GENEALOGY-DNA-L Archives

Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2008-05 > 1211386055


From: "Ken Nordtvedt" <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] S21/S28 Split+m223 stuff
Date: Wed, 21 May 2008 10:07:35 -0600
References: <200805211517.m4LFH0lt016615@mail.rootsweb.com>


----- Original Message -----
From: "Elizabeth O'Donoghue" <>
To: <>
Sent: Wednesday, May 21, 2008 9:16 AM
Subject: Re: [DNA] S21/S28 Split+m223 stuff


> 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?

[[[[ That is the same thrust I had for my question yesterday; there's more
to M269 in Western Europe than S21+ or S116+ --- at least I think there is
KN ]]]]]]]]
>
> 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.

[[[[ I certainly am using Chandler's rates; I see no foundation for Z's
rates. If those slower rates were used, however, it would make the time of
split up of y haplogroup I in Europe to be 50 thousand years or more ago.
That would certainly make us I guys indigenous European and due some special
consideration in the EU parliament. KN ]]]]]]]]

Has there ever
> been a vote taken? [[[[ Hope this is a joke line; otherwise it is close to
> ____ (censored my own message). I would walk out of a physics conference
> which in seriousness took a poll on a scientific question. KN ]]]]]]
>
> Elizabeth


This thread: