GENEALOGY-DNA-L Archives

Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2010-11 > 1289587654


From: Dienekes Pontikos <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] Fwd: First Neolithic Y-DNA published
Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2010 20:47:34 +0200
References: <AANLkTi=R-uQYBmw7vDz3Tsfjzv7_c6JD__MT_n4i6XvE@mail.gmail.com><625030.15518.qm@web25901.mail.ukl.yahoo.com><AANLkTin314jXQN2fOafYjTPKv=kBE8CmNG-bh8FPRoG-@mail.gmail.com><AANLkTimAuM7fw-Byb1M=kafpZ4BZZKGxN6O1QxuYCQQY@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTimAuM7fw-Byb1M=kafpZ4BZZKGxN6O1QxuYCQQY@mail.gmail.com>


On Fri, Nov 12, 2010 at 8:25 PM, Mike W <> wrote:
> Dienekes said "a theory that places the origin of R1b at the very
> eastern end of its current distribution lacks in parsimony, as R1b
> folk must've .... moved all the way to the Atlantic but made barely a
> presence either East or South of their supposed homeland"
>
> My response: I can see that parsimony, like many things, is in the eye
> of the beholder. Apparently you think the high frequency of of more
> importance than high variance as an indicator of direction of movement
> since you place great weight on the current distribution. Do you
> disagree with the the Klopstein "The Fate of Mutations Surfing on the
> Wave of a Range Expansion" study? It provides an explanation for the
> cline in variance we see where east looks older than west.
>

First of all, R1b diversity is not higher in Central Asia than it is
in Anatolia.
Second, you are completely missing the point that a mode in which R1b
originates around Chinese Turkestan and inexplicably heads west but
barely makes an impact in either China, or Mongolia, or South Asia is
not parsimonious.


> Dienekes said "I never thought that R1b was from Central Asia, and
> when the National Geographic documentary said that Central Asians are
> some kind of ur-fathers of East and West Eurasians, I clearly pointed
> out that that is not the case, and their increased diversity is due to
> their recently admixed status, and all subsequent autosomal research
> has proved me right"
>
> My response: How does autosomnal research prove you right? Diversity
> across the Y chromosome is independent of diversity across autosomnal
> chromosomes. The two are not tied together as is evidenced by the
> vastly different distribution of Y and mt clades and some autosomnal
> genes.
>

It proves me right with respect to what was in the National Geographic
documentary about the Central Asian being supposedly descended from
the ur-fathers of East and West Eurasians. Note that his "mix of east
and west appearance", was explicitly stated in that documentary as
supportive of this.

It also proves me right with respect to the idea that R1b is "Turkic".
We have good evidence of the autosomal binding thread of Turks and
Altaic speakers in general, and that's a Mongoloid thread, and hence
unrelated to R1b which is a Caucasoid lineage.

Of course, you may claim that R1b originated among Turkic speakers of
Central Asia, but once again this is not parsimonious, as it would
imply that a lineage that originated among Central Asian Mongoloids
somehow was lost in most populations in its region of origin and
became concentrated in the Irish, and had plenty of time besides to
reach Cameroon.

I believe in science, not science fiction.


>  Fortunately, there is deep clade testing now available for R-M343
> (R1b). The Myres "A major Y-chromosome haplogroup R1b Holocene era
> founder effect in Central and Western Europe" study shows the highest
> coalescence ages for R-U106 (R1b1b2a1a1) as Estonia and Poland. Myres
> shows highest age for R-P312 (R1b1b2a1a2) as Turkey. These are "THE"
> two very large R-M343 clades of Western Europe, but the locations
> Myres cites are hardly Atlantic facing countries. I'm not calling them
> Central Asian either, but I'd say the labels East Europe and SW Asia
> are fair.
>

Anatolia is not Central Asia.
Also Myres et al. did not present evidence for greatest Anatolian
variance with respect to Europe
http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2010/08/r1b-founder-effect-in-central-and.html

While a WESTERN European origin (a la Semino) is unlikely, I see
absolutely no reason for an Anatolian over a Southeastern European
origin at this point, and less than no reason for a "Central Asian" or
"Turkic" origin.

--
Dienekes' Anthropology Blog: http://dienekes.blogspot.com


This thread: