Haplogroup J1 in Europe.

[Loki]

Of course you're never sure of anything yet you always speculate about everything you don't know.

Why should anyone believe that you're not the biggest internet bullshitter?

Intuition and facts are two very different things. Can't you get that much?

Agrippa is always courteous and well-mannered, even to his harshest critics.

You can disagree with him, but there is no need to insult him. He is a respectable person.

[Agrippa]

Of course you're never sure of anything yet you always speculate about everything you don't know.

I'm sure of many things. But in others nobody knows it FOR SURE but every reasonable individual can come to reasonable conclusions based on what's already known.

If you have a better argument, rather than attacking me personally, you are welcomed.

Intuition and facts are two very different things. Can't you get that much?

Sure. But here we discuss only about one thing: Right or wrong.

Prove me wrong, because what we know so far speaks for them having J1 in their male line.

Can you quote me any scientist stating otherwise? Or what arguments do you have for proving the opposite? By facts or logical conclusions.

[Transhumanist]

Prove me wrong, because what we know so far speaks for them having J1 in their male line.

Can you quote me any scientist stating otherwise? Or what arguments do you have for proving the opposite? By facts or logical conclusions.

J1* and J1c3 have been present in the Near East for thousands of years. No sane academic would suggest otherwise. Unless the origins of the Phoenicians were outside the Near East, and they were an endogamous group during their existence in the Near East, the onus is not on you, Agrippa, to prove your case. You are correct. It is on the other gentleman.

[El Palleter]

Agrippa is always courteous and well-mannered, even to his harshest critics.

And that means... he's off boundanries to criticism?

I wonder where I've been ill-mannered or harsh

Of course you're never sure of anything yet you always speculate about everything you don't know.

Why should anyone believe that you're not the biggest internet bullshitter?

Intuition and facts are two very different things. Can't you get that much?

Whenever alleged intuition is presented as "facts" (or nearby) people know that they're dealing with...alright...you give it a more pc name for it

You can disagree with him, but there is no need to insult him. He is a respectable person.

Of course. But I'd still appreciate if you could give me your (clearly 'own') definition of respectability. I'd like to contrast it with the one in the dictionary.

I'm sure of many things.

And for that I give you the credit that I'd give to millions who, like you, believe that they are sure about many things.

But in others xnobody knows it FOR SURE but every reasonable individual can come to reasonable conclusions based on what's already known.

There is nothing reasonable about speculating 24/7 and pretending that one's coming to a conclusion, while disregarding the lack of evidence.

If you have a better argument, rather than attacking me personally, you are welcomed.

My better argument is that, while there is no factual evidence, your argument should be considered together with a psycho-analysis of your curricula.

Sure. But here we discuss only about one thing: Right or wrong.

Since when speculation creates an absolutely certain dilema?

Prove me wrong, because what we know so far speaks for them having J1 in their male line.

I'm not the one who was speculating. You are the one who should prove yourself right.

As far as I know there's been no testing on ancient phoenicians that could lead to such a allegedly conclusive argument. There's been however on Lebanese who are a population partly descended from them, and partly from Arab invaders.

Can you quote me any scientist stating otherwise?

Can you quote one confirming your speculations?

Or what arguments do you have for proving the opposite? By facts or logical conclusions.

What exactly precludes you from seeing that it's you (not me) who established a speculative relationship that'd need to be proved? (at the risk of being dismissed as bullshit)

[Loki]

And that means... he's off boundanries to criticism?

Not at all. Go right ahead. You won't be the first.

[Agrippa]

And that means... he's off boundanries to criticism?

Don't play the innocent victim or something like that.

You stated that ancient Phoenicians had no J1 in their male line, with no proof, nor any reasonable argument.

While I said, everything we know, and I mentioned various arguments, speaks for them having it, but the FINAL PROOF is in their bones.

That's all I said, pretty reasonable I guess and your answer was:

Of course you're never sure of anything yet you always speculate about everything you don't know.

Why should anyone believe that you're not the biggest internet bullshitter?

That's just lowest level...

I wonder where I've been ill-mannered or harsh
Whenever alleged intuition is presented as "facts" (or nearby) people know that they're dealing with...alright...you give it a more pc name for it

Inuition or conclusions based on known facts, recombined to a reasonable approach to what's most likely, but not proven fact BY NOW.

Today, many scientists are just to weak and afraid of speculating, so they talk about meaningless numbers more often than about valuable theories.

Obviously, if you want to solve real mysteries, you have to be more risk taking at times, which doesn't mean "unscientific" or "false" in the sense of fantasies, if your conclusions are just the logical result of what's already known, with a factor of uncertainty where facts are lacking right now.

And you yourself said:

It's highly unlikely that ancient Phoenicians would have had J1 other than as admixture.

Modern Lebanese have it by way of the Arab conquest.

That's against the scientific consensus now, because J1 was present in various Semitic groups it seems and also in some Caucasian people which had no significant Semitic influences at all, yet alone Arab ones. Dienekes conclusion based on a real study:

So, it is clear that part of haplogroup J1 was prevalent in ancient Semitic groups, another, disjoint part in ancient Dagestani groups.

http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2011/05...-caucasus.html

I was just honest about the fact, that my approach is right now the most likely, but not yet fully proven, because the final proof is in the bones...

You on the other hand stated something as a fact, without the scientific honesty of adding that this is your OPINION ONLY and not even SUPPORTED by scientific studies and facts, yet alone proven.

And YOU dare to say I'm "bullshitting"? How dishonest or delusional is that?

The rest of what you wrote is just provocative in this context.

[El Palleter]

Don't play the innocent victim or something like that.

I'd never play the innocent victim. That's what you and your fellow Germans do whenever you deny the millions of deaths caused out of your lunacy, and whine how badly the victors dealt with you lot. I wouldn't reproduce that character because I loath it. It makes me sick.

You stated that ancient Phoenicians had no J1 in their male line, with no proof, nor any reasonable argument.

This:

"It's highly unlikely that ancient Phoenicians would have had J1 other than as admixture.

Modern Lebanese have it by way of the Arab conquest."

DOES NOT say that ancient Phoenicians had no J1 in their male line. What it does say is that they probably had it, likely, as admixture.

It's also not even a statement since it only expresses likelihood.

I can only find two ways to explain your accusation: either you suffer from a disfunction whereby reading and comprehending are dissociated, or you are lying as an argument (that would unsurprisingly put you in line with the genocide deniers and others of the nazi gang).

But it wouldn't be fair to dismiss you so quickly and, if you have an alternative explanation, one that's consistent, I'm all willing to give it due consideration.

That's just lowest level...

No. It's a reality check.

Inuition or conclusions based on known facts, recombined to a reasonable approach to what's most likely, but not proven fact BY NOW.

Facts in this context would be a fair sample of ancient Phoenicians DNA. Since you can't present that, it is clear to me that you are deceiving when you say that your conclusions are based on facts.

A definition of 'intuition' is "the power or faculty of attaining to direct knowledge or cognition without evident rational thought and inference".

Granting you that much would border the realms of sects.

Today, many scientists are just to weak and afraid of speculating

and there are enough enlightened gurus on the internet to tell us about it, with the strength and courage that requires to be behind a screen on an anonymous connection

so they talk about meaningless numbers more often than about valuable theories.

but fortunately we have the likes of you to tell us what we must deem as meaningless numbers and what valuable theories

Obviously, if you want to solve real mysteries, you have to be more risk taking at times, which doesn't mean "unscientific" or "false" in the sense of fantasies, if your conclusions are just the logical result of what's already known, with a factor of uncertainty where facts are lacking right now.

I think that this would make sense...after consulting a manual of psychiatry.

That's against the scientific consensus now, because J1 was present in various Semitic groups it seems and also in some Caucasian people which had no significant Semitic influences at all, yet alone Arab ones.

What I said is that the likelihood of J1 in ancient Phoenicians is, never mind you, from admixture. Since the likelihood is that ancient Phoenicians were predominantly J2.

It's neither pro- nor un-scientific. It's all about likelihoods since it's all one can say without speculating a bit too much.

Dienekes conclusion based on a real study:

He's making inferences on one group based on a different group. Hardly evidence, just speculations.

I was just honest about the fact, that my approach is right now the most likely, but not yet fully proven, because the final proof is in the bones...

You on the other hand stated something as a fact, without the scientific honesty of adding that this is your OPINION ONLY and not even SUPPORTED by scientific studies and facts, yet alone proven.

I'm the one who spoke of likelihood since the start. It's only now that you are using the word. Who's being dishonest?

And YOU dare to say I'm "bullshitting"?

What else could be said when you've just been dismissing scientists as 'weak' and 'afraid' (thus cowards), and their data as 'meaningless'.

While pretending to correct their alleged deficiencies.

Such kind of mentality is often found in sects, and it belongs in the lunatic asylum.

How dishonest or delusional is that?

An individual 100% obsessed with measuring bones as a means to infer such things as character, would be the last individual on earth to have the right to speak of dishonesty and of delusional minds.

The rest of what you wrote is just provocative in this context.

It's much better than bullshitting

[Agrippa]

DOES NOT say that ancient Phoenicians had no J1 in their male line. What it does say is that they probably had it, likely, as admixture.

First of all, when I said that J1 was present in Phoenicians, most likely but not necessarily exclusively due to their Semitic heritage, you began to rabble around, now that was YOUR reaction, not mine.

He's making inferences on one group based on a different group. Hardly evidence, just speculations.

More reasonable ones than you did, though, based on evidence, with the rest being logical conclusions with the final proof lying in the bones, simple as that.

What I said is that the likelihood of J1 in ancient Phoenicians is, never mind you, from admixture. Since the likelihood is that ancient Phoenicians were predominantly J2.

Well, now we have a serious problem with your point of view, because I know that the locals in the region were more often J2 in pre-Semitic times and that many of them seem to have been "Semiticised" ethnolinguistically over time.

Now if you talk about the ancient Phoenicians having J1 just as some kind of "unimportant admixture", well, that makes little sense, because those which had a higher frequency of J1 were most likely the original Semitic people which brought the language and ethnicity to the coastline! They were crucial for the ethnogenesis!

That is like saying in ancient Magyars the Mongoloid markers were just "admixture", while it was the other way around, since those part-Mongoloid elements brought the language and ethnicity to Pannonia.

Even if Phoenicians were later predominantely J2 or anything else, primarily because of their pre-Semitic heritage, it would be strange to call this constitutive element "admixture" - unless you mean the local population as such, but that's strange for the ethnolinguistic group of the Phoenicians which:

Phoenician was a language originally spoken in the coastal (Mediterranean) region then called "Canaan" in Phoenician, Arabic, Hebrew, and Aramaic, "Phoenicia" in Greek and Latin, and "Pūt" in Ancient Egyptian. Phoenician is a Semitic language of the Canaanite subgroup; its closest living relative is Hebrew, to which it is very similar; then Aramaic, then Arabic.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoenician_language

It is pretty obvious that the pre-Semitic inhabitants in many areas of f.e. Lebanon prevailed biologically - you just need racial typology for coming to that conclusion.

Anyway, without that "admixture" there wouldn't have been, most likely, Phoenicians.

What else could be said when you've just been dismissing scientists as 'weak' and 'afraid' (thus cowards), and their data as 'meaningless'.

While pretending to correct their alleged deficiencies.

Such kind of mentality is often found in sects, and it belongs in the lunatic asylum.

You don't understand, I know the scientists in question and how they approach such things.

Just look at how some of them, which told the truth or made reasonable speculations outside of the "politically correct" mainstream were treated!
They were ruined, just because making a scientifically correct and honest analysis!

If a "scientist" says "all human races have the same intellectual capabilities and there are no IQ differences based on genetics", they get away with it, even though that is truly BULLSHIT, while if you tell the truth and say that f.e. Congolese Negrids are on average less intelligent than Eurasians, and that's also because of their genetic profile, you can get into trouble already!

And anthropometry is science, with the typological concept being largely let down by the same people which can't or don't want to speak the truth any longer.

I had various scientists which told me, after I argued with them about certain facts, bluntly (analogous): "Well, even if that's right, I won't teach it and rather stick to the politically correct approach, because I can't tell that my students today and I don't want to come back 'to the past' which was horrible..."

They are all so highly indoctrinated and afraid, that even those which know the truth prefer to spread other theories, because it is closer to what is accepted now or they themselves want, in their Cultural Marxist mind setting. They don't even want to see the truth or really consider other theories, because they think even touching it "is a problem", both for their career and from an "ethical point of view".

Because they don't like the consequences of the truth in this subjects, which would mean to undermine the "all are equal" crap!

So I'm not sitting somewhere and thinking about "the scientists" in a delusional way, I know enough about them and I know enough of them!

Many of them are just not honest about many things, sometimes consciously, sometimes unconsciously, but that's how it is!

[Kenshiro]

I have this y dna but 0 Red Sea, WTF? My mena look almost entire Caucasian-Assyrian

[Miko]

Originary of Arab countries (probably Yemen, 70% of J1)

It comes from the Caucasus (Dagestan, Russia; Lake Van, Armenia). It was the haplogroup of the Kura-Araxes culture.
And from there to Sumer, in today's southern Irak. That was the birthplace of Abraham and Abrahamism.