11-24-2024, 06:39 PM (This post was last modified: 11-24-2024, 06:40 PM by venustas.)
If this is true why do all the main y trees say they have a common ancestor about 70kya give or take?
This is very fascinating.
That amount of difference in time would suggest F and CDE are from different subspecies and support a multiregional model in y DNA variation. Am I understanding this correctly. How would this be hidden for 20 years.
There are near 350k years time difference between the branches CDE and F, which means F must have separated from the root, near A00, later than the neanderthals
There are more lines for C-F, but as you may see they are for the same positions. There are only 3 positions.
All these 3 positions are also in my list. In addtion I have 3 additional positions where we see some shared snips between C and F. Still this is not convincing enough for shared origin of Hg C &F.
We have 10x of opposite examples where C and F are the opposite values variants.
This list of weird names which you may not have seen are the data from Karmin and all experiment. I used their data and I also added the Chimp chr Y data. 1/3 of the snips in Karmin's selection are also presented in 1240k main dataset.
Regarding the C-F zone picture below: the samples from Hg D have the blue(purple) component above, which Hg C don't have it.
As you may see: these 3 snips for the C-F zone are not very stable in general. Later in Hg F and after they will be fixed as opposite of Hg ABDE. Hg C is some kind of transition zone for these snips. But that doesn't mean Hg F originated from Hg C. In any case the branching of Hg F is not far from that of C or better to say CDE..
(11-24-2024, 06:39 PM)venustas Wrote: If this is true why do all the main y trees say they have a common ancestor about 70kya give or take?
This is very fascinating.
That amount of difference in time would suggest F and CDE are from different subspecies and support a multiregional model in y DNA variation. Am I understanding this correctly. How would this be hidden for 20 years.
There are near 350k years time difference between the branches CDE and F, which means F must have separated from the root, near A00, later than the neanderthals
My estimations are not strong enough, I am still working on these versions and numbers.
The tree should not change much. It is just the position where F is separating from the MRCA.
Here is my new proposed structure for the tree.
The chineese tree is not the real tree. It is just a modified tree with attention at ABCDE segment.
The tree can't be started from there, this is just one of the branches. however for the modeling software this doesn't matter.
If we modify this tree to match the tree structure we will get the regular tree.
I moved my next comments related to Denisova, Neanderthal and Chimp in Y-chr section as this topic is no longer matching to my ideas. Anyone interested is welcome to contribute there.
(01-16-2025, 01:50 AM)TanTin Wrote: Ok, so let continue with the story about A00 / Denisova and Neanderthals .
Here is the current picture: (https://www.theytree.com/)
What we have there:
A00000 - Chimp
A0000 - Denisova
A000 - the Neanderthals
A00 - sub Saharan Africa
The dates on theytree.com doesn't make much sense.
If we check the scientific view on yfull, we have some better dates there:
I'm not an expert, but I highly doubt that the consensus of the professional scientific community regarding the general ages of modern human yDNA and mtDNA are wrong.
(01-16-2025, 02:19 AM)Inquirer Wrote: I'm not an expert, but I highly doubt that the consensus of the professional scientific community regarding the general ages of modern human yDNA and mtDNA are wrong.
I don't think there is consensus among the scientific community . It's on opposite: there are several versions for the dating.
According to the tree they provided: The humans are an earlier branch from Orangutan / Gorilla MRCA.
They did comparative analysis of ape sex chromosomes .
Quote:Discussion
Our complete assemblies have revealed the evolution of great ape sex chromosomes in unprecedented detail. In contrast to the X chromosome, the Y chromosome has undergone rapid evolution in all ape species. It has accumulated repetitive elements and experienced elevated rates of nucleotide substitutions, intrachromosomal rearrangements and segmental duplications, probably owing to the loss of recombination over most of its length. It also has reduced global levels of DNA methylation, linked to the low expression levels of many of its genes39. Because of this degradation, the Y chromosome has been suggested to be on its way towards extinction in mammals2. Our study suggests that it is still present in apes in part because it contains several protein-coding genes that are evolving under purifying selection, similar to observations for rhesus macaque59. Future studies should investigate non-coding genes and regulatory elements on the Y chromosome, which may be essential for males and further contribute to selective pressure.
(01-16-2025, 02:19 AM)Inquirer Wrote: I'm not an expert, but I highly doubt that the consensus of the professional scientific community regarding the general ages of modern human yDNA and mtDNA are wrong.
I don't think there is consensus among the scientific community . It's on opposite: there are several versions for the dating.
I'm referring to your suggestion that the split between African and Non-African subclades of yDNA A0-T is ~900,000 years old, even though mainstream academics agree that this split is ~50 kya to ~100 kya.
(01-16-2025, 03:39 AM)Inquirer Wrote: I'm referring to your suggestion that the split between African and Non-African subclades of yDNA A0-T is ~900,000 years old, even though mainstream academics agree that this split is ~50 kya to ~100 kya.
Did I say such number 900 k ? I don't remember such thing.
The age of A00 is approximately 330k . Then we have A2 / A3. And after that is A0T .
Now the current agreement for A00 is that it is 200k and older. ( as per Mendez 338 k )
Elhaik tried to correct this number to 208k.
01-16-2025, 04:33 AM (This post was last modified: 01-16-2025, 04:43 AM by TanTin.)
I admit that this is a very interesting and exciting subject. In addition, when working with full-coverage data, this time constant can be shown and confirmed in many directions. But there is one peculiarity. The time constant is quite specific to a particular set of snips. It must be recalculated when changing the genetic data, or the set of snips used.
It seems my previous estimations were totally wrong..
This is the correct way to do it, here is the methodology:
(01-16-2025, 03:39 AM)Inquirer Wrote: I'm referring to your suggestion that the split between African and Non-African subclades of yDNA A0-T is ~900,000 years old, even though mainstream academics agree that this split is ~50 kya to ~100 kya.
Did I say such number 900 k ? I don't remember such thing.
The age of A00 is approximately 330k . Then we have A2 / A3. And after that is A0T .
Now the current agreement for A00 is that it is 200k and older. ( as per Mendez 338 k )
Elhaik tried to correct this number to 208k.
I don't remember where you posted that; you may have posted that in another thread. However, I recall you saying that Non-African subclades of A0-T have less alleles in common with the yDNA of Chimps relative to African subclades of A0-T; you subsequently argued that the split between African and Non-African subclades of A0-T may have occurred ~900,000 years ago or so.
