Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2006-04 > 1143907931

From: "Ken Nordtvedt" <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] an unexpected haplogroup result
Date: Sat, 1 Apr 2006 09:12:11 -0700
References: <002a01c655a4$08d62fd0$0101a8c0@HighReaches.local>

No, it's just an attempt to let the distribution of haplotypes as we see and
count them speak more for themselves rather than be prematurely stuffed into
pre-existing models and positions which were developed from other fields.
In other words, I view the agenda as seeing if the haplotype (including
their SNP status) counts, themselves and without prejudice, can reveal the
routes and times of their spreading around the globe.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Glen Todd" <>
To: <>
Sent: Saturday, April 01, 2006 8:50 AM
Subject: RE: [DNA] an unexpected haplogroup result

>> What were the reasons the deeply probing researchers gave for
>> putting the arrival of J just or only with the Neolithic or
>> later --- other than the SE to NW cline?
>> In other words, the researchers being deeply probing is not
>> an explanation.
>> To me the relevant real solid evidence in the dna
>> distributions is just that the J, G, and E distributions in
>> Europe look different than those of R and I.
>> And there had been so much previous work on the spread of
>> agriculture from MidEAst into Europe, they felt compelled
> To me, this sounds like another attempt to revive the long-discredited
> 'wave
> of replacement' theory. A map of the current genetic distribution in
> Europe shows that the 'wave' broke and crashed quite early, with little
> genetic impact. The new technologies penetrated far better than the
> people did. Either that or it's another attempt at an 'ex oriente lux'
> revisionism doctrine.
> Glen
> ==============================
> Jumpstart your genealogy with OneWorldTree. Search not only for
> ancestors, but entire generations. Learn more:

This thread: