Greg Cochran likes to think of himself as being near-omniscient. In this post he defied his readers to tell him something he didn’t know.
The reality is that there’s a lot Cochran doesn’t know. He’s ignorant of some of the most important facts regarding the subjects he regularly pontificates on.
His theorizing ability isn’t all that great either. In this post from May of last year I pointed out the absurdities of his theory that homosexuality is caused by a pathogen. Since then Cochran hasn’t posted anything on the subject of homosexuality. Perhaps he’s been hard at work in the lab trying to isolate the homosexuality-inducing pathogen. I wouldn’t hold your breath waiting for him to announce its discovery though.
In this post Cochran lectured his readers on the peopling of the Americas. A few very important facts were missing from his account however, and in my review of 2013 I recounted how I attempted to bring these facts to the attention of his readers in the comments for his post. In the comment shown below I revealed that Amerindians are Mongoloid-Caucasoid hybrids, and that White people were in the Americas thousands of years ago. In this comment I had told Cochran a few things that he didn’t know, and he must not have been too happy about it, because he deleted my comment, twice.
In this comment Cochran says
SLC24A5, the strongest light-skin allele, did arrive during the Neolithic, looks like.
In this post he says
We already have reason to think that SLC24A5 was carried to Europe by Middle Eastern farmers
And in this comment he says
Doesn’t look as if SLC24a5 originated in Europe. The Mesolithic hunter-gatherers didn’t have it.
Here Cochran shows his ignorance of the fact that Motala 12, a Mesolithic hunter-gatherer who lived 8,000 years ago in Sweden, had the SLC24A5 mutation, and that the data for Afontova Gora 2, a Paleolithic hunter-gatherer who lived 17,000 years ago in Siberia, suggest that he also had the SLC24A5 mutation. Note also that Stora Förvar 11, a Mesolithic hunter-gatherer who lived 7,500 years ago in Sweden, had the other major Caucasoid depigmentation mutation, in the gene SLC45A2.
In this post Cochran boldly “sticks his neck out” by proposing an account of Indo-European origins that is essentially no different than Marija Gimbutas’s Kurgan hypothesis, which has been the mainstream account for over 50 years. Cochran entitled this post “Centum and Satem”, and yet amazingly there’s not one mention in the entire post of the single most important fact regarding the centum-satem dichotomy, which is that Y haplogroup R1b is associated with the centum Indo-European languages, while R1a is associated with the satem Indo-European languages.
In this comment Cochran says
First, it looks as if the Yamnaya culture, or maybe something a little earlier, was the source of the Centum languages. This population was a mix of a WHG-like population, ANE, and an Armenian-like population.
This shows that Cochran is ignorant of that fact that it’s only R1a that is associated with Armenian-like autosomal DNA. The largest K12b autosomal component for Armenians is the Caucasus component. This component is associated with R1a, but it shows no association whatsoever with R1b. The component associated with R1b is the Gedrosia component, which, on the other hand, shows no association whatsoever with R1a. Note that I had determined that R1a is associated with the Caucasus component in this comment from May, five months before it was leaked by one of David Reich’s associates that samples from the Yamna culture had a significant amount of Armenian-like DNA.
In this post Cochran says
The Sibermen look to be the Indo-Europeans, or a major component thereof. And so you must have an Urheimat that is fairly far east – not in Europe.
This shows that Cochran is ignorant of the fact that the Indo-Europeans cannot have originated in Siberia or Central Asia, because the proto-Indo-European vocabulary contained words for ‘bee’ and ‘honey’, and honeybees were not native east of the Ural Mountains.
Cochran starts out this post by saying
The Y-chromosome haplogroup R1b is extremely common in Western Europe ( > 70%). At the same time, it doesn’t appear to be very old.
And in this post he says
This implies that the Sibermen were on top: which also fits the big expansion of R1B and R1A, both of which turn out to be about 5,000 years old.
These statements show Cochran’s complete ignorance of the estimates of the ages of R1b and R1a.
The Y chromosome tree below shows that R1 branched into R1b and R1a well before the time of Mal’ta 1 (MA-1), who lived 24,000 years ago.
It was estimated in this paper that R1 split into R1b and R1a 25,100 years ago.
Below are the haplogroup TMRCA (time to most recent common ancestor) estimates, in thousands of years, from the posts here and here. The split between R1b and R1a was estimated to have happened between 27,600 and 25,900 years ago. Since the TMRCA for R1b1 was estimated to be between 22,900 and 21,200 years, R1b must be between 27,600 and 21,200 years old. The Gravettian period lasted from 32,000 to 22,000 years ago, so R1b very likely originated during the Gravettian.
- 63.0–61.3 — F
- 61.9–60.2 — IJK
- 58.8–57.1 — K
- 38.8 (40.2–38.5) — P
- 36.6–34.9 — I
- 32.2 (33.5–31.8) — R
- 26.9 (27.6–25.9) — R1
- 22.9–21.2 — R1b1-P25
- 14.9–13.3 — R1b1c-V88
- 8.6–6.9 — R1b1a2-M269
- 8.0 (8.3–6.6) — R1b1a2a-L23
- 7.6–5.9 — R1b1a2a1-L51
- 6.7 (7.4–5.6) — R1b1a2a2-Z2103
- 7.2–5.5 — R1b1a2-M269(xL23)
- 6.1 (6.6–4.8) — R1b1a2a1a-L11
- 6.2–4.5 — R1b1a2a1a2-P312
- 6.1–4.4 — R1b1a2a1a2b-U152
- 6.0 — R1a1a1b-Z645
- 5.7 — R1a1a1b2-Z93
- 5.4 — R1a1a1b2a-Z94
- 5.3 — R1a1a1b1a-Z282
- 5.2 — R1a1a1b2a2a-Z2123
- 5.2 — R1a1a1b2a2b-Z2122
- 4.3 — R1a1a1b2a1-L657
- 3.9 — R1a1a1b2a3-M582
If R1b and R1a really were only 5,000 years old, as Cochran mistakenly believes, then the Kurgan hypothesis would have at least one piece of evidence to support it. But R1b and R1a are far older than that, and the Kurgan hypothesis has no evidence to support it.
Let it be clearly understood by everyone reading this that as of December 2014, Greg Cochran, Cochran’s good buddy Newamul “Razib” Khan, David “Davidski” Wesolowski, J. Maciamo Hay, David Reich, and David Anthony were all still clinging to the empirically contradicted Kurgan hypothesis, while I had seen how untenable it was and abandoned it in this post from over a year ago. I then began to build a new framework for European genetic prehistory and Indo-European origins, and defended that framework from criticism early this year, in the comments on this post. An outline of my new framework is below.
- The Aurignacians belonged to Y haplogroup I, and they entered Europe from the Middle East through the Balkan peninsula.
- The Gravettians belonged to Y haplogroup R, and they entered Europe from Central Asia through Russia.
- Y hg R1 originated in Europe, and R1 people spoke a language ancestral to all Indo-European languages.
- Around the start of the Last Glacial Maximum, the R1 Gravettians split into a Western European group and an Eastern European group.
- R1b originated in the western Gravettians.
- R1a originated in the eastern Gravettians.
- R1b people spoke a language ancestral to the centum Indo-European languages.
- R1a people spoke a language ancestral to the satem Indo-European languages.
My framework is the only one that is supported by all of the available evidence. I associate the Gravettians with Y haplogroup R1, and the beginning of the Gravettian culture at 32,000 years ago coincides with the above estimate of the split of R into R1 and R2 at 32,200 years ago. The Last Glacial Maximum started between 26,500 and 25,000 years ago, and this coincides with the estimated split of R1 into R1b and R1a between 26,900 and 25,100 years ago.
Early last year I showed, for the first time in history, that Amerindians have North-European-related admixture, and not the other way around, as David Reich ludicrously claimed. The “HBD community” has never admitted their error in believing Reich’s nonsense, and they have not once acknowledged that I was right in refuting it.
As evidence continues to build for my revolutionary new theory of Indo-European origins, will anyone in the “HBD community” or the “scientific community” acknowledge that I was right? Do any of them have any integrity at all? Are any of them capable of admitting that that they were ever wrong about anything?