Talk:Haplogroup N (mtDNA)

Origins
Causteau, you know very well that the arguments for the origins of haplogroup M are very similar to the arguments for haplogroup N. Since we have a consensus to use both arguments on haplogroup M, the same should apply here. There is a stronger argument for an Asian origin of N than M because of the presence of M1 in Africa. But nonetheless there is still an argument from reliable sources that state that there is a possibility of an African origin of N. It is best and only fair to include all the arguments and studies related to the topic in line with WP:NPOV. Wapondaponda (talk) 00:41, 28 March 2009 (UTC) Gonder et al state "Finally, our limited genetic data from Tanzanians belonging to haplogroups M1, N1, and J suggest 2 alternatives that are not mutually exclusive. Populations in Tanzania may have been important in the migration of modern humans from Africa to other regions, as noted in previous studies of other populations in eastern Africa (Quintana-Murci et al. 1999Go). For example, mtDNAs of Tanzanians belonging to haplogroup M1 cluster with peoples from Oceania, whereas Tanzanian mtDNAs belonging to haplogroup N1 and J cluster with peoples of Middle Eastern and Eurasian origin. However, the presence of haplogroups N1 and J in Tanzania suggest 'back' migration from the Middle East or Eurasia into eastern Africa, which has been inferred from previous studies of other populations in eastern Africa (Kivisild et al. 2004Go). These results are intriguing and suggest that the role of Tanzanians in the migration of modern humans within and out of Africa should be analyzed in greater detail after more extensive data collection, particularly from analysis of Y-, X-, and autosomal chromosome markers. Our analyses of African mtDNAs suggest populations in eastern Africa have played an important and persistent role in the origin and diversification of modern humans." Wapondaponda (talk) 01:34, 28 March 2009 (UTC) Indeed they acknowledge that haplogroup N1 in Africa suggests a back migration, but still accept the possibility of "2 alternatives". Wapondaponda (talk) 01:34, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Am I correct that as of yet, there is no known living person with a living basal haplogrop N* type? If so, making a determinantion for its origin would be very difficult. The Israel/Jordan/Palestine area seems like one resonable place of origin, since the superhaplogroup is weighted towards Southwest Asia. I am as baffled as everyone else on it. --192.172.8.13 (talk) 13:22, 13 August 2009 (UTC)


 * 192.172.8.13: Indeed, making a determination for origin of N would be very difficult. But Israel/Jordan/Palestine area does not have a much significant presence of ancient clades. --Maulucioni (talk) 04:05, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The whole region between Africa and India has not revealed any ancestral lineages that could be associated with the Out of Africa migration as indicated by Abu-Amero 2008. The Arabian peninsula and the Middle East would be expected to have a very high level of genetic diversity being in proximity to Africa, but instead India has the second highest level of genetic diversity. There seems to have been a major extinction of lineages in the Arabian peninsula because even y-chromosome haplogroup DE has a disjointed distribution, being found in Africa and East Asia but not in between. The closest thing to an ancestral lineage of N is L3 in Africa, indeed some studies refer to haplogroup N as haplogroup L3(N). Wapondaponda (talk) 07:23, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Gonzalez et al
Regarding Gonzalez

"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 . As, in addition, the founder ages of M and N are very similar, the alternative hypothesis, that M and N founders derived from a single African migration, was favored by several authors"

Gonzalez et al when talking about basal lineages are referencing the single origin, several dispersals theory, that states that there were two migrations out of Africa. The first was A northern migration consisting only of haplogroup N, left Africa through the levant to Europe. The second migration consisted only of haplogroup M leaving Africa through the Horn of Africa and subsequently proceeding to populate southern India, the Andaman islands and Australia.. This hypothesis aimed to explain why haplogroup M is rare almost absent in Western Europe, but abundant in Asia. However this hypothesis has been weakened, possibly even discredited because deep rooting lineages of haplogroup N have been found amongst Indigenous Australians and Papuans who were previously thought to only be of haplogroup M. The conclusion is that indigenous Australians, Papuans and Europeans all share the same haplogroup N, which almost certainly means they were part of the same colonization process, ie a single migration out of Africa involving individuals with both haplogroup M and N.
 * Both Australian Aborigines and Europeans Rooted in Africa
 * Aborigines, Europeans Share African Roots, DNA Suggests
 * Mitochondrial Genome Variation and Evolutionary History of Australian and New Guinean Aborigines, reference 17 Gonzalez et al
 * Major genomic mitochondrial lineages delineate early human expansions This theory holds that caucasoids are haplogroup N and left Africa through the levant. Australoids, papuans and south indians were thought to be only of haplogroup M. This particular study is reference number 7 from Gonzalez et al

As you can see, this relates to another controversy, not specifically to the origins of haplogroups M and N. Wapondaponda (talk) 02:59, 28 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually, Gonzalez et al. (2007) state very clearly what they mean, and which routes they're referring to:
 * "'Focusing on mtDNA, all non-African lineages belong to two founder clusters, named M and N, which share a common root with their L3 African counterpart. 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 [15,16] and Australia [6,17] weakened that hypothesis.'"


 * From the above, it's clear as plain as day that 1)One Out-of-Africa route proposed southern coastal route for M "to southern Asia and Oceania" (i.e. (around India and Australia), and 2)The other Out-of-Africa route proposed a continental route to Eurasia for N lineages. However, because primitive N lineages were later found in India and Australia instead of being found in their proposed Western Eurasia, that threw a wrench into that theory on the "two possible Out-of-Africa routes". Causteau (talk) 03:46, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

We are in agreement, it just has nothing to do with the origins of haplogroups N and M. It is actually relevant to the article. But this neither supports or weakens the origins of N or M. Wapondaponda (talk) 04:01, 28 March 2009 (UTC)


 * LOL You wish.:
 * "However, the posterior detection of primitive N lineages in southern areas as India [15,16] and Australia [6,17] weakened that hypothesis." Causteau (talk) 04:07, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

connect the dots, what has that got to do with the origins of N. It simply means that N has been in asia since earliest times. N could still have arisen in Africa. Wapondaponda (talk) 04:31, 28 March 2009 (UTC)


 * No it doesn't. It means that the hypothesis of a two-route journey of M and N out of Africa has been foiled (if they couldn't get out of Africa and and spread, then...) because the oldest N lineages are found where the oldest M lineages alone should be found (South Asia, Oceania) and not where they were supposed to be found (the Levant) under the two-route hypothesis. That is what Gonzalez et al. mean by "the posterior detection of primitive N lineages in southern areas as India and Australia weakened that hypothesis". Causteau (talk) 04:40, 28 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I also didn't cite Gonzalez et al. (2007) as a source for the Asian origin of macrohaplogroup N, so your point is moot. Causteau (talk) 04:43, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * This is a red herring, the two route theory has nothing to do with the origins of haplogroups M and N, indeed it has been discredited. Any attempts to link it to the controversy, when the authors themselves have not done so, is original research. Whether humans migrated from Africa in a single event or in multiple events doesn't sway the argument either way. There is no autochthonous L3 in Eurasia, and there is no autochthonous N in Africa, which basically leaves the controversy unresolved. Any study that does not conclusively address the aforementioned issues leaves the issue unresolved, whether the study is from 2003 or from 2010. It is possible that we may never know. But we continue to wait, maybe there will develop technology that can extract DNA from paleolithic remains will shed light on the issue. I don't really care whether haplogroup N originated in Africa or Asia, what bothers me is unfair POV pushing, censorship, deleting information from scientific studies that have anything contrary to Causteau's world view. Wapondaponda (talk) 04:57, 28 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Yeah. Sure pal. You don't care where haplogroups M or N or E or even E1b1b originated for that matter. All you've done is consistently attempt to quash, question or otherwise undermine every single source or argument that suggests a non-African origin for said (or indeed, any) haplogroups. Like the old saying goes, if that ain't POV, then I'd hate to see what is. Causteau (talk) 05:21, 28 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Also, the two route hypothesis -- the traditional view of how the populations bearing the haplogroups M and N exited Africa in the first place according to the Out-of-Africa hypothesis -- has everything to do with the Out-of-Africa hypothesis because, as Gonzalez et al. (2007) clearly indicate, "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," a hypothesis, which they themselves have stated has been weakened. Don't even bother suggesting otherwise; it's preposterous. Causteau (talk) 05:21, 28 March 2009 (UTC)


 * You are obscenely disingenuous. Truly in a class of your own. Here's the WP:PROVEIT section you keep quoting:
 * "'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.'"
 * How dare you quote me that when I've already quoted the statements supporting an Asian origin in the footnotes for verification? How dare you?! Do you even understand the meaning of the rules you read? Causteau (talk) 09:20, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

If your intentions are honorable, then we can decide to not use any of our own personal prose other than introductory phrases and we can use direct quotes. I have no problem with that. Wapondaponda (talk) 09:24, 28 March 2009 (UTC)


 * What the hell would you know about "honorable intentions"? You repeatedly distort WP:PROVEIT in an attempt to demonstrate that quotes take precedence over sourced material, when NOWHERE in the policy book does it state that. You lie that Gonzalez et al. (2007) support an African origin for haplogroup N yet can't even provide one of those famous quotes you constantly demand from others! I swear, guys like you don't last long on Wikipedia, and for good reason. Causteau (talk) 09:29, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes when there is a dispute, direct quotes take precedence over individual editors' prose. Wapondaponda (talk) 09:31, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * No, that's not the policy. That's what you wish the policy were. Here's the policy.
 * "'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. The source cited must clearly support the information as it is presented in the article. 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.'"
 * Now I'm asking YOU to quote exactly right here on this talk page where exactly Gonzalez et al. (2007) support an African origin for haplogroup N. Let's show the world how honest you really are. Causteau (talk) 09:37, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Gonzalez et al make no assertions regarding M and N only M1. They say that it is a puzzle and that it is not yet resolved. There conclusion makes no reference to M and N. Yet they clearly state that both scenarios have been debated. ''The out of Africa hypothesis has gained generalized consensus. However, many specific questions remain unsettled. To know whether the two M and N macrohaplogroups that colonized Eurasia were already present in Africa before the exit is puzzling.''

Another related disjunctive yet not settled is whether M and N (and its main branch R) arose inside or outside Africa

Absolutely nowhere in the article, and I reiterate NOWHERE do Gonzalez et al state that their study has found any conclusive evidence of the origins of M and N. NOWHERE Wapondaponda (talk) 09:41, 28 March 2009 (UTC)


 * First, you reverted my talk page comments. Don' think I didn't notice that. That was a very, very bad move, and also a very telling move, as only vandals do that. Tampering with another editor's talk page comments is against WP:TALK and is a form of vandalism. Second, that quote above doesn't support your edit. It says that "To know whether the two M and N macrohaplogroups that colonized Eurasia were already present in Africa before the exit is puzzling." And it says this in the section of the study titled "Background", where the study's authors review the previous literature on the subject. I know you already know this because I already told you as much, as did Andrew. That yet again goes to show your level of ingenuity or rather lack thereof. Third, Gonzalez et al. (2007) state point blank in the section of the study aptly named "Conclusion" that haplogroup M may have originated in Asia:
 * "'This study provides evidence that M1, or its ancestor, had an Asiatic origin.'"
 * And I know you are already aware of that as well because I repeatedly quoted that for you on the haplogroup M article's talk page (you know, back when you were pretending to be a disinterested "third opinion"). Causteau (talk) 10:07, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

That is not conclusive, first of all, there is an or, which means either one. Secondly, there is no mention of the ancestor, it could be M or it could not be. Most importantly M or N is not mentioned at all in the conclusion. "This study provides evidence that M1, or its ancestor, had an Asiatic origin. The earliest M1 expansion into Africa occurred in northwestern instead of northeastern 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. Finally, a relevant fraction of M1a lineages present today in the European Continent and nearby islands possibly had a Jewish instead of the commonly proposed Arab/Berber maternal ascendance." Wapondaponda (talk) 10:13, 28 March 2009 (UTC)


 * LOL Yeah right. M is M1's ancestor buddy; that's who it descended from. And Gonzalez above clearly states that M may have had an Asian origin. Causteau (talk) 10:19, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * L3 is also M1's ancestor. Does that make it asiatic too. Wapondaponda (talk) 10:26, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * L3 is M's immediate ancestor, not M1. But enough quibbling. Here's a more direct quote:
 * "'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.'"
 * What now? Causteau (talk) 10:36, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * If you wanted to include that quote in the article, I would have no problem. Unless there is some cryptic meaning that I have failed to grasp, it doesn't say that M originated in Asia, only that M1 returned from Asia to Africa. In addition there is no mention of N. In any case, the study is simply playing statistical hocus pocus with the numbers. Not that it is not valid, but it is not certain. All of these studies depend on what molecular clock rate is used. One could use a slow rate or a fast rate. In short, within a given acceptable range the age of haplogroup M1 is from 20000 years to 60,000 years. M1 is only a sideshow, the big issue is finding autochthonous clades of L3 in Eurasia or autochthonous clades of N or M, besides M1, in Africa. Without that the issue will remain unresolved. Wapondaponda (talk) 10:42, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Please. They're talking about origins in the quote above, just like in the quote before it that you also tried to cast doubts on: "Although it is out of doubt that the L3 ancestor of M had an African origin" -- capiche? I know you do. Causteau (talk) 10:50, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Its not age, but quality. The theory of evolution is founded on a 150 year old book written by Charles Darwin entitled The Origin of Species. Though he didn't get everything right, much of it is still accepted. There is no problem with references older articles if they have not been unequivocally disproven. Wapondaponda (talk) 10:46, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * There's a huge problem with including old studies because new mutations and lineages are discovered all the time which significantly alter the originally perceived relationships between clades. I know Andrew agrees with me on this because, using your logic, I could just as easily alter the E1b1b page (& the haplogroup DE article for that matter) with all sorts of old studies and also glibly cite Newton in "defense". Absurd. Utterly absurd. Causteau (talk) 10:50, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Who is to decide what is old or not. We cannot set up arbitrary criteria on what is old. We determine obsolescence based on studies that conclusively refute previous studies which has not been the case. I will be supportive of some of your edits if you decide to use direct quotes instead of injecting your own personal interpretations. Wapondaponda (talk) 10:56, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * 1)I HAVE inserted direct quotes which prove to any normal, ingenuous person with a brain that I have closely paraphrased said quotes. An article can't be made up of quote after quote after quote, which is what you are pushing for this time so that it gives you an excuse to remove one of the arguments I cited in support of the Asian origin hypothesis that I got directly from Gonzalez et al. If that weren't bad enough, you keep inserting the LIE that Gonzalez et al. support an African origin for haplogroup N. What a joke. Not even the quote above you cited from the Background section of their study supports your edit! And now you cite studies from over a decade ago and shrug and say, hey, they're still valid when we both know it's only because no modern studies support an African origin for haplogroup N any longer. Causteau (talk) 11:03, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

As a compromise I suggest placing the text you want on the talk page for scrutinization. Wapondaponda (talk) 11:09, 28 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The text I want? Beggars can't be choosers, Wap. You're literally time-traveling to find studies that support an Asian origin for haplogroup N because no modern ones do, and you bloody well know it. I'm not going to compromise with you over this so that you may then interpret that as a green light to insert your bogus POV into the article. People actually read these articles. They're not just for your personal gratification/self-esteem. And now you even cite Newton to justify your championing of hoary, liver-spotted, obsolete studies from back when Smash Mouth were popular! I also notice, even when you've been proven to be lying, you still re-insert the Gonzalez et al. (2007) source into the article, continuing as ever to pretend that it supports an African origin for haplogroup N when it most certainly does not. I'm beginning to feel really sorry for you at this point because you have very little understanding of how Wikipedia works, and who and what lasts around here. Causteau (talk) 11:36, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Sources that reference a possible African origin of haplogroup N

 * The Evolution and History of Human Populations in South Asia
 * Anthropological Genetics 2007 by Michael H. Crawford
 * Molecular biology of aging Leonard Guarente 2007
 * 

Dates
Another issue that needs resolution is dating. Currently the article gives haplogroup N a date of 65,000 years ago. Whereas the out-of-Africa migration has most recently been estimated to have took place 50,000-85,000 years ago. This still indicates the possibility of N having originated in either Asia or Africa. Wapondaponda (talk) 16:37, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Review of literature
This assertion that Gonzalez et al were only reviewing literature is original research. They make no such claim. They discuss the current scientific arguments and take no sides regarding M and N only M1. Wapondaponda (talk) 04:07, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

A new ref?
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18855041?dopt=Abstract --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:46, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Soares et al 2009
A new study by Soares et al Correcting for Purifying Selection: An Improved Human Mitochondrial Molecular Clock has new dates for the origin of haplogroup M. The study claims to be the most accurate as it has considered the whole genome, both coding and non-coding regions. The article dates haplogroup N to 71200 years ago with a 95% confidence interval of 55800-87100. The study places the Out of Africa migration at 55-70kya. As these dates overalap with the origins of haplogroup N, both an African and Asian origin are possible. However, the point estimate of 71.2 falls outside the range of the proposed date of the out of Africa migration. The supplemental materials are available for free. N is on page 87. The image of the phylogenetic tree is available here In the government (talk) 18:39, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

origins again
I have restored the sections that debate the origins of this haplogroup. Wapondaponda (talk) 20:07, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Haplogroup N (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/20161006125303/http://ychrom.invint.net/upload/iblock/f30/Cerny%202009%20Out%20of%20ArabiarusThe%20Settlement%20of%20Island%20Soqotra%20as%20Revealed%20by%20Mitochondrial%20and%20Y.pdf to http://ychrom.invint.net/upload/iblock/f30/Cerny%202009%20Out%20of%20ArabiarusThe%20Settlement%20of%20Island%20Soqotra%20as%20Revealed%20by%20Mitochondrial%20and%20Y.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100417052022/http://www.phylotree.org/tree/subtree_N.htm to http://www.phylotree.org/tree/subtree_N.htm

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)

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Haplogroup N (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/20110726092829/https://genographic.nationalgeographic.com/genographic/atlas.html?card=mm009 to https://genographic.nationalgeographic.com/genographic/atlas.html?card=mm009

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) 23:40, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Basal/undifferentiated N
Any primary branch of N is basal to any other branch of N, and there is no 'undifferentiated' N in existence today. If somewhere has a high frequency of 'basal N*' that means it has a branch of N which is/was not named yet; look for a newer study with complete mitogenomes if possible. The N* from Soqotra was not any new branch but I5a2 - Cerny et al (2009) only looked at HVS-I and a few other mutations which could not distinguish hg I. It is identified as I3 or I5 in Amy Non's thesis (2010) referenced in this article, and as I5a in Fernandes et al (2012), "The Arabian Cradle: Mitochondrial Relicts of the First Steps along the Southern Route out of Africa". The Somali N is not in reference given at all. Only one of the North African N is listed as N*. Megalophias (talk) 19:15, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Haplogroup N (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 N (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 "Derenko2012": From Haplogroup B (mtDNA):  From Haplogroup F (mtDNA):  

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 ⚡ 10:33, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Most of the alphabet is N
A, B, F, H, I, J, K, O, P, R, S, T, U, V, W, X, and Y are all N - the numbered N branches are just ones that happened not to get a letter assigned to them during early research - so there is no need to mention, for instance, Natufian N1b, as if it were more relevant than Natufian J2a2. N is the most common mitochondrial lineage in the world, found at high frequency almost everywhere outside of Sub-Saharan Africa. Most ancient mitochondrial DNA sampled so far, including that of oldest modern human aDNA (Ust' Ishim man), is N. Individual cases of ancient N are not worth mentioning, IMO, unless they relate to bigger questions like the transition from archaic to modern human populations, or the potential back-migration of N to Africa. Megalophias (talk) 15:54, 3 October 2019 (UTC)