Posted on 02/02/2007 4:52:13 PM PST by blam
So where did these people go and where did the modern tribes come from? They weren't related, it seems.
So where did these people go and where did the modern tribes come from? They weren't related, it seems.
The old mtDNA pattern is still there, but it has been partially or mostly swamped out by more recent or more numerous arrivals.
There were probably two or more early coastal migrations, bringing at least haplogroups D and A. Another form of D, along with B and C, seem to have come later.
The second D, along with B and C, may have come via the land bridge through central Canada. They had an adaptation which let them spread rapidly in terrestrial habitats, while the coastal dwellers had an adaptation which kept them close to the coast.
The National Geographic DNA map I linked in post #10 show the following DNA groups in the Americas = A, B, C, D, M3, M217 and X.
The west coast, where I work, does not have any real number of X, and haplogroup M is a quite recent discovery in British Columbia (just last year). It certainly is not yet understood.
I think the map is misleading because 1) there are two different D lineages (based on recent discoveries). One is coastal the other probably interior. And 2) the A seems to have been coastal.
The NG map, and Oppenheimer's as well, jumble them all together. But that's to be expected, as the discoveries are coming very quickly now.
Maybe.
I just figure these maps/publications are for the general population like me, without the finer details and not for experts like you. LOL, I work at this and I can't keep things straight. So...
Its more that things are changing so fast that the popular websites can't keep up.
These mtDNA studies are only 10-15 years old, and the data is coming in very rapidly now. There is no way to keep up with it all, even though we all try.
better a tooth than a pile of processed forage...
Bison Poop Reveals Two Distinct U.S. Populations
[ Holy Feces!!! ]
LiveScience | January 30, 2007 | Jeanna Bryner
Posted on 02/02/2007 12:39:53 AM EST by SunkenCiv
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/1777824/posts
Please FREEPMAIL me if you want on or off the
"Gods, Graves, Glyphs" PING list or GGG weekly digest
-- Archaeology/Anthropology/Ancient Cultures/Artifacts/Antiquities, etc.
Gods, Graves, Glyphs (alpha order)
Ahem, in polite company, we say coprolite. (So, it's not necessary around here)
What about in coprolite company? ;')
I hope they made *denture* this mtDNA sample wasn't contaminated, and was *molar* less pristine.
YEC INTREP
"My calibration shows that the changes (mutations) were occurring two to four times faster than previously thought,"...people have overestimated the time. It wasn't so long ago." (and) previous DNA data flawed..."I hope the impact of my paper will be to bring the molecular timing more in line with the archaeological record," he says. "This is what you want your work to do."
Means that the author is bending one factor, statistical norms for mutation, in order to accomodate another, accepted interpretations of a time line.
What accounts for the 'two to four times greater' rate of mutation?
Thisparticular Early American arrived maybe 15k years ago. They can't stanch the leakout by generalizing an admitted 15k years.
And from the article fromwhich blam bolded the following sentence:
Comparing the DNA found in the tooth with that sampled from 3,500 Native Americans, researchers discovered that only one percent of modern tribal members have genetic patterns that matched the prehistoric sample.
You are not missing anything--you are correct, a point that the writer of the piece either did not understand or left out purposefully.
There were several peopling events that occurred in North and South America. This data shows one that happened 15k years ago--no more, no less.
And thanks for posting, blam, and thanks for the ping, SC.
Dessicated even.
Thanks for the nice synopsis!
"not enough data to be conclusive"
I think there is a lot of pressure to say something bold on every find. I've had similar feelings on recent other news releases including the Terror Bird not living alongside humans (Florida). They only showed me where that particular find of the Terror Bird did not live alongside humans. I don't think they should extrapolate that much without adding a caveat. Maybe the news publishers want the boldness of statement to make the articles more interesting and eye catching.
I read interesting or bold statement articles so I guess the idea works.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.