GENEALOGY-DNA-L Archives

Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2008-05 > 1211415534


From: "Ken Nordtvedt" <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] S21/S28 Split+m223 stuff
Date: Wed, 21 May 2008 18:18:54 -0600
References: <200805220012.m4M0BsTf023636@mail.rootsweb.com>


It does not budge S21/S28 more than a hundred years or so. They are too
young.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Tim Janzen" <>
To: <>
Sent: Wednesday, May 21, 2008 6:11 PM
Subject: Re: [DNA] S21/S28 Split+m223 stuff


> Dear Alan,
> I share the same concerns that David and you do that Ken's current
> method produces an age for the common MRCA for S21 and S28 (3780 years per
> his message yesterday) that is simply too young. I don't know how this
> situation is going to settle out. Perhaps weighting the markers will
> change
> the age calculations and will result in an older age for the common MRCA
> for
> S21 and S28.
> I thought I would share some additional calculations using an
> updated version of my spreadsheet that pertain to this whole situation
> that
> I have been doing over the past day based on the latest data from the
> FTDNA
> haplogroup projects and from David Faux's S28 project (downloaded
> yesterday). The calculations include variations in which I ignored the
> data
> for all of the multi-copy markers (DYS 385, DYS 395, DYS 413, DYS 425, DYS
> 459, DYS 464, YCA II, and CDY) and where I retained all the data. The
> ages
> using Ken's method are designated as "KN". The ages using James Heald's
> method are designated as "JH". The ages where all of the multi-copy
> markers
> are retained are designated as "+M" and the ages where all of the
> multi-copy
> markers were ignored are designated as "-M". I also calculated DYS 389B
> after subtracting DYS 389i from DYS 389ii and included DYS 389B in the
> calculations. Based on the results it would appear that removing the data
> for multi-copy markers doesn't generally change the results more than
> about
> 5% on the average.
> I only have 8 R1b1b2 (M269+, S116-, S21-) haplotypes at this point:
> T982M, 5VU5V, ANSRV, CDNKN, DZ7XA, DZRMK, KV7Y2, T2WDH in Y search. I
> have
> included the results below for these haplotypes. I would be happy to run
> calculations for a larger R1b1b2 (M269+, S116-, S21-) dataset if someone
> happens to have a larger dataset.
> I think that it is interesting that the MRCA for R1b1c9 (S21+) is
> younger than the MRCA for R1b1c10 (S28+) even though we know that the S21
> SNP occurred before the S28 SNP did. This suggests that the S21 lineage
> came through some type of genetic bottleneck one or two thousand or
> possibly
> more years after the S21 SNP occurred.
> Note that we still have the issue in that James Heald's method
> results in older ages than Ken's method does. Ages calculated using
> James'
> method are about 50% older than the ages calculated using Ken's method.
> Perhaps that won't be as much of a problem after each of the markers is
> weighted.
> Also note that we still have at least somewhat of an issue with
> mutation rates. Data using only 12 markers frequently gives older dates
> than does data using 37 and/or 67 markers. Hopefully, mutation rates can
> be
> refined at some point in the future allowing for more accurate
> calculations.
> It should also be noted that the age calculations using the ASD
> method in Ken's spreadsheet exactly match the age calculations using
> variance method in my spreadsheet. This is not surprising since the ages
> should have matched.
> I haven't yet had a chance to calculate 95% confidence intervals and
> I haven't yet had a chance to follow up on John Marsh's suggestion to run
> the calculations on datasets involving the fast mutating markers and those
> involving the slow moving markers.
> No, matter how this settles out I think Ken has done an excellent
> job of summarizing all of the theoretical aspects of these age
> calculations
> and has really helped move this issue forward.
> Sincerely,
> Tim Janzen
>
> Project JH -M KN -M JH +M KN +M # of haplotypes # of markers
> R1b1c6 M167+ 6678 2629 6531 3267 32 12
> R1b1c6 M167+ 2336 2349 3843 2243 28 37
> R1b1c6 M167+ 5714 2811 5958 2700 20 67
>
> R1b1c7 M222+ 1804 1617 1736 1573 416 12
> R1b1c7 M222+ 1599 1501 1608 1143 341 37
> R1b1c7 M222+ 1786 1600 1863 1351 135 67
>
> R1b1c9 S21+ 4110 3486 4050 3539 190 12
> R1b1c9 S21+ 4808 3465 4224 2727 180 37
> R1b1c9 S21+ 3349 3075 3462 2431 120 67
>
> R1b1c10 Kerchner 6655 4001 6937 4876 62 12
> R1b1c10 Kerchner 5928 3352 5401 2537 59 37
> R1b1c10 Kerchner 6224 3589 5924 2850 43 67
>
> R1b1c10 Faux 5451 3834 6300 5187 166 12
> R1b1c10 Faux 5015 3299 4614 2486 131 37
>
> R1b1b2a2 S116+ 4077 3557 4796 2866 72 37
> R1b1b2a2 S116+ 4519 3782 4798 3090 55 67
>
> R1b1b2 S116-S21- 18952 6020 16589 5768 8 12
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From:
> [mailto:] On Behalf Of Alan R
> Sent: Wednesday, May 21, 2008 1:47 PM
> To:
> Subject: [DNA] S21/S28 Split+m223 stuff
>
> Has a MRCA for R1b1c* S116 -ve folk been calculated? That would be
> interesting to see as they could be a remanant of the R1b population
> before
> the explosion that sent certain R1b lineages into huge demographic
> ascendancy. Their distribution may also be a clue as to the extent of R1b
> prior to these lineages.
>
> I like Mr Faux still find it very hard to reconcile the late dating with
> our
> normal understanding of demographic turning points in European prehistory
> derived from archaeological and environmental data.
> Alan
>
>
> -------------------------------
> 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: