01:2401:24, 16 January 2019diffhist−668
Haplogroup L3
(redundant: The same source (Cabrera 2018) is already mentioned and described in detail above. Also, the study is not directly on ancient dna (as the deleted section stated), which there is little of from the relevant periods from Africa; the primary basis of the study's hypothesis is already described in the earlier summary (still present in "Origins"). It is unnecessary/redundant to discuss the same study twice.Tag: section blanking
01:1101:11, 16 January 2019diffhist−668
Haplogroup L3
(redundant: The same source (Cabrera 2018) is already mentioned and described in detail above. Also, the study is not directly on ancient dna (as the deleted section stated), which there is little of from the relevant periods from Africa; the primary basis of the hypothesis is already described in the earlier summary (still aboveTag: section blanking
01:0901:09, 16 January 2019diffhist−668
Haplogroup L3
redundant: The same source (Cabrera 2018) is already mentioned and described in detail above. Also, the study is not directly on ancient dna (as the deleted section stated), which there is little of from the relevant periods from Africa; its thesis is already described in the earlier summary (still above).Tag: section blanking
12:3512:35, 10 January 2019diffhist−668
Haplogroup L3
This same study is mentioned on another occasion in a place just above. Nonetheless I have incorporated some this same of information into previous sectionTag: section blanking
12:2112:21, 10 January 2019diffhist+7
Haplogroup L3
There is still a difference of opinion among experts re: origin of haplogroup/no definitive consensus (some supporting Africa and some Asia as place of origin).
12:2112:21, 10 January 2019diffhist+4
Haplogroup DE
There is still a difference of opinion among experts re: origin of haplogroup/no definitive consensus (some supporting Africa and some Asia as place of origin).
01:2401:24, 16 January 2019diffhist−668
Haplogroup L3
(redundant: The same source (Cabrera 2018) is already mentioned and described in detail above. Also, the study is not directly on ancient dna (as the deleted section stated), which there is little of from the relevant periods from Africa; the primary basis of the study's hypothesis is already described in the earlier summary (still present in "Origins"). It is unnecessary/redundant to discuss the same study twice.Tag: section blanking
01:1101:11, 16 January 2019diffhist−668
Haplogroup L3
(redundant: The same source (Cabrera 2018) is already mentioned and described in detail above. Also, the study is not directly on ancient dna (as the deleted section stated), which there is little of from the relevant periods from Africa; the primary basis of the hypothesis is already described in the earlier summary (still aboveTag: section blanking
01:0901:09, 16 January 2019diffhist−668
Haplogroup L3
redundant: The same source (Cabrera 2018) is already mentioned and described in detail above. Also, the study is not directly on ancient dna (as the deleted section stated), which there is little of from the relevant periods from Africa; its thesis is already described in the earlier summary (still above).Tag: section blanking
12:3512:35, 10 January 2019diffhist−668
Haplogroup L3
This same study is mentioned on another occasion in a place just above. Nonetheless I have incorporated some this same of information into previous sectionTag: section blanking
12:2112:21, 10 January 2019diffhist+7
Haplogroup L3
There is still a difference of opinion among experts re: origin of haplogroup/no definitive consensus (some supporting Africa and some Asia as place of origin).
12:2112:21, 10 January 2019diffhist+4
Haplogroup DE
There is still a difference of opinion among experts re: origin of haplogroup/no definitive consensus (some supporting Africa and some Asia as place of origin).