User talk:Iris-J2

Hi -- this is my talk page. Users who wish to communicate with me may post a message here.

Regarding Cohen dispute

I don't know much about the editing protocols at Wikipedia, but I'm very concerned about the content of the material that Chris Cohen has been posting. I'm trying to learn a way of resolving this by the proper channels. I posted several comments on the Talk page for Y-chromosomal Aaron.

I have come in as a third party, to confirm that James Heald's actions have been reasonable and his arguments correct, according to the current state of scientific knowledge. Chris Cohen's comments reflect a very serious lack of understanding of the matter under discussion. I have outlined some of my qualifications for giving an informed opinion in my posting: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Y-chromosomal_Aaron

Chris is now adding material to the Y-chromosomal Aaron page, which is very much counter to fact, not to mention the poor English. I will edit out the part which is inaccurate. I do not want innocent people to be led astray by this incorrect, misleading stuff he is posting. I hope we will be able to get a few others to come on to Wikipedia and confirm what James and I are saying. I don't think anyone in the field, including the scientists that Chris is citing, would agree with what he is posting. Bonnie Iris-J2 (talk) 17:04, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Will someone experience please help with this -- Chris is posting more and more of this on the original Y chromosomal Aaron page, which is honestly, crazy stuff which attempts to subvert all the careful work that has been done on this page. We are going back and forth, inserting and deleting it. How can this be stopped? -- Bonnie Iris-J2 (talk) 17:19, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Iris-J2 I have asked a more seasoned and knowledgeable administrators in this field, not an editor, to look at both articles and give their advice. I am not sure this will resolve the issue. However, it may lead to a more diplomatic approach to the situation. Good Luck. Shoessss | Chat 17:49, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bonnie Schrack, how are you?

I would like to say that I did not added on the article nothing out of my personal view or opinion. The informations are true and from the best source possible. THE DNA & TRADITIONAL - A The Genetic Link to the Ancient Hebrews book/ Devora Publishing from Jerusalem and New York (2005)Author: Rabbi Yaakov Kleiman - Director of The Center of Kohanim located in the Old City of Jerusalem. The author met with the researches, and help collect samples for the studies. Rabbi Yaakov Kleiman is the principal speaker for the next Internacinal Jewish Genealogical Society Convention, held in Jerusalem every year, since 2002. Rabbi Yaakov Kleiman is the director of the Cohen-Levi Organization. http://www.cohen-levi.org.

Now, I don´t bealive that the book is wrong, as a matter of fact, It is a nice piece of work from Rabbi Yaakov Kleiman, a person who I admire and respect very much. (I received one kipa, as a gift, last week from him from mail. He lives in Jerusalem, I live in Brazil).

Please, I cant understand how can you or anybody else could go againts this team of professionals. I am not the only one who agree with this infos.

Let discuss this on email? chriscohen@jornalgoyaz.com.br

Take care

Chris —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.27.98.21 (talk) 18:20, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chris, your behavior has been rude, aggressive, and not cooperative; Wikipedia is a cooperatively-edited encyclopedia. When a person's writing is found by others to be inaccurate and misleading, and they remove it, it is against the Wikipedia Ettiquette (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Etiquette) and policies for you to repeatedly add that material again. If you want to make a contribution, you need to convince us of your claims, or we'll keep removing it.

The book you cite by Rabbi Kleiman is not a scientific source. I would have to read it to see what he actually says in it, but the views of a religious scholar are not a sufficient support for the technical issues you are attempting to address, which you clearly do not understand.

Rabbi Kleiman may be a very nice guy, but that is not the issue. You do not grasp the scientific questions you are trying to write about. Humility is a virtue that is praised in the Bible. I hope you will consider learning more about this topic before you keep trying to force your views onto Wikipedia, when others who are more knowledgeable are trying to tell you that you're making a mistake.

P.S. You need to add four tildes after your signature, in order for your Wikipedia username to appear in the signature of your postings. Otherwise it looks as though you want to be anonymous, and Wikipedia has to automatically add your username.

Bonnie Iris-J2 (talk) 18:54, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An Invite to join WikiProject Genetics

Hi, Iris-J2. You are cordially invited to join the Genetics WikiProject! We're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to genetics. We've noticed that you have an interest in the field, and may be interested in joining Wikipedia's dedicated collaborative effort.

We look forward to working with you in the project! – Liveste (talk • edits) 13:50, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are receiving this automated message because your userpage appears in Category:Wikipedians interested in genetics.

Call for opinion on a neutrality accusation in a human genetics related article

As a fellow member of the WikiProject HGH may I ask for opinions on this accusation?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:08, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your Comment from September 2009 on Talk Page of J1c3

QUOTE:
Also, this sentence does not clearly relate to anything in the article, including the last section:

According to Yunusbayev et al. 2006: "Overall, our results corroborate the initially suggested genetic contribution of Middle Eastern populations to Caucasus populations"[14].

What are these results? How do they relate to the existence of P58+ or P58- populations in the Caucasus? Iris-J2 (talk) 02:39, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nearly three years later, I am addressing this very same issue in the section of talk I labeled, "Haplogroup Date and Place of Origin Lack Verifiable and/or Reliable Resources" regarding deletion. JohnLloydScharf (talk) 22:54, 2 August 2011 (UTC) Unquote:JohnLloydScharf (talk) 23:00, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Haplogroup Y A

All of the Y DNA pages are in need of update, and encyclopedification. Based on the latest Y-DNA work done on complete sequenced Y chromosomes, the branching pattern previously described from the Y root is wrong, therefore much of the Y-DNA A work is wrong or uncertain. I tried to make note of the uncertainty 2 years ago, but a afrocentrist who runs by different aliases jump all over me, and two other hostiles sided with him. I really don't have time to waste with these neophytes if wikipedia will not take the side of science. sorry. There are similar issues with the mitochondrial eve page.

I will send you some references you should read. We can have discussions (advisory nature) on this page. But if you want to take on the dragons of the Y chromosome, you will have to do so by yourself.PB666 ^yap 18:27, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Problems with Y chromosomal root (Y-Adam):

So far _no_ N neanderthal male Y has been sequenced. All genome samples are female. The closest representative is chimpanzee, and this has evolved rapidly and stochastically away from Homo sapiens. Even so we do not know when the last common patralinear ancestor between humans and Neandertals lived. Paabo suggests that the TMRCA between Neandertals and humans could be as recent as 100ky, however the average figure is biased by their molecular clocking calibration, which on occasion they have admitted is both and assumption and could be in larger error than the report in their publications. As a consequence using Neandertal as a reference is not useful. In fact, there is a real possibility based upon recent work that Y may have backmigrated from SW Asia into Africa within the last 200ky.
Rate of evolution of Y is dependent on testicular size and rate of male sperm development. This differs within the anthropoid lineages. The contribution of male specific evolution rate to evolution rate bias has been evaluated in multiple papers and has been found in all papers to be significant. Thus no assumptions can be made about molecular clocking, either in the intergeneric time-frames or intrageneric time-frames.
We do not know the relative testicular sizes from the gorilla/human common ancestor to humans, we cannot assume it is the same as human.
We do not know when the common patrilinear ancestor between humans and chimps lived. According to the comprehensive work done by White on A. ramidus, they suspect that the LCA lived greater than 7 million years ago. But the confidence range could be from 5 to 12 million years. This point is also relevant to misinformation presented on the mitochondrial eve page.
As has been recently discovered sequence the Y-A the root branching may have been misstated within the A and A-B lineages. As a consequence these authors believe that only A represents the root and B is a subbranch of A (in the same way only L represents the root of the mtDNA tree). It remains to be seen how correct these authors are, the only thing I would argue is that the A root is uncertain at this point.
I stongly suspect that without thorough sequencing of regional African A and B lineages, significant errors in the current branch diagram are present and undetected. Thus anything placed based on current research could simply be wrong or subject to major future revision.

Summary: The human Y basal branches could be in error, there are very likely errors in all of the proposed branching patterns within haplogroup A, most will be minor, some could be significant. The inability to calibrate the Y molecular clock coupled with the uncertainty of the Y root makes determination of the TMRCA for A haplogroup extremely speculative, anything presented in this article based on the literature is underconfidenced by stringent statistical standards, and any attempt to correct or conditionalize these speculations is a violation of wikipedias no original research. As I found out 2 years ago, even stating the range of modern scientifically valid values into a single sentence could, with enough persuasion by editors, be taken as original research by the administrators and chopped out without any consideration of the background that gives rise to these variant values. Therefore much of what is on the A page needs to be removed and replaced by the dualistic interpretations in the literature; however good luck getting this stuff removed with the science blind administrators for wikipedia.PB666 ^yap 18:55, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Pdeitiker,

Thanks for taking the time and trouble to share your views. I see that our perspectives are not nearly as much in agreement as I had supposed, assuming that the tree you are critiquing is the ISOGG phylogenetic tree for 2012. The branching patterns we have presented in the ISOGG tree are not in error and are not based on any kind of speculation, but are grounded in confirmed research results. In this section, I sense you are confused:

"As has been recently discovered sequence the Y-A the root branching may have been misstated within the A and A-B lineages. As a consequence these authors believe that only A represents the root and B is a subbranch of A (in the same way only L represents the root of the mtDNA tree). It remains to be seen how correct these authors are, the only thing I would argue is that the A root is uncertain at this point.

I stongly suspect that without thorough sequencing of regional African A and B lineages, significant errors in the current branch diagram are present and undetected. Thus anything placed based on current research could simply be wrong or subject to major future revision."

I am not even sure what you would mean to say in those sentences; they are so vague that it's hard to tell exactly. We have had 382471 bp sequenced in a member of A0, and the numerous SNPs discovered, not to speak of the data thus obtained for the V-SNPs, and the other SNPs previously known, have allowed us to have sufficient confidence in the branching structure to publish this new tree at ISOGG. We will be having two further A0 members from distinct branches sequenced with similar coverage in the coming weeks, which should further refine the tree.

If you believe that anything so basic as the question of whether or not B is descended from A could be still in question at this point, I don't see how you could understand how the Y phylogenetic tree is constructed from SNP results. The Y tree is constructed on a different basis from the mtDNA one, which is much more speculative, due to the nature of mtDNA.

Whatever errors you believe may be present in the tree published on the ISOGG site, it would be far more helpful for you to state clearly and precisely, if you have contradictory data. Exactly which SNPs and branches do you believe are in error? The branching structure as shown is not based on one or two SNPs, but on multiple layers of shared SNPs. All members of the clades downstream of nodes such as A1 and A1b share the SNPs listed there; this can be easily verified.

The only part of your quoted statements that I can concur with is where you say that the A root is uncertain. That's true, the exact shape of the root zone isn't fully known at this time. However, we do know that it's upstream of A1, and of A0; from A1 down we're on solid ground. Our two further planned A0 sequences will do a great deal to clarify it, plus the SNP results of others for whom such extensive sequencing may not be necessary.

As for your statement, "In fact, there is a real possibility based upon recent work that Y may have backmigrated from SW Asia into Africa within the last 200ky," it's not clear whether you mean to say that some Y-DNA lineages may have backmigrated from SW Asia to Africa in that time span, or whether you mean to say that all AMH Y lineages were introduced into Africa from SW Asia during that time. The first meaning would hardly be controversial; the second is entirely unsupported by any evidence. Jeffrey Rose in his paper New Light on Human Prehistory in the Arabo-Persian Gulf Oasis says, "it is reasonable to speculate that Late Pleistocene inhabitants of Arabia were among the first anatomically modern humans (AMH) to branch from the common ancestral population that first appeared in East Africa some 190,000 years ago," meaning by this that AMH had existed in Africa since 190,000 years ago, with one early branch later extending into Arabia. In no way does he say or imply that AMH first evolved outside of Africa, as some fringe theorists claim. The scenario he describes, with possible interbreeding with Neanderthals after the early departure from Africa, is in good agreement with both our Y chromosome tree and recent studies of autosomal genetics. The population leaving Africa at that early date, we might identify with something like the CF clade. I think any theory of haplogroup E originating outside of Africa stretches credulity to the breaking point. 24.126.113.113 Iris-J2 (talk) 17:20, 9 March 2012 (UTC) 03:48, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]