GENEALOGY-DNA-L Archives

Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2008-05 > 1211390062


From: "Ken Nordtvedt" <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] S21/S28 Split+m223 stuff
Date: Wed, 21 May 2008 11:14:22 -0600
References: <1146721933mwinters@chinookobserver.com>


One can wonder about many things, but size of our datasets is not an issue
anymore. Perhaps for some applications having non-representative sampling
could be an issue, but that will be very collector-dependent.

What were the default assumptions, and what is meant by "the maximum time" ?

Ken
----- Original Message -----
From: "Matt Winters" <>
To: <>
Sent: Wednesday, May 21, 2008 10:06 AM
Subject: Re: [DNA] S21/S28 Split+m223 stuff


> Quite a few of we R1b1c*s have tested for S116, and most of we who have
> done so are positive. In the DNA Forum poll, the overall count is roughly
> 70/30 +/- and R1b1c* is a considerable chunk of that.
>
> For whatever it's worth -- perhaps not a lot -- last time I ran all the
> S116+ project results through Dean McGee's program, using the default
> assumptions, the maximum time back to MRCA ancestor was about 4,800 years,
> or roughly 3000 BCE.
>
> Perhaps we're still dealing with an awfully small data set to arrive at
> very meaningful conclusions?
>
> -M
> KT43P
>
>
>
> On Wednesday, May 21, 2008 8:16 AM, Elizabeth O'Donoghue
> <> wrote:
>>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?
>
>
>
>
>
> -------------------------------
> 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: