GENEALOGY-DNA-L Archives

Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2007-06 > 1181077493


From: (John Chandler)
Subject: Re: [DNA] Megalith Builders
Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2007 17:04:53 -0400 (EDT)
References: <BAY111-DAV20C914ACD8DD56AAC7079EB1220@phx.gbl>
In-Reply-To: <BAY111-DAV20C914ACD8DD56AAC7079EB1220@phx.gbl> (lgmayka@ieee.org)


I wrote:
> > To say "any
> > haplogroup(s) *but* the one that is prevalent there now" is
> > not an answer, and never will be an answer.

Lawrence responded:
> This sentence is entirely incomprehensible.

Well, you certainly put on a good demonstration of having no clue as
to what it meant, but I think everyone else on this list understood
it, and so it's best not to amplify.

I also wrote:
> > Maybe we should focus on asking
> > genealogical questions instead.

Lawrence responded:
> This sentence is incomprehensible too. Are you saying that the entire field
> of genetic ancestry (i.e., population history of more than 500 years ago) is
> 'bunk'?

No, but I *am* saying it isn't genealogy. When we start getting whole-
chromosome sequences, instead of a small assortment of markers, then it
may become possible to bridge the gap between population and family
studies, but it can't happen in the regime of small-number statistics.

> Another interpretation of your sentence is that we should not ceaselessly
> debate the same questions over and over, without any significant new
> evidence. I heartily agree.

Indeed, that was primarily what I was getting at.

John Chandler

This thread: