Vizachero&Behar: the reassessment of R1b1*

[Maliclavelli]

This year we haven’t had only the reassessment of mtDNA by Behar et al., but also of the haplogroup R1b1 by the trio Vizachero, Vass, Hrechdakian. I criticized a sacred monster like Behar, imagine if I don’t say mine about Vizachero, probably the author of this reassessment, he who is probably the most East oriented of the three.

What has changed in this haplogroup? Now there are 4 clusters A and 3 clusters B, amongst them B2b is M335, put here we don’t know why (or, better, we know: M335, which I have demonstrated to be European, has put in the East!). A1 is composed by Humphrey, eight Jews (who are the same clade and should count for 1) and DeMao. A2 is composed by the Puerto Ricans. A3 by Armenians. A4 from 2 Germans. Of course this R1b1-A should be the most important, because amongst these should be the ancestor of the subclades, from R1b1a2 to all the others. You know that my theory is that from the R1b1 with YCAII=18-23 (or 18-22) were born both R-M335 and R-M269. These four clusters comprise both YCAII=18-23 (and 18-22) but also 23-23 and 22-23. Which does unify them? They have chosen to privilege DYS413=21-23, but the mutation rate of YCAIIa is 0,000496 and that of DYS413a is 0,00229 and of DYS413b is 0,001527. I let you judge of the reliability of this markers, but in this way the eastern ones are put into the play again.

Mikewww, after paying homage to Vincent Vizachero, says: “What's the big deal? I wasn't aware we were playing a card game. I would like to learn something. I just came from church. That arena is where the confidence of my convictions comes from. This arena of genetic genealogy and population genetics is still in its infancy. Realism about that is a good thing, not a bad thing”.

Mike, you won’t realize if your confidence is well reposed because first you’ll have to dye,
but genetics isn’t a faith: here we do previsions and someone wins someone loses.

We have just seen the capacity of Vincent Vizachero to do previsions about the recent haplotype of the bonesetter of Anglesey! I have made theories and previsions. I have just won about the bonesetter and I am seeing that also about Javakhishvili my previsions were right. I wrote:

This writes Kartveli on Dna-forums:
"I ran all the L389+ haplotypes from the R1b1(xP297) DNA Project through the McGee utility and made a tree with PHYLYP. Now I know, building phylogenetic trees is a complicated process and this can't be very trustworthy, but still I wanted to share the result: [see Dna-forums] Does this make any sense?"
I’d say that this Georgian is very close to R-M335 more than any other subclade, but he should be tested just for this SNP. You know that my theory is that the subclades of R1b1* (the European and most diffused ones) descend from the Italian ones: see DeMeo but also Mangino(actually the Tuscan Mancini).
P.S. Anyway the R-M335 known have YCAII=18-23, and Javakhishvili has 21-23, then he could belong to another subclade of R1b1* and have nothing to do with the European haplotypes. [Is Javakhishvili R-M335? « on: January 25, 2012, 10:13:48 AM »]

But this diagram of Kartveli demonstrates also how useless is this McGee utility and the tree-PHYLYP, just because they treat the markers values without considering my golden principles: mutations around the modal, convergence to the modal as time passes, some mutations go for
the tangent. It is clear for me that R1b1-A2 and R-M335 descend from the same haplotype which generated the European R-M269* (probably with YCAII=18-23) and have nothing to do with the others. Then if Javakhishvili were actually R-M335 my theory should be reconsidered[Re: Is Javakhishvili R-M335?]

Now also Javakhishvili has been reassessed by the trio, and I was right: “216826  Javakhishvili   Kaikhosro Javakhishvili, b.c. 15??, Georgia     R1b R-M343  M18-, M269-, M335-, M343+”. But what are waiting they to test him for P25 or L389?

[Mikewww]

Mikewww, after paying homage to Vincent Vizachero,

Maliclavelli, we obviously have a language/communications problem.  

I pay homage to no one but one, so please don't put words in my mouth. If you call my citing of an "acknowledgement" by a scientific team as "paying homage" then you do not under English well.

It wasn't a direct compliment, but is it okay to compliment somebody without have some devious intent or blind loyalty?

Keep slaying those sacred monsters, but please be careful, some times they are windmills, which can be quite dangerous.

[Maliclavelli]

Keep slaying those sacred monsters, but please be careful, some times they are windmills, which can be quite dangerous.

If they are windmills I’d be Don Quijote, but windmills become dangerous when they aren’t phantoms but people in flesh and blood with much power. I did scientific observations, with which you may agree or not, but scientific theories ask scientific replies. Vizachero did his own, and I may agree with him or not. By a scientific point of view I don’t agree. I said that science is to make theories, to plan experiments and to verify the theory. In the two cases I quoted I did this. Vizachero failed about the bonesetter of Anglesey. I ask you and him which previsions of his has been verified. I have done other previsions, above all that that an ancient R1b will be found in Italy, above all in Tuscany. As you see I am not reticent. The fight against the windmills I do by my own and openly.

[vineviz]

Vizachero failed about the bonesetter of Anglesey.

I made no statement about the bonesetter except to point attention to the publication of the report, something you should be grateful for else you would have no awareness of the publication.

The success or failure of the bonesetter report is not upon me:  I did not write it, or even comment on it except to criticize its conclusion in passing, so I can take no credit nor responsibility for its veracity. 

If you must have  a windmill to joust, choose Jim Wilson.  But I advise you to stick to the facts and issues, and leave aside the ad hominem attacks.  The moderators of this forum will not tolerate it.

[Terry Barton]

We welcome reasoned assessments of a study, its parts and its conclusions - whether they are pro or con. 

We do not welcome comments about the individuals themselves.

I encourage the users of this site to let posters know if they are jousting windmills\

Terry

[Maliclavelli]

The windmills I am jousting against are all those things that derive from a mythical mentality of all those who haven’t yet understood (and probably they won’t ever do it) that ancient Greeks discovered for the man the science. Science is the research of truth, whichever it is. Science doesn’t knows subterfuges, deceptions, cowardly actions.

What is a name? We don’t know the Italian surname of Argiedude, which he has kept always withhold, and who knew it (for instance the administrators of the North Italian project) never revealed it, and for me he is only “Argiedude”.

I have published, also here, some private letters. Do they contain something secret or are they treating arguments of public utility? If so, they may (they must) be published. This is to reason by a scientific point of view. We have known the letters of the Nobel Prize Eugenio Montale to his American muse Irma Brandeis (Clizia) long after her death, and probably he did desire that they weren’t ever published. In fact he always burnt his.

Many are speaking in these last hours about R-L51 and its maps both here and on Rootsweb. At the origin of this are probably some actions of mine and some letters:

9 ago (5 giorni fa)
 
You write:
“I noticed that R1b-L51 was missing from the data, and investigating a
little I realized the span of the y-dna sequenced by 1000Genomes isn't
the whole span of the y-dna in which SNPs have previously been found.
But it does grab the most important sections, so it's only a minority
of already recognized ISOGG SNPs that didn't appear in the 1000Genomes
data, L51 being unfortunately one of them (its position is effectively
outside the range sequenced by ISOGG)”.

Two Tuscan R-L51-s (and a Colombian) have been found by Richard Rocca,
who did another map of R-L51 after yours.

 
Hi, Gioiello, excellent, thanks.

My guess was that there were 4 L51 samples, and they were 2 Italians, 1 Mexican, and 1 Puerto Rican. Their sample codes:

HG01066___Puerto Rico
NA19720___Mexico
NA20537
NA20785

Can you direct me to the webpage where Rocca talks about this? Also to his map.

Nice to hear from you again,
argiedude

11 ago (3 giorni fa)
Argiedude, I was quoting by heart about the R-L51 and really in my
spreadsheet there are only these 3, but I confide on you and a little
bit changes. Of course the two Tuscans out of 51 tested (and Tuscans
were the only Italians on 1KGP) are very important. They do the 4% of
R-L51 in Central North Italy which is the same of your map. Richard
Rocca has done a new map of R-L51 and it is published on
www.worldfamilies.net (R1b-L51 from the West « on: May 02, 2012,
12:09:40 PM »), where I write from years and now, after the default of
DNA-Forums, also many who wrote there. Also the 1 or 2 South-Americans
of Spanish descent are very important. Amongst other the map of RRocca
demonstrates that the presence of this haplogroup in Iberia is just in
the zone when the Italian agriculturalists landed 7500 years ago
(Valencia Region and Central Portugal): I have written a lot about
this just on my theory of the Italian Refugium.
Richard Stevens wrote to me (and about this is spoken also in a thread
on Worldfamilies) about your test of DF13. I have written this on
Worldfamilies: Re: R1b-L21* "true asterisk" DF13- people & DF63
« Reply #225 on: August 10, 2012, 08:54:28 AM »

Gioiello (Maliclavelli)
   

[Maliclavelli]

Now we have had the reassessment of the reassessment: R1b1 has a Cluster B1 (with Javakhishvili too), B2 (R-M335) and C (Joshi). Vineviz said that this reassessment is due to a matrix plot, and this is right. How can we solve the question by me posed of the YCAII values?

If we take the 22 slow mutators of Anatole Klyosov (DYS 426, 388, 392, 455, 454, 438, 531,  578, 395S1a, 395S1b, 590, 641, 472, 425, 594, 436, 490, 450, 617, 568, 640, 492) we have these modals:

R1*                      12 12 13 11 11 11 11 8 15 16 8 10 8 12 10 12 12 8 11 11 11 12
R1a (cluster 1)       12 12 13 11 11 11 11 8 15 16 8 11 8 12 10 12 12 8 12 11 11 12
R1a (cluster 2)       12 12 13 11 12 12   9 8 15 16 8 10 8 12 10 12 12 8 12 11 11 12
R1b1 (cluster A1)   12 13 13 11 11 11 11 8 15 16 8 10 8 12 10 12 12 8 11 11 11 12
R1b1 (cluster A2)   12 14 13 11 11 11 11 8 15 16 8 10 8 12 10 13 12 8 11 11 11 12
R1b1 (cluster A3)   11 13 13 11 11 11 11 8 15 16 8 10 8 12 10 12 12 8 11 11 11 12
R1b1(cluster A4)    12 13 12 10 11 11 11 8 15 16 8 10 8 12 10 12 12 8 11 11 11 14
R1b1 (cluster B1)   12 12 13 11 11 11 11 8 15 16 8 10 8 12 10 12 12 8 12 11 12 11
R1b1(cluster B2)    12 12 13 11 12 11 11 8 15 16 8 10 8 12 10 12 12 8 12 11 12 11
R1b1 (cluster C)     12 12 13 11 12 11 11 8 15 16 8 11 8 12 10 12 12 8 12 11 11 11
R1b1a-P297           12 12 13 11 11 11 11 8 15 16 8 10 8 12 10 12 12 8 11 11 11 12
R-M73                  12 12 13 11 11 10 11 8 16 16 8 10 8 12 10 12 12 8 11 11 11 12
R-M269 (46835)     12 13 13 11 11 12 11 8 15 16 8 10 8   0 10 12 12 8 11 11 11 12
R-M269                11 12 13 11 11 12 11 9 15 16 8 10 8 12 10 12 12 8 12 11 11 12


Now we can reconstruct all the trees and a first question is if we have to admit that the haplotypes so far found are of the same line of the subclades (thus we should presuppose some back mutations) or if they continue a parallel haplotype with that mutation that didn’t affect the main subclade. It is the case of DYS426=13 of R-L51 for instance or DYS426=11 of R-M269*.
Anyway we see clearly that as to R1b1 the clusters B1, B2 and C were the same cluster and had the mutations DYS617 from 11 to 12 and DYS492 from 12 to 11. After Cluster C separated and cluster B1 and B2 had the mutation DYS640 from 11 to 12. After each of this clusters had (or hadn’t) its own mutation(s). Then what may we say about YCAII? Cluster B1 has 21-23, cluster B2 has 18-23, cluster C has 20-24. We may hypothesize that from a hypothetical original 18-23 or 19-23 they had the same values till they formed the same cluster and that the actual values are due to their own history after the separation.

About Joshi (cluster C) I’d want to say that he is Indian, but, as he says in his ySearch account, “vajaseniya shukla madhyandin deshastha brahman vatsa gotra”, then of Brahmanic descent, one of the few R1b amongst them, but probably of Western Eurasian origin.