World Families Forums - R-M269: East to West, West to East, South to North or North to South?

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
April 17, 2014, 11:24:44 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)
| | |-+  R-M269: East to West, West to East, South to North or North to South?
« previous next »
Pages: [1] Go Down Print
Author Topic: R-M269: East to West, West to East, South to North or North to South?  (Read 1855 times)
Mike Walsh
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2963


WWW
« on: September 02, 2011, 09:12:09 AM »

Busby has thrown a wet blanket on Balaresque's and Myres' R-M269 studies, particulary Balaresque's. A complaint I have about Busby is I don't think he looked at the R-M269 phylogenetic tree and applied it across all their calculations. It is my opinion that Busby's approach was effectively a "strawman attack" where one throws up the opposition representing them with a narrow argument that is subject to weaknesses. You blow up the strawman argument and declare victory. This is the logical fallacy of extension.

Although Busby didn't really attack this head-on, I think there is a legitimate concern about using R-M269's phylogenetic tree and assuming too much from its geographic proportional distribution.  What I mean is we should NOT really consider the modern R-L23xL11 or R-L11* haplotypes as ancestral or old in any manner. They are paragroups and could consist of young subclades. These young subclades may have ancestral lineages to Central Europe.

To me the first big question is did R-M269 expand fro east to west from Western Asia or did it expand from Central Europe both east and west. Some people think there were south to north expansions out of the Italian or Iberian peninsulas. I don't think so but I guess those are possibilities. There is even a view of northwest to south and east expansion from around the North Sea (perhaps Doggerland or the Low Countries.)

Anyway, I plan to look at R-L23xL11 and R-L11* haplotypes ...  "brothers and cousins" of Western European P312 and U106 folks.  I think if the variances are high and there is evidence of high subclade diversity amongst the brothers and cousins then the east to west or at least southeast/south to northwest/west expansion truly are most likely.

The second big question is when all of this happened. I don't want to address that one as that does require greater precision in STR variance linearity and mutation rates and those are cans of worms. Some will say we need aDNA but I think that will be unsatisfying, at least for quite a while since there is not scientific sampling for it across the geographies. With the advent of fuller scanning of the Y chromosome I'm hopeful that Karafet's "novel" method of counting SNPs along branch lengths along with more refined STR variance and mutation rates will bring progress.
« Last Edit: September 02, 2011, 09:17:41 AM by Mikewww » Logged

R1b-L21>L513(DF1)>L705.2
alan trowel hands.
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2012


« Reply #1 on: September 02, 2011, 11:00:33 AM »

One thing I think is rather silly about their approach is that they are trying to knock down the single SE to NW wave theory of European R1b.  They are trying to knock down an archaeological theory of the spread of farming that archaeologist themselves knock down (or at least heavily modified) over the last decade or so in light of better RC dates. 

For a start we need to separate off the Central European spread from the Cardial.  They may not originate from the same route.  I am not convinced Cardial was primarily R1b driven. 

So, looking at temperate Europe you get a number of phases there.  First you get the Balkans Neolithic groups.  Then you get LBK.  LBK is probably derived from NW Balkan Neolithic but it spread like lightning into an early Danubian core that ran from from Hungary to the Rhine.  The forming of that initial core and the directions are unclear must have involved a movement north away from the Balkans contact area then movement east and west along the Danube (more west than east).   THEN LBK spread from that early core in all directions including west as far as northern France , north-east into central Germany, southern Poland etc and , south-east almost to the Black Sea.  The was not much movement south.   

So, even LBK did not have a simple east to west route.  Archaeologists have known this for a long time.  Yes the general trend of farming was from SE Europe to NW Europe but in between it was rather complex.

It gets even more complex after that.  LBK stalled for a long period and then a whole lot of secondary Neolithic culture spread up, including both the old LBK area and a whole lot of new areas.  The general overall trend in this period was the extension of farming to the north and west BUT it wasnt a simple wave. 

Funnel Beaker (TRB) is now thought to have arisen in Poland and spread from there to the non-farming area of the Northern European plain.  So, although further north than farming had gone before, TRB actually started WAY to the east of where farming had reached moving through central Europe (it had reached the English Channel about this time).  So, again the general trend is east to west but the chronology and starting points are different at different latitudes.   

In central Europe itself the Rossen, Lengyel etc successor cultures that overlapped the old LBK area (in the main) also probably were not a simple east-west thing although I am not certain about them.   The spread to the isles was probably from between NW France (reached by the Cerny culture) and the Rhine so would have involved north and north-west movements.  There was also middle Neolithic Chasseen and other spreads that extended into the inland core of France, the Alps etc although the direction seems debated. 

Its far more complex than even this summary.  All in all, what I am saying is although the overall macro trend was the spread of farming was from the Balkans to the Atlantic there was many hiatuses and secondary take off points which did  not just move east to west.  So, finding a weak east-west variance trend in M269 in Europe is not surprising when it is all pooled.  However, I do believe that when clades are broken down and a more fine grained understanding of the spread of farming is taken on board it could be possible to correlate them.

In summary, showing there was not a simple east/south-east to west/north-west trend in variance in no way undermines any correlation with the spread of farming as it did not had a simple directional spread like that.   
Logged
JeanL
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 425


« Reply #2 on: September 03, 2011, 10:48:45 AM »

Busby has thrown a wet blanket on Balaresque's and Myres' R-M269 studies, particulary Balaresque's. A complaint I have about Busby is I don't think he looked at the R-M269 phylogenetic tree and applied it across all their calculations. It is my opinion that Busby's approach was effectively a "strawman attack" where one throws up the opposition representing them with a narrow argument that is subject to weaknesses. You blow up the strawman argument and declare victory. This is the logical fallacy of extension.

I do not think their study is in any way a strawman argument, instead  they tried to test the same hypothesis on a different data set, and it turned out not to follow the hypothesis. I don’t get what you mean that Busby et al(2011) did not look at the R-M269 phylogenetic tree? At least from what I’ve seen in the study they did separate clades, and one of the most useful information is in Figure-2 of the study, where one can see the distribution and variance of R1b-M269 overall, the distribution and variance of  R1b-M269(xL11) and R1b-L11. Again, I don’t understand what you mean exactly, so if you could explain it would be better.

Although Busby didn't really attack this head-on, I think there is a legitimate concern about using R-M269's phylogenetic tree and assuming too much from its geographic proportional distribution.  What I mean is we should NOT really consider the modern R-L23xL11 or R-L11* haplotypes as ancestral or old in any manner. They are paragroups and could consist of young subclades. These young subclades may have ancestral lineages to Central Europe.

Well R1b-M269(xS127) is ancestral to R1b-S127 or R1b-L11 thus far. If you are suggesting that there might be a yet to discover SNP that defines all that R1b-M269(xL11) into a sibling clade of R1b-L11 and not  the ancestral, I think is possible. I actually think that the discover of SNPs in the R1b-M269(xL11) people would help a lot in trying to explain this genetic puzzle. For example it would allows to know if the R1b-M269(xL11) found in Europe is truly ancestral, or if it has the same SNP that the R1b-M269(xL11) found in Anatolia or the Caucasus.
« Last Edit: September 03, 2011, 10:52:34 AM by JeanL » Logged
Maliclavelli
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2099


« Reply #3 on: September 03, 2011, 01:04:37 PM »

For example it would allows to know if the R1b-M269(xL11) found in Europe is truly ancestral, or if it has the same SNP that the R1b-M269(xL11) found in Anatolia or the Caucasus.
Of course this discourse may be done at every level of the phylum. In the past we talked of R1b1*, which was the ancestor of the European subclades. Now V88 has demonstrated that we descend from R1b1-V88-, etc. At the level of my haplogroup (R1b1a2a-L150+), which and where was the ancestor of R-L51+? We have found many SNPs that R-L11+ hasn't, but, as I have said in the past, it isn't enough: we should ascertain when those SNPs arose: before or after that from one of that clade arose the mutation L11+? For instance I have a SNP (S136+) which of course the subclades haven't, but my SNP is born not before the first centuries AD (link Tognoni- Fluckiger) and not before the 8th century (link Tognoni-Dubinsky). It is born after the 15th century (link Tognoni Gioiello- Tognoni Giancarlo). This work, to answer your question, should be done also on the other lines-haplotypes-clusters.

For what concerns the origin of R1b1a2* I said  that the Eastern haplotypes of R1b1*, having mostly YCAII-23-23 and not the presupposed 18-22 or 18-23, weren't for me the ancestors, but, here too, when happened that mutation (RecLOH): after or before M269?
« Last Edit: September 03, 2011, 04:29:11 PM by Maliclavelli » Logged

Maliclavelli


YDNA: R-S12460


MtDNA: K1a1b1e

rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #4 on: September 03, 2011, 01:12:34 PM »

I believe the consensus is that R1b arose somewhere in western Asia in the vicinity of its closest genetic cousins, like Q and R1a. That pegs down an eastern origin for R1b. M269 appears to be of western Asian origin, as well, since close relatives like R-M73 are found mainly in Asia.

Given that R1b and, subsequently, M269 originated in the east, I think it is safe to look for a basic east-to-west movement in M269 and its clades. That is why M269xL11 (skipping over the intermediate stuff like L23, L150 and L51) is so important. It is not that we should look at any modern man as being the same as one of our ancient or prehistoric ancestors. It is just that the trail itself is east-to-west and the M269x11 stuff is more frequent in the east. The modern bearers of that signature did not stop there in their mutations. They are modern men, after all. But they took the turn off down the road to a different mutation before reaching L11, and that is what enables us to spot and track the trail. We pick up L11 farther west and subsequent offshoots of that basically even farther west.

It's as if a large family were journeying west down Highway M269 in several vehicles.  Most of the vehicles take an exit to get on Highway L23 and continue west. One or two do not and continue on Highway M269 and end up taking different exits. We who got on Highway L23 lose track of them. As we move west, some in our family caravan don't follow the rest of us when we take, first, exit L150 and then exit L51. Since those of us in the main group end up driving on Highway L11 all the way to the Atlantic, those who took earlier exits, farther back east and south, end up settling not so far west and north.

Well, you get the picture (I hope).
« Last Edit: September 03, 2011, 01:14:22 PM by rms2 » Logged

Maliclavelli
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2099


« Reply #5 on: September 03, 2011, 04:26:38 PM »

Rich, you more than a highway are thinking to a one-way road and this is the old fallacy that light comes from East, a belief more than a reasoning.
Logged

Maliclavelli


YDNA: R-S12460


MtDNA: K1a1b1e

rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #6 on: September 03, 2011, 05:59:06 PM »

Rich, you more than a highway are thinking to a one-way road and this is the old fallacy that light comes from East, a belief more than a reasoning.

Analogies have to be simple and easy to comprehend to be effective. Of course, the truth is more complex, with all sorts of cross and back traffic. But I think what I wrote is basically right.
Logged

Humanist
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 121


« Reply #7 on: September 03, 2011, 11:00:27 PM »

Rich, you more than a highway are thinking to a one-way road and this is the old fallacy that light comes from East, a belief more than a reasoning.

I am not saying you are wrong.  Simply wish to get your opinion on some questions I deem extremely relevant to the issue.  What are the ages of the different forms of I in Europe?  How about R1a?  If R1b was brought from the west, one needs to reconcile some data.  Armenians and Assyrians have extremely low R1a frequencies (avg. 1%-3%).  Armenians have ~5% I2, while Assyrians have 0% of any sort of I Y-DNA.  The Y-DNA profiles of some other populations (relatively) rich in R1b, such as the N Syrian Alawites, tell a similar tale.  For the Druze, and other ME religious minorities, I reckon, it is not much different. 

n=x   n=106      
hgx   Assyrian   Tyler-Smith and Jobling   YCC
hg1   41.5%   P*(xR1b8,R1a,Q3)   Q1a/b,R1b,R2
hg9   37.7%   J   J1/J2
hg26   15.1%   K*(xK1,LN,O2b,O3c,P)   T,K*
hg21   2.8%   E*(xE3)   E1b1b
hg3   1.9%   R1a1   
hg2   0.9%   BR*(xB2b,CE,F1,H,JK)   F*,G,I

hg7   0.0%   Y*(xBR,A2)   A3b2
hg8   0.0%   E3a   E1b1a
hg16   0.0%   N3   
hg28   0.0%   L   
hg29   0.0%   R1a*   

YEPISKOPOSIAN et al. (2006)
Logged

Maliclavelli
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2099


« Reply #8 on: September 04, 2011, 03:17:37 AM »

Humanist, dear friend, I esteem you one who is searching for truth and not for prejudices like I too think to be. Of course the huge presence of R1b in Middle East must be explained and we all are working for this. At a first sight, I’d say that the percentages you bring are pretty the same of Tuscans, at least those coming out from the 50 tested in the 1000 Genomes Project. But with a difference, that we have 50% R1b, mostly R-L11+ (above all R-U152, that, at this point, is born just here) and mine, R-L23, is probably at a low percentage, and Assyrians have percentages, to be determined, of clearly Asian Q and R2 we haven ‘t. Then your R1b is perhaps of Asian origin, perhaps not all. Nobody denies that R1b was born in Asia, but you have above all R1b till L23+. What I have said in all these years is that European subclades were born from R-L23, R-L51 etc. born in Europe and not from your haplogroup. Which is the problem? That many, pretty all like Rich, think that this haplogroup is very young and has come from East, I think that it isn’t so young and there were, at least 10000 years ago, two communities of R1b, one around the Alps and one around the Caucasus, but that European subclades are born here.
If we come out the highway and begin to run a road, everything becomes more difficult but perhaps closer to reality.

P.S. Are you convinced now that your HV4 is born in Italy and not in Middle East? Are you accepting what also FTDNA says, that R0a etc., is born in Europe, above all in Italy, and not in Middle East? Etc. etc.
« Last Edit: September 04, 2011, 02:51:27 PM by Maliclavelli » Logged

Maliclavelli


YDNA: R-S12460


MtDNA: K1a1b1e

Humanist
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 121


« Reply #9 on: September 04, 2011, 08:53:17 AM »

P.S. Are you convinced now that your HV4 is born in Italy and not in Middle East? Are you accepting what also FTDNA says, that R0a etc., is born in Europe, above all in Italy, and not in Middle East? Etc. etc.

I have not researched the question, to be honest.  My branch, HV4a2, is solidly Middle Eastern for the last few millennia.  Myself, a Jordanian, and an Egyptian.  If the mutation giving rise to HV4, wherever and whenever it may have been, occurred on what is today considered traditionally European soil, beautiful.  Many folks in the Middle East, and I would say, particularly the (old) Christians, do not see themselves as a distinct race of people, from those farther to the west.  We have our differences, of course, but to me, and  some others, we exist along the same (relatively recent) genetic continuum. 
Logged

Maliclavelli
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2099


« Reply #10 on: September 04, 2011, 09:18:35 AM »

I have spoken of HV4 (and also of R0a2) only because we spoke about your haplogroup and I did my researches just to answer your questions. And I said this for demonstrating that what was believed only a few years ago now isn’t believed any more. The same could happen also for R1b.
Logged

Maliclavelli


YDNA: R-S12460


MtDNA: K1a1b1e

Mike Walsh
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2963


WWW
« Reply #11 on: September 04, 2011, 01:35:37 PM »


Although Busby didn't really attack this head-on, I think there is a legitimate concern about using R-M269's phylogenetic tree and assuming too much from its geographic proportional distribution.  What I mean is we should NOT really consider the modern R-L23xL11 or R-L11* haplotypes as ancestral or old in any manner. They are paragroups and could consist of young subclades. These young subclades may have ancestral lineages to Central Europe.

Well R1b-M269(xS127) is ancestral to R1b-S127 or R1b-L11 thus far. If you are suggesting that there might be a yet to discover SNP that defines all that R1b-M269(xL11) into a sibling clade of R1b-L11 and not  the ancestral, I think is possible. I actually think that the discover of SNPs in the R1b-M269(xL11) people would help a lot in trying to explain this genetic puzzle. For example it would allows to know if the R1b-M269(xL11) found in Europe is truly ancestral, or if it has the same SNP that the R1b-M269(xL11) found in Anatolia or the Caucasus.

Modern haplotypes (the data we have) with R1b-M269xL11 (xS127) are not "ancestors" to R1b-L11 people. That's what I was trying to say. They are just people with what is considered the ancestral value at location for SNP L11 (S127).
There are subclades of the paragroup R1bxL11. There has to be unless there was only one R1b-M269xL11 person left with not brothers, cousins, etc. We may not have discovered SNP's that mark these subclades yet, but there are subclades.

The issue that I think is legitimate that counters the Myres logic to some degree is:
Are there many old M269xL11 subclades and were are they located?
If we find that East Europe and West Asia have a lot of diversity that is an indication of older age there rather than and west to east wave of expansion from Central Europe. If M269xL11 can be grouped into a few major subclades (i.e. P312 and U106 are) then that is an indication of younger ages that support a Central European west to east expansion.

Busby never really addressed this. He does mention and show graphs for multiple subclades of R1b but he does not do his variance analysis across each of the subclades and paragroups independently. That's what I meant when I said he didn't run his key counter(to Balaresque) argument across all of the subclades.

There are multiple paragroups upstream of R-L11 that are important. For instance R-L23xL11 which appears common in some groups in the Caucasus as well as Anatolia. It's not just R-M269 or R-M269xL11 and then there is R-M343 (R1b itself) xM269 considerations.

How did R1b-V88 get to Sub-Saharan Africa. How did R1b-M73 get to the Urals and Afghanistan? Did they come from Central Europe as a part of a star-like expansion of R1b?  

What about R1b in the Near East/SW Asia?  .. not just Anatolia.

BTW, I'm not saying Barlaresque addressed all of these things in a superior manner either. There are other studies, i.e. Myres, but others too that provide additional support for an east to west migration.  I don't argue for a Neolithic origin necessarily either, just the east to west migration.

Busby took the strawman approach because by really focusing on just one study, Barlaresque, and one perspective, that of a Neolithic expansion for R1b, and just one support point for that, STR variance.

Again, I'm not advocating that Barlaresque's study is without errors or that it is comprehensive. I'm not an academic and don't care if what study beats another study or not. I don't really care as I think most of us don't. We are just interested in the body of evidence and the arguments for R1b's expansion(s).

« Last Edit: September 04, 2011, 02:00:46 PM by Mikewww » Logged

R1b-L21>L513(DF1)>L705.2
Maliclavelli
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2099


« Reply #12 on: September 04, 2011, 03:15:09 PM »

Mikewww writes: “How did R1b-V88 get to Sub-Saharan Africa?”

I have hypothesized that the migration to North Africa happened via sea from North (Italy or perhaps Spain) and not necessarily from Middle East. The great Fulvio Cruciani promised me to take in consideration my hypothesis and I am still waiting a study of his, one like others he wrote, for instance the last with all those V-SNPs on hg.A.

Mikewww writes: “How did R1b-M73 get to the Urals and Afghanistan?”

There is a thread of mine here on Worldfamilies about M73 (but there are others on R-M335 and also on R1a-M420) and just today I have helped Lawrence Mayka to identify some R1b1a1 that are coming out. If you look at the R1b1a1 project, there are three clusters of R1b1a1 and the European one (cluster A) has more variance and I think more ancientness of the Asian ones (B1 and B2). We cannot exclude that also for R1b1a1 there were two settlements, like I supposed for R1b1a2, very ancient: one around the Alps and the other around the Caucasus.

And don’t forget that 1000 Genomes Project has found 2 R-M207 out of 50Y in Tuscany, 3 in Puerto Rico and 1 in Colombia. None amongst all the other peoples tested.

Logged

Maliclavelli


YDNA: R-S12460


MtDNA: K1a1b1e

alan trowel hands.
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2012


« Reply #13 on: September 04, 2011, 03:35:37 PM »

Live footage of Busby being captured by the angry Myres et al mob and given an ironic punishment for the straw man approach.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UEOQqnHMSMc
« Last Edit: September 04, 2011, 03:37:44 PM by alan trowel hands. » Logged
rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #14 on: September 04, 2011, 03:47:19 PM »

Live footage of Busby being captured by the angry Myres et al mob and given an ironic punishment for the straw man approach.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UEOQqnHMSMc

LOL.
Logged

Mike Walsh
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2963


WWW
« Reply #15 on: September 06, 2011, 12:29:49 PM »

...The issue that I think is legitimate that counters the Myres logic to some degree is:
Are there many old M269xL11 subclades and were are they located?
If we find that East Europe and West Asia have a lot of diversity that is an indication of older age there rather than and west to east wave of expansion from Central Europe. If M269xL11 can be grouped into a few major subclades (i.e. P312 and U106 are) then that is an indication of younger ages that support a Central European west to east expansion. ...

MHammers made this point on another thread but it relates so I'll add it here.
I think Myres found the variance to be relatively low with Baskkir U152.  My guess is that they were "Europeans" who were "Turkicized" in the Dark-Middle ages.  ...
If Busby thinks that R-L11* is an "Eastern clade" that came from Europe to SW Asia and Anatolia then we should find something similar as what we find with U152...  that is U152 has low variance with the Bashkirs so it looks like an historic period arrival in Central Asia.

Alan, just another torch for the fire.
« Last Edit: September 06, 2011, 12:31:36 PM by Mikewww » Logged

R1b-L21>L513(DF1)>L705.2
Mike Walsh
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2963


WWW
« Reply #16 on: September 13, 2011, 12:16:57 AM »

Live footage of Busby being captured by the angry Myres et al mob and given an ironic punishment for the straw man approach.
I asked Nordtvedt what he thought about filtering out STR's out, like Busby et al did, and received a critical response.

Busby et al makes a couple of assessments related to using Y DNA STRs as follows:
Quote from: Busby
Contrary to common belief, estimates of ASD, and therfore T, vary widely when different subsets of STRs are used with the same sample

Quote from: Ken Nordtvedt
They should be a bit more careful with their choice of adjectives. If you divide up the STRs into subsets, certainly you will get more variation in tmrca estimates; the statistical  onfidence interval blows up as you try to rely on fewer and fewer independent mutational experiments through the tree. Their key figure 4, I think, shows a trend of larger tmrcas when using subsets of slower and slower STRs. But 1) this just confirms what hobbyists found out in the last few years, and 2) their graph has absurdly tiny or misrepresented error bars associated with each point on the graph; so the trend for U106/P312 node is hardly more than the the realistic statistical error bars for the graph points. 3) This trend in tmrcas is believed to be associated with the fastest STRs "saturating" by having changing mutation rates for up and down mutations such that variance grows slower than linear when two steps of mutation start to build up in the final haplotypes. This trend therefore gets fractionally weaker and weaker as younger tmrcas are estimated. 4) It is erroneous in any event to include the faster STRs without downweighting, because their variance of variance begins to grow quadratically in age rather than linear in age sooner.....
The whole conversation is here.
http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/read/GENEALOGY-DNA/2011-09/1315850283
« Last Edit: September 13, 2011, 12:17:20 AM by Mikewww » Logged

R1b-L21>L513(DF1)>L705.2
Mike Walsh
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2963


WWW
« Reply #17 on: September 13, 2011, 12:31:41 AM »

Mikewww writes: “How did R1b-M73 get to the Urals and Afghanistan?”

There is a thread of mine here on Worldfamilies about M73 (but there are others on R-M335 and also on R1a-M420) and just today I have helped Lawrence Mayka to identify some R1b1a1 that are coming out. If you look at the R1b1a1 project, there are three clusters of R1b1a1 and the European one (cluster A) has more variance and I think more ancientness of the Asian ones (B1 and B2). We cannot exclude that also for R1b1a1 there were two settlements, like I supposed for R1b1a2, very ancient: one around the Alps and the other around the Caucasus....
I would not really say Cluster A (the European one) has more variance than clusters B1 and B2 by just eyeballing it. In fact since B1 and B2 are both Asian if you added the two together, there is likely more variance in the Asia than in Europe.  There isn't that many long haplotypes to say anything clearly though.

Given about 2/3 of the assigned project members are in the Asian groups (B1 and B2) and given the very low testing rates we have out there, the frequency looks to be much higher in Central and SW Asia than in Western Europe.

It is interesting that the European cluster is all coastal areas whereas the Asian goes deep inland. I wonder if somewhere some along the line a branch of them became seafaring.

http://www.familytreedna.com/public/R1b1b1/default.aspx?section=yresults
« Last Edit: September 13, 2011, 12:32:32 AM by Mikewww » Logged

R1b-L21>L513(DF1)>L705.2
Maliclavelli
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2099


« Reply #18 on: September 13, 2011, 05:34:18 AM »

I have always said that it is impossible to understand the age from the variance, because we cannot calculate the variance not knowing the mutations around the modal each haplotype has had, and I’d go against my convictions if I did it now. But:
1)   you shouldn’t forget that the two Asian clusters (B1 and B2) are just “clusters”, or macroclusters, separated above all by the value of DYS390, which had a multistep mutation which works like a quasi-SNP.
2)   if we consider this, the values of the two Asian clusters are more linked and uniform than the European ones.
3)   If you take each marker and count how many values they have, you will be able to see clearly that the European cluster gets more variance, or, said in a different way, there are more haplotypes (then more ancientness) amongst the Europeans than the Asians, which can be reduced to a few haplotypes, then descendants of the European ones.
4)   that Asians are less tested isn’t true, just because this haplogroup had in Asia more descendants, then the Asians tested are more than the European ones and, having more meioses, should be more varied, what hasn’t happened.
5)   for all this I can affirm that this haplogroup was born in Europe, like R1b1, R1b1a2, and more R-U152 (Central-North Italy), R-U106 (Central-North Europe), R-L21 (Celtic world).
« Last Edit: September 13, 2011, 07:52:56 AM by Maliclavelli » Logged

Maliclavelli


YDNA: R-S12460


MtDNA: K1a1b1e

Mike Walsh
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2963


WWW
« Reply #19 on: September 13, 2011, 03:05:34 PM »

I have always said that it is impossible to understand the age from the variance, because we cannot calculate the variance not knowing the mutations around the modal each haplotype has had, and I’d go against my convictions if I did it now. But:
1)   you shouldn’t forget that the two Asian clusters (B1 and B2) are just “clusters”, or macroclusters, separated above all by the value of DYS390, which had a multistep mutation which works like a quasi-SNP.
2)   if we consider this, the values of the two Asian clusters are more linked and uniform than the European ones.
3)   If you take each marker and count how many values they have, you will be able to see clearly that the European cluster gets more variance, or, said in a different way, there are more haplotypes (then more ancientness) amongst the Europeans than the Asians, which can be reduced to a few haplotypes, then descendants of the European ones.
4)   that Asians are less tested isn’t true, just because this haplogroup had in Asia more descendants, then the Asians tested are more than the European ones and, having more meioses, should be more varied, what hasn’t happened.
5)   for all this I can affirm that this haplogroup was born in Europe, like R1b1, R1b1a2, and more R-U152 (Central-North Italy), R-U106 (Central-North Europe), R-L21 (Celtic world).
i disagree with all of your points but I just don't think there are enough ht's in the R1b1b1 project to analyze.  Point 4 on the penetration of FTDNA testing in Central Asia versus Europe I don't think is much of a real argument though.
Logged

R1b-L21>L513(DF1)>L705.2
Mike Walsh
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2963


WWW
« Reply #20 on: September 13, 2011, 03:08:52 PM »

Using the Busby study data from the S1 Table I tallied the following. These are the frequency ratios of the bigger groups of R-M269 as a % of total R-M269.
The exception is the first column which is the % that M269 All is of the total population.
M269* is really M269xL11 so it is dominated probably by L23xL11 but Busby didn't track that.


-------------- %Tot  %M269------------------
REGION________ M269  M269* L11*  P312  U106   count
ASIA-SW_______ 11% _ 92% _ 0% __ 7% __ 1% __ (n=2237)
CAUCASUS______ 7% __ 97% _ 1% __ 2% __ 0% __ (n=1419)
EAST-MED-EUR__ 18% _ 39% _ 2% __ 52% _ 7% __ (n=2821)
EAST-CEN-EUR__ 11% _ 50% _ 2% __ 31% _ 17% _ (n=4594)
WEST-CONT-EUR_ 52% _ 7% __ 2% __ 67% _ 24% _ (n=2198)
NORDIC-AREA___ 31% _ 8% __ 2% __ 48% _ 42% _ (n=422)
BRITISH-ISLES_ 78% _ 2% __ 2% __ 78% _ 18% _ (n=1394)
IBERIA________ 59% _ 5% __ 3% __ 88% _ 5% __ (n=1213)


EAST-MED-EUR is primarily the Italian and Balkan peninsulas. EAST-CEN-EUR is generally all of the countries to the east of the borders of Germany, Austria and Italy. N. Italy is put in with WEST-CONT-EUR along with Germany, France, Switzerland, Austria and Benelux.

The count is the number of haplotypes in the total population sample, not just R-M269 positive people.
« Last Edit: September 13, 2011, 06:12:31 PM by Mikewww » Logged

R1b-L21>L513(DF1)>L705.2
Mike Walsh
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2963


WWW
« Reply #21 on: September 22, 2011, 09:20:48 AM »

Busby....... I don't think he looked at the R-M269 phylogenetic tree and applied it across all their calculations.....
Although Busby didn't really attack this head-on, I think there is a legitimate concern about using R-M269's phylogenetic tree and assuming too much from its geographic proportional distribution.  What I mean is we should NOT really consider the modern R-L23xL11 or R-L11* haplotypes as ancestral or old in any manner. They are paragroups and could consist of young subclades. These young subclades may have ancestral lineages to Central Europe....
I'm doing several runs of comparing intraclade variance by major RL11 subclade (P312, L21, M222, Z196, U152, L2, U106, U198, L48) to pick a good variance method for comparing R-L11* and R-L23xL11 with the rest.

Busby didn't really compare R-L23xL11 against R-L11*, R-U106, R-P312, etc. From an eyeball perspective, R-L11* is too scattered and not numerous enough to tell much. R-L23xL11 is larger and more concentrated.  It also may have more diversity.... haven't got quite that far yet.
« Last Edit: September 22, 2011, 09:21:35 AM by Mikewww » Logged

R1b-L21>L513(DF1)>L705.2
Mike Walsh
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2963


WWW
« Reply #22 on: October 03, 2011, 09:38:30 PM »

...The issue that I think is legitimate that counters the Myres logic to some degree is:
Are there many old M269xL11 subclades and were are they located?
If we find that East Europe and West Asia have a lot of diversity that is an indication of older age there rather than and west to east wave of expansion from Central Europe. If M269xL11 can be grouped into a few major subclades (i.e. P312 and U106 are) then that is an indication of younger ages that support a Central European west to east expansion. ...

MHammers made this point on another thread but it relates so I'll add it here.
I think Myres found the variance to be relatively low with Baskkir U152.  My guess is that they were "Europeans" who were "Turkicized" in the Dark-Middle ages.  ...
If Busby thinks that R-L11* is an "Eastern clade" that came from Europe to SW Asia and Anatolia then we should find something similar as what we find with U152...  that is U152 has low variance with the Bashkirs so it looks like an historic period arrival in Central Asia....
I kind of got burned out half way through the process, but finally got through the assessments of the STR's and then revamping my STR variance calculations.

I don't think I can say, nor probably anyone else, that the "good" set of STRs is such and such.

The whole issue of STR mutations saturating and becoming non-linear (with time) is not overwhelming. There are plenty of STRs to evaluate that don't saturate in less than the timeframe of the Neolithic. There are also a variety of other haplogroups beyond R-L11 show ages back to Mesolithic (in Europe) times. There is no reason that R-L11 would have different STR mutation properties.

Busby's ten STRs qualify for Dienekes' assessment of STR's in general, that is they "$$%@". Mark Heinia's analysis of STR linear/time correlations appears to be the best done that I can see. The academics just don't dig into long haplotypes.  I'd say they moved slightly beyond binkini haplotypes to one piece swim suits, but nothing close to fit for the rigors of cold weather. I do think Ken Nordtvedit has it right - the more STR's the better.  Each STR is an individual experiment. I tried to combine that with Heinla's assessment to use 36 "linear" STR's from FTDNA's first 67.

I just ran through a first run. The big picture is Busby et al may well be right on a point, but wrong overall. This is what I mean.

1. L11* (S127*) STR diversity is not significantly higher than P312's or U106's. It's about the same. I'd say L11* is no older than U152, or not much if so.  The "Busby blob" of indiscernible STR diversity is probably about right.  I still there is a east/west cline of L11 overall but it is not significant so Busby is probably right when they said there is no "significant" cline.

2. For reasons I don't understand, Busby didn't look at diversity upstream. There is a clear difference in going from L11+ people to cousins that are L23+ L11-.  STR variance of L23xL11 people is significantly higher, in the realm of 50-60% or more higher. Whereas L11* is scattered all over east to west, L23xL11 is clearly more concentrated in Anatolia, the Near East and  the Caucasus.

I think the separation of west from the east occurred before or at the transistion from L23+ L11- to L11+.

I also think all the numbers point to the fact that L11+ peoples, be they U106, P312 or L11*; expanded quickly.  The difference in diversity between L11*, U106, U198, P312, U152, L2, L21, Z196, L176.2, SRY2627 is just no more than 20-25%... between anyone in the whole pack! They arose in quick succession.

« Last Edit: October 04, 2011, 11:12:55 AM by Mikewww » Logged

R1b-L21>L513(DF1)>L705.2
Pages: [1] 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 0.146 seconds with 19 queries.