GENEALOGY-DNA-L ArchivesArchiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2005-06 > 1117949065
From: "Andrew and Inge" <>
Subject: RE: [DNA] Middle Eastern ancestral markers on new Euro 1.0 test
Date: Sun, 5 Jun 2005 07:24:25 +0200
Please do not misunderstand. I re-expressed my question as a request for an
example of a conclusion not because of an insistance on knowing details, but
because you keep implying that this sort of exact answer comes out of your
model - especially with your statements (a) about the fact that any majority
Y haplotype must have a selective advantage and (b) about the impossibility
for practical purposes of a majority haplotype dieing out by chance.
The original context of our discussion was whether the major haplotypes of,
say, Iberia could have changed significantly in, say, 5000 years just due to
random drift. You seem to mention realistic factors such as small
populations, declining populations, war, famine, and pestilence as all
making this possible, and perhaps even without such factors you seem to
admit that your model allows for such a result. If such a result is possible
without waiting for the billions of years, then why must we say that
selective advantage can be assumed in majority haplotypes? Seems to me that
at least some majority haplotypes probably just come and go at random.
Am I correct?
|RE: [DNA] Middle Eastern ancestral markers on new Euro 1.0 test by "Andrew and Inge" <>|