GENEALOGY-DNA-L Archives

Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2010-05 > 1274939509


From: David Faux <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] Does Sardinia hold the key to the debate about Neolithicor Paleolithic dispersal of R-M269?
Date: Wed, 26 May 2010 22:51:49 -0700
References: <AANLkTinEq_2xAofI_ttFnOgfhjWcPIrOmfH58K4TGdRa@mail.gmail.com><02af01cafd30$002ee010$008ca030$@org><AANLkTinOtEgLiFCwjh7DgMcDGMT5pMT7atReDxToGtN2@mail.gmail.com><02d501cafd56$30e41830$92ac4890$@org>
In-Reply-To: <02d501cafd56$30e41830$92ac4890$@org>


Something perhaps you should know, I am a retired 62 year old grandfather of
7. At this stage in my life I have earned the right to ignore those who
chose to be overly disrespectful. "Deliberately crafted", "Young Earther",
"utterly this and that" - and so on. Hence no wish or need to comment.

David K. Faux.

On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 9:36 PM, Lawrence Mayka <> wrote:

> 1) No, ancient DNA results so far do not correspond to those observed in
> modern populations. The Lichtenstein results totaled 12 of I2b2, 2 of R1a,
> and 1 of R1b. Do you actually claim that this region of Germany is 80%
> I2b2, 13% R1a, 7% R1b, with no I1 or I2b1 at all?
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lichtenstein_Cave#Ancient_DNA_Tests
>
> The results from 4600-year-old Eulau remains totaled 5 R1a, with no other
> haplogroups. Do you actually claim that this region of Germany is 100%
> R1a?
>
>
> http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2008/11/y-chromosomes-and-mtdna-from-eulau.html
>
> 2) No, you are not following the scientific method at all. Your logic and
> argumentation exactly coincides with those of Young Earthers. You assert,
> without any justification whatsoever, that somehow, magically, the physical
> process rates observed today do not apply to the past. This is utterly
> unscientific. The burden of proof is on you to show why past physical
> process rates would differ from those of the present.
>
> 3) No, you are not setting testable hypotheses at all. A testable
> hypothesis is one that can reasonably be shown to be false. You have
> deliberately crafted and conditioned your hypothesis so that no matter how
> much evidence accumulates, you can simply deny that it has met your
> criteria
> for refutation.
>
> 4) No, the Sardinian data show young R-M269 just as expected. At best,
> Morelli et al. merely provide an argument that R-M269 did not spread with
> the initial adoption of agriculture, but by another means and at another,
> later time.
>
> 5) No, your suggestion that Sardinian R-M269 might be all R-L2 would only
> confirm that it was brought to Sardinia rather recently, much later than
> the
> original adoption of agriculture.
>
>


This thread: