返回列表 回复 发帖
本帖最后由 natsuya 于 2017-7-5 00:47 编辑
你如何确定C2一定比Q更晚进入美洲呢?还有,Q进入美洲后就没有进行过父系取代吗,不进行父系取代,怎么解释Q在美洲父系中的巨大优势?从母系看,Q来自中亚的原配mt-X已经非常罕见,而常见的mt-ABCD都显然是东亚起源 ...
baiyueren 发表于 2017-7-4 11:48
百越兄說的C2是指以前的C3吧。我認為有一部分C可能比Q更早進入美洲,而且可能在南美高原或雨林保存到很晚才被Q替換,而這些C不見得就是C3。之前我們看到西班牙中石器獵人測出日本沖繩C1-M8的兄弟支系,也就是C1-V20,若這些C1-V20能在舊石器時代西進成為藍眼睛的土著獵人,他們的親族也可能很早東進美洲成為最早的雨林拓荒者。
2

评分次数

  • 无善

  • Ryan

Y染色體:O3 M134+ M117- 應屬F444+
mtDNA:D5a2
百越兄說的C2是指以前的C3吧。我認為有一部分C可能比Q更早進入美洲,而且可能在南美高原或雨林保存到很晚才被Q替換,而這些C不見得就是C3。之前我們看到西班牙中石器獵人測出日本沖繩C1-M8的兄弟支系,也就是C1-V20, ...
natsuya 发表于 2017-7-5 00:39
很不错的推断,我赞同。不排除有些C*或C1最先进入美洲但后来被Q取代掉了。从C2在北美西北部的有限分布来看怎么看怎么像是后来者,而且如果真是C2最先进入而后被Q取代的话,那没有理由离白令海峡很近的北美西北部C2没被取代反倒是远在万里之遥的南美巴西中南部C2被取代了。
南方民族就是南方民族,不需要有些别有用心的蝗汗给我们满世界找祖宗,一会儿说通古斯是南方人一会儿又说日韩是南方人,你们编故事编得累不累
http://www.ancient-origins.net/n ... -australasia-003475

2015年7月由David Reich發表的遺傳研究,就指出安達曼土著、澳洲土著、美拉尼西亞人和1~2種亞馬遜雨林原住民之間有某種遺傳聯繫,他說的就是亞馬遜雨林的Karitiana人和Xavante人,而這種遺傳聯繫的遠古成分在其他美洲原住民當中沒有觀察到。


24 JULY, 2015 - 00:23 ANCIENT-ORIGINS

Genetic studies link indigenous peoples in the Amazon and Australasia

(Read the article on one page)

Native Americans living in the Amazon bear an unexpected genetic connection to indigenous people in Australasia, suggesting a previously unknown wave of migration to the Americas thousands of years ago, a new study has found.
"It's incredibly surprising," said David Reich, Harvard Medical School professor of genetics and senior author of the study. "There's a strong working model in archaeology and genetics, of which I have been a proponent, that most Native Americans today extend from a single pulse of expansion south of the ice sheets--and that's wrong. We missed something very important in the original data."
Previous research had shown that Native Americans from the Arctic to the southern tip of South America can trace their ancestry to a single "founding population" called the First Americans, who came across the Bering land bridge about 15,000 years ago. In 2012, Reich and colleagues enriched this history by showing that certain indigenous groups in northern Canada inherited DNA from at least two subsequent waves of migration.
The new study, published July 21 in Nature, indicates that there's more to the story.


Pontus Skoglund, first author of the paper and a postdoctoral researcher in the Reich lab, was studying genetic data gathered as part of the 2012 study when he noticed a strange similarity between one or two Native American groups in Brazil and indigenous groups in Australia, New Guinea and the Andaman Islands.
"That was an unexpected and somewhat confusing result," said Reich, who is also an associate member of the Broad Institute of Harvard and MIT and a Howard Hughes Medical Investigator. "We spent a really long time trying to make this result go away and it just got stronger."
Skoglund and colleagues from HMS, the Broad and several universities in Brazil analyzed publicly available genetic information from 21 Native American populations from Central and South America. They also collected and analyzed DNA from nine additional populations in Brazil to make sure the link they saw hadn't been an artifact of how the first set of genomes had been collected. The team then compared those genomes to the genomes of people from about 200 non-American populations.


The link persisted. The Tupí-speaking Suruí and Karitiana and the Ge-speaking Xavante of the Amazon had a genetic ancestor more closely related to indigenous Australasians than to any other present-day population. This ancestor doesn't appear to have left measurable traces in other Native American groups in South, Central or North America.
The genetic markers from this ancestor don't match any population known to have contributed ancestry to Native Americans, and the geographic pattern can't be explained by post-Columbian European, African or Polynesian mixture with Native Americans, the authors said. They believe the ancestry is much older--perhaps as old as the First Americans.
In the ensuing millennia, the ancestral group has disappeared.
"We've done a lot of sampling in East Asia and nobody looks like this," said Skoglund. "It's an unknown group that doesn't exist anymore."
The team named the mysterious ancestor Population Y, after the Tupí word for ancestor, "Ypykuéra."
Reich, Skoglund and colleagues propose that Population Y and First Americans came down from the ice sheets to become the two founding populations of the Americas.
"We don't know the order, the time separation or the geographical patterns," said Skoglund.
Researchers do know that the DNA of First Americans looked similar to that of Native Americans today. Population Y is more of a mystery.
"About 2 percent of the ancestry of Amazonians today comes from this Australasian lineage that's not present in the same way elsewhere in the Americas," said Reich.


However, that doesn't establish how much of their ancestry comes from Population Y. If Population Y were 100 percent Australasian, that would indeed mean they contributed 2 percent of the DNA of today's Amazonians. But if Population Y mixed with other groups such as the First Americans before they reached the Americas, the amount of DNA they contributed to today's Amazonians could be much higher--up to 85 percent.
To answer that question, researchers would need to sample DNA from the remains of a person who belonged to Population Y. Such DNA hasn't been obtained yet. One place to look might be in the skeletons of early Native Americans whose skulls some researchers say have Australasian features. The majority of these skeletons were found in Brazil.
Amazon-shaman-Australian-Aboriginal.jpg
Indigenous-people-of-Brazil.jpg
Y染色體:O3 M134+ M117- 應屬F444+
mtDNA:D5a2
我们在 南美洲的土著人群的样本中也测试到一例 C1-V20。但因为 欧亚大陆的 V20的序列本身就少,我们暂时无法确定 这个样本是真的源自15世纪以前的南美土著,还是 15世纪以后来自欧洲的移民的混血后裔。
1

评分次数

  • natsuya

人类之子全都是为死而生。
              --------《阙特勤碑》
亞馬遜雨林的Karitiana人
Karitiana-1.jpg
Karitiana-2.jpg
Karitiana-3.jpg
Y染色體:O3 M134+ M117- 應屬F444+
mtDNA:D5a2
A 2015 genetic study reached a surprising conclusion about the origins of the Karitiana people. Unlike other Native American peoples, the Paiter-Surui, Karitiana, and Xavante have an ancestry partially related to indigenous Australasian populations of the Andaman Islands, New Guinea, and Australia. Scientists speculate that the relationship derives from an earlier people, called "Population Y", in East Asia from whence both groups diverged 15,000 to 30,000 years ago, the future Australasian's migrating south and the remote ancestors of the Karitiana northward finding their way to the New World and to the interior Amazon Basin.

2015年的一項研究表明,卡利吉亞納人、Paiter-Surui人、Xavante人與其他美洲原住民不同,他們和生活於安達曼群島、紐幾內亞、澳大利亞的澳大拉西亞原住民有較近的親緣關係。科學家猜測有一個「Y族群」(Population Y)是兩者的共同祖先,他們於約15,000年前至30,000年前在東亞分開。其中一部分南下至澳大拉西亞,另一部分則前往新世界、來到亞馬孫盆地,即卡利吉亞納人的直系祖先。
Y染色體:O3 M134+ M117- 應屬F444+
mtDNA:D5a2
亞馬遜雨林的Xavante人
Xavante-1.jpg
Xavante-2.jpg
Xavante-3.jpg
Xavante-4.jpg
Xavante-5.jpg
Y染色體:O3 M134+ M117- 應屬F444+
mtDNA:D5a2
亞馬遜雨林的Xavante人
Xavante-6.jpg
Xavante-7.jpg
Xavante-8.jpg
Xavante-9.jpg
Y染色體:O3 M134+ M117- 應屬F444+
mtDNA:D5a2
本帖最后由 豢龙氏 于 2017-7-5 02:48 编辑
29# Tocharian_2 根據29樓的這張圖,田園洞人的Y應該是一種在東南亞島嶼、大洋洲被C、K替代,在更晚時期被從北美南下的Q-M3替代的未知類型,我推測應當還是C*或K-M526*之下的類型,在今天極為低頻或缺失。或許共祖可 ...
natsuya 发表于 2017-7-5 00:30
关于这一常染成分的来源,我突然产生了一个大胆的猜测。我们知道现代人在非洲外的扩散可能是多批次,类似波浪式的扩散,越早的成分可能被推的越远。安达曼群岛,澳大利亚,南美洲几乎是以中东为中心扩散最边缘的地区。这也暗示,这种常染成分可能是一种非常古老的成分。对于这种常染成分,我们不应简单的去寻找其对应的父系或母系,因为我们知道,父系或母系的替代过程是十分剧烈的,如此微弱的成分其对应的父系或母系的类型可能早已灭绝,即使我们通过古DNA确定了其在某一代的父系或母系,对于这种成分来说可能都只是过客。
说了这么多,这种成分的来源是什么呢?我猜测可能正是来自10万年前左右,第一次尝试走出非洲的现代人(XOoA),这种成分和四万五千年前扩张的C、F、D支系可能都没有直接的匹配关系,因为西藏和日本是D单倍群的高频区域,并没有发现这种成分。北亚C2的高频地区也没有发现这种成分,出现这种成分的安达曼C的比例也很低。反而这种成分出现的巴布亚和澳洲地区土著被认为混有一定XOoA成分,不知道有没有机构对研究过这两类成分是否可能重叠。再结合之前美国发现的13万年前左右的人类遗迹,这种推断有变得更为有趣了。
除了XOoA成分之外,更早的丹人(尼人)成分,及更晚的七万到五万年前扩张到亚洲的现代人(对应的Y染可能是DE*),也是潜在的候选。现存F、C、D的扩散都始于4.8到4.5万年前,这一扩张是十分剧烈的,而所有这些支系的扩张的初始地点应该都在东亚范围之外,很多后世看到这些父系对应的常染成分,很有可能都是在扩张扩张过程中替代其他已经灭绝的父系得到的。
C-M130交流群:542136235
百越兄說的C2是指以前的C3吧。我認為有一部分C可能比Q更早進入美洲,而且可能在南美高原或雨林保存到很晚才被Q替換,而這些C不見得就是C3。之前我們看到西班牙中石器獵人測出日本沖繩C1-M8的兄弟支系,也就是C1-V20, ...
natsuya 发表于 2017-7-5 00:39
很有意思的的推测。 如果这个推测最终证实,那本坛的坛友或者会想,当年欧亚大陆到处都是C1,那C2当时在哪里...?
物格而后知至,知至而后意诚,意诚而后心正,心正而后身修,身修而后家齐,家齐而后国治,国治而后天下平...

标题

为什么石器时代就已经北迁到欧亚大陆北部的P至今仍然能在东南亚岛屿地区发现不少亲戚,而C2就不能?你倒是给我解释一下
MNOPS 发表于 2017-7-5 00:13
第一,MSP在四万五千多年前在巴布亚分出三大支,而C2四万五千多年前在北方分出三大支,时间早晚,一目了然。第二,P也就在岛屿东南亚常见,大陆东南亚一样罕见,懂不?
O3a3c* (M134+, M117-)

标题

为什么石器时代就已经北迁到欧亚大陆北部的P至今仍然能在东南亚岛屿地区发现不少亲戚,而C2就不能?你倒是给我解释一下
MNOPS 发表于 2017-7-5 00:13
按你们的说法,C1和K一起到达澳洲,然而C1在岛屿东南亚也很罕见。你们连自己都不自洽的问题,就不要拿来问我了。
O3a3c* (M134+, M117-)
百越兄說的C2是指以前的C3吧。我認為有一部分C可能比Q更早進入美洲,而且可能在南美高原或雨林保存到很晚才被Q替換,而這些C不見得就是C3。之前我們看到西班牙中石器獵人測出日本沖繩C1-M8的兄弟支系,也就是C1-V20, ...
natsuya 发表于 2017-7-5 00:39
兄说的这种可能性我早就想到了,同理也有可能是D。但是需要进一步的DNA证据来验证。
NRY: O2a1c1a1a1a1a1a1a1a1(源自粤西云浮)
mtDNA:B4d1(源自浙北慈溪)
百越人的人类学文集 http://blog.sina.com.cn/baiyueren
本帖最后由 baiyueren 于 2017-7-5 10:29 编辑

89# 豢龙氏
请注意,这种类澳-巴成分在大安达曼Onge人里高发。从Y和mt上看,澳洲土著和巴布亚人,其实都是两支人群的混血:一支是黑皮肤螺卷发的XOoA人群,Y-C(D少量)/mt-M;另一支可能是棕色皮肤波状发的OoA人群,Y-K/mt-N&R。而只有Onge人是纯粹的XOoA后代,Y-D/mt-M。
为什么并不纯血的Sahul人群和纯血的安达曼XOoA人群都高发这种常染成分?我认为只能这么解释:形成于远古的类澳-巴常染成分,是非常适应南亚-大洋洲海洋性气候和原始渔猎采集生活方式的。所以即使在融入和大量的OoA人群血统的情况下,经过漫长的自然选择,类澳巴成分仍然在Sahul人群常染遗传中扩大了份额。



另外,还有一张丹人常染分布图可以说明这种常染成分的起源问题。丹人血统在澳洲土著和巴布亚人中最高发,但是大安达曼Onge人中的频率并不高,而是与大部分的东亚人和美洲人接近。我认为这从侧面说明了XOoA祖先人群一开始就分化为大陆和南岛-大洋洲两支,而根据之前的研究已知安达曼Onge人来自南亚大陆。那么同理可以推论,带有类澳美成分的南美土著也是来自大陆上的支系,而非直接来自南岛-大洋洲。进一步推论下去,我认为这种类澳巴常染成分其实最早大概是在南亚一带确立形成的。而今天南亚-南陆人群常染中并不多见,很可能要从生产生活方式的改变以及外来族群入侵混血方面去找原因 。

NRY: O2a1c1a1a1a1a1a1a1a1(源自粤西云浮)
mtDNA:B4d1(源自浙北慈溪)
百越人的人类学文集 http://blog.sina.com.cn/baiyueren
本帖最后由 baiyueren 于 2017-7-5 10:56 编辑
亞馬遜雨林的Xavante人  

natsuya 发表于 2017-7-5 02:10
虽然这些南美土著外貌上上基本都已经EDAR370a化了,但是从一些个体的阔鼻、低眶、下陷的眼窝和偏向短宽的面部,依稀能看到接近澳洲土著的本底特色。
NRY: O2a1c1a1a1a1a1a1a1a1(源自粤西云浮)
mtDNA:B4d1(源自浙北慈溪)
百越人的人类学文集 http://blog.sina.com.cn/baiyueren
89# 豢龙氏
请注意,这种类澳-巴成分在大安达曼Onge人里高发。从Y和mt上看,澳洲土著和巴布亚人,其实都是两支人群的混血:一支是黑皮肤螺卷发的XOoA人群,Y-C(D少量)/mt-M;另一支可能是棕色皮肤波状发的OoA人群, ...
baiyueren 发表于 2017-7-5 10:27
请问你的意思是想表达XOoA对应的父系是C和D,OoA对应的父系是F吗?
C-M130交流群:542136235
97# 豢龙氏
Yeah
NRY: O2a1c1a1a1a1a1a1a1a1(源自粤西云浮)
mtDNA:B4d1(源自浙北慈溪)
百越人的人类学文集 http://blog.sina.com.cn/baiyueren
97# 豢龙氏  
Yeah
baiyueren 发表于 2017-7-5 10:39
可事实是,C、D与F的共祖时间都不超过7万年,而一般意义上所认为的XOoA事件发生在十万年前左右,如果你要证明你的观点,需要把C与F,CF与DE的分化时间提到十万年以上才行
C-M130交流群:542136235
南美与澳洲体质上的接近显然是环境引起的,遗传上他还没有汉人离巴布亚人近。
O3a3c* (M134+, M117-)
可事实是,C、D与F的共祖时间都不超过7万年,而一般意义上所认为的XOoA事件发生在十万年前左右,如果你要证明你的观点,需要把C与F,CF与DE的分化时间提到十万年以上才行
豢龙氏 发表于 2017-7-5 10:42
从理论上来说:Y-F出现并在新出现的OoA人群中成为父系主体,可不一定是在10万年前发生的。
NRY: O2a1c1a1a1a1a1a1a1a1(源自粤西云浮)
mtDNA:B4d1(源自浙北慈溪)
百越人的人类学文集 http://blog.sina.com.cn/baiyueren
返回列表
baidu
互联网 www.ranhaer.org