GENEALOGY-DNA-L Archives

Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2006-07 > 1152969298


From: "R. & G. Stevens" <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] Dubious R1b1?
Date: Sat, 15 Jul 2006 09:14:58 -0400
References: <596.a362c5.31ea3fbd@aol.com>


----- Original Message -----
From: <>

Ann wrote:

> Your first question was whether it was actually R1b1, as predicted by
> FTDNA.
> How "strong" was that prediction? That is, how many samples and how many
> different haplogroups showed up at 0, 1, 2, 3, or 4 mismatches?
>
> Assuming it is in fact R1b1, I'd be more inclined to think of it as very
> recent R1b1 instead of very ancient. My reasoning is that it would take a
> long
> time to drift away from the ancestral/modal values, and further that the
> haplotype hasn't been around long enough to accumulate many descendants.
> Of course,
> that's just trying to fit a theoretical model to real-world data, which
> can be
> full of exceptions. But how would you verbalize the model behind a very
> ancient
> origin?
>
> Ann Turner

Is what is modal for R1b on the Atlantic (WAMH) the same as what is modal
for R1b in Eastern Europe?

Doesn't the diversity of R1b haplotypes increase as one moves east across
Europe? Wouldn't that indicate greater age for R1b in the East?

Perhaps WAMH is the younger modal?

I am not arguing; I don't know enough to do that. I'm just asking questions.

Rich

This thread: