@Joel_Duff you’ll be interested to know that this claim and the figures from the presentation don’t make it into the book. There’s just one sentence about dates being bunched up after the flood. That stood out to me because I realized he decided to drop this claim for the book. I was pleased because I was skeptical it was going to work/be consistent enough. I watched your video and have thoughts about lake varves (I read your blog about them a few years ago and researched it a bit) but I’ll have to read the papers described first and create a new thread sometime.
In one of the more recent presentations, he mentions what he was saying was a slight update update for one of the haplogroups -maybe J IIRC - so I’d take the book as a more definitive, current answer on AIG’s stance - but I assume the 2020 videos are still up.
Why should they have the same mutations? Jeanson is claiming multiple mutations per generation.
I’m sorry, but this is not “maths”. This appears to be nonsense! It is the mathematical equivalent of the Chewbacca defense.
It does not even mention Valerie’s “last two [millenia]”, nor any real mention of genetics, just of “branches”, and no specific evidence about them (whatever the heck he means by them).
There is no explanation as to why “To reduce 740 million to 60 million, you have to connect a whole bunch of branches” – as though populations cannot grow within a “branch” over the centuries.
In Color Plate 222, this is why existing haplogroups “explain” so much of each population’s males. The vast majority of the branches on the European — and global — family tree have arisen within the last 600 years. The most recent branches alone tell over 90% of their stories. Less than 10% is all that’s available to tell the story of the earlier millennia of human history.
This admittedly does, at least superficially, mention genetics. Even allowing for the fact that we don’t have “Color Plate 222”, it does however give every appearance of being a word salad on the subject.
Yes, real genetics, performed by real geneticists, citing real genetic evidence, and published in a real peer-reviewed journal. If you want to find out what genes there were and how old they are, you sequence them and date them. If you don’t, I would suggest that all you have is speculation not evidence.
What real genetic evidence is there in Jeanson’s book?
Is Jeanson describing that evidence accurately? Without going to the actual evidence, how can you possibly know whether Jeanson is witholding important evidence?
Yes, he is trying to explain to you that Jeanson is misrepresenting the evidence. At some level, you appear to know this, which is why you don’t go to the evidence itself.
Are you suggesting that you know enough about radiometric dating to discount that evidence?
Thinking further on the table from Wikipedia I linked to above …
If Jeanson’s “R1b’s migration from Asia into Europe” in the last two millenia were true, we would expect to see the main R1b hotspots where such migrations/invasions occured: Huns into Eastern and Central Europe, Turks into the Balkans, Mongols into Russia and Ukraine. Although we do see hotspots for the Turkic Bashkirs (86%) and Chuvash (79%), we see low measures for Turks (8-16%), Greeks (11-17%), Russians (3-8%), and hotspots in the far west of Europe, well away from these migrations: Basques (93%, with lower but still high levels in other Iberian populations), Welsh (89%, again with lower but still high levels in Irish, Scots & Orcadians), and moderately high levels in the English and the Low Countries (50-63%). This distribution simply does not fit Jeanson’s thesis.
Rather, it would appear to support a thesis of R1b traveling to some areas with the Celtic migrations (starting in the 6th Century BCE, but from the ‘Hallstatt’ territory in Central Europe, not Central Asia – the migration from Central Asia must have happened well before this), and probably dating back to neolithic times with the Basques.
“Branches” there is a stand-in for “persons” not “haplogroups.” But if you had checked the context of that sentence, you would have seen that that was explained earlier in the paragraph that I quoted. In that context, populations can’t grow within a person [branch]; that makes no sense. The part I quoted shows that in order to explain the population increase, 92% of people in Europe have to share a common ancestor 600 years in the past (unless you have some sort of major migration into Europe from another continent, but even then the math doesn’t change much for the tree for the entire world; I almost quoted that section but decided to stick to Europe). That explains well why one haplogroup is dominant in western Europe, even if it is a “recent” arrival. That’s why it’s evidence.
I thought it was obvious, but based on that math, populations have to diverge after 1500. Once you see that, you can’t unsee it. It’s common sense.
Anyway, you and @mercer should just read the book.
There are of course multiple mutations in a Y chromosome in a generation, perhaps as many as two or three. But are you talking about the entire Y chromosome here or just a small piece of it? Any small piece is quite unlikely to be different between father and son. Or was the mutation rate for some reason many times greater in the past than it is now? And if so, what could that reason have been?
I would prefer that you read my little story about Winston’s puzzle and think long and hard about its relevance to you.
It is neither. It is very skillfully conceived propaganda designed to appear like scientific evidence to @thoughtful and those like her. And, as you can see, it is highly successful.
Then this really doesn’t have anything to do with genetics.
It “shows” no such thing. In fact that it is unclear that it even claims this. The original quote was:
Today, 740 million branches exist. In a.d. 1400, only 60 million existed. To reduce 740 million to 60 million, you have to connect a whole bunch of branches. In terms of percentages, 60 million is just 8% of 740 million. Consequently, by a.d. 1400, you have to connect 92% of today’s branches. Prior to a.d. 1400 is when the remaining 8% of the branches connect.
You will see that there is no mention that “92% of people in Europe have to share a common ancestor 600 years in the past”, just because the population is now 1/(1-0.92) times what it was. This in fact would have been a very odd claim. You can have population growth in isolated populations without any intermixing, you can also have intermixing without population growth. There is no reason to expect there to be a hard-wired relationship between the two.
I’m not sure what Jeanson is attempting to claim, but I’m fairly sure it is not this.
Addendum:
I would also note that, quite apart from any of the above issues, nothing in the quoted passages even mentions R1b, let alone how R1b was meant to have teleported past Eastern and Central Europe (which have lower R1b rates) into Western Europe, in the last two millennia.
Why would we want to do that?
I was able to get piecemeal access to Traced through Google Books. As far as I can ascertain Jeanson does not cite any sources for his “facts”.
As far as I can see from his bio, and his very short list of peer-reviewed co-authored publications before he absconded to AiG, he appears to have no substantive training or background in genetics.
This means that I’ve (i) no reason to believe that Jeanson knows what he’s talking about, and (ii) no ability to trace back what he’s saying to what the research he’s supposedly basing it on actually says.
R1b is neither recent nor a recent arrival to Europe. While not a journal paper, this entry in Europedia has an accessible and extensive discussion of the R1b in Europe:
The archeological and genetic evidence (distribution of R1b subclades) point at several consecutive waves towards eastern and central Germany between 2800 BCE and 2300 BCE.
Oh dear. I admire for you for trying @Tim but your attempts to refute my poor explanation of a very small portion of the book, just aren’t working. I’m quoting only this part because it was funny, but none of your refutations are working because you don’t have the whole picture. You really need to read the entire book to understand the subject and to see that what you’re writing about is addressed. It would take me hours to unravel it. If you want to read it, and then discuss, I’d be happy to do that. Or if there’s something specific in there that you especially want me to address I can do that. I appreciate others doing that for me in the past.
The book is well-written and edited. I’m slow to give praise in that regard, but I was impressed with the book. It’s just a bit of a technical subject so you might not understand those parts unless you’ve read the book, I think, maybe multiple times for some people. I’m looking forward to reading it again when I get the hardcover.
There was an entire thread where I was asking questions about Karmin et.al to try to understand the data Jeanson was using (because I cared about knowing how how much to trust his work) and to see what the forum thought of his first paper. So I’m surprised you’d don’t remember that…or you just are testing what I understand or what? Anyway, as far as I understand the subject, the entire Y-chromosome is difficult to reliably map. So they use filters to get reliable data from a piece of it. Karmin et.al didn’t think their high-coverage sequencing with multiple mutations per generation produced reliable data because it was so different from other published papers so they applied other filters. Jeanson is using the data before the additional filters were applied.
But would I like to see another high coverage y chromosome study to confirm explicitly? Yes. But the data right now is working quite well as far as I can tell so if the multiple mutations per generation isn’t correct, then it has to be explained why it is working, or Jeanson is making it look like it is working. If the higher mutation rate is found to hold up, I’ve already thought of a rescue device for the mainstream narrative. It would be that the mutation rate is high now but natural selection etc applies so the mutation rate per generation doesn’t apply in the past. But that rescue device depends on how much he is able to continue showing that this is working as more data comes in.
Could you please provide either a complete citation to “Karmin et.al” or a link to the thread in which it was discussed, or both? But you have avoided the major questions: do the haplotypes of the supposed three sons of Noah differ by the number of mutations expected from a single generation?
Is this the level of difference among the inferred genotypes of Shem, Ham, and Japheth? If not, why not?
What is wrong with that estimate, and why?
Figure 1.
The phylogenetic tree of 456 whole Y chromosome sequences and a map of sampling locations. The phylogenetic tree is reconstructed using BEAST. Clades coalescing within 10% of the overall depth of the tree have been collapsed. Only main haplogroup labels are shown (details are provided in Supplemental Information 6). Colors indicate geographic origin of samples (Supplemental Table S1), and fill proportions of the collapsed clades represent the proportion of samples from a given region. Asterisk (*) marks the inclusion of samples from Caucasus area. Personal Genomes Project (http://www.personalgenomes.org) samples of unknown and mixed geographic/ethnic origin are shown in black. The proposed structure of Y chromosome haplogroup naming (Supplemental Table S5) is given in Roman numbers on the y -axis.
Where on the tree shown in Figure 1 from that paper do you find the three sons of Noah?
Well Valerie, who styles herself “@thoughtful”, I pity you.
You seem blissfully unaware that the quotes you gave here do not in any way answer @Mercer’s question:
… as they do not even mention R1b, Central Asia, or any date earlier than 1400.
As he cites no sources, Jeanson has no evidence, so there really is nothing to “refute” – just a lot of hand-waving to impress those who have already drunk the kool-aid.
I will also note that you have failed to explain how, if R1b is a recent arrival from Central Asia, it exists in its highest proportions in relatively isolated, mountainous areas at the far west of Europe, well away from main migration routes. But that is, of course, actual evidence, and neither you nor Jeanson seem interested in that.
Here, we will have to agree to differ. The pieces you have quoted are clearly garbled.
Genetics is a technical subject – but one that Jeanson has neither training nor background in.
But that is irrelevant – as the quotes you have made have not been about genetics, but about population growth. And I assure you that I’ve got sufficient of a background in maths to understand growth rates very well (modelling such things has been a large part of my job on a number of occasions).
If you want to find out what is in the book, I suggest you read it. I’ve already explained generally what I thought of it. And I’m not really interested in spending my time explaining all the details when you can read it - And then you don’t have to criticize whatever version of a straw man you come up with in my explanation. You can actually criticize what’s in the book.
I’m a little surprised you don’t have a better grasp of the subject then.
Why read the book? Because you should do the same yourself.
I admire for you for trying 