Talk:Haplogroup CT

message: :The mutation is believed to have occurred 31 to 55 thousand years before present within North East Africa.
Haplogroup C (Y-DNA):
:Haplogroup C seems to have come into existence shortly after M168 was introduced, probably at least 60,000 years before present.
How Can C be older than CR?
:The age "31 to 55 thousand years" is certainly too young. The mutation actually very probably occured 60-70 000 years ago in an East African group of Homo sapiens that was located in a local "refugial" area. The period between 71-60 000 years ago was extremely cold and dry, which also suggest that modern people didn't leave Africa earlier than 60 000 years ago. Centrum9982.100.61.114 17:22, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: The map shows a DE that originated in the Middle East, and a back-migration of Haplogroup E into Africa. What is the evidence that DE did not originate in Africa, like A,B,C and E? Remember that D is the haplogroup of the Andamamese and Negritos of Asia.   — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.84.79.63 (talk) 17:27, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. The idea of a back-migration of Haplogroup E from Asia has long ago been debunked. There seems to be some kind of effort to re-establish the theory that E came from D in Asia, rather than that DE gave rise to D and E in Africa. Same thing is going on at the [haplogroup page]. Also read their talk page. MrSativa (talk) 00:07, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inaccurate Map 

message: I've gone ahead and changed a few things based on the ISOGG pages, which are already listed as a reference. Ardric47 (talk) 08:58, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There needs to be another update of this page. CT has been renamed by ISOGG to Haplogroup CF. --Brout8 (talk) 17:01, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Have they given any indication about their source for this? I do see their webpage as an authority, and it is frequently cited, but it would be good to know that they are not the only one.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:28, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

text: What does that mean?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:02, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Updates 

message: I propose that Haplogroup_CT be merged into Y-Chromosome Human_Y-chromosome_DNA_haplogroups. I think that the content in the Haplogroup_CT article can easily be explained in the context of Y-Chromosome Haplogroups, and the Haplogroups article is of a reasonable size that the merging of this article will not cause any problems as far as article size or undue weight is concerned. RebekahThorn (talk) 18:29, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: As a general principle I agree that not every node of a phylogeny needs an article. I also agree that for this particular article to have a long term future, it eventually needs to have some substance in it which goes beyond what can be read in the articles for the parent and child clades. And it does not have that yet. But these are just general principles. I hope it helps discussion, but I do not have a strong position upon how likely it is that this article is a placeholder for future substance.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:28, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Yet, would not holding this article open year after year waiting for the reviewed publication that will give it substance be putting speculation and wishes ahead of published scientific facts? I think that by pulling these deep ancestral stubs together in one article we could achieve a strong article today. Of course, should those publications ever come to print, I would fully support recreating this article. --RebekahThorn (talk) 22:34, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger proposal 

message: Editors often list low coverage ancient DNA samples that were determined to be CT (or likewise on other pages, e.g. BT, IJK) on pages like this. This is misleading. Unless the sample has actually tested negative for downstream branches, there is nothing special about it. For instance, of 5 male Natufians studied by Laziridis et al, 3 were found to have E1b1, and 2 were CT - with no branches known to be negative. That only means they weren't A or B (or Neanderthal); it does not stop them from also having been E1b1, or anything else you might expect to find (H2, T, J, G, etc). Sure, in principle, they *could* carry some exotic CT paragroup - but their being listed as CT provides absolutely no evidence for that. Any random untested skeleton *could* carry some exotic CT paragroup, with equal probability.
If a sample was found to actually have the paragroup CT*(C, D, E, F), that would be notable. Otherwise, having a plain CT sample is only interesting if any branch of CT it might belong to would likewise be interesting in that context. For instance, if you found CT in South Africa 30 000 years ago, or a Neanderthal with CT, or in Eurasia 60 000 years ago. Megalophias (talk) 16:02, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Low coverage results