PDA

View Full Version : R-D25: What does this mean?



HyTronix
11-06-2015, 11:54 PM
Hi All,

I recently had BigY done at FTDNA, and found that my terminal SNP is R-DF25 (DF5-). What's the current thought on the origins of this group? My surname (Hynes) I've always considered to be aboriginal Irish, but who knows...

Any ideas/pointers to further study?

Thanks,

-John

rms2
11-07-2015, 02:27 PM
Hi All,

I recently had BigY done at FTDNA, and found that my terminal SNP is R-DF25 (DF5-). What's the current thought on the origins of this group? My surname (Hynes) I've always considered to be aboriginal Irish, but who knows...

Any ideas/pointers to further study?

Thanks,

-John

DF25 is a SNP downstream of DF21, which is a SNP downstream of L21. I left out some intervening SNPs for simplicity's sake. Here is the complete lineage (unless I inadvertently leave something out ):

M207 (R) . . . M173 (R1) . . . M343 (R1b) . . . P25 (R1b1) . . . P297 (R1b1a) . . . M269 (R1b1a2) . . . L23 . . . L51 . . . L11 . . . P312 . . . L21 . . . DF13 . . . DF21 . . . FGC3903 . . . Z246 . . . DF25

Think of that as a pedigree, with Z246 as the father of DF25, FGC3903 as its paternal grandfather, and so on back.

I stopped listing the longhand versions of the haplogroups after M269 (R1b1a2) because I don't remember them all. After that they begin to get rather cumbersome, and I was likely to screw them up.

Anyway, DF25 is a subclade of the major y haplogroup R1b-L21, which is a major subdivision of the very major y haplogroup R1b-P312. Here's a map of the modern European distribution of R1b-L21:

6591

rms2
11-07-2015, 02:45 PM
One of the skeletons recovered from a burial site near Hinxton, Cambridgeshire, in SE England, dated to circa 170 BC- 80 AD, tested DF25+. That area at that time was in the territory of the Celtic Catuvellauni tribe, which is believed to have been Belgic.

That's the oldest empirical evidence for DF25 and where it was, but you're liable to see all sorts of arguments about where it actually originated.

Rory Cain
05-12-2016, 09:06 PM
One of the skeletons recovered from a burial site near Hinxton, Cambridgeshire, in SE England, dated to circa 170 BC- 80 AD, tested DF25+. That area at that time was in the territory of the Celtic Catuvellauni tribe, which is believed to have been Belgic.

That's the oldest empirical evidence for DF25 and where it was, but you're liable to see all sorts of arguments about where it actually originated.

This appears to refer to Hinxton4, who was found to be DF21 > Z30233 > FGC3903 > Z246 but not DF25, to my knowledge anyway. That appears to be an extra leap of faith, as does Catuvellauni ancestry. Hinxton4's Z30233+ kinsman, Rathlin4, had made it to Rathlin Island about 4,000 years ago, long before those late arrivals the Catauvellauni ever set shore in the Isles. Unless one makes another leap of faith.

rms2
05-13-2016, 11:20 AM
This appears to refer to Hinxton4, who was found to be DF21 > Z30233 > FGC3903 > Z246 but not DF25, to my knowledge anyway. That appears to be an extra leap of faith, as does Catuvellauni ancestry. Hinxton4's Z30233+ kinsman, Rathlin4, had made it to Rathlin Island about 4,000 years ago, long before those late arrivals the Catauvellauni ever set shore in the Isles. Unless one makes another leap of faith.

Dredging up posts from months back is a bad habit (and against the forum rules, as well). I believe at the time last year when I wrote that, one of the Hinxton skeletons was said to have been DF25+. If that was incorrect, oh, well - I forget the source.

I did not engage in any "leaps of faith". For one thing, I never claimed any of the Hinxton skeletons actually were Catuvellauni tribesmen. My exact words were as follows:



That area at that time was in the territory of the Celtic Catuvellauni tribe, which is believed to have been Belgic.

No leap of faith involved. As I said, that area at that time was in the territory of the Celtic Catuvellauni tribe. The Hinxton men were probably gypsies just passing through.

But to believe that involves no great leap of faith.

Besides, what makes you think that because one of the Rathlin skeletons was Z30233 none of the Belgic arrivals from the Continent or their descendants could possibly have been Z30233? How does the existence of a Z30233 Bronze Age skeleton on Rathlin Island in Northern Ireland prove that the Hinxton Celts could not have belonged to the Catuvellauni tribe?

It seems to me such a conclusion is a far greater leap of faith than to imagine that men who died and were buried in Catuvellauni territory at the time the Catuvellauni lived there might have actually been Catuvellauni.

Rory Cain
05-15-2016, 11:54 PM
Dredging up posts from months back is a bad habit (and against the forum rules, as well). I believe at the time last year when I wrote that, one of the Hinxton skeletons was said to have been DF25+. If that was incorrect, oh, well - I forget the source.

I did not engage in any "leaps of faith". For one thing, I never claimed any of the Hinxton skeletons actually were Catuvellauni tribesmen. My exact words were as follows:

No leap of faith involved. As I said, that area at that time was in the territory of the Celtic Catuvellauni tribe. The Hinxton men were probably gypsies just passing through.

But to believe that involves no great leap of faith.

Besides, what makes you think that because one of the Rathlin skeletons was Z30233 none of the Belgic arrivals from the Continent or their descendants could possibly have been Z30233? How does the existence of a Z30233 Bronze Age skeleton on Rathlin Island in Northern Ireland prove that the Hinxton Celts could not have belonged to the Catuvellauni tribe?

It seems to me such a conclusion is a far greater leap of faith than to imagine that men who died and were buried in Catuvellauni territory at the time the Catuvellauni lived there might have actually been Catuvellauni.

Rich, keep making every DF21 discovery a Cotinental and perhaps one day you may be right. But I note that when I kept asking you to produce the evidence, you always shied away and stonewalled like in your conversations with Vince. When I tracked down the alleged Continentals, for we both look at the same databases, I can see why you shied away from bring forth that bunch- almost exclusively North American residents with British surnames matches claiming an origin in Belgum and France because of an alleged Norman ancestor. Having bought that stuff is one thing, but to keep on maintaining that you had good evidence is entirely another.

rms2
05-16-2016, 11:59 AM
I don't know if DF21 had a continental origin or not, and, as I have said before more than once, I don't really care. It's way way way down on my list of things to worry about.

But you dredged up a post from last year to snark about the Rathlin Island DF21 from the Bronze Age as if that proved without a doubt that DF21 originated in the Isles and that the Hinxton Celts could not have been Belgic Catuvellauni, even though they were buried in Catuvellauni territory at the time the Catuvellauni lived there.

The Rathlin Island DF21 proves nothing of the kind, but at least it is better to stick to ancient y-dna when arguing about a SNP's origins.

DF21 is your main branch subclade, not mine. If you believe it arose in the Isles and that comforts you, knock yourself out.

Rory Cain
05-17-2016, 02:54 AM
I don't know if DF21 had a continental origin or not, and, as I have said before more than once, I don't really care. It's way way way down on my list of things to worry about.

But you dredged up a post from last year to snark about the Rathlin Island DF21 from the Bronze Age as if that proved without a doubt that DF21 originated in the Isles and that the Hinxton Celts could not have been Belgic Catuvellauni, even though they were buried in Catuvellauni territory at the time the Catuvellauni lived there.

The Rathlin Island DF21 proves nothing of the kind, but at least it is better to stick to ancient y-dna when arguing about a SNP's origins.

DF21 is your main branch subclade, not mine. If you believe it arose in the Isles and that comforts you, knock yourself out.

No, its not that, it's that someone who would claim to be a serious researcher would claim to have concrete evidence of DF21 Continentals based largely on the wishful thinking of indididuals. That can happen, I guess. One can be sucked in. But continuing to cling to that claim rather than admit you were sucked in by some wannabees and wishful thinkers, and then stonewall about by continuing to still claim to have "evidence", while never producing it (Icouldsee why), that's what raised the real credibility issues.

EastAnglian
05-17-2016, 07:36 AM
Put your handbags away lads!

TigerMW
05-17-2016, 09:59 PM
I definitely don't think there is any proof that DF21 is of continental origin, but don't think there is proof of Isles origin either. An Isles origin is definitely a possibility but I think it is risky to rule out the continent given the archaeological trail left by Bell Beaker folks and Celtic/pre-Celtic developments.

Rory Cain
05-18-2016, 11:17 PM
I definitely don't think there is any proof that DF21 is of continental origin, but don't think there is proof of Isles origin either. An Isles origin is definitely a possibility but I think it is risky to rule out the continent given the archaeological trail left by Bell Beaker folks and Celtic/pre-Celtic developments.

Thanks Mike, for stating what I have said all along. Putting upstraw men is a regular feature of Rich's debating style, but I did not, as alleged, ever rule out a Continental origin for DF21. What I ruled out were the bunch of Norman wannabee's etc that Rich was relying on as "evidence". As you know Mike, I put forward a small group of potentially Iberian DF21's.I would not have done that if I were locked into supporting an Isles origin. I also have a small Germanic bunch of DF21's from the Z16539 sub-clade, although the date of their SNP would not rule out the possibility of a migration from the Isles to the Continent. Same with the Iberian sub-group.

To use ancient DNA as Rich has regularly preached, that leaves us with DF21 on Rathlin Island about 4,000years go, and a slow-moving straggler who followed as far as Hinxton in the southeast, about 2,000 years ago. Hinxton is on the Isles side of the Channel, not the Continental side.

rms2
05-23-2016, 07:10 PM
Delete

rms2
05-23-2016, 10:30 PM
Thanks Mike, for stating what I have said all along. Putting upstraw men is a regular feature of Rich's debating style, but I did not, as alleged, ever rule out a Continental origin for DF21.

Really, I don't think you know what a straw man is.



What I ruled out were the bunch of Norman wannabee's etc that Rich was relying on as "evidence" . . .

Well, I never relied on Norman wannabes as "evidence" of anything. I do not recall ever citing any modern DF21+ men with claims of Norman ancestry as proof of a continental origin for DF21. I used to be the Group Admin for the Normandy Y-DNA Project. I did not put anyone in one of the Norman categories unless he had a solid paper trail to an actual ancestor born in Normandy. As a result, most of those in the Norman categories were French citizens or French Canadians. I excluded a lot of people of British Isles descent who claimed Norman surnames, and that angered a lot of them, I can tell you.

The only argument, as I recall, that I ever mounted for a continental origin for DF21 came from ancient y-dna. First, the Hinxton Celt who was DF21 was buried in Belgic Catuvellauni territory at the time the Catuvellauni lived there. That indicates that he might have been of Belgic origin or ancestry, but, of course, I guess he could have been the DF21 native British slave of the actual Catuvellauni. That had not occurred to me until now.

Then there is Rathlin 1, who was derived for DF21 and, I believe, at least four SNPs downstream of it. Since Rathlin 1 dates to about 2000 BC, it occurred to me that his being derived not only for DF21 but for four SNPs downstream of DF21 might push the age of DF21 back from YFull's current estimate of 2200 BC. Since Beaker dates to about 2400 BC in Britain and 2300 BC in Ireland, that is cutting things pretty close for DF21 to have arisen anywhere in the Isles. Still possible, I guess, but a close shave, unless one wants to argue that DF21 predates Bell Beaker in the Isles.

Those are the things I mentioned. I don't recall ever citing any specific modern DF21 men as proof positive that DF21 originated on the Continent.

Now let me remind you that I do not really care where DF21 originated. I don't. Isles? Fine. Continent? Fine. I do care where L21 originated, and I think the fact that Rathlin 1 makes an Isles origin even for DF21 a close shave means that there is probably no way L21 originated there.

I would also like for you to quit misrepresenting what I have posted.

Rory Cain
05-26-2016, 08:57 PM
Really, I don't think you know what a straw man is....
....I would also like for you to quit misrepresenting what I have posted.

Hahaha, that's rich, coming from Rich, it's a routine tactic of his to misrepresent the other guy and put up straw men. A regular feature of his posts. I am more curious what happened to his collection of Continental DF21s that he claimed to have in post after post, Apparently they went the way of Hinxton4 after older Isles DF21 surfaced in Rathlin. Perhaps it was only ever Hinxton4 despite Rich's claim that he had more than singletons. We, singleton, singular? Well, this appears to be as close to an admission of stonewalling that we are going to see. The mystery of the missing "evidence" claimed by Rich can now be consigned to the dustbin.

rms2
05-27-2016, 11:58 AM
Hahaha, that's rich, coming from Rich, it's a routine tactic of his to misrepresent the other guy and put up straw men . . .

Untrue. You are misrepresenting what I posted. As I explained, when I argued for a continental origin for DF21, which I have not done on any kind of regular basis (mainly because I don't really care all that much about DF21), I cited ancient y-dna, not modern y-dna. I think I mentioned once that I did not have the time to comb through the list of DF21 men claiming continental ancestry to verify their claims, and that is true; I don't, and I don't care enough to go to all that trouble. Plus it's really irrelevant because only ancient y-dna can settle this.

I have not spent much if any time at all representing or misrepresenting your position. You admit of the possibility that DF21 had a continental origin, but you spend most of your time arguing against it, mostly via vacuous mockery that does not even redeem itself by being funny (or even easily decipherable). I spent my time giving the reasons for what I believe to be true, not misrepresenting what you think. What you think just isn't important enough for me to bother restating it, either accurately or inaccurately.

Now I think I will ignore you, since you have almost nothing to say that I am interested in.

Rory Cain
05-30-2016, 01:42 AM
Rash mistake there, Rich, to forget that all your previous posts are still accessible on the thread "Which L21 Subclades may have originated in the Isles" where Anthrogenica readers can still read them. If we move through the nmerous posts where rms2 misprpresents miiser's posts, we find those where rms2 claims to have "evidence" of Continental DF21s, and he further alleges that these Continentals are not singletons. See post #49 by rms2:


"...the claim that continental DF21 is represented by "singletons" is not correct. It isn't the case that there is just one single continental DF21. The fact that the term used is the plural, singletons, with an s, indicates that there are a number of examples from the Continent. The only way continental "singletons" can be classed as singletons at all is perhaps by isolating them by modern political boundaries: for example, by saying there is only one DF21+ in Belgium - aha! a singleton! - and ignoring a number of others in neighboring France or the Netherlands."

Every challenge to put up the evidence was shirked, so it is nice to see rms2 now walking away from his futile claims of having numerous credible and unambiguous DF21+ Continentals to back his rash and foolish claims. We can all get it wrong. But some can't admit it. Comparing rms2's post #15 above which contradicts his previous post #49 is as close as rms2 can bring himself to such an admission.

rms2
05-30-2016, 02:33 PM
Notice that I cited no specific examples nor tried to actually argue from any of them. So it is in fact untrue that I ever argued for a continental origin for DF21 using modern men who claim a continental origin. In the post you quoted, I merely pointed out that your use of the "singletons" argument is erroneous. Apparently you failed to understand what I wrote. As I have said before, more than once, and will repeat for you now, I "shirked" combing the FTDNA projects for DF21 men with continental ancestry for the following reasons:

1) I do not really care;

2) I do not have the time to spend on things I don't really care about;

3) That would involve too much work for something of only trifling importance, if any;

4) As an FTDNA admin, I must respect the privacy of project members. Trying to post about their ancestral claims on a public forum while simultaneously protecting their identities would involve a lot of bother not worth my time.

Instead of spending your time accusing me of something I did not do, Rory, you might try looking at the ancient y-dna and what it might be saying.

Rory Cain
06-01-2016, 02:20 AM
Gotta love the inconsistences, to which rms2 appears blind. So which is it, [QUOTE]"I think I mentioned once that I did not have the time to comb through the list of DF21 men claiming continental ancestry to verify their claims". Post #15[QUOTE]
or saying you have DF21+ Continentals from Belgium, France & Netherlands.Post #49.

Similarly which is it, [QUOTE]I never relied on Norman wannabes as "evidence" of anything[QUOTE] when one of the said samples from France is clear Norman wannabe. Post #49.

The amusing thing is that in desparation to have the last say,rms2 is doing all the work for us in unravelling his earlier claims.

rms2
06-01-2016, 11:11 AM
Try reading what I wrote again and striving for comprehension. I cited no specific examples, no "Norman wannabes", no specific Belgians or French, etc. I spoke in general terms of your specious argument from "singletons". I was completely consistent. You misunderstood.

What puzzles me is why you are wasting time accusing me of misrepresenting what you wrote and of arguing from modern y-dna, when I have done neither. You have spent several vacuous posts on that futile exercise instead of dealing with the ancient y-dna results that I mentioned several posts back.

Rory Cain
06-01-2016, 11:34 AM
Try reading what I wrote again and striving for comprehension. I cited no specific examples, no "Norman wannabes", no specific Belgians or French, etc. I spoke in general terms of your specious argument from "singletons". I was completely consistent. You misunderstood.

What puzzles me is why you are wasting time accusing me of misrepresenting what you wrote and of arguing from modern y-dna, when I have done neither. You have spent several vacuous posts on that futile exercise instead of dealing with the ancient y-dna results that I mentioned several posts back.

Ah, so you were just playing a poker hand, bluffing about having valid Continental DF21s. Then why didn't you say so all along instead of claiming to have such evidence but never putting up. I believe the term is "put up or shut up".

rms2
06-01-2016, 03:43 PM
Try to understand. There was no bluffing involved. I never could be bothered to mount an argument from modern DF21+ results because I do not care enough to do all the work of combing through them. That is it. I merely responded to your singletons argument and pointed out why it does not make sense, i.e., because the European continent is not limited by modern national boundaries.

I never named any "Norman wannabes" or any other specific modern examples, as you claimed I did.

Besides, arguments from modern y-dna are so 2007. In other words, they are lame and don't really settle anything.

I think thus far the ancient y-dna indicates that if DF21 originated in the Isles it was a very close shave, unless it predates Bell Beaker there.

miiser
06-01-2016, 04:37 PM
Try to understand. There was no bluffing involved. I never could be bothered to mount an argument from modern DF21+ results because I do not care enough to do all the work of combing through them. That is it. I merely responded to your singletons argument and pointed out why it does not make sense, i.e., because the European continent is not limited by modern national boundaries.

I never named any "Norman wannabes" or any other specific modern examples, as you claimed I did.

Besides, arguments from modern y-dna are so 2007. In other words, they are lame and don't really settle anything.

I think thus far the ancient y-dna indicates that if DF21 originated in the Isles it was a very close shave, unless it predates Bell Beaker there.

So you shift your position from one farcical data based argument to another. Your fallback argument, supposedly relying on ancient DNA evidence, is based on the assumption that we know precisely when Bell Beaker arrived in the Isles and precisely when DF21's MRCA lived, neither of which assumptions is remotely true.

The smattering of BB archaeological evidence we have does not establish any kind of a "no earlier than" date for BB in the Isles. And I have repeatedly explained to you, but you have repeatedly failed to understand or deliberately chosen to ignore, that SNP count based dating has a rather large confidence interval. Your argument that DF21's appearance predates BB's is mathematically 100% nonsense.

miiser
06-01-2016, 04:43 PM
Notice that I cited no specific examples nor tried to actually argue from any of them. So it is in fact untrue that I ever argued for a continental origin for DF21 using modern men who claim a continental origin. In the post you quoted, I merely pointed out that your use of the "singletons" argument is erroneous. Apparently you failed to understand what I wrote. As I have said before, more than once, and will repeat for you now, I "shirked" combing the FTDNA projects for DF21 men with continental ancestry for the following reasons:

1) I do not really care;

2) I do not have the time to spend on things I don't really care about;

3) That would involve too much work for something of only trifling importance, if any;

4) As an FTDNA admin, I must respect the privacy of project members. Trying to post about their ancestral claims on a public forum while simultaneously protecting their identities would involve a lot of bother not worth my time.

Instead of spending your time accusing me of something I did not do, Rory, you might try looking at the ancient y-dna and what it might be saying.

And yet, I notice that you find time to point it out on this forum every time a single modern L21 pops up in one of your projects claiming a continental origin. Modern singletons suddenly become significant again, and privacy suddenly becomes a secondary concern.

rms2
06-01-2016, 07:44 PM
So you shift your position from one farcical data based argument to another. Your fallback argument, supposedly relying on ancient DNA evidence, is based on the assumption that we know precisely when Bell Beaker arrived in the Isles and precisely when DF21's MRCA lived, neither of which assumptions is remotely true . . .

As usual, your judgment is clouded by your heated personal animus toward me. I am not sure what "farcical data" you are referring to.

I have explained the basis for my argument based on ancient y-dna a number of times. It is based on the current evidence that shows the earliest known Beaker burials in Britain date to about 2400 BC and those in Ireland to 2300 BC. Obviously, were that to change, then what I think about Beaker would have to change. I have also added the disclaimer that if DF21 predates Bell Beaker in the Isles, then obviously it could have easily arisen in the Isles.

Not only that, but I have also said that DF21 could have arisen in the Isles, but if it did, it was a close shave, once again, if DF21 does not predate Bell Beaker in the Isles.

rms2
06-01-2016, 07:45 PM
And yet, I notice that you find time to point it out on this forum every time a single modern L21 pops up in one of your projects claiming a continental origin. Modern singletons suddenly become significant again, and privacy suddenly becomes a secondary concern.

If you paid much attention, you would notice that I give only information that is available from the public web sites of the projects I administer.

Rory Cain
06-01-2016, 09:38 PM
Folks, to get the background of this discussion between rms2 and miser, refer to the earlier posts miiser supported rms2 but merely sought clarification of a dubious point. rms2 then treated him as an enemy rather than a friend and misrepresented miiser' query, just as he has a habit of doing to myself, Vince Tilroe and others. On one occasion, in concert with banned troll, Searchseeker.

The beauty of it is that rms2 in his desperation to have the last day, will reverse his own untruths. He'll do all the work for us. If you want to know who to believe in the above discussion, stick with miiser who I have never known to be untruthful.

miiser
06-01-2016, 09:41 PM
As usual, your judgment is clouded by your heated personal animus toward me. I am not sure what "farcical data" you are referring to.

I have explained the basis for my argument based on ancient y-dna a number of times. It is based on the current evidence that shows the earliest known Beaker burials in Britain date to about 2400 BC and those in Ireland to 2300 BC. Obviously, were that to change, then what I think about Beaker would have to change. I have also added the disclaimer that if DF21 predates Bell Beaker in the Isles, then obviously it could have easily arisen in the Isles.

Not only that, but I have also said that DF21 could have arisen in the Isles, but if it did, it was a close shave, once again, if DF21 does not predate Bell Beaker in the Isles.

And now you are once again pretending that you did not argue what you argued. Obviously you intended to argue that DF21 predates BB in the Isles. If that was not your intended argument, then your comment has no substance, but was just an arbitrary collection of phrases with no intent and no conclusion. I can't accept the premise you're THAT innocent and simple minded in debate, such that you spew random bits of trivia that have no point to them.

You mentioned the supposedly precise dating of DF21 because you believe it supports your assumption. It does not.

Rory Cain
06-02-2016, 12:40 AM
As usual, your judgment is clouded by your heated personal animus toward me. I am not sure what "farcical data" you are referring to...

Folks, we see here rms2 once agaon measuring other folks grain with his own bushel. We only have to look back to where miser innocently queried one of rms2's "Dodgy brothers used Cars" moments on the thread "Which L21 Subclasses may have originated in The Isles?" to see rms2's terse tone when queried, and miiser's mild response in Post #46 of that thread:

"It seems like you're trying to bait me into an argument, and I'm not sure why. You're actually one of my favorite posters on this forum, and I agree with nearly everything you write, so it's not going to happen. You seem to have interpreted some of my comments as an attack on your own opinion and interpretation, but this wasn't the intent of my comments..."

Miiser's post was hardly hardly the post of a person animated by a heated personal animus. Come off it, rms2, you are are now starting to sound rather paranoid.

rms2
06-02-2016, 11:12 AM
. . . Obviously you intended to argue that DF21 predates BB in the Isles . . .


No such thing. I don't think any kind of P312 predates Bell Beaker in the Isles.

Anyone who has read my posts knows that pretty well.

Rory Cain
06-02-2016, 08:50 PM
No such thing. I don't think any kind of P312 predates Bell Beaker in the Isles.

Anyone who has read my posts knows that pretty well.

There we have it again, folks, rms2 knows it all. Anyone who had read his posts knows that pretty well.

That is until you look deeper at the half truths, untruths, shifting his arguments from black to white, dodgy claims of evidence, evaporating evidence, setting up of straw men, misrepresenting others, and animosity towards anyone who innocently queries one of his Dodgy Brothers claims, working in concert with known troll Searchseeker, I for one can longer accept this charlatan as a serious scholar.

Webb
06-02-2016, 11:54 PM
There we have it again, folks, rms2 knows it all. Anyone who had read his posts knows that pretty well.

That is until you look deeper at the half truths, untruths, shifting his arguments from black to white, dodgy claims of evidence, evaporating evidence, setting up of straw men, misrepresenting others, and animosity towards anyone who innocently queries one of his Dodgy Brothers claims, working in concert with known troll Searchseeker, I for one can longer accept this charlatan as a serious scholar.

Enough is enough. You have made your point. You are borderline attacking him. While I don't agree with everything he posts, he has been consistent with R1b from the east, Yamna Culture and IE. Bell Beaker and P312. He doesn't completely flip flop, but adjusts as necessary. There is nothing wrong with adjusting. It is a sign of an open mind. This DF25 argument is almost as pointless as the numerous DF27 arguments. But by continuing in your manner, you are going to get banned, censored, or flogged or something.

miiser
06-03-2016, 12:25 AM
No such thing. I don't think any kind of P312 predates Bell Beaker in the Isles.

Anyone who has read my posts knows that pretty well.

You misread my comment. I understand what you believe. Your belief is not founded in any factual basis, because the date of the DF21 MRCA is not precisely known, nor is the precise date of BB arrival in the Isles. You misrepresent the data to attempt to fabricate the impression that there is a factual basis for this argument. There is not.

miiser
06-03-2016, 12:38 AM
Enough is enough. You have made your point. You are borderline attacking him. While I don't agree with everything he posts, he has been consistent with R1b from the east, Yamna Culture and IE. Bell Beaker and P312. He doesn't completely flip flop, but adjusts as necessary. There is nothing wrong with adjusting. It is a sign of an open mind. This DF25 argument is almost as pointless as the numerous DF27 arguments. But by continuing in your manner, you are going to get banned, censored, or flogged or something.

I agree that this argument has run its course and is not productive, so I will let the argument end at this point. But as long as we are bemoaning the situation that leads to such unproductive arguments, I would posit that the reason Rory, myself, and many others have a personal problem with RMS is that RMS has frequently and unjustly made personal attacks against Rory, myself, and many others in an aggressively hostile manner without cause rather than sticking to rational, scientific, fact based arguments. A survey of all the uncivil, counterproductive arguments on this forum will reveal a short list of people at the center of 75% of them. And that list of people includes neither Rory nor myself. I think certain conditions in this forum enabled that situation to continue much longer than it ought to have, but I think those conditions have recently been remedied to ensure that the future discourse will be more level headed and balanced.

bunree7
08-05-2017, 03:19 AM
Hello there,
I was just wondering if cooler heads finally prevailed on this topic within the last year. What I mean is, have we come closer to figuring out the origins of R-DF25, or are we still very much in the early stages of gathering data/collecting Big Y and SNPs. So far I am an R-DF25 haplogroup member, with STRs that don't seem to match anyone.