The Basques

[N21163]

The first paper to mention the rate is the following study http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3312576/ which showed 4 SNPs in 13 generations. Normally there are 33 years per generation.

The average for BigY is 150 years per SNP. I believe it is 90 years per SNP for FullGenomes.

If you want to read how YFull comes up with it's mutation rate you can download the PDF at http://rjgg.molgen.org/index.php/RJG...e/view/151/175

If it is really 90 years per SNP for the SNPs directly below P312 then they are even more closely related that I had mentioned in my previous posts.

Thank you for providing this information.

[1798]

150 years between SNPs? If we're plucking figures out of thin air why is it 150? Has there been some research to remotely suggest there are 150 years between SNPs?



It does matter that Haak et al (2015) reported in their article. They conducted the research and reported their findings.



Still? You're still going on about this? The gedmatch calculators are not the "go to" solution that nullifies research.. we have talked about this yes? If they were the solution then this would be the only research tool used.



Percentages on admixture calculators do not translate to anything more than that. It's like you keep playing the same broken record. Why??



Who said? Are there remains in Ireland to substantiate this?



How so? Is this an attempt to find some ancient link to Basque people?
What evidence are you using to support this statement?

Please provide support for these claims.

The calculators at gedmatch are useful and they were provided to show how closely we are related to others. That's how I know that I am not closely related to the the two Yamnaya profiles.

Do we need dna from ancient remains in Ireland to show that 80% of Irish males are R1b? This did not happen overnight. R1b was in western Europe 7000 ybp. The people who built the Megalithic tombs in Ireland over the course of 2000 years,6000-4000 ybp, are the ancestors of the present day Irish.

U5,a Mesolithic marker, is found in 18% of the people of Leinster so a link to an Iberian refuge is possible.


The only people playing a broken record are those who write that there was no R1b in Europe until 4,500 ybp.

[T E Peterman]

Actually, considering that the vast majority of Irish are P312+, it suggests a rapid transformation to this haplogroup some time after 3000 BC.

Of course, ancient people never knew what haplogroup each of them belonged to; all no doubt had a sense of cultural identity (us vs. them).

The diaspora from central Europe (ca 2500 BC) appears to have taken different subclades of P312 in all directions. Genetic drift probably established majority concentrations (L21 in the Isles, as opposed to DF27 in Iberia). Some, like DF99 & some of the subclades of U152 went in several directions.

Although an English/ German origin of U106 in Ireland is most plausible, I still allow for the possibility that U106 could have been carried to Ireland along with the wave of L21 settlement; such a branch of U106 would be as Irish as anyone who is L21.

Any Irish U106 person should definitely take the Big Y test, to try to ascertain how close you are to other U106 participants.

Timothy Peterman

[1798]

Actually, considering that the vast majority of Irish are P312+, it suggests a rapid transformation to this haplogroup some time after 3000 BC.

Of course, ancient people never knew what haplogroup each of them belonged to; all no doubt had a sense of cultural identity (us vs. them).

The diaspora from central Europe (ca 2500 BC) appears to have taken different subclades of P312 in all directions. Genetic drift probably established majority concentrations (L21 in the Isles, as opposed to DF27 in Iberia). Some, like DF99 & some of the subclades of U152 went in several directions.

Although an English/ German origin of U106 in Ireland is most plausible, I still allow for the possibility that U106 could have been carried to Ireland along with the wave of L21 settlement; such a branch of U106 would be as Irish as anyone who is L21.

Any Irish U106 person should definitely take the Big Y test, to try to ascertain how close you are to other U106 participants.

Timothy Peterman

"Anatole Klyosov:
> Easy. It is because P312* is all over Iberia and is more frequent there
> than
> anywhere else, because Basques are mainly P312, because U106 is only one
> mutation away from P312 in the first 25 markers and they therefore cannot
> arose far from each other, because a common ancestor of P312 and U106
> lived
> 4800 ybp, because 4800 ybp is the beginning of the Bell Beaker movement up
> North, because L21, a downstream of P312, has a high frequency in France,
> immediately North from P312, an because L11 is an immediate upstream of
> U106
> and P312."

[T E Peterman]

I suspect we will eventually come to understand that the only P312+ to migrate from Iberia to Ireland was DF27+ & that happened quite a bit later (?? Milesians).

Timothy Peterman

[MMaddi]

Do we need dna from ancient remains in Ireland to show that 80% of Irish males are R1b? This did not happen overnight. R1b was in western Europe 7000 ybp. The people who built the Megalithic tombs in Ireland over the course of 2000 years,6000-4000 ybp, are the ancestors of the present day Irish....

The only people playing a broken record are those who write that there was no R1b in Europe until 4,500 ybp.

No, we don't need ancient DNA to prove that modern Irishmen are 80% R1b. We know that from testing those living men. You're conflating the issue, which is what haplogroup were Irishmen several thousand years ago. That would be the purpose of testing ancient remains. By bringing up the overwhelming percentage of R1b among Irishmen today, you're assuming that it must have been the same long ago. That remains to be seen.

As for the presence of R1b in Spain 7,000 years ago, yes, the Lazaridis study did find that. However, as has been pointed out to you many times already and which you consistently ignore, that 7,000 year old Spaniard was not on the same branch as modern European R1b men. In other words, modern European R1b men are not descended from his lineage. On the other hand, the Yamnaya remains in the same study are of the same lineage as modern European R1b men, so they are distant cousins.

The only broken record about R1b in Europe has been you, consistently ignoring that the 7,000 year old Spaniard you love to bring up has nothing to do modern European R1b. You just love that broken record, since you keep playing it!

[1798]

No, we don't need ancient DNA to prove that modern Irishmen are 80% R1b. We know that from testing those living men. You're conflating the issue, which is what haplogroup were Irishmen several thousand years ago. That would be the purpose of testing ancient remains. By bringing up the overwhelming percentage of R1b among Irishmen today, you're assuming that it must have been the same long ago. That remains to be seen.

As for the presence of R1b in Spain 7,000 years ago, yes, the Lazaridis study did find that. However, as has been pointed out to you many times already and which you consistently ignore, that 7,000 year old Spaniard was not on the same branch as modern European R1b men. In other words, modern European R1b men are not descended from his lineage. On the other hand, the Yamnaya remains in the same study are of the same lineage as modern European R1b men, so they are distant cousins.

The only broken record about R1b in Europe has been you, consistently ignoring that the 7,000 year old Spaniard you love to bring up has nothing to do modern European R1b. You just love that broken record, since you keep playing it!

I do not belong to Z2103 and it is possible that the Z2103 branch that was found among the Yamnaya were outsiders. Z2103 has not been found in western Europe in ancient remains yet.


Can you see the autosomal links between this ancient Spaniard and the Irish?

La Brana K15 7000 ybp
# Population Percent
1 Atlantic 30.24
2 North_Sea 29.34
3 Baltic 28.15
4 Eastern_Euro 11.87

Using 4 populations approximation:
1 Irish + Irish + Lithuanian + Lithuanian @ 10.405072
2 Irish + Lithuanian + Lithuanian + West_Scottish @ 10.506998
3 Lithuanian + Lithuanian + West_Scottish + West_Scottish @ 10.622088
4 Irish + Irish + La_Brana-1 + Lithuanian @ 10.768566
5 Belorussian + Irish + Irish + Lithuanian @ 10.817389
6 Estonian + Irish + Irish + Lithuanian @ 10.859822
7 Irish + La_Brana-1 + Lithuanian + West_Scottish @ 10.914764
8 Belorussian + Irish + Lithuanian + West_Scottish @ 10.926410
9 Irish + Lithuanian + Lithuanian + Southeast_English @ 10.944150
10 Danish + Irish + Lithuanian + Lithuanian @ 10.959003
11 Irish + Lithuanian + Lithuanian + Orcadian @ 10.959280
12 Irish + Lithuanian + Lithuanian + North_Dutch @ 10.960265
13 Irish + La_Brana-1 + Lithuanian + North_German @ 10.991408
14 Estonian + Irish + Lithuanian + West_Scottish @ 11.019946
15 Lithuanian + Lithuanian + Southeast_English + West_Scottish @ 11.041262
16 Irish + Lithuanian + Lithuanian + North_German @ 11.043326
17 Belorussian + Lithuanian + West_Scottish + West_Scottish @ 11.047952
18 Lithuanian + Lithuanian + North_Dutch + West_Scottish @ 11.067364
19 Danish + Lithuanian + Lithuanian + West_Scottish @ 11.071273
20 La_Brana-1 + Lithuanian + West_Scottish + West_Scottish @ 11.073080

[MMaddi]

I do not belong to Z2103 and it is possible that the Z2103 branch that was found among the Yamnaya were outsiders. Z2103 has not been found in western Europe in ancient remains yet.


Can you see the autosomal links between this ancient Spaniard and the Irish?

We are talking about yDNA, not autosomal DNA. You continually point to the presence of R1b in Spain 7,000 years ago and link it to modern European R1b. Autosomal DNA, whatever it shows, has nothing to do with that question.

Just give us all a straight answer to these questions.

Do you realize that the 7,000 year old Spanish R1b is not on the same branch as modern European R1b? If so, do you realize that, therefore, there is no direct descent from that ancient Spanish R1b and modern European R1b and there is no basis to link the two, as you do?

Once you give an honest answer to those two questions, you'll be able to stop playing your broken record and we can all have an honest discussion about the issue of R1b in Europe.

If you can't or won't give a straight answer to those very simple questions, then either you're totally deluded about how phylogenetics works or you're just afraid to admit that you're wrong. In either case, that would prove how much a waste of time it is to take you seriously.

[1798]

We are talking about yDNA, not autosomal DNA. You continually point to the presence of R1b in Spain 7,000 years ago and link it to modern European R1b. Autosomal DNA, whatever it shows, has nothing to do with that question.

Just give us all a straight answer to these questions.

Do you realize that the 7,000 year old Spanish R1b is not on the same branch as modern European R1b? If so, do you realize that, therefore, there is no direct descent from that ancient Spanish R1b and modern European R1b and there is no basis to link the two, as you do?

Once you give an honest answer to those two questions, you'll be able to stop playing your broken record and we can all have an honest discussion about the issue of R1b in Europe.

If you can't or won't give a straight answer to those very simple questions, then either you're totally deluded about how phylogenetics works or you're just afraid to admit that you're wrong. In either case, that would prove how much a waste of time it is to take you seriously.

I do realize that I am not descended from Z2103 either. I am descended from L51 which was not found among the Yamnaya.

Here is one R1b farmer and even though he was not on the same line as me it is proof that R1b was in western Europe 7000 ybp.

MDLP K23b 4-Ancestors Oracle
# Population Percent
1 European_Early_Farmers 72.37
2 Caucasian 16.63
3 North_African 6.65
4 Near_East 4.35
El Trocs 7000ybp M684242
Using 3 populations approximation:
1 50% Sardinian +25% Sardinian +25% Sardinian @ 6.390736

[N21163]

I do not belong to Z2103 and it is possible that the Z2103 branch that was found among the Yamnaya were outsiders. Z2103 has not been found in western Europe in ancient remains yet.


Can you see the autosomal links between this ancient Spaniard and the Irish?

La Brana K15 7000 ybp
# Population Percent
1 Atlantic 30.24
2 North_Sea 29.34
3 Baltic 28.15
4 Eastern_Euro 11.87

Using 4 populations approximation:
1 Irish + Irish + Lithuanian + Lithuanian @ 10.405072
2 Irish + Lithuanian + Lithuanian + West_Scottish @ 10.506998
3 Lithuanian + Lithuanian + West_Scottish + West_Scottish @ 10.622088
4 Irish + Irish + La_Brana-1 + Lithuanian @ 10.768566
5 Belorussian + Irish + Irish + Lithuanian @ 10.817389
6 Estonian + Irish + Irish + Lithuanian @ 10.859822
7 Irish + La_Brana-1 + Lithuanian + West_Scottish @ 10.914764
8 Belorussian + Irish + Lithuanian + West_Scottish @ 10.926410
9 Irish + Lithuanian + Lithuanian + Southeast_English @ 10.944150
10 Danish + Irish + Lithuanian + Lithuanian @ 10.959003
11 Irish + Lithuanian + Lithuanian + Orcadian @ 10.959280
12 Irish + Lithuanian + Lithuanian + North_Dutch @ 10.960265
13 Irish + La_Brana-1 + Lithuanian + North_German @ 10.991408
14 Estonian + Irish + Lithuanian + West_Scottish @ 11.019946
15 Lithuanian + Lithuanian + Southeast_English + West_Scottish @ 11.041262
16 Irish + Lithuanian + Lithuanian + North_German @ 11.043326
17 Belorussian + Lithuanian + West_Scottish + West_Scottish @ 11.047952
18 Lithuanian + Lithuanian + North_Dutch + West_Scottish @ 11.067364
19 Danish + Lithuanian + Lithuanian + West_Scottish @ 11.071273
20 La_Brana-1 + Lithuanian + West_Scottish + West_Scottish @ 11.073080

http://forums.familytreedna.com/showpost.php?p=405724&postcount=30

Why do you keep rehashing this?

The admixture calculators do not demonstrate a definite relationship between La Brana and Irish people.

It merely states that "Irish + Lithuanian" populations are the closest "best fit" @ 10.405072.

I have stated quite a number of times before about problems with this. The higher the number the less likely it is for that sample to be connected to those populations.

IN ADDITION, you are comparing an ancient sample to modern populations so the results will mean next to nothing, based on the limitations of the admixture calculators.

Why are you persisting with this line of thinking?

[MMaddi]

Why are you persisting with this line of thinking?

Because, since he has no credible evidence to back up his claims, the only thing left for him to do is obfuscate, misrepresent and ignore the credible evidence and use what he claims is "evidence" for his views from gedmatch admixture calculators. As you've pointed out many, many times, you can't rely on the admixture calculators for 100% accurate analysis of the connection between a living individual and a modern population and much less so a living individual and an ancient population.

Why he feels the need to do all that is anyone's guess. I think it's probably his pathological need to believe that his paternal line has been in Ireland for 10,000+ years.

[1798]

I do not belong to Z2103 and it is possible that the Z2103 branch that was found among the Yamnaya were outsiders. Z2103 has not been found in western Europe in ancient remains yet.


Can you see the autosomal links between this ancient Spaniard and the Irish?

La Brana K15 7000 ybp
# Population Percent
1 Atlantic 30.24
2 North_Sea 29.34
3 Baltic 28.15
4 Eastern_Euro 11.87

Population Irish average
North_Sea 36.38%
Atlantic 30.66%
Baltic 11.15%
Eastern_Euro 8.12%
West_Med 6.98%
West_Asian 6.98%
East_Med 1.24%
Red_Sea 0.67%
South_Asian 55.00%
Southeast_Asian - * *
Siberian 0.05%
Amerindian 0.60%
Oceanian 0.01%
Northeast_African 0.07%
Sub-Saharan 0.04%


The 90% P312 in the Basque and Iberian region and 90% P312 in Ireland and Wales. Perhaps someone can explain this.

[1798]

Because, since he has no credible evidence to back up his claims, the only thing left for him to do is obfuscate, misrepresent and ignore the credible evidence and use what he claims is "evidence" for his views from gedmatch admixture calculators. As you've pointed out many, many times, you can't rely on the admixture calculators for 100% accurate analysis of the connection between a living individual and a modern population and much less so a living individual and an ancient population.

Why he feels the need to do all that is anyone's guess. I think it's probably his pathological need to believe that his paternal line has been in Ireland for 10,000+ years.

We all know that P312 and U106 are western European subhaplogroups. We have not seen any ancient dna results published for Ireland yet.

[1798]

Why he feels the need to do all that is anyone's guess. I think it's probably his pathological need to believe that his paternal line has been in Ireland for 10,000+ years.

Sadly your pathological need to belong to the Lombards means that your type of R1b cannot be in western Europe until 1,500 ybp.

This thread is about the 90% P312 in the Basque region and Iberia which cannot be swept under the carpet.

[MMaddi]

Sadly your pathological need to belong to the Lombards means that your type of R1b cannot be in western Europe until 1,500 ybp.

This thread is about the 90% P312 in the Basque region and Iberia which cannot be swept under the carpet.

You are hilarious! You can't argue the evidence in a rational way, so you try to cast doubt on my motivations.

Don't you remember that I've posted before that I was somewhat disappointed when my haplogroup came back in 2005 as R1b? As someone with all four grandparents from Sicily/southern Italy and proud of the history of that region, I was hoping my haplogroup would be J2 or E1b1b. That might point to deep ancestry from Greece and I am a big Hellenophile. I would be proud to be able to say that my paternal line from Sicily came from a Greek colonist 2,500 years ago.

I quickly got over my slight disappointment at finding out my haplogroup is a very northern European subclade of R1b. And since then I've done all the study I can through DNA testing and considering historical migrations to come up with a theory for how my paternal line arrived in Sicily and perhaps when. (Yes, Ciaran, migrations do occur and have throughout human history, including in Europe. It might benefit you to study some archaeology and history about that.)

As I've reported before, my present working hypothesis is that my paternal line arrived in Italy with the Lombards or perhaps the Goths, both from northern Germany. Both groups had kingdoms in Italy after the fall of the Roman Empire about 1,500 years ago. This is based on historical evidence and on a semi-close DNA match I have from northern Italy who shares one of my Big Y singletons, FGC13492. His TMRCA with me fits with the arrival of the Lombards in northern Italy.

If some better evidence comes along that indicates a different deep ancestry for my paternal line, I'll drop my Lombard working hypothesis and adopt a new one that has better evidence. Truth be told, I'd still be happier if my yDNA haplogroup would allow me to entertain the possibility that my paternal line goes back to Greece 2,500 years ago - maybe to Plato or Archimedes! But it is what it is and I'm fine with that. My ancestors were who they were, not who I'd like them to be.

Do you think there's a lesson in this for yourself? Maybe something like don't try to fabricate evidence to fit your wishes and be willing to consider whatever the best evidence indicates?

By the way, it is your belief that your paternal line has been in Ireland for several thousand or 10,000+ years, right? Or is that not your current belief? I don't want to misrepresent your thinking.