GENEALOGY-DNA-L Archives

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.

Steve


> > [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
>extinct.
>
>To assume that a yDNA population has remained constant over the millennia
>is
>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
http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/Taxes/PreparationTips/PreparationTips.aspx?icid=HMMartagline


This thread: