World Families Forums - R1b-L51 from the West

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
December 21, 2014, 11:53:19 PM
Home Help Search Login Register

+  World Families Forums
|-+  General Forums - Note: You must Be Logged In to post. Anyone can browse.
| |-+  R1b General (Moderator: rms2)
| | |-+  R1b-L51 from the West
« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 6 7 [8] 9 10 ... 12 Go Down Print
Author Topic: R1b-L51 from the West  (Read 36089 times)
rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #175 on: June 13, 2012, 08:54:27 PM »

A healthy person with sufficient supplies can walk from Moscow to the English Channel in a single summer.
Logged

Mike Walsh
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2964


WWW
« Reply #176 on: June 14, 2012, 08:29:25 AM »

A healthy person with sufficient supplies can walk from Moscow to the English Channel in a single summer.

I've seen Spencer Wells description of what he calls the Eurasian super-highway. I've often wondered if it really doesn't make more sense for R1b to have come north around the Carpathians.  Would this be a decent way to reach the Hungarian Plains versus up the Danube River and through the Iron Gate? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_Gate_(Danube) .

Nevertheless, I guess what you are saying is that a rapid spread through Northern Europe is possible.

There are additional aspects of travel in foreign lands that make establishing colonies a bit more complex.
The real issues are just time and space.  Space relates to the terrain, distance, routes, risks and technologies available for transport.  Time is needed to move travel from one place to the next (without a transporter.)  Remember, one has to travel and then survive if not thrive on the other end to leave descendants.

In this case, one's legs are quite adequate for carry oneself, although in 3000 BC,  I doubt there were many bridges across the rivers from Moscow to the English Channel. To come through and out on the other side of a trek through foreign lands, and thrive, the logistics of perhaps bringing families, goods, weapons, livestock, etc. all come into play, all which have to cross the rivers as well as mountain passes (on other routes.)

There were lone trappers and hunters immigrating into the Old West, but even Lewis and Clark were not just two, but an expedition.  My guess is the colonizers were organized expeditions.  In these ancient times their probably would have been a lot of related people.... brothers? cousins ? 2nd cousins?
« Last Edit: June 14, 2012, 09:19:56 AM by Mikewww » Logged

R1b-L21>L513(DF1)>S6365>L705.2(&CTS11744,CTS6621)
Mike Walsh
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2964


WWW
« Reply #177 on: June 14, 2012, 08:38:40 AM »

... It's probably important to describe what we mean by "relatively close" but I wouldn't be at all surprised to find that L21, DF27 (older than Z196) and U152 all arose from somewhere along Mediterranean France through the Alpine regions (lower/middle Rhone, upper Rhine or upper Danube.)

Not really, L21 could have been born in NW France, U152 in a region around Austria, Switzerland or SE France, and DF27 could have been born in Iberia. We will have to look at the variance of each, and see where the variance peaks, and investigate it. Also, P312 being slightly older than L21, U152 or DF27 isn’t an inconvenience, and does not relate to them being born relatively close, it simply means that most of its other lines have gone extinct, hence why its TMRCA resembles that of the oldest of the L21, U152 or DF27 clades.  

I agree with you L21 could have been born in NW France. It's diversity is high there. It could have been born in England for that matter, its diversity is quite high there as well.  Benelux/N.France are just the other end, downstream to boot, of the Rhine from points I'm speculating about as launch points.

Something I want to clarify that can be confusing is that I'm not necessarily talking about the SNPs themselves.  We don't really care about the SNPs. No person knows what anothers SNPs were, they just know they are brothers, cousins, speak the same languages, etc., etc.     What I'm saying here is what is important are the actual lineages. SNPs are just markers (or sign posts) put up long the line. An SNP may be at the tip of the branch or base of it. We don't know, but just the more SNPs the merrier as we can then begin to layout the whole sequence.

Let's not get into the details of TMRCAs there but let's just suppose that Ken Nordtvedt's method for interclade TMRCA calculations works. The below chart is based on thousands of 67 STR haplotypes.


The Most Recent Common Ancestor (MRCA) for P312 and U106 are not much older than U152 or L21.  To some this may seem incredible, but another way to confirm this closeness of relationship is to just look at the modals for these large, old subclades.  Everything coalesces back to WAMH.
« Last Edit: June 14, 2012, 09:21:45 AM by Mikewww » Logged

R1b-L21>L513(DF1)>S6365>L705.2(&CTS11744,CTS6621)
Mike Walsh
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2964


WWW
« Reply #178 on: June 14, 2012, 09:13:39 AM »

I think that U106 is not too distantly related must be kept into account as well.

It is phylogenetically demonstratable that from L51, descends L11, then P312 and U106, etc. These are real people, not just groups. There was one most recent common ancestor of P312 and U106 and he was an L11* person, himself. He had to be younger than L11 and older than P312 or U106, whichever is oldest.

From the data thus far observed, we can safely conclude that U106 was not born anywhere near Western Europe, perhaps Eastern Germany, but that’s about it. So what if they descend from L51, L11, etc, it doesn’t change the fact that U106 could descend from an L11 person living in Estonia, whereas P312 descend from a different L11 person living in France.

One of the difficulties of this whole topic is that U106 really does have a different distribution as compared to P312. We have to reconcile that with aging. The more closely that P312&U106 interclade MRCA man is in age to P312's MRCA and U106's MRCA, the more difficult it would have been for them to be great distances apart.

I don't know how to resolve this.  Please recognize I'm just speculating but one possible method of resolution is to track the river valleys and see where they coalesce.

http://www.profudegeogra.eu/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Harta-raurilor-Europei.gif
Bands of people could travel from the Black Sea area up the Dniester or Dnieper and then cross over to the headwaters of the Vistula and travel along it to the Baltic.  Simultaneously, other bands could be traveling from the Black Sea area up the Danube to the Alpine region and SE France.

I notice you feel confident in stating "we can safely conclude that U106 was not born anywhere near Western Europe, perhaps Eastern Germany, but that’s about it."

If so, then perhaps this split of bands from the Dniester/Dnieper valleys to the Baltic would fit U106.

I have not given up on the idea that the U106 lineage came into Northern Europe more directly from the south after splitting with the groups of people coming up the Danube into Austria, Czech Rep or Hungary.  You know, Austria is not far from Eastern Germany.  In this scenario, some of the people traveling up the Danube crossed over to the headwaters of the Elbe and then moved north possibly crossing over to the adjacent Oder valley which dumps into the Baltic.

I do find it ironic that some of the old literature in this hobby described U106 people as "River Celts."
« Last Edit: June 14, 2012, 09:17:44 AM by Mikewww » Logged

R1b-L21>L513(DF1)>S6365>L705.2(&CTS11744,CTS6621)
Mike Walsh
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2964


WWW
« Reply #179 on: June 14, 2012, 09:37:06 AM »

Yes.  

It's probably important to describe what we mean by "relatively close" but I wouldn't be at all surprised to find that L21, DF27 (older than Z196) and U152 all arose from somewhere along Mediterranean France through the Alpine regions (lower/middle Rhone, upper Rhine or upper Danube.)
....
The real issues are just time and space.  Space relates to the terrain, distance, routes, risks and technologies available for transport.  Time is needed to move travel from one place to the next (without a transporter.)  Remember, one has to travel and then survive if not thrive on the other end to leave descendants. An aspect of time calculation is TMRCA aging.  The closer P312, U106, U152, L2, L21, DF27 are in age the more close their origins were likely to be.

Not really, who is to say that P312 and U106 weren’t born at relatively close times in locations 1000 miles apart. Is there anything against that?

Of course not. I'm just saying the closer in age these guys are, since they have a common "father", the more likely they were to be closer to each other.  Closeness is a relative term, I admit.  There is a generational, geographic distribution pattern in many family genealogies.  I see it mine despite this being the age of global travel.
« Last Edit: June 14, 2012, 09:37:42 AM by Mikewww » Logged

R1b-L21>L513(DF1)>S6365>L705.2(&CTS11744,CTS6621)
JeanL
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 425


« Reply #180 on: June 14, 2012, 09:37:08 AM »

Let's not get into the details of TMRCAs there but let's just suppose that Ken Nordtvedt's method for interclade TMRCA calculations works. The below chart is based on thousands of 67 STR haplotypes.


The Most Recent Common Ancestor (MRCA) for P312 and U106 are not much older than U152 or L21.  To some this may seem incredible, but another way to confirm this closeness of relationship is to just look at the modals for these large, old subclades.  Everything coalesces back to WAMH.

Ok Mike, with other things equal, what I am seeing is that the MRCA of P312 and U106 age, is likely underestimated, mainly due to the survival of two of its greatest branches. Like I said before, it’s a lot more complicated than that. Also, how well represented are each country in those “thousands” (I’m quite sure the thousands do not surpass the 15000 haplotype mark though) of haplotypes. Something I noticed very early on, was that often times in datasets one would have a group with a high variance but low sample size, and if the group was combined with another group with low variance but high sample size, the modal would definitely change, because modal=most frequent haplotype, and this would lead to the combined variance being lower than that of the other group prior to merging the sets. You wanna see it happening:

Myres.et.al.2010 R1b-L23+ variance calculations:

Western Europe(n=632) var=0.2309
Eastern Europe(n=180) var=0.2617
Western+Eastern Europe(n=812) var=0.2377


Regions in Western Europe:

Switzerland(n=78) var=0.2436
France(n=65) var=0.2415
Ireland(n=78) var=0.2205


So there you go, the mean variance of R1b-L23+ in Europe is actually lower than the variance observed in some regions in Western Europe. I know that you are doing interclade which is different, but the point is, that if L21, Z196, and U152 intraclade variance is subject to this effect, then the interclade would indirectly be subject to it also. In fact let’s take MarkoH chart which you posted in this site:

I1 intraclade TMRCA 5000 ybp, I2 intracalde TMRCA 18000 ybp, interclade between I1 and I2 18000 ybp.

Everything including R-P310 its getting an interclade of 11000 ybp because they are being compared with 11 haplotypes of R1b-M73, which is far from reliable. Now let’s get to the subject matter:
R1b-P312 intraclade 4300 ybp, R1b-P312 interclade 4500 ybp, why? Because R1b-U106 intraclade is 4500 ybp. So what I am seeing here, is that likely sampling bias is causing all this mess, hence why I like to stay away from FTDNA projects. Why do I say that:

Number of haplotypes from which the intraclade TMRCA of R1b-P312 was calculated 3403, number of haplotypes from which the intraclade TMRCA of R1b-L21 was calculated 2038. R1b-L21 makes almost 60% of the haplotypes from which R1b-P312 intraclade TMRCA was calculated. Where does R1b-L21 peaks? British Isles, not to say that all of the R1b-L21 there is British, but possibly a good 80% is. Here let’s looks at the sample sizes of the other big clades of R1b-P312, R1b-U152 intraclade was calculated off 439 haplotypes, that is almost 5 times smaller than the number of haplotypes for R1b-L21. R1b-Z196 was not included there but it can’t have more than 926 haplotypes. So, there you go, sampling bias at its best.

PS: Per the newest estimates posted by MarkoH:

R1b-P312 gets a TMRCA of 4000 ybp using 4376 haplotypes.
R1b-L21 gets a TMRCA of 4000 ybp using 2670 haplotypes.
R1b-U152 gets a TMRCA of 4000 ybp using 571 haplotypes.
R1b-Z196 gets a TMRCA of 4000 ybp using 281 haplotypes.


Do you think that is a representative sample of all R1b-P312+ derived clades in Western Europe? Or could we be in the presence of a majority of haplotypes hailing from the British Islands.
« Last Edit: June 14, 2012, 09:42:57 AM by JeanL » Logged
Mike Walsh
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2964


WWW
« Reply #181 on: June 14, 2012, 09:50:07 AM »

Let's not get into the details of TMRCAs there but let's just suppose that Ken Nordtvedt's method for interclade TMRCA calculations works. The below chart is based on thousands of 67 STR haplotypes.


The Most Recent Common Ancestor (MRCA) for P312 and U106 are not much older than U152 or L21.  To some this may seem incredible, but another way to confirm this closeness of relationship is to just look at the modals for these large, old subclades.  Everything coalesces back to WAMH.

Ok Mike, with other things equal, what I am seeing is that the MRCA of P312 and U106 age, is likely underestimated, mainly due to the survival of two of its greatest branches. Like I said before, it’s a lot more complicated than that. ..

I knew you'd have to come back to this.  People who want to see the L11 family as being old and spread out in Europe without a great and very recent expansion/migration can't reconcile the aging. Therefore they have to claim the aging is wrong.  The full confidence ranges for both 68% and 95% confidence are given in the chart.

Please go on the hapogroup I Rootsweb forum and discuss Ken's interclade TMRCA calculator with him. Interclade aging does NOT suffer the same maladies as intraclade aging.   Ken's Generations methodologies are not proof of anything but they are the best we have.  They take advantage of the fact we have separated two groups of people, P312 and U106 in this case, conclusively. Your intraclade counter-examples (with limited resolution to boot) are not applicable.

Move down a step in the Y DNA tree to look at the comparisons of U152&L21, L21&Z96, Z196&U152.

Also think about WAMH.  Why is it that U106's modal is very close to P312's even if as you think they are greatly separated in age?  From a simplistic view, is it just happenstance that U106's and P312's most frequent lineages converged towards WAMH?

It could be so. You could be right.  I just doubt it.

If you want to argue about interclade calculations let's take that over to the STR Wars thread or to Ironroads TMRCA calculations thread so as not to bog this down.  The one big open switch in Ken's methodology are the mutation rates that he and Marko Heinila use are germ-line and the argument can be made that evolutionary rates should be used? That moves the whole time-line back and stretches it out a bit but still doesn't change that, relatively, P312 and U106 are not too distantly related.

I should re-iterate, I'm just speculating and a lot of the speculation is based on STR diversity, mutation rates, our understanding of the phylogenetic tree, etc.  They are not perfect so there is no doubt my speculations could be wrong, although I think R1b found in Bell Beaker folks adds a little more support.
« Last Edit: June 14, 2012, 10:34:02 AM by Mikewww » Logged

R1b-L21>L513(DF1)>S6365>L705.2(&CTS11744,CTS6621)
JeanL
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 425


« Reply #182 on: June 14, 2012, 10:04:49 AM »


I knew you'd have to come back to this.  People who want to see the L11 family as being old and spread out in Europe without a great and very recent expansion/migration can't reconcile the aging. Therefore they have to claim the aging is wrong.
So you quoted only one part of what I said, and ignore the rest(Where I show the evidence, of why I said that).

Please go on the hapogroup I Rootsweb forum and discuss Ken's interclade TMRCA calculator with him. Interclade aging does NOT suffer the same maladies as intraclade aging.   Ken's Generations methodologies are not proof of anything but they are the best we have.  They take advantage of the fact we have separated two groups of people, P312 and U106 in this case, conclusively. Your intraclade counter-examples (with limited resolution to boot) are not applicable.

How do you know they are the best we got? Have they been tested against actual empirical data. Also don’t send me anywhere, my main point here was talking about R1b-L51+ clades, not inter or intraclade TMRCA, you brough it up, so now don’t try to dismiss it. Interclade aging does suffer from the same problems as intraclade, otherwise why is I1 and I2 interclade the same as I2 intraclade, why is R1b-P312 and R1b-U106 interclade the same as R1b-U106 intraclade? You can ignore the evidence if you want, and if it makes you feel better, but something aint quite right here.

Move down a step in the Y DNA tree to look at the comparisons of U152&L21, L21&Z96, Z196&U152.
Also think about WAMH.  Why is it that U106's modal is very close to P312's even if as you think they are greatly separated in age?  From a simplistic view, is it just happenstance that U106's and P312's most frequent lineages converged towards WAMH?

Close?? They differ by one mutation in a 10 STR set, but go on, let’s see by how many mutations they differ in the 67 markers set? But never mind the fact that R1b-P312+ amount of haplotypes triple the amount of haplotypes of R1b-U106+ in the projects.


It could be so. You could be right.  I just doubt it.

If you want to argue about interclade calculations let's take that over to the STR Wars thread or to Ironroads TMRCA calculations thread so as not to bog this down.

No Mike, I’m not gonna take anything anywhere, if you didn’t want to talk about TMRCA, you shouldn’t have brought it up, you did, sorry I’m gonna reply to it here, not on some other place. If you don’t like the outcome, sorry it aint my fault, but I’m tired of you telling people to reply on other threads which you deem more appropriate, yet you bring the “offtopic” discussion too.


I should re-iterate, I'm just speculating and a lot of the speculation is based on STR diversity, mutation rates, our understanding of the phylogenetic tree, etc.  They are not perfect so there is no doubt my speculations could be wrong, although I think R1b found in Bell Beaker folks adds a little more support.

Really, you think it adds support, ok, let see what aDNA has shown us:

Per Marko.H latest TMRCA table E-V13(n=267) gets a TMRCA of 4300 ybp, but lets not hesitate, E-V13 gets an interclade age of 7200 ybp when compared with E-V32(sample size 4!!!!) which has an intraclade age of 6800 ybp. E-V13 was found in the Neolithic Cardial site of Avellaner, Catalonia dated to 7000 ybp. That is awfully close to the age when the first SNP occured. Also weren't you the one complaining about small samples sizes, do you not see how many of the interclade calculations are done with small sample sizes(i.e. M73 vs.M269, etc).
« Last Edit: June 14, 2012, 10:16:50 AM by JeanL » Logged
Mike Walsh
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2964


WWW
« Reply #183 on: June 14, 2012, 10:41:49 AM »

Quote from: Mikewww
Also think about WAMH.  Why is it that U106's modal is very close to P312's even if as you think they are greatly separated in age?  From a simplistic view, is it just happenstance that U106's and P312's most frequent lineages converged towards WAMH?

Close?? They differ by one mutation in a 10 STR set, but go on, let’s see by how many mutations they differ in the 67 markers set? But never mind the fact that R1b-P312+ amount of haplotypes triple the amount of haplotypes of R1b-U106+ in the projects.

I've been tracking this for quite a while I and get U106's modal as being different than P312/WAMH over 67 markers at
390=23 vs 24
464b=16 vs 15
CDYa=37 vs 36
492=13 vs 12

Given U106's higher diversity is where its 390=24 frequently, U106's ancestral value for 390 may actually be 24.

I wish I had a GD=4 type match at 67.  I need to recheck but when I initially collected 111 STR haplotypes, P312 and U106 matched on markers 68-111.

From a few hundred to a few thousand, I haven't seen the modals for P312, L21 and U152 alter much over the years. Maybe a flip-flop or two at CDYa or 456 from time to time as the data builds.  L21 is basically equivalent to P312 and U152 is little different.
« Last Edit: June 14, 2012, 10:47:51 AM by Mikewww » Logged

R1b-L21>L513(DF1)>S6365>L705.2(&CTS11744,CTS6621)
Mike Walsh
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2964


WWW
« Reply #184 on: June 14, 2012, 10:55:40 AM »

...  Interclade aging does suffer from the same problems as intraclade, otherwise why is I1 and I2 interclade the same as I2 intraclade, why is R1b-P312 and R1b-U106 interclade the same as R1b-U106 intraclade?

I don't know I1 and I2 information and the vagaries therein, but is there any reason to not think I2 successfully branched very early after its breakaway from the I1&I2 interclade lineage, leading to greater diversity?  It seems plausible to me.  Is this is what you mean?

I think you also know these ages are estimates with confidence ranges. I provided the full detail. There is no precision to the decade on this stuff, nor probably to the century.  The intraclade ages are subject (or should I say more subject) to the issues you've brought up about TMRCAs. This is why I don't even show the intraclade TMRCA for U106 on the chart included in this thread. You'll see that U106's coalescence age is less than the interclade for P312&U106. This is actually by design of Ken's methodology if you understood it.
« Last Edit: June 14, 2012, 10:58:46 AM by Mikewww » Logged

R1b-L21>L513(DF1)>S6365>L705.2(&CTS11744,CTS6621)
Mike Walsh
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2964


WWW
« Reply #185 on: June 14, 2012, 11:08:42 AM »


I should re-iterate, I'm just speculating and a lot of the speculation is based on STR diversity, mutation rates, our understanding of the phylogenetic tree, etc.  They are not perfect so there is no doubt my speculations could be wrong, although I think R1b found in Bell Beaker folks adds a little more support.

Really, you think it adds support, ok, let see what aDNA has shown us:

Per Marko.H latest TMRCA table E-V13(n=267) gets a TMRCA of 4300 ybp, but lets not hesitate, E-V13 gets an interclade age of 7200 ybp when compared with E-V32(sample size 4!!!!) which has an intraclade age of 6800 ybp. E-V13 was found in the Neolithic Cardial site of Avellaner, Catalonia dated to 7000 ybp. That is awfully close to the age when the first SNP occured. Also weren't you the one complaining about small samples sizes, do you not see how many of the interclade calculations are done with small sample sizes(i.e. M73 vs.M269, etc).

As far as this topic goes and this forum goes, R1b is not found in the Neolithic artifacts of Europe nor earlier, even though other haplogroups are found*. {*Other haplogroups have been found in Neolithic sites but it is true they are not found in Mesolithic sites to-date} Our earliest R1b artifacts are Bell Beaker folks.  Bell Beaker folks were a Bronze Age* {2800BC-1800BC} phenomenon.

I can't discuss E-V13 much.  What were the confidence ranges of the estimates you are providing? Who made them? I'm not sure if a sample size of 4 can be equated to several thousand.  As I've stated, nevertheless, these are just estimates, but why go against Nordtvedt's interclade methodology and thousands of long haplotypes without supporting evidence?

{EDIT: clarification per JeanL's concern and RRocca's.  I guess I need to publish errata with my posts...
* http://www.buildinghistory.org/distantpast/ancientdna.shtml
* Wiki says Beakers "starting in the late Neolithic or Chalcolithic running into the early Bronze Age."}
« Last Edit: June 14, 2012, 03:07:35 PM by Mikewww » Logged

R1b-L21>L513(DF1)>S6365>L705.2(&CTS11744,CTS6621)
JeanL
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 425


« Reply #186 on: June 14, 2012, 11:53:12 AM »

As far as this topic goes and this forum goes, R1b is not found in the Neolithic artifacts of Europe nor earlier, even though other haplogroups are found. Our earliest R1b artifacts are Bell Beaker folks.  Bell Beaker folks were a Bronze Age phenomenon.
 

Really Mike!!! This is the second time you talk about R1b absence in samples earlier than the Neolithic time period in Europe. But the truth is, there aren’t any Y haplogroups samples from aDNA prior to the Neolithic period, so why do you keep bringing that up? The reader who is not up to date with aDNA data would read that, and think that R1b hasn’t shown up in Mesolithic samples in Europe, but truth is, there aren’t any Mesolithic samples tested for YDNA, so why do you keep misinforming people.  As for the Neolithic samples, we have a handful of samples from Avellaner, Catalonia, from Germany, and quite a descent sample size from a very localized community in Treilles, France. There is still very vast regions in Europe, and in Western Europe than have not yet been tested for y-DNA haplogroups, so the evidence is very, very far from conclusive. As for the presence of R1b in Bell Beaker folks, it fits with the age estimates of R1b-M269 using germline rates, but if it turns out to be R1b-P312 it would put some strain on the age estimates of P-312 because it would push it to the limit, just as the presence of E-V13 in Neolithic Catalonia is pushing the interclade estimate of E-V13 to its limit.

I can't discuss E-V13 much.  What were the confidence ranges of the estimates you are providing? Who made them? I'm not sure if a sample size of 4 can be equated to several thousand.  As I've stated, nevertheless, these are just estimates, but why go against them without supporting evidence?

I got those values from here:

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/17907527/TMRCAs_for_major_Y_Hgs_by_Heinila_2011.html

Which were posted by you.

As for the supporting evidence against that, well, does this count as supporting evidence?

Per Myres.et.al.2010 Table-S2:

Variance of R1b-S116+:

Vaucluse, France(n=20) var=0.307

France(n=40) var=0.268

England(n=43) var=0.233

Ireland(n=73) var=0.208

Italy(n=72) var=0.198

So if you look the variance of R-P312 in France 135% that of Italy, so that is a wide variability in the ranges of TMRCA in Western Europe, when you add all of them together, the variance that results is actually 0.2377, which is far closer to the variance of England, Ireland and Italy, than to that of France or Vaucluse,France. Hence why when taking population averages, regional variance would be undermined. What is worse, is that as I showed before the FTDNA projects haplotypes used to calculate the TMRCA of R1b-P312 have the British Islands overrepresented.

« Last Edit: June 14, 2012, 11:54:23 AM by JeanL » Logged
Richard Rocca
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 523


« Reply #187 on: June 14, 2012, 02:38:22 PM »

Not to be a stickler, but Bell Beaker starts in the Late Neolithic/Chalcolithic and ends in the Bronze Age.
Logged

Paternal: R1b-U152+L2*
Maternal: H
Mike Walsh
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2964


WWW
« Reply #188 on: June 14, 2012, 02:58:05 PM »

As far as this topic goes and this forum goes, R1b is not found in the Neolithic artifacts of Europe nor earlier, even though other haplogroups are found. Our earliest R1b artifacts are Bell Beaker folks.  Bell Beaker folks were a Bronze Age phenomenon.
 

Really Mike!!! This is the second time you talk about R1b absence in samples earlier than the Neolithic time period in Europe. But the truth is, there aren’t any Y haplogroups samples from aDNA prior to the Neolithic period, so why do you keep bringing that up? The reader who is not up to date with aDNA data would read that, and think that R1b hasn’t shown up in Mesolithic samples in Europe, but truth is, there aren’t any Mesolithic samples tested for YDNA, so why do you keep misinforming people.

Sorry, I had no intention of misinforming anyone.  I keep forgetting with you I have to highlight my caveats, etc. in triplicate or you will miss them.   I just added the "not found in the Neolithic artifacts of Europe nor earlier" so as to be extra clear it hasn't been found earlier. I was actually trying to be extra clear so it is ironic that you feel otherwise.  I guess I should not be saying anything without full reference to Jean M's ancient DNA tracking web site so that it is clear I'm not misinforming anyone about lack of ancient Y DNA.   We should be specific and add the "Y" in there as will.  Here is Jean M's summary: http://www.buildinghistory.org/distantpast/ancientdna.shtml

I generally correct errors or clarifications so you'll see me do that here.  You said this is the 2nd time I've misinformed people. Where's the first? I'll fix it.

I think I've been one of the first and most frequent to say on this forum and on DNA-forums that the "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." This was impressed upon me from Barry Cunliffe and his books about prehistoric Europe.  R1b could be found in Mesolithic or even Paleolithic bones in Europe.  It could turn up at any time of a new study or may not for 100 years ago or never.  

This is just one additional puzzle piece that shows R1b may not have been in pre-Neolithic Europe.  I've never proposed lack of R1b aDNA to-date during the Neolithic as the foundation of any speculations I've had. Even if R1b was Mesolithic in Durope, I doubt that R-L11 descendants we see today are from Western European Paleolithic or Mesolithic origin.  It appears to be a strong position of yours that they were.  I haven't heard a convincing argument that is true. Do you have one?

« Last Edit: June 14, 2012, 02:59:43 PM by Mikewww » Logged

R1b-L21>L513(DF1)>S6365>L705.2(&CTS11744,CTS6621)
Mike Walsh
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2964


WWW
« Reply #189 on: June 14, 2012, 03:00:28 PM »

Not to be a stickler, but Bell Beaker starts in the Late Neolithic/Chalcolithic and ends in the Bronze Age.
Don't worry about being a stickler, you can throw me with that lot most of the time. LOL.
Logged

R1b-L21>L513(DF1)>S6365>L705.2(&CTS11744,CTS6621)
JeanL
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 425


« Reply #190 on: June 14, 2012, 03:52:11 PM »

I generally correct errors or clarifications so you'll see me do that here.  You said this is the 2nd time I've misinformed people. Where's the first? I'll fix it.

Here you go buddy:

http://www.worldfamilies.net/forum/index.php?topic=10669.msg131918#msg131918

I think this idea (Paleolithic R1b in Europe) has its root in the notion that because there is a lot of R-M269 in western Europe now, it must have been the first y haplogroup in, or, if not the first, at least a very early arrival. Therefore, it has had plenty of time to achieve success. Yet that underlying notion is undercut by the usual genetic bottleneck arguments, which reduce R-M269 to near disaster and then bring it back....

Exactly! It's like one becomes mesmerized by the very high R1b frequencies on the Atlantic fringe, causing the starting assumption that R1b must be from there only to have the logic of this slashed by the forced admission of a recent bottleneck due to WAMH and low diversity.

We'd all like to have our cake and eat it too, but it doesn't work.

I guess the Basques are a part of the magnetism too, as well as the old Cantabrian-Franco refugium idea. 

It's just too bad the recent bottleneck (thru L11) and the rapid re-expansion by a people less advanced than the farmers ruins the story.  Well, the lack of ancient R1b DNA in Meso & Neolithic Europe is causing problems, too. Then are those (lovingly) crazy phylogenetic R1b cousins in the Near East and thereabouts are messing up the story too. Did I mention that both STR variance and maximum liklihood methods cross-validate nicely with the SNP branch length counting method (Karafet) to make R-L11 look young?

Hey, I'm just old R1b Cro-Magnon fellow who fell off the wagon when I got too many facts to cloud the story. Mea culpa!
Logged
razyn
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 406


« Reply #191 on: June 14, 2012, 03:53:41 PM »

I still want one of those Ligurian stickler helmets, like the one Rocca used to display.
Logged

R1b Z196*
Mike Walsh
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2964


WWW
« Reply #192 on: June 14, 2012, 03:56:27 PM »

I guess we are off track a bit here. Moderator, if you choose you are welcome to move the off track conversations to other threads, but so be it.

...
Per Marko.H latest TMRCA table E-V13(n=267) gets a TMRCA of 4300 ybp, but lets not hesitate, E-V13 gets an interclade age of 7200 ybp when compared with E-V32(sample size 4!!!!) which has an intraclade age of 6800 ybp. E-V13 was found in the Neolithic Cardial site of Avellaner, Catalonia dated to 7000 ybp. That is awfully close to the age when the first SNP occured. Also weren't you the one complaining about small samples sizes, do you not see how many of the interclade calculations are done with small sample sizes(i.e. M73 vs.M269, etc).

I agree the sample sizes in some of the calculations Marko Heinila did are small. However, I'm not complaining to Marko. I am grateful that he dedicated as much volunteer time as he did to peforming this work for us.  He publishes the sample sizes. He does not hide that and its up to us to apply the results responsibly.

However, it's a bit strange that you argue against R1b-L11 family subclade interclade Generations (Ken Nordtvedt) TMRCA calculations with alternative method (Marko Heinils) TMRCA calculations with very low sample sizes.

Again, I am grateful to Marko so I do not ask him to do more on this, but if you look he does not publish any confidence intervals ranges. With some of the low sample sizes that you point out we might expect very wide error ranges, i.e. 50-100% or who knows what.  The Hg E counter-argument example you show is an extremely poor example. I was thinking you had something more significant than that and have been waiting for that. Maybe your I2 and I1 example is more significant.  BTW, if you want to dig into that I highly advise going to Nordtvedt's web site on the Hg I family and its subclades. He is the guru on I.

The R1b-L11 family subclade calculations I displayed in this thread from Nordtvedt's tool does have error ranges and I provided them so you can see them easily, graphically. There is no intent to misinform here. They are what they are.
... I think you also know these ages are estimates with confidence ranges. I provided the full detail. There is no precision to the decade on this stuff, nor probably to the century.

If you understood Nordtvedt's methodology you would know that precision, just like Nordtvedt said, improves when the two clades compared are of roughly the same age.  That's exactly what happens with P312 and U106. As far as sample sizes go, there were about 4200 P312 67 STR Ht's from over 30 Old World countries. There were 1400 U106 67 Ht's from STR Ht's from 30 Old World Countries.   I'm not trying to misinform, so I've always kept all of those haplotypes updated at the corresponding Yahoo Groups files sections.  The proportion of P312  to U106 sample sizes does not bias the interclade calculation since they are subdivided and compared, but you should at further descendants in both families to see how it all stacks up in context.

I agree that are sampling should be more representative but I don't have a good way of "robust" re-sampling that would be not biased itself while being relevant.
« Last Edit: June 14, 2012, 04:09:01 PM by Mikewww » Logged

R1b-L21>L513(DF1)>S6365>L705.2(&CTS11744,CTS6621)
Mike Walsh
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2964


WWW
« Reply #193 on: June 14, 2012, 04:06:42 PM »

I generally correct errors or clarifications so you'll see me do that here.  You said this is the 2nd time I've misinformed people. Where's the first? I'll fix it.

Here you go buddy:

http://www.worldfamilies.net/forum/index.php?topic=10669.msg131918#msg131918

Done, clarified.  You should have said something then if you didn't like it.  Maybe you did and I missed it.
Logged

R1b-L21>L513(DF1)>S6365>L705.2(&CTS11744,CTS6621)
JeanL
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 425


« Reply #194 on: June 14, 2012, 04:57:09 PM »

If you understood Nordtvedt's methodology you would know that precision, just like Nordtvedt said, improves when the two clades compared are of roughly the same age.  That's exactly what happens with P312 and U106. As far as sample sizes go, there were about 4200 P312 67 STR Ht's from over 30 Old World countries. There were 1400 U106 67 Ht's from STR Ht's from 30 Old World Countries.   I'm not trying to misinform, so I've always kept all of those haplotypes updated at the corresponding Yahoo Groups files sections.  The proportion of P312  to U106 sample sizes does not bias the interclade calculation since they are subdivided and compared, but you should at further descendants in both families to see how it all stacks up in context.

I already talked about the issue with the haplotypes of P-312 coming from the FTDNA databases, but I’ll repeat myself:

R1b-P312 gets a TMRCA of 4000 ybp using 4376 haplotypes.
R1b-L21 gets a TMRCA of 4000 ybp using 2670 haplotypes.
R1b-U152 gets a TMRCA of 4000 ybp using 571 haplotypes.
R1b-Z196 gets a TMRCA of 4000 ybp using 281 haplotypes.


As you can see, there is a disproportionate amount of R1b-L21 relative to the other P312 clades, so the question that stands is: Out of those 4000 haplotypes in the 67 markers, how many have their MDKA in the British Islands? I’m pretty sure a majority does.

I agree that are sampling should be more representative but I don't have a good way of "robust" re-sampling that would be not biased itself while being relevant.

Well a good way to do robust sampling would be to pick 80 random haplotypes from each country, and assemble a set using equal amounts for each country, that should solve any bias.

Logged
Mike Walsh
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2964


WWW
« Reply #195 on: June 14, 2012, 05:15:21 PM »

If you understood Nordtvedt's methodology you would know that precision, just like Nordtvedt said, improves when the two clades compared are of roughly the same age.  That's exactly what happens with P312 and U106. As far as sample sizes go, there were about 4200 P312 67 STR Ht's from over 30 Old World countries. There were 1400 U106 67 Ht's from STR Ht's from 30 Old World Countries.   I'm not trying to misinform, so I've always kept all of those haplotypes updated at the corresponding Yahoo Groups files sections.  The proportion of P312  to U106 sample sizes does not bias the interclade calculation since they are subdivided and compared, but you should at further descendants in both families to see how it all stacks up in context.

I already talked about the issue with the haplotypes of P-312 coming from the FTDNA databases, but I’ll repeat myself:
R1b-P312 gets a TMRCA of 4000 ybp using 4376 haplotypes.
R1b-L21 gets a TMRCA of 4000 ybp using 2670 haplotypes.
R1b-U152 gets a TMRCA of 4000 ybp using 571 haplotypes.
R1b-Z196 gets a TMRCA of 4000 ybp using 281 haplotypes.


As you can see, there is a disproportionate amount of R1b-L21 relative to the other P312 clades, so the question that stands is: Out of those 4000 haplotypes in the 67 markers, how many have their MDKA in the British Islands? I’m pretty sure a majority does.

I agree that are sampling should be more representative but I don't have a good way of "robust" re-sampling that would be not biased itself while being relevant.

Well a good way to do robust sampling would be to pick 80 random haplotypes from each country, and assemble a set using equal amounts for each country, that should solve any bias.  

Are you listing intraclade TMRCAs again?  Why go back to that when interclade are available for good sized subclades?  and at multiple layers of the tree to cross-check each other?  The U152&L21 interclade, the U152&Z196(now DF27) interclade, the L21&Z196 interclade all provide cross reference information to compare with the P312&U106 interclade.

Why are you showing 4000 ybp for all of your examples? Did you calculate that? I don't remember ever getting a series of 4000 ypb results like that. Are you just saying that because the numbers all come out in the same ranges they must be wrong? What are the confidence ranges for your calculations?

This is just an anecdotal statement, but my observation (within R1b-L11) has been the variance relationships change little when you add or subtract data beyond a certain point, at least randomly.  I think you have to try to mess things up. However, I understand your point that the FTDNA data is not representative.  I agree.

I'm all for trying different things out as long as they don't take too much work.  I know that Excel has a "Rand" function that could pick out random numbers that I could turn into a formula to pick haplotypes.  Why is 80 enough or not?  I don't have an opinion. I just don't know.  Why choose by country?  Isn't it more important to choose by subclade (by sub-subclade I mean.)   What is the right proportion to choose in each subclade or in each country if we go that route?  They have different absolute populations as well as testing penetration rates.  I'm not sure if current absolute population sizes are that important in weighting in countries anyway.   I'm looking for any ideas here that can really stand up before I jump into re-sampling exercises. Also, don't we need to do the re-sampling multiple times, using regression analysis, to be effective.
« Last Edit: June 14, 2012, 05:25:11 PM by Mikewww » Logged

R1b-L21>L513(DF1)>S6365>L705.2(&CTS11744,CTS6621)
JeanL
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 425


« Reply #196 on: June 14, 2012, 05:42:07 PM »

Are you listing intraclade TMRCAs again?  Why go back to that when interclade are available for good sized subclades?  and at multiple layers of the tree to cross-check each other?  The U152&L21 interclade, the U152&Z196(now DF27) interclade, the L21&Z196 interclade all provide cross reference information to compare with the P312&U106 interclade.

The interclade of P312&U106 TMRCA is the same as the intraclade TMRCA of U106, I already showed that to you using MarkoH table of TMRCA. But the main point here to take was that amongst the R1b-P312+ subclades R1b-L21 was vastly overrepresented, whereas R1b-U152 and R1b-Z196 are greatly underrepresented, not the TRMCA itself.

Why are you showing 4000 ybp for all of your examples? Did you calculate that? I don't remember ever getting a series of 4000 ypb results like that. Are you just saying that because the numbers all come out in the same ranges they must be wrong? What are the confidence ranges for your calculations?

Those results came from MarkoH latest TMRCA calculations which were posted on page-5 of the thread “TRMCA Calculations”.

I'm all for trying different things out as long as they don't take too much work.  I know that Excel has a "Rand" function that could pick out random numbers that I could turn into a formula to pick haplotypes.  Why is 80 enough or not?  I don't have an opinion. I just don't know.  Why choose by country? Isn't it more important to choose by subclade (by sub-subclade I mean.)   What is the right proportion to choose in each subclade or in each country if we go that route?  They have different absolute populations as well as testing penetration rates.  I'm not sure if current absolute population sizes are that important in weighting in countries anyway.   I'm looking for any ideas here that can really stand up before I jump into re-sampling exercises. Also, don't we need to do the re-sampling multiple times, using regression analysis, to be effective.

Well, because if you have a sample of R1b-L21, and 95% of the sample comes from the UK, then likely you would get a TMRCA that is skewed to whatever the TMRCA of R1b-L21 is in the UK. Of course, I’m talking about separating the samples into appropriate subclades, but regional representativeness is also very important. Again how many of the R1b-P312+ 4000 haplotypes that were used to calculate R1b-P312’s TMRCA have their MDKA from the British Islands?
« Last Edit: June 14, 2012, 05:42:38 PM by JeanL » Logged
Mike Walsh
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2964


WWW
« Reply #197 on: June 14, 2012, 06:45:32 PM »

Are you listing intraclade TMRCAs again?  Why go back to that when interclade are available for good sized subclades?  and at multiple layers of the tree to cross-check each other?  The U152&L21 interclade, the U152&Z196(now DF27) interclade, the L21&Z196 interclade all provide cross reference information to compare with the P312&U106 interclade.

The interclade of P312&U106 TMRCA is the same as the intraclade TMRCA of U106, I already showed that to you using MarkoH table of TMRCA.

So what? First, you list no error ranges in your example.
Again, I am grateful to Marko so I do not ask him to do more on this, but if you look he does not publish any confidence intervals ranges.
I provided error ranges from Nordtvedt's output and the overlapping error ranges align nicely, as they should, with the phylogenetic tree. There is no reason to suspect any thing is off related to the closeness in ages between the U106&P312 TMRCA and the U106 TMRCA.

Secondly,  Is there any reason why the U106 TMRCA should not or can not be relatively close in age to the U106&P312 TMRCA?

... it's a bit strange that you argue against R1b-L11 family subclade interclade Generations (Ken Nordtvedt) TMRCA calculations with alternative method (Marko Heinils) TMRCA calculations...

Why not go download Nordtvedt's tool and use it?  You can tear it apart.  All of the formulas are there, sigmas and the whole bit.  If you make a list of errors, I'll present that to Ken for you if you are afraid to yourself.
« Last Edit: June 14, 2012, 06:49:47 PM by Mikewww » Logged

R1b-L21>L513(DF1)>S6365>L705.2(&CTS11744,CTS6621)
Mike Walsh
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2964


WWW
« Reply #198 on: June 14, 2012, 06:53:24 PM »

Are you listing intraclade TMRCAs again?  Why go back to that when interclade are available for good sized subclades?  and at multiple layers of the tree to cross-check each other?  The U152&L21 interclade, the U152&Z196(now DF27) interclade, the L21&Z196 interclade all provide cross reference information to compare with the P312&U106 interclade.

The interclade of P312&U106 TMRCA is the same as the intraclade TMRCA of U106, I already showed that to you using MarkoH table of TMRCA. But the main point here to take was that amongst the R1b-P312+ subclades R1b-L21 was vastly overrepresented, whereas R1b-U152 and R1b-Z196 are greatly underrepresented, not the TRMCA itself.

I don't think that is impacting the U106&P312 interclade age, at least significantly, but I'll take a look at it when I get the chance.  I honestly don't see how much of a difference will be made.  We have a lot of data on these clades like U152, L2, DF27, L21, U106, Z381, etc.  You can just look at the modals, and go down another layer on the tree to look again.  The probable ancestral values kind of pop out at you.  The statistics of all of this just bear it out.

The only thing that really seems unusual ("off") on the P312 side is M222 (NW Irish.)  It's ht is really distinct which seems to indicate it is young (far down the branching from P312) which is corroborated by its low TMRCA and coalescence.  If you have a hard problem with believing P312 and U106 are this young, you'd really have a hard time with M222.  These guys are really hard to differentiate into clusters but there is a ton of them.  They really had explosive growth at a late date!

« Last Edit: June 14, 2012, 07:02:44 PM by Mikewww » Logged

R1b-L21>L513(DF1)>S6365>L705.2(&CTS11744,CTS6621)
alan trowel hands.
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2012


« Reply #199 on: June 14, 2012, 07:12:21 PM »

I really dont get the big deal that U106 seems to be NE European.  Its no further from other parts of the L11 world than different P312 subclade hotspots are from each other.  its really no big deal IMO and I think it just bothers people who wish to see U106 as some sort of very different lineage compared to P312 which pattently it is not.  In the early days  of P312, the ancestors of U106 may well have still been L11* as they were travelling towards NE Europe.  It is the lineage of just one man after all.  U106 has its oldest variance in the NE of Europe but its variance seems to be significantly lower than P312 so the ancestors of U106 were probably still L11* in the main travelling phase of the lineage and hence there would be no trail for U106 leading to NE Europe.  There is a hint of a remanant of a L11XU106XP312 trail along the north coast of Europe as well as the Alps.  I think the likelihood that U106 happened in the NE and was confined to that area before late prehistoric and early historic expansion west confuses people.  While the evidence indicates this, the evidence on face value also indicates that U106 didnt exist when the later U106 lineages spread into the area.  It was probably L11*.  So a trail for U106 to NE Europe will never be found.  They travelled before the SNP happened.  I tthink that the root of the problem goes back to the early days of this hobby when U106 was set apart as Germanic etc (which it may well have become 3000 years after it travelled to NE Europe but that is irrelevant to the early story) while P312 was still part of the M269* block and there was a sort of U106 uber-man dilusion going on.  In the initial stage of its existence U106 and P312 must have belonged to the same culture and spoken the same language.  I dont even buy the idea that U106 was a corded ware thing while beaker was P312.  For a start U106 does not appear to have existed until the end of the Corded Ware period.  
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 6 7 [8] 9 10 ... 12 Go Up Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


SEO light theme by © Mustang forums. Powered by SMF 1.1.13 | SMF © 2006-2011, Simple Machines LLC

Page created in 0.155 seconds with 19 queries.