GENEALOGY-DNA-L Archives

Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2008-06 > 1213995611


From:
Subject: [DNA] Jewish E1b1b
Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2008 21:00:11 +0000


Victor Villarreal wrote:

>So if your calculations to a common ancestor are based on Genetic Distance
from the allele values of an heterogeneous mix of subclades then your logic
is basically flawed.

Dear Victor,

I love the culture of discussions when an opponent has not read the paper but prompt enough with negative comments.

Where did you get that I calculate "heterogeneous mix" of "subclades"?

When I construct a haplotype tree, different subclades, if it matters, go to different branches. I calculate every branch separately. However, sometimes "subclades" are not resolved even in a 67-marker haplotype tree, and the branch very distinctly goes to its common ancestor. In this case either a "subclade" does not matter, or it is erroneous, mistyped, etc. For me a subclade is not some kind of a mantra if it is not segregared in a 67-marker tree.

In a G* (how you define all inclusive, say, G haplogrioup, which I define as G*? Sorry for my ignorance) haplotype tree, for example, G2c (=G5) goes to one branch, G1 to another (recent G1 and ancient G1 separately), G2 to another (again, splits into G2 and G2a), and I calculate all the branches (subclades) separately.

Now please read your statement (above) again.

Thank you.

Anatole Klyosov


This thread: