World Families Forums - Diversity and Age of R1b in Iberia

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
August 28, 2014, 06:56:27 AM
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)
| | |-+  Diversity and Age of R1b in Iberia
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 7 Go Down Print
Author Topic: Diversity and Age of R1b in Iberia  (Read 9009 times)
realdealt
Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 29


« on: June 16, 2012, 03:28:19 AM »

From my database of Iberian origin haplotypes, I ran diversity calculations using the Simpson Index and age estimates using Ken Nordtvedt's Generations6 program for various haplogroups (with subclades) including R1b.

You can view the results at this link: https://www.box.com/s/5906efb1b7bcf5c33891

For some information about the Simpson Index of diversity you can go here: http://www.countrysideinfo.co.uk/simpsons.htm

Comments are welcome about the results as they relate to R1b in comparison with the other haplogroups in Iberia.
Logged
Jean M
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1253


« Reply #1 on: June 16, 2012, 05:30:06 AM »

I'm not much of a figures person. Is it the last column we should be looking at? Does this mean that you calculate the arrival of

I2, E1b1b and E1b1a in the early Neolithic
J2, G2, T1, J1 in the later Neolithic
L and R1b in the Bronze Age
I1 c. 1000 BC

Rather surprising figure for I1, but I suppose this could result from various already old lineages of I1 arriving much later with various Germani.

« Last Edit: June 16, 2012, 05:32:36 AM by Jean M » Logged
realdealt
Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 29


« Reply #2 on: June 16, 2012, 06:49:48 AM »

I'm not much of a figures person. Is it the last column we should be looking at? Does this mean that you calculate the arrival of

I2, E1b1b and E1b1a in the early Neolithic
J2, G2, T1, J1 in the later Neolithic
L and R1b in the Bronze Age
I1 c. 1000 BC

Rather surprising figure for I1, but I suppose this could result from various already old lineages of I1 arriving much later with various Germani.



This seems to be the picture these results are painting more or less. The last column "Ga" is the estimated TMRCA of the founder of the clade, while "GaCoal" is the coalescence age estimate for the clade.

I probably should have run the 67 marker haplotypes in Ken's program rather than the same 12 marker haplotypes I used for the Simpson Index....not sure how much difference there would be......but I did want to keep the datasets the same.

I think that the ages are solely reflective of those groups that were in Iberia. For example, the R1b in Iberia is mostly P312 and its subclades, so a TMRCA of 3904 years seems to fit rather than an older R-M269 age from say Anatolia. At least I had a good sample size. As for I1, I agree that it probably reflects the influx of Germanic tribal invasions into Spain. For E1b1b, I probably should separate the E-M81 (which is a good sized chunk) out to see how that changes things. Don't we have E-V13 results proven at about 7000 ybp?

Anyway, I appreciate your thoughts....that's why I posted, to get other's views.
Logged
Jean M
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1253


« Reply #3 on: June 16, 2012, 09:01:32 AM »

The ancient DNA so far published is in my table Ancient Western Eurasian DNA

For Iberia 5000 BC = 7000 years ago:

G2a (P15+)
E1b1b1a1b (V13)
Logged
JeanL
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 425


« Reply #4 on: June 16, 2012, 10:58:45 AM »

Well this seems to be an average age for haplogroups in the Peninsula, however there are regions(namely the Western Pyrenees) inside the Peninsula where R1b-P312 is actually older than I-M26, and it is the oldest haplogroup in the region.
« Last Edit: June 16, 2012, 11:00:01 AM by JeanL » Logged
rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #5 on: June 16, 2012, 11:25:26 AM »

Well this seems to be an average age for haplogroups in the Peninsula, however there are regions(namely the Western Pyrenees) inside the Peninsula where R1b-P312 is actually older than I-M26, and it is the oldest haplogroup in the region.

You mean the R-P312 in that region is older than the I-M26 in that region and not that the R-P312 in that region is older than the I-M26 in Iberia overall, right?

If it is true that the R-P312 in the western Pyrenees appears older than the I-M26 in the western Pyrenees, why should that be regarded as more significant than the result for the Peninsula overall and not as some form of haplotype-variance gerrymandering? Why not compare the two village by village or block by block?

Logged

JeanL
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 425


« Reply #6 on: June 16, 2012, 11:35:26 AM »

You mean the R-P312 in that region is older than the I-M26 in that region and not that the R-P312 in that region is older than the I-M26 in Iberia overall, right?

Yes right, I’m talking about that R-P312 is older than I-M26 in the region encompassing Gascony, The French Basque Country, Navarra and the Spanish Basque Country.

If it is true that the R-P312 in the western Pyrenees appears older than the I-M26 in the western Pyrenees, why should that be regarded as more significant than the result for the Peninsula overall and not as some form of haplotype-variance gerrymandering? Why not compare the two village by village or block by block?


Well for starters I haven’t said it ought to be regarded as more significant that the results for the whole peninsula, however it does invalidate the applying the results for the whole peninsula there. Mainly because the study where R1b appears oldest in that region used a sample size of 677 for R1b-M269 folks, and 57 for I-M26 folks, that is pretty darn significant, considering that these calculations for the whole peninsula where done using 1979 haplotypes for R1b and 143 for I2. Also, I do not appreciate the reductio ad absurdum fallacy, it is not gerrymandering, because it is a well known thing that the folks from the Pyrenees do exhibit peculiarities when it comes to genetics.
« Last Edit: June 16, 2012, 11:36:24 AM by JeanL » Logged
rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #7 on: June 16, 2012, 11:50:49 AM »

You mean the R-P312 in that region is older than the I-M26 in that region and not that the R-P312 in that region is older than the I-M26 in Iberia overall, right?

Yes right, I’m talking about that R-P312 is older than I-M26 in the region encompassing Gascony, The French Basque Country, Navarra and the Spanish Basque Country.

If it is true that the R-P312 in the western Pyrenees appears older than the I-M26 in the western Pyrenees, why should that be regarded as more significant than the result for the Peninsula overall and not as some form of haplotype-variance gerrymandering? Why not compare the two village by village or block by block?


Well for starters I haven’t said it ought to be regarded as more significant that the results for the whole peninsula, however it does invalidate the applying the results for the whole peninsula there. Mainly because the study where R1b appears oldest in that region used a sample size of 677 for R1b-M269 folks, and 57 for I-M26 folks, that is pretty darn significant, considering that these calculations for the whole peninsula where done using 1979 haplotypes for R1b and 143 for I2. Also, I do not appreciate the reductio ad absurdum fallacy, it is not gerrymandering, because it is a well known thing that the folks from the Pyrenees do exhibit peculiarities when it comes to genetics.


Please don't misapply the names for logical fallacies, as you are doing, and do on a regular basis, ad nauseam (since you seem to like Latin terms).

It does appear to be a form of gerrymandering when one does not like the overall result and so creates for himself a special geographic district in which those results can be contradicted.

Why not create a special, cherry-picked, low-variance I-M26 archipelago and compare R-P312 results to that whenever it is convenient to do so?
Logged

realdealt
Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 29


« Reply #8 on: June 16, 2012, 11:54:23 AM »

@JeanL
I know I've been up all night working but this sounds like apples and oranges mixing. Those 1979 haplotypes are majority P312 and downstream subclades. P312 has an age and to say that it is older in one area over another just doesn't seem right to me....regardless of comparing it with I-M26 or anything else. P312 is P312. Are you saying that more weight should be given to an age estimate for P312 in the western Pyrenees simply because of a higher concentration of samples in a smaller area?
« Last Edit: June 16, 2012, 11:55:47 AM by realdealt » Logged
JeanL
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 425


« Reply #9 on: June 16, 2012, 12:01:38 PM »

Please don't misapply the names for logical fallacies, as you are doing, and do on a regular basis, ad nauseam (since you seem to like Latin terms).

Really!!! So basically taking what I said about the Western Pyrenees yielded different results, and claiming that: “Why not compare the two village by village or block by block?” is not Reductio Ad Absurdum. 

It does appear to be a form of gerrymandering when one does not like the overall result and so creates for himself a special geographic district in which those results can be contradicted.

I did not create anything, simply the results posted here for the whole peninsula are not reproduced in the Western Pyrenean region, which was published in a peer reviewed study, so this isn’t something that I’m pulling out of nowhere, but something that has been published. It seems to me that it is you who doesn’t like the results, and feels the need to succumb to logical fallacies to contradict those results.  So other than saying it is gerrymandering, do you have any actual data that contradicts the results I posted for the Western Pyrenean region?

Why not create a special, cherry-picked, low-variance I-M26 archipelago and compare R-P312 results to that whenever it is convenient to do so?


There is no need to cherry pick anything, because fortunately enough a peer reviewed study already publish those results. Unfortunately it seems you appear to object to those results on the basis that you deem this calculations done on an Iberian composite using 12 STRs as more appropriate to describe the folks from the Western Pyrenean region than actual results that were published using a good sample of folks from the Western Pyrenean region.
« Last Edit: June 16, 2012, 12:08:14 PM by JeanL » Logged
JeanL
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 425


« Reply #10 on: June 16, 2012, 12:07:46 PM »

@JeanL
I know I've been up all night working but this sounds like apples and oranges mixing. Those 1979 haplotypes are majority P312 and downstream subclades.

Well thank you for calculating those results then, first and foremost. I can assure you that the vast majority of those 677 haplotypes from the Western Pyrenean region are P312+ as well. 

P312 has an age and to say that it is older in one area over another just doesn't seem right to me....regardless of comparing it with I-M26 or anything else. P312 is P312.

So basically you are saying that a scenario where P312 folks are the oldest in the Pyrenees, and E-V13 are the oldest in Catalonia is impossible? I don’t see it as impossible if P312 were the first to arrive in the Western Pyrenean region they would likely appear as the oldest, whereas if they expanded to other regions of Iberia at later dates they will not appear as the oldest haplogroup in those regions. I don’t see what doesn’t seem right about it?

Are you saying that more weight should be given to an age estimate for P312 in the western Pyrenees simply because of a higher concentration of samples in a smaller area?

Well yeah, isn’t far more accurate to determine the age of P312 in the Western Pyrenean region using samples from the area than applying an Iberian average to the region?
« Last Edit: June 16, 2012, 12:08:34 PM by JeanL » Logged
rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #11 on: June 16, 2012, 12:09:06 PM »

Well, reductio ad absurdum is not in itself a fallacy, but arguing about that is pointless.

Suit yourself, JeanL.

Are you arguing that if Robert had used more markers he would have gotten radically different results, more in line with those you are claiming for the western Pyrenees?

Logged

JeanL
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 425


« Reply #12 on: June 16, 2012, 12:15:26 PM »

Well, reductio ad absurdum is not in itself a fallacy, but arguing about that is pointless.

Really, I always thought that reduction ad absurdum was indeed a fallacy, and used in arguments to blow the opponent’s argument out of proportion hence rendering it false. 

Are you arguing that if Robert had used more markers he would have gotten radically different results, more in line with those you are claiming for the western Pyrenees?


Not really, all I am saying is that the results posted by Robert are more in line with the average for the whole Iberian peninsula, that is assuming we have equal representation from all groups in the Peninsula, whereas the results from the Western Pyrenees are a better descriptor of the age of haplogroups in the Western Pyrenees. For example if in a Science class we know that the average score on a test was 80, was a better approach to determine the score Timmy got on the test, assuming he must have gotten something close to 80 +- the standard deviation, or actually seeing his test score. That’s essentially what I am arguing here, I’m not saying that the results from the Western Pyrenees disprove these results only that this average appears not to apply in the Western Pyrenees. I hope you understand what I am saying.
Logged
rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #13 on: June 16, 2012, 12:20:06 PM »


. . .

So basically you are saying that a scenario where P312 folks are the oldest in the Pyrenees, and E-V13 are the oldest in Catalonia is impossible? I don’t see it as impossible if P312 were the first to arrive in the Western Pyrenean region they would likely appear as the oldest, whereas if they expanded to other regions of Iberia at later dates they will not appear as the oldest haplogroup in those regions. I don’t see what doesn’t seem right about it?

. . .


Okay. Let's suppose R-P312 got to the western Pyrenees before I-M26, or at least it looks that way, but I-M26 appears to have arrived in the Iberian Peninsula long before R-P312 did.

So, assuming that the stats that form the basis for both of those conclusions are correct, then I-M26 was in Iberia well ahead of R-P312 but had not settled in the western Pyrenees, which R-P312 occupied ahead of I-M26.

Or I-M26 got to the western Pyrenees ahead of R-P312 but for some reason has reduced variance there now, out of line with its variance elsewhere in the Peninsula.

Or, similarly, R-P312 is actually older than I-M26 everywhere in Iberia but only appears to be younger for some reason, out of line with its variance relative to I-M26 in the western Pyrenees.

I think it likely that second scenario is the true one, but that is my opinion.

« Last Edit: June 16, 2012, 12:26:06 PM by rms2 » Logged

rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #14 on: June 16, 2012, 12:24:24 PM »

Well, reductio ad absurdum is not in itself a fallacy, but arguing about that is pointless.

Really, I always thought that reduction ad absurdum was indeed a fallacy, and used in arguments to blow the opponent’s argument out of proportion hence rendering it false. 

. . .


No, it is the attempt to show that the logical consequences of one's argument are absurd.

At least, that is my understanding.
Logged

JeanL
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 425


« Reply #15 on: June 16, 2012, 12:34:07 PM »

Okay. Let's suppose R-P312 got to the western Pyrenees before I-M26, or at least it looks that way, but I-M26 appears to have arrived in the Iberian Peninsula long before R-P312 did.

Well if I-M26 arrived in the Peninsula in the Early Neolithic times, perhaps after G2a and EV13 agriculturist arrived, and R1b-P312 is holed up in the mountainous regions of the Western Pyrenees, plus Atlantic SW France, only to expand from there at a later time, from the point of view of the rest of the peninsula I-M26 is going to appear older than R1b-P312, because it indeed made it there at an earlier date. However, we know that in the Western Pyrenees P312 appears to be older, but there might be other regions where it icould appear older as well, one would have to investigate it though.   

So, assuming that the stats that form the basis for both of those conclusions are correct, then I-M26 was in Iberia well ahead of R-P312 but had not settled in the western Pyrenees, which R-P312 occupied ahead of I-M26.

Such scenario assumes that the Western Pyrenees were unpopulated before the arrival of P312 in the region, which is not realistic. Again, if I-M26 and P312 expanded from different regions they will look older the closer one gets to the epicenter of expansion.


Or I-M26 got to the western Pyrenees ahead of R-P312 but for some reason has reduced variance there now, out of line with its variance elsewhere in the Peninsula.

I-M26 is more significant in the Western Pyrenees than in most of the Iberian Peninsula, its age there  is about 70-80% that of P312, a bottleneck could be possible, but it being younger is equally as likely, as for the variance of I-M26 being higher when pooling all the Peninsula together, it could be because the I-M26 folks from the Pyrenees arrived there at once, whereas other I-M26 found in the peninsula could have come at a later date during Roman times, and hence when they are pooled together the diversity increases. So if you are arguing that I-M26 overall is older than P312, well then yes, it seems like it, but like I said, that doesn’t translate into it being the oldest haplogroup in the Pyrenees.

Or, similarly, R-P312 is actually older than I-M26 everywhere in Iberia but only appears to be younger for some reason, out of line with its variance relative to I-M26 in the western Pyrenees.

I thinking it likely that second scenario is the true one, but that is my opinion.

No, P312 isn’t older than G2a or I-M26 in the whole Peninsula, only in regions close to its epi-center of expansion that is about it. There are regions in the Peninsula such as Galicia that weren’t colonized until the Neolithic, so they were likely colonized by Agriculturist bearing either G2a/I2/E-M78+ or even E-M81. The inclusion of those regions in an Iberian composite would indeed make either one of those haplogroups seem more diverse.



« Last Edit: June 16, 2012, 12:35:52 PM by JeanL » Logged
realdealt
Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 29


« Reply #16 on: June 16, 2012, 12:39:43 PM »

JeanL
First, my calculations were for the whole peninsula not just the western Pyrenees and I understand how there might be greater haplotype diversity from one area to the next thereby implying an older population. I have many haplotypes from the western Pyrenees area, many of which if not all might be in my dataset. I did not note them by individual region. If that small geography has higher diversity I doubt it is significantly older than the overall peninsula R-P312 age if those haplotypes were included. Besides, this is not an exact science where we can precisely calculate exact ages. There is a range of years that could cover those isolated areas with slightly different diversity. What specific study and data are you referring to? And just because something is peer-reviewed does not mean it is the gold standard and correct.
Logged
rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #17 on: June 16, 2012, 12:43:55 PM »

Given the relative ages of R-P312 and I-M26 in Iberia as a whole and in the western Pyrenees, I see no reason to believe that "R1b-P312  . . . [was] holed up in the mountainous regions of the Western Pyrenees, plus Atlantic SW France, only to expand from there at a later time", the implication of which is that R-P312 arrived there before the Neolithic Period, despite its age estimates.

Other scenarios are possible, and more likely, in my opinion.

Logged

JeanL
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 425


« Reply #18 on: June 16, 2012, 12:47:19 PM »

JeanL
First, my calculations were for the whole peninsula not just the western Pyrenees and I understand how there might be greater haplotype diversity from one area to the next thereby implying an older population.

Ok, I know your calculations were for the whole Peninsula, I’ve never said otherwise.

I have many haplotypes from the western Pyrenees area, many of which if not all might be in my dataset. I did not note them by individual region. If that small geography has higher diversity I doubt it is significantly older than the overall peninsula R-P312 age if those haplotypes were included.

Well, you don’t know that, do you? That is just an assumption you are making that most of the haplotypes wont depart from the average. Also how many haplotypes do you have from the western Pyrenees area?

Besides, this is not an exact science where we can precisely calculate exact ages. There is a range of years that could cover those isolated areas with slightly different diversity. What specific study and data are you referring to?

The Martinez-Cruz et al.2012 study on Basques, data found on Table-2.

And just because something is peer-reviewed does not mean it is the gold standard and correct.

I agree, being peer-reviewed doesn’t automatically make it right, but it means that for the most part peer-reviewed studies are review by a qualified member of the science community.
« Last Edit: June 16, 2012, 12:53:02 PM by JeanL » Logged
JeanL
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 425


« Reply #19 on: June 16, 2012, 12:52:13 PM »

Given the relative ages of R-P312 and I-M26 in Iberia as a whole and in the western Pyrenees, I see no reason to believe that "R1b-P312  . . . [was] holed up in the mountainous regions of the Western Pyrenees, plus Atlantic SW France, only to expand from there at a later time", the implication of which is that R-P312 arrived there before the Neolithic Period, despite its age estimates.

Other scenarios are possible, and more likely, in my opinion.



Why not?? If R1b-P312 was in the Pyrenees region before I-M26 one would expect for it to have a higher variance than M26, and that is what studies have shown. If that is not a reason, then what reasons do you have against it. Moreover, the implications are not that P312 arrived in there before the Neolithic, it could in fact get a pre-Neolithic date if we use evolutionary mutation rates, but even using germ-lines, all it means is that it mutated there, or in a region nearby during the late Neolithic probably from an L11 ancestor. Please do describe how other scenarios are possible and more likely, that would result in R1b-P312(xL21+,U152+,M153,SRY2627) being older in the Western Pyrenees than I-M26, and basically being the oldest haplogroup in the region.
« Last Edit: June 16, 2012, 12:53:58 PM by JeanL » Logged
rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #20 on: June 16, 2012, 01:02:44 PM »

R-P312 in the western Pyrenees, which you seem to insist on making more important than in the Peninsula overall, where I-M26 is not just older than R-P312 but far older, could have arrived in the late Neolithic or post-Neolithic when there was little or no I-M26 there. If there was an I-M26 population already there, R-P312 could have reduced the numbers of I-M26 in a number of different ways, by killing many I-M26 males off, either directly or by introducing diseases to which they had no immunity. That could have reduced surviving I-M26 haplotype diversity in the western Pyrenees, making it appear younger there. The age of I-M26 in the rest of the Peninsula could stand as a corrective in that regard (and probably should be regarded as such).

Why should we believe that R-P312 originated in or about the western Pyrenees and expanded from there? Last I heard, R-P312 diversity in Europe is not highest there.
Logged

JeanL
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 425


« Reply #21 on: June 16, 2012, 01:15:18 PM »

R-P312 in the western Pyrenees, which you seem to insist on making more important than in the Peninsula overall, where I-M26 is not just older than R-P312 but far older, could have arrived in the late Neolithic or post-Neolithic when there was little or no I-M26 there. If there was an I-M26 population already there, R-P312 could have reduced the numbers of I-M26 in a number of different ways, by killing many I-M26 males off, either directly or by introducing diseases to which they had no immunity.

But that is not what the fossil record shows in the Western Pyrenees, there are no massive burials, or anything like that, in fact nonmetric dental analysis shows that pre- and post- beaker populations in Northern Spain were very likely the same . Also, like I said before, I-M26 as a SNP is older than P312 that much is clear,  therefore an equally likely explanation for the age of I-M26 in the whole peninsula is that it is being pooled from I-M26 arrivals from the Neolithic, and I-M26 that arrived from elsewhere in Europe to Iberia during the Roman times.

That could have reduced surviving I-M26 haplotype diversity in the western Pyrenees, making it appear younger there. The age of I-M26 in the rest of the Peninsula could stand as a corrective in that regard (and probably should be regarded as such).

Can we apply the same argument to L11+? : That the arrival of G2a agriculturists reduced its(L11+) variance greatly thus making it appear younger in Western Europe, whereas I2a farmers were  no as affected by it, unlike their I1 relatives. The difference is that in that case you see no proofs for that happening, so basically about every other haplogroup can undergo a bottleneck but L11+ haplogroups. Also it is not the age of I-M26 in the rest of the Peninsula, but the pooled I-M26 age in the whole Peninsula, meaning the age of the 143 haplotypes of I-M26 calculated by Robert includes Pyrenean I-M26 and nonPyrenean.

Why should we believe that R-P312 originated in or about the western Pyrenees and expanded from there? Last I heard, R-P312 diversity in Europe is not highest there.

Really!!! Do you know of any study with a descent sample size that did extensive sampling in the region? The Martinez-Cruz study did extensive sampling in the region, they used 19 STRs, although for their calculations they only used 17 STRs, as they excluded the DYS385a/b combo, I know they used DYS426 and DSY388 amongst those 17 STRs, I’m trying to find the other 15 STRs such that I can perhaps run parallel variance calculations using those 17 STRs in other databases and see how the results compare, unfortunately right now I haven’t gotten much information about the other 15 STRs, although I presume they probably used the standard panel of DYS390-DYS393, DYS437-DYS439, maybe GATA-H4, etc.
« Last Edit: June 16, 2012, 01:36:37 PM by JeanL » Logged
realdealt
Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 29


« Reply #22 on: June 16, 2012, 01:20:17 PM »

JeanL
First, my calculations were for the whole peninsula not just the western Pyrenees and I understand how there might be greater haplotype diversity from one area to the next thereby implying an older population.

Ok, I know your calculations were for the whole Peninsula, I’ve never said otherwise.

I simply reiterated that as the course of your conversation in this thread seems focused on the western Pyrenees and you stated "it does invalidate the applying the results for the whole peninsula there."

I have many haplotypes from the western Pyrenees area, many of which if not all might be in my dataset. I did not note them by individual region. If that small geography has higher diversity I doubt it is significantly older than the overall peninsula R-P312 age if those haplotypes were included.

Well, you don’t know that, do you? That is just an assumption you are making that most of the haplotypes wont depart from the average. Also how many haplotypes do you have from the western Pyrenees area?

Actually, I can say with certainty that I have haplotypes from the western Pyrenees.....specifically which ones, how many were included, from which studies, etc., I would have to do some checking of my dataset to my database. I feel my assumption is reasonable based on what I know of my data. I will have to get back once I verify some things.

Besides, this is not an exact science where we can precisely calculate exact ages. There is a range of years that could cover those isolated areas with slightly different diversity. What specific study and data are you referring to?

The Martinez-Cruz et al.2012 study on Basques, data found on Table-2.

Thank you for pointing that out. I don't believe I have that.

And just because something is peer-reviewed does not mean it is the gold standard and correct.

I agree, being peer-reviewed doesn’t automatically make it right, but it means that for the most part peer-reviewed studies are review by a qualified member of the science community.

That said, I don't approach any study with an agenda. I prefer to let the evidence speak for itself. It either stands or falls eventually by the scientific method.


Sorry if I can't get these quote placements right......I work nights and am falling asleep. I will have to continue this another time.
Logged
JeanL
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 425


« Reply #23 on: June 16, 2012, 01:22:59 PM »

Richard for what it's worth, here is the study I was talking about the Bell Beakers dental traits analysis in several places in Europe: Europe during the third millennium BC and Bell Beaker Culture phenomenon: Peopling history through dental non-metric traits study
« Last Edit: June 16, 2012, 06:58:16 PM by JeanL » Logged
rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #24 on: June 16, 2012, 01:43:27 PM »


But that is not what the fossil record shows in the Western Pyrenees, there are no massive burials, or anything like that, in fact nonmetric dental analysis shows that pre- and post- beaker populations in Northern Spain were very likely the same . Also, like I said before, I-M26 as a SNP is older than P312 that much is clear,  therefore an equally likely explanation for the age of I-M26 in the whole peninsula is that it is being pooled from I-M26 arrivals from the Neolithic, and I-M26 that arrived from elsewhere in Europe to Iberia during the Roman times.

If I-M26 could pool up in Iberia subsequent to the Neolithic Period, so could R-P312. Apparently either its pooling still results in a younger age than the pooling of I-M26 (a y haplogroup far less common than R-P312) or the pooling process in Iberia was selective.

You are also arguing from the absence of evidence, and, besides that, I am not sure that all of what you wrote is actually true. What about the mass burial at SJAPL, in which there are signs of traumatic injury and violent death, some from arrows? I am not saying the entire burial site was the product of mass slaughter (that doesn't appear to be the case), but obviously the area was not conflict free either.



Can we apply the same argument to L11+, that the arrival of G2a agriculturists reduced its variance greatly thus making it appear younger in Western Europe, whereas I2a farmers were  no as affected by it, unlike their I1 relatives. 

Of course, we can, except that, if we do, we have to explain how such devastation at the hands of G2a agriculturists was completely reversed by the surviving R-L11 lines, so that R-L11 lineages have come to dominate western Europe, and G2a is a minor y haplogroup there. And that despite the agriculturists' obvious advantages in food production.

The argument for the reduction of I-M26, which remains reduced (if reduced it was), is stronger.


The difference is that in that case you see no proofs for that happening, so basically about every other haplogroup can undergo a bottleneck but L11+ haplogroups. Also it is not the age of I-M26 in the rest of the Peninsula, but the pooled I-M26 age in the whole Peninsula, meaning the age of the 143 haplotypes of I-M26 calculated by Robert includes Pyrenean I-M26 and nonPyrenean.


As I mentioned before, if I-M26 could pool in the Peninsula, so could R-P312. Despite such equal opportunity pooling, I-M26 is far older there than R-P312.

I never said L11 could not suffer bottlenecks. But if it did, it managed to come back like gangbusters and rise to dominance, despite being a backward y haplogroup holed up in the Pyrenees.

Really!!! Do you know of any study with a descend sample size that did extensive sampling in the region? The Martinez-Cruz study did extensive sampling in the region, they used 19 STRs, although for their calculations they only used 17 STRs, as they excluded the DYS385a/b combo, I know they used DYS426 and DSY388 amongst those 17 STRs, I’m trying to find the other 15 STRs such that I can perhaps run parallel variance calculations using those 17 STRs in other databases and see how the results compare, unfortunately right now I haven’t gotten much information about the other 15 STRs, although I presume they probably used the standard panel of DYS390-DYS393, DYS437-DYS439, maybe GATA-H4, etc.


Did the Martinez-Cruz study actually proclaim Pyrenean R-P312 the oldest R-P312 in all of Europe?

I am no expert on haplotype diversity, but from what I have read in the past, from Mike Walsh, Tim Janzen, Ken Nordtvedt and others, R-P312 diversity is higher in eastern and central Europe than in the Iberian Peninsula.

If you tell me it's higher in the western Pyrenees than in a similarly-sized Ruthenian district of the Carpathians, I am going to suggest you run for Congress. ;-)
Logged

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 7 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 0.09 seconds with 19 queries.