View Single Post
  #47 (permalink)     Quote this post in a PM
Old Tuesday, July 12th, 2005
Gil's Avatar
Gil Gil is offline
Grand Member
 
Last Online: Monday, March 31st, 2008 14:26
Join Date: Jan 2005
Age: 26
Posts: 2,390
Gil is a sage.Gil is a sage.Gil is a sage.Gil is a sage.Gil is a sage.Gil is a sage.Gil is a sage.Gil is a sage.Gil is a sage.
Default Re: HLA genes in Macedonians and the sub-Saharan origin of the Greeks

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zrinski
Actually it's not. It's equally related to R as it is to J. They all evolved from the saem mutation...unlike E3b which evolved from totally other mutation.

The point is...R and I haplgorups are autochtonous European markers, E, J, G, N, etc. are not thus E and I cannot be closely related to each other more than R and I are.
Huh? All haplogroups came from the Middle East/Africa, so there are no "autochtonous" haplogroups. What you can say is that, for example, R and I developed it's differentiating mutations in Europe during the Ice Age (hence Paleolithic markers) while E, J, G, N, etc arrived only during the Neolithic period but to measure them in terms of "Europeaness"... well, they are on the same level. For example, the gravettian culture is considered "strictly European" yet the haplogroup usually associated with the expansion of that culture is the paleolithic/neolithic group I.
Haplogroups J and J2 are also neolithic and are found in the whole of the Mediterranean area and are usually associated with Roman culture, even if it is a marker originating in nowadays Jericho.

Zrinski, I do understand your point and of course that paleolithic markers (R, I, etc) are more similar between themselves than with neolithic markers but nevertheless I just think "autochtonous" is badly employed here.
__________________

Reply With Quote