GENEALOGY-DNA-L ArchivesArchiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2010-11 > 1289875825
From: "Anatole Klyosov" <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] First Neolithic Y-DNA published
Date: Mon, 15 Nov 2010 21:50:32 -0500
> From: "Lancaster-Boon" <>
> While I would postulate pretty much the same types of origins for R1a and
> R1b as Dienekes...
>... it has been a while since we had a good scientific debate...
>> Dienekes: >So, what kind of plausible model can have it originate in the
>> eastern end of its present distribution, cover thousands of miles
> >but not diffuse even a little bit eastward or southward.
Thank you Andrew for a balanced comment. Yes, indeed, a good scientific
debate is a rare thing nowadays. There are tooooo many of "preconceived
knowledge" things, fables, postulates. Often there is an open irritation
when someone being an open-minded dares to express new ideas or even analyze
data by non-conventional means. Where are gone those "brain-storming"
sessions, in which it was banned to criticize, to say negative things.
Participants were supposed to encourage new ideas, new thoughts, new
Times changed. Now you write - "I would postulate...the same types of
origins for R1a and R1b as Dienekes". What? POSTULATE?? How about DATA
When a while ago I have shown DATA that R1b1 arrived to Europe around 4500
years before present, do you remember how many of our folks protested?
30,000 years ago, no less! They have cited "heavyweights", who said that R1b
were in Europe those times. DATA? Who cares that there were no data
whatsoever. Nobody have even mentioned DATA. When Dr. Wells has said that
R1a1 were originated in Ukraine 15,000 years ago, did he has DATA? Not a
single bit. When he changed it to 10,000 ybp in the Ukrainian steppes, did
he has DATA? Not a single bit. Why there was a change from 15,000 to 10,000
ybp, based on what? On nothing. He just said so.
This field has a bad habit of "just said so", "postulate", etc. Very few
people want to see DATA. Most operate with "beliefs", "postulates", some
kind of "logic", "plausible models" based not on DATA, but on "logic".
Read above - "So, what kind of plausible model can have it originate in the
far eastern end of its present distribution, cover thousands of miles
but not diffuse even a little bit eastward or southward". This is a good
example of that kind of "logic". The author of this did no ask to take a
look at haplotypes, their patterns of mutation, calculation of TMRCAs.
Granted, then he asked to show him the paper. Nobody else did, those who
expressed negative remarks. DATA are our of fashion.
However, talking on the above quotation, there are data and there is
geography. The place where R1a and R1b are the most ancient (in terms of
their common ancestors) are located in high mountains. It is adjacent to
Tibet. Those folks moved around differently, than those in the steppes. As I
see from the trek of their haplotypes, R1a (21,000 ybp for a common
ancestor, the Altai region) went across India and Pakistan, probably over
the Iranian plateau, across Anatolia (11-10,000 ybp) to the Balkans. R1b
(16,000 ybp for their common ancestor) went a different way - they headed
West through Central Asia (Kyrgizia, then North of Kazakhstan), then to
Middle Volga, passing Chuvash and Bashkirs (Chuvashs, by the way, have the
most archaic Turkic language), then from the Russian Plain turned South
across Caucasus (L23 almost exclusively, 6,000 ybp to a common ancestor),
via Anatolia to the Middle East (5,500 ybp), then to the West, probably via
Egypt around 5,300-4,900 ybp, which incidentally fits to beginning of
Pharaoh dynasties, but could be a coincidence. 4,800 ybp they have appeared
in Iberia, and this is a time for a common ancestor of P312 and U106. Then -
the Beakers movement up North.
All what is described above is supported by haplotypes and their analysis,
and their chronology. Of course, some will be revised, but with DATA, not
with empty words. I would appreciate if someone challenges the above with
DATA and their interpretations. Unfortunately, thus far challenges are with
"postulates" and groundless conjectures, not supported with haplotype
> Dienekes: > R1b1 has hardly a presence in South Asia or East Asia or
> in many populations of Central Asia and Siberia.
> Klyosov: It is incorrect. Then, "presence" is important, but "age" is no
> less important. Do you consider "age"? CAN you consider "age" (TMRCA)? CAN
> you really analyze "age" of those populations? Well, if not, then what are
> we talking about?
> Dienekes: >So, what kind of plausible model can have it originate in the
> eastern end of its present distribution, cover thousands of miles
> but not diffuse even a little bit eastward or southward.
> Klyosov: Again and again, it is incorrect. Have you analyzed the recent
> paper by Zhong at all with hundreds of Asian haplotypes? Then, may I
> you on population bottlenecks?
|Re: [DNA] First Neolithic Y-DNA published by "Anatole Klyosov" <>|