"Fittest" Y Chromosome Haplogroup

[Kaiser]

Without trying to stir up a hornet's nest, I propose a hypothesis:

The haplogroup (or its sub-clade) that has the highest frequency world-wide, harbours individuals who may be classified as FITTEST on the Darwinian scale.

In other words, people belonging to the largest haplogroup or its sub-clade have survived and multiplied successfully whereas others, that are represented less frequently, have not been able to cope with the rigours of the environment, mate-selection warring, etc.

A flip of the FTDNA Statistics tab on ySearch reveals the following top 10 Haplogroups on the database SO FAR:

R1b - 18.6%; I - 8.9%; R1a - 7.7%; K - 6%; E3a - 4.9%; E3b - 4.8%; C3 - 4.7%; O3 - 4.5%; O2 - 4.4%; Q - 4%.

The caveat to this hypothesis is, of course, that since the database is largely applicable to Europe/North America, where DNA testing has been done more extensively than other parts of the world, it may not be truly representative on a global level. With more widespread testing we might, of course, see different results with high population density areas like South Asia, China and Africa skewing the results in favour of haplogroups like O2/3, E3a, E3b, H, etc.

My idea to post this thread is to elicit opinions on this Darwinian line of thinking which credits Survival of the Fittest and, to see if it applies to population groups (read haplogroups) too.

The battle lines are drawn!!!

PS: I am an R2, so I am not competing in this Fitness Competition.

[Kaiser]

Top 10 Haplogroups

A minor type error creeped in my last post. Please amend to read J2 - 6% instead of K - 6%. Error regretted.

Top Ten Haplogroups are as follows:

R1b - 18.6%; I - 8.9%; R1a - 7.7%; J2 - 6%; E3a - 4.9%; E3b - 4.8%; C3 - 4.7%; O3 - 4.5%; O2 - 4.4%; Q - 4%.

The following link refers:

http://www.ysearch.org/haplo_pie.asp

[Eki]

Without trying to stir up a hornet's nest, I propose a hypothesis:

The haplogroup (or its sub-clade) that has the highest frequency world-wide, harbours individuals who may be classified as FITTEST on the Darwinian scale.

In other words, people belonging to the largest haplogroup or its sub-clade have survived and multiplied successfully whereas others, that are represented less frequently, have not been able to cope with the rigours of the environment, mate-selection warring, etc.

A flip of the FTDNA Statistics tab on ySearch reveals the following top 10 Haplogroups on the database SO FAR:

R1b - 18.6%; I - 8.9%; R1a - 7.7%; K - 6%; E3a - 4.9%; E3b - 4.8%; C3 - 4.7%; O3 - 4.5%; O2 - 4.4%; Q - 4%.

The caveat to this hypothesis is, of course, that since the database is largely applicable to Europe/North America, where DNA testing has been done more extensively than other parts of the world, it may not be truly representative on a global level. With more widespread testing we might, of course, see different results with high population density areas like South Asia, China and Africa skewing the results in favour of haplogroups like O2/3, E3a, E3b, H, etc.

My idea to post this thread is to elicit opinions on this Darwinian line of thinking which credits Survival of the Fittest and, to see if it applies to population groups (read haplogroups) too.

The battle lines are drawn!!!

PS: I am an R2, so I am not competing in this Fitness Competition.

I don't believe it's that simple. Before you can have a fair race, everybody should start at the same time and run on the same field with the same obstacles.

1.) Some haplogroups are older than other

2.) I'm sure the living conditions for example in the Arctic or in Sahara were harsher without modern technology than they were in the British Isles or Western Europe.

3.) Agriculture, domestic animals and many technical innovations didn't reach some parts of the world until thousands of years after they had been invented.

[Stevo]

The premise of this thread points out the moral dynamite inherent in the theory of evolution.

That is just one of the problems I have with it.

[MMaddi]

I have a problem with the idea of this thread, but didn't know how to express it. I think Eki's posting above is the best possible answer to the original question. Eki has put it in scientific terms, not some sort of political argument, so it's clear that there are multiple background factors that determine what seems to be merely an empirical count of the number of people in each haplogroup.

And of course, Kaiser himself has pointed out that the ysearch database is biased toward a European/North American population, in terms of who has tested. I'm sure that if Chinese and Indians were well-represented in the database, they would swamp those of European descent. There still is a lot poverty in China and India, but both have a large and growing population and represent cultures that have been around for thousands of years. Those seem like good criteria for being "fit" in a Darwinian sense, if you accept Darwinian premises.

Mike

[Victor]

Sorry, Kaiser.

Your hypothesis is based on faulty premises. Even within each haplogroup you can find branches that have expanded a lot and some that have barely managed to survive. So, if you're equating success simply with numbers it is clear that many other factors could play a more important role than a haplogroup's inherent attributes.

Victor

[cacio]

I believe most haplogroup defining mutations are in the junk DNA, so they don't confer any advantage per se. However, a person may get a beneficial mutation in some part of the DNA (and it will be outside the Y chromosome, which doesn't do much other than switching on the male hormones). So his Y-haplogrop mutation will free ride initially and exhibit positive correlation with evolutionary beneficial mutations. But as DNA mixes the correlation must go back to zero.

I can imagine how this may have happened sometimes early on in human history. The ancestral Adam could have indeed had something (language ability), so that his A* was lucky enough to drive out all other lineages. With small populations, a group can easily drive out or outnumber the others before DNA mixes up and spreads.

However, my guess is that the current haplogroup frequency is due more to chance than fitness. Luck in genetic drift (populations were small) and in location. Those Rs who wandered around the fringes of cold and uninhabited Europe were more lucky than those K's who sailed off to Melanesia.

On a related note, has anybody been following those old hypotheses about mtdna fitness and sperm speed? an evolutionary non-sequitur, for sure, but funny enough.

Also, regarding frequencies, I don't think China and India would totally swamp European Rs. If you add Europe and the Americas (not to mention the Rs in India and the Middle East), I bet they'll get relatively close to those O's. My prior for frequencies would be O's, followed by Rs and Es. (with E on the rise if Africa keeps growing). Incidentally, while European, I'm not one of those prolific Rs. I'm a (less successful) L.

cacio

[Eki]

I believe most haplogroup defining mutations are in the junk DNA, so they don't confer any advantage per se. However, a person may get a beneficial mutation in some part of the DNA (and it will be outside the Y chromosome, which doesn't do much other than switching on the male hormones). So his Y-haplogrop mutation will free ride initially and exhibit positive correlation with evolutionary beneficial mutations. But as DNA mixes the correlation must go back to zero.

Yes, if the DNA mixed randomly. But up until modern days, people have bred mostly with their "own kind" (i.e. people from the same small geographical area where they live), so only the same few haplogroups have been involved generation after generation. I believe the correlation between mt-, Y- and autosomal DNA is still high.

[Stevo]

Yes, if the DNA mixed randomly. But up until modern days, people have bred mostly with their "own kind" (i.e. people from the same small geographical area where they live), so only the same few haplogroups have been involved generation after generation. I believe the correlation between mt-, Y- and autosomal DNA is still high.

That is true only if one understands that people determined who "their own kind" were by physical appearance and shared language, religion, and customs.

No one was testing dna.

People have been mixing pretty freely for a long, long time.

[Eki]

That is true only if one understands that people determined who "their own kind" were by physical appearance and shared language, religion, and customs.

No one was testing dna.

People have been mixing pretty freely for a long, long time.

Actually, that's not true for the most part of world. Before there were roads, horses, cars and airplanes, people mostly married their neighbors, or at best, someone from the neighboring village or tribe. And if you look for example my parents, they were born in the 20th century when there were roads, cars and airplanes, but they were born only about 100 miles apart.

[Stevo]

Actually, that's not true for the most part of world. Before there were roads, horses, cars and airplanes, people mostly married their neighbors, or at best, someone from the neighboring village.

Well, once again, we disagree. Seriously.

The locals' neighbors were as mixed a bag as they themselves were.

Even in ancient times people were not genetically one thing or another.

One would have to find a pretty isolated stretch of jungle or mountaintop to find some sort of "pure" people.

They don't exist and probably have not since the Stone Age.

[Eki]

Well, once again, we disagree. Seriously.

The locals' neighbors were as mixed a bag as they themselves were.

Even in ancient times people were not genetically one thing or another.

One would have to find a pretty isolated stretch of jungle or mountaintop to find some sort of "pure" people.

They don't exist and probably have not since the Stone Age.

Again we agree. I didn't say that any of the people didn't mix, I said most people didn't mix. Most people in many parts of the world were farmers who stayed on their farm for most of their lives. The mixing process has been slow. Otherwise we wouldn't see any gradients in the haplomaps and all people would be latte color.

[Stevo]

Again we agree. I didn't say that any of the people didn't mix, I said most people didn't mix. Most people in many parts of the world were farmers who stayed on their farm for most of their lives. The mixing process has been slow. Otherwise we wouldn't see any gradients in the haplomaps.

The gradients in haplomaps reflect only y-dna and mtDNA, and those gradients do not correspond. Ever notice that? And those gradients overlap each other. There's R within the loci of I and I within the loci of R, and E3b and J and, and, and . . .

There are different kinds of y-dna in different places, and different kinds of mtDNA in different places.

Where in Europe does one see only one kind of dna, even y-dna?

Even among the supposedly isolated Basques and Saami there is not one single kind of either y-dna or mtDNA.

Some places have more of one kind of thing than other kinds of things, but never just one kind of thing.

Too much of one kind of dna would indicate some serious inbreeding.

[Eki]

The gradients in haplomaps reflect only y-dna and mtDNA, and those gradients do not correspond. Ever notice that? And those gradients overlap each other. There's R within the loci of I and I within the loci of R, and E3b and J and, and, and . . .

True, but if the haplogroups had mixed randomly and freely for a long time, there would be as much R1b in equatorial Africa as there is in Ireland, and, and, and...

[Stevo]

True, but if the haplogroups had mixed randomly and freely for a long time, there would be as much R1b in equatorial Africa as there is in Ireland, and, and, and...

No.

There were limitations on travel, as well as geographic, linguistic, and cultural barriers, etc.

The groups that were in proximity of one another in Europe mixed pretty freely and experienced an occasional infusion of Asian dna, as well.

What I said was that people were not one thing.

I did not say they were all everything.