Jak pisałem we wcześniejszych wpisach, przyjrzę się teraz „wiarygodności” osoby Anatole Klyosov’a, jak i niektórych twierdzeń, których jest on autorem (wraz z innymi, jak Rozhanskii, Tomezzoli, itp.).
Pewno nie wszyscy o tym wiedzą lub pamiętają (może Adam Smoliński i Dragomira coś sobie przypominają), ale od dłuższego już czasu ostrzegałem osoby powołujące się na wyniki prac i odkryć tego rosyjskiego naukowca i patrioty…
Pragnę przybliżyć teraz o co mi chodziło i nadal chodzi, kiedy mówię, że ten „super ruski troll” nie jest on specjalnie wiarygodnym źródłem danych… i powoływanie się na niego, jak to robią wyznawcy „południowej drogi R1a”,.. to siara… 🙂
Najpierw trochę ogólnie dostępnych danych na jego temat, a potem kilka przykładów jego tez, zacytowanych z jego trzech prac i jednego filmu…
Czy to nie jest rechot Aku, że „łowcy ruskich trolli” powołują się na prace i twierdzenia „super ruskiego trolla”, którego ja wg nich także „ruski troll” i agent złych mocy demaskuję?!! 🙂
Oto dowody, że ten ałtorytet genetyczny (i językoznawczy), w którego twierdzenia wierzą i „rudaweb.pl” i „Białczyński”. „Orlicki” pomijam, bo on nigdy nie powołał się nawet na żadne nazwiska, czy badania naukowe, pomijając ten jego ruski film…
Anatole A. Klyosov (born 20 November 1946 in Chernyakhovsk, Kaliningrad Oblast of Russian SFSR) is a scientist who worked in the fields of physical chemistry, enzyme catalysis, and industrial biochemistry. In 1989 Klyosov immigrated to the US. He spent most of his career developing ways to use enzymes to convert agricultural waste products into useful products —first to convert cotton waste products in glucose in the USSR, and later in the US, turning waste from the paper-making industry into useful products. He later helped found a company, and later joined it as CSO, that was founded to use enzymes to alter existing anticancer drugs via glycosylation. In 2008 he began publishing work about what he calls „DNA genealogy” that has been dismissed as pseudoscience.
From 2008 Klyosov is also known as the author of what he calls „DNA genealogy” and „new science”, aimed to synthesize biology, anthropology, archaeology and linguistics and to implement methods of chemical kinetics in genetics. Klyosov described his „DNA genealogy” as a „patriotic science” and between 2010 and 2016 published 10 books in this field. In some of his writings Klyosov tried to refute the Out of Africa hypothesis and proposed his alternative Into Africa theory with „outlandish claims” that the human species originated in Northern Russia. According to scientists from various fields, „DNA genealogy” is pseudoscience, and they have characterized it as „DNA demagoguery”.
Tutaj upowszechniam trochę wiadomości o SCIRP, gdzie Klyosov upowszechnia swoje „odkrycia”:
Scientific Research Publishing (SCIRP) is an academic publisher of peer-reviewed open-access electronic journals, conference proceedings, and scientific anthologies. As of December 2014, it offers 244 English language open access journals in the areas of science, technology, business, economy, and medicine.
The company has been accused of being a predatory open access publisher and of using email spam to solicit papers for submission. In 2014 there was a mass resignation of the editorial board of one of the company’s journals, with the outgoing Editor-in-Chief saying of the publisher „For them it was only about making money. We were simply their ‚front’.”
SCIRP generated controversy in 2010 when it was found that its journals duplicated papers which had already been published elsewhere, without notification of or permission from the original author and of the copyright holder. Several of these publications have subsequently been retracted. Some of the journals had listed academics on their editorial boards without their permission or even knowledge, sometimes in fields very different from their own. In 2012, one of its journals, Advances in Pure Mathematics, accepted a paper written by a random text generator. The paper was not published, but only due to its author’s unwillingness to pay the publication fee. The company has also been noted for the many unsolicited bulk emails it sends to academics about its journals. In 2013, the Open Journal of Pediatrics, a SCIRP journal, published a study which concluded that the number of babies born with thyroid problems in the western United States increased by 16 percent in 2011 compared to 2010, after the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster. The study has been criticized for not taking into account the fact that 2010 was a year with an unusually low number of births with thyroid problems. SCIRP refused to print a letter criticizing the study, but offered to publish it as an article for a charge.
The company has been included in a list of questionable open access publishers, according to Jeffrey Beall‚s criteria. Beall states that „This publisher exists for two reasons. First, it exists to exploit the author-pays Open Access model to generate revenue, and second, it serves as an easy place for foreign (chiefly Chinese) authors to publish overseas and increase their academic status.” He acknowledges that its fees are relatively low, describing this as „a strategy that increases article submissions,” and that „it has attracted some quality article submissions. Nevertheless, it is really a vanity press.”
Further controversy was generated by a mass resignation of the editorial board of one of the company’s journals, Advances in Anthropology, in 2014. According to the former editor-in-chief, Fatimah Jackson, it was motivated by failures to include the editorial board in the journal’s review process, and by „consistent and flagrant unethical breaches by the editorial staff in China”, for whom publishing the journal „was only about making money.” According to Beall, this was the first mass resignation from an open-access journal. (…)
No dobra, tyle wstępu a teraz co zarzucają mu jego krytycy,.. w tym i ja 🙂
Re-Examining the “Out of Africa” Theory and the Origin of Europeoids (Caucasoids) in Light of DNA Genealogy
Anatole A. Klyosov, Igor L. Rozhanskii
Out of Africa Theory Officially Debunked?
Клёсов А.А. Лекция 15: Не выходили наши предки из Африки
UWAGA!!! Nie twierdzę, że Klyosov kłamie w tej pracy, czy manipuluje danymi. Zwracam uwagę na to, że inni mu to zarzucają. Wyjaśniam, że nie drążę tematu Słowian z Marsa, czy z skądkolwiek z kosmosu, patrz to co np. twierdzą Ingliści… Jeśli to prawda, niech tak będzie, bo nie jestem zupełne przywiązany do Afryki, czy innej „Ziemi świętej”…
Ten film szczególnie polecam uwadze „łowcom ruskich trolli”, bo to oni ciągle powołują się na Klyosova…
Анатолий Клёсов: Русские самый древний род на Земле
Anatolij Klyosov: Rosjanie to najstarsza rasa na świecie
Published on Aug 9, 2015
2:39 (Nieczytelne) ileś tam lat temu z Ruskiej Równiny takim klinem do zachodniej Europy wyszli ludzie z haplogrupą R1a (jakąś). Wszyscy R1a w Europie to potomkowie tych R1a z Ruskiej Równiny…
4:16 R1a wyszli z Azji Środkowej. R1a wyszli z Załtaju i szli kilometr na rok, czyli odległość 10,000 kilometrów, to 10,000 lat podróży
5:00 Klyosov mówi o „południowej drodze R1a”, kiedy to ludzie z haplogrupą R1a (jakąś tam) 8,000 lat temu dotarli tamtędy na Bałkany, co potwierdza archeologia… No może to było 10,000 lat temu. Stamtąd poszli w Europę i wtedy tzw. języki indo-europejskie zaczęły się rozszczepiać około 6,000 lat temu, sądząc po danych językoznawstwa…
5:54 Z Europy (skąd?) jakieś 5,000 lat temu potomkowie tej ludności dotarli na Rosyjską Równinę … (Widać Klysov nic nie wiedział wtedy o Karelczyku!!! 🙂 ), skąd jedni (kiedy?) przez Skałakaz przeszli na południe i dotarli nawet do Indyjskiego Oceanu i Arabii. Inni poszli (jak i kiedy?) na wschód do Iranu,.. i ci zwani są przez historyków „Awestyjskimi Ariami”, a jeszcze inni poszli (jak i kiedy?) na południowy Gural i to oni zbudowali Arkaim i później stamtąd poszli do północnych Indii. Język rosyjski to język przodków braminów.
8:28 Istnieje jeszcze jedna grupa R1a, która poszła jeszcze dalej na wschód… z powrotem do Załtaju i z nich powstali Scytowie, którzy mają ta samą haplogrupę, co Słowianie.
16:50 Scytowie byli zmieszani z ludami mongoloidalnymi, bo brali sobie za żony mongoloidalne żony. Oni z Azji potem przyszli do Europy!!! (Proszę o tym pamiętać, bo będę do tego wracał w innych wpisach!!!)
Haplogroup R1a as the Proto Indo-Europeans and the Legendary Aryans as Witnessed by the DNA of Their Current Descendants
Anatole A. Klyosov, Igor L. Rozhanskii
Northern China R1a Haplotypes
Apparently, the most ancient source of R1a1 haplotypes is provided by the people now living in northern China. It was shown (Bittles et al., 2007) that for a number of Chinese populations, such as Hui, Bonan, Dongxiang, Salars, a percentage of R1a1 haplotypes reached 18% – 32%. Their haplotypes were not provided in the paper, but the author, Professor Alan H. Bittles, kindly sent us a list of 31 of five-marker haplotypes typed as R1a1, the tree of which is shown in Figure 1.
R1a Haplotypes in India and Pakistan
A more ancient source is presumably the South Siberian and/or Central Asian haplotypes brought to the Hindustan during the westward migrations of R1a bearers between 20,000 and 10,000 ybp. Some studies alleged that the most ancient common ancestors of R1a haplotypes were Indian; however, the results were flawed by erroneous calculations of timespans using incorrect “population mutation rates” (see their description and discussion in Klyosov, 2009a, 2009c, and references therein), which routinely converted the actual 3600 – 4000 ybp (“Indo-European” R1a1 in India) into 12,000 – 15,000 ybp. This was erroneously claimed as the proof of “origin of R1a in India.” Furthermore, high percentages of R1a in some regions in India or in some ethnic and/or religious groups (such as Brahmins) were incorrectly claimed as the proof of the origin of R1a in India (Kivisild et al., 2003; Sengupta et al., 2006; Sahoo et al., 2006; Sharma et al., 2009; Thanseem et al., 2006; Fornarino et al., 2009). The application of the flawed approach resulted in confusion amongst researchers in the field of human population genetics over the last decade. The course of research is hopefully corrected by the application of today’s most recent developments of DNA genealogy, which utilizes a principally different methodology (Klyosov, 2009a, 2009b, 2009c; Rozhanskii and Klyosov, 2011; Klyosov, 2011b).(…)
UWAGA!!! Klyosov powyżej podważa „szacowanie” wieku różnych próbek pobranych od osób żyjących obecnie, czyli… ISTNIEJE MOŻLIWOŚĆ BŁĘDNEGO OKREŚLENIA WIEKU MUTACJI, TAKŻE W PRZYPADKU DATOWAŃ UNDERHILL 2014!!! 🙂
DNA Genealogy and Linguistics. Ancient Europe
Anatole A. Klyosov, Giancarlo T. Tomezzoli
This article attempts to merge the data of contemporary linguistics and DNA genealogy in order to describe
the migrations and settlement of peoples and languages in Europe after the last Ice Age. In the new
paradigm, three important groups of players have been identified: —R1a haplogroup bearers, conditionally
identified as Aryans. They arose around 20,000 years before the present (ybp) in central Asia and the
Altai Mountains; after their migration along the southern route, they arrived in Europe between 10,000 –
9000 ybp, bringing proto-Indo European (PIE) and Indo European (IE) languages. In 4800 ybp they migrated
eastward from Europe to the Russian Plane and then to India. About 3000 – 2500 ybp they migrated
with their IE languages from the Russian Plain back to central, western, and southern Europe, laying
the genetic groundwork for peoples later called Celts, Germans, Italics, Greeks, Illyrians, and Balto-Slavs.
—E, F, G, J, I, K haplogroup bearers. The dates of their arrival in Europe (sometime before 5000 ybp)
and their migration routes remain obscure. They apparently spoke non-IE languages. —R1b haplogroup
bearers, called the Arbins. They arose about 16,000 ybp in central Asia, and migrated to Europe along a
northern route. They arrived in Europe between 4800 and 4500 ybp bringing with them several non-IE
languages. It seems that the arrival of the Aryans (R1a) in Europe was peaceful. There are no clear indications
that their arrival triggered any sort of violence. However, the migration of the Arbins (R1b) was
marked by an almost complete elimination of the E1b, F, G2a, J, I1, I2, and K haplogroups from Europe.
Our analysis of current linguistic theories in the light of DNA genealogy data demonstrates that: —the
Anatolian theory is generally compatible with DNA genealogy data; —the Vasconic and Afro-asiatic
substratum theory is partially in agreement with DNA genealogy data; —the Kurgan theory and the Palaeolithic
Continuity Theory (PCT) appear incompatible with the history of Europe based on haplogroup
data. —the “Out of Africa” theory has questionable validity.
Haplogroup R1a apparently arose about 20,000 ybp (Klyosov & Rozhanskii, 2012b) in central Asia and possibly in the southern Siberia region of the Altai Mountains. Its ancient subclade M17 is observed in north China (Klyosov, 2009). R1a bearers migrated from central Asia across Tibet, Hindustan, the Iranian Plateau, and Anatolia between 12,000 and 10,000 ybp. Their downstream subclade, M417, crossed Asia Minor and entered the Balkans between 10,000 and 8000 ybp. It is apparently their arrival in the Balkans which strontium isotope measurements dated at 8200 ybp (Boric & Price, 2013). The M417 subclade spread all over Europe sometime between 9000 and 5000 ybp. Around 5700 ybp, the recently discovered Z645 branch of haplogroup R1a developed. In 4900 ybp (Rozhanskii & Klyosov, 2012), we find a Eurasian branch, Z283, and its South-Eastern branch Z93, along with the downstream branch Z342.2/Z94 and the central Eurasian branch Z280. The central Eurasian branch R1a-Z280 embraces about half of all contemporary east European males, and the Aryan branch R1a-Z94 is currently observed in Russians, Ukrainians, and in southern Asian populations in like the Kyrgyz, the Kazakh, and the Tajik peoples. This branch also exists in Iran, India, in the Middle East, and along the ancient migration route from the Russian Plain to the Middle East, particularly in Armenia and Turkey. The R1a haplotypes which were excavated in the Andronovo archaeological sites east of the Ural Mountains, and which have been dated at between 3800 and 3400 ybp (Keyser et al., 2009), probably belong to the Z94-L657 subclade (Klyosov, 2013).
We have said above that haplogroup R1a migrated across Anatolia to the Balkans between 10,000 and 8000 ybp; the
group spread throughout Europe, moved east to the Russian Plain, and then went to India. The first date is supported by the fact that we find PIE in Anatolia between 10,000 and 9000 ybp (Gray & Atkinson, 2003; Bouckaert et al., 2012). PIE could have been formed and evolved during the long migration from the Altai Mountains to Anatolia. Then, the language migrated with the same R1a haplogroup to the Balkans and across Europe, where around 6000 ybp it split into branches; members of haplogroup R1a arrived around 4800 – 4600 ybp on the Russian Plain as speakers of Indo-European language(s). DNA genealogy has confirmed that haplogroup R1a arrived in India as the legendary Aryans around 3500 ybp; even today nearly 72% of some Indian upper castes are R1a bearers (Sharma et al., 2009).
The suggestion of the Anatolian hypothesis that Tocharian languages were not part of the Balkan linguistic advergence area is conditionally supported by DNA genealogy. According to Gray and Atkinson (2003), the Tocharian languages were an archaic branch, which arose around 7900 ybp, and were spoken by R1a populations in the Tarim basin.
Based on the dating of the Tocharian language and the relatively high linguistic distance of Tocharian A and B from the other IE languages (Tomezzoli & Kreutz, 2011), it is unlikely that the protoTocharians migrated westward to Europe and the Russian Plain with the proto-Aryans (R1a), and then moved back to the Tarim Basin. It is more likely that the proto-Tocharians migrated from the Altai region of north China to the nearby Tarim basin and remained there (never going to Europe), forming the autochthonous R1a peoples of Central Asia.
The Anatolian hypothesis groups these Tocharians rather superficially with Europeans (Li et al., 2010), without any DNA justification—their haplotypes were not even reported for a comparison with European R1a haplotypes. It is not enough to consider Tocharians as Europeans on the basis of their somatic features and their clothing which, in 4000 ybp, looked like Scottish plaid. In fact, plaiding techniques could equally well have been brought to Europe by R1a tribes from the Altai and Central Asia. Still, there is some room for the Tocharian languages to be considered as derivatives of the archaic European R1a languages of the IE family. Tocharian is possibly an ancient Centum branch. In that case, we have to admit that Gray and Atkinson’s (2003) estimate of their appearance (7900 ybp) should be reduced at least to around 6000 ybp. There should also be a recognition of an earlier migration (between 6000 – 5500 ybp) of R1a bearers from Europe to the Altai region, and their possible contributions to the Afanasyevo archaeological culture and perhaps to the Centum Tocharian languages in the area, including the Tarim basin.
This concept is verifiable; if Afanasyevo bones not too far away from the Tarim basin are dated at least 5000 ybp and are shown to belong to the R1a-Z93 subclade, the case for a migration of R1a from Europe to the Tarim basin will be well supported.
DNA genealogy data disallows Anatolia as the homeland of PIE and IE languages.
DNA records show that these languages had no specific homelands—R1a bearers migrated over thousands of miles during the course of thousands of years. No archaeological site can be possibly identified as a location in which IE split into branches—the branching of IE was a continuous process of divergence and convergence over millennia. According to DNA genealogy data (see Figure 1), the predecessors of those who spoke PIE languages might have migrated 50,000 ybp or earlier from the unknown birthplace of the β-haplogroup. The birthplace might have been in Europe, the Russian Plain, or south Siberia (where they arrived between 40,000 – 35,000 ybp). Much later, sometime after 20,000 ybp, they migrated westward along with the R1a haplogroup via Anatolia, to the Balkans, to the Russian Plain and Pontic steppes, to the Middle East, Middle Asia, the Iranian plateau, the Ural mountains, Hindustan, South Siberia (again), North China, and Mongolia. All of these locations are migrational passing points and not homelands for the predecessors of the IE languages.(…)
No i co?!! Ktoś już rozumie? Jeśli nie, zadawajcie pytania i czekajcie na wpis o Afanasiewo, jako wschodnia Yamnaya… hehehe…
A no i na sam koniec…
Skoro ludzie z haplogripą R1a MOGLI „PROSTĄ PÓŁNOCNĄ DROGĄ” IŚĆ Z ZACHODU NA WSCHÓD, patrz mapka… NO TO DLACZEGO WCZEŚNIEJ NIE MOGLI TAKĄ SAMĄ DROGĄ IŚĆ ZE WSCHODU NA ZACHÓD, hm?!!