“Long experience has taught me this about the status of mankind with regard to matters requiring thought: the less people know and understand about them, the more positively they attempt to argue concerning them, while on the other hand to know and understand a multitude of things renders men cautious in passing judgment upon anything new.”–Galileo Galilei
4 Likes
You’re not going to tell John he’s cute when he’s stubborn?
6 Likes
What do you mean by “middle”? Since the nodes are mostly named, you should be able to identify them. There is no place in which the tree divides into three (and that should be at the root). Either you are confused about what Jeanson claims or Jeanson’s claim is itself confused.
In what way are they relevant? How do they support some claim or other? And how has Jeanson assayed 500-year-old genomes? I note that he implies some directional nature to the phylogenetic tree that isn’t warranted by the tree itself. Is this perhaps another symptom of Jeanson’s inability to read a phylogenetic tree?
5 Likes
No Valerie, it is your unwillingness to look at the contrary evidence that is “silly” and very very gullible.
Jeanson is cherry-picking his data to give the false impression that it matches his thesis. Why is he only giving data for S116 & U152, when other variants of R1b have far greater frequency, e.g. M269?
As Wikipedia states:
Nearly all of this R1b in Europe is in the form of the R1b1a2 (2011 name) (R-M269) sub-clade, specifically within the R-L23 sub-sub-clade whereas R1b found in Central Asia, western Asia and Africa tends to be in other clades.
As you can see, the percentages of this variant reach 90% and more in the far west of Europe. This clearly could not happen under Jeanson’s thesis, as the proportion of R1b would be increasingly diluted (by mixing with existing populations) the further away you go from the influx into Eastern Europe.
I have made this point to you repeatedly, but you are too enraptured by Jeanson to actually look at the evidence.
2 Likes
I dunno. I tried to do my due diligence as much as possible until I could understand the basics of the science behind it and why or why it wouldn’t be accepted in the mainstream scientific community. I can’t be the only one. It will just be interesting to see if any other creation scientists explain where they agree or disagree. I think they’ll definitely be asked and so if they are skeptical or not in agreement with any part of it, they’ll have to give details.
@Tim I’m again surprised you don’t understand this - it’s the basics of evolution. Even if what you were saying was correct, there could be differential reproduction. Other clades of R1b could just have more sons over time than any indigenous populations. None of those figures are going to differ whatsoever from the mainstream account. They just might not have bothered to look at them closely because of the timeline. So the only parts of the recent tree for R1b and figures you’ll want to criticize is the timing Jeanson presents
Maybe it would be more clear if I included other figures, but all of those subgroups include M269. They are just various subgroups with more mutations that branched off later. They are closer to the tips of the branches of the tree. M269 is further in to the tree.
Proud member of the Grumpypants Alliance.
3 Likes
It makes one wonder if Jeanson’s claims are falsifiable in any meaningful way. If any pattern or distribution of variants are consistent with Jeanson’s model then he doesn’t have much to stand on.
1 Like
Form the Europedia link:
I’m not sure what any of this has to do with Noah, but granting that various R1b subclades became dominant, the claim that R1b is recent to Europe still is either misleading or somehow garbled.
4 Likes
It’s not that any pattern or distribution of variants are consistent with the model, it’s that the variants and their frequencies in various regions are public knowledge. So there isn’t disputing that.
The claims are falsifiable if the tree doesn’t show all major migrations throughout history especially as more data is added. They’re also falsifiable if more high coverage Y-chromosome studies confirm 1 mutation or less per generation rather than an average of 3 or more.
The claims would be confirmed if the tree on this time table can make predictions that archaeology or unknown written records confirm later.
Thanks for sharing that tree it’s helpful. It’s based on an evolutionary time scale so the claim that r1b is recent is one thing that’s unique about the book. That’s why I mentioned it; I think it works.
Okay, I got impatient waiting for my hardcover, so I have the ebook now. I’ll be starting it tomorrow. Considering it’s only like 200 pages of actual text, this shouldn’t take too too long.
I’m not expecting great things, based on “Replacing Darwin”, but I am expecting great things, if you know what I mean.
9 Likes
Sorry about the delay. It seems this was some automatic action to close the thread due to flags I had not encountered before. Do try to play nice.
/fnord
Here is a review of Y chromosome data from ancient DNA, showing that either Jeanson’s time scale is all wrong or the methods of dating fossils and archeological sites are all wrong. Many of those ancient genomes are older than the universe according to YECs, some by a factor of 5. Oddly, they seem to fit with the mutation rates calculated by everyone other than Jeanson.
6 Likes
Valerie, you have previously, without offering any substantive criticism, called my previous comments “silly”.
The civility limitations of this forum do not allow me to fully express how monumentally silly I think this statement is.
It is you who does not understand “the basics of evolution” – “differential reproduction” requires selective advantage. (Otherwise fixation could only occur through the far slower, and more random, mechanism of Genetic Drift.)
- What evidence do you have that R1b, and more specifically M269, gives a strong selective advantage? What is this advantage?
If it were true that R1b gives a strong selective advantage, we would also expect it to predominate further east around the areas where the migrations occurred.
- If R1b has such a strong selective advantage, then why isn’t it dominant elsewhere in Europe?
Unless you can answer these two questions satisfactorily, your ‘explanation’ is DOA.
That is a self-imposed limitation of scientific explanations, when compared to creationist explanations – they are constrained by a requirement to fit all the evidence, not just a single fact taken in isolation.
And Valerie, unless and until you are able to demonstrate some real understanding of evolution, I would appreciate you leave off impugning my own understanding of the subject. Your recent comments absolutely stink of pigeon chess.
2 Likes
Argh. I may just have to buy this book. The Amazon “look inside” snippets make it look insanely bad. Two things are slowing me down. One is that I am slammed at work, and I know my own proclivities: I will waste time reading this instead of getting things done, and will regret it later.
The other thing is that I’m awaiting the response of Amazon.com to the discovery that my review of Return of the God Hypothesis, which with 200+ “helpful” votes was the top review on Amazon, has apparently vanished. I’m hoping that’s a glitch. But if it’s not, and is the result of some DI complaint to Amazon, I may have to question the value of reviewing these danged books. Not much point reviewing 'em if nobody’s going to see the reviews.
2 Likes
I’ve yet to see evidence that Jeanson is sequencing any genomes himself. His modus operandi seems to be taking other people’s genetic data, and stretching it to fit his preconceptions. (Admittedly this is a well-used m.o. for creationists more generally.)
1 Like
Male ducks are handsome, not cute. And always stubborn. Females ogres are almost always repugnant, but cute on occasion when they are amusingly stubborn.
Reference?
I missed this post the other night - or approval delay caused an issue. It would be helpful if you would cite and quote a source for the ancient DNA or the present day distribution or it will be difficult to discuss.
Below is the wider context for the quote you are referring to. @John_Harshman this quote is also relevant to your comments.
A closer examination of the details of R1b allows us to visualize the timing and movement of R1b into Europe. For example, one of the early R1b branches (R1b-M73) that broke away from the main R1b lineage tends to be concentrated in Eastern Europe — in Russia near
Kazakhstan (Color Plate 66). Between the a.d. 700s and 1400s, additional R1b branches (R1b-M269, R1b-L23) broke away from the main branch. These are found primarily in Eastern and Southeastern Europe, in Turkey, and in the Caucasus region (Color Plates 67–68). After the a.d. 1400s, the R1b lineages seem to have undergone a rapid expansion and dispersal. In the span of a century (a.d. 1450s to 1550s), the main R1b lineage appears to have left Turkey and the Balkans and migrated into Western Europe. Along the way, it split into
several different subgroups. The first split separated it into a central European group (R1b-U106) and a southwestern European group (R1b-S116). The R1b-U106 men now dominate the Netherlands, Ger-
many, and Austria (Color Plate 69). As you move away from these countries in almost any direction, the frequency of R1b-U106 drops off. The R1b-S116 lineage dominates French, Spanish, and Portuguese Y chromosomes (Color Plate 70). The R1b-S116 group then underwent further subdivision. One branch (R1b-U152) seems to have gone primarily into Switzerland and Italy (Color Plate 71). The other branch (R1b-M529) appears to have crossed the English Channel and concentrated in the British Isles and Ireland (Color Plate 72). There, it underwent yet another subdivision
into R1b-M222, which is found almost exclusively in the British Isles and Ireland (Color Plate 73). Together, these data suggest a migration route (Color Plate 74):
• In the a.d. 400s to 700s, the ancestral population of R1b men resided somewhere in far Eastern Europe or Central Asia.
• Then, in the a.d. 700s to 1400s, a subgroup of these men started moving westward, leaving the M73 lineage behind.
• Some of the migrating men settled down in places they crossed, like western Russia, the Caucasus, Turkey, the Balkans, and the former Eastern Bloc European countries. The ones who stayed in these places gave rise to the M269 and L23 lineages.
Then, in the a.d. 1400s and 1500s, something happened to push another group in the direction of Central and Western Europe:
• Migration and dispersal appear to have happened rapidly. The sub-lineages that concentrated in central Europe (U106), in France and the Iberian Peninsula (S116), in Switzerland
and Italy (U152), and in the British Isles and Ireland (M529, M222) all separated within a few decades of each other.
• These lineages that appear suddenly in Central and Western Europe are largely missing from the Balkans, Turkey, and the Caucasus.
This path also happens to follow the natural topography of Europe (Color Plate 75). From the east, the easiest route into Europe is around, not over, the Carpathian Mountains. North of the Carpathians takes you into cold Poland. South of the Carpathians takes you into the
sunny Balkans. Once you’re in the Balkans, the quickest way out is on flat land through gaps between the Dinaric Alps and Carpathians. Then, once you’re in the central European plain, your options are more limited. To
get to the British Isles, you have to cross water — the English Channel. To get to Spain or Italy, you have to cross the Pyrenees or Alps, respectively. But these movements involve short distances. Trekking
across the Atlantic Ocean or Mediterranean Sea requires more effort. It’s almost as if these R1b migrants moved out as quickly as they could, and then dispersed as far as they could with minimal effort. Taken together, these results imply that something happened, perhaps in the Balkan/Turkish region in the a.d. 1400s and 1500s, that prompted a group of R1b men to migrate away from and out of this region and into the rest of Europe. But what? In the latter half of the a.d. 1300s and first half of the a.d. 1400s, the Ottoman empire expanded into Europe (Color Plate 32). From a.d. 1451 to a.d. 1566, the Ottomans made their deepest push into Europe,
pushing farther north into what is now Hungary, laying waste to the region (Color Plate 32). This conquest moved the Ottoman’s European territorial border to its farthest extent. Perhaps this Ottoman Turkish
advance into southeastern Europe pushed the R1b residents out.
Do I need to point out that YEC specifically try to advance scientific ideas that will show dating isn’t reliable? Yes, his time scale is wrong or dating is wrong. Again, there were only 4 Y-chromosome studies that provided a de novo mutation rate. Two were low coverage. Karmin et.al was high coverage. They decided their first result was wrong because the mutation rate did not match other published studies. They applied additional filters. Jeanson pointed out their final result shows evidence of being incorrect. Almost all evolutionary studies use circular assumptions to date humanity, so of course they will all agree.
I specifically was referring to your “teleporting” comment, because of course Jeanson was not claiming that. You are misunderstanding, but again, it’s very hard for you to criticize the book accurately without reading it. This post is getting long but perhaps I’ll go back and offer the “substantive criticism” where I can. Your posts are rather lengthy, so responding is time-consuming.
Humans aren’t animals. Selective advantage can also be cultural. Perhaps their culture valued having more children. Just like in our modern context, we often see the newest migrants having more children.
Why couldn’t the group’s selective advantage be limited to Western Europe?
1 Like
I was just trying to be coy. Hopefully that was obvious. I was just annoyed with your questions because I do not have the knowledge to assess Jeanson’s tree building - and you know that, but I do otherwise understand the topic fairly well now. And even if I didn’t understand it, I can answer all of your questions from the earlier post asking about mutations and Noah’s sons and the tree, etc because the answers are in the book.
And I was also being stubborn because if your aim was to assess Jeanson’s tree building for yourself, I figured if you don’t want to buy the book, then you could wait for @dsterncardinale or someone else to analyze it. And for you to assess it without at least unintentionally strawmanning it, you really need a good portion of Appendix A - there are 6 pages describing the tree building. (Supplemental figures and tables for it are available on a webpage.) I don’t want to begin quoting the entire book…
But anyway, what is your goal - to see what I know and can explain, or to analyze Jeanson’s tree building, or both? I’d like to know before I answer the questions.
See the long quote in my previous post for explanation. We were discussing populations within R1b. The page I took a picture of with Color Plate 75 shows how R1b likely migrated from about 1500 to 500 years ago. Even though my memory of European history is pretty hazy, IIRC after that nation states really are born. If you think about any history, how long after people groups stop mixing in a significant way and a new migration ends, do they become culturally and politically distinct? How soon after that do wars to settle those distinctions begin? We’re watching one now… That’s what I’m thinking as I evaluate whether this works and provides any new insight into history.
[Insert conspiracy theory about biologists forcing their data to fit “the evolutionary narrative”]
This is the go-to response by creationists, isn’t that correct @thoughtful?
1 Like