Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2010-12 > 1291753749

Subject: Re: [DNA] NW European R1b from Iberia?
Date: Tue, 7 Dec 2010 20:29:09 +0000 (UTC)
In-Reply-To: <>

>From: "Lancaster-Boon" andrew . lancaster @ skynet .be
>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.

My response:

Dear Andrew,

Not only I do not mind, but I welcome discussions, albeit productive ones. By "productive" I mean not dismissive comments, but presenting data and alternative explanations, based on data. The whole point is that our views and knowledge should advance as a result of the discussion. The same is related to "criticism".

In other words, if you or anyone else cannot offer an alternative and justified (DATA!) version of a concept that I (or anyone else) is presenting, that "criticism" has a zero value. I hope it is understood.    

By the way, the title of your new thread is not exactly correct. R1b has entered Europe not only from Iberia, but from Asia Minor as well, and maybe directly from the East European Plain, via the Balkans, "Poland", "Germany", as R1b1, R-L23, L51 and/or L11. However, my data shows (or can be interpreted as) that P312 and U106 came to the continental Europe from Iberia, initially with Bell Beaker movement.   

Now, having said that, I look up at your new message, and - again - could not find anything related to DATA or to a productive discussion as I have described above. You again and again describing in general terms who said what and how this or that should be considered and what it should mean.

I suggest you to provide DATA and discuss data, how they might support or reject P312 and U106 coming North from Iberia along with Bell Beakers between 4800 and 3200  ybp . Or, if you wish, which languages they spoke 4500 ybp , and why do you think that the Basque language was NOT among them. But only with data, please.         

>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.

See above.

>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.

See above.

>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.

See above.

>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

See above.

>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.

See above.

>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.

No problem with that. In my study "The "age" of R1b1b2-M269 and its subclades L23, L51 and L11" (Proceedings, August 2010, p. 1310-1315) I have analyzed 128 of 67-marker haplotypes in Project R-ht35, and came up with minimum "age" of each one of those subclades . The minimum age for L11, based on [L23+, L51+, L11+] set of haplotypes came up as 4575+/-580 years. This is either times of L11 entering Europe, or before that.  

Your data, please? You are "the rest of us", right? (see your quotation above) 

>...this is a logical fallacy equivalent to looking at isolated frequencies.


No comments. See above.  

>So what makes your conclusions different from the rest of us is coming from
your own speculations.

See above.

>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?

See above.

>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

See above.

Anatole Klyosov

This thread: