Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

origin of the Germanic tribes

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by 1798 View Post
    You didn't look at the map I posted as 20% of Z156 is from Ireland. Anyone can speak a language.
    You keep posting the same Semargl maps that are simply taken from the public dna projects of commercial dna testing companies, are not the result of scientific studies, and include repeats from the same family or multiple entries with the same surname or one or more of its variants.

    In the Busby et al study, U106 in Ireland reaches its highest frequency in Dublin, at 6.7%. Of course, Dublin, with its historic "Pale", was the center of English and other outside settlement. Otherwise, U106 averages about 3-4% in Ireland.

    Z156 is a subclade of U106, so it accounts for only a fraction of those relatively scarce percentages.

    Z156 is well represented in Germany and elsewhere in continental Europe where Germanic peoples were known to have settled.
    Last edited by Stevo; 4 August 2014, 04:37 PM.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Stevo View Post
      You keep posting the same Semargl maps that are simply taken from the public dna projects of commercial dna testing companies, are not the result of scientific studies, and include repeats from the same family or multiple entries with the same surname or one or more of its variants.

      In the Busby et al study, U106 in Ireland reaches its highest frequency in Dublin, at 6.7%. Of course, Dublin, with its historic "Pale", was the center of English and other outside settlement. Otherwise, U106 averages about 3-4% in Ireland.

      Z156 is a subclade of U106, so it accounts for only a fraction of those relatively scarce percentages.

      Z156 is well represented in Germany and elsewhere in continental Europe where Germanic peoples were known to have settled.
      I posted the map so that others could see where the men come from that tested for Z156. It doesn't matter what percentage the parent group is in Ireland. It is the percentage of the subgroups and the ages that matter. All of the 1000 or more branches of U106 did not occur in Germany during the last 5,400 years. In fact U106 was not born in Germany.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by 1798 View Post
        I posted the map so that others could see where the men come from that tested for Z156. It doesn't matter what percentage the parent group is in Ireland. It is the percentage of the subgroups and the ages that matter. All of the 1000 or more branches of U106 did not occur in Germany during the last 5,400 years. In fact U106 was not born in Germany.
        I don't think U106 was born in Germany either. It was probably born in Eastern Europe, but no one knows for sure.

        I really don't know why you insist on posting in an old thread about the Germans from 2008 that was dredged back up, when you claim you are not of Germanic ancestry and that your own subclade is not Germanic.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by 1798 View Post
          What we all need is an estimated age for the terminal groups that we are in and then to try and find where the majority of the group is located. Diversity and frequency may help to nail down the place of origin. I asked the U106 group to look at that two years ago to help all of the branches. They are working on it at present.
          Is this the U106 Yahoo group? https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/...in%20of%20U106

          Is it still a work in progress or do they have some initial findings?

          Originally posted by 1798 View Post
          The TMRCA for Z156 is around 3,100 BC.
          http://www.semargl.me/en/dna/ydna/map-snp/385/
          I notice that Iain McDonald from the U106 yahoo group states that he feels U106 itself is ~ 4,800 years old. He admits there is a margin of error. Has there been progress with this from June?

          https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/...messages/26164

          Originally posted by 1798 View Post
          You didn't look at the map I posted as 20% of Z156 is from Ireland
          No. 20% of the people with the Z156 SNP have listed Ireland as the location of their "Most Distant Known ancestor".

          Semargl is not a population study and data is heavily skewed towards the Isles based on people who have tested.

          Originally posted by 1798 View Post
          Anyone can speak a language.
          True. There is more to being German than just speaking German, just as there is to more to being Irish than speaking Gaelic.
          Last edited by N21163; 4 August 2014, 06:12 PM.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by N21163 View Post

            I notice that Iain McDonald from the U106 yahoo group states that he feels U106 itself is ~ 4,800 years old. He admits there is a margin of error. Has there been progress with this from June?
            There has been very little progress that I see and the age of the U106 subgroup could be 10,000 years old as well 4000.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by 1798 View Post
              There has been very little progress that I see and the age of the U106 subgroup could be 10,000 years old as well 4000.
              Even with Iain McDonald's use of a SNP rate of 150 years/SNP, he comes up with an estimate of 4,800 years for the age of U106, as N21163 notes above. As I've posted elsewhere on the subject of SNP counting, using the more extensive testing done by FGC, the SNP rate is 90 years/SNP.

              I'm not attacking the competency of Iain. He's very knowledgeable about statistical methods. But he's using less comprehensive data, since he's working only with Big Y results.

              The point is that Iain, who knows what he's doing, has an age for U106 of less than 5,000 years. You, using his somewhat inaccurate 150 years/SNP, tell us that U106 may be 10,000 years old!

              Do you really think that your estimate is credible??!! I think that if you're honest about that, you have to admit that it's as likely that U106 is 10,000 years old as for me to think that my subclade of U106, found in less than 1% of Italian men, originated in Greece, was brought to Sicily by Plato and that I'm a paternal line descendant of Plato.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by MMaddi View Post
                Even with Iain McDonald's use of a SNP rate of 150 years/SNP, he comes up with an estimate of 4,800 years for the age of U106, as N21163 notes above. As I've posted elsewhere on the subject of SNP counting, using the more extensive testing done by FGC, the SNP rate is 90 years/SNP.

                I'm not attacking the competency of Iain. He's very knowledgeable about statistical methods. But he's using less comprehensive data, since he's working only with Big Y results.

                The point is that Iain, who knows what he's doing, has an age for U106 of less than 5,000 years. You, using his somewhat inaccurate 150 years/SNP, tell us that U106 may be 10,000 years old!

                Do you really think that your estimate is credible??!! I think that if you're honest about that, you have to admit that it's as likely that U106 is 10,000 years old as for me to think that my subclade of U106, found in less than 1% of Italian men, originated in Greece, was brought to Sicily by Plato and that I'm a paternal line descendant of Plato.
                That is not an estimate. What I meant was, in the future with ancient dna results the age of U106 and other groups could change.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by 1798 View Post
                  That is not an estimate. What I meant was, in the future with ancient dna results the age of U106 and other groups could change.
                  Yes, possibly the age could change. I would accept ancient DNA evidence over estimates based on either STR or SNP counting mathematical models.

                  However, you have a big problem. There are dozens of results from European DNA in the period from 5-7,000 years ago. Almost all of them have been G2 of some sort. This takes in sites from Spain, France, Germany and Italy. All those nations today have high to very high levels of R1b. Yet, no R1b has been found in remains from those areas before 5,000 years ago. The earliest find of R1b remains is dated to about 4,600 years ago, from Germany.

                  Of course, these facts that show so far it's unlikely that R1b was in Europe during Mesolithic or even early Neolithic times have been pointed out to you many, many times in various threads here. Since this fairly strong evidence doesn't support your views, you've ignored that evidence and stuck tenaciously to your hoped for European presence of U106 and R1b in general several thousand years ago.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by MMaddi View Post
                    Yes, possibly the age could change. I would accept ancient DNA evidence over estimates based on either STR or SNP counting mathematical models.

                    However, you have a big problem. There are dozens of results from European DNA in the period from 5-7,000 years ago. Almost all of them have been G2 of some sort. This takes in sites from Spain, France, Germany and Italy. All those nations today have high to very high levels of R1b. Yet, no R1b has been found in remains from those areas before 5,000 years ago. The earliest find of R1b remains is dated to about 4,600 years ago, from Germany.

                    Of course, these facts that show so far it's unlikely that R1b was in Europe during Mesolithic or even early Neolithic times have been pointed out to you many, many times in various threads here. Since this fairly strong evidence doesn't support your views, you've ignored that evidence and stuck tenaciously to your hoped for European presence of U106 and R1b in general several thousand years ago.
                    You do not have to be afraid of my posts. It does not take anything away from your thoughts on your own Y-line.I am done with thread.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by 1798 View Post
                      You do not have to be afraid of my posts. It does not take anything away from your thoughts on your own Y-line.I am done with thread.
                      No one is afraid of your posts

                      Comment


                      • Old R1b is not old

                        Something that most people are not aware of is that these so called "oldest" forms of R1b1c are not actually old. All major branches of R1b have about the same statistical variation on STRs, whether in Turkey, the Urals, Cameroons, Italy, Northern or Southern Europe. The variation is consistent with a common ancestor within each subclade about 130 generations ago. Obviously R1b is very much older than that, but wherever it occurs, the majority of sidelines have died out, leaving subclades of about the same age.

                        Accordingly, there is no way to determine how long each subclade has actually been present in each location. Any or all of them could have been in place before the last global maximum, or 10000 years ago, or 4000 years ago. We need ancient Y-DNA, especially paleolithic, to work out how long R1b has been in any location. So far - there is very little of this.


                        >These SNPs show that the oldest form of R1b1c, called ht35, are only found at significant levels in Turkey, eastern Europe and southern Italy. They are hard to find in R1b1c's with western European ancestry. So, if the oldest forms of R1b1c (which according to Hammer et al., is certainly no more 18,000 years old and probably significantly less) are found in the east and not in the west, how is it possible that R1b1c wintered the Ice Age (if it even existed then!) in the Iberian refugium?

                        Mike[/QUOTE]

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by coad View Post
                          Something that most people are not aware of is that these so called "oldest" forms of R1b1c are not actually old. All major branches of R1b have about the same statistical variation on STRs, whether in Turkey, the Urals, Cameroons, Italy, Northern or Southern Europe. The variation is consistent with a common ancestor within each subclade about 130 generations ago. Obviously R1b is very much older than that, but wherever it occurs, the majority of sidelines have died out, leaving subclades of about the same age.

                          Accordingly, there is no way to determine how long each subclade has actually been present in each location. Any or all of them could have been in place before the last global maximum, or 10000 years ago, or 4000 years ago. We need ancient Y-DNA, especially paleolithic, to work out how long R1b has been in any location. So far - there is very little of this.


                          >These SNPs show that the oldest form of R1b1c, called ht35, are only found at significant levels in Turkey, eastern Europe and southern Italy. They are hard to find in R1b1c's with western European ancestry. So, if the oldest forms of R1b1c (which according to Hammer et al., is certainly no more 18,000 years old and probably significantly less) are found in the east and not in the west, how is it possible that R1b1c wintered the Ice Age (if it even existed then!) in the Iberian refugium?

                          Mike
                          [/QUOTE]

                          YSTRs are unreliable for determining the age of any subhaplogroup.

                          Comment


                          • I hope in the coming year that the scientists will find evidence that shows that R1b was in Europe before 4,500 ybp.

                            Comment

                            Working...
                            X