Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2007-03 > 1174826599

From: "Steven Bird" <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] Cruciani and 2007 TMRCA estimates
Date: Sun, 25 Mar 2007 08:43:19 -0400
In-Reply-To: <03ae01c76ecc$0f96e700$6401a8c0@Precision360>

That may be, but that statement does not characterize the assumptions of
either Z. or C. in their most recent papers.


> > [mailto:] On Behalf Of Dennis Wright
> > If the population is to remain constant,
> > 'm' is considered to be 1.
>This is the Achilles heel of any such calculation. Populations,
>particularly, of yDNA, are _not_ constant. Some yDNA populations clearly
>have grown rapidly, others slowly, still others have shrunk over time, some
>have dwindled down to a remnant, and perhaps some have gone entirely
>To assume that a yDNA population has remained constant over the millennia
>simply the unconvincing argument: "We're here now, so we must have always
>been here."

Its tax season, make sure to follow these few simple tips

This thread: