| |
 |
|
|
Science Forum Index » Anthropology Forum » does african mitochondrial origin contradict multiregionalis
Page 1 of 1
|
| Author |
Message |
| Zbigniew Lisiecki |
 Posted: Thu Nov 13, 2003 7:50 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Hi,
in a discussion between "out of Aftrica" supportes (A.Wilson,R.Cann) and
"mutliregionalists" (A.Thorne, H.Wolpoff) arguments of both sides are
ussualy shown as condradictory. Yet IMHO inheriting of one feature
(mitochondrial DNA) from one source (african women) does not exclude the
possiblity that other features (e.g. blood characteristca) are inherited
from other mutational sources (let's say from our anecestor living in
Asia).
In this sence from the fact the mtDNA is most probabliy inherited from
Africa does not necessary follow that Africa is a source of overall human
genome and thus the source of a human race generally. Mitochondrial data
alone suggest only that there is a anecestor-descedant relation
between each modern human and some african women, nothing more.
It may seem paradox that different aspects of our genotype stem from
different parts of the earth, but it's at least logically possible.Possibly
this difficulty in understanding led to an erroneous linkage between mtDNA
inheriting and out ideas of population migrations.
I am not an anthropologist and my source of knowledge are only popular
science articles and my reasoning. Therefore I'd be very thankful if any
professional comments on my idea. Is my argument already well known ?
regards, z.lisiecki
--
http://zbyszek.evot.org |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Philip Deitiker |
| Posted: Thu Nov 13, 2003 7:50 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Wed, 12 Nov 2003 20:51:17 +0100, Zbigniew Lisiecki
<zbyszek@evot.org> did some sarious thank'n and scribbled:
Quote: Hi,
in a discussion between "out of Aftrica" supportes (A.Wilson,R.Cann) and
"mutliregionalists" (A.Thorne, H.Wolpoff) arguments of both sides are
ussualy shown as condradictory. Yet IMHO inheriting of one feature
(mitochondrial DNA) from one source (african women) does not exclude the
possiblity that other features (e.g. blood characteristca) are inherited
from other mutational sources (let's say from our anecestor living in
Asia).
Except Y chromosome passed by males also suggests african
origins, and so directly do most other loci. The X-linked
loci, 12 of them combined corroborate both population size
and origin. 5 years ago this might have been a acceptable
post, now however it just shows how out-to-lunch. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Zbigniew Lisiecki |
| Posted: Thu Nov 13, 2003 7:50 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
¶ro 12. of November 2003 21:10 Philip Deitiker wrote:
Quote: On Wed, 12 Nov 2003 20:51:17 +0100, Zbigniew Lisiecki
zbyszek@evot.org> did some sarious thank'n and scribbled:
Hi,
in a discussion between "out of Aftrica" supportes (A.Wilson,R.Cann) and
"mutliregionalists" (A.Thorne, H.Wolpoff) arguments of both sides are
ussualy shown as condradictory. Yet IMHO inheriting of one feature
(mitochondrial DNA) from one source (african women) does not exclude the
possiblity that other features (e.g. blood characteristca) are inherited
from other mutational sources (let's say from our anecestor living in
Asia).
Except Y chromosome passed by males also suggests african
origins, and so directly do most other loci. The X-linked
loci, 12 of them combined corroborate both population size
and origin. 5 years ago this might have been a acceptable
post, now however it just shows how out-to-lunch.
Yes, it is indeed very interesting, that many features seem to come from
Africa, but even if the most of them have an african origin, acording to my
argument it does not deny the possibility of multiregional developement
and does not neccessarily imply migration waves from Africa.
z
--
http://zbyszek.evot.org |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Raimondo |
| Posted: Thu Nov 13, 2003 7:50 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Zbigniew Lisiecki <zbyszek@evot.org> wrote in message news:<bou2v8$j1d$1@news.onet.pl>...
Quote: Hi,
in a discussion between "out of Aftrica" supportes (A.Wilson,R.Cann) and
"mutliregionalists" (A.Thorne, H.Wolpoff) arguments of both sides are
ussualy shown as condradictory. Yet IMHO inheriting of one feature
(mitochondrial DNA) from one source (african women) does not exclude the
possiblity that other features (e.g. blood characteristca) are inherited
from other mutational sources (let's say from our anecestor living in
Asia).
In this sence from the fact the mtDNA is most probabliy inherited from
Africa does not necessary follow that Africa is a source of averall human
genome and thus the source of a human race generally. Mitochondrial data
alone suggest only that there is a anecestor-descedant relation
between each modern human and some african women, nothing more.
It may seem paradoxical that different aspects of our genotype stem from
different parts of the earth, but it's at least logically possible.Possibly
this difficulty in understanding led to an erroneous linkage between mtDNA
inheriting and hypotheses of population migrations.
I am not an anthropologist and my source of knowledge are only popular
science articles and my reasoning. Therefore I'd be very thankful if any
professional comments on my idea. Is my argument already well known ?
regards, z.lisiecki
You dont´understand genetic?; I dount´speak english. So we are
eaaggle(?) Genetic is so multinational, that it dasn´t nead any
language. Am I stupped, are you too?
R.A. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Nick Maclaren |
| Posted: Thu Nov 13, 2003 7:50 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
In article <bou2v8$j1d$1@news.onet.pl>,
Zbigniew Lisiecki <zbyszek@evot.org> writes:
|>
|> in a discussion between "out of Aftrica" supportes (A.Wilson,R.Cann) and
|> "mutliregionalists" (A.Thorne, H.Wolpoff) arguments of both sides are
|> ussualy shown as condradictory. Yet IMHO inheriting of one feature
|> (mitochondrial DNA) from one source (african women) does not exclude the
|> possiblity that other features (e.g. blood characteristca) are inherited
|> from other mutational sources (let's say from our anecestor living in
|> Asia).
That is correct.
|> In this sence from the fact the mtDNA is most probabliy inherited from
|> Africa does not necessary follow that Africa is a source of averall human
|> genome and thus the source of a human race generally. Mitochondrial data
|> alone suggest only that there is a anecestor-descedant relation
|> between each modern human and some african women, nothing more.
Not quite. [*]
|> It may seem paradoxical that different aspects of our genotype stem from
|> different parts of the earth, but it's at least logically possible.Possibly
|> this difficulty in understanding led to an erroneous linkage between mtDNA
|> inheriting and hypotheses of population migrations.
That is correct. The current politics of academia put too much
emphasis on spin, and not enough on explaining the reasons why a
hypothesis may be wrong.
|> I am not an anthropologist and my source of knowledge are only popular
|> science articles and my reasoning. Therefore I'd be very thankful if any
|> professional comments on my idea. Is my argument already well known ?
Nor am I, but I am a (rusty) statistician.
[*] The basic rules for inheriting mtDNA (and Y chromosomes) are
different from those for inheriting most genes, but they are related.
While it is not at all impossible that the sources are different, it
isn't likely.
An extreme example of this is my hypothesis that I posted a long
time back, that it is not yet proven that Neanderthal and Cromagnon
humans were not the same (nuclear) species with different mtDNA.
While it isn't LIKELY, it is entirely POSSIBLE, and there is no
evidence that even contraindicates my hypothesis. No, I don't
believe that it is true, but so what?
Regards,
Nick Maclaren. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Zbigniew Lisiecki |
| Posted: Thu Nov 13, 2003 7:50 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
czw 13. of November 2003 09:56 Nick Maclaren wrote:
Quote: [*] The basic rules for inheriting mtDNA (and Y chromosomes) are
different from those for inheriting most genes, but they are related.
yes, my first post looks as if i don't consider different inheriting ways,
yet they play no role in my argument ! that's why i speak about "features"
instaed of "genes".
Quote: While it is not at all impossible that the sources are different, it
isn't likely.
why ?
Quote: An extreme example of this is my hypothesis that I posted a long
time back, that it is not yet proven that Neanderthal and Cromagnon
humans were not the same (nuclear) species with different mtDNA.
While it isn't LIKELY, it is entirely POSSIBLE, and there is no
evidence that even contraindicates my hypothesis. No, I don't
believe that it is true, but so what?
i think one could get the likelihood from what we know about the link
between mtDNA and the outlook of bones, which i suppose is diminishing
z
--
http://zbyszek.evot.org |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Spiznet |
| Posted: Thu Nov 13, 2003 8:44 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
nmm1@cus.cam.ac.uk (Nick Maclaren) wrote in message
Quote: Zbigniew Lisiecki <zbyszek@evot.org> writes:
|
|> in a discussion between "out of Aftrica" supportes (A.Wilson,R.Cann) and
|> "mutliregionalists" (A.Thorne, H.Wolpoff) arguments of both sides are
|> ussualy shown as condradictory. Yet IMHO inheriting of one feature
|> (mitochondrial DNA) from one source (african women) does not exclude the
|> possiblity that other features (e.g. blood characteristca) are inherited
|> from other mutational sources (let's say from our anecestor living in
|> Asia).
That is correct.
[*] The basic rules for inheriting mtDNA (and Y chromosomes) are
different from those for inheriting most genes, but they are related.
While it is not at all impossible that the sources are different, it
isn't likely.
An extreme example of this is my hypothesis that I posted a long
time back, that it is not yet proven that Neanderthal and Cromagnon
humans were not the same (nuclear) species with different mtDNA.
While it isn't LIKELY, it is entirely POSSIBLE, and there is no
evidence that even contraindicates my hypothesis. No, I don't
believe that it is true, but so what?
Regards,
Nick Maclaren.
Nick/Zbig-
But Phil is saying is that
1) when mtDNA was the only evidence, all these other origin scenarios
could be conjectured.
2) now that other DNA sources confirm the mtDNA evidence, it is a done
deal for modern human origins.
Nick- note that there is only mtDNA for Neanderthal (and non for other
pre-Hss), so there is still hope at least for your theory.
-Mark |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Nick Maclaren |
| Posted: Thu Nov 13, 2003 9:13 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
In article <cb2e44af.0311130544.7f67d428@posting.google.com>,
mark@spiznet.com (Spiznet) writes:
|>
|> But Phil is saying is that
|>
|> 1) when mtDNA was the only evidence, all these other origin scenarios
|> could be conjectured.
|>
|> 2) now that other DNA sources confirm the mtDNA evidence, it is a done
|> deal for modern human origins.
Ah. Yes, it pretty well is. Of course, there is always a chance
that a population from X is joined by a much smaller population
from Y, but ends up with almost all Y genes and very few X genes.
Whether for nuclear or mtDNA. It isn't likely, however.
|> Nick- note that there is only mtDNA for Neanderthal (and non for other
|> pre-Hss), so there is still hope at least for your theory.
Quite  I produced it only as a response to people who were
claiming a proof of distinctness on the basis of Neanderthal and
modern human mtDNA alone, which seemed a bit premature.
To Zbigniew Lisiecki:
Quote: While it is not at all impossible that the sources are different, it
isn't likely.
why ?
It is fairly easy to work out the probabilities of particular nuclear
mixtures based on simple Mendelian mixing and a known proportion of
two types of DNA in a population. You can then work out the
probability of a certain proportion of the nuclear DNA coming from
individuals from one subgroup conditional on a certain proportion
of the mtDNA coming from another. It is much easier to express in
mathematics :-)
Anyway, the summary is that, while such events are possible, the
probability is low, especially if there are several mtDNA strains.
I can't give you the formulae offhand, and would have to restore a
fair chunk of my brain from off-line backup to calculate them!
Regards,
Nick Maclaren. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Zbigniew Lisiecki |
| Posted: Fri Nov 14, 2003 6:35 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
czw 13. of November 2003 15:13 Nick Maclaren wrote:
Quote: While it is not at all impossible that the sources are different, it
isn't likely.
why ?
It is fairly easy to work out the probabilities of particular nuclear
mixtures based on simple Mendelian mixing and a known proportion of
two types of DNA in a population. You can then work out the
probability of a certain proportion of the nuclear DNA coming from
individuals from one subgroup conditional on a certain proportion
of the mtDNA coming from another. It is much easier to express in
mathematics :-)
Anyway, the summary is that, while such events are possible, the
probability is low, especially if there are several mtDNA strains.
I can't give you the formulae offhand, and would have to restore a
fair chunk of my brain from off-line backup to calculate them!
Nick, mendelian mixig aply 1. to individual genes, 2. when proportion of
their type in population is known, as you stated. Here we deal with gene
ansambles, or a whole genotype, and try to recover the distributions in the
population. What calculus shows the diminishing propability of the
distribution, let's say: 50 % of the whole genotype (including mtDNA) from
africa, 30% from asia and 20% from europe ?
z
--
http://zbyszek.evot.org |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
|
Page 1 of 1
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Wed Jul 09, 2008 2:11 am
|
|
