If??? Did the actual European bronze age specimens of haplogroup r1b documented in the various links in this thread just vamoose?
1 Like
Maybe stop bluffing that you understand any of this. You should know by now you wonât get away with it, and if you just ask for clarification of the things you donât understand this will probably be a more productive and enjoyable discussion for all involved.
4 Likes
This is a good example of why I said earlier that you donât want to get it and so arenât going to get it.
2 Likes
Of course not.
It does if branches points represent real people.
Please provide details of this analysis.
How would you know?
Yes, that is what I meant - some of the individuals.
Lol, true. Yikes. I meant the most recent common patrilineal ancestor of any major haplogroup. In this case R1b -M269. Iâll edit above.
I suppose youâre right, and I am not thinking about y-chromosome phylogeny except in terms of genealogy and am not correctly understanding or evaluating any evolutionary objections.
1 Like
That went so well when I tried earlier. 
I give @Rumraket credit. If he replies, he takes the time to explain.
Of course I know itâs going to be obvious when I donât understand something. Anyway, yes, I donât grasp drift and fixation fully.
It also is a tough crowd to learn something because I know itâs very unlikely that anyone will tell me if I make a valid point or understand something correctly. Of course I might hear about what Iâve got wrong. 
I do really want to understand drift and fixation, especially for the y chromosome as that is the topic now. I read this. https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.0910803106 It was interesting, though maybe outdated by now. Iâll keep looking for more info on drift and re-read the thread above.
So either @thoughtful is still trying to bluff her way thru this discussion, or she has suddenly decided to renounce creationism.
2 Likes
No, it doesnât. This is not something you understand. The genealogical most recent common ancestor (one of whom might be Charlemagne) is not a Y chromosome branch point, and that has nothing to do with whether the branch points are real people.
It isnât an analysis. Itâs the ability to interpret a tree. There are no details at all. Just look at the tree and place the root anywhere you like. No matter where you put it, the tree will be divided into two parts, not three unless you put the root directly at a node with three branches. No such node gives a division into the supposed three sons of Noah. And any root at all makes at least one of those sons the ancestor of at least one other. Try looking.
But isnât that a useless observation for your purposes?
If so, you are still wrong. The most recent patrilineal ancestor of everyone in a haplogroup must be the person at the ancestral node. But that has nothing at all to do with the IA point. The patrilineal ancestors of everyone with that haplogroup are almost certainly a bunch of men living at the IA point, and the common patrilineal ancestor of those folks would be quite a lot earlier.
1 Like
As with the MRCA point, the IA point is also quite recent in a randomly mating population: Un , 1.77 log2n generations ago.
Europe does not have anything even close to a ârandomly mating populationâ, therefore we cannot assume that Europeâs population has an IA point in the recent past.
There would appear to be multiple problems with this argument:
-
As I have just stated, âwe cannot assume that Europeâs population has an IA point in the recent past.â
-
Even with an IA point, we cannot assume that they would all share the same y-haplotype. Whilst they would be descended from all the males at the IA point (with surviving descendants), they will be descended from all but one of those males partially through the female line.
-
Most importantly however, there is no âifâ Valerie! That R1b existed in ancient European populations is a matter of hard evidence, as I have documented repeatedly on this thread. Your, and Jeansonâs, attempts to try to use Population Genetics to overturn this evidence must be unavailing. This is because (i) PG does not directly contradict this evidence, and (ii) as neither you nor Jeanson have any expertise in Population Genetics, a more reasonable conclusion is that you have both simply misunderstood the field, rather than that this evidence is wrong.
2 Likes
I was saying that it doesnât in the current theory, of course.
Oh dear. I just realized this whole time when Iâve been using âgenealogyâ Iâve almost always been implying patrilineal genealogy without adding the adjective. Sorry. Yes, I did notice the book didnât always differentiate from the two either, which might confuse readers. Charlesmagne is not a patrilineal ancestor unless there were affairs we donât know about because he has left no male line, but he is a universal ancestor. Does that clear up whether I understand this or not?
Ok, something for me to figure out/learn at some point.
Ok, at least weâre on the same page with what Iâm trying to discuss. It seems to be unlikely to me that you could have many or a bunch of men who are patrilineal ancestors at that point unless each were very distantly patrilineally related, because mating isnât random. So I was suggesting that if there were a bunch many of that set had to have a very recent patrilineal ancestor too. So I was wondering how R1b variant branching could be so ancient. But then I realized I donât understand the math of drift yet so I probably donât have a point there.
(Also Iâm realizing after brushing up on the concept, I thought something about drift was more complicated to understand than the math of it. Randomness is just randomness. Oops. Next step is to look at the math more closely.)
Agree.
I didnât consider that evidence the most important thing to respond to throughout the thread, so I skipped it for lack of time; a lot of what you shared seemed based on radiometric dating which I donât have a response to and which if I agreed with I wouldnât be a YEC.
-
Not having âa response toâ it does not make it go away. And ignoring it just makes you look like youâre simply sticking your fingers in your ears and yelling âI canât hear youâ over and over.
Are you claiming that all these, apparently Stone Age and Bronze Age burials are from the last two millennia? Even though they often have sufficient evidence to assign them to a specific cultural group: Epigravettian, Kunda, Narva , Bell Beaker, Celt, Etruscan, Basque, etc, etc, etc. (It is getting to the stage where it would be easier to keep track of which ancient cultures in Western and Central Europe donât have evidence of R1b.)
Are you saying that it is simply coincidence that, where these culturesâ descendants still exist, with relatively low migration into their homelands, that we see some of the highest R1b levels in Europe? That would be âsillyâ.
And that is a massive problem â without evidence, it is all just untethered speculation, and thus worthless.
-
Without evidence that Jeansonâs mutation rates are realistic, they are worthless. This is particularly true given (i) their results vary considerably from the scientific consensus, and (ii) neither Jeanson, nor his co-author, seem to have any expertise in Genetics, let alone Population Genetics, whatsoever. (Here I metaphorically flush Jeansonâs paper down the lavatory.)
-
Without evidence that R1b entered Europe from the east in the last two millennia, speculation as to how it might have spread thereafter to Western Europe is also worthless. (Here I metaphorically flush Jeansonâs book down the lavatory.)
-
Without evidence that Europe approximates the explicitly purely theoretical[1] assumptions of Rohde, Olsen and Changâs model, speculation based upon it is likewise worthless. (Here I metaphorically your âEdit #2â argument down the lavatory.)
So what are we left with (besides a blocked metaphorical lavatory)? Not much, if anything.
However, the random mating model ignores essential aspects of population substructure, such as the tendency of individuals to choose mates from the same social group, and the relative isolation of geographically separated groups.Here we show that recent common ancestors also emerge from two models incorporating substantial population substructure. One model, designed for simplicity and theoretical insight, yields explicit mathematical results through a probabilistic analysis.
âŠď¸
2 Likes
Iâm afraid not. If Charlemagne isnât a patrilineal ancestor, what was the point in bringing him up at all? What was the point in bringing up any of the other genealogical matters?
But you wonât learn it. It would destroy your confidence in creationism if you did, so you canât allow that to happen.
I donât know where you got that idea, when Iâve just told you youâre wrong about everything. When you say âIt seems unlikely to meâŚâ that tends to start a line of poor reasoning, as it does here.
Exactly. Donât you see that your need to remain a YEC keeps you from noticing or understanding a lot, for fear it would destroy your faith? Not only are you wearing blinders, you have to hold them on with both hands, or you might see something you donât want to see. Bad way to do science.
6 Likes
I will respond in more detail to this over on the carbon dating thread later on, but in the meantime, there is plenty of archeological evidence which is completely independent of radiometric dating that these remains represent people from well before historic times. If ancient examples of R1b in Europe is problematic for Jeansonâs thesis, then ignoring carbon dating is of little assistance.
It is beyond me how anyone could think that dragging European haplogroups into Genesis was a good idea. Science has no issues with evaluating evidence in full context. Deflecting from the larger picture is a tactic of Scientific creationism and one reason it is considered an oxymoron.
3 Likes
Iâve recently gotten my hands on at least the text of this book (itâs completely missing all the plates unfortunately).
I was absolutely appalled by the rank ignorance of European human genetic history displayed in the book. One of the first sections I looked at was that labelled âThe Genetics of Romeâ (no page numbers):
Officially, Italy was never under Ottoman rule. However, just across the Adriatic Sea, the Ottomans occupied European land (see Color Plate 32). The genetic effects of this conquest spilled over into Italy. Almost 20% of Italian men belong to haplogroup J, the most abundant haplogroup in modern Turkey.
Jeanson would have us believe that J came to Italy from the Turks, via the Balkans. This is highly unlikely. J is present in Italy at higher levels than in the Balkans, the Balkans does not have a numerically large Turkish population (see for example Turks in the Balkans), and population flows across the Adriatic would have been too small to account for the levels observed.
A far better explanation is that both the Turks and Italy got it from the Greeks. Southern Italy was part of Magna Graecia, Greece was long a core part of the Roman Empire (allowing considerable population flows), Ancient Greeks were known to carry the gene (A finely resolved phylogeny of Y chromosome Hg J illuminates the processes of Phoenician and Greek colonizations in the Mediterranean), Greeks and Turks intermixed for centuries in Asia Minor (until the last remaining identifiable Greek minority, the Pontic Greeks, were expelled after WWI), and the gene isnât particularly prominent in Turkic populations outside Asia Minor (see for example here).
Jeanson would therefore appear to be force-fitting the evidence to his preferred narrative, rather than following it where it leads.
When compared to the geographic extent of the Roman Empire (see Color Plate 60), the distribution of R1b shows some overlap. R1b extends wider than the Roman Empire ever did. But where Rome ruled for centuries â the Mediterranean and Western Europe â R1b is found at its highest levels.
Balderdash! Some of the highest R1b levels are found in places like Ireland and the Scottish Highlands, that were never part of the Roman Empire. What these places do have in common is that they, along with much of Western Europe, were part of the pre-Roman Celtic culture, which even included northern Italy (Cisalpine Gaul â which included the R1b âhotspotâ in the Po valley).
I will note this all further illuminates why it is important to check claims, speculations, etc against the evidence, and why somebody saying:
⌠is simply living in an alternate reality.
Finding fault with Jeanson is becoming like âshooting fish in a barrelâ â it is too easy, and thus rapidly becoming boring! I donât know how much longer I will bother with it.
After all this, do we have any reason to take Jeanson seriously?
4 Likes
I wouldnât say creationism is very sharp, so you can just leave off the âoxyâ.
1 Like
Famously, Alex married Roxanne back in 327 BC.
Glad you were having fun. There is so much to unpack in your posts and the relevant sections of the book that I just donât have the time to dig into. Iâd need like a 4-hour chunk of time to provide a decent response, which is only possible after my kids go to bed; plus a brain that was fresh, which it definitely isnât at the end of the day. It would be fun to discuss if I did.
I wondered if you had read through this link I had shared earlier. Iâm curious if it would change any of your impressions. I quoted the most relevant part.
https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.0910803106
The Surfing Effect.
Fisher (18) studied the rate of expansion of an advantageous mutant and showed that a âwave of advanceâ forms and proceeds at a constant rate in which its spread pattern is dictated by migration rate and the degree of selective advantage. The same formula is valid also for the expansion of a demographically growing population that enters new territory under a constant rate of migration, and a constant population density at saturation during the whole advance: thus, populations will move away from their origin by a âwave of advanceâ that soon reaches a constant shape from beginning to end of the expansion.
Mutants that arise in the wave front of an expanding population have an interesting advantage over mutants arising behind the expansion front, in the fully saturated portions of the expansion. This advantage is due to random genetic drift, because, as is well known, the probability of success (final fixation) by drift of a just-arisen mutant is equal to 1/ N , where N is the population size. Therefore a mutant arisen within the expansion front finds itself in a position of advantage over mutants arisen back of the expansion front, where populations have reached saturation levels and therefore higher N s. This is due to the fact that these mutants find themselves for some time in a locally small population, which is smaller the closer the new mutation is located to the extreme line of the advancing front. The smaller the local population in the immediate neighborhood of the mutantâs origin within the advancing front, the higher will be the relative local frequency of the mutant, and therefore the mutantâs probability of final success by drift alone is greater. The result is that they have a greater chance of final success, even if they are not favored by natural selection (i.e., are selectively neutral). The advantage increases the closer the just-born mutant is to the extreme of the advancing front, where the population density is thinnest. The faster the population expansion, the greater the probability of success of a mutant that arises in the wave front, because then the wave front is longer.
Interesting. 
It makes intuitive sense to me (although I donât have the knowledge of Pop Gen to follow the details).
I would note that this effect requires:
-
âan advantageous mutantâ with a high âdegree of selective advantageâ; and
-
a high migration rate/fast population expansion,
⌠for this effect to be particularly prominent. It is therefore hard to see how this effect would help Jeansonâs thesis by explaining the high levels of J across the Adriatic Sea, or R1b across the English Channel and Irish Sea (which would serve to considerably attenuate expansion across them), even ignoring the lack of of evidence of a candidate advantageous mutation and/or a fast migration into these areas (Italy, and Wales/Ireland/Scottish Highlands, respectively), in the time periods under consideration (which would be after the Turks conquered the Western Balkans in the 14th and 15th centuries, and whenever Jeanson is assuming R1b reached the Western coast of continental Europe, respectively), for the Y haploids in question to surf on.
I havenât thought about whether it helps or hurts various of Jeansonâs migration hypotheses throughout the book, but I thought it perhaps might make some of your analysis less valid. If I understand it correctly, this plus the founder effect means a lineage new to an area can have more success than it did in the areas it migrated from or migrated through.
Whatever analysis of European genetic distribution must be consistent with the known complex history of the continent. For starters, migration over the past two millennia has not only been from east to west. Scandinavians have migrated to the British Isles directly, through western Europe to the British Isles thanks to the battle of Hastings, and mixed with Slavic and Asiatic lineages in Russia. On the other hand, stable populations have been established, fixed, and assimilated from before Roman conquests, such as the Celts, Gauls, Goths, and Picts. So while population has steadily increased in Europe with agriculture and urbanization, Europe has long been well and fully occupied territory, peopled from the stone age. Migration did not always involve displacement, and existing populations continued to practice the ever popular passing of Y chromosomes to the next generation.
3 Likes
The âSurfer Effectâ relies upon the wave front of strong competitive advantage moving at a sufficient rate to keep the benefiting mutation ahead of competing mutations. This could easily be what happened several thousand years ago, when Indo-Europeans came to Europe, which is why we see R1a in the East and R1b in the West.
There is however no evidence of a sufficiently intense wave of competitive advantage and/or a sufficiently fast wave of migration from Eastern Europe into Western Europe during the period that Jeanson is suggesting.
Addendum: we also know that such a wave was highly unlikely, as the Carolingian Empire of the 8th Century, and its successor kingdoms (which eventually became France and the Holy Roman Empire), and the Hungarian occupation of the Pannonian Basin (the main egress route of earlier Steppe nomads such as the Huns and the Avars into Central Europe) in the 9th Century, put an end to the westward waves of the Migration Period.
Also the R1b map does not suggest that it is simply the âSurfer Effectâ at play â in Spain, Asturias and Galicia have lower levels than the Basque country, in spite of being directly west of it, we see a âhotspotâ in the Po Valley in Italy, that is more intense than that in North Western Italy and Southern France to the west of it. All this suggests that the ancient pattern created by the The âSurfer Effectâ has been overwritten and âsmudgedâ by later migrations in the millennia since.
4 Likes