The descriptions and abstract of this work seems to drift (somewhat randomly) between talking about absorbing "gene variants" versus absorbing "genes" from Neanderthals. I think they mean almost always "gene variants", as others in the field say that all humans today essentially have the same genes; it is just the variants or alleles of the genes that are found different in different individuals or regional population frequencies. Is this how others view this situation which confused me at first before I sensed it was probably sloppy language usage? Kenneth Nordtvedt Haplogroup I Clade Modalities and Trees at: http://knordtvedt.home.bresnan.net -----Original Message----- From: Carl Sent: Sunday, June 29, 2014 2:45 PM To: Rootsweb Subject: [yDNAhgI] When Populations Collide The Genomic Landscape ofNeanderthal Ancestry in Present-Day Humans http://www.hhmi.org/news/when-populations-collide ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to Y-DNA-HAPLOGROUP-I-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

The review of Wade's book in the New York Review of Books is also not a very favorable one: "These are big claims and you’d surely expect Wade to provide some pretty impressive, if recondite, evidence for them from the new science of genomics. And here’s where things get odd. Hard evidence for Wade’s thesis is nearly nonexistent. Odder still, Wade concedes as much at the start of A Troublesome Inheritance:Readers should be fully aware that in chapters 6 through 10 they are leaving the world of hard science and entering into a much more speculative arena at the interface of history, economics and human evolution.It perhaps would have been best if this sentence had been reprinted at the top of each page in chapters 6 through 10." The review there ends with the following: "Though he issues the requisite disclaimers about the dignity and moral equality of all peoples, he’s clearly tempted, under the cover of politics-shouldn’t-distort-science, to provoke. Indeed there is a species of bravado here, as though demonstrating that he, unlike others, is tough-minded enough to face unpleasant facts. But surely there is a difference between facing facts that are unpleasant and spinning tales that are improbable." Here's the link to that review again: http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2014/jun/05/stretch-genes/?insrc=toc > From: debbiekennett@gmail.com > To: y-dna-haplogroup-i@rootsweb.com > Date: Sun, 29 Jun 2014 15:17:21 +0100 > Subject: Re: [yDNAhgI] Recommended book > > In Nicholas Wade's feeble attempt to rebut his critics he says "I don't care > what the science may say because I'll never change my position". I think > just about says it all. If he wishes to ignore the scientific evidence to > advance his own personal beliefs then that's entirely his choice. I hadn't > realised he was British. It's perhaps not surprising that he's ended up in > America. He would find much less tolerance of his views over here. > > There's a very good article here by Kenan Malik on why both sides of the > debate are wrong: > > https://kenanmalik.wordpress.com/2012/03/04/why-both-sides-are-wrong-in-the- > race-debate/ > > Debbie > > -----Original Message----- > From: y-dna-haplogroup-i-bounces@rootsweb.com > [mailto:y-dna-haplogroup-i-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Obed W Odom > Sent: 29 June 2014 14:35 > To: y-dna-haplogroup-i@rootsweb.com > Subject: Re: [yDNAhgI] Recommended book > > I think the review by the NY Times was somewhat more charitable. There seems > to be no question, though, that Wade's book has hit a raw nerve in some > circles of his fellow Brits. > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to Y-DNA-HAPLOGROUP-I-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Debbie, On behalf of my fellow Americans I'd like to object to your repeated digs at our ability to read and make intelligent analysis of controversial subject matter. Intentionally or not, YOU are presenting a very stereotypical image of your own nationality. Mr. Wades book will have followers and detractors over here no different than on your side of the pond. Rather than so inelegantly trying to censor his book, which I believe from your own statement you have not bothered to read, it might be better for your cause to present well reasoned counter-points to the assertions he makes in the book. John Beardsley an intelligent, open minded American -----Original Message----- From: Debbie Kennett Sent: Sunday, June 29, 2014 10:17 AM To: y-dna-haplogroup-i@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [yDNAhgI] Recommended book In Nicholas Wade's feeble attempt to rebut his critics he says "I don't care what the science may say because I'll never change my position". I think just about says it all. If he wishes to ignore the scientific evidence to advance his own personal beliefs then that's entirely his choice. I hadn't realised he was British. It's perhaps not surprising that he's ended up in America. He would find much less tolerance of his views over here. There's a very good article here by Kenan Malik on why both sides of the debate are wrong: https://kenanmalik.wordpress.com/2012/03/04/why-both-sides-are-wrong-in-the- race-debate/ Debbie -----Original Message----- From: y-dna-haplogroup-i-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:y-dna-haplogroup-i-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Obed W Odom Sent: 29 June 2014 14:35 To: y-dna-haplogroup-i@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [yDNAhgI] Recommended book I think the review by the NY Times was somewhat more charitable. There seems to be no question, though, that Wade's book has hit a raw nerve in some circles of his fellow Brits. ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to Y-DNA-HAPLOGROUP-I-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

http://youtu.be/zL_d7b1bsUE

I've just discovereed that Kenan Malik, who wrote the review of Wade's book for The Times, has made an extended version of his review available on his blog: https://kenanmalik.wordpress.com/2014/06/28/a-fairy-tale-but-oh-so-feeble/ Debboe -----Original Message----- From: Debbie Kennett [mailto:debbiekennett@gmail.com] Sent: 29 June 2014 11:42 To: Haplogroup I list (y-dna-haplogroup-i@rootsweb.com) Subject: RE: Recommended book I note that no one has been able to answer my question about how many "races" there are. Coincidentally Nicholas Wade's book was reviewed in The Times yesterday. Fortunately reviewers on this side of the Atlantic have been able to see through Wade's dangerous outdated, prejudiced and unscientific hogwash. It seems that Wade's classification of races is a purely arbitrary arrangement: "Wade insists that a race is a "continental population"... But what is it about continental groups that distinguishes them as races? And why should continental groups, as opposed to other population groups, be defined as races? Wade never tells us; nor even how many races there are. On page 4, Wade claims "three principal races": Africans, East Asians and Caucasians. Sixty pages on, the three have become five with the addition of native Americans and "the peoples of Australia and Papua New Guinea". On page 100, Wade suggests that "it might be reasonable to elevate the Indian and Middle Eastern groups to the level of major races, making seven in all". But, "then many more subpopulations could be declared races, so to keep things simple, the five-race, continent-based scheme seems the most practical". We could, in other words, define as many races as we wish to, but for "practical" reasons Wade will arbitrarily limit it to five. Not, it has to be said, a particularly scientific approach." The reviewer goes on to say: "As with much of this book, it is a fairytale presented as science." I'm not sure if you will be able to read the whole review without a subscription http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/arts/books/non-fiction/article4129896.ece Debbie

http://www.hhmi.org/news/when-populations-collide

Are We the Last Neanderthals?   Chicago Humanities Festival http://youtu.be/0uRCVyJ7-0c

On my subclade here  I-CTS2208 added SNPs CTS4791, CTS5476, Y2560, Y2561, Y2562, Y2563, Y2565, Y2567, Z135 . Both  CTS2208* kits are + on all except y2563 and z135 both kits being no call on both. On Sunday, June 29, 2014 6:34 AM, Carl <sncrducr@yahoo.com> wrote: On Saturday, June 28, 2014 10:18 PM, "acgt@yfull.com" <acgt@yfull.com> wrote: Hello,  News from YFull.com Y-Tree changing: at subclade I1a1b3 added SNPs CTS1793, CTS6868, Z75/S336 at subclade I-CTS2208 added SNPs CTS4791, CTS5476, Y2560, Y2561, Y2562, Y2563, Y2565, Y2567, Z135 at subclade I1a1b3a added SNPs CTS11535, CTS12194, CTS7676, M893/CTS9167, Y2564, Y2566 subclade I1a1b3a1a deleted from I1a1b3a1 at subclade I-CTS2242 added SNP Z722 at subclade I-Z133 added SNPs Z134, Z2043 subclade I-Z2046 added to I1a1b3a1 with SNPs Z2045, Z2046

I note that no one has been able to answer my question about how many "races" there are. Coincidentally Nicholas Wade's book was reviewed in The Times yesterday. Fortunately reviewers on this side of the Atlantic have been able to see through Wade's dangerous outdated, prejudiced and unscientific hogwash. It seems that Wade's classification of races is a purely arbitrary arrangement: "Wade insists that a race is a "continental population"... But what is it about continental groups that distinguishes them as races? And why should continental groups, as opposed to other population groups, be defined as races? Wade never tells us; nor even how many races there are. On page 4, Wade claims "three principal races": Africans, East Asians and Caucasians. Sixty pages on, the three have become five with the addition of native Americans and "the peoples of Australia and Papua New Guinea". On page 100, Wade suggests that "it might be reasonable to elevate the Indian and Middle Eastern groups to the level of major races, making seven in all". But, "then many more subpopulations could be declared races, so to keep things simple, the five-race, continent-based scheme seems the most practical". We could, in other words, define as many races as we wish to, but for "practical" reasons Wade will arbitrarily limit it to five. Not, it has to be said, a particularly scientific approach." The reviewer goes on to say: "As with much of this book, it is a fairytale presented as science." I'm not sure if you will be able to read the whole review without a subscription http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/arts/books/non-fiction/article4129896.ece Debbie

Just be hopeful that Wade doesn't take up airplane wing design as his next hobby. John M Rhodes On 2014-06-29, at 8:47 AM, "Debbie Kennett" <debbiekennett@gmail.com> wrote: > I've just discovereed that Kenan Malik, who wrote the review of Wade's book > for The Times, has made an extended version of his review available on his > blog: > > https://kenanmalik.wordpress.com/2014/06/28/a-fairy-tale-but-oh-so-feeble/ > > Debboe > > -----Original Message----- > From: Debbie Kennett [mailto:debbiekennett@gmail.com] > Sent: 29 June 2014 11:42 > To: Haplogroup I list (y-dna-haplogroup-i@rootsweb.com) > Subject: RE: Recommended book > > I note that no one has been able to answer my question about how many > "races" there are. Coincidentally Nicholas Wade's book was reviewed in The > Times yesterday. Fortunately reviewers on this side of the Atlantic have > been able to see through Wade's dangerous outdated, prejudiced and > unscientific hogwash. It seems that Wade's classification of races is a > purely arbitrary arrangement: > > "Wade insists that a race is a "continental population"... But what is it > about continental groups that distinguishes them as races? And why should > continental groups, as opposed to other population groups, be defined as > races? Wade never tells us; nor even how many races there are. On page 4, > Wade claims "three principal races": Africans, East Asians and Caucasians. > Sixty pages on, the three have become five with the addition of native > Americans and "the peoples of Australia and Papua New Guinea". On page 100, > Wade suggests that "it might be reasonable to elevate the Indian and Middle > Eastern groups to the level of major races, making seven in all". But, "then > many more subpopulations could be declared races, so to keep things simple, > the five-race, continent-based scheme seems the most practical". We could, > in other words, define as many races as we wish to, but for "practical" > reasons Wade will arbitrarily limit it to five. Not, it has to be said, a > particularly scientific approach." > > The reviewer goes on to say: "As with much of this book, it is a fairytale > presented as science." > > I'm not sure if you will be able to read the whole review without a > subscription > > http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/arts/books/non-fiction/article4129896.ece > > Debbie > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to Y-DNA-HAPLOGROUP-I-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

OK, so the discussion has dropped to the level of the logical fallacy, "appeal to authority." With a few strokes on Google, I could come up with several favorable reviews of Wade's book, but why play the game? It is clear this book is raising the hackles of a lot of special interests; so read it now. Dan On 6/29/2014 10:37 AM, Matthew Simonds wrote: > The review of Wade's book in the New York Review of Books is also not a very favorable one: > > "These are big claims and you’d surely expect Wade to provide some pretty impressive, if recondite, evidence for them from the new science of genomics. And here’s where things get odd. Hard evidence for Wade’s thesis is nearly nonexistent. Odder still, Wade concedes as much at the start of A Troublesome Inheritance:Readers should be fully aware that in chapters 6 through 10 they are leaving the world of hard science and entering into a much more speculative arena at the interface of history, economics and human evolution.It perhaps would have been best if this sentence had been reprinted at the top of each page in chapters 6 through 10." > > > The review there ends with the following: > > > "Though he issues the requisite disclaimers about the dignity and moral equality of all peoples, he’s clearly tempted, under the cover of politics-shouldn’t-distort-science, to provoke. Indeed there is a species of bravado here, as though demonstrating that he, unlike others, is tough-minded enough to face unpleasant facts. But surely there is a difference between facing facts that are unpleasant and spinning tales that are improbable." > > > Here's the link to that review again: > http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2014/jun/05/stretch-genes/?insrc=toc > >> From: debbiekennett@gmail.com >> To: y-dna-haplogroup-i@rootsweb.com >> Date: Sun, 29 Jun 2014 15:17:21 +0100 >> Subject: Re: [yDNAhgI] Recommended book >> >> In Nicholas Wade's feeble attempt to rebut his critics he says "I don't care >> what the science may say because I'll never change my position". I think >> just about says it all. If he wishes to ignore the scientific evidence to >> advance his own personal beliefs then that's entirely his choice. I hadn't >> realised he was British. It's perhaps not surprising that he's ended up in >> America. He would find much less tolerance of his views over here. >> >> There's a very good article here by Kenan Malik on why both sides of the >> debate are wrong: >> >> https://kenanmalik.wordpress.com/2012/03/04/why-both-sides-are-wrong-in-the- >> race-debate/ >> >> Debbie >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: y-dna-haplogroup-i-bounces@rootsweb.com >> [mailto:y-dna-haplogroup-i-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Obed W Odom >> Sent: 29 June 2014 14:35 >> To: y-dna-haplogroup-i@rootsweb.com >> Subject: Re: [yDNAhgI] Recommended book >> >> I think the review by the NY Times was somewhat more charitable. There seems >> to be no question, though, that Wade's book has hit a raw nerve in some >> circles of his fellow Brits. >> >> >> ------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to Y-DNA-HAPLOGROUP-I-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to Y-DNA-HAPLOGROUP-I-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message >

I think the review by the NY Times was somewhat more charitable. There seems to be no question, though, that Wade's book has hit a raw nerve in some circles of his fellow Brits. On Sun, Jun 29, 2014 at 5:42 AM, Debbie Kennett <debbiekennett@gmail.com> wrote: > I note that no one has been able to answer my question about how many > "races" there are. Coincidentally Nicholas Wade's book was reviewed in The > Times yesterday. Fortunately reviewers on this side of the Atlantic have > been able to see through Wade's dangerous outdated, prejudiced and > unscientific hogwash. It seems that Wade's classification of races is a > purely arbitrary arrangement: > > "Wade insists that a race is a "continental population"... But what is it > about continental groups that distinguishes them as races? And why should > continental groups, as opposed to other population groups, be defined as > races? Wade never tells us; nor even how many races there are. On page 4, > Wade claims "three principal races": Africans, East Asians and Caucasians. > Sixty pages on, the three have become five with the addition of native > Americans and "the peoples of Australia and Papua New Guinea". On page 100, > Wade suggests that "it might be reasonable to elevate the Indian and Middle > Eastern groups to the level of major races, making seven in all". But, > "then > many more subpopulations could be declared races, so to keep things simple, > the five-race, continent-based scheme seems the most practical". We could, > in other words, define as many races as we wish to, but for "practical" > reasons Wade will arbitrarily limit it to five. Not, it has to be said, a > particularly scientific approach." > > The reviewer goes on to say: "As with much of this book, it is a fairytale > presented as science." > > I'm not sure if you will be able to read the whole review without a > subscription > > http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/arts/books/non-fiction/article4129896.ece > > Debbie > > > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > Y-DNA-HAPLOGROUP-I-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' > without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message >

Thank you Ken! I look forward to picking it up and getting another POV on the topic. On Jun 28, 2014 2:06 PM, "Kenneth Nordtvedt" <knordtvedt@bresnan.net> wrote: > Now that many in this hobby are dipping their toes into acquisition of > full genome measurements covering all the autosomal chromosomes, there is a > book I recommend. > > A Troublesome Inheritance: Genes, Race, and Human History by Nicholas Wade. > > Enjoy! > > > > Kenneth Nordtvedt > > Haplogroup I Clade Modalities and Trees at: > http://knordtvedt.home.bresnan.net > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > Y-DNA-HAPLOGROUP-I-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' > without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message >

Here is Yfull's  Haplogroup I tree http://www.yfull.com/tree/I/ . I myself couldn't recommend any single snps. That would be best answered by an I2 admin. On Sunday, June 29, 2014 11:11 AM, Andrii Lundiak <landike@gmail.com> wrote: Hi Carl, I recently subscribed to Y-DNA-HAPLOGROUP-I@rootsweb.com and now I see you posted an update in yfull. My questions is - Is there any link/resource about recent changes in yfull regarding I2a1 aka I-P37 ? Or any changes regarding I2a branch and subclades? I just have recently received my Y-DNA-37 results from FTDNA, and I'm I-P37, but I'm stuck on what next SNPs to choose/order. There is S17250 and few others, but still I'm not sure about current haplo-tree and what markers to order. Thanks in advance, Andrii Lundiak Ukraine

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/nicholas-wade/in-defense-of-a-troublesome-inheritance_b_5413333.html On Sunday, June 29, 2014 9:21 AM, TC Culsen <culsengenealogy@gmail.com> wrote: Thank you Ken!    I look forward to picking it up and getting another POV on the topic. On Jun 28, 2014 2:06 PM, "Kenneth Nordtvedt" <knordtvedt@bresnan.net> wrote: > Now that many in this hobby are dipping their toes into acquisition of > full genome measurements covering all the autosomal chromosomes, there is a > book I recommend. > > A Troublesome Inheritance: Genes, Race, and Human History by Nicholas Wade. > > Enjoy! > > > > Kenneth Nordtvedt > > Haplogroup I Clade Modalities and Trees at: > http://knordtvedt.home.bresnan.net > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > Y-DNA-HAPLOGROUP-I-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' > without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message > ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to Y-DNA-HAPLOGROUP-I-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

On Saturday, June 28, 2014 10:18 PM, "acgt@yfull.com" <acgt@yfull.com> wrote: Hello,  News from YFull.com Y-Tree changing: at subclade I1a1b3 added SNPs CTS1793, CTS6868, Z75/S336 at subclade I-CTS2208 added SNPs CTS4791, CTS5476, Y2560, Y2561, Y2562, Y2563, Y2565, Y2567, Z135 at subclade I1a1b3a added SNPs CTS11535, CTS12194, CTS7676, M893/CTS9167, Y2564, Y2566 subclade I1a1b3a1a deleted from I1a1b3a1 at subclade I-CTS2242 added SNP Z722 at subclade I-Z133 added SNPs Z134, Z2043 subclade I-Z2046 added to I1a1b3a1 with SNPs Z2045, Z2046

Spencer Wells is effectively a salesman for the Genographic Project, and the The Journey of Man was a marketing tool but that was storytelling not science. As far as I'm aware the Genographic Project have never published a scientific paper with a claim that R1b is associated with Cro-Magnon man. Not all scientists know what they're talking about and there are inevitably many bad papers published. Debbie -----Original Message----- From: y-dna-haplogroup-i-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:y-dna-haplogroup-i-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Matthew Simonds Sent: 29 June 2014 1:03 To: y-dna-haplogroup-i@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [yDNAhgI] Recommended Book Last year I watched Spencer Wells' documentary, The Journey of Man, in which he was saying that haplogroup R1b was one of the oldest in Europe and that they are descended from Cro-Magnon man. But this does not look very likely any more even though Wells is a scientist instead of being a science journalist. So I don't think that all scientists always know what they are talking about or that what science journalists write is all "pseudoscience". Spencer Wells: "Men belonging to Haplogroup R1b are direct descendants of the Cro-Magnon people who, beginning 30,000 years ago, dominated the human expansion into Europe and heralded the demise of the Neanderthal species,"

Here's another story that people can read and choose whether or not to believe. This lady claims to have found a link between haplogroup I1 and "fallen angels": http://beforeitsnews.com/prophecy/2014/06/geneticists-are-spell-bound-by-dis covery-of-dna-that-confirms-fallen-angels-mated-with-humans-stunning-videos- 2462290.html http://tinyurl.com/oojq9ln Perhaps in the light of this "evidence" we should consider all men who belong to haplogroup I1 as belonging to a different race. Debbie

The job of a science journalist is to report on published science in a way that makes it easy for the public to understand. Science reporting in general is pretty poor, and there are very few good science journalists. I don't see why anyone should take Nicholas Wade's views seriously when he's not actively involved in scientific research. Debbie -----Original Message----- From: y-dna-haplogroup-i-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:y-dna-haplogroup-i-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Matthew Simonds Sent: 29 June 2014 0:31 To: y-dna-haplogroup-i@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [yDNAhgI] Recommended Book He's not a scientist so that is unlikely to happen. He's a science journalist. But sometimes science journalists are still better than scientists at writing for the general public. He is also a former science writer for the New York Times. Here is another review of his book in the New York Review of Books: http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2014/jun/05/stretch-genes/?insrc=to c

It is a free world and people can read what they want to read and believe what they want to believe. I prefer to look at the scientific evidence, and make judgements based on the evidence. The concept of a flat earth was rejected by scientific evidence not politically correct ideas. Debbie -----Original Message----- From: y-dna-haplogroup-i-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:y-dna-haplogroup-i-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of sncrducr@yahoo.com Sent: 29 June 2014 0:26 To: y-dna-haplogroup-i@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [yDNAhgI] Recommended Book I believe in peoples freedom to read,  and make up their own minds.  If everything ever conceived was subject to established or politically correct ideas I would be living on a flat earth with the world revolving around me.