Check for new replies
When did D0 (D2) form?
#1
According to Haber et al (2019), D0 formed 71,400 years ago. However, according to FTDNA, D0 (listed as D-FT75) formed 55,000 years ago. Moreover, according to Y-Full, D0 (listed as D-Y330435) formed 46,500 years ago.

Which is the case? Why are the dates so different? I would imagine that Y-Full's and FTDNA's dates differ due to the usage of different mutation rates. However, they're relatively close to one another when compared to that of Haber et al (2018). Why is Haber et al's so much older (71,400 > 55,000 & 46,500 years ago).

By the way, the subtitle of this subforum should be changed from Y-DNA Haplogroup D-M174 section to Y-DNA Haplogroup D-CTS3946 section.
Reply
#2
(08-25-2024, 09:44 PM)Inquirer Wrote: According to Haber et al (2019), D0 formed 71,400 years ago. However, according to FTDNA, D0 (listed as D-FT75) formed 55,000 years ago. Moreover, according to Y-Full, D0 (listed as D-Y330435) formed 46,500 years ago.

Which is the case? Why are the dates so different? I would imagine that Y-Full's and FTDNA's dates differ due to the usage of different mutation rates. However, they're relatively close to one another when compared to that of Haber et al (2018). Why is Haber et al's so much older (71,400 > 55,000 & 46,500 years ago).

By the way, the subtitle of this subforum should be changed from Y-DNA Haplogroup D-M174 section to Y-DNA Haplogroup D-CTS3946 section.

normally, FTDNA shows last SNP in same level datation while Yfull and academic institutions usually work with first SNP level
D-F974 in ancestral path has same datation as DE-M145- You cannot interpret strictly because is an absurd, of course

https://discover.familytreedna.com/y-dna/D-F974/path
Reply
#3
(08-25-2024, 11:02 PM)miquirumba Wrote:
(08-25-2024, 09:44 PM)Inquirer Wrote: According to Haber et al (2019), D0 formed 71,400 years ago. However, according to FTDNA, D0 (listed as D-FT75) formed 55,000 years ago. Moreover, according to Y-Full, D0 (listed as D-Y330435) formed 46,500 years ago.

Which is the case? Why are the dates so different? I would imagine that Y-Full's and FTDNA's dates differ due to the usage of different mutation rates. However, they're relatively close to one another when compared to that of Haber et al (2018). Why is Haber et al's so much older (71,400 > 55,000 & 46,500 years ago).

By the way, the subtitle of this subforum should be changed from Y-DNA Haplogroup D-M174 section to Y-DNA Haplogroup D-CTS3946 section.

normally, FTDNA shows last SNP in same level datation while Yfull and academic institutions usually work with first SNP level
D-F974 in ancestral path has same datation as DE-M145- You cannot interpret strictly because is an absurd, of course

https://discover.familytreedna.com/y-dna/D-F974/path

What about Haber et al (2019)? Why is their date for D0 so much older (71,400 years ago)?
Reply
#4
(08-25-2024, 11:02 PM)miquirumba Wrote:
(08-25-2024, 09:44 PM)Inquirer Wrote: According to Haber et al (2019), D0 formed 71,400 years ago. However, according to FTDNA, D0 (listed as D-FT75) formed 55,000 years ago. Moreover, according to Y-Full, D0 (listed as D-Y330435) formed 46,500 years ago.

Which is the case? Why are the dates so different? I would imagine that Y-Full's and FTDNA's dates differ due to the usage of different mutation rates. However, they're relatively close to one another when compared to that of Haber et al (2018). Why is Haber et al's so much older (71,400 > 55,000 & 46,500 years ago).

By the way, the subtitle of this subforum should be changed from Y-DNA Haplogroup D-M174 section to Y-DNA Haplogroup D-CTS3946 section.

normally, FTDNA shows last SNP in same level datation while Yfull and academic institutions usually work with first SNP level
D-F974 in ancestral path has same datation as DE-M145- You cannot interpret strictly because is an absurd, of course

https://discover.familytreedna.com/y-dna/D-F974/path
every tean has its algorithm and there is not ancient DNA recovered and dated in that old period, therefore, scientist could speculate about actual first D0 man
We need more ancient genomes aligned against A0 pangenomes (T2T full Y chromosome) because there are a lot of new variants and STRs discovered in telomeres which can improve phylogenetic datation
Reply
#5
(04-06-2024, 03:48 PM)Jerome Wrote: BTW, lazaridis in his 2016 study actually explored the idea that iran_n might have some kind of Ancestry which split after ust ishim but before kostenki.
He mentioned that this might be having a conflation with basal eurasian and that this is a possible idea that needs to be explored.


I think this is interesting, considering that how it might relate to haplogroup G-M201 and badarostian culture


(08-26-2024, 02:05 PM)miquirumba Wrote:
(08-25-2024, 11:02 PM)miquirumba Wrote:
(08-25-2024, 09:44 PM)Inquirer Wrote: According to Haber et al (2019), D0 formed 71,400 years ago. However, according to FTDNA, D0 (listed as D-FT75) formed 55,000 years ago. Moreover, according to Y-Full, D0 (listed as D-Y330435) formed 46,500 years ago.

Which is the case? Why are the dates so different? I would imagine that Y-Full's and FTDNA's dates differ due to the usage of different mutation rates. However, they're relatively close to one another when compared to that of Haber et al (2018). Why is Haber et al's so much older (71,400 > 55,000 & 46,500 years ago).

By the way, the subtitle of this subforum should be changed from Y-DNA Haplogroup D-M174 section to Y-DNA Haplogroup D-CTS3946 section.

normally, FTDNA shows last SNP in same level datation while Yfull and academic institutions usually work with first SNP level
D-F974 in ancestral path has same datation as DE-M145- You cannot interpret strictly because is an absurd, of course

https://discover.familytreedna.com/y-dna/D-F974/path
every tean has its algorithm and there is not ancient DNA recovered and dated in that old period, therefore, scientist could speculate about actual first D0 man
We need more ancient genomes aligned against A0 pangenomes (T2T full Y chromosome) because there are a lot of new variants and STRs discovered in telomeres which can improve phylogenetic datation

Among whom do you think yDNA D0 originated? Aboriginal Africans or Southwest Asians (i.e. Levantines or Arabs)?
Reply
#6
(08-26-2024, 09:19 PM)Inquirer Wrote:
(04-06-2024, 03:48 PM)Jerome Wrote: BTW, lazaridis in his 2016 study actually explored the idea that iran_n might have some kind of Ancestry which split after ust ishim but before kostenki.
He mentioned that this might be having a conflation with basal eurasian and that this is a possible idea that needs to be explored.


I think this is interesting, considering that how it might relate to haplogroup G-M201 and badarostian culture


(08-26-2024, 02:05 PM)miquirumba Wrote:
(08-25-2024, 11:02 PM)miquirumba Wrote: normally, FTDNA shows last SNP in same level datation while Yfull and academic institutions usually work with first SNP level
D-F974 in ancestral path has same datation as DE-M145- You cannot interpret strictly because is an absurd, of course

https://discover.familytreedna.com/y-dna/D-F974/path
every tean has its algorithm and there is not ancient DNA recovered and dated in that old period, therefore, scientist could speculate about actual first D0 man
We need more ancient genomes aligned against A0 pangenomes (T2T full Y chromosome) because there are a lot of new variants and STRs discovered in telomeres which can improve phylogenetic datation

Among whom do you think yDNA D0 originated? Aboriginal Africans or Southwest Asians (i.e. Levantines or Arabs)?
Africa, no doubt, thre are only 18 SNPs in basal D Ytree

https://www.yfull.com/tree/D/
https://discover.familytreedna.com/y-dna...n=variants

and only 11 are confirmed markers
It's a pity that D-Y330435 samples have not been realigned yet to T2T HG002 in Yfull, YSEQ sample has only 6x and another sample is a BIg Y without telomere coverage. I wish more Y330435 sample with Nebula Genomics  WGS 30x for a goo0d T2T alignment to discover 6 more SNP markers, at least, between D0 and this branch from Yemen
https://www.yfull.com/tree/D-Y330435/
Reply
#7
(08-26-2024, 10:26 PM)miquirumba Wrote:
(08-26-2024, 09:19 PM)Inquirer Wrote:
(04-06-2024, 03:48 PM)Jerome Wrote: BTW, lazaridis in his 2016 study actually explored the idea that iran_n might have some kind of Ancestry which split after ust ishim but before kostenki.
He mentioned that this might be having a conflation with basal eurasian and that this is a possible idea that needs to be explored.


I think this is interesting, considering that how it might relate to haplogroup G-M201 and badarostian culture


(08-26-2024, 02:05 PM)miquirumba Wrote: every tean has its algorithm and there is not ancient DNA recovered and dated in that old period, therefore, scientist could speculate about actual first D0 man
We need more ancient genomes aligned against A0 pangenomes (T2T full Y chromosome) because there are a lot of new variants and STRs discovered in telomeres which can improve phylogenetic datation

Among whom do you think yDNA D0 originated? Aboriginal Africans or Southwest Asians (i.e. Levantines or Arabs)?
Africa, no doubt, thre are only 18 SNPs in basal D Ytree

https://www.yfull.com/tree/D/
https://discover.familytreedna.com/y-dna...n=variants

and only 11 are confirmed markers
It's a pity that D-Y330435 samples have not been realigned yet to T2T HG002 in Yfull, YSEQ sample has only 6x and another sample is a BIg Y without telomere coverage. I wish more Y330435 sample with Nebula Genomics  WGS 30x for a goo0d T2T alignment to discover 6 more SNP markers, at least, between D0 and this branch from Yemen
https://www.yfull.com/tree/D-Y330435/

Why Africa? There is an African American and a Levantine sample on the most basal branch of D0, as can be seen here. I'm not doubting your answer, but I'd like to know the specific reason, because I'm not sure yet.

Also, where did you get that there are 18 SNPs in basal D? I see only 14 on Y-Full and 13 on FTDNA.

Furthermore, why is the formation date of D0 only 46.5 kya on Y-Full?
Reply
#8
(08-27-2024, 12:29 AM)Inquirer Wrote:
(08-26-2024, 10:26 PM)miquirumba Wrote:
(08-26-2024, 09:19 PM)Inquirer Wrote: Among whom do you think yDNA D0 originated? Aboriginal Africans or Southwest Asians (i.e. Levantines or Arabs)?
Africa, no doubt, thre are only 18 SNPs in basal D Ytree

https://www.yfull.com/tree/D/
https://discover.familytreedna.com/y-dna...n=variants

and only 11 are confirmed markers
It's a pity that D-Y330435 samples have not been realigned yet to T2T HG002 in Yfull, YSEQ sample has only 6x and another sample is a BIg Y without telomere coverage. I wish more Y330435 sample with Nebula Genomics  WGS 30x for a goo0d T2T alignment to discover 6 more SNP markers, at least, between D0 and this branch from Yemen
https://www.yfull.com/tree/D-Y330435/

Why Africa? There is an African American and a Levantine sample on the most basal branch of D0, as can be seen here. I'm not doubting your answer, but I'd like to know the specific reason, because I'm not sure yet.

Also, where did you get that there are 18 SNPs in basal D? I see only 14 on Y-Full and 13 on FTDNA.

Furthermore, why is the formation date of D0 only 46.5 kya on Y-Full?

It's just my opinion, I am very conservative regarding the origin of the first haplogroups that developed outside of Africa. A researcher advised me years ago to give an increasingly older dating to the clade SNP markers of Yfull and FTDNA, since I was almost always correct, at least in more than 80% of the clades prior to 10,000 BP and it has recently been corroborated with the pre I sample -M26 from Grotta della Mura in southern Italy. 
Yfull and FTDNA are business, not scientific institutions. They always seek to congratulate their costumers, that is why they give closer dating in the most primitive haplogroups.

The markers that Yfull has discovered but not yet confirmed which could be in DO level
Y472082(H)
Y461544(H)
Y464386 
Y464195(H) 
Y464200(H)
Y464336(H)

surely they are new T2T markers discovered in realigned D-M174 samples D-M174
Reply
#9
According to Hallast et al (2021), Southeast Asia is the origin point of all surviving lineages of the Non-African paternal haplogroups: C, F (i.e. FT) , D (i.e. D-M174), and their subclades. This doesn't mean that C, F, and D formed there; it simply means that the most recent common ancestor (MRCA) of each of these haplogroups lived in Southeast Asia.

Quote:Here, we show that phylogenetic analyses of haplogroup C, D and FT sequences, including very rare deep-rooting lineages, together with phylogeographic analyses of ancient and present-day non-African Y chromosomes, all point to East/Southeast Asia as the origin 50,000–55,000 years ago of all known surviving non-African male lineages (apart from recent migrants). This observation contrasts with the expectation of a West Eurasian origin predicted by a simple model of expansion from a source near Africa, and can be interpreted as resulting from extensive genetic drift in the initial population or replacement of early western Y lineages from the east, thus informing and constraining models of the initial expansion.

In light of this, where do you think that C formed?

According to the Recent African Origin Hypothesis, Homo sapiens originated in Africa, and Non-Africans descend from Homo sapiens individuals who migrated out of the continent 70,000 to 50,000 years ago. 

Let's assume that there were at least a few hundred individuals who migrated out of Africa, and that it took multiple generations of similar numbers of people to reach East Asia / Southeast Asia. This would mean that hundreds of people traveled as a group for thousands of miles, or that multiple groups - each comprised of dozens of people - coincidentally followed the same route for thousands of miles after leaving Africa.

Does this seem probable?

It seems more probable that the MRCAs of C, F, & D-M174 lived in the Levant or the Arabian Peninsula and that each of the groups to which they belonged split apart therein.

What do you think?
Reply

Check for new replies

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)