J2b2-L283 (proto-illyrian)

[Ghurier]

Sounds good. I like that everytime we get into these debates, all it takes is a couple of weeks for new samples to settle it. We should do it more often, good omen for new publications.

Indeed, with the new data is sounds even better. But I'm fairly sure you don't see why, isn't it ? Let me explain it to you !

In fact, the sample(s) you speak about (don't forget the Greek one, he is also very interesting per-se) change very little things to my best fitting model :
Caucasus --> Usatovo (~3600 BCE) ... which was already a given.
Usatovo --> Eneolitic Tuscany (~3500-3100 BCE), for a group of "Z615-" L283-carriers.
This movements where likely related with a westward diffusion of Arsenical Copper technology.

The main change is now that the Z615 carrier most likely stayed in-situ around Usatovo.
The R-Z2106 expansion provides the needed mecanism to erase most of the Usatovian J-L283 diversity.
A diversity cariage of ~few centuries is acceptable for the Tuscan injection (that's why I always placed this injection in a range of 3500-3000 BCE).
Which implies that J-L283 population likely stayed very compact during the 3600-3100 BCE range (== no wide dispersion around that time).
Acceptable "co-travellers" on the R1b side around that time would be R-Z2118 and R-CTS699.

Such modification is no big deal per-se. In the 3000-2500 BCE range J-Z597 wasn't very active ... the place where he waited before merging with BB-population was poorly constrained (due to the lack of J-Z615 or J-Z597 compact diversity signal).

We have now amazing proof that the absorbtion by BB-related populations occured ~4400 BCE around south-eastern Europe instead of South-eastern Alps (no big deal in terms of geographical accuracy for the concerned epoch).
You failed to notice that the paper you speak about basically proves again that Cetina is a BB-related syncretic culture. Attesting that J-L283 got "influenced"/"absorbed" by BBs as I always claimed (proving me right once again ...).

Do you realize ? The cultural mecanism and involved cultures (North Caucasus/Maykop, Usatovo, Eneolitic Tuscany) are unchanged for my model, just details (about peculiar subclades exact path) are updated. Which bascially means that the model is right, and just need to be "tuned" for peculiar individual path of each subclade.
We will still find J-Z622s in Eneolithic Tuscany (when deeply sampled). Do you think otherwise ?

Someone fairly smart said :

J-Z597 is a clade that got absorbed by BBs ... not originating from BBs ... This is the whole concept of "being absorbed" or "being influenced".
Here again, Cetina being a syncretic culture involving BBs is not an idea of mine, but is coming from serious published papers.

Where exactly J-Z597 got absorbed ? This is a potentially interesting question, ~South-eastern Alps is the more likely to me (but there is some open space about the exact location, because J-Z597 didn't have any compact diversity signal).

See, the data you think are "settling the question" are in fact just fitting in the amount of freedom that existed in my current model ...
Before this sample, it was "more likely" for J-Z615 to have migrated westward with his cousins ... apparently he didn't.
A "Most likely" outcome is not always the outcome that occurs, if so it won't be "most likely" but a "given".

Looking at Fig.3 of the paper you speak about ... the merging of J-Z597 population with BBs related population likely occured in south-eastern-Europe (Look how deep BB-realted population went in South-eastern-Europe during the 3000-2000 BCE range).
For what we know, J-Z597 might have been collected by BBs even nearby Moldova before ultimately expanding in Western-Balkans.
This scenario would help to explains why J-Z597 is absent from the Yamnayan footprint, because it failed to expand with them (the lineage was "passive" since Usatovo culture) ... J-Z597 likely never participated to Yamnayan movements (it also explains the lack of related statistical signal about Yamnayan movements for J-L283), and simply got collected by expanding BBs and then finally found a new-breath inside the Cetina syncretic culture.
We are far, very far, from the claims by some peoples on this topic that Cetina was unrelated to BBs.

Maybe you sought this finding support your claim that Tyrrhenian J-L283s migrated ~1800 BCE from western-Balkans ?
In fact it didn't, to support such "creative idea" you would need to find a clade with ~[2500-1800] BCE TMRCA clading with Z615- Tyrrhenian subclades.

So here we go again, data appearing are proving me right again and again ... where do we find consistenly "early" J-L283 ? On the "Arsenical Copper metallurgy" diffusion footprint ! And when did J-L283 expanded ? Just when Arsenical Copper diffused !

Thanks to new data we can refine the details of the model ... but the mecanism is definitely looking as the good one : Arsenical Copper diffusion in the Maykop influence sphere, which is followed by the absorbtion by BB-related populations and re-expansion within the Cetina syncretic culture.

 

[Ghurier]

Ghurier, it appears your intellectual faculties may reside on the more modest end of the spectrum.

If you want ... any argument ? Because like that, it sounds like an unsubstanciated claim.

Regarding my intellectual faculties ... google my name if you want to have a glimpse !

I'm very open to discuss ideas if you can propose something a bit more elaborated than an insult.
If you can identify an inconsistency in the model I propose, you are more than welcome to share it !

Yet, no-one managed to take it done !
The mecanism :
1- Arsenical Copper diffusion (3600-3100 BCE phase)
2- BB absorption (~2400 BCE)
3- Cetina expansion (2400-1800 BCE phase)
Provides a very good fit on both diversity and ancient samples ... I have yet to see a model able to compete for J-L283.

 

[Ghurier]

Ghurier, I must decline your offer, as I find your assertions lacking in scientific merit. I have no desire to expend my time engaging with such unsubstantiated notions. Thank you, but no.

Thank you for your return, can you provide me your qualifications justifying that you pose as being able to "evaluate" the "scientific merit" of a claim ?

Up to now, you failed to produce any relevant contribution, and you just dodged a request to elaborate on your claim ... which is very un-scientific. Rethoric reach a "wall" very quickly in a scientific discussion !

I therefore express doubt of your abilities to evaluate the quality of a scientific work.
I never saw a referee refusing a paper without providing a justification ... As I never refused a paper without providing a justification to the authors.

I'm forced to conclude that you are only providing an emotional response, to a topic that you don't properly understand.
Thank you anyway for your participation.
As a kind advice, I would recommend you to avoid insulting other peoples, not everybody react as peacefully as me, particularly in the real world.

 

[Ghurier]

I've already explained why I prefer not to engage further on this matter. My initial remark was merely an observation of your demeanor. As for your work in astrophysics, I find it lacks rigor and originality; it appears to favor redundant modeling over genuinely advancing our understanding of celestial phenomena. Such contributions clutter the discourse rather than enrich it.

Your comments are still very vague ... not a very good indication.
Still, I have to congratulate you, in roughly 15 minutes you managed to review my 100+ papers (including 26 first-author/coresponding-author publications).
Sadly, you failed to identify that my topic of study wasn't "celestial phenomena" but was "the evolution history of the universe".
Sounds like a bad start if you fail to identify the research topic in the first place .

Can you share your own "work" with us ?
I want to evaluate the quality of your scientific production, if any, to see how relevant are your "opinions".
Indeed, up to now you only shared opinions, not a single reasoning, not a single argument.
Up to now, you behave like a "poser".

That said, I would have comments and I would need details about the following claims you made :

1) How do you evaluate a "lack of rigor" ? Sounds like an emotional evalution to me.
What is your background in statistics, modelling of astrophysical probe, and data analysis to be able to claim that my work in this field "lack of rigor" ? Did you noticed that a significant part of my work consisted in devellopping statistical tools and new methodologies ?

2) Lack of originality ? Did you have a degree in astrophisics ? Without that, I don't know how you can evaluate such a thing.
Being able to understand the relevance of a work requires a deep understanding of the topic. Maybe you want to amuse us with ideas you have to propose to bring some "originality" in the field ?

3) Redundant modelling ? The variety of astrophysical process and cosmological probe I used is in fact very diverse. I'm probably among the very few in the world to have been able to provide modelling and data analysis for such broad type of LSS-related data with tailored high quality methodologies.

Let be honest, your rethoric tactics is something I used to see a lot from poorly educated peoples back in my studying days and after that during my teaching days.
You dismiss the work by others, without clear critics (just some vague random comments that you are totally unable to justify, because you don't understand what you speak about).
You might fool uneducated peoples, but the vacuity of your claim is very apparent, and definitely damage your credibility.

Thus, as an advice, you may want to either be able to defend your claim with a good argumentation, or you might prefer to stay quiet.
Yet, the way you behave (starting with an insult and afterward handwaving with arrogance) is only damaging one thing : your own credibility.

Good luck kid.

 

[mneuhoff]

Hello,

I've just received my Big Y results, please let me know how I can contribute further. On FamilyTreeDNA the terminal subclade is J-BY178234, my kit is 978518. On YFull my terminal subclade J-Y155546, my kit is YF133761. Not sure why these are different? Thanks.

 

[Archetype0ne]

Hello,

I've just received my Big Y results, please let me know how I can contribute further. On FamilyTreeDNA the terminal subclade is J-BY178234, my kit is 978518. On YFull my terminal subclade J-Y155546, my kit is YF133761. Not sure why these are different? Thanks.

Hi cousin. Best reach out to Hunter Provyn at https://phylogeographer.com/about-me/ (end of the page has his email).

 

[epirus1000]

Hello,

I've just received my Big Y results, please let me know how I can contribute further. On FamilyTreeDNA the terminal subclade is J-BY178234, my kit is 978518. On YFull my terminal subclade J-Y155546, my kit is YF133761. Not sure why these are different? Thanks.

You have the same subclade with two different Laberia individuals, one of the main heartlands of Albanians