GENEALOGY-DNA-L Archives

Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2008-05 > 1211383011


From: "Elizabeth O'Donoghue" <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] S21/S28 Split+m223 stuff
Date: Wed, 21 May 2008 16:16:51 +0100
In-Reply-To: <472861.79718.qm@web86613.mail.ird.yahoo.com>


Alan, I'm not sure you can say that Ken's dates 'imply that all S116+ R1b
and also S21 post-dates 1600BC so that would include almost all of the
R1b1c* folk too'. Do we know enough about R1b1c* (old name) to make such an
assumption? Maybe I've missed it - have any R1b1c* been tested for S116?

One point I have with regard to Ken's calculations of MRCA here, and
probably to all your calculations, Ken, is that I believe that you are using
John Chandler's mutation rates in your formulas. These are quite different
from the ones used by those ascribing to Zhivotovsky's view and result in
markedly younger ages than if using Z's rates.

To use Alan's phrase, I am sitting on the fence on this issue, but I know
that there are strong feelings from various list members on the merits of
one rather than the other. When I first joined the list I was rather
cheeky, challenging lack of consensus on mutation rates and choice of years
per generation in calculating TMRCA - as it was clear that there *was* no
consensus in either case and wasn't going to be. In my own researches into
Eoghanacht lineages, I have been unwilling to take a stand in support of or
challenge to the Trinity research because I do not feel comfortable in
making a choice of which rates to use in reaching my own conclusions.
Frankly, Chandler's rates create ages that tend to coincide much more
closely with what I might expect, if Irish history/myth is accurate, but I
still vacillate due to the difference of opinion out there. Has there ever
been a vote taken?

Elizabeth



No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG.
Version: 7.5.524 / Virus Database: 269.23.21/1455 - Release Date: 19/05/2008
17:04


This thread: