|
Post by djoser-xyyman on Dec 4, 2015 20:47:03 GMT -5
Quote from FTDNA poster “20 of the R1b-P297 (XL51) ancients have been placed on the R1b-M269 (P312- U106-) DNA Project (aka ht35 Project) aDNA chart. www.familytreedna.com/groups...out/background PDF download is available. Very cool. “ Quote: The goal of the R1b-M269 (P312- U106-) DNA Project is to investigate the history and distribution of the most upstream (or basal) clades of haplogroup R1b-M269/R1b1a2. The project is open to anyone tested to be M269+ P312- U106-. You may join our project by clicking this link. This project is sometimes called the ht35 project, a legacy of its early history. The original goal of this project, when it was formed in 2007, was to facilitate the discovery of SNP markers that would help differentiate the old "ht15" type of R1b1a2 found primarily in western Europe from the "ht35" type of R1b1a2 found primarily in southeastern Europe and southwestern Asia.The list of SNPs discovered in members of this project since then and especially since late 2013 is quite long. These discoveries have kept us busy, not least in a need to continually update the names we use. The data in our project demonstrate that haplogroup R1b1a2 is relatively young, with its most recent common ancestor having lived less than 7,000 years ago somewhere in southwestern Asia
|
|
|
Post by djoser-xyyman on Dec 4, 2015 20:49:36 GMT -5
And Busby said there was no latitudinal cline.... Quote from FTDNA Two particular TaqI 49a,f haplotypes have been found to be associated with what we now know to be haplogroup R1b1a2. The two haplotypes are ht15 and ht35. ht15 is most commonly found in western European R1b1a2, and most likely represents a mesolithic or neolithic population expansion in western Europe. ht35, the PARENT haplotype of ht15, is most commonly found in ***SOUTH***eastern Europe and ***SOUTH***western ASIA. Elevated levels of ht35 have also been observed among ASHKENAZI AND SEPHARDIC JEWISH POPULATIONS.
I am rummaging through the FTDNA charts …”initially” observation is that the R1b-M269 version in the Yamnya are ….hold your breath……related to Asians like Pathans, Bashkirs, Tabasrans, some Russians. EXACTLYwhere they should be. Lol! Asians and NOT Western Europeans. The only “Europeans” that matches the Yamanya R1b–M269 are the…..Sardnians and Sicilians!!!. Two Islands off the coats of Africa.
This will be resolved soon. As I said the West Europeans version of R1b-M269 could not possibly come from the Steppes.
When I am done I will post charts on ESR.
Man, I love being right!
Europeans are depigmented Africans
|
|
|
Post by djoser-xyyman on Dec 4, 2015 20:51:59 GMT -5
As a told Swenet awhile back. I am not into coalescence age based upon mutation rate. It is an inexact science. It is faulty. Based upon new and developing technique the age of R1b-M269 is 3-6K years old. R* ?. Keep in mind based upon new calculation techniques E1b1a is also aroung the same age. 5-8K years old. That is why I don’t believe they will find E1b1a in aDNA of West Africans. Yorubans as we know them are also …new. They are Neolithics.
|
|
|
Post by djoser-xyyman on Dec 4, 2015 20:54:20 GMT -5
Man. This turned out to be much easier than I thought. If this was my full time job and not a hobby I would have resolved this problem already. Nevertheless.
Here is the skinny….Yamanyas are on the Z2103 Z2105 branch of R1b-M269 found predominantly among Central Asians and some Dravidians. The West European Branch of R1b-M269, U106/S21 was NOT found in the Yamanya . These damn geneticist knew this that why they were waffling. Lol! Now they are exposed. Ha! Ha! Ha! Will post charts when I have time.
Yamanyas are NOT Ancestors of West Europeans. Lol!
Busby was right all along.
|
|
|
Post by djoser-xyyman on Dec 4, 2015 20:54:48 GMT -5
This is becoming so clear now. It is only a matter of time. I see this coming to a close 2016. After the R1b-M269 saga is resolved.
My prediction? Both branches of R1b-M269, Z2103/Z2105 and U106/S21 will be “discovered” in a Sahara/Berber population. Just as ALL branches of the Neolithic DNA, LBK, Trukic and Aegan, branches are found in the Sahara INCLUDING Hunter gatherer Loschbour.
The Sahara 'pump" is evident.
|
|
|
Post by djoser-xyyman on Apr 9, 2018 8:23:54 GMT -5
What aDNA and modern DNA analysis by European researchers have shown is that most are not objective and they are EXTREMELY bias and prejudicial. They are bordering on fanatical and obsess with trying to prove they are not a subset of Africans. All the evidence shows Isolation by Distance is very real. Rosenberg confirmed this back in 2002 when he showed that Europeans are as much as 80% modern Africans @ K2. Yet there is this maniacal need to disprove this fact. Pagani confirmed this also. Geography prevail via Isolation by Distance. There is no Steppes or Eurasian back migration. It is a myth dreamt up by "losers"? www.karger.com/Article/PDF/469638
|
|
|
Post by djoser-xyyman on Jul 21, 2019 18:07:46 GMT -5
Methodological issues in the Indo-European debate - Michel Danino July2019
Abstract The Indo-European debate has been going on for a century and a half. Initially confined to linguistics, race-based anthropology and comparative mythology, it soon extended to archaeology, especially with the discovery of the Harappan civilization, and peripheral disciplines such as agriculture, archaeometallurgy or archaeoastronomy. The latest entrant in the field, archaeogenetics, is currently all but claiming that it has finally laid to rest the whole issue of a hypothetical migration of Indo-Aryan speakers to the Indian subcontinent in the second millennium BCE. This paper questions the finality of this claim by pointing to inherent limitations, methodological issues and occasional biases in current studies as well as in the interpretation of archaeological evidence.
|
|
|
Post by djoser-xyyman on Jul 21, 2019 18:11:43 GMT -5
Then they attack the author
---On Methodological issues in the Indo-European debate By Michel Danino - Marina Silva
The prehistories of the population and languages of India are scientific questions (Majumder 2018). Unlike questions decided in mathematics or a court of law, scientific questions cannot lead to definitive proof. Rather, new evidence and advances in methods will bring a succession of improved models that account better for wider ranges of more accurately documented evidence. There will always be doubts about aspects of the prevailing model and data that it accounts for imperfectly. If this were not the case, there would be no room for scientific progress. Nonetheless, this does not mean that the prevailing theoretical model is simply wrong, though these loose ends can be selectively pulled together to build a convincing-looking case for non-scientists that it must be wrong. Our argument here is not that Michel Danino’s argument lacks learning or points worthy of consideration, but that it is unscientific.
Danino covers, in the erudite and scholarly way one would expect from a heritage...
|
|