So mtDNA is under selective pressure, or just
"under selection" as some might say. And what
does this mean? In short:

The molecular clock, molecular dating is full of
shit.

See, dating assumes a steady rate of changes
accumulated over time, so the more changes
the longer the period of time.

You do get this. Yes you do.

But selection -- EVOLUTION -- favors some things
over others. Detrimental changes, mutations, are
not selected for while beneficial changes (mutations)
are selected for. Thus...

A mutation that helps a person to survive in cold
climates holds no advantage at all in the tropics, and
may in fact pose a significant disadvantage, so it's
unlikely to take root & spread within the population.

The change goes away.

In a cold climate, on the other hand, such a change
would be under significant positive selection and
would have a good chance of spreading within a
population. So...

So, future mutations will be on top of this cold
weather adaptations for populations in the northern
climates, while it will be WITHOUT this adaptation in
the warmer climates. The net result, keeping this as
simple as we can, is at least one more mutation in
the northern climate than the southern one.

Get it?

What drove the changes in this scenario was the
environment. The population moved to a new
environment and the mtDNA adapted, evolved.

Of course this model points to the newer mtDNA
lines evolving in the northern climates.

Right?

If the mtDNA needed to adapt to the cold, and the
cold is in the northern climates, then the evolution
of the mtDNA took place in the norther climates. So,
where did it start? Where was the origins?

If it ended up in the north, where did it begin?

The answer is freaky: Sundaland.

The oldest mtDNA line that we moderns stem from
is the LM3 line. We know this for a fact because
quite a few still carry it, thanks to a real mutation that
moved some of it to the nuclear DNA. So if a bunch of
people carry that mutation then they descend from the
LM3 line. And for every person who carries it there has
to be twice as many who don't but still descend from
that line, thanks to interbreeding that resulted in many
losing that mutation...

If you get half your DNA from one parent and half from
the other, and only one carries the mutation, you have a
50-50 shot of losing it... though you're still a descendent
of the LM3 group.

AND, the LM3 group seems to originate in Sundaland.

AND, LM3 is much older than the Mitochondrial Eve
line.

I think we may be the last generation to have received
any real information on LM3. I mean, it mucks up the
narrative and the self imposed elite can't tolerate
anything that doesn't go along with their narrative.

Already it's difficult to find good information.

-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/651673268748795904