DNA Results from Asturias

[T E Peterman]

I suggest that the U106 project try to get as many U106+ people as possible to test for the S5520 SNP.

If the S5520 mutation predates the population split between the P312 proto-Celts and U106 proto Germans... as I have said all along, there is a possibility that your branch of U106 could have crossed over & become part of the proto-Celts before reaching the Isles. This isn't the most likely explanation, but I haven't ruled it out. This would be consistent with the interpretation that R1b moved from Anatolia or the Pontic Steppe into Europe 4500 years ago.

Timothy Peterman

[1798]

I'm guessing from this that my assumption that you are merely counting the differences in the variance files between yourself and fellow S5520 was correct.

No effort to correlate this with other U106 Big Ys let alone the rest of L11+ and not taking into consideration the information in the bed files ?

You are so wrong.I know how to analyse the files.

[1798]

1798: Have you determined yet where the other S5520+ men live & where their patrilines are from. Are ALL of them from Ireland or Scotland? Or are some from other places?

Timothy Peterman

At present Ireland and Scotland and that could change with tests from other regions.

[1798]

No. That was precisely my point: It is absurd to a priori "decide" that a 4800-year-old SNP first arose in Western Europe without comprehensive, dense sampling of the rest of Europe, and perhaps beyond--sampling that we do not have yet for even the most basic clades like U106, much less some obscure newly discovered subclade.

And to "decide" a priori to discard any evidence contrary to one's pet hypothesis is utterly unscientific, and indeed intellectually dishonest (to oneself as well as others).

In short: "Deciding" the geographic origin of a 4800-year-old SNP is not nearly as easy as one might wish.

A wide variety of branches, oddly enough. And you're off by one order of magnitude. U106 is no more than 6000 years old.

Is it wrong to assume that M222 had an origin in the Isles? Is it wrong to assume that Q1a3a had an origin in America?
The 60,000 year ref. was not about U106. It was about the time that AMH arrived in south west Asia.

[T E Peterman]

1798: Have you determined yet where the other S5520+ men live & where their patrilines are from. Are ALL of them from Ireland or Scotland? Or are some from other places?

Timothy Peterman

[T E Peterman]

It's possible that the P311 mutation may have occurred to an individual within the L11 population before the L11 migration up the Danube River began. That group may have been L11+, P311- & L11+, P311+. If P311 dates to prior to 3000 BC, we can be almost certain that this happened.

I should mention that for a long time, P311 & L11 were considered to have defined the same clade. Usually separate mutations like this didn't happen at the same time. Eventually, participants who were L11+, P311- must have turned up.

Timothy Peterman

[Subwoofer]

I have looked at the Big-Y files in the U106 at yahoo group forum. Four testers under Z156>S5520 have 27 of the same SNPs and the rest are singletons. The men who are already tested are within a GD of 10 at 111 markers of each other and I am a GD of 39 from this group at 111 markers. Perhaps Maddi thinks that I have been studying dna for eight years and that I have learned nothing.

I'm guessing from this that my assumption that you are merely counting the differences in the variance files between yourself and fellow S5520 was correct.

No effort to correlate this with other U106 Big Ys let alone the rest of L11+ and not taking into consideration the information in the bed files ?

[lgmayka]

Do you think that 70 is a lot out of millions of eastern European men?

No. That was precisely my point: It is absurd to a priori "decide" that a 4800-year-old SNP first arose in Western Europe without comprehensive, dense sampling of the rest of Europe, and perhaps beyond--sampling that we do not have yet for even the most basic clades like U106, much less some obscure newly discovered subclade.

And to "decide" a priori to discard any evidence contrary to one's pet hypothesis is utterly unscientific, and indeed intellectually dishonest (to oneself as well as others).

In short: "Deciding" the geographic origin of a 4800-year-old SNP is not nearly as easy as one might wish.

What downstream branches do they belong to and why do you think that it was one way traffic from east to west for 60,000 years?

A wide variety of branches, oddly enough. And you're off by one order of magnitude. U106 is no more than 6000 years old.

[1798]

Indeed this is one of the problems, but there is also the matter of how the SNPs were counted. In order to do this properly you have to take care to eliminate ALL positions reported in the variance files that aren't downstream of the point you are looking at, S5520 in this case.

That's quite a job in itself and requires analysing a large no. of variance files from various L11 subclades.

Then you need to examine the bed files to make sure the other people were actually covered for each position you are looking at

When counting SNPs it's also advisable to watch out for mutations that are very close to each other, these could be single events.

Plus I wouldn't put it past 1798 to have included indels in his count, most of which are STRs.

I have looked at the Big-Y files in the U106 at yahoo group forum. Four testers under Z156>S5520 have 27 of the same SNPs and the rest are singletons. The men who are already tested are within a GD of 10 at 111 markers of each other and I am a GD of 39 from this group at 111 markers. Perhaps Maddi thinks that I have been studying dna for eight years and that I have learned nothing.

[Subwoofer]

Let me answer your objection, on behalf of 1798: "Heresy! It's as simple as that. Just multiply an average and I get what I want."

Indeed this is one of the problems, but there is also the matter of how the SNPs were counted. In order to do this properly you have to take care to eliminate ALL positions reported in the variance files that aren't downstream of the point you are looking at, S5520 in this case.

That's quite a job in itself and requires analysing a large no. of variance files from various L11 subclades.

Then you need to examine the bed files to make sure the other people were actually covered for each position you are looking at

When counting SNPs it's also advisable to watch out for mutations that are very close to each other, these could be single events.

Plus I wouldn't put it past 1798 to have included indels in his count, most of which are STRs.

[MMaddi]

Those SNP rates are Dr Ian McDonald's, not mine. P311 does not have to be 5000 years old.

As I posted previously here in regard to Dr. McDonald, who's quoted quite liberally by 1798 regarding aging estimates, Dr. McDonald recently posted in the R1b-U106 Yahoogroup that he agrees that there's no evidence that R1b was in Europe before the late Neolithic. He agrees with what most genetic genealogists who've studied the issue and population geneticists like Dr. Hammer believe, not what 1798 believes.

This is counter to the basic viewpoint that 1798 has about R1b in Europe. You would think that, if 1798 was interested in having a reasoned debate on this subject, he would not pick and choose what statements Dr. McDonald has made on the subject. I would understand if 1798 would report McDonald's statements on both subclade aging and the presence of R1b in Europe and tell us that McDonald is right on the former and wrong on the latter.

But ignoring Dr. McDonald's disagreement with 1798's basic premise of a Mesolithic presence in Europe is just plain intellectual dishonesty. This is why it's useless to argue with him, since he picks and chooses his "evidence," ignoring views and data which don't support his view. It suits his argument to cite Dr. McDonald on the subclade aging issue, so he quotes that. It undermines his argument to quote Dr. McDonald on the issue of when R1b was in Europe, so you'll never see him quote McDonald on that.

[1798]

So you are S5520+?

If the 36 SNPs really happened at an average of 136 years, this would suggest that the S5520 mutation happened 4,896 years ago. Z156 would have happened 5,032 years ago. Z381 would have happened 5,168 years ago. U106 would have happened 5,304 years ago.

Let's say the mutation rate is really once every 125 years. This would make U106 4,875 years old, or 2875 BC, which is plausible. This would make P311 5,000 years old even.

Have you conferred yet with the administrator of the U106 project? What are his thoughts about the matter? If I have different SNPs to someone else in the same subclade, what do you want me to do? Pretend that they never happened.

Timothy Peterman

Those SNP rates are Dr Ian McDonald's, not mine. P311 does not have to be 5000 years old.

[MMaddi]

Analyzing Big Y files is a tiny little bit more complicated than that !!!

Let me answer your objection, on behalf of 1798: "Heresy! It's as simple as that. Just multiply an average and I get what I want."

[T E Peterman]

So you are S5520+?

If the 36 SNPs really happened at an average of 136 years, this would suggest that the S5520 mutation happened 4,896 years ago. Z156 would have happened 5,032 years ago. Z381 would have happened 5,168 years ago. U106 would have happened 5,304 years ago.

Let's say the mutation rate is really once every 125 years. This would make U106 4,875 years old, or 2875 BC, which is plausible. This would make P311 5,000 years old even.

Have you conferred yet with the administrator of the U106 project? What are his thoughts about the matter?

Timothy Peterman

[Subwoofer]

I am referring to U106>Z381>Z156>S5520 and the 36 SNP differences I have with a group within S5520. So 36 Big-Y SNPs at 136 years per SNP is the TMRCA for the group.

Analyzing Big Y files is a tiny little bit more complicated than that !!!