GENEALOGY-DNA-L Archives

Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2010-12 > 1291748047


From: "Lancaster-Boon" <>
Subject: [DNA] NW European R1b from Iberia?
Date: Tue, 7 Dec 2010 19:54:07 +0100


Dear Anatole

Thanks for your latest responses. I am getting a better feeling for your
latest ideas. I hope you don't mind me taking them on a bit and seeing if
they can handle some criticism.

Interestingly enough we come down to one area of discussion now, R1b and
Iberia, so that explains the new thread name, and the fact that I am below
answering responses you made in several threads.

1. You made this remark on a one-post thread where I gave a link to better
indformation than you had been giving on archaelogical and linguistic
matters:

"I give you data, base haplotypes, calculations of TMRCAs, list historical
and linguistic evidences, and you repeat again and again that I refer only
to subclade frequencies. It is surreal. You pretend to "criticize" my data
and (tentative) conclusions without presenting your own data and your own
conclusions. I do not play those "games"."

(http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/read/GENEALOGY-DNA/2010-12/1291693
159)

Your remark is clearly meant to take a sideways shot at my summary of my
original reason for starting my participation in these several threads. To
pick a single sentence:-

"If you ignore the way in which new waves over-run older ones then you will
draw false conclusions." (I equated this to, in a way, only looking at
frequencies.)

First let me point out to you that to point out a logical fallacy in the way
that someone else interprets and describes their own data in their own words
does not require any new data. Logical errors are logical errors.

Do you see what I mean? You do not argue against the data I am pointing to,
so there is no point giving counter evidence. Those waves are recognised by
both of us and they should not be ignored. You do ignore them, and so I
raised the concern that your conclusions look wrong.

2. In another thread you wrote:

"Since I have analyzed series of haplotypes of the following four groups -
[L23-, L51-, L11-], [L23+, L51-, L11-], [L23+, L51+, L11-], [L23+, L51+,
L11+], I have data and results. Do you? Maybe it is your turn to give DATA,
and we compare our notes."

(http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/read/GENEALOGY-DNA/2010-12/1291694
113)

I need to point out to you that actually, you gave no data at all in this
discussion. Like me (and like Tim Janzen) you imply that you've looked at
data before. Actually that is fine. Indeed, I think that on an internet
forum, if we are not actually disagreeing about any data, then it would just
be a silly diversion if we kept asking each other for all details all the
time.

3. Now what is interesting is that actually putting your posts to me
together with your posts to Tim shows that you do not at all have any
different data than the rest of us. By this I mean:-

a. You agree that the real data points to L11 having originated to the SE of
Europe, probably in the Middle East or somewhere near the Black Sea.

(http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/read/GENEALOGY-DNA/2010-12/1291696
462)

More about this below.

b. When I asked what your own reasons were for saying L11 dispersed to
Western Europe from an Iberian origin you wrote:

"Easy. It is because P312* is all over Iberia and is more frequent there
than anywhere else, because Basques are mainly P312, because U106 is only
one mutation away from P312 in the first 25 markers and they therefore
cannot arose far from each other, because a common ancestor of P312 and U106
lived 4800 ybp, because 4800 ybp is the beginning of the Bell Beaker
movement up North, because L21, a downstream of P312, has a high frequency
in France, immediately North from P312, an because L11 is an immediate
upstream of U106 and P312."

(http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/read/GENEALOGY-DNA/2010-12/1291521
842)

And I and Tim then pointed out to you why, to go back to point 1 above, this
is a logical fallacy equivalent to looking at isolated frequencies.

So what makes your conclusions different from the rest of us is coming from
your own speculations. It is not coming from "the beef" you claim it comes
from, i.e. "data". Let me explain further...

4. Let's finally come to the crucial weak link in your proposal:

"In one of my recent communications here I have noted that the Caucasus,
Anatolia and Mesopotamia and Asia Minor in general were rich (and apparently
still are rich now) with subclades L23, L51, L11."

...so as mentioned above this shows a common starting point everyone seems
to agree upon but then...

"All these subclades have entered Europe from at least two directions - via
Asia Minor to "Italy" and the Balkans (around 4500 ybp), and across North
Africa and up to Iberia (4800 ybp). L23 did not survive in Iberia, and only
little of L11 left there, however, the last one had managed to spin off U106
and P312 in Iberia. They moved up North as Bell Beakers."

Now, as far as I know, and also looking at your OWN explanations, there is
absolutely no genetic, linguistic, or archaeological data which supports
this African migration?

Furthermore, nothing in the European data requires this extra migration. It
is no shorter to travel via North Africa to Iberia than to travel from
Anatolia. But at least in Europe we have other types of R1b. Why not propose
that instead of via North Africa this second stream travelled via
Antarctica?

I guess I may ask for some beef concerning this North African theory? :)

Best Regards
Andrew



This thread: