GENEALOGY-DNA-L Archives

Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2007-12 > 1197651218


From: ellen Levy <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] Germans who carry J and G (was PLOS Genetics)
Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2007 08:53:38 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <246baaff0712120748p7d2fd582y149a0de5d2305627@mail.gmail.com>


Well, I'm off to enjoy a snowy weekend with what Paul
would consider my pure, indigenous, unadmixed Northern
European R1b husband and children, but wanted to post
a response, though I really had to weigh the benefits
and drawbacks of doing so.

However, newbies often access archives and may read
this thread and, without much genetic information
under their belt, may find substance in Paul's
ideology. I also think such ideologies can and should
be defeated with good scientific argument, though
changing Paul's thinking is unlikely to happen and I
don't think it is really the goal here.

Paul's theory of haplogroup purity/impurity is an
theory not subject to actual scientific debate or
contradiction because ideologies never really are. It
is racist because it is based on the idea of descent
from certain populations (containing a certain
frequency of haplogroups) who are allegedly
"unadmixed," though Paul is slippery when he talks
about which populations are unadmixed, why an
Ashkenazi or Italian R1a is less "indigenous" than a
German E3b, or why autosomal testing is essentially
irrelevant to his theory (by the way, the autosomal
studies show that Northern Europe carries autosomal
remnants of Middle Eastern agriculturalists range from
20% and up, depending on the study you read).
Mysteriously, I don't see any discussion of mtDNA
results and which of those groups represent
"unadmixed, indigenous" Europeans.

Listers present the findings of a study to Paul, he
twists it to his own ends. For example, the study
regarding the comparison of Nigerians and Northern
Europeans is somehow used to Paul to validate his
theory when, in reality, it says no such thing. And
now Russians are supposedly mixed with Mongolians to a
signfiicant extent, but Poles are to be considered
"Northern Europeans" (I think most people consider
them Eastern Europeans, along with Hungarians, who
have now been kicked out of the Northern European
group anyway by Paul).

I realize that most on the list have been here a long
enough time to recognize an argument based on ideology
rather than science and genetic study. Most aren't
going to buy into such an argument. We recognize it as
invalid.

Paul has transformed an argument about
"indigenousness" to include a racial purity argument
as well. Thus, not only are R1b's and R1a's allegedly
"indigenous" (ie, they settled Europe first) but they
are racially pure or "unadmixed" as well.

I don't think anyone would have a problem exploring
the topic of population movements and which groups may
have settled Europe.

Problematically, however, Paul has transformed such an
exploration into deeming certain groups, on little to
no evidence, as "indigenous," and then also according
them "unadmixed" (ie, racially pure) status.

As was noted by another poster in another genetic
forum, one cannot rule out the presence of any ancient
haplogroup in pre-LGM or Mesolithic Europe.

And as been discussed in previous threads, some parts
of Europe are believed to have been first settled by
the Neolithic agriculturalists, including the interior
of Spain.

Frankly, we don't know when R1b got to Europe. R1a is
believed to have developed and entered Northern Europe
much later in time, perhaps well after the Neolithic.
We don't know where R1a originated - it is a matter of
debate. Some postulate Central Asia, some Eastern
Europe. R1a's certainly didn't get very far, as the
group drops off dramatically as one moves east to west
in Europe. And it quite clear that plenty of E3b and
G (which may have been in parts of Europe by the
Paleolithic) and J made it as far as the British
Isles. But Paul's theory doesn't really know what to
do with Welsh E3b's and German J's. They are
apparently mixed, but still more "pure" than Ashkenazi
R1a's and Italian R1b's.

There is simply no such thing as "unadmixed" when
discussing European populations. I don't know of any
DNA study that would support Paul's contention of
unadmixed status for any European populations.

I think what people find silly is calling one group
"indigenous" when it is theorized that they were in
Europe 10,000 years ago, when another group arrived
8,000 years ago.


And it is all based on genetic theories that are
constantly evolving and being modified as further DNA
study is performed. As one can see from aDNA studies
on mtDNA lineages, it is poor idea to base one's
theory on contemporary haplogroup frequency and
presence anyway, as such groups have changed
dramatically over time. For example, N1a was very
prevelant in Europe, perhaps as far back as the
Paleolithic, certainly by the Neolithic. It may
possibly have been one of the first lineages in
Europe, but it is rare today.


Ellen Coffman







____________________________________________________________________________________
Looking for last minute shopping deals?
Find them fast with Yahoo! Search. http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?category=shopping

This thread: