[kaixin]

There is really little Y marker (paternal genes) in northern Han that would indicate any significant mixture with Mongols or Manchus. But, it is obvious that from phenotypes, some of the northern Han had mixed with Altaic.

First of all, it is possible to have Altaic genes, but not show up in your Y marker. Why? Well, I think 2 reasons:

1) When the northern Han women got violated by nomads and had mixed children, they probably killed the boys and kept the daughters. That way, you have northern genes, but no Y marker.

or

2) There have been 3 instances in history where southern Chinese invaded the north:

a) The Ming restoration- they were southerners who drove out the Mongols. It
was said that Zhu Yuanzhang made northern women, Mongols and Hui
intermarry with "Chinese." Obviously, a lot of men were killed in north
during that rebellion and war. Ming Dynasty later had used a lot of soldiers
and generals from the south. Yuan Chongyuan, a famous general who
repulsed the Manchus on numerous occasions was a Cantonese.

Taiping Rebellion-the main forces that drove north with Hong Xiaochuan
Hakkas, Cantonese and Zhuangs.

c) KMT "Northern Expedition"- most of the troops were from Guangdong and
Guangxi.

[Too hi Fat]

I am not convince with the research on "racial" genes. I find most of them a bit dubious and thier conclusions are bit ... far fetched.

The truth is that most of the genetic markers that they use for "racial" determinations don't really work. What they do is this ... take a bunch of volunteers ... take genetic sample ... get code ... look at code ... "Hey ... 2/3 of these guys have this marker here ... this must be the asian marker" ... so what about the rest of it ? what about comparing it to other people ? ... etc. ....

[qrasy]

kaixin, on Sep 4 2005, 04:03 PM, said:

There is really little Y marker (paternal genes) in northern Han that would indicate any significant mixture with Mongols or Manchus.  But, it is obvious that from phenotypes, some of the northern Han had mixed with Altaic.

First of all, it is possible to have Altaic genes, but not show up in your Y marker.  Why?  Well, I think 2 reasons:

Haplogroup C is actually seen in visible precentages among the East Asia even Southern one.

The South Chinese even have about 10% C-haplogroup. What you may find strange for this is that they are shared with Australoids.
Y-haplogroup is named in simple alphabetical-tree, in the tree A B and C are very old. So it's our very ancestors, nothing is strange if some still keeps them.
It made all the way to Philippines, maybe ancient Chinese and Baiyue also had them in small percentages.

Too hi Fat, on Sep 4 2005, 09:09 PM, said:

I am not convince with the research on "racial" genes. I find most of them a bit dubious and thier conclusions are bit ... far fetched.

The truth is that most of the genetic markers that they use for "racial" determinations don't really work. What they do is this ... take a bunch of volunteers ... take genetic sample ... get code ... look at code ... "Hey ... 2/3 of these guys have this marker here ... this must be the asian marker" ... so what about the rest of it ? what about comparing it to other people ? ... etc. ....

Yes. We must scan all complete sequences of genes, which is impossible to be fully examined (for now). We just take a very small part of it. As a result we may look closer to "high-level/far cousin" than "close cousin", such as HLA analysis in Greek that led them closer to Subsaharan African than it is to other Europeans.

This post has been edited by qrasy: 05 September 2005 - 10:45 AM

[ren]

kaixin, on Sep 4 2005, 03:03 AM, said:

There is really little Y marker (paternal genes) in northern Han that would indicate any significant mixture with Mongols or Manchus.  But, it is obvious that from phenotypes, some of the northern Han had mixed with Altaic.

First of all, it is possible to have Altaic genes, but not show up in your Y marker.  Why?  Well, I think 2 reasons:

1)  When the northern Han women got violated by nomads and had mixed children, they probably killed the boys and kept the daughters.  That way, you have northern genes, but no Y marker.

or

2) There have been 3 instances in history where southern Chinese invaded the north:

    a) The Ming restoration- they were southerners who drove out the Mongols.  It
        was said that Zhu Yuanzhang made northern women, Mongols and Hui
        intermarry with "Chinese."  Obviously, a lot of men were killed in north
        during that rebellion and war.  Ming Dynasty later had used a lot of soldiers
        and generals from the south.  Yuan Chongyuan, a famous general who
        repulsed the Manchus on numerous occasions was a Cantonese.

    Taiping Rebellion-the main forces that drove north with Hong Xiaochuan
        Hakkas, Cantonese and Zhuangs.

    c) KMT "Northern Expedition"- most of the troops were from Guangdong and
        Guangxi.

You got it backwards. Chinese have become less and less Mongol-Manchu-looking over millenia, just like all of the other eastern Asian linguistic groupings. This is do to changes in morphology to do warmer habitats. Narrowers heads dessipate heat better and can mean the difference between life and death.

Also, there has been admixture with true aborigines who had an "Australoid" (to be grossly inaccurate but understable).

Too hi Fat, on Sep 4 2005, 08:09 AM, said:

I am not convince with the research on "racial" genes. I find most of them a bit dubious and thier conclusions are bit ... far fetched.

The truth is that most of the genetic markers that they use for "racial" determinations don't really work. What they do is this ... take a bunch of volunteers ... take genetic sample ... get code ... look at code ... "Hey ... 2/3 of these guys have this marker here ... this must be the asian marker" ... so what about the rest of it ? what about comparing it to other people ? ... etc. ....

Lineages, HLA, and most autosomal genes have little to do with appearance.

[qrasy]

rudeboy, on Sep 7 2005, 02:52 AM, said:

You got it backwards. Chinese have become less and less Mongol-Manchu-looking over millenia, just like all of the other eastern Asian linguistic groupings. This is do to changes in morphology to do warmer habitats. Narrowers heads dessipate heat better and can mean the difference between life and death.

So that's because "Northern Chinese" are changing appearances into "South Chinese" and give an illusion of "mixed".
How about Mongol and Manchu themselves? So global heating took place in Chinese evolution?

Quote

Also, there has been admixture with true aborigines who had an "Australoid" (to be grossly inaccurate but understable).
Lineages, HLA, and most autosomal genes have little to do with appearance.

All of CJK+Mongolian are mixed with 'Australoid', isn't that true?
Autosomal genes are genes constructing body. I guess most of them are for meat, blood, intestines etc. (I think a few of them are responsible for physical appearance)
By the way I've never seen study with 'appearance genes'. (if there are)

I've seen a legendary "Gou-guo"(狗国 country of dog) male lineage that makes a male full of hair. Just find the word 'dog-boy' here:
http://en.wikipedia..../Hypertrichosis

This post has been edited by qrasy: 07 September 2005 - 02:39 AM

[ren]

qrasy, on Sep 7 2005, 02:33 AM, said:

So that's because "Northern Chinese" are changing appearances into "South Chinese" and give an illusion of "mixed".

Likely, since head-size seems to be an adaptive response to cold climates like Siberia. It preserves heat better. {Source: Detecting interregionally diversifying natural selection on modern human cranial form by using matched molecular and morphometric data }

Quote

How about Mongol and Manchu themselves? So global heating took place in Chinese evolution?

No, I'm talking about the movement of Siberian peoples ("Mongoloids") into more southern, warmer climes. Since the earliest osteologically "Mongoloid" populations are found in Siberia and the Americas, it makes sense that "Mongoloids" were a small, cold-adapted population that expanded south during the Holocene/Neolithic. Northern China was a desert before this. {Source: http://www.soton.ac.uk/~tjms/eurasia.html}

Quote

All of CJK+Mongolian are mixed with 'Australoid', isn't that true?

There has been finds of "recent" Austric morphology in China, Japan, and I think Korea. I'm not sure about Mongolia. The Y chromosome/male lineage C of Mongolians can't be used to prove anything, since a lineage can be disassociated from it's original carrier or a phenotype can change. For example, many Nordic people carry the lineage N, which is a derivative of the O* found in northern Asia.

"Mongoloid" morphology may itself have developed partially from people coming up along the southern coast mixing with people coming from Central Asia. It simply was an isolated population that had further developments, probably in response to the cold, especially in the ice age.

This post has been edited by rudeboy: 07 September 2005 - 11:24 AM

[kaixin]

^So, the Nordic people are essentially genetically dissimilar from their Mediterranean neighbors?

[richardrli]

In a way, yes

[qrasy]

kaixin, on Sep 8 2005, 01:47 PM, said:

^So, the Nordic people are essentially genetically dissimilar from their Mediterranean neighbors?

richardrli, on Sep 8 2005, 02:07 PM, said:

In a way, yes

I think it depends on what genes you use for test. Taking "appearance genes", you might be right, but overall Europeans are very close to each other.

??? I've heard that despite how Europeans look like, allele frequencies in Europe are approximately 2/3 Asian + 1/3 African.

This post has been edited by qrasy: 08 September 2005 - 04:52 AM

[richardrli]

Just a quick question, are Asians (yellow race) more closely related to the Europeans (white race) or Africans (black race)?

[qrasy]

quick answer: Asians and Europeans are closer to each other than they are to African.