GENEALOGY-DNA-L Archives

Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2006-11 > 1162596857


From: (John Chandler)
Subject: Re: [DNA] Neolithic J2 and E3b in Britain? Maybe not.
Date: Fri, 3 Nov 2006 18:34:17 -0500 (EST)
References: <3b2a446a0611010918j45594e12r28817e9f8821f252@mail.gmail.com><042401c6fe97$5ce8b830$6401a8c0@Precision360><3b2a446a0611020852u457ad5e8n68b92b2596ec2566@mail.gmail.com><002301c6fe9f$e6148f00$6400a8c0@Ken1><454A281C.4010200@sbcglobal.net><003301c6fea4$3e0849a0$6400a8c0@Ken1><3b2a446a0611021215h61cedffg7107d56be981f8c3@mail.gmail.com><000601c6febe$4380e580$6400a8c0@Ken1><3b2a446a0611021305h4e19e93cr28d8f032ae45dd63@mail.gmail.com><000601c6fec4$3961e580$6400a8c0@Ken1>
In-Reply-To: <000601c6fec4$3961e580$6400a8c0@Ken1> (knordtvedt@bresnan.net)


Ken wrote:
> Placement of F downstream from the Root I thought was because of the
> combination of these things:
>
> F has P14+ which is absent in A,B,C,D,E
> F shares P9 with C,D,E but it is absent in A,B
> F shares M42 with B,C,D,E but it is absent in A

The key point, which I don't think anyone stated explicitly, is that
the definition of "ancestral" (-) and "derived" (+) is somewhat
arbitrary and is determined by the placement of the root itself.
Thus, the comparison with other primates may *suggest* what is
ancestral, but we cannot rule out the possibility of a mutation
early in the human lineage which would invert the +/- for one
or more SNPs. This is why Gareth had to appeal to "balance" as
a criterion for judging the most likely location of the root,
instead of arguing that it *must* be where consensus has placed
it.

John Chandler

This thread: