GENEALOGY-DNA-L Archives

Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2010-05 > 1274903926


From: Vincent Vizachero <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] Does Sardinia hold the key to the debate about Neolithicor Paleolithic dispersal of R-M269?
Date: Wed, 26 May 2010 15:58:46 -0400
References: <AANLkTinEq_2xAofI_ttFnOgfhjWcPIrOmfH58K4TGdRa@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTinEq_2xAofI_ttFnOgfhjWcPIrOmfH58K4TGdRa@mail.gmail.com>


Since David has sworn off any further discussion himself, I expect
little to come of this. But still.


On May 26, 2010, at 3:20 PM, David Faux wrote:

> As might be expected there are
> a few hold outs, saying basically "not so fast, there is no direct
> evidence
> to refute Semino's arguments - although admittedly the data is
> somewhat
> sparce".

This is quite the ostrich view. Semino's paper was so full of holes
that no one is any longer defending it. You need not look very far for
the holes, either. No TMRCA estimate for R-M269 in any form. The
TMRCA estimate she made for R1 used just two STRS, one of them multi-
copy. And she uses the wrong mutation rate for those two STRs. And
she ignored the most upstream nodes in R-M269. And so on.

>
> Some (admittedly brilliant) analysists have addressed the matter
> including
> Ken, Anatole, Vince V - and although they may disagree with the
> minutae, all
> argue for a recent arrival of M-269, and that the subclades such as
> U106,
> U152, L21, and so on expanded by in large within the past 4000 years
> (2000
> years BCE). They may well be right but there is not a shred of solid
> evidence upon which to base such grandiose claims. By solid I mean
> ancient
> DNA with an indisputable date.

That's not the definition of solid evidence. That's a smokescreen
designed to keep from having to admit that you've been proven wrong.
And for what it's worth, we do have some ancient Y-DNA from Europe and
it just so happens that the oldest samples are devoid of R-M269.


> I would also like to remind folks that there was an ealier study
> done on Sardinian haplotypes and Contu et al. concluded that the
> M269 there
> was Paleolithic.

First off, there is no shortage in the world of studies that ascribe
the birthplace of an allegedly important group to the homeland of the
author.

Second, the papers by the group that includes Contu and Morelli have
had more than their fair share of mistakes and logical fallacies.
There is literally nothing good to say about the most recent paper
that I can see.

> Bottom line, no use in arguing over this and that.

Of course there is a "use". That's how science is done. Hypotheses
are advanced, tested, refuted, and then back to the beginning.

Four years ago every paper was citing Zhiv et al. Now no one thinks
that approach makes sense.

Five years ago a pre-LGM existence of R-M269 in Iberia seemed like a
sure thing. Now even the most partisan defenders are reduced to
saying "we have no idea".

That's progress, slow but sure.

VV


This thread: