GENEALOGY-DNA-L Archives

Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2008-05 > 1211234235


From: "David Faux" <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] S21/S28 Split+m223 stuff
Date: Mon, 19 May 2008 14:57:15 -0700
References: <018701c8b9dc$c8cbeb10$6400a8c0@Ken1><ea3bd9560805191258n7d57e52an52752fc51f79edc4@mail.gmail.com><01f301c8b9ed$119eb2e0$6400a8c0@Ken1><ea3bd9560805191336u212d50bxda454d1c27958f9f@mail.gmail.com><024001c8b9f5$b85eb640$6400a8c0@Ken1>
In-Reply-To: <024001c8b9f5$b85eb640$6400a8c0@Ken1>


Yes, well I am an ecclectic sort with little understanding of highter
mathematical principles (something to which I freely admit). What I do
understand is the concept of "converging operations" which applies in my
field of the neurosciences. Real advances have generally come about not
from one micro datasource, but through the combined efforts of those in a
variety of fields. Hence, all calculations based on the concept of the
biological clock and the attendant assmptions (and there is plenty of
disareements on what is the "correct" approach) will only become meaningful
when it supports available data from archaeology (including my "favorite"
dating technique, dendochronology since it is direct not infered),
linguistics, history (if appropos), and other genetic information such as
the spread of lactase persistence and blue eyes. All of this must be
integrated and present a coherent picture - at least this is the way I view
the world. My hypothesis as to the Cimbri of Jutland being the most
parsimonious explanation of the present distribution of R1b1c10 in the
Danelaw of England and the east coast of Scotland is wonderful. Well except
for one rather significant and most inconvenient fact that to date not a
single Dane has turned up as R1b1c10 (very limited sampling), although the
SE Norwegian and SW Swedish samples are consistent with the "story". Hurry
up and wait - the story of my life - we need ancient DNA and modern DNA from
regional studies that genotype to the deepest possible level.

David K. Faux.


On 5/19/08, Ken Nordtvedt <> wrote:
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "David Faux" <>
> To: <>
> Sent: Monday, May 19, 2008 2:36 PM
> Subject: Re: [DNA] S21/S28 Split+m223 stuff
>
>
> >I am sorry, I don't have the slightest idea what you are saying. Please
> be
> > more expansive in your comments. I don't understand cryptic (nor text
> > messaging talk).
> >
> > David K. Faux.
> >
> I meant that those who developed the radioactive Carbon clock did not
> calibrate it to the supposedly "broader context" of what was believed to
> have been going on in the past --- although I bet some members of various
> paleo______ fields warned them to do so in the early days. If we want a
> scientifically sound, independent genetic mutations based clock it needs to
> be discussed, analyzed, argued about on the physical aspects of the
> clock(s), and in the case of the mutation clocks on the quality control of
> the employed data sets as well.
>
> The reason to have clocks based on physical principles independent of the
> phenomena for which dating is desired, is to establish the dating outside
> of
> the subject matter of interest, if for no other purpose than to suppress
> in-grown or circular thinking about the subject matter.
>
> I solicit all forms of argument about the clock model, but less interesting
> are statements that basically say that some like or dislike, believe or
> disbelieve, the clock ages for ydna tree nodes and clade MRCAs.
>
> Ken
>
>
> >
> > On 5/19/08, Ken Nordtvedt <> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> ----- Original Message -----
> >> From: "David Faux" <>
> >>
> >> > The bottom line is that for any computation to "work" it has to fit
> >> > with
> >> > the
> >> > broader context of what was going on in Europe at the time.
> >>
> >> Your mental approach is laid out pretty clearly above. Ken
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> -------------------------------
> >> 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
> >>
> >
> > -------------------------------
> > 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
> >
>
>
>
> -------------------------------
> 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: