World Families Forums - Why using the letters "R1b" make sense in terminal SNP hg labels?

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
December 22, 2014, 09:33:36 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)
| | |-+  Why using the letters "R1b" make sense in terminal SNP hg labels?
« previous next »
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 Go Down Print
Author Topic: Why using the letters "R1b" make sense in terminal SNP hg labels?  (Read 4683 times)
Mike Walsh
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2964


WWW
« Reply #50 on: October 09, 2012, 11:56:16 AM »

This is very amusing. We're on an "R1b and Subclades Forum", and the person arguing against the term "R1b" has the power to change the name of the Forum. Yet, the name of the Forum is not being changed to the "R and Subclades Forum", or the "R-M343 and Subclades Foum".

I know you didn't imply this, but don't mistake that the fact that I have different point of view with  any thoughts that everyone else is wrong. RMS2 has a legitimate point. FTDNA is the big dog in the room. They are not going to change their direction. If people want to use the R-xxx label that is fine. I expect and know I'll have to deal with it from the FTDNA reporting system. I'm just encouraging the use of "R1b" in conversations (in case newbies are trying to listen in) - that's all.

I'm done with this thread. I'm sure I bored everyone to death and annoyed a few... sorry about that.  However, I do have an idea as far as the R1b and subclades project that I'll share later. This discussion has helped me clarify my perspective. I've never been consistent on this and I will try to be more consistent going forward. I wish we could understand YCC better. It is a bit of an enigma but has great potential as a standard setter. I'm afraid we'll have to rely on the volunteers at ISOGG, though. They are willing to work for free so thank you to them.
« Last Edit: October 09, 2012, 02:54:12 PM by Mikewww » Logged

R1b-L21>L513(DF1)>S6365>L705.2(&CTS11744,CTS6621)
rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #51 on: October 10, 2012, 03:59:57 AM »

I'm done with it, too.

I like to argue sometimes for fun, but I do actually prefer FTDNA's shorthand, which we have been using since early in 2008 when Vince Vizachero first brought it up over at the old dna forums. That was why Rick Arnold and I named the R-P312 and Subclades Project the R-P312 and Subclades Project instead of the R1b-P312 and Subclades Project. I found Vince's reasoning persuasive. The U106 guys chose to use R1b in the prefix of their project's name. (Side question: Are they still blocking offshoot subclade projects?)

Either way, it's not a big deal.
Logged

wing_genealogist
Senior Member
***
Online Online

Posts: 81


WWW
« Reply #52 on: October 10, 2012, 06:49:19 AM »

... (Side question: Are they still blocking offshoot subclade projects?) ...

My understanding (and I could well be wrong) is yes, FT-DNA is still not allowing more sub-haplogroup projects.  While I can understand their rationale, I don't really agree with it.
Logged

Y-DNA - R1b M157.2 (a private/family subclade of Z6/Z352) 111 markers tested

mt-DNA - J1c2g with the following private mutations: 315.1C 522.1A 522.2C C9974T C16256T (FMS tested and submitted to GenBank)

Autosomal - shows as a typical English ancestry. Tested with 23andMe, FTDNA
Richard Rocca
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 523


« Reply #53 on: October 10, 2012, 07:37:10 AM »

I'm done with it, too.

I like to argue sometimes for fun, but I do actually prefer FTDNA's shorthand, which we have been using since early in 2008 when Vince Vizachero first brought it up over at the old dna forums. That was why Rick Arnold and I named the R-P312 and Subclades Project the R-P312 and Subclades Project instead of the R1b-P312 and Subclades Project. I found Vince's reasoning persuasive. The U106 guys chose to use R1b in the prefix of their project's name. (Side question: Are they still blocking offshoot subclade projects?)

Either way, it's not a big deal.

I don't know, but fortunately the U106 project was regrouped by SNP rather than the old style geographic grouping. This at least reduces the need somewhat for sub-projects.
Logged

Paternal: R1b-U152+L2*
Maternal: H
rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #54 on: October 10, 2012, 07:51:57 AM »

... (Side question: Are they still blocking offshoot subclade projects?) ...

My understanding (and I could well be wrong) is yes, FT-DNA is still not allowing more sub-haplogroup projects.  While I can understand their rationale, I don't really agree with it.

FTDNA allows them, but they require the approval of the already existing major upstream haplogroup project admin. So, if U106 subclade projects aren't being allowed, it's the leadership of the R1b-U106 Research Project that is blocking them.

I know this because FTDNA has referred folks seeking L21+ offshoot projects to me for approval. I've always said okay because my basic approach is "Who the heck am I?". If someone wants to start a subclade project, why should I block him?
« Last Edit: October 10, 2012, 07:54:39 AM by rms2 » Logged

Jdean
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 678


« Reply #55 on: October 10, 2012, 07:55:52 AM »

(Side question: Are they still blocking offshoot subclade projects?)

Probably :)

Easy way to find out would be for somebody to send Charles an email asking approval for a new subclade project, I think I know what the answer would be though.
Logged

Y-DNA R-DF49*
MtDNA J1c2e
Kit No. 117897
Ysearch 3BMC9

Mike Walsh
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2964


WWW
« Reply #56 on: October 10, 2012, 10:52:31 AM »

...  don't mistake that the fact that I have different point of view with  any thoughts that everyone else is wrong. RMS2 has a legitimate point. FTDNA is the big dog in the room. ...

I'm trying  drop out of this thread as I think we've hit it pretty hard but I do have one new piece of information that is pertinent.

The real elephant in the room as far as consumer DNA testing goes, is actually the National Genographic Project. I just checked my National Genographic Project registration and their all new updated screens.

In big (I mean big) bold letters in an orange button on the "Your Story" screen which is one of the main selections, they list me as "R1B" and then they go on to migration maps and such.
Logged

R1b-L21>L513(DF1)>S6365>L705.2(&CTS11744,CTS6621)
rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #57 on: October 10, 2012, 09:15:48 PM »

...  don't mistake that the fact that I have different point of view with  any thoughts that everyone else is wrong. RMS2 has a legitimate point. FTDNA is the big dog in the room. ...

I'm trying  drop out of this thread as I think we've hit it pretty hard but I do have one new piece of information that is pertinent.

The real elephant in the room as far as consumer DNA testing goes, is actually the National Genographic Project. I just checked my National Genographic Project registration and their all new updated screens.

In big (I mean big) bold letters in an orange button on the "Your Story" screen which is one of the main selections, they list me as "R1B" and then they go on to migration maps and such.

But that's as far as they go, isn't it? I mean, that's all anyone has ever gotten from the Genographic Project, isn't it? (Of course, I guess that will change with the Geno 2.0 thingy.)

There isn't much need for a shorthand when the "longhand" only extends to three characters.

Is the Genographic Project using a shorthand system employing R1b as the prefix followed by the terminal SNP?

I guess I am wondering how finding "R1B" somewhere - even at the Genographic Project web site - supports your argument for using that as the shorthand prefix.
« Last Edit: October 10, 2012, 09:16:22 PM by rms2 » Logged

Mike Walsh
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2964


WWW
« Reply #58 on: October 10, 2012, 10:22:25 PM »

I guess I am wondering how finding "R1B" somewhere - even at the Genographic Project web site - supports your argument for using that as the shorthand prefix.

"R1b" is a defacto standard. "R" is practically useless.

I've given plenty of arguments and you are not convinced so I don't expect to change your mind. Other minds are being changed, though. It doesn't matter, what happens will happen.
Logged

R1b-L21>L513(DF1)>S6365>L705.2(&CTS11744,CTS6621)
rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #59 on: October 11, 2012, 04:03:48 AM »

I guess I am wondering how finding "R1B" somewhere - even at the Genographic Project web site - supports your argument for using that as the shorthand prefix.

"R1b" is a defacto standard. "R" is practically useless.

I'm not trying to anger you, but a de facto standard for what?

R1b means R1b, that is, M343+. It's the standard for that.

And R is not "practically useless". It means M207+, just as R1b means M343+.  In the shorthand, it directs you to the R Tree, which is named for R (M207) and begins with R, where you can then very easily find your terminal SNP. That's what it is supposed to do and all it is supposed to do in a shorthand system. If one uses R1b instead, all it does is get you to the R tree and then as far as M343, which is not very far and not all that much further than R. And it adds two unnecessary characters to the shorthand.

I've given plenty of arguments and you are not convinced so I don't expect to change your mind. Other minds are being changed, though. It doesn't matter, what happens will happen.

That's true. I have not found your arguments compelling, and, obviously, you have not found my arguments compelling.

I'm not worried about whose minds are changing. If FTDNA and NatGeo and whoever else want to shift to using R1b instead of R in the shorthand, that would be fine with me, except that it would mean typing two more characters every time I need to make a reference to the shorthand. That's a little bit of a pain, but no big deal.

I think we should all use the same shorthand, for ease of communication and understanding, and it seems to me going with the one in use by FTDNA makes sense. I also think a shorthand should be short, as short as gets the job done with reasonable ease of understanding and user friendliness. For that purpose we could drop the prefix altogether, as you have pointed out, but the tree is currently broken up into major branches that are represented by letters of the alphabet, so the letter of the major branch serves a useful purpose as a prefix. But it is all that is needed in the prefix, without any additional characters.

« Last Edit: October 11, 2012, 07:27:04 AM by rms2 » Logged

rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #60 on: October 11, 2012, 07:53:31 AM »

Sorry for posting yet again on this thread, but I am curious about something.

I am wondering what makes R1b so much more informative than R that R1b should be used as the shorthand prefix, even though it is three times as long as R and the single letter is the prefix in use by FTDNA in its shorthand. (Forget the YCC for now, since none of us really seems to know who or what the YCC really is, beyond Dr. Hammer.)

Should we use R1b because it immediately signals origin in Western Europe? Well, no, it doesn't do that. R1b (M343) is found in Asia and Africa, as well. A Fulani tribesman from Africa who is V88+ could use R1b in the shorthand prefix: R1b-V88. So, if we're looking for a stronger geographic signal in the shorthand prefix, we're going to have to go much further from the root of the tree than R1b to get it, and thus we would have to add a lot more characters to the prefix. I don't think anybody really wants to do that.

I guess you could argue that, well, most people know that most R1b guys are Western European, so R1b really is a sign of Western European origin. Yeah, but most people also know that most of the guys with R (or anything else, for that matter) in the shorthand on these boards are of Western European ancestry, so adding a couple of extra characters is really not necessary.

So what advantage does R1b really get us over R? Well, it does signal "not-R1a" (xR1a) and "not-R2" (xR2). That I'll grant, but is that really enough of an advantage in a shorthand system to warrant adding two extra characters to the prefix and altering the system in use by FTDNA? After all, one quick trip to the R Tree using R as a prefix will show one where the terminal SNP in question is and what its relationships are, and it will do it far beyond the rudimentary level indicated by R1b. And that trip will have to be made anyway.

So, I guess what it comes down to is how important one thinks it is to immediately eliminate R1a and R2 in the shorthand. That doesn't strike me as urgent, at least not urgent enough to warrant altering FTDNA's shorthand and adding two extra characters to the prefix.

Is that it, then? Or is there some other advantage to using R1b instead of R that I am missing?
« Last Edit: October 11, 2012, 07:57:31 AM by rms2 » Logged

Richard Rocca
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 523


« Reply #61 on: October 11, 2012, 08:22:40 AM »

Sorry for posting yet again on this thread, but I am curious about something.

I am wondering what makes R1b so much more informative than R that R1b should be used as the shorthand prefix, even though it is three times as long as R and the single letter is the prefix in use by FTDNA in its shorthand. (Forget the YCC for now, since none of us really seems to know who or what the YCC really is, beyond Dr. Hammer.)

Should we use R1b because it immediately signals origin in Western Europe? Well, no, it doesn't do that. R1b (M343) is found in Asia and Africa, as well. A Fulani tribesman from Africa who is V88+ could use R1b in the shorthand prefix: R1b-V88. So, if we're looking for a stronger geographic signal in the shorthand prefix, we're going to have to go much further from the root of the tree than R1b to get it, and thus we would have to add a lot more characters to the prefix. I don't think anybody really wants to do that.

I guess you could argue that, well, most people know that most R1b guys are Western European, so R1b really is a sign of Western European origin. Yeah, but most people also know that most of the guys with R (or anything else, for that matter) in the shorthand on these boards are of Western European ancestry, so adding a couple of extra characters is really not necessary.

So what advantage does R1b really get us over R? Well, it does signal "not-R1a" (xR1a) and "not-R2" (xR2). That I'll grant, but is that really enough of an advantage in a shorthand system to warrant adding two extra characters to the prefix, and  altering the system in use by FTDNA? After all, one quick trip to the R Tree using R as a prefix will show one where the terminal SNP in question is and what its relationships are. And that trip will have to be made anyway.

So, I guess what it comes down to is how important one thinks it is to immediately eliminate R1a and R2 in the shorthand. That doesn't strike me as urgent, at least not urgent enough to warrant altering FTDNA's shorthand and adding two extra characters to the prefix.

Is that it, then? Or is there some other advantage to using R1b instead of R that I am missing?

I for one think it is only marginally useful in forum conversations and nowhere outside of it. My reason is that once in a while a reference is made to an R1a subclade that I have no recollection of. If it is written with simply 'R' I can easily confuse it as being R1b, especially with the thousands of new SNPs discovered in the last year alone. So again, it has very very little value and only here. I see it as more of a courtesy than anything.
« Last Edit: October 11, 2012, 08:22:51 AM by Richard Rocca » Logged

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

Posts: 2964


WWW
« Reply #62 on: October 11, 2012, 10:06:44 AM »

Should we use R1b because it immediately signals origin in Western Europe? Well, no, it doesn't do that. R1b (M343) is found in Asia and Africa, as well. A Fulani tribesman from Africa who is V88+ could use R1b in the shorthand prefix: R1b-V88.

Actually, this is very informative. For a novice coming up to speed on all of this if we tell thrm they have distant relationship with Fulani tribesman that makes you think about how R1b might have some kind of relationship to the Middle East... at least you have to think about it.

If an R1b novice reads there are R-V88 people, of their volition (which is what we want - self-learning) they wouldn't have made as much of a connection. M207+ (the SNP behind "R") may be 30-50K years old. However, knowing there are R1b-V88 people might cause one to be intrigued and look for more, if one was R1b. In fact, R1b-V188 and R1b-M335 might be critical to understanding where we come from.  This is what some of these papers, like Busby's, Balaresque's and Myres' are trying to figure out so there is pertinent reading in the marketplace of ideas.

Now if the novice person was R1a, they'd probably discard the R1b-V88 line of investigation, which is probably the right thing to do for them.

Richard is right. It's purely a courtesy thing to help someone come up to speed and not get frustrated with meaningless and hard to reference technical jargon. This is something I understand. I'm an old programmer turned into management. Communicating in technical jargon is problematic for the unawashed. Do we want to turn the new recruits off?

It is true, a novice could have a printout of a full haplotree and every time they read one of these SNPs they could go and look at the tree, look at the lines and trace them back to where they meet. This is extremely laborious. I know a couple exceptional technical people who can do this kind of thing and learn it, in one sitting. They are exceptional. The regular person can't learn this way. If I was an interested novice and wanted to read about the "peopling of Europe" the number of pure acronyms I'd have to remember to fluidly  read the paper would be disheartening. Many people will throw in the towel just like they do when talking to real IT folks and such.

Remember an SNP label is just an acronym that is useless information in and of its own. It's an abbreviation for nothing, really.  What does the lab letter and sequence of discovery have to do with anything meaningful?  to a genetic genealogist? or to a deep ancestral researcher/scientist for that matter?  

The point is we still need some meaningful terms. Fortunately, "R1b" has grown to have some meaning over the years. The history of "R1b" is available out there from different points of view.  Sometimes the discussion is on "R1b1a2" or some other variation but it is not hard to figure out that "R1b" means something.

There are some linguistic/communications concepts at work here too. How many one letter words are there? Two letter words?   When we get to three letters we are finding an enormous expansion to the language. It's always nice to have a vowel to make it easier to say so "Rib" would actually be better than "R1b". I'm not a communications specialists so you may think I'm crazy, but there is something to this... "SNiP" is what Bennett Greenspan calls it. At least that acronym has useful meaning that is applicable.

I'm just asking the hobbyist gurus to think like a novice. How can we help them come along at their own speed with some interesting tidbits (like the Fulani or the Bronze Age or Anglo-Saxons or the Gaels) mixed with a gradual understanding of the phylogenetic tree from the main trunk through the limbs to the branches, twigs and leaves (Greenspan-ese.)
« Last Edit: October 11, 2012, 10:42:36 AM by Mikewww » Logged

R1b-L21>L513(DF1)>S6365>L705.2(&CTS11744,CTS6621)
rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #63 on: October 12, 2012, 07:44:06 AM »

See, I don't think R1b in the prefix does novices any good at all. It only helps us old timers who were around when R1b and R1a were about it. For us, R1b seems pregnant with meaning. For new guys . . . not so much. The difference between P312 and U106 could be considered just as significant as that between R1b and R1a, perhaps even more so.

A new guy will have to run over to the ISOGG tree to figure out where he stands with his terminal SNP anyway, and there he will get the big picture that an "R1b" in the prefix won't give him.

So, for me, R is enough and R1b is too much, since it accomplishes next to nothing and spends two extra characters doing it.

Besides, I think standardization and uniformity in a field like this are important, and not because I am some kind of political totalitarian.

If I see a shorthand R-SNP that I don't recognize, and if I care, I can shoot on over to the ISOGG R Tree and find it real quick. Then I'm up to speed in a heartbeat. I'd have to do that anyway, even if the shorthand read "R1b-SNP" instead.

So, for me, R1b is just three times as long as R and not worth the effort.
« Last Edit: October 12, 2012, 07:48:52 AM by rms2 » Logged

Mike Walsh
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2964


WWW
« Reply #64 on: October 12, 2012, 09:35:44 AM »

See, I don't think R1b in the prefix does novices any good at all. It only helps us old timers who were around when R1b and R1a were about it. For us, R1b seems pregnant with meaning. For new guys . . . not so much. The difference between P312 and U106 could be considered just as significant as that between R1b and R1a, perhaps even more so.

A new guy will have to run over to the ISOGG tree to figure out where he stands with his terminal SNP anyway, and there he will get the big picture that an "R1b" in the prefix won't give him.

So, for me, R is enough and R1b is too much, since it accomplishes next to nothing and spends two extra characters doing it.

Besides, I think standardization and uniformity in a field like this are important, and not because I am some kind of political totalitarian.

If I see a shorthand R-SNP that I don't recognize, and if I care, I can shoot on over to the ISOGG R Tree and find it real quick. Then I'm up to speed in a heartbeat. I'd have to do that anyway, even if the shorthand read "R1b-SNP" instead.

So, for me, R1b is just three times as long as R and not worth the effort.
Fair enough. I disagree slightly but your perspective is fine with me.

The important thing is that novices can find help (us or whoever) and engage in their own self-learning without getting frustrated and quitting.

I set up a couple of Yahoo groups to "cast a net" that people might run into. Essentially, my intent was to provide them as traffic directors to the major R1b projects and forums.  I don't list this forum because I don't know if you want a high volume of newbies. Let me know if you want this on the "go to" list.

I thought I better set up something for "R" so that if someone sees that are R-L176.2 or something and doesn't know what, if they could stumble up this it would be a starting point.  Please check out the home page.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/R_Haplogroup_YDNA/

All I want to do is get the M343+ guys over to the below web link (and direct the R1a guys their own direction). On this home page I've got our major R1b subclade projects and forums. This is a problem with a limited number of characters on Yahoo home pages.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/R1b-YDNA/

So this (R1b) Yahoo home page is a fairly detailed traffic director.  We also have several project admins in the membership so if a novice pops in, one of us can probably help.  I do have a direct link to the FTDNA R1b and Subclades project. http://www.familytreedna.com/public/r1b/  It used to be the Kerchner project. I don't know why they still list his copyright statements.  Anyway, I'm now working with those project admins in an attempt to figure out how we can get the bulge of R1b1a2 predict folks to move forward with SNP testing and then direct them to the sub projects like L21, U152, U106, etc.

From a project perspective, I envision the R1b and Subclades project as a pipeline and redirector to these other major subclade projects. I don't see it in anway substituting for sub-sub clade analysis. In other words, I see no purpose in subclassification below the L21, U152, P312*, DF27, U106 levels. At that point we need to toss them over to the right sub-project where they (i.e. you for L21) can subdivide out DF41, DF21, etc.
« Last Edit: October 12, 2012, 09:52:48 AM by Mikewww » Logged

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

Posts: 2964


WWW
« Reply #65 on: October 14, 2012, 11:45:24 AM »

GTC just posted this is another thread.
....
Given that Hammer was the driving force behind YCC, and Wells is the spokesperson for Geno 2 and is reportedly about to publish, perhaps a new YCC-type coalition is in the works.

http://www.yourgeneticgenealogist.com/2012/09/lets-all-start-using-terminal-snp.html

It reminded me to go check that blog and I see I have a response from her.

Quote from: Your Genetic Genealogist
@MikeW - After all the very intelligent discussion on this subject since I wrote this post, I have come to agree with the view that using the major subclade rather than just the haplogroup is a superior idea, especially with Haplogroup R (i.e. R1b-L21 as you suggest). Thank you for your well-presented argument in favor of this solution.
CeCe

She is the person who started this whole conversation with her blog article - "Let's All Start Using Terminal SNP Labels Instead of Y Haplogroup Subclade Names, Okay?" BTW, her blog is great at taking the complicated and explaining in an easy to understand way.
« Last Edit: October 14, 2012, 05:52:06 PM by Mikewww » Logged

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

Posts: 238


« Reply #66 on: October 14, 2012, 12:29:20 PM »

I wasn't going to post again on this topic, but I believe that I saw something quoting Chris Tyler-Smith also being in favor of this proposal ... but I'm damned if I can find it again now.
Logged

Y-DNA: R1b-Z12* (R1b1a2a1a1a3b2b1a1a1) GGG-GF Ireland (roots reportedly Anglo-Norman)
mtDNA: I3b (FMS) Maternal lines Irish
rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #67 on: October 14, 2012, 05:38:33 PM »

Geez.

And here I thought I was the one "going on" and getting "excited" about this issue.
Logged

gtc
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 238


« Reply #68 on: October 14, 2012, 06:51:30 PM »

Geez.

And here I thought I was the one "going on" and getting "excited" about this issue.

You are. The rest of us support it. LOL!
Logged

Y-DNA: R1b-Z12* (R1b1a2a1a1a3b2b1a1a1) GGG-GF Ireland (roots reportedly Anglo-Norman)
mtDNA: I3b (FMS) Maternal lines Irish
rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #69 on: October 14, 2012, 06:54:14 PM »

Geez.

And here I thought I was the one "going on" and getting "excited" about this issue.

You are. The rest of us support it. LOL!

Nope. Mike is campaigning on other sites, including what's-her-name's blog, and you are looking for authoritative opinions to support your own.

I thought we were done with this thread, but obviously the two of you aren't.

I think you are inspiring me to take it up again, though. When you boys quit a thread it's kind of reminiscent of a Palestinian "cease fire".
« Last Edit: October 14, 2012, 06:58:01 PM by rms2 » Logged

gtc
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 238


« Reply #70 on: October 14, 2012, 07:10:29 PM »

I don't know of anybody else who is energetically arguing the contrary POV. There may be some, but they haven't chimed in here, nor on FTDNA forums as far as I know.

I'm done with it now ... unless I change my mind. LOL!!!
Logged

Y-DNA: R1b-Z12* (R1b1a2a1a1a3b2b1a1a1) GGG-GF Ireland (roots reportedly Anglo-Norman)
mtDNA: I3b (FMS) Maternal lines Irish
Mike Walsh
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2964


WWW
« Reply #71 on: October 14, 2012, 07:29:41 PM »

Geez.

And here I thought I was the one "going on" and getting "excited" about this issue.

You are. The rest of us support it. LOL!

Nope. Mike is campaigning on other sites, including what's-her-name's blog, and you are looking for authoritative opinions to support your own.

I thought we were done with this thread, but obviously the two of you aren't.

I think you are inspiring me to take it up again, though. When you boys quit a thread it's kind of reminiscent of a Palestinian "cease fire".

The only reason I posted that was that it was new information related to the topic... and kind of ironic since the person who started the campaign to follow the YCC nomenclature changed her mind to say that there are cases the more than a single letter is useful, i.e. R1b-L21. There is nothing wrong with that. She maintained an open mind, thought about it, and changed her mind.

If everyone starts using "R" and "R1b" dies I'll change my mind and quit using "R1b" also. I just don't think that is likely. I know the U106 guys like to use it. I know a lot of papers, even current ones, refer to it so there is continuity there. I know the Eupedia folks think "R1b" is the way to go also.

If you have some new information, please post it.  I'm happy for new information. It's the rehashing of old arguments that gets old.

Whatever happens when Spencer Wells posts his new paper we need to post that here. I don't think other researchers will necessarily follow suit, but he is an important figure in the field.
« Last Edit: October 14, 2012, 07:34:05 PM by Mikewww » Logged

R1b-L21>L513(DF1)>S6365>L705.2(&CTS11744,CTS6621)
RickA
Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 34


« Reply #72 on: October 14, 2012, 07:32:12 PM »

Hg1

;-)

Logged

R-DF27+ Z196-
Mike Walsh
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2964


WWW
« Reply #73 on: October 14, 2012, 07:36:35 PM »

Hg1

;-)

Ht1 did die. I wish Ht35 would but I find myself using it on occasion too.
« Last Edit: October 14, 2012, 07:37:37 PM by Mikewww » Logged

R1b-L21>L513(DF1)>S6365>L705.2(&CTS11744,CTS6621)
rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #74 on: October 14, 2012, 07:37:19 PM »

Geez.

And here I thought I was the one "going on" and getting "excited" about this issue.

You are. The rest of us support it. LOL!

Nope. Mike is campaigning on other sites, including what's-her-name's blog, and you are looking for authoritative opinions to support your own.

I thought we were done with this thread, but obviously the two of you aren't.

I think you are inspiring me to take it up again, though. When you boys quit a thread it's kind of reminiscent of a Palestinian "cease fire".

The only reason I posted that was that it was new information related to the topic... and kind of ironic since the person who started the campaign to follow the YCC nomenclature changed her mind to say that there are cases the more than a single letter is useful, i.e. R1b-L21. There is nothing wrong with that. She maintained an open mind, thought about it, and changed her mind.
. . .

She changed her mind, but not without a little help.

What you posted over on her blog was not new information. It was the same argument you posted here. The only new information was that you managed to persuade her.

But whatever.
« Last Edit: October 14, 2012, 07:38:43 PM by rms2 » Logged

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 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 0.113 seconds with 19 queries.