FST Fes Préselection Concours d’accès à la 1ère année du cycle ingénieur 2013

« U5b2a1a is frequently CRS, and with an eeatmtisd age of 16,000 years, and given the preponderance of U5 among European hunter-gathers, any CRS could well be U5b2a1a ». It is more precisely the case of U5b2a1a2 (three back-mutations in CRS direction!), although I guess private branches in other lineages may also produce that. Good finding!Still it’d be very odd that all the CRS would be that lineage precisely. I mean: it is not that dominant even within U5 and probably never was; it’d be a very curious and unlikely anomaly. So far the two cases where other markers was checked with CRS sequences ended up being R0(xH) [tested the AluI marker, unsure how credible it is] and U* [coding region test: 100% certain].And then what about the other (often reported as H) R* lineages, which maybe fit H-whatever for one or two of the reported HVS-I? The hard fact is that we do not know and that they could all hypothetically end up being R-other lineages very rare or even extinct today. I wish somebody did the coding region tests to clarify the matter once for all.But we have at least two distinct HVS-I sequences from (Epi-)Paleolithic peoples widely separated in space and time that must be H: one is H1b and the other H1j or H17’27. We also have, as Jackson notices, an Early Neolithic H5 (but not H1) in Syria by the same logic (HVS-I) – others were reported maybe but the HVS-I are actually not clarifying enough. »If R0 and JT were present along with U in ice age refugia, it seems like we should have seen more R0, HV and JT among hunter-gathers ». Agreed… in theory. I have not spotted what seems to be JT* but in Nerja’s Solutrean and then not again until Neolithic (as J and T separatedly). RO* (or HV*) was reported once prior to Neolithic (Italy) and I am very certain that there are two definite cases of H (Russia and Portugal) in Paleolithic Europe. But there is still « loads » of R* (with or without CRS) which by modern likelihoods should be H1 in >95% of cases (but that have shown not to be in 100% of tested cases, that is: two, hence the controversy). On May 9th, :Early/Middle UP (n=9): 1 U5, 1 U2, 1 H (same sequence), 1 R0(xH)-CRS, 2 R*-CRS (one is dubious), 1 JT.Late UP (n=6, Europe only): 2 U*-CRS (same sequence), 2 R*-CRS and 2 R* (other). [In addition 24 people from Morocco were: 1 U4, 13 R*-CRS and 10 R* (other)]. Epipaleolithic (n=16, Europe only): 6 U5, 3 U4, 2 R*-CRS, 3 R* (other), 2 L3* (N?, one probably L3d2 in fact, suggesting some African flow into Iberia prior to Neolithic). [In addition 11 Neolithic Syrians of same period were: 3 K, 1 H5, 5 R* (not CRS) and 2 L3* (N?).This gives a lot of European R* (often reported as « H ») to be explained: 25% in the early/middle UP, 80% in the late UP (plus 95% in Morocco) and more than 30% in the Epipaleolithic (when the Northern European U5/U4 numbers swell) (plus 45% in contemporary Neolithic Syria). The swelling of U5/U4 in the Epipaleolithic is intriguing but even more is the swelling of R* (H?) in the late UP, don’t you think?