Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
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....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...
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.
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.
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?
And I was right when it comes to gorillas being closer than chimps, can't tell you how vociferously people argued against that.
That's exactly true exacept that since what I have been doing is mostly pointing out where other theories fail.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.
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.You are making these wide sweeping comments that go against most accepted theories about history.
Not true in the least, you just have not followed events that well.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.
There's more and more all the time that may be 50k+. I suggest you go to google.com.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.
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.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 a single new theory....I don't have time to fact check your statements. It's your responsibility to cover your own theories.
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.Don't misunderstand me I'm not knocking any of your comments (some are interesting), but you need to back them up.
If you ask in a sensible manner I don't mind to provide a specific source."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."
That's not true.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.
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.
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.
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.
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....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...
...
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.
....
We have a ton of I dna in indus valley today and lots of historic references to it so this seems the most likely.
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.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...
It's not a couple lame invasions slaughtering imaginary natives of europe (which were presumably yet some other haplogroup no one will even name).
This thread has been viewed 134808 times.