Talk:Haplogroup DE/Archive 1

Archive 1

The origin segment is a mess

"Haplogroup DE Possible time of origin 70,000-75,000 or already 141,000 years split between CF and DE,[1] ca. 73,100 years ago, or ca. 76,000 years ago[2] Possible place of origin Africa[3][2] or Eurasia[4]" So which is it? 83.84.100.133 (talk) 22:56, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

The information in the the "Possible time of origin" area of the inbox comes from several studies and gives figures from them (as has the case in the infoboxes of several other haplogroup articles). There is a general agreement (in more recent studies, and some earlier research) that DE diverged in the 70,000s BC (between about 76-73,000 years ago); 73,000 years ago according to Kamin, Saag et al. 2015, and around 76,000 years ago according to the most recent study (Haber et al. 2019). Regarding its origin; it is not certain whether the origin is Africa or Eurasia (there are studies in favor of each hypothesis), but the most recent study (also Haber et al. 2019) supports/posits an African origin. Skllagyook (talk) 23:04, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Abu-Amero 2009

A new study just out concerning the Arabian peninsula. Saudi Arabian Y-Chromosome diversity and its relationship with nearby regions. Some stuff I agree with, others I disagree. The study counters the Richards et al 2003, Extensive female mediated gene flow... . suggestion that African lineages in the region are due to the slave trade, instead arguing for a preshistoric entrance of these lineages into Arabia, along with other E clades On haplogroup DE, the study, for the first time suggests an Arabian origin of haplogroup DE. The author himself is Arabian I gather. However the article does state that ancestral lineages for CD and F have not been detected in the region. Wapondaponda (talk) 10:13, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

My own way of thinking is that the distinction between Africa and non Africa is not necessarily all that important in every geographical discussion, and secondly that the uncertainty of this entire field should never be forgotten. For example whenever I say that a haplogroup probably originated near the Horn of Africa I see no conflict with anybody who would say Kenya or Yemen or Sudan. I might however object to someone emphasizing these places too much, implying accuracy which we do not have, unless they had a source which did so, which may perhaps be the case here. I have not looked at this article right now, but isn't F (in the form of J) one of the most common haplogroups in this whole region?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:45, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I looked at the article and I think their comments are different enough from previous published comments that they deserve mention as a version of the Asian origins theory of DE. The difference is that they clearly see it as likely that even if outside Africa the point of origin was near Africa...--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:42, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Regions near but external to northeast Africa, like the Levant or the southern Arabian Peninsula could have served as an incubator for the early diversification of non-African uniparental haplogroup varieties like Y chromosome DE-YAP*, CF-P143* and mtDNA M and N molecular ancestors. These would have spread globally and diversified over time and space. This model would imply that both CF-P143 and the DEYAP evolved nearby but outside Africa. One DE-YAP* ancestor would have spread to Asia and evolved to haplogroup D while another DE-YAP* returned to northeast Africa and evolved into hg E. It is noteworthy that DE-YAP* has been detected at low frequency in Africa [37].

I think the "Arabian incubator" hypothesis is feasible for haplogroup M1 and U6 but less so for DE*, since DE* has not been detected in Arabia but has been detected in Africa and Tibet. E* has been detected in Arabia, but so too has haplogroups A and B. As the study suggests this could simply represent gene flow from Africa rather than an indigenous presence. Furthermore E* has been observed in south Africa, and in the Gabon-Cameroon region as well [1]. The study questions E* in Lebanon as the authors apparently did not test for other E sub-clades. It is likely that these DE* and E* lineages represent different subclades that have yet to be subtyped as DE* in Africa consists of at least 2 subclades. Finer resolution may help to resolve this. While a back migration is likely for U6, X and R-M173, these haplogroups have barely penetrated sub-saharan Africa in the way that DE lineages have. A major hurdle to this back migration hypothesis will be the autosomal data, which still show a cline centered in East Africa and extending to the rest of the world. Wapondaponda (talk) 14:41, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Please let's remember that what we are trying to do here is give a neutral report about what others have written. That's all. There are so many forums on the internet. I personally agree with you, but I do find these authors quite reasonable also. Even if Wikipedia did allow censorship, would we really want to censor them?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:37, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Its an interesting combination of authors, Gonzalez supports an Asian origin of M1. Underhill also a coauthor has traditionally supported an African origin of DE. Wapondaponda (talk) 18:05, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Gee how amazing. Maybe the world does not divide evenly between Afrocentrists and their enemies. Sorry, that was slightly sarcastic, but really you seem to keep missing this point.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:05, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Well the divide between Afrocentrists and non-Afrocentrists mainly exists in the blogosphere. It is wrong to view the world through such a simplistic prism. Nonetheless biases do exist in science for a variety of reasons, most biases are unrelated to Afrocentrism. Some biases could be due to financial pressures to publish certain views, or due to reputational issues etc. My point was to highlight what some of the authors have published in the past and whether it is consistent with this publication. Underhill wrote a chapter in 2001 entitled, The case for an African rather than an Asian origin of the human Y-chromosome YAP Insertion, However in this publication, Underhill is a co-author and Abu-Amero instead suggests an Arabian origin of the Yap insertion, even citing Underhill et al. 2007 which suggests that an African origin is more likely. For Underhill, this paper is somewhat inconsistent with what he has previously published. Whereas for Gonzalez, this paper is consistent with her earlier paper on haplogroup M1. Wapondaponda (talk) 21:05, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I do not see "possibly outside of Africa but close to Africa" as inconsistent with "either Africa or non Africa with a slightly better chance being Africa". There is a slight difference of course, but both arguments are reasonable in their context, and both allow for the other. This new article is specifically about Arabia, and it is showing amongst other things how Arabian genetic diversity is somewhere in between Africa and the parts of the Middle East which are normally discussed. Also they are reconsidering the old idea of how important the link might be from the Horn directly across the water to Yemen.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:19, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Veeramah et al 2010

"Little genetic differentiation as assessed by uniparental markers in the presence of substantial language variation in peoples of the Cross River region of Nigeria" Found 6 more instances of DE* in Nigeria. This should be added. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.139.228.30 (talk) 15:59, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Maulucioni

Maulucioni, can you explain why are you reverting my edits? СЛУЖБА (talk) 03:17, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes naturally, haplogroup D is originated very likely in Asia because it is where population is. In some regions we find important frequencies and also the whole diversity (D*, D1, D2 and D3). The statement that D was probably originated in Asia, the only place where it has been found, was properly referenced (ref name="Karafet"). I know you state otherwise based on http://www.smgf.org/resources/papers/ASHG2008_5.pdf as a reference, but I dont think mutation M145(xM35), that really belong to DE(xE1b1b1), should be misunderstood. It means that the most probable is that it is about an E different from E1b1b1-M35. Even though it was as you say, it is not excuse for deleting the referenced concepts others edited. Regards. --Maulucioni (talk) 04:38, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Dear Maulucioni,

Thank you for your hard work. You've done a good work by bringing attention to this.

There's certainly something wrong with http://www.smgf.org/resources/papers/ASHG2008_5.pdf . Most probably it is really DE(xE1b1b1). On the one hand, they clearely state that it is "D-M174". However, in table 3 they state that it is "M145(xM35)", calling it a "D". Moreover, among the SNPs they tested they don't even list neither M174, nor M145, giving the list as "M9, M181, M35, V22, M201, M123, M258, M253, M172, M214, M343, M269, M198, and M242"!

Given that haplogroup D(M174) has never been found in Africa, I think it is really DE(xE1b1b1). I'll ask them about it. СЛУЖБА (talk) 22:15, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

E is asian

It's bantu expansion is the cause for the popularity of this y-dna in africa. It dispalced indigenous A, B y-dna. The same as R1b, T, J1 are in some African populations. --108.162.136.215 (talk) 07:23, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

108.162.136.215 I agree, but not totally sure if it's Asian or North-East African. --YOMAL SIDOROFF-BIARMSKII (talk) 05:31, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

E is an African haplogroup. Not only is E1b1a the main haplogroup in West Africa, E1b1b is the main haplogroup in East Africa, and is also high among the Greeks and Berbers. It may have spread with the spread of Afroasiatic. E and D come from DE, which is found in Africa in small amounts, mainly because the oldest haplogroups have been displaced by E1b1a and E1b1b. Also, many rare E haplogroups are found in East Africa, which makes it likely it came from East Africa, just like Afro-Asiatic. 83.84.100.133 (talk) 22:53, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Haplogroup DE. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090815134944/http://www.human-evol.cam.ac.uk/Members/Lahr/pubs/AHG-65-01.pdf to http://www.human-evol.cam.ac.uk/Members/Lahr/pubs/AHG-65-01.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:51, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Article seems to violate Wikipedia rules (WP:SCIRS and WP:WEIGHT)

@Ermenrich:, @Ebizur:, @EvergreenFir:. This article violates both WP:SCIRS and WP:WEIGHT. Several statements are unsourced or wrong sourced, no secondary sources are given. To much weight on single studies (like the new 2019 study). Additionally POV styles of several opinions. The new study is based on a possible new sub-haplogroup named “D0”. According to WP:WEIGHT, this study must not have this major position it has currently. I am also not sure if the whole article violates WP:SCIRS. At least the current state is non-neutral. (At least in my view). Can you please take a look on this article and its references and correct or overwork it? Thanks very much.2001:4BC9:901:CEC8:413A:44D8:8D20:FFE5 (talk) 12:21, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Can you point out which statements are unsourced or wrongly sourced? regarding the 2019 Haber et al. study, It does not seem to me that too much weight is given to it or that it has a major position, as it appears in the relevant section ("Contemporary studies") in chronological order in relation to other studies (mentioned last, because it is the most recent) and is not discussed elsewhere (except briefly as one line — added by another editor — where relevant in an earlier section referring to the discovery of Nigerian DE, some of which was, according to the study, considered likely belong to D0), and it is properly sourced. The study is (I believe appropriately) cited as a note in the relevant part of the Infobox at top right under "Possible Place of Origin", along with the second most recent study (The Cabrera et al. study proposing an Asian origin, also in the relevant part). In the segment summarizing it in "Contemporary Studies", I tried render it with enough detail to express the authors' thesis, and believe I have reported it accurately and neutrally, describing the claims of the authors. But if it seems too long/disproportionately or unduly long (and I could see why that might seem to be the case), I can try to trim it down a bit/more concisely phrase it. Skllagyook (talk) 13:53, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

I have edited the Haber et al. segment to reduce redundancy and undue size/length (and increase neutrality of tone/presentation) without losing too much information, and will continue to do so if necessary. Skllagyook (talk) 14:32, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

The 2019 study can be shortened, some aspects are twice or third mentioned, rest should be ok. Maybe we should mention that this is based on D0 and is not 100% sure. (Per WP:Weight one study with such results should if possible rely on secondary sources too. (Per WP:SCIRS) The other studies are partially WP:OR or WP:Synthesis. I can later try to make a list. Currently busy. This is a problem not only unique to this article. Several haplogroup articles are partially fringe. I will try later to correct some parts.2001:4BC9:901:20E0:C999:1668:C96B:8C31 (talk) 15:14, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, and I will continue to work on that (e.g. shortening) in the meantime.Skllagyook (talk) 15:17, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Also, on a different but related note, an editor recently has cited a 2004 study (Cordaux et al.) as having found DE in India (the editor also had at first, inaccurately — but I believe mistakenly/in good faith — interpreted an Indian origin theory/argument for DE from the study/source). In the source, a table does seem to show a low rate of "DE-YAP" lineages in an Indian population, but this (as far as I can tell) is never mentioned/discussed in the source's text (which does not seem to discuss DE or its descendant lineages much if at all), and it seems not entirely clear whether by "DE-YAP" the table means/shows the rate of haplogroup DE itself or merely of haplogroups descended from DE that carry the YAP mutation (like E and D — i.e. "DE-YAP haplogropups" of the DE lineage, some which are known to exist at low rates in parts of India). Since the study (nor DE in India) does not, as far as I am aware, seem to be mentioned or recognized in other scholarly sources (or elsewhere) as the purported findings of DE in Nigeria, Guinea Bissau, Tibet and Syria have been (and the Cordaux study has been in existence since 2004), so I am not entirely sure what to make of it and whether it should be included (and whether or not it is generally established/agreed that DE has been found in India). Can you perhaps look at that when you have the time? Thank you. Skllagyook (talk) 16:15, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, I have shortened other parts as well and edited according to WP:Neutrality. I do not find references about an Indian origin. Haplogroup DE is not found in India according to recent studies. Cordaux does not speak much about DE. Look at this: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-018-33714-2 ; it does not find haplogroup DE in India at all. DE was possibly present in India, but more research is needed and currently I find no other studies regarding this topic. Greetings.2001:4BC9:901:20E0:C999:1668:C96B:8C31 (talk) 16:51, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Further changes and generall discussion (Please use this section first before makeing major changes to the article)

Because of several major changes and a kind of "edit war": Use this section to discuss about proposed changes and try to reach a consensus first. (Human genetics are a controversial topic and should respect Wikipedia rules).

@AsadalEditor:, Some of my recent edits were recently reverted and I am not sure why. In the section "origins" I recently made a few changes to a recent edit regarding the haplogroup D0. An editor had added a section concerning the recent discovery of the haplogroup in West Asia (along with Nigeria). There were some statements in the edit that did not accurately affect the source.

I made the following changes:

The other instances of D0 were found by ftdna, not the Haber team that wrote the paper, as the previous editor had stated. Also, the previous editor had stated that the west Asian branched were all older, but according to the source the branch the Syrian individual's D0 belonged to was more basal/early-branching than the others, but the Saudi Arabian D0 is (as far as is known so far) not more basal (or older) than the Nigerian D0.

The current version (now reverted) contains the statement "According to Runfeldt and Sager, D0 is a diverging branch of D and should not be considered as more deeply rooted as D itself" This does not appear to be in the source. D0 is described in Haber and elsewhere as a deeply rooted branch of the D lineage, but more basal/deep than other D lineages. My other edits to this section reflect the source: the two branches of D0 are one that is found in Africa and one that is found in the Middle East.

In addition, the part I added to the section on the Haber paper is not personal opinion but is found in the paper itself: the calculated dates of divergence for haplogroups DE, E, and D0 are determined to predate the out of Africa migration of ancestral Eurasians, and thus are considered to support an African origin for those haplogroups.

On pages 4-5 of the paper the authors write:

“All non-Africans carry around 2% Neanderthal DNA in their genomes (Green et al. 2010), and Neanderthal fossils have only been reported outside Africa. The geographical distribution of Neanderthals thus suggests that the mixing probably occurred outside Africa, and the ubiquitous presence of Neanderthal DNA in present-day non-Africans is most easily explained if the mixing took place once, soon after the migration out. This mixing has been dated with some precision using the length of the introgressed segments in the 45,000-year-old (43,210- 46,880 years) Siberian (Ust’-Ishim) to 232-430 generations before he lived, i.e. 49,900-59,400 years ago assuming a generation time of 29 years (Fu et al. 2014). If this date represented the time of the migration out of Africa, it would exclude the first two scenarios (Figure 2B and 2C) [2B and 2C being the scenarios involving a Eurasian back-migration of E and D0, and 2D being the third, and according to the authors more likely, scenario involving an African origin of E and D0 as well as DE]. Thus the combination of Y phylogenetic structure and dating of the out-of-Africa migration based on the 45,000-year-old Siberian fossil (Fu et al. 2014) favors the third scenario (Figure 2D) involving the migration out of C, D and FT between 50,300 years ago (lower bound of the FT diversification, Table S2) and 59,400 years ago (upper bound of the introgression; see Figure 3) which is in accordance with suggested models incorporating an African origin of the DE lineages…”

Skllagyook (talk)

One of the problems here is that you give too much trust into a single reference which results in problems regarding WP:WEIGHT. The included diagram of the second reference shows D0, the new discoverd ones and the already known ones as sub branches of D with similar divergence. Regardless of what the former study says. The combination of two studies for one conclusion would be original research (see WP:OR and WP:NOR). About your addition, you must change the wording to a neutral view. One study can not be used on Wikipedia to demonstrate a conclusion. Keep calm and wait for further studies to built up a conclusion. In the meantime, you can edit your ideas or proposals in your sandbox (user sandbox) or directly here on the talk page. Best greetings.—AsadalEditor (talk) 08:31, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. I think I see what you mean regarding D/D0 branching and my addition. Regarding the addition. I will reword it more neutrally (and concisely, to avoid undue weight).

Skllagyook (talk) 09:26, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Also, regarding the section on the haplogroup E page discussing D0, it seems that it may not belong there (being less relevant there than it is in the DE article), since D0 is a haplogroup on the D branch rather than the E branch of DE, and the source (Roberta Estes) does not discuss E at all (other than including it in the aforementioned tree diagram).Skllagyook (talk) 09:26, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

@AsadalEditor: Recently (in "Contemporary studies") you seem to have made an addition combining several sources to argue for a Eurasian origin for DE and its ancestral haplogroup CT. In the addition, it was stated in that this was following the hypothesis/theory of Hammer et al 2008 (that Hammer et al. 2008 argued for this position, which does not seem to be the case), and it was also stated, that this position/hypothesis was reinforced by other studies finding CT samples in modern and ancient Eurasian populations (by several sources). However, I'm afraid none of the sources seem to make the argument for a Eurasian origin of either haplogroup, and I could only find mention of CT in a Eurasian population in one (the Lipman et al. source, reporting it in neolithic remains in the Mediterranean region). To make inferences about the origin of DE (or CT or other markers) from reports of the presence of CT in Eurasia (without such inferences or hypotheses having been made in the source), or from combining sources, would be original research/synthesis (WP:NOR) or POV (WP:POV). After going through the sources, I removed the new text with explanations in the article's "History" notes, which are also reproduced here (below):

Regarding the Wang et al. source, Wang does not seem to posit a Eurasian origin for CT nor mention basal CT* in modern Eurasian populations. Wang describes CT as the "out-of-Africa superhaplogroup CT" (on page 3 below) implying an African origin (in keeping with its label from other authors as the "Out of Africa Adam" or "Eurasian Adam" lineage, i.e. associated with the main African group that left Africa and was ancestral to modern Eurasians). See: https://www.biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/early/2014/05/03/004705.full.pdf Also, the Wang et al. source is a non-peer-reviewed preprint.

Hammer 2008 does not mention basal CT* in modern Eurasian populations, nor posit a Eurasian origin for it (though he does suggest a Eurasian origin for its descendant haplogroup CF and the C clade—an offshoot of CF—not long/soon after the Out of Africa migration. He suggests that because CT contains both a branch/lineages not found in Africa (the CF lineages), along with a branch/lineages that are found in Africa, it/CT, or a branch of it (a branch derived from CT/one of its major branches) must have left Africa early in the modern human diaspora out of Africa. See: https://genome.cshlp.org/content/early/2008/04/02/gr.7172008.full.pdf+html

I cannot seem to find mention of basal CT* in Eurasian populations in the Fu et al. source nor the hypothesis for a Eurasian origin of DE or CT. See: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/309802064_The_genetic_history_of_Ice_Age_Europe

Also, to make inferences about the origin of DE (or CT or other markers) from reports of the presence of CT in Eurasia (without such inferences or hypotheses having been made in the source) would be original research/synthesis and/or POV.

And while Lipson et al. does seem to find CT in an ancient Eurasian sample they make no inferences or conclusions from this regarding the origin of CT or DE. Therefore this does not seem to belong in the DE article, but the mention of the finding is relevant in the CT article, where it is already included. CT is only noted in passing (shown in a few samples in one of the tables in the supplements (but it is seemingly not discussed in the text), and this may not be conclusive: new y-dna samples are occasionally provisionally assigned to broad/basal lineages (within which they fit/are found to belong) before later being assigned to more specific clades/branches within those lineages.

Please discuss here before making major changes to the article and avoid original research and POV additions. Thank you very much—Skllagyook (talk) 20:44, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Hey, thank you for correcting the addition (and misinterpretation) regarding CT. It was a rather hastly edit without checking if it was accurate. Again, thank you!--AsadalEditor (talk) 23:11, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Minor correction: Fu et al. seem to also note CT in a Eurasian population (in one of the tables), but, like the other sources, they do not make any arguments/hypotheses for CT being of Eurasian origin (or regarding its origin at all), and do not mention it at all in the text. And, as mentioned, its assignment to basal CT is unclear/it may not in fact be basal CT* (since it seems that new y-dna samples are at times provisionally assigned to broad/basal lineages or clades, within which they fit/are found to belong, before later being assigned to more specific clades/branches within those lineages). However, if CT originated in Northeast Africa (as the research suggests) and migrated to Eurasia (where some of it may have later diverged into haplogroup CF), it seems possible that some CT would have remained in Eurasia (and perhaps also in Africa — much fewer ancient remains have been tested from there) — for a while at least, since none is found in modern populations, as far as we know. Anyway, this information (from Fu et al. and Lipson et al.) is already included in the CT page—Skllagyook (talk) 12:15, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

DE in the Caribbean

@2001:4BC9:801:B344:A0F7:4F5D:E0FC:9824: You recently removed the mention of a study finding DE-YAP in the Caribbean, writing in the notes that the authors thought it likely to be on the E branch, but I cannot find where they say this. Do you know what page number this is on? If they do say this (that it is likely to be on the E branch), this can be noted at the end (of the section mentioning the finding). Here is the full study again: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/224939701_Y-chromosomal_diversity_in_Haiti_and_Jamaica_Contrasting_levels_of_sex-biased_gene_flow Thanks—Skllagyook (talk) 18:57, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

You arr right, it was mentioned later to be DE*.2001:4BC9:801:B344:A0F7:4F5D:E0FC:9824 (talk) 19:05, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

This is the quote: “Commen-surate levels of genetic input from the European popula-tions were also observed in both collections (19.8% in Haiti and 19.3% in Jamaica with the aid of the PASWStatistics version 18 program and 20.8% in Haiti and12.0% in Jamaica using Admix 2.0), whereas East Asianinfluences, although minimal, were relatively higher in Jamaica.” This must be mentioned as it would mislead the readers. DE* can likely be from a European or Asian person or ancestry. Good that you changed “Afro-Caribbean” to “Caribbean” as we do not know of what ethnicity he or she in fact is.2001:4BC9:922:BC32:35D6:4500:A8F1:1E2E (talk) 12:23, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

@2001:4BC9:922:BC32:35D6:4500:A8F1:1E2E: Yes, I changed it to "Caribbean" to more accurately follow the study (since we may not know for sure, though the population as well as the ancestry of the islands tested is predominantly African. Thus the DE* would seem significantly more likely to have come from an African person, but we do not know for certain). Regarding DE* in the Caribbean, can you cite the page that finds it in Jamaica in particular? According to the color-coded map, DE-YAP, which is color coded brown, is found in a sample from the Bahamas ("GRB", i.e. "Grand Bahama", page 624). The European genetic influence in Jamaicans, while higher than in Haiti, is not higher than that of the Caribbean in general (Haiti has an exceptionally isolated history compared to other Islands due to their early revolution and has less non-African admixture than most other islands do). However, the rates of European y-dna in Haiti and Jamaica were found to be about the same (ca. 19%), though Jamaica had more overall European admixture (autosomal dna) than Haiti (12.3% vs. 1.6%) (page 627), and anyway DE* has never been found in Europe or in Western Eurasia. There is more Asian admixture in Jamaica than in Haiti (but, as mentioned, Haiti has less non-African admixture than other islands), nonetheless, the Asian admixture in Jamaica, as the quote says, is minimal. In the study (as well as in others), like the Bahamas, Barbados, and Haiti, Jamaica's gene pool (including Y-dna) is found to be predominantly African, and it seems that to over-emphasize the 3.8% of Asian Y-dna in Jamaica (a very low rate) would be somewhat misleading, especially since the authors do not put forward that as a possible explanation for the presence of DE* there (thus adding it would seem to, at the least, border on editorializing), though I do agree that it is best to leave it as "Caribbean" rather than "Afro-Caribbean" for the reason above; the former French and British Caribbean is understood to be (as the genetic studies also show) a region that is generally predominantly African—sometimes overwhelmingly so—, but that also includes small amounts of other kinds of admixture/ancestry).—Skllagyook (talk) 12:35, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Eurasian origin 2020

There is a new study from June 2020 (currently under peer-reviewing) which concluded that there was a massive Eurasian back migration (linked to the spread of DE, E and D). Razib Khan made a good summary about it. See:https://www.gnxp.com/WordPress/2020/06/02/massive-basal-eurasian-back-migration/. Hopefully we can soon include this study.

Regarding the latest changes, we must mention Eurasia im the infobox and what I see this was discussed several times. It would be a violation of WP:NPOV.46.125.250.104 (talk) 06:34, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

The study (Cole et al., link here: [[2]] and here [[3]]) does propose a back-migration of early proto-Eurasians (or a population closely related to them), with no Neanderthal admixture, into Africa but does not explicitly connect them to any haplogroups (and does not mention DE, E, or D). To cite the paper as connected with specific haplogroups when they are not explicitly mentioned would be WP:OR. (The mention of haplogroups is Razib Khan's own speculation, and he goes on to speculate, in the post and in the comments, that the "bottlenecked" "back-migrating" population could plausibly have originated from anywhere from the Levant/Arabia to north/northeast Africa, the green Sahara, to even, though less likely, Kenya - but nonetheless, his speculations on a blog are not WP:RS). The possibility that the migrating group proposed/identified in the study could have been an African group (that never left Africa but was related to the ancestors of Eurasians) is also suggested by Bergstrom et al. 2020/2021 (where they mention the Cole et al. study and reference it in note 139):

"An analysis of divergence times between segments of present-day genomes similarly suggested substantial admixture from a source related to the ancestors of non-Africans, but lacking Neanderthal admixture, into all African populations studied139. This ancestry might never have left the African continent, but could represent an across-Africa expansion concurrent with the into-Eurasia expansion (Fig. 2a), and its spread could potentially be a major contributor to the complex genetic relationships observed among present-day African populations." (page 5) ("Origins of modern human ancestry" by Bergstrom et al.)

[[4]] (and in full here: [[5]]) I do however agree that Eurasia should be mentioned in the inbox here (as it is now), as some notable papers have proposed it (whether or not the most recent studies support it), and the origins of those haplogroups are still as yet uncertain. Skllagyook (talk) 06:43, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Does DE* exist today?

@Skllagyook: Dear Skllagyook, I think it is worth to mention that no DE persons who WERE tested for D and/or E failed to fall under one of them. --85.249.45.152 (talk) 11:38, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

There are several samples that were tested for D and E and failed to fall under one in studies that did not test for an extremely divergent lineage like D2/D0 that is near the D/E split (that does not belong to most common D-M174 lineage of D - to which almost all D belongs). And there are no extremely divergent E lineages known known that they could belong to. Two out of the five of the first group of Nigerian samples listed are unconfirmed as D2 and thus could still be DE* but it is still uncertain, and similar instances exist, for example, in Guinea Bissau, the Caribbean, and Tibet. Adding what you propose would likely be WP:OR, since the statement/analysis you make above is not made in any of the sources. I think the fact that the relevant subsection of "Distribution" is labelled "Possible DE*", as well as the fact that the recent discovery of D2 is discussed, is adequate to convey that many/some may be uncertain as perfectly basal DE*. Skllagyook (talk) 12:09, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

If I'm not mistaren, Haber's work and Sager's lecture both mention the fact that there are no proven DE* at the moment. D1 and D2 still have at least several thousand years in common between them, so they are not THAT diverged. If I remember correctly, all "DE" (including proven D2) Nigerians and the Bissauan have very similar STR. The Caribbean would probably cluster next to them or with some African American D2. Tibet also has more chance clustering with D. There are also a Qatari (FTDNA), another Syrian (YHRD) and a Palestinian (SMGF) about whom I'm quite sure they're D2. --85.249.45.152 (talk) 15:57, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

According to Haber et al. and Sager, D2 is diverged around 71,000 years ago, which is pretty close to the D/E split, and D-M174 (or its precursor) diverged not long after, which would mean that there are tens of thousands of years of separation between them. I do recall that Haber suggests that Tibetan DE could be due to a "transcription error" (and presumably could be D - perhaps D-M174). If you can find a verifiable source (e.g. Haber or Sager) where they explicitly day that there is not yet confirmed DE*, it would then likely be ok to add that. (If it is in Sager's lecture, that should include a timestamp for the video where he makes that statement.) It is not yet known where the Caribbean would cluster and not for us as editors to assume. Regarding the African American D2, according to Sager's lecture, one sample clusters more with the Nigerians and the other sits on another branch that is closer to the Syrian. Regarding the other Syrian, Qatari, and Palestinian, to be added, their statuses as D2/D0 carriers would have to be explicitly stated in a reliable source/sources. Skllagyook (talk) 16:50, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

The other African American is equally remote from the "main" D2-FT75/A5580.2 branch (D2a-FT76) and from the Yemeni-Syrian D2b-FT51782 branch, he is D2c. --85.249.45.152 (talk) 08:24, 8 June 2022 (UTC)