[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Amerind mtDNA lines Founded by coastal and Riparian colonization

Subject: Re: Amerind mtDNA lines Founded by coastal and Riparian colonization
From: "Lee Olsen"
Date: 23 Nov 2005 18:28:33 -0800
Newsgroups: sci.anthropology.paleo, sci.archaeology
JAE wrote:
> Lee Olsen wrote:
> > JAE wrote:
> > > Philip Deitiker wrote:
> > >
> > > [snip Fix abstract]
> > >
> > >
> > > > What have I been telling you guys, amerinds moved along the
> > > > coasts at their convinience and then moved inland, secondary
> > > > lines came later but were dominated by male contributions.
> > >
> > > There is some danger in relying heavily on simulations, though this is
> > > what I've found in the empirical data from extant populations
> > > indicating a distinct difference between coastal and inland pops on the
> > > Western seaboard.
> > If Fix is correct: "These four haplogroups (A, B, C, and D) and perhaps
> > a fifth (X) in North America are postulated to be present in the
> > initial founding migration to the Americas." Then what happened to the
> > A, B, C (X?) in the Prince-of-Wales man 2000 years later (as per Kemp
> > et al.)? Could these haplogroups have disappeared in less than 2000
> > years at that location?
> I don't get your question at all.

That's because I don't understand anything about DNA at all.

A,B,C and X disappeared?  We found
> DNA from one individual.  An individual can only have one mtDNA
> haplogroup.  If you have one person, you can only detect one
> haplogroup.

Then that is what I did not understand. I've never seen results in any
other form but pie charts or bar graphs for populations (or percentages
of them), so I guess it never occurred to me what might make up a
single individual. A haplogroup of one (group of one?) seems like a
contradictory definition.

 We have no direct evidence of what other haplogroups might
> or might not have been present in other individuals at that time.

Well, with my new found understanding, I'll have to reread some of my
DNA papers over again and see if they  make more sense this time, but I
doubt it :-)

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>