GENEALOGY-DNA-L Archives

Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2006-11 > 1162502330


From: "Sasson Margaliot" <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] Neolithic J2 and E3b in Britain? Maybe not.
Date: Thu, 2 Nov 2006 23:18:50 +0200
References: <3b2a446a0611010918j45594e12r28817e9f8821f252@mail.gmail.com><042401c6fe97$5ce8b830$6401a8c0@Precision360><3b2a446a0611020852u457ad5e8n68b92b2596ec2566@mail.gmail.com><454A57CB.3070208@sbcglobal.net>
In-Reply-To: <454A57CB.3070208@sbcglobal.net>


On 11/2/06, Alfred A. Aburto Jr. <> wrote:

>
> The fudge factor being that Zhivotovsky et al (2004) determines an
> effective mutation rate of 0.00069 mutations per generation whereas
> others, based on different studies, use 0.002 mutations per generation.
> The factor of 3 comes in because 0.002/0.00069 ~ 3.
>
> [snip,snip]


Zhivotovsky et all (2004) are using two very unusual populations, one in
Europe that was nearly wiped out in forties (reducing variance), and another
in Pacific, that was in total isolation (mthematitians proved that
geographical expansion is healthy for preservation of variance).

Therefore, it is not surprising that these two populations indeed DO have
the "fudge factor" of 3.

But when you look at lineage like J2 that in few thousand years expanded
from Iberia to India, why would their "fudge factor" be anything but 1.0?


Sasson




> Sasson Margaliot wrote:
> >
> > >To get the "Alternative Estimate", free of "fudge factor", just divide
> > the
> > >"official" result by 3:
> > >J2 13081 / 3 = estmated 4360 (consistent with suggested
> > 3800-4000)
> > >J1 19848 / 3 = estimated 6616 (consistent with suggested
> > 4200-5000)
> > >
> >
>







-------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
> with the word 'unsubscribe' without the
> quotes in the subject and the body of the message
>

This thread: