Sorry, too many details, too little time. I read at least through the Wikipedia pages more completely this time The likeliest scenario for Jeanson’s hypothesis would be that populations of Ethiopians had settled in Yemen over time (as discussed). When the Persians fought against them a group of their descendents fled north into the desert into areas out of their control. Then this group’s descendants became part of the first Muslims, which swept back into North Africa. And I think selection is playing a role here.
The quote your referring to is about Replacing Darwin, not Traced, which is written to be friendly the someone without a science background.
I agree that more details are warranted. That’s why I’ve said I’m interested to see what he continues to come up with.
I came across the blog post linked below while searching for something else, and I thought it was worth bringing up in this context. To me this scenario’s implausibility and the branches pictured are possible evidence of ancient y-chromosome sequences being difficult to place on a tree, and the mutation rate being fast so the same mutations are occuring in various lineages. Let me know what you think.
More about that intriguing DNA location 14168106, the location of an unnamed SNP just waiting to be named. Our SNP, our very own SNP, the one that belongs to us and some, but not all, of the Yamnaya, our relatives for sure and our probable ancestors. So far, that unnamed SNP belongs to no one else! No other living person so far discovered. No one else in the world except for our Lentz men and the ancient Yamnaya – reaching back some 5,000 years into the mists of time on the Volga River.
I argued recently that I thought you were/might be our equivalent of Kurt Wise, Dawkins’s “honest creationist”. I have looked forward to your input because i have found it imaginative and bringing a valuable, different perspective to discussions. But, Valerie, this takes the cake. An “honest creationist”, ha!
I don’t know how to say this other than to just say it: You aren’t an expert in any of this, you genuinely have no idea what you’re talking about, and the “research” you do for yourself is nothing compared to an actual education in the field.
I don’t know what you want. You can’t peruse Google Scholar in your spare time and act as though it’s comparable, like, graduate school.
Emphasis mine. That’s the key part. There is literally no argument, none, that will convince you of something you are steadfastly against accepting as true. So you can just ignore all the stone age remains, or the Neanderthal sequences, or the basic errors in population genetics, any one of which invalidates Jeanson’s chronology.
Really? Exactly what “huge risk” is he taking? That you and people of a similar mind might realize that, if he is not a con man, then he is grossly and ridiculously incompetent? Not much risk of that, is there?
If there was any sizeable population of Aksumites to start with (they were traders, not colonists, remember), if they headed inland (rather than taking their ships back to Africa), if the Persians didn’t pursue them and kill them, and if the inhabitants of the hinterland didn’t kill them on sight.
To call this hypothesis flimsy is an understatement – it actually makes my purposefully-silly “my uncle is the Pope” claim start to look almost credible by comparison. It is not so much a hypothesis as a fairy story. “Pollyannaish” would be a good description.
No Valerie. It is not needing “more details” – it is in need of any substantive detail. Which migration brought R1b into Eastern Europe in Jeanson’s timeframe? [sound of crickets chirping] Which migration into Western Europe even happened during Jeanson’s timeframe? [again crickets chirping] Into the British Isles? [crickets again] …
Jeanson doesn’t give any supporting evidence for any of his claims, he just assumes the the haplotypes must have migrated when his timeframes needed them to.
He cannot “continue” to come up with details, because he has not started to do so.
Also, it should not be necessary to point out that Jeanson is no more a historian or an ethnographer (the latter should be blindingly clear from his inability to even tell Han Chinese apart from Tibetan or Malay) than he is a geneticist, so is in no position to ‘fill in’ details on these subjects.
And given the pervasive lack of historical detail in Jeanson’s book, it would be a truly surprising coincidence if he suddenly decided to reverse course in the Bab-el-Mandeb of all places.
Given the number of truly ridiculous claims that creationist apologists have made (Ray Comfort’s banana claims immediately come to mind), without suffering any appreciable consequences to their career or acceptance in the apologetics ‘club’, I would suggest that the risk is zero.
Scientists already know that ‘Creation Scientists’ are buffoons and charlatans, and Creationist supporters really don’t care – as long as the answer is ‘The World’s 6000 years old’, and the method for getting this answer has a vague resemblance to science (a few graphs or charts thrown in for example), they neither know nor care whether this method is complete nonsense or not.
And while it would be easy to chalk that up to mere ignorance on the part of the followers of these creationists, the example of @thoughtful and others in this group shows that that is not the case. Short of enrolling in a university course in evolutionary biology, It is hard to imagine where else someone could receive as thorough and clear and education in the issues relevant to Jeanson’s claims, as @thoughtful has received here. And yet she stubbornly refuses to reject Jeanson’s claims. So ignorance is not the explanation.
Willful ignorance might be. It does not matter how much of a “thorough and clear and education in the issues” she receives, if she is not willing to accept any information that cannot be squared with her YEC beliefs, then all that work is for naught. This would be a form of Epistemic Closure (and thus an extreme form of confirmation bias).
Thanks for asking. I’ve been having fun pursing various historical hypotheses because of your persistence which makes me take the time to look them up. So I was just doing a little digging in the last hour, and I agree with Jeanson in the book about Turkish migrations -briefly looking it seems Turks are enhanced for R1b compared to others - makes sense now why Eupedia puts “Anatolia” at the top of the R1b tree. Sharing a figure because I don’t know if it’s available to you.
Haplogroup R1b3-M269 occurs at 40–80% frequency in Europe and the associated STR variance suggests that the last ice age modulated R1b3-M269 distribution to refugia in Iberia and Asia Minor from where it subsequently radiated during the Late Upper Paleolithic and Holocene. The R1b3-M269 related, but opposite Taq I p49a, f ht 15 and ht35 distributions reflect the re-peopling of Europe from Iberia and Asia Minor during that period. The R1b3-M269 variances and expansion time estimates of Iberian and Turkish lineages are similar to each other (Table 2) but higher than observed elsewhere (Table 4). Low variances for R1b3-M269 lineages have also been reported for Czech and Estonian populations (Kivisild et al. 2003).
I’ve been pursuing a hypothesis for a radiation near Spain for the variants of R1b that ended up in Western Europe, so that was exciting for me to read that STR variance points to that.
Edit:
After pondering that graphic I shared earlier in the thread, I realized it makes much more sense for the “Lenz” lineage and Bashkirs to share a common Turkish ancestor in the decent past, to accumulate their own markers and then for the Bashkirs recently to accumulate marker(s) that another R1b sub-sub-clade (etc) already had earlier.
What I see is that Jeanson failed to answer the question of “which” migration, and simply served up a number of less-than-well-developed candidates as more “My uncle is the Pope” level nonsense.
Magyars weren’t “Turkic”, and we know they didn’t carry R1b in any concentration as their direct descendants, the Hungarians, don’t carry it.
The Pechenegs were largely wiped out, and would have left little, if any genetic trace. From Wikipedia:
After centuries of fighting involving all their neighbours—the Byzantine Empire, Bulgaria, Kievan Rus’, Khazaria, and the Magyars—the Pechenegs were annihilated as an independent force in 1091 at the Battle of Levounion by a combined Byzantine and Cuman army under Byzantine Emperor Alexios I Komnenos. Alexios I recruited the defeated Pechenegs, whom he settled in the district of Moglena (today in Macedonia) into a tagma “of the Moglena Pechenegs”.[49] Attacked again in 1094 by the Cumans, many Pechenegs were slain or absorbed. The Byzantines defeated the Pechenegs again at the Battle of Beroia in 1122, on the territory of modern-day Bulgaria. For some time, significant communities of Pechenegs still remained in the Kingdom of Hungary. With time the Balkan Pechenegs lost their national identity and became fully assimilated, mostly with Magyars and Bulgarians.
The Oghuz were (per Wikipedia) “[h]arried by another Turkic people, the Kipchaks, these Oghuz penetrated as far as the lower Danube, crossed it and invaded the Balkans, where they were[8] struck down by an outbreak of plague, causing the survivors either to flee or to join the Byzantine imperial forces as mercenaries (1065).” Also an unlikely candidate for the genetic forefathers of most of Western Europe. Other offshoots of the Oghuz, first the Seljuk Turks and then the Ottoman Turks were more successful in Asia Minor – but that’s a completely different story.
Likewise the Kipchaks:
The Mongols defeated the Alans after convincing the Kipchaks to desert them through pointing at their likeness in language and culture.[26] Nonetheless, the Kipchaks were defeated next.[26] Under khan Köten, Kipchaks fled to the Principality of Kiev (the Ruthenians), where the Kipchaks had several marriage relations, one of which was Köten's son-in-law Mstislav Mstislavich of Galicia.[26] The Ruthenians and Kipchaks forged an alliance against the Mongols, and met at the Dnieper to locate them.[26] After an eight-day pursuit, they met at the Kalka River (1223).[26] The Kipchaks, who were horse archers like the Mongols, served as the vanguard and scouts.[26] The Mongols, who appeared to retreat, tricked the Ruthenian–Kipchak force into a trap after suddenly emerging behind the hills and surrounding them.[26] The fleeing Kipchaks were closely pursued, and the Ruthenian camp was massacred.[26]
The nomadic Kipchaks were the main targets of the Mongols when they crossed the Volga in 1236.[27] The defeated Kipchaks mainly entered the Mongol ranks, while others fled westward.[27] Köten led 40,000 families into Hungary, where King Bela IV granted them refuge in return for their Christianization.[27] The refugee Kipchaks fled Hungary after Köten was murdered.[27]
After their fall, Kipchaks and Cumans were known to have become mercenaries in Europe and taken as slave warriors. In Egypt, the Mamluks were in part drawn from Kipchaks and Cumans.
That Jeanson carefully omitted these three’s ignominious demises whilst promoting them as candidates, would appear to be a form of lying by omission.
What does this show us? Only that Jeanson is as poor at history as he is at genetics and ethnography.
Your quote from Cinnioğlu et al does not demonstrate that R1b is predominant in Turkey, let alone that it is the ancestral Turkic lineage. The fact that Turkey contains such a wide range of different haplotypes. that “[t]he major components”, “haplogroups E3b, G, J, I, L, N, K2, and R1” make up “94.1%” in fact indicates that Turkey is a ‘melting pot’ of many groups.
So what is Jeanson left with, Valerie? Nothing, nada or, as I poetically described it above, “crickets chirping”.
Sorry Valerie but this is, yet again, utter nonsense. The Yamnaya culture was a late Copper Age to early Bronze Age culture in the region. They therefore had been there for millennia before the Turkic peoples, including the Bashkir Turks, migrated westwards – the latter in the 9th and 10th centuries. This would mean that R1b is ancestral to the Yamnaya not the Turks, and that the Bashkir picked it up by admixture with their descendants, after coming to the southern Urals.
I would note that most, and probably all, this information is easy to find, simply by looking up the Wikipedia pages on the ethnic groups involved. But neither Jeanson, nor Valerie, have shown the least interest in this wider context. Science is about testing your hypotheses, and that both Jeanson and Valerie seem profoundly disinterested in subjecting their hypotheses to even the most superficial testing indicates that their interest in the subject is profoundly unscientific.
What I think you are failing to understand is that Jeason and Valerie are not using science proper. They are using Creation Science TM, which has different rules than the type of science with which you are familiar. One of these rules is that the conclusion is pre-specified, after which the methodology is chosen and results interpreted so that this conclusion is confirmed. It’s not bad or wrong, apparently. It’s just a different way of sciencing that’s just as good as yours. Maybe even better, because it is more likely to get your soul into Heaven.
I fully agree that Creation Science is not part of Science. I place it as part of Apologetics, which would therefore place it (possibly somewhat loosely) under the umbrella of Theology.
This is perhaps why factual errors, even egregious factual errors, seem to be of little consequence to them, as long as their conclusions meet with a rigid (albeit, I suspect, somewhat arbitrary) standard of Theological Correctness™.
My point was simply that, by the standards of Science (and last I checked this forum’s title was "Peaceful Science, not “Peaceful Creation Science”), Jeanson’s and Valerie’s presentations of their hypotheses were not even superficially adequate.
One correction. Only a tiny minority of the results are reinterpreted. The vast majority are ignored, and some are even deliberately misrepresented, like the nature of peptidyl transferase.
Respectfully, Valerie, the problem here is that you have misunderstood but you do not realize you have misunderstood.
Allow me to draw your attention to this post in the thread:
A key step of every statistical analysis is to understand and incorporate error bars. You are aware of this principle, correct?
Unfortunately, Jeanson’s analysis evinces no awareness of this principle. He assumed there were no errors in the dataset, which was manifestly not the case.
Once the error measurements are taken into account, Jeanson’s analysis is exposed as vastly off-base. The authors understand the limitations of their data; Jeanson does not.
Since Jeanson’s analysis relies on the manifestly false assumption of no measurement errors, it can be confidently discarded on that basis alone.
Respectfully, Valerie, your laser-like focus on Turkic migrations has you barking up the wrong tree. The primary problem with Jeanson’s analysis is that it misses important datasets and methodological constraints:
Data from the Neanderthal genome
Data from the Denisovan genome
Error bars in the Maretty et al dataset.
I mean no offense by this, but the fact that you are focused on the wrong things shows that you do not yet have the scientific training to understand the key issues. There are many things you do understand much better than some in this thread, like the importance of speaking as graciously as possible. And if anyone in this thread were to dismiss your wisdom on motherhood, you would rightly be indignant. I am hoping that analogy will help you understand why some of the scientists around here are expressing indignation.
If you would truly like to interact with well-trained, practicing scientists, you would do well to learn the scientific methodology from the ground up. A big part of that is not to cast aspersions on their motives and methods, like when you say something like this:
I hope you find this comment helpful and sensible. Is it?
Yes, unfortunately I wasn’t more clear in my statement - I didn’t state the obvious. I understood the scientists thought the unexpected differences were errors.
This doesn’t seem to be the case. When I read through his paper again recently I noticed that he does some kind of analysis of the father-son differences he measured in the screenshots. I have no understanding of these methods, of course. I don’t think I have seen any discussion or analysis of this part of the paper, so if anyone wants to feel free.
These 17 nucleotide differences we then statistically tested for normality using the statistical software SPSS—both as raw values, and as results rounded to the nearest ones place. Both groups of data were a modest fit to a normal distribution based on visual inspection of histograms and Q-Q plots (Supplemental fig. 2) and based on statistical tests for normality (Kolmogorov-Smirnov and Shapiro- Wilk; see Supplemental table 2). Given these results, we calculated 95% confidence intervals using the t-distribution, and 95% confidence intervals based on bootstrapped analyses (see Supplemental tables 1 and 2), with 1,000 replications. We chose to use the t-distribution confidence interval since it was wider, and thus more conservative, than the bootstrapped confidence interval. Since mutations occur as whole units and not as decimals or fractions, we used the rounded values for further analyses.
Respectfully, this is the second thread of 3 I’ve been interacting with on this topic recently, and Turkic migrations were only the more recent part of this discussion - I just followed it where it went. So I don’t think your characterization is accurate at all. I’ve already discussed some of what I thought of ancient DNA. I didn’t take the time to respond to @Tim on it yet so I may as well now.
You missed what I was trying to point out. AFAIK the choices are either you can believe that a Lenz/Lentz (a common surname) is the only descendent of certain Yamnaya to join a Family Tree DNA subclade project besides a few Turkic people and someone from Iraq (which seems very improbable after 5000 years because of the extreme drift of the y-chromosome)…or mutations are common enough that they drift out of the population but occur again at the same position. I would hypothesize that it’s likeliest none of these people/kits shown in the blog figure are male-line descendents of the Yamnaya, and instead that the Turks and the Europeans in the subclade project have a common ancestor sometime in the last two millennia and then accumulated some of the same mutations in their lineages at different times.
Hard to make an inference without the sample size to back it up. Get a huge sampling of Turkic people. I’d enjoy researching the history and figuring out that puzzle.
I never said it was predominate. I doubt there was any one ancestral Turkic lineage - just noticed that it’s curiously higher in Turkey than elsewhere in the region.
There’s no lack of indignation in the forum no matter what when it comes to creationism, whether I’m involved in the discussion or not. It’s part of the territory around here. So much so it’s hard to distinguish whether it’s more or less legitimate at certain times.
From your last sentence here, @thoughtful, I’m wondering if you do not understand how @Chris_Falter and @dsterncardinale are using the scientific term “error”. Perhaps this point needs some more discussion for you to understand why Jeanson’s method is so flawed
