Just a download away, versions for windows 64, Mac, or Linux.
1 Like
Let me just pull out my textbooks and laptop real quick. 
Already been suggested on the forum; Iâve read it and I reviewed here: Book Reviews on Humanity and Evolution: Erdrich's Fiction and Reich's Non-fiction
I checked and my library has it in the new books section so I will pick it up! Thanks. Looks interesting.
Yes, but I already disagreed with him twice.
Ok, I definitely shouldnât rely on my memory because my percentage on reversals was very off. Anyway, first see my post here about Balanovsky and all the mutations they said showed up in all samples but didnât count. Dsterncardinale's Review of Traced by Dr. Nathaniel Jeanson - #91 by thoughtful I am suggesting the false negatives would be reversals (it looks like about 10% of the total mutations found. I suppose since those would be recent, the actual occurrence might be a bit higher). Parallel mutations look to be more common. But if the mutation rate is high in a population of billions, it seems to me like thatâs to be expected for mutations not yet subject to drift?
I donât know what youâd define as extreme homoplasy, but Iâm suggesting that recent mutations will often be parallel to those found in deep lineages, whether extant or extinct.
Anyway, practically no one commented what I wrote about the details of Balanovsky Supplemental Table 2 at the time. I didnât know quite what to think of the silence, since usually Iâm told Iâm wrong quite quickly. 
Iâm still open to hearing I am understanding that table wrong and it is NOT evidence for a high mutation rate. To me, it looks like it IS evidence for it.
âR1b M-269â is a gene not a population. My question was about which of the âmyriad constituent populationsâ, that I had just listed:
Western Hunter-Gatherers (15 kya), Neolithic farmers (7 kya), and later Steppe Eneolithic Age populations [2, 3], Celtic expansion, integration in the Roman empire, Barbarian migrations [Franks, Visigoths, and Burgunds]
⌠were you claiming âimmigrated from Central Asia much earlierâ?
That is rich, coming from you Valerie. Your ludicrously implausible âhypothesesâ have been pervassively and blatantly ahistorical!
-
This is a bad link â as it takes you into Wikipediaâs internal text editor. The correct link is: Huguenots - Wikipedia
-
This section makes no mention of âhalf a millionâ.
-
The only population figures this section gives is for âNumber of Huguenots in Franceâ â i.e. ones that had not emigrated (nor been coerced into conversion to Catholicism).
Likewise, your âHuguenot emigration hypothesisâ does not explain R1b hotspots in such Catholic strongholds as Brittany and Northern Italy, nor British hotspots outside the South East of England, and East Coast of Ireland, where they settled (both areas having lower R1b levels than the rest of the British Isles).
2 Likes
@misterme987 didnât miss much â you presented no evidence for this absurd hypothesis.
I previously challenged this hypothesis:
To which you gave the evidence-free response:
Thus this âhypothesisâ of yours is supported by no evidence and has no better status than the hypothesis that the Moon is made of green cheese.
Also, even âwith a fast mutation rateâ the idea that the exact same specific set of mutations (in order to get to R1b) independently occurred twice in populations inhabiting the exact same regions, separated by thousands of years, is absurdly improbable, and thus implausible. As I said in the previous thread:
It would appear Valerie, that you have learned nothing from previous threads.
4 Likes
If that is something you can not do for whatever reason then I would ask you to at least entertain the argument that you do not really know enough about this topic to have a credible opinion on it.
3 Likes
OK so if you have read David Reichâs work then why arenât you referring to that research every time we have this discussion? For instance, Reich showed that modern Europeans are not related very closely to the first Europeans and that attempting to draw conclusions about the movement of people from only modern samples can be misleading. More important perhaps is why doesnât Jeanson himself cite this work? They overlapped at Harvard so why wasnât he engaged with this research if he was truly interested in human population history? The answer is he is not interested in human population history. He is only interested in propping up what he already believes. Thatâs it. And you may have finally disagreed with Jeanson but not after enormous resistance and enormous efforts in explaining the science to you. The fact is that for you Valerie agreeing with Jeanson is quite easy. Have you wondered why that would be?
3 Likes
Looking at ancient autosomal DNA to detect migration seems to me to be much different than using the y-chromosome. Of course modern Europeans are not closely related to the first Europeans. That should be obvious from the y-chromosome, which shows replacement. I think both together helps give a more complete picture.
No offense, but youâre not the best teacher for me; in the past I asked you a question or tried to make a point, and I felt like I was getting the same thing on repeat. So perhaps try a different way of explaining thingsâŚI do actually want to have an accurate view of the science.
For example, if I was you, and those programs can do what you say, then Iâd run coalescence simulations of expanding populations for one of Jeansonâs scenarios and directly debunk what he was saying, instead of pointing out what happens in stable populations as you have been doing.
Especially if I was annoyed enough to make a new thread whenever he created a new video.
Iâll respond you @Tim soon; just ran out of time tonight.
It is different in the sense that one is examining evidence across many loci and the other only one. Data from across the genome is yet another line of evidence that Jeanson ignores.
3 Likes
There are two issues here.
The first question is should you trust what Jeanson is telling you. The answer there is clearly no and you donât have to learn every nuance of coalescent theory to come to that conclusion. There are any number of proxy ways to determine that he simply doesnât know what heâs talking about. With any sort of science denialism, people in the general public need to develop a smell test for these sorts of things. You as a lay person are very seldom going to be able to devote the time and effort to gain competency in a complex topic such as coalescent theory that is on par with an expert so itâs good to develop proxy ways to recognize pseudoscience. When someone signs on to a statement of faith of a condition of their employment that says they will not consider data if it disagrees with their religious beliefs or when people make very bold claims but fail to convince people in that field by publishing in the peer-reviewed literature then these should be red flags.
Second, if your goal is to learn the details of the underlying science (and that is a laudable goal for sure) then my suggestion is to get off of online discussion forums devoted to topics like creationism and start reading textbooks. What you are asking of people is a lot. You are asking me to stop what Iâm doing and run complex simulations to convince you that someone working for a religious organization with overt commitments to not follow the data, who canât publish in the field he is commenting on, who makes rudimentary errors over and over again (mutation and substitution rates, interpreting unrooted trees, drawing population inferences off of gene trees, etc.), with no working knowledge of the topic he is attempting to comment on, is wrong. People like @evograd are saints in the amount of time they have devoted to this but not everyone has the time or the inclination Valerie to give you the equivalent of a course in population genetics and coalescent theory in an online discussion forum. Iâm happy to share with you the broad conclusions, explain basic concepts, and point you to papers and textbooks but there is only so much hand-holding Iâm going to do in this regard and honestly, I think the expectation on your part is a little much. But, setting impossible expectations is also a hallmark of most science denialism.
On @dsterncardinale channel I already shared trees that are the result of simulations based on a stable population and demonstrated that there are still branching gene trees within stable populations which should call into question the entire crux of Jeansonâs argument (those trees came from the textbook on gene genealogies and coalescent theory by Hein, Schierup, and Wiuf which I cited).
What you are asking is for me, or someone, to replicate those studies for you before you will consider that Jeanson is wrong. I appreciate that you want to learn the details here and that is commendable but frankly Valerie people simply do not have time for this. I feel like things have been very adequately explained to you already and you are simply resistant to the answers because itâs not what you want to hear. If you need more information you have to start actually reading the literature and starting just with an undergraduate genetics text and working your way up to textbooks in probability, population genetics, molecular systematics, and coalescent theory. Donât expect people to do that work for you.
10 Likes
I call it FizzBuzz Principle. It states this:
If a claim about science relies on serious falsehoods and fallacies that are well within your competence to fact-check, you can be certain that the claims made in support of it that are beyond you will not be any better.
Why FizzBuzz? Itâs named after a childrenâs game that has become well known in the software industry as a means of filtering out candidates for developer roles who are so incompetent that they should ⌠er, stick to playing childrenâs games. Right at the start of the interview process (such as in a phone screen), they are asked the following question:
Write a program to print out the numbers from 1 to 100. But for every number divisible by three, print âFizzâ. For every number divisible by five, print âBuzzâ. If a number is divisible by both three and five, print âFizzBuzzâ.
They may have a PhD in computer science. They may have a GitHub repository brimming with open source contributions. But if they canât answer a question as simple as this, the interview is cut short, they are thanked for their time, and they go straight into the âNo hireâ bucket.
The same principle applies in science. If someone is making claims that demonstrate serious misunderstandings or ignorance about the fundamental basics (e.g. how measurement works, what error bars are, and so on) or that descend into blatant nonsense (e.g. 22,4000°C of accelerated nuclear decay), you can be pretty confident that all the complicated stuff they are coming out with is going to be nothing more nor less than a smoke screen.
12 Likes
This is a great summary.
This is also great.
I have one more to add:
If you have to resort to defending your creationist heroâs credentials by touting where s/he got a PhD, instead of touting his/her contributions to human knowledge after finishing it, your hero isnât much of an expert.
Even for the few IDcreationists who have a record of postdoctoral scientific accomplishment, itâs pretty universal that scientific productivity (primary research papers) plummets to zero with the embrace of IDcreationism.
7 Likes
Well said.
The day I saw Jeanson trying to make historical inferences from an unrooted tree I knew he failed the FizzBuzz test of systematics.
5 Likes
My all time favorite creationist failing the FizzBuzz test was when one of Kent Hovindâs debate opponents asked Kent to describe in his own words what was meant by an allele frequency.
7 Likes
UmâŚnowhere in my post did I ask for that. I suggested that replicating them is a better tactic to show he is wrong than what you are doing currently, and I tried to suggest you stop trying to teach me or explain things. (There are others in the forum who could better answer questions I might have.)
So Iâm actually not asking for help for myself by commenting in this thread. I get enjoyment out of being helpful. (When I was working, I was an administrative assistant.) I was trying to help you. (Lol, and actually creation science. Because the faster you show them they are wrong, the more quickly they can get on the right track.) The whole reason Iâve been discussing this topic on the forum is to know (1) whether Jeanson y-chromosome presentation could convince any scientists of creationism (because I think the current paradigm is a barrier to belief in God for many people) and (2) how fairly scientists are judging it (thatâs why I will check @dsterncardinale from time to time and why I asked you questions in the past) and also because I like to research, analyze things, and challenge myself. Iâm actually fine with Jeanson being wrong about all the science here. But Iâm still going to use the book anyway to think about history since I believe in the 4500-year timeline for religious reasons.
I feel like we miscommunicate a lot. Not sure how to fix that, but thanks for expending all those words in your last post on my account. And thanks for reading all my parenthetical comments in the previous paragraph (maybe I feel the need to write that way when tired). 
Iâm not sure why youâre bringing up regions - R1b is prevelant on several continents. Check out the set of mutations and see what you think.
The Franks are likeliest.
Notice the correlation in these maps.
A lot of the pattern downstream of R1b makes sense if there was a population of men with those genes who were expelled from France in every direction.
https://repositori.upf.edu/handle/10230/35197
Henry IV of France being R1b - Genetic genealogy reveals true Y haplogroup of House of Bourbon contradicting recent identification of the presumed remains of two French Kings - PMC
Iâll do you one better: The debate between Kent âDr. Dinoâ Hovind and Dapper Dinosaur in which Kent Dr. Dino Hovind was unable to define âdinosaurâ.
4 Likes
I have pointed out before that simulations have been done in which one of the parameters is a stable population and you still get a branching gene tree. I even cited the source. Jeansonâs method would interpret that as a growing population. Those simulations have been done. They have been cited. This has all been explained. What you are asking of someone is to replicate from scratch an analysis that is well known already.
Letâs be honest please. Either you or Jeanson are in no way interested in being shown you are wrong if it means having to abandon your YEC theology. Thatâs very clear.
Plenty of people who have no problem with the science of evolution are every bit as Christian as you and Jeanson so itâs simply untrue that evolution is a barrier to believing in God nor do we have to convince anyone of special creationism, particularly the YEC sort which has absolutely no empirical support.
You hit at the heart of this issue. It ultimately doesnât matter to you if Jeanson is wrong because you are, âstill going to use the book anyway to think about history since I believe in the 4500-year timeline for religious reasonsâ. Iâm fine with that as long as you are honest and up-front about your religious reasons and donât mislead anyone into thinking you are actually interested in the science. Religious beliefs are not valid scientific criticisms.
2 Likes
-
All those archeological sites appear to be in a single continent: Europe.
-
My point was that your âhypothesis ⌠that itâs practically impossible to place them on a phylogenyâ doesnât hold water, given that it is highly unlikely that the exact same set of mutations would occur independently in the exact same region â e.g. Northern Italy, where both the Villabruna site and (I seem to remember) some small modern R1b hotspots happen to be.
Why are they remotely likely?
What evidence have you got that the Franks âimmigrated from Central Asia much earlierâ? I have found no evidence for the Franks, or even an immediately antecedent group, existing outside Western Europe, prior to the Merovingian dynasty.
I will further note that the Franks do not match up with your Huguenot hypothesis â as the Franks had their most impact on Northern France (excluding Brittany, which was still an independent kingdom) â (German-influenced) Langue dâOĂŻl, whereas the Huguenots mostly came from the South â (Roman-influenced) Langue dâOc:
[Source: Wikipedia]
I notice:
-
That you cite no sources for these maps, which all look rather old (and thus potentially based on outdated information).
-
That none of these maps have any information making explicit what they are in fact representing.
-
That the first map appears to show that to the extent that Hugenots crossed into Northern Italy (never getting further east than Turin), it was only in order to then move on to (Calvinist) Geneva.
-
That the second set of maps are so blurry that it is not possible to tell what they are showing (nor what the difference is between a, b & c).
Except that the first map does not show âevery directionâ â it does not include migrations to such extreme R1b hotspots as Brittany, Wales and the West of Ireland.
It wasnât the Huguenots that brought R1b to Europe.
It is not even remotely clear what you think this citation demonstrates.
This paper appears to be raising questions over whether the âpresumptive head of Henry IVâ was in fact actually that of Henry IV:
By using in-depth genealogical trees of living members of the House of Bourbon, the âtrueâ Y-chromosomal variant of Bourbon males of the French dynasty lineage was reconstructed. This Y-chromosomal variant was different from the ones of the presumptive head of Henry IV and of the presumptive blood sample of Louis XVI. As the genetic identifications of these samples were only based on the similarity between the partial Y-STR profiles of both samples, these identifications can no longer be accepted.
It supports *neither your above claim, nor your original claim that:
More half-baked, implausible, poorly-substantiated nonsense Valerie.
Thatâs because there is no written history of their origin - besides myths that they were refugees from Troy and one part settled in Eastern Europe and the other in modern day France. So maybe R1b is from Anatolia after all and not Central Asia. Fits R1a and R1b splitting up anyway. But Iâm not sure how seriously to take those myths.
Youâre thinking too literally. Iâm suggesting that probably the whole of what is modern-day France was sprinkled with R1b centuries before the Huguenot immigration. But the quick dispersal brought a lot of these genes everywhere across Europe.
That map is Figure 3 in this paper: The peopling of Europe and the cautionary tale of Y chromosome lineage R-M269 - PMC
Frequency distributions of R-M269 sub-haplogroups. Contour maps for lineages defined by marker (a ) R-S21, (b ) R-S145 and (c ) R-S28.
Yes, they said itâs not; it doesnât match. You could have at least skimmed to the results or discussion section where they explain living relatives are R1b.
Detailed Y-chr haplotypes and haplogroups were obtained for three living relatives of the House of Bourbon from which the French kings originated from 1589 (Henri IV became King of Navarre in 1572 by his motherâs rights, and King of France in 1589 at the death of Henri III, as the eldest descendant of Louis IX (1214â1270)) till the end of the monarchy. Based on these results, it is clear that their genealogical common ancestor (GCA) based on the official genealogy, namely King Louis XIII, was also their biological ancestor. First, the sub-haplogroups at the finest level of the Y-chromosomal phylogenetic tree were identical for all three relatives, namely R-Z381*. As there are no known recurrent mutations observed for SNP Z381 and as it is not lying in a Y-SNP conversion hotspot on the Y- chr,31 male individuals who share this Y-SNP must also share a common male lineal ancestor at the point of the SNPâs first appearance.37 Y-chromosomal sub-haplogroup R-Z381* is a subgroup of R-U106, which has been found in Western Europe with the highest frequency of around 35% in the north of the Netherlands and in Denmark but with a steep frequency fall to the south as the frequency of R-U106 is only 7% in France.38, 39, 40 The frequency of sub-haplogroup R-Z381* within Europe itself is not yet well known, except in Flanders where the frequency is around 9% within the autochthonous population.
This is yet another implausible fantasy. Legends of Trojan origins are a dime a dozen â including Aeneas (Rome), Brutus of Troy (Britain), Francus (Franks) and BenoĂŽt de Saint-Maure (Plantagenets). Lacking any evidence that these legends are even plausible, let alone evidence that they have an actual historical basis, they can be dismissed out of hand.
The Franks were known to have lived on the east bank of the Rhine in Roman times, e.g.:
[Source: Wikipedia]
Prior to that, they would have been part of the early German expansion out of Scandinavia into Germany:
[Source: Wikipedia]
No Valerie â I am thinking analytically â looking at whether your hypothesis matches the evidence â and no it doesnât.
And Iâm suggesting that the entirety of of Western Europe âwas sprinkled with R1bâ millennia âbefore the Huguenot immigration.â
Except we know that Huguenots were not responsible for the dispersion of R1b-M269 because there are hot-spots in areas where they did not settle with levels far higher than the main Huguenot homeland of southern France.
Even in the original, the maps are too small, and too lacking in contrast to be particularly distinct. It does not however seem that map (a)/M269 shows any particular âcorrelationâ with the purported Hugenout migration map.
Here is a far easier to read map:
[Source]
Why? It seems, like much of what you continue to throw at the wall to see what sticks, to be utterly irrelevant.
I am not claiming that the Franks did not have R1b. Iâm simply claiming that there is absolutely no evidence that it was the Franks who brought it from Central Asia â and in fact that there is considerable evidence that it wasnât them (because it had been in Europe long before the Franks existed as a distinct group). That being so, whether the Bourbons, or even the Capets, had R1b is not relevant to any argument Iâm making.
2 Likes
From a scan of your map there seems to be a reasonable association with the Brythonic languages (Wales, Cornwall and Brittany). It certainly seems better than any link to the Huguenots. The concentration in Ireland might be related to that, too.
1 Like