GENEALOGY-DNA-L Archives

Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2004-10 > 1097791994


From: "gareth.henson" <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] R1b
Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2004 23:13:14 +0100
References: <BAY8-F1163MBhe3WYIg00007277@hotmail.com> <008001c4b129$032442a0$0200a8c0@sptnbrg1.sc.home.com> <003301c4b130$f4812f30$79e289d1@Ken1> <004501c4b13c$b39bc1e0$0200a8c0@sptnbrg1.sc.home.com> <000001c4b148$7f5f4c10$cfe289d1@Ken1>


Dennis, Ken & List

what is striking about the graph is the "dip" in the middle to almost zero
samples around the 18/19 step point. Is this where R1b3 stops and the other
hgs begin? In other words with 25 markers a haplotype is clearly either R1b3
or not, there are hardly any "don't knows". Does this work for other
haplogroups? Does the number of markers needed to generate a graph with such
a dip give a good guide to the age of the haplogroup? (more markers =
younger group)

Considering the haplotypes on the "edge" of R1b3 with say 12-19 steps from
the modal haplotype. Are their mutations just what you'd expect from a
random mutation rate i.e. their ancestors' STRs just happened to mutate a
few more times OR are there recurring combinations of non-modal values
suggesting a common ancestry distinct from the main AMH lineage?
In other words what is the modal haplotype for the most non-modal R1b3s?

Gareth


----- Original Message -----
From: "Ken Nordtvedt" <>
To: <>
Sent: Wednesday, October 13, 2004 5:52 PM
Subject: Re: [DNA] R1b


> The argument goes like this: call the founder the first male whose yDNA
> really got a foothold and expanded. He need not be the literal founder
but
> he'll be close probably in time unless a later extreme bottleneck
> establishes a new effective founder. Then, because of the passage of
about
> 400 generations, the most likely distance of a descendant today is
probably
> about 7 mutations out of a 25 marker panel.
>
> Then as separate argument: most researchers say that the most common
> haplotype today in that haplogroup is probably either the haplotype of
that
> founder or very close to it. The arguments for this have been discussed
and
> debated from time to time on this List. I basically subscribe to that
> scenario with the exceptions which have been noted --- genetic drift
during
> very small populations, biased mutation rates up or down, etc.
>
> But, of course, Garvey's graphs are distribution of today's haplotypes
> relative to a modal haplotype established today from today's population.


This thread: