GENEALOGY-DNA-L Archives

Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2008-05 > 1211240005


From: "Ken Nordtvedt" <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] S21/S28 Split+m223 stuff
Date: Mon, 19 May 2008 17:33:25 -0600
References: <018701c8b9dc$c8cbeb10$6400a8c0@Ken1><ea3bd9560805191258n7d57e52an52752fc51f79edc4@mail.gmail.com><01f301c8b9ed$119eb2e0$6400a8c0@Ken1><ea3bd9560805191336u212d50bxda454d1c27958f9f@mail.gmail.com><024001c8b9f5$b85eb640$6400a8c0@Ken1><ea3bd9560805191457j17fda021nd57964e0743a802d@mail.gmail.com><026301c8b9fd$d86792b0$6400a8c0@Ken1><00d601c8ba05$6159b150$0100a8c0@john>


Your presumptions that the original post-LGM Irishman was S116+ is not
archaeology or paleo-anything until some 8000 year old bones are dug up in
Ireland and found S116+. Then you would have a case for all your
presumptions. Or do you have some other kind of argument for your
presumption? M423-Isles-B, on the other hand, seems to have a MRCA 6600
years ago, so maybe those guys beat the S116 guys to Ireland? One of these
days I will estimate the MRCA for all four clades of M423-Isles, and that
date could even be earlier. Find those bones with readable ydna.


If all the recent SNP testing is correct, then S116 SNP mutation is trapped
between the MRCA of S21/S28 and the MRCA for S28. I am saying this trapping
region seems very small with the S28 MRCA having an age about the same as
the age of the MRCA of S21/S28. This is of course all subject to the
statistical confidence intervals --- just like I hope everyone by now keeps
in mind even with their simple two haplotype TMRCA estimations. All this
variance stuff for dating nodes and MRCAs is just variation on the good old
two haplotype TMRCA question, but with all the needed mathematical
generalizations and twists needed to deal with many haplotypes.

Ken


----- Original Message -----
From: "Alister John Marsh" <>
To: <>
Sent: Monday, May 19, 2008 5:09 PM
Subject: Re: [DNA] S21/S28 Split+m223 stuff


> Ken, David
>
> I have only read a few of the postings in this debate, so I may be missing
> part of the story..
>
> If hypothetically, the evidence were that the original native Irish who
> walked to Ireland 8,000 years ago were S116+ one would suppose that the
> S116+ mutation would have occurred more than 8,000 years ago, perhaps
> 10,000+ years ago. If hypothetically someone proposed a mathematical
> formula which showed that S116+ should have occurred nearer 4,000 years
> ago,
> there would appear to be an anomaly.
>
> If S28+ is S116+, but S21+ is S116-, one presumes that the common ancestor
> of S21+ and S28+ was earlier than the S116+ mutation. If S116+ occurred
> before the original Irish arrived in Ireland 8,000 years ago, one presumes
> the common ancestor of S21+ and S28+ must have at least been earlier than
> 8,000 years ago.
>
> I don't have the evidence to conclusively say that the original Irish
> settlers 8,000 years ago were S116+, but I would suggest it is on the
> limited evidence available, at least a likely possibility. My view is
> that
> S116+ is likely 10,000+ years old, in which case I would expect the common
> ancestor of S21+ and S28+ to be more than 10,000 years ago.
>
> Ken, what date do your formulas give for the projected date of S116+
> mutation? "If" Irish 8,000 years ago were S116+, would that not eliminate
> the possibility that the S21+ and S28+ common ancestor lived only 4,000
> years ago? I think that David was suggesting your formula should be
> consistent with what we know from archeology etc about context. That is,
> "if" Irish 8,000 years ago were S116+, then it would be a dubious bet that
> the S21+ S28+ common ancestor only lived 4,000 years ago.
>
> John.
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From:
> [mailto:] On Behalf Of Ken Nordtvedt
> Sent: Tuesday, May 20, 2008 10:15 AM
> To:
> Subject: Re: [DNA] S21/S28 Split+m223 stuff
>
> That's all very interesting, but how all that informs you of whether or
> not
> some individual about 4000 years ago had two sons, one being ancestral to
> S21 males of today and the other son being ancestral to S28 males of today
> beats me.
>
> Ken
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "David Faux" <>
> To: <>
> Sent: Monday, May 19, 2008 3:57 PM
> Subject: Re: [DNA] S21/S28 Split+m223 stuff
>
>
>> 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
>>>
>>
>> -------------------------------
>> 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
>
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG.
> Version: 7.5.524 / Virus Database: 269.23.21/1455 - Release Date:
> 5/19/2008
> 5:04 PM
>
>
> No virus found in this outgoing message.
> Checked by AVG.
> Version: 7.5.524 / Virus Database: 269.23.21/1455 - Release Date:
> 5/19/2008
> 5:04 PM
>
>
>
> -------------------------------
> 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: