Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2008-06 > 1214080784

From: ellen Levy <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] Jewish E1b1b
Date: Sat, 21 Jun 2008 13:39:44 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <002f01c8d3cc$bded1700$6400a8c0@Ken1>


I don't think this is what Anatole is suggesting, but I'll have to work my way backwards through these posts. Yes, you are correct that some in cases where there is not a sub-clade designation, haplotypes can serve as proxies for SNP's - sometimes, not always. A good example of this analysis is Bonnie Schrack & Whit Althey's recent paper on a Ashkenazi sub-grouping within haplogroup J2 published in the most recent Journal of Genetic Genealogy. There is not a defining SNP, at least not one that has been found yet, but the distinct STR data or a defining STR marker can be used to define the sub-group or clade.

That isn't, however, how I interpreted Anatole's analysis. Based on what he stated, he is constructing his genetic trees and making determinations of TMRCA but essentially ignoring SNP designations; rather, he is basing the groupings primarily or even exclusively on STR data. That's highly problematic. It is like like saying we should ignore the defining SNP's for S21 and S28, for example, as well as the calculations regarding the dating of the SNP mutations; Rather, by simply utilizing the STR data (which as Lawrence explained in some cases cannot necessarily distinguish between these two clades), Anatole believes thereby we can reach an accurate calculation for TMRCA - between 300-500 years ago (which is so out there in left field, it's difficult to know even where to start to respond to that suggestion).

>From the list reaction and, in my view, valid criticisms and questions concerning this approach, there are obvious and serious problems with Anatole's analysis, at least from what we can gather from his postings.

Yes, it is population study stuff, not family genealogy stuff (both of which are acceptable and often discussed topics on this list), but what is your point?

Ellen Coffman

This thread: