Our Group are the True HMONGS! DNA Data inside. Options

[xaithoj]

http://photo.itojsiab.com/photo_show.php?p...795c442636b55fb

http://photo.itojsiab.com/photo_show.php?p...2b6d3bead98a923

http://photo.itojsiab.com/photo_show.php?p...3bb19f2d8d9524d

blonde hmong peeps uploaded to http://tojsiab.com/ in just the past 3 days. i wouldn't call their look caucasian...i think that association comes because they are 100% never dark. the darkest they get is a reddish tint only.

[souphounavong]

Many people would simply brush it away that those blonde Hmong are albino but can an entire Hmong family be albino?

Usually i see entire siblings or half a family with orange-blonde hair. Is this common for the albino deficient? Does it express itself through genetics?

[cocopuffchild]

i can now say that i'm part altai.

o3d + c

[txoomsuab2]

Many people would simply brush it away that those blonde Hmong are albino but can an entire Hmong family be albino?

Usually i see entire siblings or half a family with orange-blonde hair. Is this common for the albino deficient? Does it express itself through genetics?

honestly i don't think they r albino's because some of them has regular tans

[txoomsuab2]

somebody wants to be alti up in here lol

[austronesian0sai...]

Uh... How can the Hmongs be Altai people, when we austronesians carry an older variant of O3a3 and we are definitely not altiac people, and have no relation to them?
The family tree is like this, isnt it?



O3a3(austronesians) ------------
***O3a3a
***O3a3b (hmongs)
***O3a3c (han chinese)


Or are you saying that O3a3b males interbred with steppe females (Turks, Aryans etc) and became altia that way?

This post has been edited by austronesian0sailor: Sep 22 2011, 12:26 PM

[xaithoj]

Uh... How can the Hmongs be Altai people, when we austronesians carry an older variant of O3a3 and we are definitely not altiac people, and have no relation to them?
The family tree is like this, isnt it?



O3a3(austronesians) ------------
***O3a3a
***O3a3b (hmongs)
***O3a3c (han chinese)


Or are you saying that O3a3b males interbred with steppe females (Turks, Aryans etc) and became altia that way?

your table's wrong. this is how the O y-dna 'asian' family tree and their lineages actually are.

O - (M175) the original asian tribe that broke away.

...O1 (MYS2.2) - an asian tribe that descended from O.
......O1a (M119) - O1 descendant, found mostly in austronesians.

...O2 (P31) - an asian tribe that descended from O.
......O2a (M95) - O2 descendant, the 'austro-asiatic' peoples of southeast asia.
.........O2a1 (M88) - O2a descendant, the tai, mon-khmer and viet peoples.
......O2b (SRY465) - O2 descendant that went up north, found mainly in korea.
.........O2b1 (47z) - O2b descendant that crossed over to japan.

...O3 (M122) - an asian tribe that descended from O, 'east asians'.
......O3a (M324) - O3 descendant; culture never developed.
.........O3a1 - O3a descendant; culture never developed.
.........O3a2 - O3a descendant; culture never developed.
.........O3a3 - O3a descendant; culture never developed.
............O3a3a (M159) - O3a3 descendant, culture never developed.
............O3a3b (M7) - O3a3 descendant, hmong-mien.
............O3a3c (M134) - o3a3 descendant, sino-tibetan.

austronesians have dominant O1a y-dna, not O3a3. they may carry O3a3, but it'll be at low percentages. the majority of O3a3 people went north from whom split off O3a3b hmong-mien and O3a3c sino-tibetans. then you have the chinese clouding up the picture because they have brought O3 back into austronesian lands.

we're not saying we are altaic people. we are daxi people. what we're saying is SOME of our people have altaic ancestry from y-dna C (M217). altaic males came into our culture at some point along our history, or at many points along our history, because their genes are a part of our hmong nationality now.

This post has been edited by xaithoj: Sep 22 2011, 04:08 PM

[souphounavong]

your table's wrong. this is how the O y-dna 'asian' family tree and their lineages actually are.

O - (M175) the original asian tribe that broke away.

...O1 (MYS2.2) - an asian tribe that descended from O.
......O1a (M119) - O1 descendant, found mostly in austronesians.

...O2 (P31) - an asian tribe that descended from O.
......O2a (M95) - O2 descendant, the 'austro-asiatic' peoples of southeast asia.
.........O2a1 (M88) - O2a descendant, the tai, mon-khmer and viet peoples.
......O2b (SRY465) - O2 descendant that went up north, found mainly in korea.
.........O2b1 (47z) - O2b descendant that crossed over to japan.

...O3 (M122) - an asian tribe that descended from O, 'east asians'.
......O3a (M324) - O3 descendant; culture never developed.
.........O3a1 - O3a descendant; culture never developed.
.........O3a2 - O3a descendant; culture never developed.
.........O3a3 - O3a descendant; culture never developed.
............O3a3a (M159) - O3a3 descendant, culture never developed.
............O3a3b (M7) - O3a3 descendant, hmong-mien.
............O3a3c (M134) - o3a3 descendant, sino-tibetan.

austronesians have dominant O1a y-dna, not O3a3. they may carry O3a3, but it'll be at low percentages. the majority of O3a3 people went north from whom split off O3a3b hmong-mien and O3a3c sino-tibetans. then you have the chinese clouding up the picture because they have brought O3 back into austronesian lands.

we're not saying we are altaic people. we are daxi people. what we're saying is SOME of our people have altaic ancestry from y-dna C (M217). altaic males came into our culture at some point along our history, or at many points along our history, because their genes are a part of our hmong nationality now.

But according to the article, Hmong-Mien populations broke off from Austro-Asiatic? The O3 from Mon-Khmer diverged north to form Hmong-Mien. The O3 that Sino-tibetans carry diverged even greater north.



From the article,


A Mon-Khmer origin of Hmong-Mien populations

The two population groups studied in this paper, i.e., the MK and HM, are indigenous populations of mainland Southeast Asia and Southwest China, respectively. This study has shown that MK and HM groups are closely related genetically and share high frequencies of haplogroups O2a-M95, O3a3b-M7, and O3a3c1-M117. The O3a3b-M7 is rare in neighboring populations, i.e. Tibeto-Burman and TK, while almost absent in the other East/Southeast Asian populations. The STR network of O3a3b-M7 (Fig. 2B) exhibits an obvious annual ring shape with no apparent gene flow from HM to MK but from MK to HM, suggesting that O3a3b-M7 in HM may have derived from those in MK, and those in ST subsequently derived from HM. O3a3c1-M117 might have the same history, exhibiting the similar hierarchical structure from MK to HM and ST (Fig. 2B). This finding is consistent with linguistic observation in which HM and Austro-Asiatic (including MK) linguistic groups are considered similar and could be classified into a super family named Proto-Yangtzean

Furthermore,

that O3a3b and O3a3c1 might have originated in the ancestors of MK populations and flowed into those of HM and ST populations became quite evident, and suggested a unidirectional diffusion of the relevant ancestral populations

O3a3b might have originated in the ancestors of MK populations, and they migrated northward unidirectionally into the ancestors of HM and ST populations sequentially.

Which brings us back to the question of percentage and correlation of originality. It is true that MK populations carry high frequencies of O2 but according to the study, O3 drifted from MK populations onto HM and ST populations.

Do you simply determine the current group with the highest percentage of a certain marker as the "originals" or, do you take into account of other factors that may had hindered the dominant gene in certain populations such that of MK, whom carries lower frequencies of O3(M7) than Hmong-Mien but, actually were the original O3 people even before HM and ST?

This post has been edited by souphounavong: Sep 22 2011, 09:54 PM

[xaithoj]

we're talking specifically about the hmong daw. so the very first thing we have to do is separate the hmong-mien group in addition to eliminating the mien group. the group is called hmong-mien, but lumping the group as 1 nationality gives misleading results. the first misleading statement they make because the hmong-mien group is lumped as one is what you posted:

[This study has shown that MK and HM groups are closely related genetically and share high frequencies of haplogroups O2a-M95, O3a3b-M7, and O3a3c1-M117.]

the frequency of O2a/O2a1 in hmong hunan is 9%, daw is 11.76%, guizhou 16.33%, yunnan 30.61%. the statement is only true for yunnan at 30.61%. hmong yunnan are not 'related' they 'ARE' austro-asiatics that became hmong; you have to throw out their data. the second factor that needs to be considered is that daw, hunan and guizhou live surrounded by O2a/O2a1 people literally as close as the next village. don't let the fact that they put MK 'mon-khmer' on the group fool you into thinking of only cambodia. people with high O2a/O2a1 that live right next to hmong daw: lao, mien, khmer, highland/lowland thais; pretty much all minorities of laos, thailand and vietnam have high O2a/O2a1 with very few small groups from O3. O2a/O2a1 people living next to guizhou/hunan hmongs: Buyei, Dong, Yao, Gelao and Sui with lots of other small tribes. so just from modern proximity, these results are already shady and redundant. its like saying "hey, white people in los angeles are related to mexicans!" well duh...mexico is just only a few hundred miles away and tons of immigrants from mexico are living in los angeles. i've looked at a lot of y-dna reports and i can assure you that the 'han' chinese match these same haplogroups with mon-khmer too. we are as 'related' to mon-khmer as chinese are, maybe that'll help you get a better perspective on that statement. here's another report that has data for hmong/chinese/austro-asiatic all together so you can get a better picture. it also has a better "O" tree than the one i drew: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1226206/

[xaithoj]

[The STR network of O3a3b-M7 (Fig. 2B) exhibits an obvious annual ring shape with no apparent gene flow from HM to MK but from MK to HM, suggesting that O3a3b-M7 in HM may have derived from those in MK, and those in ST subsequently derived from HM.]

all that does is reinforce the theory that O3 (including O3a3b) originated in the south and migrated north.

[O3a3b might have originated in the ancestors of MK populations, and they migrated northward unidirectionally into the ancestors of HM and ST populations sequentially.]

i think this is the root of your misunderstanding, you see the hmong people as 2 groups existing at the same time in different locations. the first group is small and hidden within the MK people. -[O3a3b might have originated in the ancestors of MK populations...]
the second group is composed of whatever people up north. -[and they migrated northward unidirectionally into the ancestors of HM and ST populations sequentially.]

this is an error in interpreting the data and statement above about gene flow. they used gene flow to track migration of O3a3b and found that its a high possibility it was derived from those in MK. don't confuse the statement "...derived from those in MK..." to mean O3a3b was born from O2a/O2a1. that is not a possibility with y-dna. O2 and O3 are separate branches, refer to the "O" tree in the link above. it simply means that at one point in time in the same southern area where the MK/austro-asiatic populations lived, there was ONE SINGLE baby boy born with a new mutation on the O3a3 y-dna from the O3 tribe that can now be called O3a3b (O3 and O2 people could have been living as one tribe, they could not; the fact that the majority of O3 people left the south suggests they weren't). he married and had lots of kids and his kids had lots of kids until there was a sizeable group of males with O3a3b y-dna. at some point, the O3 tribe decided to start heading north. with them went our O3a3b group. HOWEVER, not every single O3a3b family go north at every migration point. the O3a3b detected in mon-khmer/austro-asiatic peoples are the ones from the groups that stayed and assimilated into O2 culture.

this complicated migration is the 'gene flow' they're talking about. O3 and O3a3b people did not get in a car and drive from cambodia to central china and say: "this looks like a good spot, lets settle here." over thousands and tens of thousands of years, they slowly moved north. each generation moving maybe something like 10 miles or so. all the time, they were interacting with the people around them, the O2a/O2a1 mon-khmer/austro-asiatics.

[xaithoj]

[Which brings us back to the question of percentage and correlation of originality. It is true that MK populations carry high frequencies of O2 but according to the study, O3 drifted from MK populations onto HM and ST populations.
Do you simply determine the current group with the highest percentage of a certain marker as the "originals" or, do you take into account of other factors that may had hindered the dominant gene in certain populations such that of MK, whom carries lower frequencies of O3(M7) than Hmong-Mien but, actually were the original O3 people even before HM and ST?]

again, refer the 'drift' to the 'gene flow' above. ok, i think i found a modern solution to help you picture y-dna and associating cultures/languages. are you christian? do you know anything about the israelites? jacob/israel had 12 sons. from these 12 sons, all the tribes and people of the ancient israelites sprung. however, after a time, the kingdom was split into a northern and southern half. the northern half was destroyed by the assyrians and all populations of the ten tribes that made up the north were taken to assyria and were killed/assimilated. the israelites that maintain their self-identity today are called 'jews'. why? because the majority of them were from the tribe of '[JU]dah' in the southern kingdom.

so today we should be able to find 2 groups of people with israelite y-dna, the 'jews' and the people the northern tribes assimilated into (the syrians today). so you tell me, both 'jews' and 'syrians' carry jacob's y-dna, but which group (taken as a whole, a nation) has a direct link to jacob? what would the y-dna percentages be in those groups? if by 'original' you mean the oldest sample then the syrian group would be more 'original' because jacob's oldest son was reuben, whose tribe was a northern tribe. if by 'original' you mean culturally (which is what i mean), then it would be the 'jews' because they kept their self-identity and were never assimilated.

[souphounavong]

we're talking specifically about the hmong daw. so the very first thing we have to do is separate the hmong-mien group in addition to eliminating the mien group. the group is called hmong-mien, but lumping the group as 1 nationality gives misleading results. the first misleading statement they make because the hmong-mien group is lumped as one is what you posted:

[This study has shown that MK and HM groups are closely related genetically and share high frequencies of haplogroups O2a-M95, O3a3b-M7, and O3a3c1-M117.]

the frequency of O2a/O2a1 in hmong hunan is 9%, daw is 11.76%, guizhou 16.33%, yunnan 30.61%. the statement is only true for yunnan at 30.61%. hmong yunnan are not 'related' they 'ARE' austro-asiatics that became hmong; you have to throw out their data. the second factor that needs to be considered is that daw, hunan and guizhou live surrounded by O2a/O2a1 people literally as close as the next village. don't let the fact that they put MK 'mon-khmer' on the group fool you into thinking of only cambodia. people with high O2a/O2a1 that live right next to hmong daw: lao, mien, khmer, highland/lowland thais; pretty much all minorities of laos, thailand and vietnam have high O2a/O2a1 with very few small groups from O3. O2a/O2a1 people living next to guizhou/hunan hmongs: Buyei, Dong, Yao, Gelao and Sui with lots of other small tribes. so just from modern proximity, these results are already shady and redundant. its like saying "hey, white people in los angeles are related to mexicans!" well duh...mexico is just only a few hundred miles away and tons of immigrants from mexico are living in los angeles. i've looked at a lot of y-dna reports and i can assure you that the 'han' chinese match these same haplogroups with mon-khmer too. we are as 'related' to mon-khmer as chinese are, maybe that'll help you get a better perspective on that statement. here's another report that has data for hmong/chinese/austro-asiatic all together so you can get a better picture. it also has a better "O" tree than the one i drew: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1226206/

I never said that of the contrary. I only wanted to point out that Hmong-Mien diverged from Mon-Khmer while Sino-Tibetans diverged from Hmong-Mien even further.

One question to you. You used the article to make a point however, you disagree with the main findings in the study. How and why is that? Or is it just that i'm misunderstanding?

The study clearly stated that it is a one way street of migration for the gene marker O3. Mon-Khmer ---> Hmong-Mien ---> Sino-Tibetan. Both MK and HM samples show the most correspondence to the "original" O3 marker.

Furthermore, i never said that HM = MK. I only said that O3 originated from MK populations and that the HM marker O3(M7) derived from a source that happens to be MK.

Now, my question is, because O3 derived from MK to HM and ST, also the fact that MK's dominant Ydna is O2, what does that tell us?

This post has been edited by souphounavong: Sep 23 2011, 10:38 PM

[cocopuffchild]

Wow, Xai Thoj, you are amazing. Thank you.
Do you have facebook?

Great info. I have always thought the same.

This post has been edited by cocopuffchild: Sep 24 2011, 12:20 AM

[thumbsUp]

I find it funny how when it's a gene from the north it's oh we're part Altai yayy!
But when its genes from the south suddenly it's oh no those Hmong/Miao are assimilated Mon-Khmer boo!

LOL

[cocopuffchild]

there were two groups of Hmong (the yellow and the yangtze) that created the Hmong people, then the migrations/other ethnic groups = diversified the gene pool.

[souphounavong]

I find it funny how when it's a gene from the north it's oh we're part Altai yayy!
But when its genes from the south suddenly it's oh no those Hmong/Miao are assimilated Mon-Khmer boo!

LOL

It's not about north or south. Our debate is about ORIGIN. O3 is the main haplogroup of interest in this thread. O3 had a southern origin. Also, it is not about Hmong assimilation to Mon-Khmer. If you read the article or was following, you would understand that the debate is EXCLUSIVELY about the origin and migration of O3 from south to north and from MK to HM. I think you misread.

We only wooooooooooooooooooooooow the Altai part due to a fabrication of Mongol ancestry. This had already been proven wrong by scholars. The main point is to prove that there are some Altai influence in Hmong and that is it. Nothing more.

Gonna have to say it once more, nothing more. Our place of origin is the Yangtze. All this talk of Altai ancestry doesn't change the fact that we Hmong are from central China. No one is trying to relate to Altai people. We only examine the facts of DNA and discuss the possible causations and NOTHING MORE. Get it?

This post has been edited by souphounavong: Sep 24 2011, 12:51 AM

[cocopuffchild]

I think we all know that majority of the Hmong know where we came from. We only WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOW because it explains some distinct features that some Hmong people have. Nothing more.

I would say Yangtze is the place of origin to some Hmong groups, especially to the Hmong Daw as the info above have shown, while other groups are from other parts of China.

[thumbsUp]

It's not about north or south. Our debate is about ORIGIN. O3 is the main haplogroup of interest in this thread. O3 had a southern origin. Also, it is not about Hmong assimilation to Mon-Khmer. If you read the article or was following, you would understand that the debate is EXCLUSIVELY about the origin and migration of O3 from south to north and from MK to HM. I think you misread.

We only wooooooooooooooooooooooow the Altai part due to a fabrication of Mongol ancestry. This had already been proven wrong by scholars. The main point is to prove that there are some Altai influence in Hmong and that is it. Nothing more.

Oops maybe I was mixing it up with the other two DNA threads.

Just think the wording is funny. In the other thread 25% C haplogroup = "possible Altai ancestry" ZOMG!!
But when it's 30% O2a haplogroup it = "assimilated austro-asiatic people".

It's the same in Vietnamese chat. I guess having Altai blood is currently "in"?

[cocopuffchild]

Oops maybe I was mixing it up with the other two DNA threads.

Just think the wording is funny. In the other thread 25% C haplogroup = "possible Altai ancestry" ZOMG!!
But when it's 30% O2a haplogroup it = "assimilated austro-asiatic people".

It's the same in Vietnamese chat. I guess having Altai blood is currently "in"?

I would have to say some Hmong are Austro-Asiatic (Tai-kradaic) and some Hmong are Altaic, but majority of Hmong are O3d with variance of O3.

[crabdonut]

Oops maybe I was mixing it up with the other two DNA threads.

Just think the wording is funny. In the other thread 25% C haplogroup = "possible Altai ancestry" ZOMG!!
But when it's 30% O2a haplogroup it = "assimilated austro-asiatic people".

It's the same in Vietnamese chat. I guess having Altai blood is currently "in"?

Actually you hit the nail on the head. Being part northern is considered awesome and being part Khmer is ewww. This mentality is actually seen all over this forum.