Just a couple months ago, in the context of the peopling of Ireland, I emphasized on Eupeida (and here) how important it is to put all the Theories Du Jour that are based on modern uniparental distributions through a model based on population demographics and sound logic.
Specifically, I emphasized that ancient population sizes were minuscule compared to modern ones, and that if a population started a long long time ago, with a size that was way way small -- compared to subsequent waves -- that it would give a false signal that the original population was "conquered" or "outcompeted" or "never existed" or originated somewhere incorrect. I cautioned against those
This engendered quite the debate on Eupedia forums. When backed into a corner and shown the weakness of his "R1b Were Studly Conquerors Theory," the "blindly following the current orthodoxy" folks react badly.
Many "Interwebz Scientistz" fail to grasp these concepts. They favor their own wacky, biased theories based on what they see today only. If a land is populated by one people, they must be all conquering studs, right?
Today, Posth et. al put out an extensive paper on Pleistocene demographics.
Its shocking discovery? Just like Y DNA Hg C existed in Europe in tiny numbers among the very first Europeans, so did mtDNA Hg M.
M disappeared eventually, due to the simple fact that its initial population size was tiny, and that because it had been there so long, the odds that certain women didn't have daughters, each generation, eventually meant it was not passed on. Remember, we're talking uniparental markers here.
The authors commented exactly as I did: up to now, people mistakenly believed that Hg M never set foot in Europe -- or that if it did, it was killed off or whatever by a new wave. Sorry, both theories are wrong.
is WONDERFUL to see another peer-reviewed, scholarly paper making this
exact same point, and backing it up with newfound data.
As the paper indicates:
-These first hunter gatherers started with a TINY initial population size.
-There is a loss every generation of males having males or females having female offspring.
calculated the approximate odds of a male not having a male child or a
female not having a female child (i.e. looking like their uniparental
marker was "conquered") at 12.5%, each generation, totally random.
longer a population has existed in a locale (and being free of
mutations), the more generations go by, the greater the chance that
random happenstance, chance, etc. will make it appear that a Hg either
never existed or was slaughtered in a mass killing/enslavement/mate
Now you have further proof of it.
waiting to hear how Hg M died out because of some studly new more
beautiful females who moved in. Oh woops, Maciamo doesn't post here. And he doesn't himself bear Hg M. And M is not linked to R1b...