Talk:Haplogroup L3

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Human Genetic History, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Human Genetic HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject Human Genetic HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Human Genetic HistoryHuman Genetic History articles

Molecular Biology: Genetics

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Molecular Biology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Molecular Biology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Molecular BiologyWikipedia:WikiProject Molecular BiologyTemplate:WikiProject Molecular BiologyMolecular Biology articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Genetics task force (assessed as Low-importance).

Untitled

I believe that the correct markers for haplogroup L3 are the following: 769, 1018, and 16311. See van Oven M, Kayser M. 2009. Updated comprehensive phylogenetic tree of global human mitochondrial DNA variation. Hum Mutat 30(2):E386-E394. http://www.phylotree.org, mtDNA tree Build 2 (14 Oct 2008).- Brout8 (talk) 21:22, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know who rewrote this article but now it barely mentions West Africa despite having three major subclades there. --Brout8 (talk) 23:01, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

M & N

Careful with what you label "vandalism" there, friend. Believe it or not, it's actually a form of incivility to go around falsely branding things "vandalism" when they are not. It also contributes to an uncivil working environment:

"As well, lack of care when applying other policies can lead to conflict and stress. For instance, referring to a user's good-faith edits as vandalism may lead to them feeling unfairly attacked. Use your best judgement, and be ready to apologize if you turn out to be wrong."

This is especially true when sources don't support what one claims. Case in point, macrohaplogroups M & N are not described as descendants of L3 in the Phylotree source you supplied. They are classified as separate haplogroups. This is why they are written in large bold letters, no different to L1 or even L3 itself as opposed to, say, L3's Lf sub-clade which, by contrast, is cited in non-bolded typeface and at a modest size. Listing macrohaplogroups M & N on this page alongside other sub-clades of haplogroup L3 therefore only serves to create the impression that they are but ordinary sub-clades of the former when the Phylotree source you initially added does not classify them as such (perhaps that is why you removed it?). Unless of course that is what you were going for, that is not a constructive edit. Whatever the case, I've re-added the ref because we go by reliable sources here on Wikipedia, and certainly not by false accusations of impropriety. Causteau (talk) 05:23, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Causteau, I don't have time or desire to argue with your willing ignorance of the facts. The list was a list of descendent like numerous other articles on mtdna haplogroups. You (and your agenda) keep trying to make it a list of only subclades. I don’t give a damn about a giving an 'impression'. I don't have some personal vested interest in whom or where N and M are descended like you apparently do. I just report the research. Plus it’s such a minor little edit. Damn. You are a nitpicker. Haplogroups M and N are direct descents of L3. I don't argue with foolish people who try to to use wikipedia to word-sling, vandalize and misconstrue articles for a personal bias. I call vandalism where I see. Don’t start no stuff with me. Keep letting your muddied eyes and ears believe what ever misinformed opinions you want. I don’t play semantic games. I compete with no one, so no one can compete with me. M and N are from L3. Editing the wiki won't change the fact. This is done already - Brout8 (talk) 23:03, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

True origin of Haplogroup L3 and the Out of Africa theory

Just a theory here, but what if: Haplogroup L3 actually originated in the Middle East (but very close to Africa) and then spread from there instead - at the same time claimed by those who claim it spread from Africa into the Middle East (i.e. the opposite). This means that, at the same time they claim it spread from Africa to the Middle East, it could have done the exact opposite and spread from the Middle East to Africa (and from the Middle East to Europe, etc.)? Since it happened at the same time, it would be hard to prove which direction it took, thus giving rise to this theory instead of 'Out of Africa'.

What if (just a theory here, but one that is once again difficult to disprove): What if, Haplogroup L3 was Caucasian in origin and became mixed with black African haplogroups (non-L3) in East Africa (but not elsewhere in Africa, explaining the lack of it elsewhere in Africa and the resultant lack of wavy semi-straight hair in Somalians and Ethiopians indicating a lack of Caucasian blood such as that found in East Africa).

In addition to this, concerning the race of those in the Middle East: What if: They too were mixed (or became mixed) and thus have L3 (Caucasian) and other DNA such as those of Africans who DID migrate from Africa to the Middle East (but perhaps they had/have less African than Caucasian contribution). Of course all of this assumes that the races first evolved (or were created) different before this time and not afterwards.

What if L3 then left the Middle East and went into Europe, or Southern Russia spawning what is now their current inhabitants (and leaving mixed traces behind all along the way from their origin in the Middle East.)

It seems that this theory is just as hard to disprove as the 'Out of Africa' theory that this article supports by saying: "Soon after the haplogroup arose in East Africa a relatively small number of migrants carried it across the Red Sea to Arabia". Am I wrong and does this theory have a place in this article that reveals these facts with an aim of legitimizing this theory, or at least providing it with some publicity as a possible alternative to Out of Africa?--41.150.205.139 (talk) 14:21, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Like all theories, it has a place in Wikipedia if you can find *reliable sources* for it. There is a "two-step Out of Africa" theory - that is, modern humans spread from Africa into Asia 100 000 years ago or more, became isolated there when the climate worsened, for another 40-50 000 years, then spread like wildfire across the planet about 50 000 years ago (including some going back into Africa and mixing with the people there, who were also modern humans). However, you are not going to find anything about modern races being around at that time, because they weren't - there were probably different 'races' in Africa (not the same as they are now), but AMH non-Africans had not yet differentiated into different races (and they sure as heck weren't 'Caucasian'!).

Hardly anyone use the word 'race' scientifically anymore, partly because it has bad associations and partly because it is just too vague. For instance, what do you mean by "Caucasians"? In a scientific paper that means "people from the Caucasus mountain region" (and would *not* include, say, north Europeans). Sometimes you will see "Caucasoid", meaning Europeans, North Africans, Middle Easterners, Pakistanis, and so on, who have similarly shaped heads and faces (and are all genetically fairly close), but even that is pretty rare nowadays. In a genetics paper the rough equivalent is "West Eurasian".

Anyway, if you want to search the scientific literature, you should be able to find quite a bit, because the two-stage theory is actually pretty popular right now. But forget about pre-existing races! 70.75.233.253 (talk) 17:57, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Haplogroup L3 (mtDNA). 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:

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) 21:10, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]