Talk:Haplogroup M (mtDNA)/Archive 2

Kivisild 2003: trying to focus

 * My advice is that we focus on small bits at a time. Concerning the Kivisild quote (2003 BTW Wapondaponda!) the point Wapondaponda was proposing to insert is a point of logic and not necessarily the type of thing which becomes invalid with new data. Specifically I am talking about "the lack of L3 lineages other than M and N in India and among non-African mitochondria in general suggests that the earliest migration(s) of modern humans already carried these two mtDNA ancestors, via a departure route over the Horn of Africa." Causteau, has any new data come along which shows lots of L3 outside of Africa? No one is arguing that this remark of Kivisild is an argument winner, but it seems worth citing?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:56, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * It's already cited Andrew, and it in no way contradicts the Asian origin hypothesis as shown above in the quote from Malyarchuk et al. (2005) -- a study that appeared a full two years after it. Causteau (talk) 07:18, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I know, so can we include the bullet point in the African origins section as proposed by Wapondaponda? It is a debating point made in the literature, not a strong one, but it does not seem to have been invalidated by any new data?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:26, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Invalidated is not the right word; rendered pointless is a better expression. The quote indicates that the lack of L3 lineages in Eurasia supports an African origin hypothesis, whereas the Malyarchuk source above indicates that actually, the lack of L3 lineages in Eurasia in no way contravenes the Asian origin hypothesis. In fact, it is quite compatible with the latter. That's why I originally removed the quote; it was pointless, and falsely gave the impression that Kivisild still holds the view that macrohaplogroup M originated in Africa when he of course does not. Causteau (talk) 07:50, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Causteau, this is all beside the point, surely? It does not matter what you think about the original logic of the original published article. It got published and it trumps your opinion of it. Your comparison of the arguments in Malyarchuk and Kivisild is also of no importance to this discussion because that is WP:SYNTHESIS, and anyway, if the same data has been argued both ways, why can't the Wikipedia article reflect that? If there is no new data that says L3 is common outside of Africa then as far as I can see this argument must be included in the list of arguments that have been used to defend an African origins hypothesis, surely?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:07, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * What are you on about? Did I not just write that the quote was already included in the article? Causteau (talk) 08:29, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I thought you meant it was included in the Asian origins section. I realize it has been in and out of the article of course, but irrespective of what the article has right now I wanted to make sure there was agreement here.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:33, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * If the specific L3 lineage that gave rise to M and N was detected in Eurasia, then this debate would be over, we wouldn't even be discussing M1 and we would be certain that M and N had a Eurasian origin. But since no such L3 lineage has been discovered in Eurasia, it means that M and N's closest relatives are only found in Africa and nowhere else. This leaves open the real possibility that M and N arose in Africa. Wapondaponda (talk) 13:26, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Whatever. Can you please raise any other points you have, one by one?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:09, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Looking at the text, A disproportionate amount of text is spent trying to defeat the hypothesis that M1 is of African origin, I think we should compact the arguments for M1. If we like we can create a separate article for M1, where such arguments can be discussed in detail. There seems to be quite a bit of material on the distribution and clades of M1. Wapondaponda (talk) 16:17, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Maybe you can propose what you mean here in detail and in concrete?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:19, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * We could summarize, that studies by Gonzalez and Olivieri propose that M1 and U6 were part of the same expansion from Eurasia to Africa because they apparently have similar ages. We can avoid going into too much detail about dates because those have since changed. In short the origins section shouldn't entirely be a referendum on M1, but on M itself. The M1 argument is not as strong as the L3 argument.
 * There are those two quotes above, point number 5 of Haplogroup_M_(mtDNA), I still cannot see how they connect with providing support for an Asian origin. So I propose moving the content out of the Asian origin sub-section into the level 1 Haplogroup_M_(mtDNA) section.
 * Whether, there was one or two migrations out of Africa, has no bearing on whether M or N arose inside or outside of Africa. If it does, please explain, that I may understand. Causteau has tried, but it doesn't make sense to me.
 * We should also include the point that lineages ancestral to M1 have not been detected in India, which is the proposed origin of haplogroup M, (point number 1). Gonzalez et al even state, "However, in two recent studies in which and Indian M complete sequences were analyzed no ancestral M1 lineages have been found."
 * Wapondaponda (talk) 16:50, 18 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't think so. Your assertion that "the M1 argument is not as strong as the L3 argument" is your own POV; there is no source which states this. It's also utterly ridiculous given the fact that it is based on one statement from one old study by one author (Kivisild et al. 2003) who has long since changed his view on where macrohaplogroup M originated, as I've already shown above. I've also just demonstrated with that quote from Malyarchuk et al. (2005) from two years after that old Kivisild et al. (2003) study that that lack-of-L3-in-Eurasia argument in no way contradicts an Asian origin for macrohaplogroups M & N and that in fact, the lack-of-L3-in-Eurasia is part & parcel of the argument for an Asian origin. Your feigning incomprehension as to how the fact that the proposed exit routes out of Africa for macrohaplogroups M & N (both the single migration via the southern coastal route and the dual north/south route) have been neutralized relates to an Asian origin for macrohaplogroup M is absurd since those are the only proposed exit routes for the haplogroups out of Africa. Macrohaplogroups M & N are almost exclusively Eurasian in their distribution, and M alone forms the most common lineage on the Asian continent. M & N are also quite diverse. So to have originated in Africa, their carriers would obviously have had to have found a way to leave the continent in the first place and likely a very long time ago, long enough for all of the various downstream mutations that define the many sub-lineages of macrohaplogroups M & N to have occurred. All of this too has already been explained to you and with direct quotes from the relevant sources (post above from 01:51, 18 July 2009). Lastly, your argument that "the point that lineages ancestral to M1 have not been detected in India, which is the proposed origin of haplogroup M" somehow supports an African origin for macrohaplogroup M is preposterous since M1 is but a recent sub-clade of macrohaplogroup M & one much younger than the Indian-specific sub-clades. Even Gonzalez et al. (2007) -- the very study you insinuate supports this argument of yours and which you quote out of context above -- make it clear that M1 is younger than the Indian sub-clades, and that macrohaplogroup M originated in Asia:


 * "'On the light of our and other authors results, it seems clear that by their respective coalescence ages and diversities, M1 is younger than other Asiatic M lineages. Although it is out of doubt that the L3 ancestor of M had an African origin, macrohaplogroup M radiated outside Africa and M1 should be considered an evolved branch that signals its return to this continent.'"


 * I've already asked you to refrain from your insidiuous tactics of old. William has made it clear to you that you are on probation, yet you insist on behaving just as before, and across the same batch of articles to boot. I warned you last time that it would end badly for you, but you didn't listen. Maybe this time you'll have enough sense to do so. Causteau (talk) 04:31, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

If the administrators only knew how much POV pushing comes from some certain editors. Wapondaponda (talk) 04:35, 19 July 2009 (UTC)


 * They do Wapondaponda, and that is why you were blocked, remember? By the way, this talk page is watchlisted. Think about that. Causteau (talk) 04:38, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I heard someone once use the term "skilled POV pushers". Wapondaponda (talk) 04:40, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * That would be a term people use when they loose an argument. If you get better at editing in small steps when things get controversial, and keeping focused on what you are trying to fix rather than side issues, then maybe one day people will accuse you of it. Of course admins know very well what sort of POV pushing goes on. But they are just normal Wikipedians too, not policemen to come and get involved in every content dispute.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:06, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Wapondaponda, you should give up on trying to get properly sourced arguments removed. We asked Causteau to accept the Kivisild "lack of L3" argument even though he also feels personally that it could be used to argue the opposite. We argued that what he thinks is irrelevant. We have to be consistent. Can you please reframe your suggestions and post any, if there are any left, which would survive this request of being consistent? One problem I often have trying to judge your position is that you always insert lots of these very weak positions into the mix of what you are suggesting. By the way, looking at your remarks above about admins and POV, obviously any admins watching to see who is acting in best faith are also going to be confused by this. It could be interpreted as POV pushing. To repeat my suggestion: focus on specific points, and start with the least controversial ones.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:13, 19 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Like I already stated earlier, no sense in beating a dead horse: The lack-of-L3-in-Eurasia argument is already in the article and cited under the African origin hypothesis, though it could indeed just as easily be cited in support of an Asian origin for the macrohaplogroup per Malyarchuk et al. (2005). Causteau (talk) 07:22, 19 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, and so I am asking Wapondaponda to isolate anymore arguments which he thinks are being unjustly ignored, so that can be explained case by case, and compared to normal Wikipedia standards, without revert wars like we had in the past. Presumably you see no problem with that?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:41, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Kivisild 2003: trying to focus section break

 * The African origin has been deleted from the infobox, yet it is discussed in the article. This is inconsistent.
 * Here are some of the issues concerning the origin. Point number 5 in the Asian origin hypothesis concerns the number and routes of migrations out of Africa. I don't see how the number or routes of migrations has a bearing on the Asian or African origins of the Haplogroup. From my understanding, an Asian or African origin of M is applicable regardless of whether there was one or 10 migrations out of Africa, or whether there was a northern or southern route. These are separate debates, they are relevant to the article though. Could someone explain to me, concisely how they support an Asian origin. My proposal is to move that text out of the Asian origin hypothesis, into a more generalized debate about M. No need to delete text here, just to move it.
 * The lack of ancestral M1 lineages in India is not discussed. This doesn't necessarily affect the Asian origin of M in general, but it weakens the argument for an Indian origin of haplogroup M because one important branch is missing.
 * I propose including further details on the two hypothesis regarding the extinction of lineages. Specifically, the Asian origin hypothesis involves the migration out of Africa of haplogroup L3 which then gives rise to M and N in Eurasia. L3 is then lost by drift in Eurasia. The African origin has L3 giving rise to M and N in Africa, after which M and N migrate out of Africa. Remaining branches of M and N in Africa are lost by genetic drift, or M1 is a remaining branch. Wapondaponda (talk) 17:43, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Just wondering if you look at my attempt to answer above before Causteau's remarks? I think some of the points are similar.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:05, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * You are right, I missed that. I was looking for my post and thought I had forgot to post it. I will respond above. Wapondaponda (talk) 00:06, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Causteau's edits
Causteau writes that the Asian origin is supported by these statements.

I don't see anything in this statement that supports and Asian origin, could Causteau, Andrew or anyone explain this one to me. The next statement I take issue with is this

In stating this argument is it fair to state that all subclades are thought to have originated outside Africa. Indeed Kivilid also argues that haplogroup R, the daughter of N originated in Africa shortly after N. So I would argue that not all subclades are thought to have originated outside Africa.

, OK this is based on Olivieri et al so it is somewhat accurately sourced. However recent studies show have U6 at 35kya and M1 at 25kya, the margins of error overlap, but its not exactly a watertight correlation. Furthermore, the Berbers at Siwa lack U6 but possess M1, so the relationship between U6 and M1 is shaky. Wapondaponda (talk) 17:30, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

1. The quotation from Causteau is not extremely convincing to me, but the bigger question is whether it is sourced or not. Remember that this is Wikipedia.

2. Concerning Kivisild I think I've seen this argument before? If not please make the case clearly.

3. The M1/U6 overlap is not given too much weight in the present version of the article, but even if it were, pointing out that their overlap is not quite perfect is pretty unimportant?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:14, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree that Causteau's quote is sourced. I actually think it has a place in the article. My issue is that one cannot make a connection between the quote and support for the Asian origin hypothesis. Rather it seems to highlight the difficulty in pinpointing the exact geographical origins of haplogroup M. I would propose moving it out of the Asian origin sub-section into the origins subsection. Wapondaponda (talk) 14:36, 17 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Can you walk me through the problem? Which quote can not be used to support exactly which text in the article?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:44, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * This statement relates to the debate on whether there was one or two migrations out of Africa. It doesn't concern whether M or N originated in Africa or not. This issue is discussed in the lead, in which it is suggested that there was most likely one major migration out of Africa. The statement is sourced from Gonzalez et al, though it ultimately relates to Macaulay et al
 * This statement relates to the debate on whether there was one or two migrations out of Africa. It doesn't concern whether M or N originated in Africa or not. This issue is discussed in the lead, in which it is suggested that there was most likely one major migration out of Africa. The statement is sourced from Gonzalez et al, though it ultimately relates to Macaulay et al


 * The second part states
 * The authors of the article do not use this statement to argue for an Asian or an African origin, rather, they were simply seeking to understand the demographic history of the Arabian peninsula. In short, no Pre-M or Pre-N lineages were detected in this region and most of the lineages are of Neolithic origin.
 * Wapondaponda (talk) 15:44, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Wapondaponda (talk) 15:44, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Which of these quotes are from the source article and which from Causteau? Yes, I could look this up myself, but that is what you should be explaining.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:08, 17 July 2009 (UTC) The first quotes relate to these articles. The quotes are an accurate reflection of the article, but simply were not meant to support an African or Asian origin.
 * Gonzalez et al
 * Macaulay et al


 * Causteau also deleted all references to an African origin of M that are not related to M1. I have opinions on why he did so, but I won't express them. Nonetheless it is an important argument, that the specific L3 lineage that gave rise to M and N has not been detected in Eurasia, but the closest relatives of M and N are only found in Africa.Wapondaponda (talk) 16:22, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Have you got a source for anyone making that argument? The quotes you say are being used wrongly seem to be being used pretty similarly in this article?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:38, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

If you recall, this article had all the relevant facts recently. When I was blocked, Causteau took it upon himself to remove certain arguments. This is one statement that Causteau deleted.

Kivisild et al

A real simple solution is simply to revert back to the version before Causteau deleted these statements. All of us had agreed to that particular version, things only changed when I was blocked. The particular version could still do with some copy editing, but I was happy with the content. Wapondaponda (talk) 16:45, 17 July 2009 (UTC)


 * As much as I like simple (and indeed WP:BOLD, given the risk of edit wars here, let's take it step by step. I suggest putting in this one sourced point about the absence of L3. Then let's move to the next suggestion.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:34, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't see how whether there were two migrations or one migration out of Africa favors an Asian origin or African origin. That is separate debate altogether, regarding how many migrations out of Africa took place. That debate, was criticized as Eurocentric by Stephen Oppenheimer, because it claimed that Europeans were not part of the same OOA migration as South Asians and Oceanic peoples. It is an important debate that should be in the article, but it is separate from the origins of M and N. Gonzalez et al specifically separate the arguments when they state

As you can see, they refer to the origins as "another related disjunctive" indicating that it is a separate controversy. Wapondaponda (talk) 17:53, 17 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Utterly ridiculous. All of your claims above were long debunked. For starters, the passages you've quoted above that you've attributed to me were direct paraphrases from two separate sources, not one as you've attempted to imply above. The first is sourced to Gonzalez et al. (2007)


 * "Looking more specifically at likely migration routes, the fact that primitive lineages of macrohaplogroup M's sibling N clade have been found in southern areas such as India and Australia undermines the African origin hypothesis' proposed coastal route to southern Asia and Oceania for haplogroup M and its suggested continental route to Eurasia for haplogroup N under a two route migration Out-of-Africa scenario.[11]"


 * And here's the passage from Gonzalez et al. (2007) which supports this (which I already included in the footnotes as well):


 * "'Two possible out-of-Africa routes have been proposed: A southern coastal route bordering the Read Sea and an Eurasian continental route through the Levant. Based on mitochondrial phylogeography it was proposed that M lineages expanded with the coastal route to southern Asia and Oceania and N lineages by the continental route to Eurasia. However, the posterior detection of primitive N lineages in southern areas as India and Australia weakened that hypothesis.'"


 * The second passage of mine was sourced to Abu Amero et al. (2008):


 * "'Similarly, the lack of primitive autochthonous macrohaplogroup M and N sequences in the Arabian Peninsula suggests that this area has been a more recent receptor of human migrations than an ancient demographic expansion center along the southern coastal route as proposed under the single migration Out-of-Africa scenario of the African origin hypothesis.[5]'"


 * The whole purpose of the Abu Amero et al. (2008) study was "to assess the role of the Arabian Peninsula in the southern route" i.e. the proposed route for the single migration of macrohaplogroup M & N carrying peoples out of Africa. From the study:


 * "'Accordingly, it was hypothesized that both lineages were carried out in a unique migration, and even more, that the southern coastal trail was the only route, being the western Eurasian colonization the result of an early offshoot of the southern radiation in India. Under these suppositions, the Arabian Peninsula, as an obliged step between East Africa and South Asia, has gained crucial importance, and indeed several mtDNA studies have recently been published for this region. However, it seems that the bulk of the Arab mtDNA lineages have northern Neolithic or more recent Asian or African origins. Although a newly defined clade L6 in Yemenis, with no close matches in the extant African populations, could suggest an ancient migration from Africa to Yemen, the lack of N and/or M autochthonous lineages left the southern route without genetic support.'"


 * And here are Abu Amero et al. (2008)'s conclusions:


 * "'Although there is evidence of Neolithic and more recent expansions in the Arabian Peninsula, mainly detected by (preHV)1 and J1b lineages, the lack of primitive autochthonous M and N sequences, suggests that this area has been more a receptor of human migrations, including historic ones, from Africa, India, Indonesia and even Australia, than a demographic expansion center along the proposed southern coastal route.'"


 * The section of the study where Gonzalez et al. state that "another related disjunctive yet not settled is whether M and N (and its main branch R) arose inside or outside Africa" is dubbed "Background" because that is where Gonzalez et al. are reviewing the previous literature on the subject before unveiling the results of their own study. They also conclude that same section with a reference to their own findings i.e. that M1 hadn't been found outside of Africa until now. In a later section aptly titled "Most probable origin of M1 ancestors", they assert:


 * "'On the light of our and other authors results, it seems clear that by their respective coalescence ages and diversities, M1 is younger than other Asiatic M lineages. Although it is out of doubt that the L3 ancestor of M had an African origin, macrohaplogroup M radiated outside Africa and M1 should be considered an evolved branch that signals its return to this continent.'"


 * And Gonzalez et al. conclude their study with the following:


 * "'This study provides evidence that M1, or its ancestor, had an Asiatic origin. The earliest M1 expansion into Africa occurred in northwestern instead of eastern areas; this early spread reached the Iberian Peninsula even affecting the Basques. The majority of the M1a lineages found outside and inside Africa had a more recent eastern Africa origin. Both western and eastern M1 lineages participated in the Neolithic colonization of the Sahara. The striking parallelism between subclade ages and geographic distribution of M1 and its North African U6 counterpart strongly reinforces this scenario.'"


 * And as for your sources:


 * Your first source supporting an African origin for macrohaplogroup M -- Quintana et al. (1999) -- dates from exactly a decade ago. That's practically a lifetime before the discovery of new basal mutations (e.g. M20, M30) by Rajkumar et al. (2005) that are older than M1 and which substantially contribute to the present understanding of the macrohaplogroup; before Olivieri et al. (2006)'s important mtDNA work that indicates a back-migration to Africa for macrohaplogroup M & other Eurasian haplogroups; before Gonzalez et al. (2007)'s discovery for the first time of ancestral M1 lineages outside of Africa; before Gonzalez et al. (2007)'s debunking of the proposed dual north/south migration routes out of Africa for macrohaplogroups M & N; and well before Abu Amero et al. (2008)'s debunking of the alternative single migration route out of Africa for macrohaplogroups M & N.
 * Your second source, Semino et al. (2000), also dates from well before the above discoveries that significantly contribute to the present understanding of the macrohaplogroup.
 * Your third source Kivisild et al. (2003), another obsolete study, likewise dates from before this period. What's worse is that you've claimed above that "Kivilid also argues that haplogroup R, the daughter of N originated in Africa shortly after N. So I would argue that not all subclades are thought to have originated outside Africa." The irony is that Kivisild does not support an African origin for macrohaplogroups M, N or R any longer. Going by this other study from 2006 with Underhill (as well as Torroni and Cavalli-Sforza), what Kivisild and Underhill now like their other colleagues believe is that macrohaplogroups M, N & R originated outside of Africa:
 * "'The most recent common ancestor of all the Eurasian, American, Australian, Papua New Guinean, and African lineages in clade L3 dates to 65,000 ± 8000 years while the average coalescent time of the three basic non-African founding haplogroups M, N, and R is 45,000 years.'"


 * It's important to move with the times, Wapondaponda, especially with regard to science. The Quintana et al. (1999), Semino et al. (2000) Kivisild et al. (2004) studies are obsolete. They date from before Rajkumar et al. (2005), Gonzalez et al. (2007), Chandrasekar et al. (2007), and Abu Amero et al. (2008)'s findings. And per Wiki:


 * "'Many Wikipedia articles rely on scholarly material. Academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources when available. However, some scholarly material may be outdated, superseded by more recent research, in competition with alternate theories, or controversial within the relevant field.'"


 * By the way, if I don't always "explain" myself to you, it's because I already have -- you just never bothered reading what I had written (see my posts from 02:33, 3 April 2009 (UTC) and 05:22, 7 April 2009). Causteau (talk) 01:51, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Obsolescence is a relative term, since 1999 the ancestral L3 lineage that gave rise to M and N has not been detected in Eurasia. So in this case, old arguments are still valid. I agree that there is some obsolescence regarding M1, because of the sequencing of several subclades. So the 48kya age by Quintana-Murci is somewhat obsolete. Soares et al date M1 to about 25kya. Nonetheless, the African origin of M is still being referenced as of 2009. Maji et al 2009, Kivisild 2007, Tripathy 2008. Wapondaponda (talk) 03:43, 18 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Don't insult my intelligence. The Maji et al 2009 and Tripathy 2008 papers reference the same old, obsolete studies from Quintana et al. (1999) and Kivisild et al. (2003) when they assert an African origin for macrohaplogroup M, studies which all date from well before Gonzalez et al. (2007), Chandrasekar et al. (2007), and Abu Amero et al. (2008)'s findings. The so-called "Kivisild et al. (2007)" study is also actually from 2005. It was just featured in a textbook that was published in 2007 (that's the problem with textbooks; they suffer major lag time, as I believe I've already explained elsewhere). That's why the study is cited in this paper from 2005 by Metspalu himself, the co-author of that so-called "Kivisild et al. (2007)" study. Going by this other study from 2006 with Underhill (as well as Torroni and Cavalli-Sforza), what Kivisild and Underhill now like their other colleagues believe is that macrohaplogroups M & N originated outside of Africa, as already demonstrated in my previous post. Further, the absence of L3 in Eurasia was already a part of Malyarchuk et al. (2005)'s argument that macrohaplogroups M & N originated in Asia after L3 migrated from Africa and L3 was subsequently "lost":


 * "'Furthermore, examination of recently published complete mtDNA genomes from Papuans and Aboriginal Australians (29) shows an analogous situation in which the lineages are predominantly unique to Australasia but diverge from the base of all three founder haplogroups. Both the indigenous Malaysian mtDNAs and those of Australasia are derived from the three major Eurasian founder haplogroups, M, N, and R, which are also found alongside one another to the west in the Indian subcontinent (15) as well as throughout continental Asia (25, 28)."


 * "The very similar ages of haplogroups M, N, and R indicate that they were part of the same colonization process [see (23)]. This most likely involved the exodus of a founding group of several hundred individuals (27) from East Africa, some time after the appearance of haplogroup L3 ~85,000 years ago, followed by a period of mutation and drift during which haplogroups M, N, and R evolved and the ancestral L3 was lost.'"


 * I strongly suggest you actually follow Andrew's sensible advice and let it go. One would think you'd just be grateful to be able to edit again after all you've done, yet here you are again up to the same old tricks as before. Causteau (talk) 04:41, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't intend to get sourced material removed, in general, I am in inclusionist who believes more information is better. However, I am against misrepresentation of the sources. My three main issues
 * The debate over the number and routes of migrations doesn't relate to origins of M and N. Whether there was one, two or ten migrations out of Africa, or whether there was a Northern route or a southern route, in each case, the theory of an Asian origin or an African origin can be applied. So I would like to move statement 5, out of the Asian origin and place it into the origins section. No text or sources needs to be deleted here, text can just be moved.
 * Causteau removed the theory of the African origins from the infobox. This doesn't make sense, since the African origin is discussed in the body, so I suggest reinserting the African origin in the main infobox
 * It is not mentioned in the article that ancestral M1 lineages have not been found in India. This doesn't go against the Asian origin hypothesis in general, but it weakens the Indian origin hypothesis.
 * The infobox states western Asia, from what I can tell in the sources, for example Gonzalez et al, makes no reference to West Asia, but simply Asia.
 * If these issues can be addressed, then there are no further issues that I wish to pursue at this time. Wapondaponda (talk) 12:54, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Causteau's edits section break
Going through your points...
 * The debate over the number and routes of migrations doesn't relate to origins of M and N. Whether there was one, two or ten migrations out of Africa, or whether there was a Northern route or a southern route, in each case, the theory of an Asian origin or an African origin can be applied. So I would like to move statement 5, out of the Asian origin and place it into the origins section. No text or sources needs to be deleted here, text can just be moved.
 * I think the argument is being made that if it is held that there was a certain limited number of MAJOR migrations, which dominate what happened genetically, then if you see several haplotypes all with a distribution SUGGESTING a certain migration route, then this suggestion becomes a bit more convincing by cross referencing and seeing that they all share a SIMILAR pattern. The smaller the number of migrations is thought to be, the more important that the migration route theories for one haplogroup are to theories for another. Make sense?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:24, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree that these findings indicate that M and N have similar evolutionary histories. But these histories could extend back to Africa. Neurtralizing any arguments for bothWapondaponda (talk) 04:22, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I do not know if anyone claims this is any more than circumstantial, but aren't all sides of the argument doing this? Are you suggesting removing all discussion of such "circumstantial evidence"? Problem is that published articles do this. I guess the implication is that if you argue that if, by seeming coincidence, two lineage started dispersing at the same time as they were also apparently taking part in a migration, then probability goes up that the dispersal started during migration?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 05:38, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * From what I understand, the contemporary theories were that prior to the OOA, there was fragmentation of populations into different pockets. The source population for the OOA is derived from one of these pockets. Evidence is that only one lineage, L3, not L0,L1, or L2 left africa. Similarly Y chromosomes A and B did not leave africa. This is consistent with an initial differentiation in situ in Africa prior to OOA. The Soares et al study simply views the expansion out of Africa as the end of an expansion that started within Africa. So it is theoretically possible that M and N had a migratory history that began in Africa and simply spilled over into Asia. Of course this could apply to L3 as well. Wapondaponda (talk) 05:54, 21 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Causteau removed the theory of the African origins from the infobox. This doesn't make sense, since the African origin is discussed in the body, so I suggest reinserting the African origin in the main infobox
 * I am going to be agnostic on this. I see that African origins is by far the leading theory now, and I really don't see a strong case for anyone on the cutting edge still holding to it?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:24, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I think you mean Asian origin. I think of all the minority view points, the African origin of haplogroup M and N is the strongest and haplogroup E the weakest. The African origin of M and N has prominent backers such as Toomas Kivisild. So I don't think it hurts to have it included in the infobox. Until we get something conclusive, it remains a viable hypothesis. Wapondaponda (talk) 04:22, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, sorry for typo. This is a borderline thing because in genetics we very rarely see anything conclusive. If we would list all POSSIBLE places of origin then we'd fill the boxes pretty quickly. I see your point though as this theory is certainly one that gets mentioned, even relatively recently. (See my postings from some time back here about that.)


 * It is not mentioned in the article that ancestral M1 lineages have not been found in India. This doesn't go against the Asian origin hypothesis in general, but it weakens the Indian origin hypothesis.
 * Does any published source make this argument? If so I see no problem with adding it to the list of bullet points.
 * Yes, Kivisild et al 2003
 * Gonzalez et al also state
 * This image shows the branching of haplogroup M, M1 is part of M, but has no relationship to any other Indian, or Asian clades.
 * Wapondaponda (talk) 04:22, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Do any of these actually connect this to the likelihood of African origins in a direct way? (They don't seem to in the words you have chosen.)--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 05:38, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Wapondaponda (talk) 04:22, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Do any of these actually connect this to the likelihood of African origins in a direct way? (They don't seem to in the words you have chosen.)--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 05:38, 21 July 2009 (UTC)


 * The infobox states western Asia, from what I can tell in the sources, for example Gonzalez et al, makes no reference to West Asia, but simply Asia.
 * Not sure who put that there, or what the basis of this is.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:24, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Man you're a broken record. All of the "points" you've just raised were already debunked in my post above dated 01:51, 18 July 2009, complete with direct quotes from studies -- from the alleged "irrelevance" of the routes taken to your obsolete sources to the spurious notion that the lack of M1 lineages in India goes against Asian origins for macrohaplogroup M. Your only new charge is that the info-box states West Asia instead of Asia, something which it doesn't do either. Causteau (talk) 13:26, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * You are right, I am a broken record. We had discussed all this before. You decided to delete everything that was discussed when I was blocked, so we now have to re-discuss now that I have returned. Wapondaponda (talk) 04:22, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * That's one problem fixed then, by this new attempt to go through each point one by one. Perhaps Wapondaponda can now look at the summary post you mention and update any points still outstanding.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:30, 19 July 2009 (UTC)


 * This is found among the bullet points of number 6

Gonzalez et al actually state

So it is not actually clear if the samples in Tibet are actually M1. My other issue with this is not related to other findings of African haplogroups in Iberia. Haplogroup L lineages have been found in Iberia, possibly from Northwest Africa. I see no reason why Iberian M1 lineages don't have their origins from Africa. I think this statement from Kivisild et al 2004 best summarizes the controversy


 * One more issue, the recent studies by Oliveri and Gonzalez specifically deal with haplogroup M1 and not specifically with haplogroup N. My understanding is therefore that nothing significant has occurred recently regarding haplogroup N. Consequently whatever controversies have existed in the past regarding haplogroup N, continue to exist. Unlike M, there are no native haplogroups of N in Africa. The African origin of haplogroup N, is therefore entirely based on the lack of L3 lineages outside Africa. In this regard, the L3 argument isn't a weak argument. Wapondaponda (talk) 04:22, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

New study, Chandrasekar et al 2009
Updating Phylogeny of Mitochondrial DNA Macrohaplogroup M in India: Dispersal of Modern Human in South Asian Corridor Discusses the origin of haplogroup M. The study acknowledges that the origin of the haplogroup is indeterminate, but doesn't rule out an Indian origin. This can be contrasted with Abu-Amero 2009, which posits an Arabian origin of these haplogroups. Wapondaponda (talk) 12:48, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

haplogroup M1 and M51
According to the tree published at phylotree, East African haplogroup M1 and Indian haplogroup M51 form a monophyletic clade united by the mutation 14110. This is based on Hartmann et al. (unfortunately subscription is needed for the full article). It remains to be seen whether 14110 in both these lineages is as a result of parallel mutations or common ancestry. Some parallel mutations in M1 and other M lineages were suggested by sun et al., examples include 16311 for M4 and 16129 for M5. However if 14110 indicates common ancestry between m1 and m51, then this would provide major support for the Asian origin hypothesis. Not only the Asian origin, but it would also provide support for an ultimate Asian origin of proto-Afroasiatic speakers. Surprisingly a discussion of this connection has not yet been published. Wapondaponda (talk) 13:25, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Haplogroup M (mtDNA)
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Haplogroup M (mtDNA)'s orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Wen2004": From Koreans: Bo Wen, Hui Li, Daru Lu et al., "Genetic evidence supports demic diffusion of Han culture," Nature, Vol 431, 16 September 2004 From Haplogroup F (mtDNA): Bo Wen, Xuanhua Xie, Song Gao et al., "Analyses of Genetic Structure of Tibeto-Burman Populations Reveals Sex-Biased Admixture in Southern Tibeto-Burmans," ''Am. J. Hum. Genet.'' 74:856–865 (2004) 

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:13, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Dated nomenclature?
Found this:""When I go to Wikipedia mtDNA M site, I see that M10 and M42 are grouped together under M10’42, and M74 has disappeared".

Wiki is probably using a dated nomenclature. The Sheila van Holst Pellekaan 2011 nomenclature follows Phylotree." Dougweller (talk) 12:13, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Human migrations and mitochondrial haplogroups map
The "human migrations and mitochondrial haplogroups" map appears to be inaccurate. Its shading suggests that certain geographic regions are overwhelmingly defined by specific haplogroups, which oftentimes isn't the situation at all. There is instead typically an assortment of haplogroups per region. Its shading simultaneously implies that macrohaplogroup M and other clades are exclusive to certain regions, which is also inaccurate for the same reason. A number of M's sub-clades actually have postulated origins outside of the highlighted South Asian, Northeast Asian and South American areas. Soupforone (talk) 00:26, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

http://arstechnica.com/science/2016/02/there-was-a-massive-population-crash-in-europe-over-14500-years-ago/

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3432060/An-unknown-chapter-human-history-took-place-Europe-15-000-years-ago-DNA-shows-hunter-gatherers-replaced-mystery-group-people-Ice-Age.html

22:57, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

A few comments
With regard to M origins, I think there should be some levity on the various sides here. M evolved from some aspect of L3, unless someone is arguing for some sort of recombination between N and asiatic hominids. proto M did not evolve in South Asia. There are several possible options that have not been considered. The previous interglacial cycle may have presented opportunities in the Sahara just as the climate optimum did after all we do see almost modern humans in the Levant between 115 and 135 kya. So it is possible that M lineages formed in NE africa during the previous interglacial, and was flushed into Asia after that period of time leaving north Africa largely vacated except proto-M1. Alternatively L3 might have made it to the Arabia or the levant, given rise to N and M lineages during a climate optimum for some region through drift M and N moved on and L3 was lost. Consider what the problems are here, the dating of M lineage at 65 to 80 kya, depending on how one does ones math, has a rather large variance. During that variance period one has the previous interglacial, mt Toba eruption, etc. L3 has other branches in Africa, including South Africa to Mauritania. Most of the other branches are bushy at the base branch, except M and N which suggest both had been in slight isolation for a period of time prior to expansion.

Here is the principle argument from Asia origin, if L3 is african and M is Asian, and there are 4 mutations between L3 and M, then those 4 mutations could have formed between east Africa or India. But if all four formed in East Africa, it would mean that the transit time between east Afria and India was less than 5000 years, otherwise M mutations would have formed along the way. If the model of migration is tolerant of migration between East Africa and India of less than 5000 years there is no essential conflict between African or Asian origins, either could be true because if there is a constraint on population size L3 evolves to M in situ or along the way, either way ancestral mutation is fortuitiously lost. Any branch point found between L3 and M essentially anchors the arguement. The likelihood of finding new branchpoints in Asia is rather low, but much higher in Africa. The claim is that M left Africa between 70 and 80 kya, the oldest archaeological sites are Eastern India (~76 kya) and LiuJiang (~70kya for youngest date), so yeah, M could have left africa and traveled to India in 5000 years, and yeah there could be a founder affect as the sites are about the same date but spread widely.

Question: is it so important whether M evolved in Africa or Asia, these are constructs that seem important to us, but if we look at gene flow, the sahara is as big a genographic barrier compared to the boundary between North Africa and Western Europe, and there is no boundary once cultures reach the lower nile, beach combers can reach anatolia within a few days walking. The driving distinction here is between the split boundaries between N and M. By my gene barometer this is somewhere around Pakistan and Iran, anything that can make it east of the Indus early in human evolution is likely to spread much farther eastward. That is a rather huge region (between SSA and the Indus) for genes to waffle back and forth with transmigration or climate ossillations.

My answer: the main wastes entirely too much time on M's origin, what percent of people in Africa have been typed for mtDNA? Tiskoff focused on one country in Africa and found a brand new and deep branch of L1 lineages (L5). What is the probability that when Angola is typed or more typing in Congo we will find new mtDNA lineages. There is no need to draft an assumption that there is only M1 in africa and no other M versions, some very deeply branching clades in Africa are very local in their distribution. It is possible that post L3 proto M lineages still exist in Africa, the same is true for N. Albeit if M1 did originate in Europe or Asia I would not be surprised either, since there has been gene from from Iberia into Africa during the prehistoric period. Here is the basic philosophical question- Throw a coin in the air, and call heads or tails before it hits the ground, it all makes good statistics, but that is not how science should present its results to the general public. Science should strive to call the coin once it is settled on the turf-this coin is in mid flight, while its in mid flight - cut though all the crap quickly and say - we don't know, very simple, three words. Some words of wisdom here about calling coins in the air, in an area such as equitorial Africa, where huge regions have had roughly stable climate for 10,000s of years its easier to make certain predictions, but when one deals with increasing probabilities of migrations via north Africa or Arabia, including the regions immediately south of the Sahara, one is dealing with a tempest, a wild card in the game, climate change. The rapid change in climate following periods of nomadic opportunities in the Sahara act to draw peoples into North African and then expell them or eliminate them. One cannot always predict where or how fast they would be expelled.

I also want to critique one specific point. Appearance of diversity is not always represented by divergence time. This is a common misconception in the literature, divergence times are largely determined by the 2N rule, and then 2N rule basically argues that as populations (or cohesive subpopulations) coalesce on a single point that the population size must have been such that previous branching was eliminated by drift. There is no known aspect of human population that converges on a single point and highly unlikely (microscopically low probability) that it could converge on 2 individuals. Therefore loss of lineages, such as intermediate branchpoints are evidence of population constraints (i.e the size of the population versus the frequency of an allele versus the length of the timeframe], particularly in lineages like M1 (mutations:195,6446,6680, 12403,12950C,14110,16249,16311 [I eliminated two hypermutations] has 8 mutations, which is about 40,000 years with no evidence of branching. In this way certain lineages, for example the L5 lineages and certin L0 lineages have remained constrained with few branch points and very long spans between branch points. Populations in their local areas have remained constrained in size since these lineages appeared, such long lineages are particularly common in Africa which in some areas have had very long periods of constrained growth. Short branch lengths are a characteristic of Eurasia and many examples of growth. The presence of diversity in India and the oldest lineages in bangledesh is almost a trivial assertion when one knows the base of the M lineages is African L3 + a handful of mutations. The only thing that this asserts is that M had more opportunities for growth (as founder affects ussually do), and its rapid growth. Consider that a new mutation happens in mtDNA lineage once every 5000 years, that is 250 generations, if one increases the population size from 1 to say 1000 one is more likely to observe a new variant in a single generation if it expands to 10,000 individual there is a good chance of 20 or so different mutants, if the population remains at 1 however, any mutation that occurs is either fixed or lost and the diversity is 0. The more individuals, the more diversity. Whenever there is a founder affect and diversification, its like the universe, all reference points are valid. M lineages did not evolve from someone in Bangledesh leaving no trace of L3 behind. Contrasting M1 with Indian M the difference is that where-ever M1 was, the carrying capacity was much lower, and lower prospects for expansion, compared with the other M lineages, which is revealled over and over again, landed in a place with a great potential for expansion.

The use of M divesity as a citation of more advanced age than M1 when it may have been the only or dominant haplogroup in a founder affect is misleading and the claim of age for M lineages in Bangledesh as being the oldest in India is, in fact, a distortion.PB666 yap 05:13, 10 September 2009 (UTC)


 * The thing is that we are restrained to use the scientific literature and not our own ideas on these things. Expecting that people will not want to mention what it says about possible places seems unrealistic, so if it needs to say something, then it needs to say what has been published.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:02, 10 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Though Pdeitiker is not sympathetic to current models of the Out of Africa theory, I agree with much of what he has said. Whether M originated in Africa or Asia is not important, it is too far back in time and the various possibilities and permutations of what could have happened are too vast for the exact origins to ever be determined. However the philosophy prevalent on blogs that the exact location of origin of a haplogroup carries some special value has been brought to these articles. My interest here has not been to prove that this lineage originated in certain place, but that it is possible that it could have originated in certain areas.


 * With regard to OOA, one issue that is still very controversial is dating the presence of Anatomically Modern Humans outside Africa. Though humans were in Israel circa 100kya, all other evidence of AMH outside Africa from similar time frames is shaky. I have trying to find information from India and Arabia, and at present the evidence is highly inconclusive. Wapondaponda (talk) 08:23, 10 September 2009 (UTC)


 * "Question: is it so important whether M evolved in Africa or Asia, these are constructs that seem important to us, but if we look at gene flow, the sahara is as big a genographic barrier compared to the boundary between North Africa and Western Europe, and there is no boundary once cultures reach the lower nile,". In fact the Sahara itself is no barrier over time, because it has dry and wet periods that flip very quickly if you take into account the depth of time we are talking about with Haplogroups L3 and M1. See The rock art of Tassili Najjar, from what is now the center of the Sahara. Herds of cattle, antelopes, giraffes, the Sahara between 7500 BC and 3500 BC looked more like the Serengeti. MrSativa (talk) 18:04, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Haplogroup M (mtDNA). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160303212239/http://konig.la.utk.edu/AJPA_Suppl_40_web.htm to http://konig.la.utk.edu/AJPA_Suppl_40_web.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100512180829/http://www.phylotree.org/tree/subtree_M.htm to http://www.phylotree.org/tree/subtree_M.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110726092142/https://genographic.nationalgeographic.com/genographic/atlas.html?card=mm004 to https://genographic.nationalgeographic.com/genographic/atlas.html?card=mm004

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 21:10, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Haplogroup M (mtDNA)
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Haplogroup M (mtDNA)'s orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Lippold2014": From Haplogroup CZ (mtDNA):  From Haplogroup N (mtDNA): Sebastian Lippold, Hongyang Xu, Albert Ko, Anne Butthof, Mingkun Li, Gabriel Renaud, Roland Schröder, and Mark Stoneking, "Human paternal and maternal demographic histories: insights from high-resolution Y chromosome and mtDNA sequences." bioRxiv posted online January 13, 2014.  

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 09:04, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Haplogroup M (mtDNA)
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Haplogroup M (mtDNA)'s orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "YFull": From Haplogroup A (mtDNA): YFull MTree 1.01.5539 From Haplogroup Z: YFull MTree 1.01.5396 as of April 4, 2019.</li> <li>From Haplogroup N (mtDNA): YFull Haplogroup YTree v6.05.11 at 25 September 2018.</li> <li>From Jōmon people: YFull MTree 1.01.5902 as of April 20, 2019</li> <li>From Vietnamese people: YFull Haplogroup YTree v6.02 at 02 April 2018.</li> </ul>

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:07, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:53, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Geography of haplogroup M (mtDNA) subclades.png

The African Origin Hypothesis Section
In the section "African origin hypothesis", "The African origin of Haplogroup M is supported by the following arguments and evidence." The problem is that only 1 of the 2 subsections deals with the Out Of Africa hypothesis for M1. The second is about a back migration during the Neolithic? How is that the African Origin Hypothesis? Also, it bears remembering that M1 is so old, that the Andamanese, who have been isolated since the end of the Ice Age 12,000 years ago, have haplogroup M32. 2001:1C00:1E31:5F00:84AF:D47D:EB96:9D8B (talk) 22:12, 16 February 2021 (UTC)