Theory: I1 originally from Paloithic Cro magnon central Europe not Scandinavia

[pyromatic]

I'd love to respond to some of the idiocy raised here, but there is no time. The recess bell is sounding, children, time to form a line.

 

[Noman]

Show me some real content to dispute, I am open to any interpretations you have but real data of some kind would be even better.

 

[nordicwarrior]

...The wild theorizing is not the science part. Having I be the pre-classic greeks is highly conjectural in the first place. I admit that part right off the bat. The problem is, other parties are making wild conjectures and instead of labeling them as such they come out and say it's absolute fact, and not in some forum discussion they make a huge set of papers and write three books and then a few years later it's all proven wrong and you find out they made up half of it in the first place. So they are not scientists, they are song and dance men...

Bingo, I agree totally. That leaves us with the hard data we have in front of us: 1. STR and SNP mutations on the Y chromosome that allow for paternal haplogroup mapping of living folks. 2. Same thing for Mtdna results which also gift us with the ability to map groupings of maternal signatures (again of people who are alive today) 3. A minute number of successfully tested ancient remains which anchor a select few hg.'s firmly in space/time. 4. Autosomal results that convey the most overall information, but due to their complexity and limited time on the market are more open to interpretation. This "cloudiness" doesn't completely eliminate their value because we can harvest some verifiable tidbits from autosomal. Soooo, when we stick to the aforementioned facts, we have to conclude that paternal hg.'s I and G were the first into Europe. Now this in no way precludes R1b from having their own sizeable Neanderthal admixture because of course Neanderthal's range was huge and not limited to Europe. And to put a bow on this, conjecture is certainly enjoyable... but if we stray too far from hard fact-- all of the sudden we're seriously debating Bigfoot's penchant for extra spicy beef jerky over the standard, traditional flavor.

 

[ebAmerican]

Noman I don't think you understand how this works (debating or critiquing). We don't need to prove your comments false. You need to prove your comments true. You are making these wide sweeping comments that go against most accepted theories about history. It's very interesting what you are proposing, but everything that you have stated is your opinion only, and nobody is interested in your opinion. They are interested in research that can back up their opinion or disprove it. You stated a claim of 50K year old sites in South America, please include your sources. I'm very interested in alternate theories, but I have very little respect for those who debate without proper reference. If you don't have references, then you need to clearly state that these are unfounded theories, and your opinion only. I don't have time to fact check your statements. It's your responsibility to cover your own theories. Don't misunderstand me I'm not knocking any of your comments (some are interesting), but you need to back them up.

"Now we already know europe is continuously inhabited for as much as 20 million years by human ancestors. We have 10+ million year old fossils of hominids with no teeth that obviously got cared for by their family, a human trait."

Where is your source?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...gests-earlier-arrival-Europe-Pioneer-Man.html

The oldest known human ancestor fossil in Europe is 1.3 million years old, and possibly more will be found that date to 1.8 million years. This is a far cry from 20 million years or even your 10 million years. Lucy is only 3.2 million years old.

 

[sparkey]

Time for Noman's mathematical disproof of STR and SNP dating! It is:

The idea of molecular clocks hinge on the giant assumption that they are neutral markers. It's basically a null hypothesis. It's saying all differences in genotypes comes from a series of bottlenecks and founder effects.

But the bottleneck HAS to be the ice age, simply has to. Bottlenecks don't happen in an expansion. So you could respond and say that natural selection is at work but AGAIN contradiction. See we already made the harebrained assumption natural selection doesn't affect it (and indeed for whole OoA nonsense to be true it implies there's no natural selection of any kind, it seems like they want to purposely attack random selection.

Basically the mistake for molecular clock is simple. Imagine a couple homeless guys. You observer them 5 minutes then you project his movements back 2 weeks.

Problem one is they don't move the same speed all the time, sometimes they don't move at all (bottleneck) and this can last indefintely.

Problem two is they can move backwards, too. A lot of time they just mill about. (drift)

Problem three is you happen to be observing them in the middle of a bank robbery. (modern civilization, opposite of bottleneck where it's easy to survive, unprecedented expansion)

Problem four is that sometimes one of the bums accidentally finds something cool and ALL the bums rush over to the other bum no matter how far away they are(natural selection).

If these minor problems weren't there molecular clock would be great.

I can put it more simply than Noman does: An assumption of the molecular clock model is that natural selection of the particular STR values and SNPs being measured does not occur frequently enough among parallel lineages for it to affect calculations. (Ignore the parts above about bottlenecks and founder effects--the model doesn't assume anything about their existence, it only detects them provided that its assumptions are correct. Noman is arguing that there are other reasons for the apparent bottlenecks and founder effects that the model seems to be detecting.)

What's more, I can name some other assumptions that the model makes:

• The mutation rates being used are accurate (in practice, this assumption has caused the most problems)
• The mutation rates are static over the course of time being measured
• Amount of time per generation has an accurate estimate, and is static (or modeled)

The question is, do any of these assumptions fail to such a degree as to render the calculations systematically incorrect? I've yet to be convinced that any do. Regarding natural selection in particular: The most highly weighted STRs in these calculations, by far, are the slowest mutating ones. If certain STR values have had advantages in the past (evidence is currently lacking to demonstrate different STR values making major differences in reproduction), the odds of closely-related parallel lineages reaching them at the same time is only as high as the STR mutation rate allows, and we've already said that it's slow. It would also be apparent that totally unrelated lineages from the same place at the same time would converge to those values, and we don't really see that. Add to that the fact that the SNPs that are shared among different lineages only seem to be shared due to the fact that they are unstable, and there's additional confirmation that natural selection does not affect our calculations significantly.

The thing is you don't need to be a math genius to disprove molecular clock, I just did it. Even the provisio that it's "formed sometime before x" is clue enough it's meaningless. After all this sentences was typed sometime before you read it, no big revelation there.

Uh... calculation of TMRCAs is meaningless because it doesn't calculate clade ages? Why aren't TMRCAs useful on their own? Knowing the approximate TMRCA of I1, for instance, tells a lot about its spread, more than its clade age does, in fact.

The model is being seen as the thing that proves something, when all it is is the shape of your hypothesis, something that fits the numbers. Now you have to test that hypothesis, but why bother when you can fire anyone who questions it on the grounds they are a racist psudoscientist?

No one is firing anyone here. And I don't think anyone is taking a model as proof of anything. I take it as evidence to be coupled with geographical diversity analysis of phylogenies and, whenever we can get it, ancient DNA. Which, by the way, so far does not corroborate your ideas about Western Europe being dominantly R1b immediately after the Ice Age. Nobody1 has already listed Treilles, Ötzi, and Spain; I would add the LBK samples (Haak 2010: 2x F*, 1x G2a) and La Pierre Fritte (Lacan 2011: 2x I2a1a). Where's the R1b before the Chalcolithic?

And I was right when it comes to gorillas being closer than chimps, can't tell you how vociferously people argued against that.

No, you weren't, see my response above. Unless you're using a different source? Can't you cite it?

 

[tjlowery87]

welp,so far I haven't read anything that make me think that i1 in northwest Europe isn't from Germanic migration.the title of the thread was about i1.it makes sense if it started in north central Europe then moved north,the snps kind of show that with the cts6364....I think

 

[Sonnenburg]

Hello. K. Nordtvedt map March 2013 shows M253 landing in Pomerania. Is it possible that proto-indoeuropeans Pre-German lets say,
mixed-fought with I1 and brought about German tribe ? Word -Teuton is related to Lithuanian- Tauta -people.

 

[Noman]

Noman I don't think you understand how this works (debating or critiquing). We don't need to prove your comments false. You need to prove your comments true.

That's exactly true exacept that since what I have been doing is mostly pointing out where other theories fail.

You are making these wide sweeping comments that go against most accepted theories about history.

Actually that's not true in the least. Even the pre-classic greek theory is not new in the least. That one is more a possibility than anything.

Multiregionalism was accepted theory a long time. And like I said out of africa is on the way out already. It should have fallen apart completely as soon as the first neanderthal dna was confirmed, but they keep lamely trying to prop it up even though its original proponent has long since denied it.

It's very interesting what you are proposing, but everything that you have stated is your opinion only, and nobody is interested in your opinion.

Not true in the least, you just have not followed events that well.

They are interested in research that can back up their opinion or disprove it. You stated a claim of 50K year old sites in South America, please include your sources.

There's more and more all the time that may be 50k+. I suggest you go to google.com.

I'm very interested in alternate theories, but I have very little respect for those who debate without proper reference. If you don't have references, then you need to clearly state that these are unfounded theories, and your opinion only.

A simple wikipedia check on R would pull up the knowledge that it's believed to have been heavily involved with the repopulation of eurasia after the ice age.

Another one would show that it's believed that the C haplogroup originates in India. Meaning that if OoA is true then there was a big migration to india followed by a bunch of migrations out of india including a back migration.

Google could show you a lot about negative blood type.

Google could show you that indeed there's genes with clades with neanderthal or asians as the root. When I say something like "mike hammer et al" that IS a refence. There's a reference right there showing genes that have clade with neanderthal at the root. And it's in the x chrmosome, you could read the wiki on that to learn why that's interesting. Shows strong evidence of selection (supporting multiregionalism) as well.

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

The end of the video is interesting. He also talks about intermixing of africans with an archaic human about 100k years ago which is very odd if OoA has any validity.

I don't mind to explain myself on specific points, but this kind of general complaint is not helpful. Tell me what you have a problem with and I can elucidate, when it comes to basic facts like early inhabitance of the americas I simply expect anyone who's followed archaeology even halfheartedly to know already.

This is a forum not a research paper, you are going to have to educate yourself a little too if you are interested in a subject.

I don't have time to fact check your statements. It's your responsibility to cover your own theories.

I don't have a single new theory....

Google first, ask second, comment only when you feel you really know what you are talking about or else have the courtesy to label it speculative, like I did with the pre-classic greek theory. Which is not my own theory it's been a theory that crops up occasionally for hundreds of years. However due to greeks wanting to crush macedonion nationalism I doubt we will ever know for sure. We do know they were not the same as current greeks, their own histories tell us that and so does archaeology. If you want details you will have to actually learn about history and archaeology, it's not some kotaku blurb I read or something.

Don't misunderstand me I'm not knocking any of your comments (some are interesting), but you need to back them up.

But you should knock them if you can, as I said, that's the idea. But generalized "NO YOU ARE WRONG!" comments are just polemics they are not debate and don't go anywhere. I need specific complaints. The guy before you, nobody's rambling and sparkey's attempts at pedantry don't have any real content.

For example it's unbearably banal to post a link saying what the molecular clock is after someone said they don't think molecular clock has any value. OTOH if he came out and said the reasons I used to invalidate molecular clock are wrong and could give valid reasons it's another story. If he can't, it's invalid, done.

And those have all been brought up before and ignored completely in papers as well, so that means they have gone into the realm of psuedopscientists simply making up whatever crap they want. That is they have been challenged formally and they have just completely ignored it, so that shows how strong their case is.

Double that with the link to indo europeans by nobody1. Thanks dude! I totally never heard of them that's why I registered to tell you how ridiculous your ramblings about them are! Because I wanted to learn about them and have not been reading every scrap on them for 20 years now.

"Now we already know europe is continuously inhabited for as much as 20 million years by human ancestors. We have 10+ million year old fossils of hominids with no teeth that obviously got cared for by their family, a human trait."

If you ask in a sensible manner I don't mind to provide a specific source.

Now OTOH I can't even get someone to give me a straight answer when I demand to know what the haplotypes in europe were before r1b. So who is being unreasonable? Who can't support their theories? I am talking to some people who obviously don't know the very basics because these molecular clocks aren't meant to be used in such a way in the first place and you can go right to wikipedia and see no one knows if bell beaker was indo european or for certain where it came from.

I will gather a few sources for that later when I have more time.

Where is your source?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...gests-earlier-arrival-Europe-Pioneer-Man.html

The oldest known human ancestor fossil in Europe is 1.3 million years old,

That's not true.

and possibly more will be found that date to 1.8 million years. This is a far cry from 20 million years or even your 10 million years. Lucy is only 3.2 million years old.

There's no fully human people anywhere more than a million years ago or so. Depending on your definition maybe not until just 200k years ago. But I am guessing as far back as heidelbergensis that they are basically human.

However there's human ancestor fossils in europe and asia going back 50 million years. Furthermore while we are pretty sure some simple tools go back 4 million years in africa there's nothing in africa that can be taken seriously as a human chimp ancestor, what they have been searching for all this time.

First off humans are closer to gorillas anyway, which should be obvious.

http://www.nature.com/news/gorilla-joins-the-genome-club-1.10185

About 15% closer. So chances are good you are never going to find a human chimp ancestor by looking for skulls that are under 400 ml and 7 million years old.

Second, there's only ONE possible human chimp ancestor given for africa and many elsewhere, and this ancestor is way too recent, brain is way too small, and the skull is not contiguous with later artifacts that belong to genuine hominids. It might be a chimp ancestor but not human. Forgive me for not searching for the reference but if you don't know about this guy already then frankly you really are out of your depth.

And here we go, an obvious very early human ancestor in europe at 12 million years. It doesn't necessarily mean "into africa" as the article claims. It probably means multiregionalism is the winner, and with all the recent archaeology like this coming up I think it's pretty obviously the case. But I think europe is not central enough and migration oriented theories are frankly very naive and for any species but humans they are generally shot down without consideration (just like something stupid like a human chimp ancestor would be).

I am pretty sure this is the one that had old individuals obviously cared for by the rest of the tribe, also the hands are telling too, good for simple tools like chimps use.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17225-were-our-earliest-hominid-ancestors-european.html


Now we go back 47 million years and here we go! Meet ida.

http://setiorganization.wordpress.c...ty-of-oslo-jørn-hurum-ida-messel-pit-germany/

This one shows all the signs of being a human ancestor, and has a bit or arboreal features and generally looks like a root ancestor of the whole hominae line.

Ida is significant because unlike a afarensis fossils some still feebly try to link to humans, it has the signs of a proper human foot! This is significant because you generally become more derived from past antecedents, as I mentioned with the gorillas and chimps in passing. Meaning that if one ancestor had a more proper foot for walking upright you don't go backwards then forwards, not when it comes to big things. So if you find a monkey with a hoof, probably it's not a human ancestor. If you find one with a tail it probably diverged way back from human ancestors at Ida, and once it was lost it never came back!

Lucy is not a human ancestor. There's really no evidence of evolution in africa except tools. Homo sapiens shows up fully formed at 160k years.

http://johnhawks.net/weblog/fossils/ardipithecus

Ardepithecus has more humanlike hands and feet, and it's apparently a knuckledragger like chimps. So again, lucy just looks like a protochimp fossil, not even as advanced as this older fossil which we can reject because it's more complete and so obviously NOT an upright walker. And if we didn't hop skip right from chimp ancestor to human then we should not expect something this recent to be so primitive.

I am trying to find a resource to explain this concept without sending you to college classes because without it you might have trouble realizing what is and isn't possible or anyway likely.

http://johnhawks.net/weblog/reviews/evolution/gould/living_fossils.html

Anyway, stephen jay gould is a pseudoscientist hack who tries hard to make the case against natural selection. Since his death he's been outed as an actual fraud (let me refer you to google). Most of what he says is a joke but Hawks in this post applies this least derived-most derived logic as well as the idea of bottlenecks. The lung fish is in a bottleneck because it can't go in deep water due to competition with gill fish, and it can't leave the water (even though its ancestors did just that!) because of competition from those creatures which already did that. If it jumped out of the water it would be eaten by birds, which share the same common ancestor (believe it or not). Similarly you won't get upright walking evolving twice. Anyone suggesting it needs a big rubber mallet to the top of their head.

And there's more to look at to show there's no evidence for human common ancestor with anything in africa, or of any evolution there until very recently.

http://johnhawks.net/weblog/fossils/sediba/malapa-berger-description-2010.html

So what does this mean? This is significant for a lot of reasons. First off I am not a creationist, but the reason the obsession with chimps has been so big is simple, a desperate attempt to "prove" human eolvution. Which is a silly task because you can't really prove things absolutely with archaeology and people who are operating on faith can't have their faith proved away with logic.

So we look at the malapa "homo erectus" closely and it shows a couple things. First off obviously it's not a human ancestor, second off lucy is not a human ancestor because lucy is even less like a human ancestor than these guys in some ways, and with a close look here it's obvious they are just chimps.

They have the same brain size, live in the same environment, and eat the exact same diet as chimps, and critically they are knucledraggers. Now this is just how biology works, a move from knuckledragger to upright walker is a big deal and it's almost certainly only going to happen once. Once there's others of a basic type to compete with then you can't really become that type yourself, you are stuck in an evolutionary rut. They are just like the lungfish. They are superficially slightly different from 20 million years ago but not much.

The only reason these guys were exciting is they have smaller face and teeth compared to many primates. But in the meantime we've since found living primates with smaller teeth. That means this superficial characteristic that is a big difference between modern looking more "gracile" and more "robust" or archaic ancestors is not always a good guage of much of anything.

Then we have turkana boy. We heard reports he was 6'2" with a normal human brain size, but it turns out he is 5'3" and has a 600 ml brain. And here's another reason that archaeologists like to compare to chimps and not gorillas. A gorilla can have an 800 ml brain. It doesn't sound all that impressive, since average brain today is something like 1300-1400 and some brains exceed 2000. Because his growth plates are closed we can see he's not going to grow any more, for a chimp growth stops right at 8 years old. So really this is not much more advanced than a chimp.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkana_Boy

So turkana boy is about 1.8 million years if I remember. The interesting thing here is he's right on the border of the levant, like every single modern human fossil recovered in africa. So where'd he come from to get there? If he did evolve right there, why? There's this whole big african continent and an even bigger eurasian continent. He might have been part of our dna legacy because the narrow hips are intriguing. But again, if you look at a gorilla instead of a chimp then a light goes off because guess who has a giant torso in comparison to a human, and very narrow hips?

So the problem here is we can't establish anything with a large brain in africa until fully formed humans show up. OTOH we have large brained neanderthals in europe 300k+ years ago, brains larger than modern humans. 500k years ago we have peking man (the real homo erectus) with brains at 800-100 ml, getting very close to human size, and altogether looking very human.

But only 300k-125k years ago we have some of the most brutish hominids who are human ancestors in africa, looking much less human. This is at the same time that modern humans are known to be in northeast africa!


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peking_Man

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_rhodesiensis

Compare these two and tell me which look more human. Now remember that the mike hammer et all paper (look at the video if you like, instead) shows admixture with the modern humans around this time with the ancient hominids.

So that looks nothing like out of africa. It's bizarre to me that the out of africa theory doesn't even hinge on any real evidence of a migration, either. They don't say "here's some fossils here and here's some there, look how it seems humans are moving from south to north. Nope! They just looked at some mtDNA clades and saw africans were at the root and went with it, as if one race could give birth to another like mommy and daddy and there's no individuals.

I don't think it started as an afrocentric theory but it's basically clear that it's a very silly one. Like the IE theory I have to wonder if its continued support is some lame European Union funded nonsense to try to make people relinquish any nationalism and not mind all the globalization going on so much. But while it came pretty recently and was accepted fast unfortunately these theories don't die quick once they get accepted.

 

[Noman]

Also keep in mind african americans have half as much negative blood type as european americans and hispanics about the same percentage. Neanderthal is part of virtually all of our heritages aside from a few reference populations of hunter gatherers in africa and it would be a shame to see that continue to be marginalized to such a degree.

Like a redheaded stepchild. Which is fitting as egyptians sacrificed redheads and we know now that comes from neanderthal ancestry. Stop the hate and racism towards the few remaining neanderthal

edit: actually it's a part of EVERYONE's heritage, the percentages we see in papers are the % difference from reference "most african" populations in isolated villages.

 

[Fire Haired]

Most native American R1 is R1b but some do have R1*. R period is orignally Mongliod obvisouly u guys dont understand the human y dna family tree. It is the brother of Q the dominte Native American and central Siberian Y DNa haplogroup. It is also the cousin of N and O N is dominate in north Siberia and Urlaic speakers and O is dominate in east asians.

NOrdic queller about the X2 it has nothing to do with Vikings. That story about red haired giants is intresting but how do u know it is aout Vikings. What percentage of south scandnavians and Danish have red hair like 3%. Also they had iron weapons and their livellyhood was killing i doubt indians with ston weapons could kill them. Unless they were straved and those were their children. If they did take their women they the women would have only about 1% X2 like modern south Scandnavians and Danish so it does not make sense.

Click here it kind of explains native american X2. Their subclades are X2a and X2g the only other people found with X2a are Druze in Isreal not Europeans. X2g is a specfic Native American subclade also studies on it estimated that X2 arrived in north America 15,000ybp!!!!!! It either is from mid east to siberia to north america or mid east to europe to north america. The X2 is Siberia is of diff subclades and probably from recent inter marriage with mid easterns. I doubt they found ancestral forms in Europe either so it is kind of a mystery. I just made a thread about ancient Native American DNA samples. It shocked me they have a 10,300 year old Y DNA sample from British Colombia Canada and it had specifcalley native American Q1a3a1a.

 

[kamani]

However due to greeks wanting to crush macedonion nationalism I doubt we will ever know for sure. We do know they were not the same as current greeks, their own histories tell us that and so does archaeology. If you want details you will have to actually learn about history and archaeology, it's not some kotaku blurb I read or something.

I think you're getting yourself into some sharky waters with this. What is your view on the Macedonian tribes? How do you tie that to I1?

 

[Nobody1]

Double that with the link to indo europeans by nobody1. Thanks dude! I totally never heard of them that's why I registered to tell you how ridiculous your ramblings about them are! Because I wanted to learn about them and have not been reading every scrap on them for 20 years now.

Dont Mention it;
If you need any additional information on Kiev - let me know;

 

[tjlowery87]

what is yalls opinion on how i1 got to north west Europe,i think it started in north central Europe,went to Nordic Europe,and then mixed with germanics mostly,and spread from there

 

[Noman]

Most native American R1 is R1b but some do have R1*. R period is orignally Mongliod obvisouly u guys dont understand the human y dna family tree. It is the brother of Q the dominte Native American and central Siberian Y DNa haplogroup. It is also the cousin of N and O N is dominate in north Siberia and Urlaic speakers and O is dominate in east asians.

NOrdic queller about the X2 it has nothing to do with Vikings. That story about red haired giants is intresting but how do u know it is aout Vikings. What percentage of south scandnavians and Danish have red hair like 3%. Also they had iron weapons and their livellyhood was killing i doubt indians with ston weapons could kill them. Unless they were straved and those were their children. If they did take their women they the women would have only about 1% X2 like modern south Scandnavians and Danish so it does not make sense.

Click here it kind of explains native american X2. Their subclades are X2a and X2g the only other people found with X2a are Druze in Isreal not Europeans. X2g is a specfic Native American subclade also studies on it estimated that X2 arrived in north America 15,000ybp!!!!!! It either is from mid east to siberia to north america or mid east to europe to north america. The X2 is Siberia is of diff subclades and probably from recent inter marriage with mid easterns. I doubt they found ancestral forms in Europe either so it is kind of a mystery. I just made a thread about ancient Native American DNA samples. It shocked me they have a 10,300 year old Y DNA sample from British Colombia Canada and it had specifcalley native American Q1a3a1a.

It's more like R is a superset of mongols. Nobody1 and a few others have this idea like something originates one places then moves to a new place but it's been all R for a long time. Obviously since there's r1b in native americans it didn't spring up overnight. Some time before last ice age it was all R and they are probably what were mixing with neanderthals and when ice age bottleneck came it seprated out into several groups of R1b and R1a and they spread out from refugiums.

Which pretty much has to be for north american r1b and for like a million things I pointed out already. So when it went from r to r1a and r1b isn't too clear but it's pretty clear that the areas r are in today have effectively speaking always been where it was, it's nothing new. It's not a couple lame invasions slaughtering imaginary natives of europe (which were presumably yet some other haplogroup no one will even name).

So it's not me making up some BS I just came in here to point out the eupedia article and some of the people ih here have made up some unsupportable BS that constitutes "original research" and is not even a theory backed by any research.

 

[nordicwarrior]

...NOrdic queller about the X2 it has nothing to do with Vikings. That story about red haired giants is intresting but how do u know it is aout Vikings. What percentage of south scandnavians and Danish have red hair like 3%. Also they had iron weapons and their livellyhood was killing i doubt indians with ston weapons could kill them. Unless they were straved and those were their children. If they did take their women they the women would have only about 1% X2 like modern south Scandnavians and Danish so it does not make sense...

Thank you for mentioning X2 F.H. I'm a proponent of Clovis being brought over by Solutreans, and I have Solutrean's male lineage belonging to proto I1, I2, G, or a combo of these three. X2 in North America is much too old to be linked to the Vikings. I also think both blonde AND red hair have been in Europe for a looonngg time-- mutations causing red hair occupy several loci and this condition really isn't traceable to one haplogroup. P.S. Could you please correct the spelling in your thread title? I bet it would look like we all jumped about twenty collective I.Q. points if you made this happen.

 

[nordicwarrior]

Noman, I thought I answered your question about who was in Europe before R1b very clearly... both paternal hg's I and G. Basically you are claiming that R1b has been in Europe for eons, but where is a single piece of ancient R1b remains? Nowhere. I'm afraid you're dealing in pure fantasy at this point. Show me some proof, at least a tiny shard of it...

 

[Mikewww]

...
I'm saying that the Indo Europeans did NOT bring r1b to europe.

I'm saying the whole of everything from north africa to anatolia was all r1b not long after ice age. R1A was further north and went perhaps as far as the heart of india today. We have a ton of I dna in indus valley today and lots of historic references to it so this seems the most likely.
....

I'm sorry, but I still don't understand your logic.

What do you think R1b could not have come into Europe with Indo-European language speakers?

What is your evidence that the "whole of everything from north africa to anatolia was r1b not long after the ice age" ? I know you think so, but why should we?

 

[Nobody1]

We have a ton of I dna in indus valley today and lots of historic references to it so this seems the most likely.

Can you provide a source to your tons of I dna in the Indus-Valley?

 

[Noman]

Noman, I thought I answered your question about who was in Europe before R1b very clearly... both paternal hg's I and G. Basically you are claiming that R1b has been in Europe for eons, but where is a single piece of ancient R1b remains? Nowhere. I'm afraid you're dealing in pure fantasy at this point. Show me some proof, at least a tiny shard of it...

We know G arrived with neolithic farmers who were recent arrivals, so that's out. The Is are mixed with r1b wherever the more ancient type is, so they were likely there, too. We haven't sampled any ancient hunter gatherers and we can't expect to find R or R1b before we do.

It's not a couple lame invasions slaughtering imaginary natives of europe (which were presumably yet some other haplogroup no one will even name).

One last thing, there's a parallel here between how r1b is viewed and how OoA works. The idea is wholesale migrations lke the jode family packs up its belonging but on a much more massive scale and little trickles here and there. For multiregionism you don't need to have massive migrations and before horse domestication and wheel there's no evidence of that ever happening at all let alone being the norm.

 

[Ike]

It's more like R is a superset of mongols.

There are stories about Asians and CaucAsians being the sons of Japhets, as there are other theories...