GENEALOGY-DNA-L Archives

Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2008-07 > 1216998984


From: "Ken Nordtvedt" <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] Dating of R-M269 and Subclades
Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2008 09:16:24 -0600
References: <ea3bd9560807241957o35bd94d5j7a4b367400ba3eda@mail.gmail.com><007001c8ee14$276ab3c0$6400a8c0@Ken1><6AADB653ECA345008D854361D4BD749E@dell>


I believe the S21+ age estimate was about 3500 years, about the same as the
I1 age and I2b1-Continental. I1 and I2b1-C are found all over the places
you mentioned as well. My interest in dating nodes in the ydna
phylogenetic tree is to gain INDEPENDENT knowledge about the pre-history
movements of mankind; I have close to zero pre-conceptions about what
mankind could have done or not done in the way of migrations during the
re-population of the rather tiny continent since the LGM. Ken


----- Original Message -----
From: "David Weston" <>
To: <>
Sent: Friday, July 25, 2008 6:18 AM
Subject: Re: [DNA] Dating of R-M269 and Subclades


> Ken, Vince, Larry, et al.
>
> Do your age estimates allow sufficient time to explain the current
> distribution of haplogroups in
> Europe? That is, is the math supported by physically observeable data?
>
> For example, I am finding U106 and its subclades as far as 64N latitude in
> Scandinavia (Nordmalling
> and Robertsfor in Sweden, Oppland and Vikna in Norway) and Finland
> (Pietarssair) and as far as 24E
> longitude (L'viv, Ukraine and Kobrin, Belarus). Excluding the UK&I, at
> present U106 is nearly as
> concentrated in north eastern Europe as it is central and northwestern.
> The relative uniformity of
> the distribution of U106 across northern Europe (north of about 47N), is
> something I didn't expect
> when I started compiling this data. Assuming an ~3,000 yr old age
> estimate for U106, how then do
> you explain the observed distribution? (See U106 group website for
> supporting data).
>
> I should add that I am on the fence here in terms of the numbers that are
> being tossed about either
> by the Population Geneticists or hobbyists. My only concern is that
> numbers are just that unless
> they explain what we can see in the real world. I am not convinced that
> 3,000 yrs is enough to
> explain this distribution. However, nor do I have much faith in older age
> estimates based on short
> haplotypes and presumptive fudge factors.
>
> Yes, Ken my schooling is in applied mathematics and physics, not
> theoretical :-)
>
> David Weston.
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From:
> [mailto:] On Behalf Of
> Ken Nordtvedt
> Sent: July 25, 2008 2:06 AM
> To:
> Subject: Re: [DNA] Dating of R-M269 and Subclades
>
>
> <snip>
>
> [[[[ What the recent work boils down to is that if you take the most
> conservative,
> generally-accepted dating methods of the field seriously, including the
> use of the measured STR
> mutation rates for extended haplotypes, then some of the most populous
> haplogroups of Europe such as
> those downstream of M269, I1, I2a1-Dinaric, I2b1-Continental all appear to
> have MRCAs younger than
> 4000 years ago (Haplogroup I as a whole, on the other hand, is estimated
> to have its MRCA before
> the LGM !!!!! So there,
> newcomer). Having verified the soundness of selected variance methods so
> as to eliminate that as an issue for contention, I must conclude that
> mutation rates are the only
> element in the process worth arguing about, but better yet worth doing
> better and better
> measurements about. So it was about time to lay this all out, so we and
> the testing companies don't
> indefinately continue to repeat unverifiable age estimates about
> phylogenetic ydna tree nodes which
> originated back in the early days of the field. ]]]]]
>
>
>
> -------------------------------
> 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
>
>
>
> -------------------------------
> 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: