GENEALOGY-DNA-L Archives

Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2010-11 > 1289807702


From: Dienekes Pontikos <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] First Neolitic Y-DNA published
Date: Mon, 15 Nov 2010 09:55:02 +0200
References: <mailman.2202.1289769133.2059.genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com><401042401.393608.1289780127787.JavaMail.root@sz0002a.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net>
In-Reply-To: <401042401.393608.1289780127787.JavaMail.root@sz0002a.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net>


On Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 2:15 AM, <> wrote:
> May I notice that the discussion deviates from to be constructive? Please pay attention that I asked you a simple question (see above)- "Do you have crania of Upper Paleolitic R1b1? R1a1? Does anyone have?"

It's irrelevant to our discussion of the origin of Europeoids;
Craniometry entered the discussion with respect to the origin of
Europeoids.

> Then, you have distorted my words (or maybe it was a poor choice of my words). I have never claimed in my studies that Caucasoids originated in South Siberia.

You said:

"I have no idea what “archaeology and common sense” can tell regarding
that Europeoids (Caucasoids) could not have originated in the Altai
area, or, more broadly, in South Siberia. Please doubled check your
books."

I'm glad you do not entertain this idea. Your alternative idea (that
Europeoids originated in the eastern European plain) is also not much
better, unless you are using a non-standard definition of Europeoid,
that limits it to northern Eurasians.

http://www.humanities.edu.ru/db/msg/68611

One simply can't derive the southern branches of the Europeoids from
the "eastern European plain" and Y-chromosomes, mtDNA, and genetic
diversity all point toward West Asia as the origin of Europeoids.

> Now you see that your sentence "the place of origin of R1b1 has anything to do
> with where Caucasoids originated, as most Caucasoids do not in fact
> belong to this lineage" is irrelevant here. Jut please be a little patient. There are a lot of unanswered questions, and a low of hypothesis and ideas. You just cannot fight with them all. Simply put forward yours. Simple, isn't it? Please notice that you take a line of denying whatever is said. This is not a constructive way. Constructive is to suggest a new and justified concept, based on DATA. Please, go ahead. So far, I have not seen your data, just words.
>

Here's my data:

http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2010/11/multidimensional-scaling-and-admixture.html

Altaic speakers (including Turkic speakers) are bound by a common
autosomal element from the Chuvash and Turks in the West to the Yakuts
in northeastern Siberia. Uralic and Paleosiberian groups belong to
different autosomal components.

This Altaic element has the shortest Fst distance to the East Asian
(Fst=0.044) element which is the Chinese one, and hence would not be
called "Caucasoid".

Your theory

http://s155239215.onlinehome.us/turkic/60_Genetics/Klyosov2010DNK-GenealogyEn.htm

Seems to suggest that Turkic (and R1b1) spread from the Altai to
Western Europe, that R1a1 originated in the Altai, went to Eastern
Europe, and then went back to the Altai much later, and includes
inexplicable passages such as the following:

" The possibility that the haplogroups NO, and R migrated separately
is also not ruled out, the R from the Mesopotamia to the Eastern
European Plain, along with the haplogroup I, and only that apparently
can explain the Caucasoidness of the haplogroups I and R, in contrast
to the non-Caucasoid N and O (e.g., the Sakha/Yakut and
Chinese-Korean-Japanese, respectively). A rather exotic suggestion
could also be offered that the whole NOP haplogroup could have been
“Caucasoid”, with the NO bearers down the road turned into “Mongoloid”
and/or “Oriental” races by local women. It is women who largely make
human races. Men cannot pass their genes around directly to men."

My theory is that Altaic speakers originated in East-Central Asia and
were originally Mongoloid in physical type. The autosomal evidence is
supportive of this theory, as is the presence of east Eurasian
Y-chromosome lineages among all living Altaic groups. The idea that
they were related to R1b1 is inconsistent with all other lines of
evidence.


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


This thread: