Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2007-12 > 1197657359

From: "Havelock Vetinari" <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] Germans who carry J and G (was PLOS Genetics)
Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2007 13:35:59 -0500
References: <><>
In-Reply-To: <>

On 12/14/07, ellen Levy <> wrote:
> Well, I'm off to enjoy a snowy weekend with what Paul
> would consider my pure, indigenous, unadmixed Northern
> European R1b husband and children, but wanted to post
> a response, though I really had to weigh the benefits
> and drawbacks of doing so.
> However, newbies often access archives and may read
> this thread and, without much genetic information
> under their belt, may find substance in Paul's
> ideology. I also think such ideologies can and should
> be defeated with good scientific argument, though
> changing Paul's thinking is unlikely to happen and I
> don't think it is really the goal here.
> Paul's theory of haplogroup purity/impurity is an
> theory not subject to actual scientific debate or
> contradiction because ideologies never really are. It
> is racist because it is based on the idea of descent
> from certain populations (containing a certain
> frequency of haplogroups) who are allegedly
> "unadmixed," though Paul is slippery when he talks
> about which populations are unadmixed, why an
> Ashkenazi or Italian R1a is less "indigenous" than a
> German E3b,

Most Germans are not E3B. Most Germans are either R or I. All
Ashkenazis have some Middle Eastern ancestry which means that they
can't be indigenous to Europe regardless of their Y-chromosomes.

> or why autosomal testing is essentially
> irrelevant to his theory (by the way, the autosomal
> studies show that Northern Europe carries autosomal
> remnants of Middle Eastern agriculturalists range from
> 20% and up, depending on the study you read).

Could you pleas post some links to these studies?

> Mysteriously, I don't see any discussion of mtDNA
> results and which of those groups represent
> "unadmixed, indigenous" Europeans.

Most of the studies that I am familiar with relate to the
Y-chromosome. If you know of any concerning mtDNA that back up your
positions then please post some links to them.

> Listers present the findings of a study to Paul, he
> twists it to his own ends. For example, the study
> regarding the comparison of Nigerians and Northern
> Europeans is somehow used to Paul to validate his
> theory when, in reality, it says no such thing.

If you read the news piece that I linked to you will see that it was
claimed that Northern Europeans are descended from 50 people who lived
over 25,000 years ago. Unfortunately the researchers did not compare
these samples to Southern European or Middle Eastern samples to
determine if this was just limited to Northern Europeans.

> And
> now Russians are supposedly mixed with Mongolians to a
> signfiicant extent,

Again, read the news piece that I linked to.

> but Poles are to be considered
> "Northern Europeans" (I think most people consider
> them Eastern Europeans, along with Hungarians, who
> have now been kicked out of the Northern European
> group anyway by Paul).

The research shows that Poles cluster with Swedes and the British. You
can be both Eastern European and Northern European. Another poster
said that Hungarians were not Northern European and since I am not an
expert on Hungarians, I took her at her word.

> I realize that most on the list have been here a long
> enough time to recognize an argument based on ideology
> rather than science and genetic study. Most aren't
> going to buy into such an argument. We recognize it as
> invalid.
> Paul has transformed an argument about
> "indigenousness" to include a racial purity argument
> as well. Thus, not only are R1b's and R1a's allegedly
> "indigenous" (ie, they settled Europe first) but they
> are racially pure or "unadmixed" as well.

The research shows that Northern Europeans do not cluster with
Southeastern Europeans which means that they have less Middle Eastern

> I don't think anyone would have a problem exploring
> the topic of population movements and which groups may
> have settled Europe.
> Problematically, however, Paul has transformed such an
> exploration into deeming certain groups, on little to
> no evidence, as "indigenous," and then also according
> them "unadmixed" (ie, racially pure) status.

Northern Europeans don't cluster with non-European populations and so
I take this to mean that there has been little to no mixing with

> As was noted by another poster in another genetic
> forum, one cannot rule out the presence of any ancient
> haplogroup in pre-LGM or Mesolithic Europe.

So you are now claiming that J and E have been in Europe since the Ice
Age? Where is the evidence to back this up?

> And as been discussed in previous threads, some parts
> of Europe are believed to have been first settled by
> the Neolithic agriculturalists, including the interior
> of Spain.

So you believe that the interior of Spain was devoid of human life
until some time in the last 10,000 years?

> Frankly, we don't know when R1b got to Europe.

Semino and Wells would disagree with you.

> R1a is
> believed to have developed and entered Northern Europe
> much later in time, perhaps well after the Neolithic.

Not according to Semino.

> We don't know where R1a originated - it is a matter of
> debate. Some postulate Central Asia, some Eastern
> Europe. R1a's certainly didn't get very far, as the
> group drops off dramatically as one moves east to west
> in Europe.

Which means it could have first appeared in Eastern Europe.

> And it quite clear that plenty of E3b and
> G (which may have been in parts of Europe by the
> Paleolithic) and J made it as far as the British
> Isles.

Then why is Britain and Ireland overwhelmingly R and I?

> But Paul's theory doesn't really know what to
> do with Welsh E3b's and German J's. They are
> apparently mixed, but still more "pure" than Ashkenazi
> R1a's and Italian R1b's.

They are mixed since most Welsh and Germans belong to R and I.
Ashkenazis have Middle Eastern ancestry - or do you dispute that?

> There is simply no such thing as "unadmixed" when
> discussing European populations. I don't know of any
> DNA study that would support Paul's contention of
> unadmixed status for any European populations.

Then why don't Northern Europeans cluster with other populations?

> I think what people find silly is calling one group
> "indigenous" when it is theorized that they were in
> Europe 10,000 years ago, when another group arrived
> 8,000 years ago.

According to Semino, both R and I were in Europe over 20,000 years ago.

> And it is all based on genetic theories that are
> constantly evolving and being modified as further DNA
> study is performed. As one can see from aDNA studies
> on mtDNA lineages, it is poor idea to base one's
> theory on contemporary haplogroup frequency and
> presence anyway, as such groups have changed
> dramatically over time. For example, N1a was very
> prevelant in Europe, perhaps as far back as the
> Paleolithic, certainly by the Neolithic. It may
> possibly have been one of the first lineages in
> Europe, but it is rare today.

Please provide links to research that backs up your claims.

> Ellen Coffman

This thread: