The contrary evidence can be found in the table I previously linked to:
Y-DNA haplogroups in populations of Europe: Frequencies in European ethnic groups
Alternately, a more general description of the modern geographic distribution can be found in the map I included in this post.
Addendum: additional information can be found in these maps of I1, R1a and R1b distribution in Europe, which clearly shows I1 dominating R1b in Norway, and R1a dominating R1b in Hungary.
The modern DNA is the same as above. The ancient DNA is the origin and dispersal information I previously posted.
I would note that, even if you reject the radiometric dating of this ancient evidence (although I’ve never seen a substantive argument against it), the burials are clearly Stone Age, and so date back to earlier than the last two millennia, clearly indicating that R1b was already in Europe.
Thank you. 
This is the first step in tracing back the data behind this claim.
In this passage Jeanson refers to Color Plates 66 through 74 for his claim that various variants of R1b entered various parts of Europe between 700 and the 1550s.
Does Jeanson cite any sources for these dates in these plates? Let’s start with the first of the plates you previously posted, “Color Plate 70”, which purports to show relative distribution of R1b-S116 in the 1490s to 1550. What is the source for this oddly specific piece of data?
Actually, your post makes no mention of my “‘teleporting’ comment” – hence “without offering any substantive criticism”.
And it is rather Jeanson’s belief that R1b could (i) cross Eastern Europe, and (ii) become the dominant haplotype in Western Europe, in less than two millennia, without leaving much trace in Eastern Europe that is very, very silly.
Yes, and I have seen specific cultural advantages discussed for why Indo-Europeans carrying R1b replaced Paleolithic Europeans in the Bronze Age. But those advantages would already been prevalent across Europe (and thus give no one group an advantage) long before the time-frames Jeanson is talking about.
- What specifically was this large-scale migration “in the a.d. 1400s and 1500s” into Western Europe that Jeanson is talking about and what specifically was the “cultural advantage” that this migration carried?
I will note that I specifically asked for “evidence”, not wild and completely vague speculation.
It “could” – but it is highly unlikely.
And as you cannot even speculate what such an advantage might be, to be so oddly and specifically geographically constrained, I feel perfectly justified in rejecting this not-even-half-baked suggestion.
Evidence please!
Further addendum: speaking of I1 and Norway, I was surprised to see that although Jeanson mentions Vikings fairly frquently, he says very little about the I1 haplogroup, and appears to doubt the relationship between the two:
Given the prevalence of I1 in the Nordic countries, I find this odd. Does the distribution of it (most concentrated in the Nordic countries, but also with lesser concentrations in areas where first Germanic tribes, and then later Vikings, were known to have migrated) in some way conflict with Jeanson’s ‘recent and rapid mutation and migration’ thesis, that he is downplaying it?