GENEALOGY-DNA-L Archives

Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2005-06 > 1120165104


From: "Ken Nordtvedt" <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] A Convergence Between Haplogroup A Towards the AMH
Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2005 14:58:24 -0600
References: <BAY103-F40178F6AFEBC4912886CB4CEE30@phx.gbl>


I believe "convergence" is generally misused in the field. Within a
haplogroup all haplotypes' ancestries go back to a single founder as well;
then they started to differentiate randomly by the mutation process, and by
other processes as well such as isolation and expansion of sub-populations,
and the resulting founder effects and genetic drift. So out of this brew
sometimes there results "re-convergence" or descendant lines which are still
the same or close today because they never got that far apart since the
founding of the haplogroup. "Convergence" is just a poor choice of words
with its connotations.


----- Original Message -----
From: "Russ _" <>
To: <>
Sent: Thursday, June 30, 2005 10:07 AM
Subject: Re: [DNA] A Convergence Between Haplogroup A Towards the AMH


> I think it's odd that you are hung up on the word "convergence". I hear
> people frequently speak of convergence when discussing smiliaries within a
> haplogroup when trying to figure out whether or bot trhey share a recent
> ancestor. This has nothing to do with the multi-regionalists or
> out-of-africa proponents. We do, after all, share an Adam with them too.
> To turn your reasoning here back on itself, the term "convergence" implies
> we don't.
>
> It's worth noting that of the hundreds of matches up to four mutations
away
> that a Haplogroup A has reconverged within four mutations. After all,
with
> the exception of one O2, there are no other haplogroups that come so
close,
> even though they have all diverged more recently than Haplogroup A.
>
>
> >From: "Ken Nordtvedt" <>
> >Reply-To:
> >To:
> >Subject: Re: [DNA] A Convergence Between Haplogroup A Towards the AMH
> >Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2005 09:09:18 -0600
> >
> >I really find this loose use of the word "convergence" odd --- as if we
> >modern humans started out with a bunch of very different haplotypes
(maybe
> >some Neanderthal here, some Erectus there ..... ) and really were
> >converging
> >now and then in our ydna?
> >
> >We actually have apparently been "diverging" for the last several tens of
> >thousands of years from one or a very few "Adams" who got out of Africa.
> >
> >Let me put it this way: if we imagined doing a ydna census of the
> >non-African world's ySTRs 50,000 years ago, do you think we would find
more
> >or less diversity or variance than we do today?
> >
> >Maybe people could use the word "re-convergence" if they actually wanted
to
> >push that concept. I don't think that would grate so much.
> >
> >Ken
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE!
> http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/
>
>
> ==============================
> Census images 1901, 1891, 1881 and 1871, plus so much more.
> Ancestry.com's United Kingdom & Ireland Collection. Learn more:
http://www.ancestry.com/s13968/rd.ashx
>
>



This thread: