears to be correct that he only does the preface and is not shown as an author of the work itself. I think that you could mention his role in the book in a very accurate way and no-one would have a problem unless it would be about the wordiness. (But I am thinking this might not give the effect you are seeking?) --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:13, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * He is listed as a coauthor, he may have written the preface, but I see no indication that he did or did not write any other chapter. He is simply listed as a coauthor. Wapondaponda (talk) 15:32, 24 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Andrew is correct. Cavalli-Sforza only wrote the introduction to the book Genes, Culture, and Human Evolution: A Synthesis. He did not write the book's body wherein are contained the statements you would like to attribute to him, nor is he "simply listed as a coauthor". Far from it, actually (1, 2). Causteau (talk) 14:36, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Origins continued
I have added some more detail to the section on the origins to explain the full roots of the controversy. Wapondaponda (talk) 08:57, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

First, you write "As recently as 2007, some studies such as Chandrasekar et al 2007, cite the publications by Hammer when arguing for an Asian origin of the YAP insertion." The implication seems to be that Chandrasekar et al only claim this based on old Hammer papers. But is that true? You quite recently complained that Causteau was citing this Chandrasekar paper but you had no copy. If you now have a copy, can you send me a copy? I think you should explain exactly how you come to this fairly strong conclusion. Please note that if it is not clearly true that Chandrasekar or other recent writers are basing themselves on old articles, then it does not make sense to explain all this history. As you say yourseld, D has been clearly identified as a parallel clade to E since about 2000, making the debate all about relatives ages and distributions of E, D and DE*.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:50, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Hammer is referenced at least six times in the Chandrasekar article.


 * Wapondaponda (talk) 18:01, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Wapondaponda (talk) 18:01, 14 June 2009 (UTC)


 * But is this the crux of their argument? Does the article deserve to be driven by this?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:06, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Having looked through the Chandrasekar article I could not find any information supporting the Asian origin hypothesis that was independent of Hammer's publication. This sentence "Our findings of the presence of the YAP insertion in northeast Indian tribes and Andaman islanders with haplogroup D indicate that some of the M168 chromosomes have given rise to the YAP insertion and M174 mutation in south Asia." appears to be independent but there seem to be no other details in the article to confirm this. My opinion is that it would make no difference if we bypassed Chandrasekar 2007, and instead directly quoted from the Hammer articles. Wapondaponda (talk) 08:38, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Second, I see "Because the mutations that define haplogroup E were observed to be in the ancestral state in haplogroup D, and haplogroup D at 55kya, was considerable older than haplogroup E at 31kya, Hammer concluded that haplogroup E was a subclade of haplogroup D." I looked up the article and read it quickly and I did not immediately see any sign of this line of reasoning. Please point us to the exact part of the article you are thinking of.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:50, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes here are some quotes from the articles.page 2
 * In this case haplogroup 3G, refers to haplogroup D and haplogroup 3A refers to haplogroup E.page 2
 * In this case haplogroup 3G, refers to haplogroup D and haplogroup 3A refers to haplogroup E.page 2


 * In this quote, I suppose haplotype 4 and 5 are clades of haplogroup E and haplotype 3 is haplogroup D
 * Wapondaponda (talk) 17:45, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Wapondaponda (talk) 17:45, 14 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Let's just step back for a second. What you are proposing is that the Wikpedia article on DE should have an extensive discussion about the fact that the Chandrasekar article was influenced by the stuff you are citing here. Why?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:07, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * A shorter more simpler explanation would be preferable, as it would be accessible to the average reader. However, since the section has been in dispute and the sole reference used to argue for the Asian origin hypothesis is Chandrasekar et al, I felt it necessary to expand on the history of the controversy.

Third, can you tidy up your citations. It is difficult to follow. You refer to Underhill, and Underhill et al, for example, for a review written by two authors.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:50, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Coming to your review of the Underhill and Kivisild review article, which I honestly think you should use more, perhaps with more direct quotes, I doubt your "re-writing". I do not see them make the case based on parsimony. They say "A new SNP marker from the study by Hinds et al. (42) (see Figure 7; Table 1) provides a resolved bipartite structure that supports this scenario and thus weakens interpretations b and c." Following is an extended quote--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:05, 14 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Although the initial proposal (38) of an Asian origin of haplogroup DE was first neutralized by the recognition of the haplogroup D-M174 (115) and further eroded by the detection of DE∗ chromosomes in Nigeria (120), the previous inability to resolve the earlier tripartite structure left an element of uncertainty because the Asian origin of haplogroup DE could be resurrected using the same principle of parsimony [e.g., consider the parallel example of catarrhine evolution (99)] if the trifurcation were resolved in favor of a common ancestor of haplogroups DE and F (Figure 8b). Such an ancestral node would imply that DE is a subset of Eurasian variation and therefore the African YAP (Ychromosome Alu polymorphism) chromosomes could be considered as due to a backmigration from Asia. Second, if haplogroups C and F were to share a common recent ancestor apart from the DE clade (Figure 8d), the distribution of Y chromosome haplogroup D in Asia could be explained by an evolutionary history separate from that of the other two clades. Haplogroup D is particularly enigmatic because of its widely separated disjunctive distribution in Asia suggestive of an ancient (perhaps independent) range expansion to Asia followed by fragmentation and considerable isolation. The absence of haplogroup D in Oceania and its relic peripheral distribution in Asia is in contrast to that observed for haplogroup C and F chromosomes.
 * We resolved this discrepancy by using improved phylogenetic resolution in the Y chromosome phylogeny. This was achieved by leveraging knowledge contained in some of the phylogenetically consistent Y chromosome SNPs reported by Hinds et al. (42) (Figure 7b). By experimentally haplogrouping the same 33 males that were used to ascertain these Y chromosome polymorphisms, it was possible to infer that 22 of the SNPs were derived in all haplogroup E chromosomes and 24 in all F chromosomes (125) when the individuals in the ascertainment panel were subjected to phylogenetic analysis. Since haplogroup E and F chromosomes were present in the ascertainment panel but haplogroup C and D representatives were not, the possibility existed that some of these 46 SNPs might be positioned upstream of either the E or F node in the phylogeny. A total of 18 of these were designed as successful PCR- (polymerase chain reaction) based assays and genotyped by DHPLC (denaturing high-performance liquid chromatography) (113) in samples belonging to haplogroups A, B, C-M216, D-M174, E-M96, and F-M89. The results of these haplogrouping experiments indicated that one (Table 1) of the 18 SNPs evaluated shared derived alleles in haplogroups C and F while being at an ancestral state in the other haplogroups. These results hold up the phylogenetic senario shown in Figure 8d, which is consistent with two independent founder types, D and CF, evolving outside Africa, and thus weakens the other two possible interpretations discussed above. However, the common ancestry of C and F founder types is supported by a short branch, defined by a single mutation, implying the diversification of CF from DE was shortly followed by the split of C from F. Although extinction events within Africa offset by haplogroup survival of descendents in Asia cannot be empirically demonstrated, both the refutation of the option shown in Figure 8b and the apparent absence of deep-rooted haplogroups for either CF or D chromosomes in Africa bolsters the model that haplogroup CF and DE molecular ancestors first evolved inside Africa and subsequently contributed as Y chromosome founders to pioneering migrations that successfully colonized Asia. While not proof, the DE and CF bifurcation (Figure 8d ) is consistent with independent colonization impulses possibly occurring in a short time interval.

Note that it is the fact that C and F have a common ancestor which is crucial to this discussion. Before we knew this it looked like E was one of a group of Asian clades (C, D, E, F). Now we know that these can be treated as 2 separate clades: DE and CF. That is why all more recent discussion since this Underhill and Kivisild article has been about DE on its own. I do not think this is clear in the Wikipedia article.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:12, 14 June 2009 (UTC)


 * That now makes sense, since Hammer had suggested that Asian Y chromosomes were more diverse than African Y-chromosomes when arguing for a back migration to Africa. This would be the case if C, D, E and F were separate lineages of a single clade.Wapondaponda (talk) 08:38, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

The section is simply too long and confusing. I propose that you simply summarize the arguments that there have been for Asian and African origins, such as... 1. Until whichever Underhill and Kivisild, it was sometimes argued that D and E were part of a group of 4 haplogroups with common ancestry, with E being the only one with a strong association with Africa. 2. Until a Karafet et al. (2008) is was sometimes argued that D was much older than E. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:15, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Summarizing is an option, but first I would like to find out whether Chandresekar presents any new information in the study, or whether it is simply more appropriate to quote Hammer's articles.Wapondaponda (talk) 08:38, 15 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Please remember to sign Wapondaponda. Now that I've seen a copy, I think in summary Chandrasekar do give important new information: D found in mainland India. The E* however is not E* and is not part of their argument. They only tested for P96. I believe they can be cited for that D in India (something I seem to recall Hammer and Underhill felt would be important), and perhaps as a recent example of an article taking the Asian origins assumption. But I think the core of the discussion should revolve around the most recent discussion about the most important types of facts, as I suggested above. The article should not be about personalities, because this field is not really like that. (I see no sign that Hammer and Underhill are inflexible or that they have formed "schools" of partisans! LOL) BTW, I've mentioned Zalloua finding E* of some definition in Lebanon. Also see http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2009/06/y-chromosomes-of-turks-from-antalya.html (E*(xE1,E3a,E3b)).--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:50, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * It shouldn't be a surprise that haplogroup D is found in India, if the Andaman islanders are generally considered the early settlers of the region, and they have high frequencies of haplogroup D, then it was inevitable that haplogroup D would be found on the mainland. Though the findings are significant for haplogroup D, I don't see how it influences the origin of the Yap insertion. I think the Chandrasekar article is obsolete because it cites Hammer's articles and Hammer has basically recanted his earlier assertions of a back migration. In the press release, he is essentially saying haplogroup DE left Africa along with CF and no longer believes E emerged 31,000 years ago. Chandrasekar can be referenced on haplogroup D, but is of little value to E or DE.


 * I do think that some scientists are indeed inflexible partisans, I wouldn't say Hammer is necessarily one of them, but apparently the multiregional/OOA debates have been quite heated. Neither has Hammer addressed his previous claims that have been neutralized. That said Underhill and Hammer are co-authors to Karafet et al.


 * The DE*s in Africa and the E*s in Lebanon and Turkey have yet to be defined. It would be interesting to find out their relationship with the rest of E. But it also should be expected that if EM35 migrated from Africa to the Near East, they would have carried along other male lineages as well. I have also personalized the Haplogroup_E_(Y-DNA) page. Wapondaponda (talk) 08:38, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Chandrasekar continued
Sorry, feel free to merge this back into the above section, but on some computers I have a problem editing long sections.


 * Of course it is not a surprise that D is found in India, but the fact that it was not found before was remarked occasionally, and the regional distribution within India is interesting.


 * Of course some scientists are inflexible, but we are talking about these ones, and this subject. On the other hand I do think that the extreme positions in the OOA debate have been over-promoted by the press.


 * I agree that the so called "E*" in the Middle East and Spain and other places needs more study and proves nothing. It is not really proven to be E* until all sub-clades are tested for.


 * In any case because the E* in Chandrasekar certainly is not really tested as E*, only E, then I agree that this article is not a pivotal one in this discussion. It is more important for discussion about D. It does come under a category of recent articles claiming D is probably Asian. Another example would be the Chinese one last year. I see no reason to ignore their existence, but if they are not adding anything to the debate they also should not be painted up as being central to the debate.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:55, 15 June 2009 (UTC)


 * The situation regarding the Chandrasekar source is not at all that you think. Wapondaponda has just pulled the mother of all scams. Have a look at this post of mine to see what I mean. Causteau (talk) 14:55, 15 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I do not say that I agree with Wapondaponda's explanation that you quote, but I did read the article and I do see that Chandrasekar do not claim to have tested for the E paraclade at all. And they make no new arguments, nor do they claim to, about the geographical origin of DE. If I am missing something please let me know.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:30, 15 June 2009 (UTC)


 * That's a strawman argument. Chandrasekar et al. (2007) do not ascribe an Asian origin to the YAP insertion because of the presence of the E paraclade in their samples, as you seem to be suggesting. Here is what they do actually state:


 * "'Our findings of the presence of the YAP insertion in northeast Indian tribes and Andaman islanders with haplogroup D indicate that some of the M168 chromosomes have given rise to the YAP insertion and M174 mutation in south Asia.'"


 * This and everything else has already been explained, as I've pointed out above. It also doesn't matter whether or not you personally believe Chandrasekar et al. (2007) are correct in asserting an Asian origin for YAP. Here's what does:


 * "'The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth&mdash;that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true.'" Causteau (talk) 04:58, 21 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Causteau, I think you've omitted something? Anyway the reason E* was mentioned by me is because I felt the discovery of E* by Chadrasekar was being claimed in this Wikipedia article, in order to try to portray the article as some sort of key article in the debate about E*. In fact it claims no real E* and concerning the greater debate about E and DE origins it just cites older articles. It is not a key article at all, although the D in India is a great find, that should indeed be mentioned in the D and DE articles. If you can see to it that such misleading material is removed, I'll be happy.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:02, 21 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, I can't debate your feelings. But I will say that Chandrasekar et al. (2007) actually do report having found "one isolated case of" E*:


 * "'One isolated case with haplotype E* was found in Dungri Bhill, a western Indian population, while YAP insertion in northeast India and Andaman tribes was found in association with haplotype D* (M168, M174).'"


 * And yes (though this is off-topic), it is "real" E*, as they only ever use E* in their paper to refer to the E paraclade:


 * "'The phylogenetic order of YAP lineages D* and E* is still uncertain. Presence of paragroup DE* among five Nigerians led Weale et al. (2003) to dissect the interior branching order of the YAP lineages and opine that it is impossible to impute the origin of the YAP clade with certainty. Regardless of the branching order of DE*, D*, and E*, the view that male Andaman Islanders descended from Asian colonizers needs further scrutiny.'"


 * Chandrasekar et al. (2007) also doesn't cite "older articles" (i.e. Hammer's studies) with regard to the origins of haplogroup E and DE. This too is false, and has already been thoroughly debunked. Causteau (talk) 13:20, 21 June 2009 (UTC)


 * This is simply incorrect. They define E* as positively tested for P96. They tested for no sub-clades! Read the article! This is a short article which offers no new arguments about the origins of DE. It just cites old articles. I see what you must be aiming to do. Hammer, who Chandrasekar cites, has changed his mind. So you need someone new to carry the flag? Fact is that there is no updated version of the old Hammer argument. And when Hammer wrote there were several things they did not yet know which are critical to this story.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:19, 21 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Where do they define E* as testing positively for P96? Cause I'm not seeing it. And where in WP:VER or WP:RS does it support your suggestion that Chandrasekar et al. (2007) has to put forth new arguments in order to be a reliable source on the origins of YAP? If you're going to make claims like that, you have to back them up with actual evidence per WP:PROVEIT; I can't be the only one making an effort here. And incidentally, what if Chandrasekar et al. didn't advance new arguments about the origins of DE (they do, but humor me)? Would that be a crime? I don't see you complaining about the Hammer press release or Linda Stone's book, neither of which is peer-reviewed or offers any new arguments much less tests anything yet there they are cited as supporting an African origin for haplogroup DE. Your point about E* is also irrelevant and has nothing to do with Chandrasekar et al. (2007) ascribing an Asian origin for YAP; this notion has already been dispelled above. Furthermore, Chandrasekar et al. (2007) do not cite Hammer's studies with regard to the origins of haplogroup E and DE. This is another thing you are completely off on, and something that Small Victory and I have already debunked. Since for whatever reason you appear reluctant to refer to my posts on the haplogroup E discussion page where I've already covered this, I shall repost it here in a slightly modified form for you to see for yourself that you are mistaken in this:


 * When Weale et al. (2003) indicate that other studies continue to cite Hammer's studies, they are strictly referring to these studies' use of "the position of group E within the (then) apparently paraphyletic group D to argue for an Asian origin of the YAP clade and a subsequent back-migration event that brought more derived YAP chromosomes to Africa from Asia". The relevant passage from Weale et al.:


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


 * Note that Chandrasekar et al. (2007) is not among those studies that assume that D* is paraphyletic based on Hammer's studies. Actually, Chandrasekar et al. repeatedly mention M174, including the fact that in their study, the "YAP insertion in northeast India and Andaman tribes was found in association with haplotype D* (M168, M174)". And as you can see in the bold phrase above, M174 hadn't even been discovered at the time of Hammer's studies -- that came later with Underhill et al. (2001).


 * You suggest that Chandrasekar et al. (2007) cites Hammer's studies in their entirety when, in fact, it only references specific portions of Hammer's studies pertaining to possible migration routes from Asia back to Africa:


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


 * Please pay special attention to the bold text above. Since M174 (as shown earlier) hadn't even been discovered at the time of Hammer's studies from the late 90's, that is obviously not the part of the sentence which is being sourced to Hammer et al. (1998). The part of that Chandrasekar et al. (2007) quote that is sourced to that Hammer study is strictly the migration route, like I wrote, and the latter Central Asia->Mediterranean route taken is certainly not what Underhill et al. "debunked" according to Weale et al. (2003). From Weale et al. (2003) regarding what the Hammer studies are about (note the bold text):


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


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


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


 * But they base the actual Asian origin of YAP on their own findings (the bold text above), something I have pointed out many times before already.


 * Finally, your point regarding the Hammer press release, Karafet et al. (2008) and haplogroup CF is off-topic and has already been largely addressed above. That press release's whole purpose was to announce Karafet et al. (2008)'s study that Michael Hammer also participated in. Karafet et al. (2008) for its part doesn't once mention haplogroup DE or the YAP insertion or haplogroup CF much less their place of origin. The Hammer quote, moreover, is not explicit but ambiguous:


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


 * It does not state directly and explicitly that haplogroups DE or CF originated in Africa -- you've read that into the text. Causteau (talk) 06:30, 22 June 2009 (UTC)


 * One last thing: The statement in the article that "All the other Y DNA haplogroups that descended from haplogroup DE's M168 parent clade are of non-African origin" is from Chandrasekar et al. (2007), contrary to what you claim. It was a paraphrase of the following statement from p.585 of the study, and it has to do with haplogroups K, R, etc. not CF specifically as you've indicated:


 * "'The hypothesis of a back migration from Asia to Africa is strongly supported by the current phylogeography of the Y-chromosome variation, because haplogroup K2 and paragroup R1b*, both belonging to the otherwise Asiatic macro haplogroup K, have only been observed at high frequencies in Africa (Cruciani et al. 2002; Luis et al. 2004). Thus the major sub-sets of Y lineages that arose from the M168 lineage do not trace to an African origin.'" Causteau (talk) 06:47, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Can you explain the evidence that you suppose from the Chandrasekar article, Andrew is basically in agreement that Chandresekar article though proposing an Asian origin, is not central to the debate. Wapondaponda (talk) 16:17, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Trying again concerning Chandrasekar
Causteau writes above:
 * Where do they define E* as testing positively for P96? Cause I'm not seeing it.

Here is what the authors write themselves:



Now, can you quote any section where they describe E* in their nomenclature as a paraclade or make any of the points about it which you want inserted in this article? I do not think so.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:16, 22 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Huh? What are you talking about? Where did I ever mention wanting to insert stuff about E* into the article? I made no such remarks; what I clearly wrote was that your brining up E* was a "strawman argument. Chandrasekar et al. (2007) do not ascribe an Asian origin to the YAP insertion because of the presence of the E paraclade in their samples, as you seem to be suggesting." How you got from that to your post above, I shall never know. Causteau (talk) 09:54, 22 June 2009 (UTC)


 * And where in WP:VER or WP:RS does it support your suggestion that Chandrasekar et al. (2007) has to put forth new arguments in order to be a reliable source on the origins of YAP? If you're going to make claims like that, you have to back them up with actual evidence per WP:PROVEIT; I can't be the only one making an effort here. And incidentally, what if Chandrasekar et al. didn't advance new arguments about the origins of DE (they do, but humor me)? Would that be a crime?

The answer is simple. I have no problem with this at all, as I also pointed out many times to Wapondaponda. The problem is that you, not Chandrasekar, keep inserting claims into this Wikipedia article implying that Chandrasekar et al. are a recent source of arguments on this matter. They make no such claim. So the solution is simple: please stop implying that they did.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:16, 22 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I have no idea what you are talking about. Please quote specifics and then we'll see whether or not you have a point. Causteau (talk) 09:54, 22 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Furthermore, Chandrasekar et al. (2007) do not cite Hammer's studies with regard to the origins of haplogroup E and DE. This is another thing you are completely off on, and something that Small Victory and I have already debunked.

Here is what the authors write themselves:

All of the arguments they then present are just repetitions of old arguments of Hammer, and none of their new data adds anything to any of these points. Some of these points, such as concerning the age of E, Hammer no longer supports because of new data. To rewrite this article in order to imply otherwise is pure deception. To cut out any reference to the much more important Underhill and Kivisild article is similarly absolutely only possible to be seen as a deliberate attempt to deceive the public.


 * Note that Chandrasekar et al. (2007) is not among those studies that assume that D* is paraphyletic based on Hammer's studies.

I do not claim that it is. But their only references for some arguments did use this obsolete assumption. There is no doubt about that. In other words, as I think you are also saying, they reference Hammer's conclusions, but indeed do not go through Hammer's assumptions. That's just the problem. Can you please try to see what I mean?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:16, 22 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't do "deception", Andrew. I don't need to. The sources are right there for me to quote, and I don't need to milk non-existent statements out of press releases or to rely on non-peer-reviewed popular books either. In case you hadn't noticed, if one removes the Hammer press release and Linda Stone book in question, the article is left with only Underhill's two studies that unambiguously support an African origin for haplogroup DE. The Weale source doesn't actually don't rule any which way, contrary to what the article claims:


 * "'There has been considerable debate on the geographic origin of the human Y chromosome Alu polymorphism (YAP). Here we report a new, very rare deep-rooting haplogroup within the YAP clade, together with data on other deep-rooting YAP clades. The new haplogroup, found so far in only five Nigerians, is the least-derived YAP haplogroup according to currently known binary markers. However, because the interior branching order of the Y chromosome genealogical tree remains unknown, it is impossible to impute the origin of the YAP clade with certainty. We discuss the problems presented by rare deep-rooting lineages for Y chromosome phylogeography.'"


 * Chandrasekar et al. (2007) also indicate that Weale et al. (2003) don't rule any which way with regard to the origins of YAP:


 * "'Presence of paragroup DE* among five Nigerians led Weale et al. (2003) to dissect the interior branching order of the YAP lineages and opine that it is impossible to impute the origin of the YAP clade with certainty.'"


 * As for the Chandrasekar et al. (2007) quote you cite above, it is from a passage where he is going over the standard theory on the subject; he doesn't reveal his own findings till further down the paragraph. In case you hadn't noticed, he goes over Underhill et al. (2001) in that same passage:


 * "'All Y chromosomes that are not exclusively African have M168 mutation. The M168 lineage evolved into three distinct sub-clusters: One with the Alu insertion, YAP (DE haplogroup) and the other two lineages, C (RPS4Y/M216) and F* (M89/M213). Underhill et al. (2001) suggested that an African population with M168 mutation dispersed from the Horn of Africa via a coastal or interior route about 50 000–45 000 years ago (Walter et al. 2000) towards southern Asia, where the C lineage (RPS4Y/M216 mutations) probably originated. The YAP insertion probably occurred on an Asian Y chromosome as long ago as 55 000 years (Hammer et al. 1998) based on the evidence of ancestral alleles for M40 and M96 on exclusively Asian M174 chromosomes (Altheide and Hammer 1997). The ancestral allele of M174 found exclusively in Africa, supports an African origin of YAP insertion (Underhill 2001) but the time of mutational events on the Asian YAP insertion chromosome (Hammer et al. 1998) gives antiquity to M174.'"


 * And here again is where Chandrasekar et al. actually reveal where YAP originated per their own findings rather than just reciting the standard theory as before (which in the case of an Asian origin was represented by Hammer & Underhill represented an African origin):


 * "'Our findings of the presence of the YAP insertion in northeast Indian tribes and Andaman islanders with haplogroup D indicate that some of the M168 chromosomes have given rise to the YAP insertion and M174 mutation in south Asia.'"


 * Note that in my large post above, I very clearly showed with side-by-side quotes that Chandrasekar et al. were referencing Hammer's studies strictly with regard to the migration routes taken, and not for an Asian origin for YAP. The entire purpose of their study was, in their words, "to elucidate the regional evolutionary history" of the YAP insertion (the study is called "YAP insertion in South Asia"):


 * "'The overall high frequency of YAP insertion chromosomes in sub-Saharan African populations led to the proposition that the original YAP insertion event occurred on an African Y chromosome and subsequently spread to other continents (Hammer et al. 1994; Underhill et al. 2001). In contrast, Hammer et al. (1997, 1998) and Altheide and Hammer (1997) hypothesized an alternative Asian origin. The lineage that acquired the YAP insertion polymorphism is divided into two sub-clusters – haplogroup E, found today in Africa and the Mediterranean, and haplogroup D, found in Japan and south-east Asia (Underhill et al. 2001). Y-chromosome data on Indian populations reveal that the parental lineages of present-day populations are predominantly derived from the original Indian gene pool (Cordaux et al. 2004; Sengupta et al. 2006) rather than a recent influx. To elucidate the regional evolutionary history, we examined the YAP polymorphism in 21 Indian tribal populations.'" Causteau (talk) 09:54, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I cited the same passage. The regional variant of DE they are talking about is D. They add nothing to the discussion of E, and they do not claim to. If they do, then please cite THAT. Which data did they find which added something to the argument? Or which new perspective did they even add? Concerning the E that they find for example they even point out this is consistent with previous studies of Indian Shia. Thank you for ceasing to remove the citation of Underhill and Kivisild, but I still see no sign of any argument for Asian origins in this article which is not coming from older articles and described clearly in this way. Let's go through the quote you choose to post...


 * ''All Y chromosomes that are not exclusively African have M168 mutation. The M168 lineage evolved into three distinct sub-clusters: One with the Alu insertion, YAP (DE haplogroup) and the other two lineages, C (RPS4Y/M216) and F* (M89/M213).

This of course shows that the authors were not aware of the Underhill and Kivisild announcement that they actually form two clusters, C and F being one clade. This part of the quote is also clearly being repeated from the literature, and not from new data in this study. Do you disagree?


 * ''Underhill et al. (2001) suggested that an African population with M168 mutation dispersed from the Horn of Africa via a coastal or interior route about 50 000–45 000 years ago (Walter et al. 2000) towards southern Asia, where the C lineage (RPS4Y/M216 mutations) probably originated.

Again, this is clearly a recitation of discussions from the literature. Do you disagree?


 * ''The YAP insertion probably occurred on an Asian Y chromosome as long ago as 55 000 years (Hammer et al. 1998) based on the evidence of ancestral alleles for M40 and M96 on exclusively Asian M174 chromosomes (Altheide and Hammer 1997).

Here it is: a bald statement written as a conclusion coming from clearly cited prior sources. Do you see the authors claiming that this comes from their own new data?


 * ''The ancestral allele of M174 found exclusively in Africa, supports an African origin of YAP insertion (Underhill 2001) but the time of mutational events on the Asian YAP insertion chromosome (Hammer et al. 1998) gives antiquity to M174."

So, as I understand it, they are indeed saying that their own understanding of the previous literature is what they are discussing, and they specifically understand it to be dependent upon an age estimate by Hammer for "mutational events on the Asian YAP etc". In other words, they are knowingly depending upon the old estimates Hammer made of the relative ages of DE, E and D, which are now obsolete. I see nothing else other than this recitation of obsolete recitation of older literature? Let me know if you find something.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:14, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

''I cited the same passage. The regional variant of DE they are talking about is D. They add nothing to the discussion of E, and they do not claim to. If they do, then please cite THAT. Which data did they find which added something to the argument? Or which new perspective did they even add? Concerning the E that they find for example they even point out this is consistent with previous studies of Indian Shia. Thank you for ceasing to remove the citation of Underhill and Kivisild, but I still see no sign of any argument for Asian origins in this article which is not coming from older articles and described clearly in this way. Let's go through the quote you choose to post...''


 * Chandrasekar et al. (2007) base their Asian origin for haplogroup E (E can't have originated in Asia unless a method of introduction into Africa where it is most common can be demonstrated) on Olivieri et al. (2006)'s mtDNA work, Cruciani et al. (2002) and Luis et al. (2004) Y DNA work, and their own findings:


 * "'Some of the YAP insertion chromosomes without the M174 mutation reached the Mediterranean via Central Asia and gave rise to the E lineage with mutations at M40 and M96 ($31 000 years ago; Hammer et al. 1998). This E lineage back-migrated to Africa through the Levant as hypothesized by Hammer et al. (1997) and Altheide and Hammer (1997). It is also evident that haplotype E-M34 chromosomes were probably introduced into Ethiopia from the Near East (Cruciani et al. 2004). The hypothesis of a back migration from Asia to Africa is strongly supported by the current phylogeography of the Y-chromosome variation, because haplogroup K2 and paragroup R1b*, both belonging to the otherwise Asiatic macro haplogroup K, have only been observed at high frequencies in Africa (Cruciani et al. 2002; Luis et al. 2004). Thus the major sub-sets of Y lineages that arose from the M168 lineage do not trace to an African origin. Likewise the M, N and R haplogroups of mtDNA have no indication of an African origin. In the light of recent findings by Olivieri et al. (2006) the scenario of a back migration into Africa is supported by two features of mtDNA: M1 (with an estimated coalescence time of 38.6 Æ 7.1 ky) and U6 (with an estimated coalescence time of 45.1 Æ 6.9 ky), which are predominantly north African clades arose in southwestern Asia and differentiated into their major sub-clades while they were in the Mediterranean area and only later some sub-sets of M1a (with an estimated coalescence time of 28.8 Æ 4.9 ky), U6a2 (with an estimated coalescence time of 24.0 Æ 7.3 ky) and U6d (with an estimated coalescence time of 20.6 Æ 7.3 ky) diffused to East and North Africa through the Levant. Thus modern humans used a southern coastal route for their ‘Out of Africa’ exit, and the Levantine route from Asia to Africa for ‘back migration’.'"


 * All Y chromosomes that are not exclusively African have M168 mutation. The M168 lineage evolved into three distinct sub-clusters: One with the Alu insertion, YAP (DE haplogroup) and the other two lineages, C (RPS4Y/M216) and F* (M89/M213).

''This of course shows that the authors were not aware of the Underhill and Kivisild announcement that they actually form two clusters, C and F being one clade. This part of the quote is also clearly being repeated from the literature, and not from new data in this study. Do you disagree?''


 * Well, haplogroups C and F are two separate haplogroups. Underhill and Kivisild just found that they share a common immediate ancestor, haplogroup CF, before joining up with M168. Causteau (talk) 12:45, 22 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Underhill et al. (2001) suggested that an African population with M168 mutation dispersed from the Horn of Africa via a coastal or interior route about 50 000–45 000 years ago (Walter et al. 2000) towards southern Asia, where the C lineage (RPS4Y/M216 mutations) probably originated.

''Again, this is clearly a recitation of discussions from the literature. Do you disagree?''


 * No, I don't. Causteau (talk) 12:45, 22 June 2009 (UTC)


 * The YAP insertion probably occurred on an Asian Y chromosome as long ago as 55 000 years (Hammer et al. 1998) based on the evidence of ancestral alleles for M40 and M96 on exclusively Asian M174 chromosomes (Altheide and Hammer 1997).

''Here it is: a bald statement written as a conclusion coming from clearly cited prior sources. Do you see the authors claiming that this comes from their own new data?''


 * No, it is not cited as a conclusion. What you've done is chop up my post above which isolates that one phrase out of its context. See below.


 * The ancestral allele of M174 found exclusively in Africa, supports an African origin of YAP insertion (Underhill 2001) but the time of mutational events on the Asian YAP insertion chromosome (Hammer et al. 1998) gives antiquity to M174."

''So, as I understand it, they are indeed saying that their own understanding of the previous literature is what they are discussing, and they specifically understand it to be dependent upon an age estimate by Hammer for "mutational events on the Asian YAP etc". In other words, they are knowingly depending upon the old estimates Hammer made of the relative ages of DE, E and D, which are now obsolete. I see nothing else other than this recitation of obsolete recitation of older literature? Let me know if you find something.''


 * Firstly, if you scroll up the page to my earlier comments, you'll see that I actually tell you that they cite Hammer's studies for the ages of DE & E (as well as for the migration routes). The actual origin of YAP, however, they base on their own findings, which, as I've indicated in my post dated 09:54, 22 June 2009, was the thrust of the entire article ("YAP insertion in South Asia"). Above, you've dissected the paragraph where Chandrasekar et al. (2007) go over the standard theory on the subject. They don't, however, reveal their own findings till further down the passage:


 * "'Our findings of the presence of the YAP insertion in northeast Indian tribes and Andaman islanders with haplogroup D indicate that some of the M168 chromosomes have given rise to the YAP insertion and M174 mutation in south Asia.'"


 * It's the above findings from their own study that they base their attribution of an Asian origin for YAP on. Again, the entire purpose of their study was, in their words, "to elucidate the regional evolutionary history" of the YAP insertion (the study is called "YAP insertion in South Asia"):


 * "'The overall high frequency of YAP insertion chromosomes in sub-Saharan African populations led to the proposition that the original YAP insertion event occurred on an African Y chromosome and subsequently spread to other continents (Hammer et al. 1994; Underhill et al. 2001). In contrast, Hammer et al. (1997, 1998) and Altheide and Hammer (1997) hypothesized an alternative Asian origin. The lineage that acquired the YAP insertion polymorphism is divided into two sub-clusters – haplogroup E, found today in Africa and the Mediterranean, and haplogroup D, found in Japan and south-east Asia (Underhill et al. 2001). Y-chromosome data on Indian populations reveal that the parental lineages of present-day populations are predominantly derived from the original Indian gene pool (Cordaux et al. 2004; Sengupta et al. 2006) rather than a recent influx. To elucidate the regional evolutionary history, we examined the YAP polymorphism in 21 Indian tribal populations.'" Causteau (talk) 12:45, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Weale as the latest news?
Causteau, why do you use the Weale paper as your source for what is happening right now? This was in 2003, and the article names many newer articles? See http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Haplogroup_DE_(Y-DNA)&diff=prev&oldid=297892676 --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:18, 22 June 2009 (UTC)


 * My intention was not to use Weale as the "latest news" (?). There was an unsourced statement in this article to the effect that the origins of haplogroup DE were under debate ("at present, there is still considerable debate on the origins of Haplogroup DE"), and the Weale source contained a very similar statement ("there has been considerable interest and debate over the geographic origin of the YAP clade and the consequent implications for early human migration patterns."), so I simply used it to source that statement. Causteau (talk) 12:45, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

No, in the comment I cited you recently inserted wording that used this article to specifically say what is happening right now. That is what I don't get.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:53, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Chandrasekar continued again
Sorry once more for needing to break these sections up. It must be a server issue. Responding to the above...

1. OK, I can see that Chandrasekar make a comment which cites new literature in such a way as to effectively update the argument that there were other genetic lineages that show signs of a back migration.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:07, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

2. That C and F have a common ancestor is critical to the reasons that they are discussed both by Chandrasekar, and by any others in this discussion. It is critical that we don't ignore that.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:07, 22 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Really? How so? Kindly quote for me the passage(s) that demonstrates that the fact that C and F have a common ancestor is critical in Chandrasekar et al. (2007). Causteau (talk) 14:08, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

3. Thank you for posting this critical paragraph again, which is indeed the only one where they imply that their data has some influence on all this:
 * "'Our findings of the presence of the YAP insertion in northeast Indian tribes and Andaman islanders with haplogroup D indicate that some of the M168 chromosomes have given rise to the YAP insertion and M174 mutation in south Asia.'"

However, this comment fits with nothing else in the article. For their entire chain of reasoning, they cite other articles. The discovery of DE in India changed nothing. I read them to be saying that they're data adds to the case that others made before them somehow. In case if they don't explain how they think they contributed, we can't explain it on Wikipedia either. I don't mind citing them as a recent example of some authors who still believe the Asian origin case is stronger than the African origin case. I am only concerned with over-stating any original contribution they have made.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:07, 22 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I'm already familiar with the "new section" technique. It's funny how even when a quote is produced which states outright that Chandrasekar et al. (2007)'s "findings of the presence of the YAP insertion in northeast Indian tribes and Andaman islanders with haplogroup D indicate that some of the M168 chromosomes have given rise to the YAP insertion and M174 mutation in south Asia", it's still somehow not good enough. Yes, Chandrasekar et al. do cite other sources (like any other study, actually; that's what the bibliography section is for) and in the manner described above. This doesn't weaken the Chandrasekar source as you are implying, but actually strengthens it. Chandrasekar base their conclusions on not only their own findings, but on the Y DNA (Cruciani et al. 2002; Luis et al. 2004) & mtDNA (Oliveri et al. 2006) work of other researchers as well. The Hammer press release, by contrast, cites no one. It's just one little off-hand, ambiguous remark by Hammer in an interview, but yet there it is in the article, completely unmolested. And the Linda Stone book? Is it even peer-reviewed? Of course not. The passage where they assert an African origin for YAP goes "suffice it to say that the insertion of this YAP element took place in Africa before humans started migrating out of this continent, prior 60,000 years ago", and that's it -- nothing more. Very noticeable and unfortunate double standard here. Causteau (talk) 14:08, 22 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Causteau, please remember WP:AGF and don't be rude? And concerning bold formatting, it is only shouting if you make your whole reply in bold. That defeats the proper purpose of it. Can you just please explain the missing link? How do Chandrasekar et al. explain how their "findings of the presence of the YAP insertion in northeast Indian tribes and Andaman islanders with haplogroup D indicate" have any affect upon theories about whether "the M168 chromosomes have given rise to the YAP insertion and M174 mutation in south Asia". That's all I ask. If they make no such explanation then no problem, except that it is not up to you to fabricate one for them, or associate them with theories they did not propose. Please also don't bother attacking the Stone book which has nothing to do with what we are discussing. I have never defended the Stone book beyond allowing it to be mentioned an example of a party taking a side recently. (Most sources are reliable sources concerning their own opinion.) You may recall that I told Wapondaponda to use Underhill more, because he is a much more important source. I think Underhill's position is pretty much the definition of the mainstream since all the new findings of recent years: that the balance is still pretty fine, with a slight favoring of Africa. I don't defend POV pushing whether it be Afrocentrist or anti-Afrocentrist.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:52, 22 June 2009 (UTC)


 * The formatting was obviously an error and has been fixed. With regard to the request not to be rude and assume good faith, you'll have to excuse me for having not yet digested your likening me and unfavorably to, among other things, some lowly blocked user with nary a conscience. Forgive, perhaps, but forget? Not anytime soon. You again insinuate that if I don't "prove" some quote for you from Chandrasekar, I have "fabricated" something or other. How's about you actually prove your point with quotes for a change, huh? Show me exactly what I'm "fabricating". I'm no good at guessing games. As for the Stone source and the press release (let's not forget the latter now, a source you did champion), they are indeed reliable sources according to WP:RS. However, they are of markedly inferior quality, since the press release quote is just some off-hand, ambiguous remark that isn't even repeated in the study the press release was intended for much less subjected to a reliable editorial process. Linda Stone's book quote likewise doesn't "explain" anything; it just states flatly that the YAP insertion originated in Africa, nothing else. Nor has it ever been subjected to peer-review, which is something that -- back when the ISOGG and National Geographic Genographic Project sources were still cited in the E1b1b article as endorsing a Near Eastern origin for that haplgroup -- apparently counted for a lot. So you go ahead and call it what you want, but I call it keeping mental notes. Causteau (talk) 16:11, 22 June 2009 (UTC)


 * As an example of fabrication, how about trying to pretend that Chandrasekar et al. tested for sub-clades of E and that this formed a key part of the case they were making? And how about trying to block out mention of their use of Hammer's obsolete age estimates? And how about trying to suggest in any way at all that these authors have presented new and surprising data which has changed the case for Asian origins? (I note that you still refuse to explain exactly how they did that.) Concerning ISOGG and National Genographic I never wikilawyered in this way, and please understand that not everyone does. I think the idea that there is a black and white distinction between peer review and non peer review is naive. Wikilawyering is normally a sign of bad faith, nothing more. What I always said was that these two sources are not aiming at accuracy for this particular type of information. (In the case of ISOGG, I always spoke from personal inside knowledge as you know.) As you know, we do agree upon using ISOGG for haplogroup phylogenies, which is what those webpages are for.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:29, 22 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, "trying to pretend that Chandrasekar et al. tested for sub-clades of E and that this formed a key part of the case they were making" is an excellent example of fabrication since nowhere did I state that testing for haplogroup E formed a key part of their argument! Indeed, this is something you yourself for whatever reason first brought up in your comment dated 08:55, 15 June 2009. I then corrected you in my post dated 04:58, 21 June 2009 about the utter irrelevance of this issue:


 * "'That's a strawman argument. Chandrasekar et al. (2007) do not ascribe an Asian origin to the YAP insertion because of the presence of the E paraclade in their samples, as you seem to be suggesting.'"


 * And you then of course gathered yourself and admitted in your post dated 12:02, 21 June 2009 that it was indeed all just your opinion after all:


 * "'Anyway the reason E* was mentioned by me is because I felt the discovery of E* by Chadrasekar was being claimed in this Wikipedia article, in order to try to portray the article as some sort of key article in the debate about E*.'"


 * Only to return now and claim that your own admitted fabrications are mine?! Too funny! LOL You also write that I am "trying to block out mention of their use of Hammer's obsolete age estimates", when actually I stated flatly in my post dated 06:47, 22 June 2009 that "Chandrasekar et al. also source the date of the YAP mutation event to Hammer et al. (1998):".


 * No problem then, I'll edit freely without fear of you suddenly making such claims for the Chandrasekar article. All those reverts and deletions and reinsertions must have been a simple misunderstanding.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:10, 22 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Also, Hammer's age estimates were not obsolete at the time of Chandrasekar's publication in 2007 because he and Karafet only updated them in their 2008 study i.e. after Chandrasekar's study.


 * No problem with saying Chandrasekar et al use some out-of-date assumptions. So why was it again that you insist on deleting any mention of that?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:10, 22 June 2009 (UTC)


 * You mention Wikilawyering when this entire talk page discussion is basically you trying to find the lamest technicalities to undermine the presence of the Chandrasekar et al. (2007) in this article. And your reason for doing this is strictly because it asserts an Asian origin for haplogroup DE. If it had asserted an African origin for the haplogroup, you wouldn't once have attempted to remove it, as evidenced by the Hammer press release that you not only let alone, but actually actively endorsed nevermind the fact that it is very ambiguous and promotes a study that doesn't once mention haplogroup DE/YAP much less its place of origin. This is also, incidentally, your true reason for wanting to get rid of the Coffman-Levy quote on the haplogroup E1b1b page: it also asserts an Asian origin for that haplogroup rather than your preferred African origin, and for whatever reason, this bugs you to no end. One would think that with you having a study out now that you may have a reputation worth at least attempting to protect, but apparently not (I don't see Ellen Coffman-Levy carrying on like this on Wikipedia's public talk pages, for example). Apparently the same old POV games of yore are still the order of the day. Causteau (talk) 17:36, 22 June 2009 (UTC)


 * When I make accusations about patterns of editing, I can back them up. I do not say such things as a strategy. I do not say them lightly. If you can not do the same then I think you should be a bit careful. (Of course there is no such pattern; I have supported the real consensus in the literature concerning all these edits wars between you and your enemies, for example saying DE is closely balanced, and mito M is most likely Asian in origin. You wrote to me as someone you expected to help you on several occasions during your revert wars, so the position you are taking now is cynical and dishonest.) Let's face it, your editing is just a mirror image of Wapondaponda's and if he should have been blocked, then so should yours. Concerning the Coffman-Levy quote you do seem to show interesting "true colours" here: Your claims that you think the current form of the citation implies no questioning of an African origin on the E1b1b article are apparently fake.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:10, 22 June 2009 (UTC)


 * You can't back up a bloody thing. I exposed your lies above like I have many, many times before and typically on your own talk page. Take the latest haplogroup M1 debacle on the Genetic History of Europe article. That's just a drop in the bucket. When I came to you in that revert war with that blocked user, I asked you specifically to intervene -- that's the very term I used. I can't say I'm surprised you'd attempt to pervert it into something else though given your record with the truth and all. And look at you still whining about the Coffman-Levy quote; still smarting about not having been able to sway the author to your way of thinking like you had undoubtedly been hoping to do when she first showed up; still disappointed that the quote means exactly what you wish it didn't. "True colors"? Newsflash: my analysis=Ellen's view per her own comments. Love it or hate it, those are the facts. Causteau (talk) 18:37, 22 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Ellen agreed to a summary you made. You refuse to allow the citation to say what that summary said because you want it to say something else. Ellen never disagreed with anything I said, and your summary was in conflict with the edit your defend, and all the arguments you had with me. I'll move a copy of this to the E1b1b article also.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:47, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Age of E compared to age of D
Causteau, the sentence you have inserted seems too strong. I have no problem saying that some authors estimate D to be older than E, but the fact is that the newest estimates in Karafet et al. make D and E appear to be about the same age, especially given how difficult it is to be accurate. So D being older should not be presented as a fact which is known and no longer open to discussion.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:21, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Karafet don't actually give any new estimates for haplogroup D, just for haplogroup E. And they estimate that haplogroup E is about 52,500 years old. The new estimate for haplogroup D's age comes from Shi et al. (2008), and they suggest that it is over 60,000 years old. That's not the same age; that's almost 10k apart. Causteau (talk) 13:44, 23 June 2009 (UTC)


 * These estimates are all "about the same" given the enormous scope for error. Furthermore, you are comparing different methods because by your own admission you don't have a D estimation for the Karafet dating method. All we know for sure is that the Karafet dating has changed the whole picture so that now E and DE are almost the same age. Therefore D logically can not be significantly older than E anymore according to this method. So you may draw no strong conclusions implying a strong unanimity in the literature because there is none. To do so would be original research, or in fact taking a side. Please weaken the statement in the text to a more reasonable one.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:25, 23 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually no, haplogroups D & E are not about the same age nor is there a modern study indicating that they are (certainly not Karafet et al. (2008)). The Karafet study indeed didn't calculate the age of haplogroup D, but they sure did for E & DE. And no, they too are not almost the same age. They place DE at 65,000 ypb, that's 12,500 years separating them. Haplogroup D at over 60,000 ybp, however, is barely younger than haplogroup DE. Causteau (talk) 16:21, 23 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I am not asking you to put in wording to say they are about the same, although I think this is a reasonable summary of the data available. I am only asking you to remove WP:OR wording which claims unambiguous consensus that they are very different. You have no source for such a consensus.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:01, 23 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't think so. Shi et al. (2008) clearly indicate that haplogroup D is older than haplogroup E. Are you going to deny that too? Here's what they write:


 * "'The estimated ages of the D-M174 lineages are older than those previously reported based on both Y chromosome and mtDNA variations in East Asia. To see whether it is over-estimated, using the same method, we calculated the divergence time between DE* and E-M40. The estimated age is 27,176 years, which is much younger than the D-M174 lineage, but consistent with the previous estimation (27,800–37,000 years ago) [3]. Hence, the antiquity of D-M174 likely reflects the true prehistory of human populations in East Asia. The age estimation model developed by Zhivotovsky (2001) is not sensitive to effective population size and recent population expansion though the effect of population substructure cannot be totally ruled out. The antiquity of D-M174 was also supported by a previous study in which the origin of D-M174 was estimated more than 50,000 years ago.'"


 * And even if we apply Karafet et al. (2008)'s age in place of Shi et al. (2008)'s TMRCA for haplogroup E, we come away with haplogroup D about 7,500 years older (60,000 - 52,500). That's not OR, I'm afraid. Especially since the edit (which you unjustifiably reverted) was basically me sourcing the claim that haplogroup D is older than haplogroup E (it is, as just shown). The rest of the edit was me removing the actual OR, which is an attempt to imply that the origins of haplogroup E aren't disputed by describing it exclusively as "African". I realize you contacted a few editors and are hoping I lash out or whatever so that I am then reprimanded, but you're only doing yourself and the article's readers a disservice here. Causteau (talk) 18:00, 23 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I have no problem if you want to say that specific authors make this estimate, but if you continue to write as if there is a consensus, with no post Karafet estimates to make this claim, forget it. That's OR. Concerning the origins of E, you also have no source for an Asian origins theory that is newer than the discovery of the E clade! Stop pushing in your personal fringe theories.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:59, 23 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Uh, Shi et al. (2008) was published after Karafet et al. (2008). Karafet's study was published online on April 2, 2008, whereas Shi's study was received for publication on October 6, 2008 and published on October 29, 2008. And like it or not, the origins of haplogroup E are very much disputed; Chandrasekar et al. (2007) does not date from "the discovery of the E clade", I'm afraid. Causteau (talk) 05:15, 25 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Please debate the origins of E on the relevant article page. Concerning this page, the only thing being objected to is the claim that Shi's article represents a consensus when it clearly does not.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:28, 25 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I wasn't debating the origins of haplogroup E, but quite clearly debunking your umpteenth false claim. I have sources for what I've actually included in the article, as demonstrated above with direct quotes & links. You clearly do not, as demonstrated by your idle talk & no quotes or links. Stop reverting. Causteau (talk) 08:44, 25 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Which reverts are talking about? Your new version is the first rewording you have attempted since we started this current discussion. Seems much better.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:50, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

D is older then E
Scienific research should be respected more then what Andrew Lancaster wants to be true. The Count of Monte Cristo (talk) 19:44, 24 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I thought I was respecting scientific research. Please tell me where I went wrong according to you?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:45, 24 June 2009 (UTC)


 * You went wrong by deleting sourced scientific material about D being older than E.
 * See your revision 06:19, 25 June 2009(http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Haplogroup_DE_(Y-DNA)&oldid=298509833) compared to mine on 19:45, 24 June 2009 (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Haplogroup_DE_(Y-DNA)&oldid=298419627) The Count of Monte Cristo (talk) 18:55, 25 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Please read the discussion above, and you will see that you are mistaken. What I reverted was un-sourced, and I explained why. Then Causteau fixed it. But I thank you for taking the time to answer.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:39, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Dates
Since haplogroup DE is now dated to 65,000 years ago according to Karafet et al 2008, how is an Asian origin of haplogroup DE feasible, given that the out of Africa migration is dated to 50,000-70,000 years ago. Looking at the dates, an Asian origin now seems impossible, but if anyone has an explanation, I would be willing to listen. Wapondaponda (talk) 20:58, 15 July 2009 (UTC)


 * First some basic principles:


 * These time estimates are tremendously tenuous and really can not be used to have a real discussion.
 * Anyway, it does not matter what arguments clever Wikipedians have. We need sources.
 * But I still don't see your point. The DE clades and paraclades are split between two widely separated regions so we have very little to favour one direction or the other. All we have indeed, are what we know about the siblings and parents in the family tree:


 * deepest origins of all clades, probably Africa, but...
 * M168 (parent of DE and CF) could have been Africa or Asia, because CF quite likely to be non African.
 * Can you add anything to one side of the scales or the other?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:43, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Well there seems to have been a major extinction event somewhere in between Africa and India that wiped out the pre-existing M, N and DE* lineages. Because all the lineages in the Arabian peninsula are recent arrivals. However, a study isn't going to publish age estimates for haplogroups that aren't consistent with suggested migratory dates. If a haplogroup is considerably older than the paleoanthropoligical evidence in a region, then the scientist would have to redo their calculations. My point is not that these dates are firm dates, rather they should simply be consistent with dates for migrations that they are associated with. Wapondaponda (talk) 13:52, 16 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Who says there was a major extinction event? Lineages die out all the time, or at least they did before recent millenia when population growth became so constant. So I see nothing special here. This is just a normal pattern. For example, most E-M35 people fit into only a handful of clades under E-M35, and most E-M78 people only in a handful of clades under E-M78 and so on. That means many lineages died out. I also completely disagree that geneticists would normally redo their calculations based upon whether it fits their preconceptions.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:58, 16 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I think the scientists calibrate their calculations at least in part based on archeological evidence. The latest study, Correcting for Purifying Selection: Soares et al, tested their molecular clock against known archeological dates for the colonization of the Canary Islands to estimate the ages for Canary U6 and determine whether their dating method was accurate. So yes, the accuracy of dating does have to match the archeological evidence. I agree that dates are estimates with a lot of tolerance. My point is that the dates for the origins of haplogroups should be consistent with associated migrations. Wapondaponda (talk) 14:31, 16 July 2009 (UTC)


 * It is possible to try to calibrate against a very clear colonization event, or at least it gets attempted. But this is irrelevant to what we are discussing. What you are suggesting would be circular calibration and estimating at the same time.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:02, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, that is why they chose the Canary Islands and remote Oceania, because the dates for settlements of these areas are apparently unambiguous. We know that dates are statistical estimates and the tolerances are large. However, let us assume that the dates are accurate. That is DE is exactly 65,000 years old, E is exactly 52,500 years old and the OOA took place 50-70kya. Wouldn't you agree that these dates are more consistent with an African origin of DE and E than an Asian origin followed by a back migration based on the principal of least moves and greatest diversity.Wapondaponda (talk) 16:34, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Causteau's edits
I have the following concerns regarding Causteau's material regarding Chandrasekhar et al

Andrew you have raised a similar issue, what exactly are their findings, nobody knows and they haven't revealed it in their study. I think there are no findings because if they were they would have stated them. This is an unreliably sourced statement and I suggest its deletion

Once again the dates for these haplogroups don't even overlap with DE, DE* in Africa. R1b* is supposed to be R-M173* which is 30kya max. M1 and U6 at 25kya and 35kya are too young to have been part of the same back migration process of DE, which is 65kya. This statement is a house of cards.

The next statement

At no point do Shi et al make any reference to the Asian origin of DE or E. They only express surprise at finding DE* but make no reference to DE being either Asian or African. If anything they mention that E is thought to be of African origin when they state

In short Causteau shouldn't use Shi et al as an attempt to bolster the Asian origin of DE because the authors make no such reference.

lastly Causteau uses this Lan Hai, the abstract is in English, but the rest of the Article is in Chinese. There is no way for me to verify whether what is written is consistent with the article. Causteau had said he would obtain a translation, but he has not done so yet. I request that these issues be addressed otherwise, I suggest reverting to the most accurate version Wapondaponda (talk) 18:24, 16 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes I raised an issue, and the solution is to make sure that the conclusions coming from that article are not exaggerated. Forbidding mention of that articles honest conclusions would just be a big call. Therefore please aim yourself in that way. Have a look at the text as it now stands and make proposals.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:22, 16 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Your selective quoting is very amusing, Wapondaponda. That passage from Shi et al. (2008) that you quote above was taken from its introduction section, where they are introducing the arguments & findings from the earlier literature on the topic. Predictably, you have selectively quoted only portions of it. Here's what they actually write in full:


 * "'The Y chromosome Alu polymorphism (YAP, also called M1) defines the deep-rooted haplogroup D/E of the global Y-chromosome phylogeny [1]. This D/E haplogroup is further branched into three sub-haplogroups DE*, D and E (Figure 1). The distribution of the D/E haplogroup is highly regional, and the three subgroups are geographically restricted to certain areas, therefore informative in tracing human prehistory (Table 1). The sub-haplogroup DE*, presumably the most ancient lineage of the D/E haplogroup was only found in Africans from Nigeria [2], supporting the 'Out of Africa' hypothesis about modern human origin. The sub-haplogroup E (E-M40), defined by M40/SRY4064 and M96, was also suggested originated in Africa [3-6], and later dispersed to Middle East and Europe about 20,000 years ago [3,4]. Interestingly, the sub-haplogroup D defined by M174 (D-M174) is East Asian specific with abundant appearance in Tibetan and Japanese (30–40%), but rare in most of other East Asian populations and populations from regions bordering East Asia (Central Asia, North Asia and Middle East) (usually less than 5%) [5-7]. Under D-M174, Japanese belongs to a separate sub-lineage defined by several mutations (e.g. M55, M57 and M64 etc.), which is different from those in Tibetans implicating relatively deep divergence between them [1]. The fragmented distribution of D-M174 in East Asia seems not consistent with the pattern of other East Asian specific lineages, i.e. O3-M122, O1-M119 and O2-M95 under haplogroup O [8,9].'"


 * Pay attention to how Shi et al. (2008) indicate that the then (at least prior to their own study) exclusive finding of DE* chromosomes in Africa supports the Out of Africa hypothesis. What you are basically whining about above is when the presence of DE* chromosomes -- albeit in Asia this time around -- is used in that exact same way, using that exact same logic to support the Asian origin hypothesis for this clade. Talk about hypocrisy. For your information, Underhill et al. (2001) state almost the same thing i.e. that "the M174 data taken alone would support an African origin of the YAP polymorphisms, as the M174 ancestral allele is found exclusively in Africa". But that of course was well before Shi et al. (2008)'s discovery of DE* (i.e. the "M174 ancestral allele") in Tibet. Underhill also laid out in that same study the conditions necessary for an Asian origin:


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


 * As can be seen in the bold text above, Underhill et al. quite logically indicate that the presence of the YAP insertion in Asia would support an Asian origin for haplogroup DE, as indeed is the case in the wake of Shi et al. (2008)'s discovery of DE* chromosomes in Tibet. However, unlike the Nigerian chromosomes which Weale et al. (2003) suggest probably aren't paraphyletic, no such reservations were expressed about the Tibetan DE*. I therefore suggest you learn to live with it; quit trying to get rid of Shi et al. (2008) or Chandrasekar et al. (2007) or any other reliable source that supports an Asian origin for the YAP insertion. Try and genuinely make a new start rather than pushing the same old POV as before. Causteau (talk) 08:21, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

POV
Its POV because of certain things like saying DE possibles origin in Asia is Minority view and Africa is Majoriy view. 1 scientific article cannot say if a view if minority or Majority you would need more to say that. The Count of Monte Cristo (talk) 04:04, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Have you read any of the sources to confirm this. If you have which ones. Wapondaponda (talk) 04:25, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

SOPHIAN and Muntuwandi, and all your various respective aliases, can I suggest that instead of reverting between two complete versions, which is pointless, that you really have to look at every difference between the two version you are proposing. For example, if we look at the wording Wapondaponda wants to put in the info box it is not going to be a consensus anytime soon, so Wapondaponda should give up. But then why would SOPHIAN revert even the ref formatting work?
 * Wapondaponda why don't you make an edit with only uncontroversial edits first, and then start or continue discussions on this talkpage about any particular controversial points you want changed?
 * SOPHIAN, please be careful about doing full reverts. Check first to see if what you are reverting might contain some uncontroversial things like spelling fixes and formatting and referencing work.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:47, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think so Andrew, cause Wapondaponda is still pushing the same old POV as before. See my comments above. Causteau (talk) 08:21, 19 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Causteau, how, for example, can you call the creation of a refnote a valid revert justifed as removal of POV pushing? But of course you won't have noticed that this is one of the things SOPHIAN reverted. Trouble is that you also like to do such reverting. And as we see over on Afro-Asiatic you also feel no compulsion to feel responsible for any neutral copyedits killed in the nuclear fallout. Please allow and encourage people to make their points in a focused way. Please stop allowing and encouraging the use of reverts as a replacement for proper discussion?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:35, 19 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I have said nothing about SOPHIAN's edits; you did. Nor did I revert this "refnote" you speak of, so I'm afraid to you can't peg that one on me either. You asked me to stick to the topic on the Afro-Asiatic article, well perhaps you should try following your own advice for a change. Causteau (talk) 08:53, 19 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Of course you said something about SOPHIAN's edits! Or did you not read what you were replying to above? Above you have claimed that my post asking SOPHIAN and Wapondaponda to stop using reverts was misplaced and all fault lies with Wapondaponda, or what did you mean to say?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:08, 19 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Nope. I didn't even mention SOPHIAN in my post above dated 08:21, 19 July 2009. Again, you did in your response. My edit addressed Wapondaponda; you suggested he was capable of making uncontroversial edits, and I begged to differ. Causteau (talk) 10:45, 19 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh, it was just another personal attack and diversion from discussion about editing questions. Good work. I was apparently wrong in assuming your had a good faith point.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:38, 19 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually, my post above dated 08:21, 19 July 2009 was a straightforward statement of fact & it specifically directed readers to a detailed discussion of the topic at hand. Nice try though. Causteau (talk) 11:50, 19 July 2009 (UTC)


 * It was a judgement of a fellow editor and not about editing.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:54, 19 July 2009 (UTC)


 * If my talk page weren't littered with your "judgements of fellow editors", I might've taken you seriously. And the edit I pointed you to in my post above from 08:21, 19 July 2009, I'm afraid, is most certainly about editing. Causteau (talk) 12:09, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I believe we should give a full account of the Asian origin hypothesis, typified by Hammer et al 1997 and 1998. If anyone other than myself wants to write it, then so be, I'll be happy to accept. I don't mind including Chandrasekhar et al, as long as the hypothesis on which Chandrasekhar bases their theory is included. Chandresekhar et al make no attempt, to disguise where they got their theory from, so neither should we. Wapondaponda (talk) 12:59, 19 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Given your 1RR limiting I again suggest using drafts.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:00, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Done Talk:Haplogroup DE (Y-DNA)/Draft. Wapondaponda (talk) 04:56, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * First suggestion is get rid of the mainstream/minority thing. Is to close a call to say that any of the nuanced remarks in the literature can be summarized by such black-white wording.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 05:42, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Another thing which I think you already know others are going to feel uncomfortable with is the way you write up a history of discussion in a way which will lead people to think all evidence and discussion is headed one way. More generally I think re-posting your old version is not going to work, because you already know there are bits of it which people can context for "reasonable reasons". Try softening those parts.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 05:47, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * My main issue with the current version is that it gives the impression that the Chandrasekar article has new arguments, when it seems most of the arguments are from Hammer et al. For example Chandrasekar et al argue that Haplogroup E originated in Asia 31,000 years ago and back-migrated to Africa. This important aspect of Chandrasekar/Hammer theory is omitted from the current article. Wapondaponda (talk) 05:59, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * With regard to the mainstream/minority view point, WP:UNDUE states we should not portray a minority viewpoint as a mainstream view point. Since the Asian origin is a minority view point, what is the best way to do so. I don't even know whether the Asian origin is a genuine minority view point, since it was mainly a result of sampling bias, since the theory existed before the discovery of D-M174 mutation of Haplogroup D. Wapondaponda (talk) 14:18, 21 July 2009 (UTC)